The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[Downburst]

I think we all agree that we would prefer if we could limit the damge we do to the planet as much as possible. I worry that given all the massive heavy metals, radiactive materials and chemicals spewed out every day, think of the total mess the oceans are in, people are forced to focus on Global warming and recycling paper. Middle class thinks they are great with the corn flakes box and agreeing to the BBC, nodding in agreement when a feature is showing on the 10 o'clock news.

To cut a long story short, with the population at 7 billion, we need to find a way to reduce it to half that within 100 years, insulate our homes, produce goods with minimum impact and regulate the planet somehow.

This is a closed system this earth, very worrying when you think of that.

[weatherobsuk]

I think a sustainable species on Earth is a good thing. What's not good however is its drive for materialism that's getting us in all this mess in the first place, I mean we throw things out on a daily basis from TV sets, guitars, sofas, chairs, clothes, anything and everything can and SHOULD be reused or recycled. I'm a big supporter of freecycle and free-trade initiatives which promote cutting out the 'middle man' companies, and lets you trade in something (say a duvet set) for a pair of shoes or a rocking chair nobody wants. Things like this may be insignificant on a small scale, but when it turns to local projects and those turn to internet communities you can see how a worldwide network can become established.

The capitalistic greed is not only the destroyer of society by dividing class-wedges, but as demonstrated it's also destructive in creating profiteering over environmental concern. Divide the number of superstores and shopping centers per sqmeter in the UK, then think of all the rubbish that has gone into producing the cr-p they sell, that could have so easily been found at 3/4 the price in a charity shop or traded at sites like freecycle for example. the problem is we are too wasteful and only have the monetary system and advertising propoganda to blame

[Alan Robinson]

We got it to the stage where r² > 0.8,

Alas, my poor knowledge of science, particularly oceanography, and thermodynamics along with spending £10k on papers (knowledge isn't free, you know) ground the project to a halt.

Even to this day I think there is something there; this is not without evidence. Many of you will know that there was a problem with the global temperature around the middle of the last century - temperature readings were taken from buckets on ships next to the engine room.

I bow to your mathematics Sparticle; now what is r?

Regarding ship's engine rooms in the middle of the last century, they would probably not have been any warmer than they are today, namely 45 degrees C at the most. Also, boiler rooms were separate to engine rooms. Where was the bucket dipped in? Near the condenser discharge or near its intake? It must be clear that the engine room air temperature could hardly affect the sea water temperature significantly. What about where the ship was and seasonal temparture changes? I mean, the Arabian Gulf can well exceed 35 degrees C in mid summer, but in winter it can be a balmy 15 degrees. The variables are many, and no wonder climate scientists bicker over data.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[VillagePlank]

I bow to your mathematics Sparticle; now what is r?

Regarding ship's engine rooms in the middle of the last century, they would probably not have been any warmer than they are today, namely 45 degrees C at the most. Also, boiler rooms were separate to engine rooms. Where was the bucket dipped in? Near the condenser discharge or near its intake? It must be clear that the engine room air temperature could hardly affect the sea water temperature significantly. What about where the ship was and seasonal temparture changes? I mean, the Arabian Gulf can well exceed 35 degrees C in mid summer, but in winter it can be a balmy 15 degrees. The variables are many, and no wonder climate scientists bicker over data.

r² is the coefficient of determination [1] - ie it determines goodness of fit between model and observation.

The problem with the temperature series was published in Nature, by Thomson et al, in 2008 [2] specifically that: "The most notable change in the SST archive following December 1941 occurred in August 1945. Between January 1942 and August 1945, ,80% of the observations are from ships of US origin and, 5% are from ships of UK origin; between late 1945 and 1949 only,30% of the observations are of US origin and about 50% are of UK origin. The change in country of origin in August 1945 is important for two reasons: first, in August 1945 US ships relied mainly on engine room intake measurements whereas UK ships used primarily uninsulated bucket measurements, and second, engine room intake measurements are generally biased warm relative to uninsulated bucket measurements"

Our little leaky integrator project identified this bias - ie we could fit the model to the temperature series apart from where the bias was ultimately identified. That is to say, we thought that the mismatch was a problem with the model, when, in reality, it was a problem with the dataset.

[1] http://en.wikipedia....f_determination

[2] http://www.atmos.col..._Nature2008.pdf

Edited October 19, 2011 by Sparticle

[Downburst]

I think a sustainable species on Earth is a good thing. What's not good however is its drive for materialism that's getting us in all this mess in the first place, I mean we throw things out on a daily basis from TV sets, guitars, sofas, chairs, clothes, anything and everything can and SHOULD be reused or recycled. I'm a big supporter of freecycle and free-trade initiatives which promote cutting out the 'middle man' companies, and lets you trade in something (say a duvet set) for a pair of shoes or a rocking chair nobody wants. Things like this may be insignificant on a small scale, but when it turns to local projects and those turn to internet communities you can see how a worldwide network can become established.

The capitalistic greed is not only the destroyer of society by dividing class-wedges, but as demonstrated it's also destructive in creating profiteering over environmental concern. Divide the number of superstores and shopping centers per sqmeter in the UK, then think of all the rubbish that has gone into producing the cr-p they sell, that could have so easily been found at 3/4 the price in a charity shop or traded at sites like freecycle for example. the problem is we are too wasteful and only have the monetary system and advertising propoganda to blame

I agree with this but worry you are coming up with too specific a solution, it won't sell as consumerism is driven by a human instinct, to want more and more, it's just to get it, not use it really. We have to think of ways to manufacture long lasting and useful goods that aren't thrown away, food that is made in as non polluting way as possible. We've come a long way since the facotries of the 19th century, we can do it, but my word will it be a hard slog. You won't get a politician looking at it if they have to be voted in every 4 or 5 years that's for sure. Politicians love the Global Warming as it's a nice focus for people in the meantime.

[stewfox]

Shuggee - You said “For me, not agreeing with hypotheses around AGW is about having equally rigorously scientifically-based alternative theories that stack-up”. That is a bizarre approach. When the earth was believed by all to be flat, it didn’t make it any more true then than it is now. Any theory has to stand on its own two feet and just because we don’t know the answer doesn’t make any existing theory “good enough for now”.

Exactly a theory is theory no one said on day 1 Earth isn't flat and 90% of the scientific community believe it or the Earth isn't centre of the universe and everything changed etc

It developed over time

Back in 2011 they still believed things couldn't travel faster then light

[Paul]

I think you're missing the point tbh - Shuggee isn't saying no-one can disagree with or try to disprove a theory, he's saying that the scientific approach to doing so is to prove an alternative theory stacks up against it.

Taking the speed of light argument you've used - had there been a discussion on this forum about the speed of light and 2 years ago you had posted 'it's possible for the speed of light to be bettered' there would have been no reason to believe you, whereas now that statement holds a lot more weight - why? Because science has 'proven' (although this is still to be confirmed) it could well be possible.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Do the members of this forum that disagree with the AGW theory believe that they still receive an unfair level of unfriendly and derogatory remarks against them by by other members?

As far as I can tell since joining in on and reading some of the debates is that the "stick" and "taboo" is more the other way around and that the anti-AGW members, in the climate and environment section at least, are in the majority.

[Alan Robinson]

r² is the coefficient of determination [1] - ie it determines goodness of fit between model and observation.

The problem with the temperature series was published in Nature, by Thomson et al, in 2008 [2] specifically that: "The most notable change in the SST archive following December 1941 occurred in August 1945. Between January 1942 and August 1945, ,80% of the observations are from ships of US origin and, 5% are from ships of UK origin; between late 1945 and 1949 only,30% of the observations are of US origin and about 50% are of UK origin. The change in country of origin in August 1945 is important for two reasons: first, in August 1945 US ships relied mainly on engine room intake measurements whereas UK ships used primarily uninsulated bucket measurements, and second, engine room intake measurements are generally biased warm relative to uninsulated bucket measurements"

Thanks.

Regarding buckets and seawater intakes, it sounds like baloney to me. In those days they only had spirit or mercury thermometers, and on ships they read accurate to within 1 degree C or so. I bet if I use the same thermometer, I will get exactly the same temperature from a sample in the cooling system strainer and from a bucket.

Do the members of this forum that disagree with the AGW theory believe that they still receive an unfair level of unfriendly and derogatory remarks against them by by other members?

As far as I can tell since joining in on and reading some of the debates is that the "stick" and "taboo" is more the other way around and that the anti-AGW members, in the climate and environment section at least, are in the majority.

What about the "don't knows" ? I'd say they are the majority.

[BornFromTheVoid]

What about the "don't knows" ? I'd say they are the majority.

Thing is, I consider myself a "don't know", but believe we are having an impact, I just don't know how much!

But in the context of this thread, "not subscribing agw", and this forum in general, I fail to see any taboo tbh.

[jethro]

Do the members of this forum that disagree with the AGW theory believe that they still receive an unfair level of unfriendly and derogatory remarks against them by by other members?

As far as I can tell since joining in on and reading some of the debates is that the "stick" and "taboo" is more the other way around and that the anti-AGW members, in the climate and environment section at least, are in the majority.

I hope no one feels they get an unfair level of unfriendly and derogatory remarks. There have been times in the past when things in here got way too personal and argumentative, that's why the code of conduct was introduced and rigorously applied. I hope to goodness that if anyone feels they have received OTT comments that they will report them to the team - we want everyone to feel that they may freely join in the debate and no one to feel intimidated in any way.

[loafer]

Thing is, I consider myself a "don't know", but believe we are having an impact, I just don't know how much!

But in the context of this thread, "not subscribing agw", and this forum in general, I fail to see any taboo tbh.

I am another don't know.

I agree we are having an impact, but I doubt that it is as great as the AGW lobby would have us believe, nor as simplistic.

As I said in an earlier post, I believe the real issues are complex and magnified by population growth and economic development.

On a more cheerful note, nature usually finds a way of dealing with excess/compensating, so I don't think "we're all doomed"* as many zealots would have us believe

* Private Frazer accent required.

[mcweather]

Like what was posted above, Mr Corbyn does indeed bring a lot of criticism on to his own head, IMO: He will not make his 'methods' public, and he does (again IMO) spend far too much time denigrating the MetO and inflating his own successes far beyond what they deserve? That's only the way I see things by-the-way...

As was also said above, and with which I agree, it's the politicisation of the subject (AGW) that is the main problem. As is the case with many other subjects, I suspect?

I too am not a great fan of Piers Corbins style. His unwillingness to share his methodology so that its success can be measured and verified will always leave him open to criticism. In his defence however I would point out that his winter forecast last year stated that one of the winter months would turn out to be the coldest for at least 100 years. I don't think any other forecaster came any where near close to forecasting that so hats off to him for that one.

[greybing]

I think a sustainable species on Earth is a good thing. What's not good however is its drive for materialism that's getting us in all this mess in the first place, I mean we throw things out on a daily basis from TV sets, guitars, sofas, chairs, clothes, anything and everything can and SHOULD be reused or recycled. I'm a big supporter of freecycle and free-trade initiatives which promote cutting out the 'middle man' companies, and lets you trade in something (say a duvet set) for a pair of shoes or a rocking chair nobody wants. Things like this may be insignificant on a small scale, but when it turns to local projects and those turn to internet communities you can see how a worldwide network can become established.

Look,I am as ignorant as all of us but this is how I see it,I welcome your thoughts.

The capitalistic greed is not only the destroyer of society by dividing class-wedges, but as demonstrated it's also destructive in creating profiteering over environmental concern. Divide the number of superstores and shopping centers per sqmeter in the UK, then think of all the rubbish that has gone into producing the cr-p they sell, that could have so easily been found at 3/4 the price in a charity shop or traded at sites like freecycle for example. the problem is we are too wasteful and only have the monetary system and advertising propoganda to blame

As a species we are hugely ignorant ,ironically, considering our capacity for thinking.We[and I dont necessarily mean all peoplebut certainly poitically ] ,above all,worship economic growth and money[and /or the supposed happiness this brings].Economy is dependent on ecology yet it is the latter which matters less to society.Piecemeal and , as I see it, ineffectual attempts are made to temper capitalism [with its desire for profit at the expense of nearly everything] for reasons of ,as I see it genuine want,guilt and mostly because that is all that can happen without absolute societal change. We are like sleepwalkers,influences on the enviroment we LIVE and ABSOLUTELY depend on are,initially, unknown and sometimes never known of and even ignored.I know this seems to have veered into capatalistic despondence ,and it has, but Capitalism [by default] IS ruining our world.I believe parts of the enviromental movement are totally ,vitriolocally,un bendingly for AGW because ot the above facts [as i them].

Edited October 19, 2011 by greybing

[knocker]

I don't think any other forecaster came any where near close to forecasting that so hats off to him for that one.

Just to digress slightly but I wouldn't bank on that. I was once told categorically that the Quran forecast all of the scientific discoveries after, and including, Newton. Led to an, albeit, short debate. Corbin is in illustrious company.

[greybing]

I too am not a great fan of Piers Corbins style. His unwillingness to share his methodology so that its success can be measured and verified will always leave him open to criticism. In his defence however I would point out that his winter forecast last year stated that one of the winter months would turn out to be the coldest for at least 100 years. I don't think any other forecaster came any where near close to forecasting that so hats off to him for that one.

Yeas this true and also I hear [from himself] that he forecast other ,sometimes very specific, weather events a long time before the forecas weather event ,typhoons,cyclones ,hurricanes,droughts,floods,hot periods ,cold snaps,average weather etc.I have not verified whether the events he apparently .Any thoughts on this and his self generalised methodology,ie the effect of charged particles on the earth with the interaction of the moon and the earths magnetic field.I ask on this post as this could have relevance in relation to A.G.W.

Edited October 19, 2011 by greybing

[Alan Robinson]

Yeas this true and also I hear [from himself] that he forecast other ,sometimes very specific, weather events a long time before the forecas weather event ,typhoons,cyclones ,hurricanes,droughts,floods,hot periods ,cold snaps,average weather etc.I have not verified whether the events he apparently .Any thoughts on this and his self generalised methodology,ie the effect of charged particles on the earth with the interaction of the moon and the earths magnetic field.I ask on this post as this could have relevance in relation to A.G.W.

I don't think most the events you list are climate. I'd say they are weather. If you have details of how some hypothesize about magnetism's effect on climate, maybe you could let us see it in the thread on climate science?

[greybing]

I don't think most the events you list are climate. I'd say they are weather. If you have details of how some hypothesize about magnetism's effect on climate, maybe you could let us see it in the thread on climate science?

.The events I list are not climate t'was was a little rant off kilter ,sorry.No ,I don't have a hypothesis ,as i say in my original thread starter ,I intend to investigate Piers[with his theory] as well as the taboo related to the none subscription ,or questioning ,of A.G.W. and other climatic theories with a possible explanation to climate change.The post was also in response to another which my post bears some relavence too and could have been better better placed elsewhere.

Edited October 20, 2011 by greybing

[Radiating Dendrite]

I too am not a great fan of Piers Corbins style. His unwillingness to share his methodology so that its success can be measured and verified will always leave him open to criticism. In his defence however I would point out that his winter forecast last year stated that one of the winter months would turn out to be the coldest for at least 100 years. I don't think any other forecaster came any where near close to forecasting that so hats off to him for that one.

To be fair though, this is the usual Corbyn tactic.

Every year he says "this will be the hottest summer" or "this will be the coldest/mildest winter".

He was bound to be right eventually and last year came up trumps for him.

He only deals with extremes, be it temperature, wind, rain etc. The reason for this as far as I can see is that he gets the "subtle" changes in the weather wrong the majority of the time and resorts to feeding the press with garbage about mega wind storms etc:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/22322/Killer-storms-to-lash-Britain

I respect the fact that he has a top physics degree, but he is slippery and seems to respond poorly to criticism.

[VillagePlank]

Well it is, at least to me, reasonably obvious why his methods are kept under wraps - commercial confidence; as such, I have no problems with it. However, he would do himself a lot of favours if he gave professional statisticians all of his forecasts, for, say, a year, and to be at least reticent (not a negligible attempt at being enigmatic) at whatever the results are. If you have a model that you claim to be good, then surely there is never any problem at getting someone to test the results whilst still keeping stum about the method?

His outspoken denouncement of AGW - given his access to the press - is at best irresponsible; after all, if the science is not settled then one cannot, logically, come to a conclusion either way: ie you cannot dismiss AGW out of hand. The argument, in my view, is not so much if CO₂ can produce the effects supposed by climate science, but, rather, how much, and how much human beings are contributing.

My view is not a lot; but that's an argument for another time.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Sparticle

[full_frontal_occlusion]

I'm not one for conspiracy theory (with which dissenters of AGW have had a day trip to the seaside, got drunk on the train and won the top prize in the tombola) but........there is a school of thought which wonders whether the big-boys realised a long long while ago that consumerism is unsustainable and that change is inevitable if the trend continued. A realisation that perhaps Marxist theories are bearing fruit?

In order to sustain consumerism two possibilities emerge. Either:

• Continue expansion unabated - (Far East, South America, Asia, Africa) and let the developed worlds market take care of itself
  
• Engineer a controlled widespread cull of population by natural disaster and the spread of war in order to create re-generation demand and provide new room for expansion.
  

Is not the latter that which started during the great wars of the 20th Century?

The problem now as was not then is the possession of nuclear weapons. Wars therefore can only be fought in a conventional sense with those countries who do not have access.

The hypothesis is given credance when one realises that none of the nuclear capable states are in direct conflict with each other but that wars are now fought either by proxy or with those who have mineral wealth ripe for exploitation.

Just a thought.

ffO.

Edited October 20, 2011 by full_frontal_occlusion

[greybing]

I'm not one for conspiracy theory (with which dissenters of AGW have had a day trip to the seaside, got drunk on the train and won the top prize in the tombola) but........there is a school of thought which wonders whether the big-boys realised a long long while ago that consumerism is unsustainable and that change is inevitable if the trend continued. A realisation that perhaps Marxist theories are bearing fruit?

In order to sustain consumerism two possibilities emerge. Either:

• Continue expansion unabated - (Far East, South America, Asia, Africa) and let the developed worlds market take care of itself
  
• Engineer a controlled widespread cull of population by natural disaster and the spread of war in order to create re-generation demand and provide new room for expansion.
  

Is not the latter that which started during the great wars of the 20th Century?

The problem now as was not then is the possession of nuclear weapons. Wars therefore can only be fought in a conventional sense with those countries who do not have access.

The hypothesis is given credance when one realises that none of the nuclear capable states are in direct conflict with each other but that wars are now fought either by proxy or with those who have mineral wealth ripe for exploitation.

Just a thought.

ffO.

An interesting one at that,I feel you may be on to something.

To be fair though, this is the usual Corbyn tactic.

Every year he says "this will be the hottest summer" or "this will be the coldest/mildest winter".

He was bound to be right eventually and last year came up trumps for him.

He only deals with extremes, be it temperature, wind, rain etc. The reason for this as far as I can see is that he gets the "subtle" changes in the weather wrong the majority of the time and resorts to feeding the press with garbage about mega wind storms etc:

http://www.express.c...to-lash-Britain

I respect the fact that he has a top physics degree, but he is slippery and seems to respond poorly to criticism.

I am aware that not all the time his are for forecasts extreme events .I have seen him forecast average weather too.

Edited October 20, 2011 by greybing

[SP1986]

As a response to the original post, in my opinion I wouldn't call it a taboo, the reason is because so many people in the general do not believe in global warming, that I would suggest that's it's actually quite widespread view. Whether this is down to Global warming being an error of judgement, or in fact a lack of understanding from the general public remains to be seen.

[Gray-Wolf]

When i read through some of the posts here I'm a bit taken by the lack of 'thrust' when the info is there? It's said that a Squirrel could go coast to coast in this fair isle without leaving the canopy before man arrived with intentions of 'farming/animal husbandry'. did our deforestation impact the carbon cycle ? Some folk look at the destruction of meso American civilisation by 'the white man' as a factor in the little ice age ( the rapid reforestation of the area sucked in so much extra Carbon as to 'cool' the planet). Could it be that our 'civilisation' , be it paddy fields or upland deforestation. Be it Mayan or British did we 'upset' the carbon cycle since we started to 'change nature' to suit us instead of 'follow nature' and live off the surplus?

If any of the above is 'plausible' then what of our impacts on the 'carbon cycle' since we 'upped' our fossil fuel usage ( Henry the V111 era onward)?

Ho hum ( as I used to say to that dropout 'Bobski') ;-)

[Isolated Frost]

I've not much to add - some very good points from jethro, Mr. Robinson and Sparticle - I must say I really find this topic interesting and doff my hat, I've learnt a lot from many of the posters here. I hope to try and post more in the climate and environment section