Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[stewfox]

Well, we do have an entire thread devoted to discussing energy prices, Stew... 

 

 

One thing that seems to be missing from both threads (Man Made or Not) is the cost and what to do.

 

This site suggests cutting CO2 emission by half by 2050 which would cost 46 Trillion Dollars

 

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/08/study-cutting-global-co2-emissions-in-half-by-2050-will-cost-4/

 

Lot of money if your wrong

Edited October 24, 2013 by stewfox

[stewfox]

Would be the start of a world war for sure as countries battle spiralling costs and fuel shortages, hopefully a more practical and common sense approach will be taken. Wait a minute common and sense don't belong together in the world of eco warriors and politicians, time to start to building that bunker then, that's if it's not under those rising oceans once finished. 

 

There seems to be a perception if you are a sceptic you 'don't care' re the planet. 

 

Nothing could be further from the truth, a common sense approach is required supported by robust sustained evidence over a number of years

[keithlucky]

As well as record  sea ice record in the Antarctic sea ice volume at record levels as well http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/24/stunner-germanys-alfred-wegener-institute-confirms-antarctic-sea-ice-may-have-reached-record-volume/

 

[stewfox]

As well as record  sea ice record in the Antarctic sea ice volume at record levels as well http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/24/stunner-germanys-alfred-wegener-institute-confirms-antarctic-sea-ice-may-have-reached-record-volume/

 

Interesting for the IPCC to come up with something to explain that, ah what is this..................

 

--------------------------

the total volume of the Antarctic sea ice has grown over the last years. The causes for these surprising observations are still the subject of various research projects. The main reason is currently suspected to be because of a strong natural variability as well as changes in the wind.†- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/24/stunner-germanys-alfred-wegener-institute-confirms-antarctic-sea-ice-may-have-reached-record-volume/#sthash.4jHbUXyU.dpuf

----------------------------------

 

Of course you can only have strong 'natural variability' in the Southern Hemisphere not in the Northern Hemisphere, go figure. 

 

Mention 'natural variability' for the Artic and your shouted down.

Edited October 25, 2013 by stewfox

[UV-RAY]

Interesting for the IPCC to come up with something to explain that, ah what is this..................

--------------------------

the total volume of the Antarctic sea ice has grown over the last years. The causes for these surprising observations are still the subject of various research projects. The main reason is currently suspected to be because of a strong natural variability as well as changes in the wind.†- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/24/stunner-germanys-alfred-wegener-institute-confirms-antarctic-sea-ice-may-have-reached-record-volume/#sthash.4jHbUXyU.dpuf

----------------------------------

Of course you can only have strong 'natural variability' in the Southern Hemisphere not in the Northern Hemisphere, go figure.

Mention 'natural variability' for the Artic and your shouted down.

Natural variability only counts when it suites Stew, the goalposts have been moved that many times that I'm not even sure we are even playing the same game now Edited October 25, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

So 07' wasn't down to the 'winds' and export then? The Arctic fell to it's record low by melt alone?Natural variability seemed to suit until 2012 showed you that a knackered Arctic could do it all without 'perfect' conditions due to 'natural variability'.....just an 'average year in fact. Ask 4! he's big on what drove 07's low.....just check the posts from around then....

But what was the causation of said melt GW and unless you have factual evidence, assumptions and conjecture should stay outside the door.

[keithlucky]

But what was the causation of said melt GW and unless you have factual evidence, assumptions and conjecture should stay outside the door.

Funny that GW alarmist cannot stay out of this thread, the reason is they are losing the argument because nature does what it wants to do ,nothing what we do can effect natural global oscillation.

[keithlucky]

Yes GW alarmist are losing the argument were is there extreme weather they keep on about there super hurricanes? Only 1 category 1 hurricane recorded this year,the least ammount for 45 year,The year1851 was recorded as one of the coldest years ever recorded in Australia yet more Australia bush fires ever recorded occurred in that year. and finally since David Viner a leading GW warmist declared the end of snow in the northern hemisphere 6 of the snowiest winters have occurred since that statement

Edited October 25, 2013 by keithlucky

[4wd]

"But the ice was thicker in 2007" 

[UV-RAY]

This continuous GW bashing and using ridiculous words such as alarmist when all he is doing is giving an opinion, usually supported by cogent argument, is getting very boring. Especially coming from people who appear to be barren in the latter as is apparent by, "they are losing the argument".

But it's fine to label sceptics misleaders, talk about double standards!

[UV-RAY]

I've noticed a distinct difference in the line of attack from proponents of AGW, once they just utilised the fact that the globe was warming but since the news of the pause over the last few years there has been a far more aggressive stance taken. This of course makes no difference whatsoever to global temps despite all the hot air being spouted about hidden heat content etc, etc. the next decade or so will either mark a return to rising global temps, or a continuation or decline in temps, if it's the latter there could well be a few thousand scientist looking for either new funding or a new job.

[4wd]

Agree, if you look at the comments in such as The Guardian (and Nutticelli's love-in with them is a hot spot) some of them are almost demanding public flogging for anyone not in line with the correct rhetoric.It shows the intense pressure which is put on anyone doing research which might not support consensus position, in fact it's almost a non-starter when activist types are in positions of power and hold purse-strings at research establishments.You simply couldn't do anyclimate related study which was not somehow going to be supportive of the basic position that dangerous warming is ongoing and about to get catastrophic.The lack of statistics to back up any such notion for most of 20 years now does not come into it, the ideology is so entrenched in the mainstream - scary stuff. 

[jonboy]

And

 

Comment: Climate change may cause greater bush fire risk in Australia

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR541842.aspx

 

I need to find it but one off the main reasons New South Wales has seen such hot weather is due to the southern jet stream moving north and drawing the hot interior temperatures into that part of the continent. Clearly this has led to very dry conditions but perhaps without an army exercise there wouldn't have been these fires!! Turning to the movement of the jet stream north would someone who clearly thinks this is down to manmade global warming explain how?

[stewfox]

I've noticed a distinct difference in the line of attack from proponents of AGW, once they just utilised the fact that the globe was warming but since the news of the pause over the last few years there has been a far more aggressive stance taken. This of course makes no difference whatsoever to global temps despite all the hot air being spouted about hidden heat content etc, etc. the next decade or so will either mark a return to rising global temps, or a continuation or decline in temps, if it's the latter there could well be a few thousand scientist looking for either new funding or a new job.

 

In need and showing references that the heats going into the oceans or the winds increasing the expansion of Antarctica ice etc etc is a little bit tiresome

 

We have had a quite hurricane period another topic for AGW to get to grips with

 

.http://science.time.com/2013/09/09/a-silent-hurricane-season-ignites-a-debate-over-global-warming/

 

The point of 'Global warming' sorry 'climate change' surely is around preparing for world wide catastrophe.

 

Much of the man made camp debate now days is around explaining why things are not happening.

 

If a party isn't happening then given reason why its not happening is fine but its still not happening.

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2013 by stewfox

[4wd]

 

 

The point of 'Global warming' sorry 'climate change' surely is around preparing for world wide catastrophe.

 

Much of the man made camp debate now days is around explaining why things are not happening.

 

If a party isn't happening then given reason why its not happening is fine but its still not happening.

Excellent post.

As if to confirm:

[4wd]

Which makes the AGW linkage hyperbole about 'Hurricane' Sandy last year seem extraordinarily blinkered.

[4wd]

I'm astonished that WWF was asked for a statement about this at all.Mind the blast of rhetoric issued hardly constitutes a statement.Those pandas show every sign of insidious infiltration by extremism.Definitely won't be getting donations from me.Any group which who thinks 'Climate Justice' ( what?) is served by extracting gas less efficiently than is possible seems to have a logic deficit problem. 

Scotland to block fracking on environmental grounds

 

Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish environment and climate change minister, has said there are “no environmental permissions which would allow hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Scotland at this timeâ€.

 

http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/scotland-to-block-fracking-on-environmental-grounds/934082?#.Umzrmfmcdnh

 

Lang Banks, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Scotland director, said: "This is without doubt a set-back for those hoping to exploit shale gas in Scotland. We welcome this commitment and hope it is just the first of several steps ministers will take to begin to close the door on all new fossil fuels developments in Scotland.

"In the interests of tackling climate change and delivering climate justice we urgently need to be leaving fossil fuels, including shale gas, in the ground." 

 

[keithlucky]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

 

Global sea ice highest since 2000 approaching a new record 

Edited October 27, 2013 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

Risk of a maunder minimum Little ice age says leading scientist  http://t.co/NHG3bXvkz5

[jonboy]

Risk of a maunder minimum Little ice age says leading scientist  http://t.co/NHG3bXvkz5

 

As ever the reporter is happy to say that a solar minimum of dalton or maunder levels would lead to cooling yet any warming is down to CO2. Come on its recognised that we reached a solar activity high around the mid late 80's yet this did'nt cause global temps to increase. Either solar cycles have a direct impact on temperatures or they don't we can't cherry pick to suit an individual argument.

I suppose at least Mike Lockwood is one step closer to the trurh!!

[stewfox]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

 

Global sea ice highest since 2000 approaching a new record 

 

In need and what is often forgotten Antarctica sea ice extent now was similar to the mid 1970s. Which kind of makes the 'theories' for its expansion a little bit harder to swallow.

 

 

http://www.meereisportal.de/typo3temp/pics/f1eaf3542f.png

[UV-RAY]

In need and what is often forgotten Antarctica sea ice extent now was similar to the mid 1970s. Which kind of makes the 'theories' for its expansion a little bit harder to swallow.

 

 

http://www.meereisportal.de/typo3temp/pics/f1eaf3542f.png

Just as much as you can't argue with the receding icepack in the arctic basin, then the same should apply with the extensive Antarctic sea ice. 

[keithlucky]

I"m not cherry picking the last time we this low solar activity was solar cycle 13 and yes that was a maunder minimum .With the next solar cycle due to be less active again(links provided in previous threads) it will be very interesting what happens to world temperatures over the next 3yrs.

Edited October 28, 2013 by keithlucky

[UV-RAY]

 

I"m not cherry picking the last time we this low solar activity was solar cycle 13 and yes that was a maunder minimum .With the next solar cycle due to be less active again(links provided in previous threads) it will be very interesting what happens to world temperatures over the next 3yrs.

 

I would say the next 5-7 years will show whether natural forcings play a far bigger role than previously thought by those within the IPCC, if we see global temps starting to fall away then the inevitable questions as to why will be asked by both those who fund the numerous scientists and those who pay for the funding, you and me.

[stewfox]

Moss exposure taken from the other thread implies the artic at its warmest last 120,000 year

 

http://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/more-on-mosses-miller-et-al-2013/

 

Now rather then responding to WUWT comments they (above) call them clueless

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-last-100-years-may-be-warmest-in-120000-years-in-the-arctic-but-not-so-fast/

 

Dead moss is dead moss and could have been exposed hundreds of times and this sums up nicely the difference between questioning 'assumed fact' and blindly accepting everything we are told and told we are silly if we don't accept it.

 

Its like finding dead leaves under a snow field when it melts and saying those leaves haven't been exposed to sunlight for 100,000 years.

 

 

...This is another example of peer review failure that allows studies to make unsupported claims and spam the literature.....

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2013 by stewfox