Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
I always note the use of the words "climate change" replacing "global warming" as the years go by!

Just notice that today

When did Climate change 'replace' global warming ?

Interesting The Telegraph still call it 'global warming'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../eaflood111.xml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80310155857.htm

at it's current, expanding ,rate of output maybe China will make CO2 more of a major atmospheric gas.

For those silly enough to think CO2 is not a problem then all is well.....for the rest of us, we're stuffed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80310155857.htm

at it's current, expanding ,rate of output maybe China will make CO2 more of a major atmospheric gas.

For those silly enough to think CO2 is not a problem then all is well.....for the rest of us, we're stuffed.

Hardly new , guess India wont be far behind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City
Simple really - the chemicals you quote have a strong 'chemical reaction' with other much more abundant compounds present in the body. CO2 is a colourless odourless inert gas that has minimal (weak acidic dissolution in water) interaction with anything else in the atmosphere. :lol:

Carbon dioxide can probably catalyse the decomposition of ozone along with a support, although I don't thnk we need to worry about that very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
There seem to be some contradictions there, especially the EA saying that last Summer's floods cannot be attributed to climate change but that climate change predictions mean we can expect to see more extreme weather events such as flooding in the future.

Also the CEH report suggests that flooding may become less severe as climate change progresses due to warmer drier Summers resulting in the ground becoming more able to absorb water when storms come.

I always note the use of the words "climate change" replacing "global warming" as the years go by!

Honestly, :lol: , that Al Gore bloke saying that there was a consensus amongst scientists and that the debate was over.......tut, tut. :lol:

The first para is not a contradiction at all- it's making the point that it's not appropriate to blame individual weather events on climate change, but it may well be that as climate changes in the future, such events become more frequent in the future. For example it's inappropriate to blame individual mild winters on global warming, but a long-term trend towards mild winters probably is a sign of global warming.

Also, because one aspect of a set of scientists' predictions is flawed or contradictory, it doesn't mean all aspects are. The argument is that if global warming continues as predicted, we may see drier summers but more intense precipitation events, with the question marks being over whether this would mean more or less flooding, not over what the climate predictions are. Thus, there is actually quite a strong consensus on what is likely to happen to the climate itself, though the fact that there's a consensus doesn't mean it's definitely going to be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire
The first para is not a contradiction at all- it's making the point that it's not appropriate to blame individual weather events on climate change, but it may well be that as climate changes in the future, such events become more frequent in the future. For example it's inappropriate to blame individual mild winters on global warming, but a long-term trend towards mild winters probably is a sign of global warming.

Also, because one aspect of a set of scientists' predictions is flawed or contradictory, it doesn't mean all aspects are. The argument is that if global warming continues as predicted, we may see drier summers but more intense precipitation events, with the question marks being over whether this would mean more or less flooding, not over what the climate predictions are. Thus, there is actually quite a strong consensus on what is likely to happen to the climate itself, though the fact that there's a consensus doesn't mean it's definitely going to be right.

What must folk have been thinking (wrongly),during the succession of cold winters in the 70's and 80's?

Far too many 'ifs','buts' and 'maybes'! Meaning that no-one has a clue but would rather the man-in-the-street accepted them as definites. Whatever. What I find galling is the ludicrous belief that we can 'do something'. No matter if there's a hundred billion of us or just Adam 'n' Eve,climate will do what it will. Next thing,someone will say that the human footfall over the Yellowstone caldera over the years has made it unstable and more likely to pop! You could have the current population of the world jumping up and down on it to no effect,just as our puny CO2 output has no effect on the vastness of atmosphere. A poor analogy maybe,but I've just got up and I'm in a hurry. You get the drift,though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
... though the fact that there's a consensus doesn't mean it's definitely going to be right.

Indeed. Two examples from the reasonably recent past of ill-conceived consensus were (i) Eugenics - the use of science for political means (see today's budget!), and (ii) Plate tectonics - scientists so far up their own @rse that they contrived to suppress an alternate theory.

Consensus is not a euphemism for proof. Rather it is a mechanism for a collection of scientists to say 'all things considered we believe that such and such is the case'

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District. 290 mts a.s.l.
  • Weather Preferences: Anything extreme
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District. 290 mts a.s.l.
Next thing,someone will say that the human footfall over the Yellowstone caldera over the years has made it unstable and more likely to pop! You could have the current population of the world jumping up and down on it to no effect,just as our puny CO2 output has no effect on the vastness of atmosphere. A poor analogy maybe,but I've just got up and I'm in a hurry. You get the drift,though!

It's not as simple as comparing the volume of CO2 put out by humanity to the total volume of the atmosphere as a relatively small contribution of CO2 ( or other 'greenhouse' gas ) will have a disproportionate effect due to various positive feedback mechanisims.

If I gave you a glass of water containing a very small amount of petrol the effect on your taste buds would be wholly disproportionate to the amount of added petrol, an analogy purely to illustrate the relative unimportance of proportion, without the input of feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Here is an interesting (as always) take on how global temperatures are going......

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

And the first comment nails the problem with such articles... it's that only by cherry picking your time span can such trends be found.

Now, if warming isn't off again by, say, 2010, then maybe he'll have a point, but, atm, the warming is still bang on trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire
It's not as simple as comparing the volume of CO2 put out by humanity to the total volume of the atmosphere as a relatively small contribution of CO2 ( or other 'greenhouse' gas ) will have a disproportionate effect due to various positive feedback mechanisims.

If I gave you a glass of water containing a very small amount of petrol the effect on your taste buds would be wholly disproportionate to the amount of added petrol, an analogy purely to illustrate the relative unimportance of proportion, without the input of feedback.

I get your point,TM. But whilst you'd taste (ie detect the presence of) the petrol,would it be enough to have an effect? Climate/CO2 and biology/toxicology can't be used as parallels though! Anyways,I've just returned from walking my son to school through howling wind and rain (a 30 minute round trip ) even though I've got a car parked outside. You could barely move in the streets around the school due to them being blocked by 4x4's,land cruisers and the like,a goodly proportion of which I took pains to observe had stickers proclaiming their 'green' credentials. No way have the bulk of these clowns have a real need to use the car for that journey,or indeed have the 'need' to own such a vehicle in the first place. Hypocrites all,they make me ill!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

Dev.....did you read all of the article? In his last paragraph he says that this might not be the most insightful way to interpret the data! It is a balanced article and leaves open the possibility that he may not have come to an absolutely correct conclusion. It will be interesting to read his next instalment.

The fact that it is "open ended", that things are not all proven is why I give credence to the article....there is no hysteria either way.

In fact, if I may be so bold :D , I will say that I have noticed a slight lightening of a lot of peoples' stances on here of late. That people of many persuasions are appearing to be more open to possibilities which they have hitherto been "closed" to. It can only be good.

I will stop pontificating now. :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Dev.....did you read all of the article? In his last paragraph he says that this might not be the most insightful way to interpret the data! It is a balanced article and leaves open the possibility that he may not have come to an absolutely correct conclusion. It will be interesting to read his next instalment.

And if I wrote a piece interpreting the data and coming to the conclusion we'll see 6C warming by 2100 I'm sure you'd give it as fair a wind...

The fact that it is "open ended", that things are not all proven is why I give credence to the article....there is no hysteria either way.

In fact, if I may be so bold :yahoo: , I will say that I have noticed a slight lightening of a lot of peoples' stances on here of late. That people of many persuasions are appearing to be more open to possibilities which they have hitherto been "closed" to. It can only be good.

...

Could have fooled me! All I see, across the net anyway, is AGW sceptics in full cry after a whacking two months where global temperatures have been average or a little above. Imo, many AGW sceptic minds have been considerably embolded by such a two month 'trend' :D

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
In fact, if I may be so bold :yahoo: , I will say that I have noticed a slight lightening of a lot of peoples' stances on here of late. That people of many persuasions are appearing to be more open to possibilities which they have hitherto been "closed" to. It can only be good.

Or perhaps people have also just given up posting, as the same (unsubstantiated) arguments keep coming round time and time again?

[and I do mean that in the best possible way, as Kenny would have said :D ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
I get your point,TM. But whilst you'd taste (ie detect the presence of) the petrol,would it be enough to have an effect? Climate/CO2 and biology/toxicology can't be used as parallels though! Anyways,I've just returned from walking my son to school through howling wind and rain (a 30 minute round trip ) even though I've got a car parked outside. You could barely move in the streets around the school due to them being blocked by 4x4's,land cruisers and the like,a goodly proportion of which I took pains to observe had stickers proclaiming their 'green' credentials. No way have the bulk of these clowns have a real need to use the car for that journey,or indeed have the 'need' to own such a vehicle in the first place. Hypocrites all,they make me ill!

I've been driving the same tiny, very efficient car for more than a decade - so much so I've literally worn it out :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
And if I wrote a piece interpreting the data and coming to the conclusion we'll see 6C warming by 2100 I'm sure you'd give it as fair a wind...

Could have fooled me! All I see, across the net anyway, is sceptics in full cry after a whacking two months where global temperatures have been average or a little above. Imo, many sceptic minds have been considerably embolded by such a two month 'trend' :o

Re first paragraph...of course not :D

Its something that is happening and utterly contrary to AGW forecasts and what CO2 allegedly does...by the way its since 1998, 10 years of no warming. It may not be long enough but it is expanding and totally goes against the AGW, CO2 causes warming grain. :) With evermore CO2 in the air...why haven't continued to warm? Answer..because CO2 isn't the driver

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Re first paragraph...of course not :o

Its something that is happening and utterly contrary to AGW forecasts and what CO2 allegedly does...by the way its since 1998, 10 years of no warming. It may not be long enough but it is expanding and totally goes against the AGW, CO2 causes warming grain. :D With evermore CO2 in the air...why haven't continued to warm? Answer..because CO2 isn't the driver

BFTP

I'm sorry, but it does not. It's, essentially, weather. What matters is the trend, the long term trend. Now, if by 2010 we don't see another warm year I might start to change my mind. Would another record warm year by 2010 change yours? I suspect not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
I'm sorry, but it does not. It's, essentially, weather. What matters is the trend, the long term trend. Now, if by 2010 we don't see another warm year I might start to change my mind. Would another record warm year by 2010 change yours? I suspect not?

However your asking people to spend trillions on something that may or may not be causing global warming :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I'm sorry, but it does not. It's, essentially, weather. What matters is the trend, the long term trend. Now, if by 2010 we don't see another warm year I might start to change my mind. Would another record warm year by 2010 change yours? I suspect not?

Essentially weather? Across ten years and the whole planet? Surely "Weather" averaged across a period of time and space is called "Climate"? Individual snow events may be classed as Weather, but 10 years' worth of global average temperatures surely constitutes Climate?

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
However your asking people to spend trillions on something that may or may not be causing global warming :o

No, if I'm asking them anything (as if one voice means anything, though of course I'm not a lone voice), I'm asking them to use fossil fuels more efficiently - efficiency is good for economies, surely? I'm also asking the to diversify the supply of energy - all our energy generation and supply eggs in one basket isn't sensible, surely? Finally, I'm facing them with the stark REALITY that that is a finite planet with finite resources.

Essentially I'm asking the humanity stop being wasters and pillagers. That has to be the way forward. Whether the forces driving the other way can be moved I don't know but wasting and pillaging simply can't carry on for ever.

Essentially weather? Across ten years and the whole planet? Surely "Weather" averaged across a period of time and space is called "Climate"? Individual snow events may be classed as Weather, but 10 years' worth of global average temperatures surely constitutes Climate?

CB

Well, Ok part of climate in that climate tends to be assessed in 30 year chunks not ten year ones. So, on that basis it is getting interesting and for warming to be on trend we do 'need' to see a warm year in the next few.

But, I think this could happen yet it would be on trend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Now, if by 2010 we don't see another warm year I might start to change my mind. Would another record warm year by 2010 change yours? I suspect not?

No BUT I believe in the approaching Gleissberg Minima [2030 approx] and I'll extend the period to 2015...by then if we are not 'obviously' cooling I will re assess my stance.

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Well, Ok part of climate in that climate tends to be assessed in 30 year chunks not ten year ones. So, on that basis it is getting interesting and for warming to be on trend we do 'need' to see a warm year in the next few.

But, I think this could happen yet it would be on trend?

Fair enough :o While it is true that climate trends tend to be assessed in 30 year chunks, these chunks are (as has been discussed) chosen rather arbitrarily. I will grant you that the graph you link to could yet come off but, as you say, it is getting interesting. Certainly it is getting interesting enough to arouse some closer analysis of the currently believed views and predictions. I think we're probably still a good five to ten years away (at least) from being able to conclusively announce that our period of global warming is coming to an end.

However, it is interesting that temperatures have levelled off despite continued addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, especially considering the fact that the air is getting cleaner with each passing year (fewer aerosols and particulates in the atmosphere). If the air is getting cleaner - which is a side-effect of the lack of major volcanic eruptions, if nothing else - then the effects of CO2 on temperatures should be exacerbated, not marginalised.

Thanks for the reply.

:D

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Does anyone have a link to global temperature data, absolute values not anomolies, handy?

Well, given the average for 1951-80 is 14C, you can work it out from the GISS JD/DJ figures. Though I don't see why it makes any difference, graphed it would look just the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Laserguy's point on the cold winters of the 1970s and 1980s, I'm afraid, doesn't carry much weight. The 1978-87 period had cold winters in the UK, but averaged globally temperatures were rising. We are talking about global warming, as opposed to localised warming around the UK.

I'm all up for people questioning the correctness of the science behind AGW- finding holes in existing science helps to advance it as the holes are subsequently legislated for. But I can't stand this kind of argument:

1. I don't want change, and don't want to be taken out of my comfort zone. I want things to stay as they are, because they're the way they are.

2. Therefore, we should take no action.

3. Therefore, either AGW doesn't exist, therefore justifying inaction, or it does exist but it can't be helped, therefore justifying inaction.

Many of those who use arguments like the above then say "but by all means we should reduce wasteful use of energy". So if we're agreed that action is needed to some extent, even if humans aren't largely responsible for the warming, why the desire to latch onto any POV that leads to the conclusion "we should just maintain the status quo" and accept it as gospel? It makes no sense.

You'll find, incidentally, that a lot of avoidable inefficiency is caused by inefficient practices, whether within industry or by the private individual, where it doesn't cost a penny to take action to reduce it- but people are reluctant to do so because it involves changing the way things are traditionally done. As for the economy, firstly, the economy isn't the be-all and end-all of the world (our economic prosperity has come at the expense of many social factors for example) and, as others have stated, increased efficiency is good for the economy anyway. Yes many groups argue for draconian taxes and restrictions which may cheese people off and do little to address the problem, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed, rather, it shows that there are bad as well as good ways of addressing issues.

As for the global warming itself, we're still at an interesting position where, if the trend remains level for another five years or so, it will suggest that maybe AGW is not as big an issue as many had feared- but if the temperature shoots up again, it's business as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...