Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[Gaz1985]

Personally speaking I think man-made climate change/global warming is a load of twaddle and a great big lie just to get the gullible to pay more "green taxes" and what not, the Earth has heated up quicker and cooled down quicker in the past before there were cars and factories etc.

So I've never bought into this whole global warming thing, I do believe in "climate change" but these changes are not man made, it's just Earth's natural cycle.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Gaz1985

[Tamara]

Personally speaking I think man-made climate change/global warming is a load of twaddle and a great big lie just to get the gullible to pay more "green taxes" and what not, the Earth has heated up quicker and cooled down quicker in the past before there were cars and factories etc.

So I've never bought into this whole global warming thing, I do believe in "climate change" but these changes are not man made, it's just Earth's natural cycle.

I wouldn't quite goes as far as to dimiss it in the sense that there is no doubt that CO2, on its own, is a warming agent but I certainly have yet to be persuaded of the science of how positive artifical feedback relationships are created to enhance and make permanent that warming in the way that people who assuage to AGW are adament.

 

I am most dubious and critical of all of the way that natural feedbacks are dismissed so easily in terms of their roles and effects with the ever increasing risk that these are vastly underestimated at the same time as assumed artificial feedbacks have the same greater risk of being over estimated - both in terms of extent and numbers of them. I think we are already seeing this unfortunate process play out, and the IPCC missed a good opportunity to seize this chance to be a little more sanguine and balanced in their latest predictions and in doing so therefore demonstrate that they are taking more seriously natural cyclical drivers to make their research and findings much less one dimensional and appear less selective, skewed and biased to suit and match a pre-conceived agenda.

 

I do agree with you that there is too much spin behind the campaign which unfortunately further skews the whole debate and undermines the scientific research. Less selective belief and bias and more open mindedness would help the cause to the truth of why our climate varies much better. Maybe by the next IPCC report then

 

I think further to the debate about solar science going on in the other thread then the sort of inaccuracies of timing regarding solar cyclical activity and their impacts on global temperatures and weather as highlighted over there are no different or more culpable than the absence of predicted warming over the last 15 yrs by the IPCC. This innacuracy of course which has been weakly dismissed by the IPCC as natural variation.

 

In other words it doesn't do justice to the good scientific research (that is going underneath the scramble to produce a forecast prediction) which might be producing very useful material to be further researched first of all before trying to make such forecast predictions to win headlines and gain popular attention. Open mindedness loses out once again.

 

I think that there should be less emphasis in ALL aspects of both natural cyclical and manmade science in trying to make future predictions according to timetable prematurely, and instead first the scientific research should be assessed properly to weed out the assumptiveness that such premature predictions bring with them. The consequence of premature predictions is the obfuscation that inevitably follows over people getting timings of predictions wrong, and swamping the greater importance of looking at the meat of ALL natural and manmade findings before thinking about publishing any prediction at all.

 

This is where once again goverment interference skews things once more by trying to bring fixed timetables into an uncertain science that requires reports on any aspect of it to be published with associated conclusions and predictions only when they are ready..and not beforehand.

 

If, as the IPCC still suggest in the latest report, there remain uncertainties over feedback processes then the report predictions should reflect those uncertainties with appropriate caveats in its forecast predictions (if they insist on making them) and tone down the bullish confidence about the decades to come to match these uncertainties.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[BornFromTheVoid]

Might I suggest reading the (well, some anyway!) IPCC AR4 section 1 full report, Tamara? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Contrary to your thinking, it has loads of data on natural climate process and the different feedbacks (both +ve and -ve).

 

Perhaps if there are important studies that have been overlooked, you could point them out?

Edited October 6, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

Might I suggest reading the (well, some anyway!) IPCC AR4 section 1 full report, Tamara? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Contrary to your thinking, it has loads of data on natural climate process and the different feedbacks (both +ve and -ve).

 

Perhaps if there are important studies that have been overlooked, you could point them out?

That's the problem with 'natural feedbacks, BFTV; no-one actually seems to know what they are - let alone, whether they are -ive or +ive...? Methinks, there will always be 'unknown' feedbacks??? 

[stewfox]

Might I suggest reading the (well, some anyway!) IPCC AR4 section 1 full report, Tamara? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Contrary to your thinking, it has loads of data on natural climate process and the different feedbacks (both +ve and -ve).

 

Perhaps if there are important studies that have been overlooked, you could point them out?

 

These are studies ,theories and out dated analysis ? Not sure what your point is ?

 

"""The Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to contribute to sea level after 2100, initially at a rate of 0.03 to 0.21 m per century for stabilisation in 2100 at A1B concentrations"""

 

"""""The only study of seasonal snow cover in the Southern Alps found no trend over the 1930 to 1985 period (Fitzharris and Garr, 1995) and has not been updated"""

 

etc

 

0.03 to 0.21 is a factor of 7

 

 

Edited October 6, 2013 by stewfox

[Tamara]

 

Is this link/attachment peer reviewed ...

[knocker]

Is this link/attachment peer reviewed ...

 

Of course I did it.

[UV-RAY]

So we've now had a chance to digest the latest chronicles of the IPCC and I still can't find a viable reason/excuse as to why the warming stopped, lots of unproven theories but for some unexplainable reason the most obvious reasons have been overlooked, this from some of the alleged best scientific minds in climate science.

[crikey]

The IPCC report cannot tell us when the current warming hiatus will end

Climate cycle researchers can tell you

..There will be no more global warming before 2030

Global temps' started declining around 2006 . They will not start increasing again before 2030.

May the best man win..

Edited October 7, 2013 by crikey

[UV-RAY]

The IPCC report cannot tell us when the current warming hiatus will endClimate cycle researchers can tell you..There will be no more global warming before 2030Global temps' started declining around 2006 . They will not start increasing again before 2030.May the best man win..

Lol, can I borrow your time machine?

[Methuselah]

Lol, can I borrow your time machine?

And I'll take an infrared sensor into the afterlife!

[keithlucky]

No Antarctic warming for 50yrs http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-continent-warmed-50-years/

And no warming across the globe for 17yrs ,more and more evidence that any climate change is natural and nothing to do with rising CO2 .http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

 

[Methuselah]

maybe its me but stopped reading that report after the 5th likely

 

i will respond to that link re volcanes later but not sure where the man made co2

against volcano argument comes into it

 

i will show you later how misleading that blog post was

 

challenge for you fergus

 

show evidence where the 50th warming is caused by man and not the maybe possibly and likely slapped

 

all over the reports

 

most here want actual facts not assumptions which is all that seems to be used as fact

A wee couple of questions for you, J P: Are you suggesting that the current build-up of atmospheric CO₂ is due to volcanism? And, if so, where has all the anthropogenic stuff gone?

[john pike]

Hi ab

Have never said co2 going up as it is is purely through volcanoes. That was a post made to lOok like I did. Look at my original post which is what I was referring to

Co213 from volcanoes is the same as man made burning fossil fuels. So the rise is a combination of the both. Anyway if I start getting 20 questions everytime I post I will ignore this thread. Maybe people should read up on nature a bit more to get a balanced view of there own

Regards

John

[Methuselah]

Hi ab

Have never said co2 going up as it is is purely through volcanoes. That was a post made to lOok like I did. Look at my original post which is what I was referring to

Co213 from volcanoes is the same as man made burning fossil fuels. So the rise is a combination of the both. Anyway if I start getting 20 questions everytime I post I will ignore this thread. Maybe people should read up on nature a bit more to get a balanced view of there own

Regards

John

No problems, JP. I studied volcanoes, plate tectonics and paeleoclimatology etc. at uni...So, apologies if you took my questions the wrong way...I was merely asking you what you think... 

[Fergus Brown]

Hi John,

 

Not sure if this helps or hinders, but here is the summary of climate forcing observations and assessments:

 

 

 

I know what you mean about the levels of confidence thing - it just makes it confusing. It's one of the ways that scientists talk about stuff which is different to ordinary people and seems to say 'we think this but we aren't sure', which could easily sound like 'this may or may not be true', but it doesn't really mean that.

 

Take the chart above: it gives a list of climate forcings, positive and negative, attributes values to them, and on the left puts them in two sections: Anthropogenic and Non-Anthropogenic. Let's say that you insist that all values are presented at the highest possible confidence level (let's say 95% ?); what changes would that make to the chart?

 

Take a look at the overall picture (anthro vs non-anthro forcings); what does the chart suggest is the principle cause?

 

To me, given that this is just a summary of loads of work by loads of people over a long time, using physics which has been tested, retested, challenged, validated and effectively proven, it looks reasonable to summarise the evidence as 'AGW is real'. I am happy, though, to consider evidence to the contrary, for example which shows that there is a reasonable level of doubt, because of ... well, anything.

 

I make assumptions along with everyone else, but I try not to make the assumption that I am right and someone else is wrong. Because I am only mediocre at reading science, there are some things which I have to take on faith. There - I said it.

[john pike]

Hi ab

Sorry mate

Must not post while at work when on phone.

Will talk later

John

[john pike]

hi fergus

 

thanks but now read this

 

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

 

then this

These entrapped droplets represent the state of the magma prior to eruption. As a result, Helo and fellow researchers from McGill, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, have been able to prove that explosive eruptions can indeed occur in deep-sea volcanoes. Their work also shows that the release of CO₂ from the deeper mantle to Earth's atmosphere, at least in certain parts of mid-ocean ridges, is much higher than had previously been imagined.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110328151734.htm

 

and

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711104755.htm

 

drop down the page to see new discoveries

 

the chart you post is assuming volcanic output is stable

 

not correct

 

2011 had 65

 

2012 had 77

 

current this year 78

 

which is clearly increasing

 

anyway make your own thoughts on this

 

 

 

however my post that started this was questioning the sea temperature increase

 

these images show a pretty good relation to me

 

 

 

look at them both

 

as always this is my opinion

 

please make your own minds up which is what this thread is about

[Fergus Brown]

Hi John,

 

This directly addresses Casey: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

 

Note the final sections and the concluding paragraph in particular. One of them must be wrong, surely.

 

Honestly, I can't see the correlation in the two maps. It seems to show that around some parts of the plate edges there are negative anomalies and around other positive ones. How do I get a correlation?

 

good night

[john pike]

Hi John,

 

This directly addresses Casey: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

 

Note the final sections and the concluding paragraph in particular. One of them must be wrong, surely.

 

Honestly, I can't see the correlation in the two maps. It seems to show that around some parts of the plate edges there are negative anomalies and around other positive ones. How do I get a correlation?

 

good night

hi mate

 

you honestly cannot see where the volcanoes along the faultlines are

 

and the sea temperature spike in the sea temperatures are mmmmmmmm

 

re that link you posted

 

you keep trying to link what i am saying with man made co2 against volcanic co2

 

either you did not read the link properly or you did not understand it

 

 

when we have worked out the other 70% undersea volcanoes i might take notice of it

 

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~hamorgan/bigideaswelcome.html

 

 

if volcanoes have no effect why is it being mentioned now that volcanoes maybe cooling the planet

that says to me that they must be higher in eruptive state than was previously thought

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=20000+new+undersea+volcanoes+found&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gws_rd=cr&ei=Cz9TUoPMIpD70gXT2IHoCw

 

click on above link and see how many of these things keep getting discovered and there are a lot

 

anyway you will believe what you will

 

i will be away from here for a while as my other thoughts are needed elsewhere

 

regards

 

john

Edited October 7, 2013 by john pike

[VillagePlank]

You can figure out climate sensitivity from that chart, here: http://robinmollgawks.wordpress.com/ Edited October 8, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Fergus Brown]

You can figure out climate sensitivity from that chart, here: http://robinmollgawks.wordpress.com/

Hi S,

As I read it, the blogger has decided to map temperature vs CO2 on a log curve rather than a line - is this correct?

My question is; why? what is the correct relation between temp (GST) and CO2?

Climate sensitivity has become a larger discussion point recently, so it's important that we understand what CS is  and what the right way of calculating it is.

[VillagePlank]

... map temperature vs CO2 on a log curve rather than a line - is this correct ...

The relationship between the temperature and CO₂ *is* logarithmic. The community has known about this for a very long time, see here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf (First equation, second page)

I have no problem with the identified attribution variables, rather their irradiance ranges.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Fergus Brown]

The relationship between the temperature and CO₂ *is* logarithmic. The community has known about this for a very long time, see here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf (First equation, second page)

I have no problem with the identified attribution variables, rather their irradiance ranges.

Thank you. I note the 'standard' estimated forcing from 2xCO2 alone is equivalent to ~1.2 c. [Climate Sensitivity including forcings from same  is ~3c.]

How does the 1.2c of the 'standard' estimates compare with Mollgawks calculation?

 

On the irradiance ranges, I'm afraid you'll have to explain a bit more... perhaps give an example?

[VillagePlank]

Thank you. I note the 'standard' estimated forcing from 2xCO2 alone is equivalent to ~1.2 c. [Climate Sensitivity including forcings from same  is ~3c.] How does the 1.2c of the 'standard' estimates compare with Mollgawks calculation? On the irradiance ranges, I'm afraid you'll have to explain a bit more... perhaps give an example?

 

On the right hand side of the chart posted there is a wm2 minimum and maximum. As we're on the sceptical thread: add up the minimum of the human induced ones, and then add up the maximum possible natural irradiances. We are told that natural variation can override human induced irradiance. Well, that simple sum doesn't seem to support such an assertion - which implies the irradiance ranges, are, ahem, unreliable.

 

A smaller climate sensitivity, by empirical observation, implies we have an awful lot more warming to go: a higher sensitivity, again by empirical evidence, implies we're probably over top of the steep log curve and adding more CO₂ will progressively have less and less of an effect. Of course, it really isn't as simple as that.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Sparkicle