The Nonsense That is Global Warming

[Red Raven]

pfffff global warming my butt, summertime this june and july were cold and wet if global warming is true then why arnet we have a scorching summers or winters??? its all baloney if you ask me!!! =P

How do you explain this then http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm?

"Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' "

This is a very scary prediction and one that is sadly almost certain.

[Stratos Ferric]

How do you explain this then http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm?

"Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' "

This is a very scary prediction and one that is sadly almost certain.

The 2013 is not almost certain; I think that is premature, however if we have in 2008 melt in excess of this year's staggering loss then on the basis of simple extrapolation it couldn't be ruled out. Reverse back even three years and such discussion would have been poo-pooed as ridiculous scaremongering.

Like Laserguy says not far up the page - we're all being well duped by all this GW guff, but one thing's for sure: there's a hell of a lot of coincidences ongoing just now that are consistent with ongoing warming, and precious little that suggests anywhere is cooling (an ice storm in the US - hardly an unusual event - is no more evidence of the lack of warming than a hot spell elsewhere in the world, in isolation, is evidence OF warming). Doubtless that's just coincidence though so we can all put our wallets away and stop worrying about what it means for us personally, and the fact that we might have to forego one or two luxuries in future.

Looks like Nero didn't have the monopoly on fiddling whilst the world around him burned.

[laserguy]

Update on my previous post! I never said climate change doesn't exist,SF,but that it is constantly changing,and that the rate of change in itself isn't constant. In these times of exploding populations,rapidly developing nations and the insufficiency of natural resources to sustain those,climate change was seized upon years ago when alarm bells started to ring. Many years have passed since the advent of 'climate change' and the 'man in the street' has yet to see any evidence of it outside of what is perfectly normal variance. It's easy for world powers via the press to utilise that ignorance by showing examples of the effects of a 'mutating' climate,but deliberately omitting that change in itself is perfectly normal. I'm not speaking for myself but others,who are still waiting for this long promised climatic catastrophe which hasn't even begun to show it's hand. But every day it seems they are getting more and more desperate,evidenced by the stronger warnings in the face of the reticence of climate to comply with their apocalyptic vision.

Almost every time I post on here, I do so with trepidation (got a touch of the Jethro Syndrome ) because despite best intentions it has become heresy to question,nay doubt even,AGW. As if AGW adherants have a divine right to be correct and there must be something lacking in the mental make-up of doubters. Not that I have any doubt in myself, but losing heart at having to construct a defence which AGWer's seem to have permanently around them due to the consensus (largely built on ignorance ) being on 'their side'. I know how Einstein must have felt with his schoolteacher constantly berating him for disagreeing with what was being taught,and being told in no uncertain terms that if he didn't comply he was going nowhere!

Re the US ice storms,there's nothing unusual in those of course but this episode is notable for it's magnitude and ferocity,and it's not even winter yet! Amazingly,I didn't hear the phrase 'climate change' being incorporated into the reports. (It was probably there somewhere but I missed it ). But this of course begs the question: are they really unusual at this scale,and if so was it just one of those things or indeed a manifestation of shifting climate? Who knows,but one things for sure,it's the polar (pun intended ) opposite of what Joe Public was warned to expect courtesy of carbon emissions. Consequently the credibility of climate predictions takes another body blow.

And as far as pining for snow goes,well yes I do miss it and I'm not alone in that! Rest assured everyone,it'll be back in the not too distant future. I haven't got my Mystic Meg hat on but this cycle will run it's course. Let's make it perfectly clear though,anyone who seriously would prefer global cooling rather than warming really does need their head looking at. Climate over time will either warm or cool,and warming is far preferable to going the other way! Dare I say it...rejoice it ,it could be a whole lot worse.

Anyways,on the news at some ridiculously early hour this morn was a report about the shenanigans in Bali,and I heard some speaker or another (don't know who,I was rushing around) say "gentlemen,we have three days to save the planet". Just what kind of utterly ridiculous statement is that? The guy's been watching too many of those asteroid impact films. And the massed hordes sat there clapping away with the fervour of religious nuts who have seen an inspired performance from the evangeliste superiore. Right,when they've all calmed down what is this miracle feat they're about to perform (in three days,mind ) in an attempt to rectify a non-existant problem? I'm actually starting to like this climate change malarkey,keeps me amused for ages! What they are actually talking about coping with is the aforementioned population growth,energy supply and demand,international politics,economy and the like. Now I've no problem with all that,just the cloak of CO2( from dwindling oil,which costs money,modern economies are founded upon it and everyone wants it remember) and the resultant climate holocaust being used to trick the common man into accepting the reasons why he's going to pay more,have wind turbines every half mile on the coastline,cut down on everything which is derived from fossil fuels (pretty much everything,when you think about it! ).

Anyways,off for a cuppa and to leave a few more carbon footprints (aaarrgghhh!) from boiling the kettle,an' I'll use no more water than absolutely necessary.

[Stratos Ferric]

...

Re the US ice storms,there's nothing unusual in those of course but this episode is notable for it's magnitude and ferocity,and it's not even winter yet! Amazingly,I didn't hear the phrase 'climate change' being incorporated into the reports. (It was probably there somewhere but I missed it ). But this of course begs the question: are they really unusual at this scale,and if so was it just one of those things or indeed a manifestation of shifting climate? Who knows,but one things for sure,it's the polar (pun intended ) opposite of what Joe Public was warned to expect courtesy of carbon emissions. Consequently the credibility of climate predictions takes another body blow.

...

Oh come on!

Do you know anything about climate? The ice storms are in the continental midwest. The fact that it isn't wintry here in the maritime NW of Europe does not mean that it isn't winter in the continental interiors of the N Hemisphere. Putting that sort of silliness in the midst of attempting a strong argument is like failing to rivet all the panels below the waterline on a ship, it doesn't add to the overall infallibility of the whole.

And perpetuating - albeit by transference - the "ooh look it's snowing / icy so it can't be warming can it?" simply shows the lack of understanding that 'joe public' has, or bother to have, about global warming. To suppose that every second of every minute of every day must be warmer than the one before is like supposing that Man U or Chelsea must win every game they play to finish top of the table. They don't, they just need to win more than anyone else. The "blow" that's really landed if your suggestion is correct - and alas it tends to be true - is regarding how ill informed most people are about science generally and climate in particular.

If me, and others, get after AGW sceptics, it's not because of your scepticism. Jethro is relentless in at least exploring potential other causes, and C-B and others put the legwork in to mugging up and at least trying to defend their positions, but too many of the sceptics put forward arguments that are either flawed or simpy fallacious. I'd argue JUST as vehemently against a pro-AGWer posting a flimsy argument, but I am struck by the fact that it's the AGW-ers who tend to lack numbers, data, or cogent argument.

If you want to be your arguments to be taken seriously then don't post ridiculous assertions, which might mean bothering to check facts occasionally rather then just spouting forth what you happen to hope or believe to be the truth but which you don't seem to have bothered verifying.

[Gray-Wolf]

In the worst offending country, constantly being reprimanded by the world for their energy gobbling,wasteful ways, do you think they will stand to a man and say "we've earned this" when an AGW augmented weather event costs them (and their insurers) billions? The only way the USA will accept it's responsibilities to our planet is when it is cost efficient to do so.

Having a couple of pals fresh back from a summer mooch around the great continent (and being quite a savy couple) they are completely affirmed in their notions of how 'unconnected/unconcerned' most of the U.S. Joe Public are about their world standing and their pariah status in the world when it comes to their individual greed.

[BUSHY]

1997 0.347

1998 0.526

1999 0.302

2000 0.277

2001 0.406

2002 0.455

2003 0.465

2004 0.444

2005 0.475

2006 0.422

2007 0.423

SF here are the global temp anomalies for the last 10 years. Now the dreaded CO2 has been increasing steadily for this period but global temperatures have not.

Its all very well for you to accuse the sceptics of lacking scientific facts and putting forward fallacious arguments but alas I must then accuse the pro-agw community of the same thing.

1. Can you state as a scientific fact that CO2 has a proven warming effect on global temperatures ?

2. Can you state as a scientific fact that the current warming is not a natural phenomena ?

No, you can not and that is the sum total of your argument for AGW. Now it may well be true that CO2 and other GHGs put into the atmosphere by modern man could be responsible for a portion of this little blip in the temperature cycle but we ignorant sceptics can also point out the following:-

1: The warming vs CO2 concentrations do not correlate if you look at it on a graph.

2: the warming has stalled for 10 years which it shouldn't do.

3: It has been shown that temperatures in the past have fallen and risen with Co2 lagging ie not causing but following

the temperature trends.

4: The graphic output of the sun vs temp show that solar output is probably (makes sense ) the key player in most

warming episodes that exclude other forcings such as volcanic eruption etc.

5: The climate has varied dramatically in both directions in the past without mans helping hand as has the concentration

of GHGs.

6: Warming of the upper atmosphere does not correlate with the calculated increases that should be present if CO2 was indeed having a warming effect on the atmosphere

So cut us idiots a bit of slack mate. You may be right but there is also a jolly good chance the theory could be a very costly pile of poo.

[jethro]

[Gray-Wolf]

Why must responses be so 'on /off'? Can folk not concieve what a slow and lumbering thing a planet is or must it always be 'here's 'A' so where's 'B'?'

If you placed a heat source above a sheet of ice would you complain that you didn't see an instant increase in temp (in line with the power of the heat source) or would you expect the change in temps to be staggered (as energy is absorbed into 'state changes' and into bringing the 'body at rest' into movement?)?

Are you one to complain that your firework doesn't work as ,when you touched off the blue touch paper, it didn't go boom or do you wait a while for the energy you gave it (from the lighed spill) transfered into the object???

Edited December 13, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[BUSHY]

Not at all GW there is always a bit of a lag as oceans warm or cool .

But I post this graph again.----

Put that against the global temp. record for the same period and what do you get? Yup a very close and scary fit.

[Gray-Wolf]

I've always said that we picked the wrong period to commit ourselves to industrialisation.......

[Bobby]

Put that against the global temp. record for the same period and what do you get? Yup a very close and scary fit.

Sorry, but there is almost no fit at all.

The cooling in the 40's is nowhere to be found in the solar iradiance graph and neither is the warming from 1960 to the present. How is that a "scarily close fit"?

Edited December 13, 2007 by Magpie

[BUSHY]

Fits really well and the trend is clear. The seas take time to warm and cool and then cold or warm upwelling will produce a delayed surface temp response. If you look carefully you can see a delayed response to solar output. Similarly because the solar output has been stable for awhile now global temp rises have now stalled.

[Hiya]

1997 0.347

1998 0.526

1999 0.302

2000 0.277

2001 0.406

2002 0.455

2003 0.465

2004 0.444

2005 0.475

2006 0.422

2007 0.423

SF here are the global temp anomalies for the last 10 years. Now the dreaded CO2 has been increasing steadily for this period but global temperatures have not.

Its all very well for you to accuse the sceptics of lacking scientific facts and putting forward fallacious arguments but alas I must then accuse the pro-agw community of the same thing.

1. Can you state as a scientific fact that CO2 has a proven warming effect on global temperatures ?

2. Can you state as a scientific fact that the current warming is not a natural phenomena ?

No, you can not and that is the sum total of your argument for AGW. Now it may well be true that CO2 and other GHGs put into the atmosphere by modern man could be responsible for a portion of this little blip in the temperature cycle but we ignorant sceptics can also point out the following:-

1: The warming vs CO2 concentrations do not correlate if you look at it on a graph.

2: the warming has stalled for 10 years which it shouldn't do.

3: It has been shown that temperatures in the past have fallen and risen with Co2 lagging ie not causing but following

the temperature trends.

4: The graphic output of the sun vs temp show that solar output is probably (makes sense ) the key player in most

warming episodes that exclude other forcings such as volcanic eruption etc.

5: The climate has varied dramatically in both directions in the past without mans helping hand as has the concentration

of GHGs.

6: Warming of the upper atmosphere does not correlate with the calculated increases that should be present if CO2 was indeed having a warming effect on the atmosphere

So cut us idiots a bit of slack mate. You may be right but there is also a jolly good chance the theory could be a very costly pile of poo.

Molecular quantum mechanics will tell you exactly what a carbon dioxide molecule does, it is pretty safe to say lots of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere will do the same. Therefore carbon dioxide, a gas put into the atmosphere by man will be exacerbating any temperature cycles.

[VillagePlank]

....

Edited December 13, 2007 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

1997 0.347

1998 0.526

1999 0.302

2000 0.277

2001 0.406

2002 0.455

2003 0.465

2004 0.444

2005 0.475

2006 0.422

2007 0.423

SF here are the global temp anomalies for the last 10 years. Now the dreaded CO2 has been increasing steadily for this period but global temperatures have not.

Hi Bushy,

I decided to do a plot of your data, here:

Being the only Plank in the Village, I can't get the plot to agree with your statement. Even on such a statistically small set of data, the underlying trend is still up. Perhaps there's other negative forcings that are producing a cooling effect? Would a larger series show more than the average 0.008C increase per year?

1. Can you state as a scientific fact that CO2 has a proven warming effect on global temperatures ?

In the lab, yes, it is lay-science - it has been for perhaps 100 years or more. In fact, with CO2 we would not be here. It 'artificially' warms the planet. Perhaps a rephrase of 'Can you quantify the linear correlation between CO2 and temperature? Of course, no one has done that yet ...

2. Can you state as a scientific fact that the current warming is not a natural phenomena ?

Hmmm. An interesting point, and, perhaps, a misleading one. The only real test, of course, is to rerun the last 300 years without human influence. We can't do that, for real, but we can do it on a computer model. Now I am no fan of computer modelling (which assumes linear integration of complex equations) of a non-linear system, but they seem to do quite well, within the scope of what they are modelling. And the result is that if we were not around the world would be cooler. I'm not the IPCC, but I would assign a probablity of the statement being accurate as low as 0.65.

Of course, the converse is true. Can you assert that the waming is wholly natural in nature? It's probably best not to argue this point from either side. From a purely rational debating point of view (so don't take this personally) if you require someone to rationalise the unrationalisable then you should expect someone to ask you to rationalise the inverse, or say you don't know. As a general rule, for me, I can only say 'I don't know'

1: The warming vs CO2 concentrations do not correlate if you look at it on a graph.

2: the warming has stalled for 10 years which it shouldn't do.

3: It has been shown that temperatures in the past have fallen and risen with Co2 lagging ie not causing but following

the temperature trends.

4: The graphic output of the sun vs temp show that solar output is probably (makes sense ) the key player in most

warming episodes that exclude other forcings such as volcanic eruption etc.

5: The climate has varied dramatically in both directions in the past without mans helping hand as has the concentration

of GHGs.

6: Warming of the upper atmosphere does not correlate with the calculated increases that should be present if CO2 was indeed having a warming effect on the atmosphere

1. There are better, statistical and mathematical methods of measuring correlation that the human eye

2. Why shouldn't it? Climate is measured in multiples of a decade, not a single one. In a complex non-linear system all sorts of 'odd-behaviors' should be expected, so one must look at underlying trends.

3. Has it? Where? - see (1)

4. I agree that the sun is a major player. But it's one in many ...

5. Yes it has.

6. Warming of the upper atmosphere means cold weather on the surface. There's very long complicated explanations for this, and I'm sure one of our teleconnection experts would love to explain. Take, for example, the snow lovers expectation of stratospheric warming this time of year.

[parmenides3]

Dear Bushy,

1. Yes. Find one scientist who will say otherwise. This is about as certain as science can be.

2. Yes. I suggest you check the Hadley Centre's excellent work on comparing past temperature trends with and without anthropogenic interference. On the face of it, the evidence is fairly clear cut.

Not believing that AGW is actually happening doesn't make anyone an idiot. Choosing not to accept what the best-qualified people say on the subject also doesn't make a person an idiot. Hoping that the IPCC is wrong doesn't make a person an idiot. All of these are perfectly understandable human reactions to the information.

On the other hand, there is really rather a lot of evidence, real, hard science, linking human activity to recent climate change. There are also quite a large number of real-world observations of real indicators of systemic temperature rise. In science and government, the discussion passed by the assumption that AGW might be false some years ago. What these people are talking about is what sort of mess we might get ourselves into, and whether we can avoid some of it.

You may choose to doubt AGW if you wish; several people on NW and around the world do. But I would encourage you (and them) to consider what reason, rather than personal feeling, suggests to you about what is happening in the world.

:)P

[laserguy]

Oh come on!

Do you know anything about climate? The ice storms are in the continental midwest. The fact that it isn't wintry here in the maritime NW of Europe does not mean that it isn't winter in the continental interiors of the N Hemisphere. Putting that sort of silliness in the midst of attempting a strong argument is like failing to rivet all the panels below the waterline on a ship, it doesn't add to the overall infallibility of the whole.

If you want to be your arguments to be taken seriously then don't post ridiculous assertions, which might mean bothering to check facts occasionally rather then just spouting forth what you happen to hope or believe to be the truth but which you don't seem to have bothered verifying.

You're at it again Stratos,questioning my intellect that is! I said clearly that ice storms in the US are not at all unusual,only the magnitude and ferocity of this one as evidenced by its newsworthiness. And yes,it won't do the AGW cause any favours in how 'climatologically ignorant' Joe Public sees it. Perhaps it should have gone unreported,like the vast majority of weather events which appear to throw a spanner in the works.

Re facts and figures and statistics. They're there for all to see,I can't see the need for me to add to the carnage. If folk can't make sense of them,thats not my problem. What I do try to do is put things into perspective and cut through the nonsense that is spouted,in keeping with the title of this thread. I really need to clarify this,as I think I'm seen as one with a cavalier attitude to the environment and will go out of my way to wreak havoc. So,so untrue. I'd wager a bet that I'm 'greener' than most of the ardent AGW fraternity. I agree on the whole with suggested climate change policies,but not when they are paraded under the banner of global warming! Does that make sense? All I ask is that we are told the REAL reason for these policies,but I worked that out long ago.

[BUSHY]

Molecular quantum mechanics will tell you exactly what a carbon dioxide molecule does, it is pretty safe to say lots of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere will do the same. Therefore carbon dioxide, a gas put into the atmosphere by man will be exacerbating any temperature cycles.

Carbon dioxide is a natural part of our atmosphere and essential for the existence of life forms as we know them, why is it that agw supporters view it as some sort of dirty pollution?

Quantum mechanics and lab tests will give a theoretical outcome to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but cannot and do not answer all the questions if any. Why is it then that models based on these theories are not born out in temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere? There are too many unanswered questions to state categorically that agw is fact.

1. Yes. Find one scientist who will say otherwise. This is about as certain as science can be.

:huh:

2. Yes. I suggest you check the Hadley Centre's excellent work on comparing past temperature trends with and without anthropogenic interference. On the face of it, the evidence is fairly clear cut.

Theoretical modelling and not evidence in any way.

On the other hand, there is really rather a lot of evidence, real, hard science, linking human activity to recent climate change.

Again theory but no proof.

You may choose to doubt AGW if you wish; several people on NW and around the world do. But I would encourage you (and them) to consider what reason, rather than personal feeling, suggests to you about what is happening in the world.

Cuts both ways. I would accept agw if I was presented with real proof instead of political hype, exageration and pure hypothesis presented as fact. There is more evidence against than for if one has to be honest.

[Hiya]

Carbon dioxide is a natural part of our atmosphere and essential for the existence of life forms as we know them, why is it that agw supporters view it as some sort of dirty pollution?

Quantum mechanics and lab tests will give a theoretical outcome to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but cannot and do not answer all the questions if any. Why is it then that models based on these theories are not born out in temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere? There are too many unanswered questions to state categorically that agw is fact.

So because I disagree with you I'm a AGW supporter yeah? That's pretty sad that it has come to this, you can't have a debate on here without the other party knowing which "side" you belong on.

Quantum mechanics scale up very well, obviously there will be aspects in the grand scheme which can't be observed in a lab, but anyone familiar with quantum mechanics in a practical application will know they are good for this purpose.

[VillagePlank]

Theoretical modelling and not evidence in any way.

Like your numerical evidence above, perhaps?

[Gray-Wolf]

It would appear that the U.S. are busy trying to deadlock any global efforts to offset the worst impacts of climate change in Bali. They are being likened to "first class passengers on a jumbo who believe the emergency in economy doesn't involve them" the spokesman then said "they'd better realise very quickly that if the plane goes down ,we all go down"

I thought that it was a sweet thing to say........

[BUSHY]

Like your numerical evidence above, perhaps?

Yup

Hiya you are right and I apologise for the attitude thing.

Edited December 14, 2007 by BUSHY

[VillagePlank]

Yup

Your numbers show warming Bushy. See the graph I produced.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Your numbers show warming Bushy. See the graph I produced.

The numbers do show an overall trend of warming from 1997-2007, but there's no denying that temperatures have levelled off post-2000. What would the trend have been had we not had an apparently anomolous two years in 1999 and 2000? Of course, whether or not the levelling off is statistically significant is a different matter, and the only way to be sure one way or the other is to give it a few years and see where we stand.

CB

[VillagePlank]

The numbers do show an overall trend of warming from 1997-2007, but there's no denying that temperatures have levelled off post-2000. What would the trend have been had we not had an apparently anomolous two years in 1999 and 2000? Of course, whether or not the levelling off is statistically significant is a different matter, and the only way to be sure one way or the other is to give it a few years and see where we stand.

You are quite correct that the rate of change of warming has reduced over the last ten years. But warming it is, nevertheless. It could well be the case, as you intimate here, that the rate of change will continue to diminish until we start cooling, but that is something that perhaps we can have a beer over in 2017!