Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Given that any one of these scientists knows a great deal more about climate science than all of us put together, and that almost all of them (over 95%* by most reckonings) are broadly in agreement on the principles, if not all of the details of the climate change event, I'm astonished that laymen can assume, knee-jerk-style, that they are wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder where you get that 95% figure? I wonder too, how many of those scientists you refer to are "climate scientists"? Here's an article from a climate scientist, with an interesting take on the dogma of GW: http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
*For the sake of argument, let's assume that eventually those scientists who disagree are proved right. If so, what has mankind got to lose from acting on the advice of the majority, until the minority is proved right? As far as I can see, we might lose a few decades of economic growth at today's levels; we might have to rein back our consumption-centric lifestyles by a couple of percentage points. It strikes me that that would be a very good-value insurance policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if GW is happening, but it's not anthropogenic? We will have wasted time and resources fighting the inevitable, rather than funding coping strategies. When there's mass flooding, drought, desertification and starvation, will you crow about how well you minimized your carbon footprint?
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Bizarre article - he doesn't offer a shred of evidence in either direction, just says "I'm right".

The source, Canadian Free Press, looks a bit crackpot. Another article claims the International Red Cross is training Palestinian terrorists.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Another article claims the International Red Cross is training Palestinian terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Twas on the Beeb last night....teaching them about Geneva Convention and basic First Aid.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Extra amounts of anything can have an effect, if they take a concentration past a critical point. Straw and camel's back. As for relatively low concentrations:

"A fatal inhalation dose of hydrogen cyanide is 600 to 700 ppm for 5 minutes or 200 ppm for 30 minutes". That's not very much hydrogen cyanide, is it?

As to 95%, that's something I recall from a New Scientist article, about 18 months back. Not very scientific of me, is it?
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has picked up on my argument - Basically who the fing hell cares about GW?
Don't you all see, the science good, bad or indifferent is totally irrelevant to Joe public.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you projecting how you feel here, or have you carried out extensive polling. My own straw poll of my peers suggests we care a lot.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has picked up on my argument - Basically who the fing hell cares about GW?
Don't you all see, the science good, bad or indifferent is totally irrelevant to Joe public.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't you mean it's totally irrelevant to you and a (not insignificant) group of people who are worried their toys are going to be taken away and have embarked on a concerted propaganda campaign to propogate 'socialist conspiracy / fear control' theories to explain it all away.

icon_ostrich.gif
 
Re: The data

[ QUOTE ]
The earlier period was lower because it was recovering from the Little Ice Age.

[/ QUOTE ]Have it your own way, but most historians place the Little Ice Age as being somewhat after the Medieval Warm Period.
[ QUOTE ]
We are told that the rate of rise is unprecedented, but the earlier period is before the massive increase in hydrocarbon use after about 1940 and the rate of rise is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]Straw man argument. Make it to someone who's argued that. I tend to see it as a break (roughly 1942 - 1982) in the continuum of significant temperature rise since around 1900. But that's just my opinion of the graph, and, I hasten to add, not backed up by any scientific judgement.
[ QUOTE ]
The earlier climatic cycles of the millenium are simply not shown in your data, but it is interesting that you note a consistent rise since the mid 1800s, i.e. BEFORE the vast increases in hydrocarbon use.

[/ QUOTE ]You love to personalise this. It's not my data, and I've given the sources (in this case the IPCC). Yes, it's interesting, and not inconsistent with the general thrust of the IPCC's findings. The cycles in the graph are apparent to me. I cannot account for your perception.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it does, but it doesn't show them (the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age)

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here as you seem to believe that the LIA preceded the MWP.
[ QUOTE ]
There have been a number of documented statistical manipulations which eliminate the well-documented Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age temperature variations.

[/ QUOTE ] That looks like another straw man, or even smear by association with a straw man.
[ QUOTE ]
Even your Wikipedia graph (and I don't think you should be presenting Wikipedia as a reliable source) shows a much smaller variation than the unmanipulated data suggests.

[/ QUOTE ]I always try give sources. Sorry if Wiki offended you, but it was convenient at the time and that was the best I could come up with quickly. It shows a range of the many estimates made.

[ QUOTE ]
I am referring to atmospheric water vapour, not clouds. Water vapour is by far the most important greenhouse gas, contributing between 40% and 95% of the effect, depending on who you are asking. That variation alone shows how unreliable is the "science".

[/ QUOTE ] I'll take your word for it.
[ QUOTE ]
As to references, just Google or look at your favoured Wikipedia.

[/ QUOTE ]You really can't help it, can you? /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that you are misinterpreting the (insurance) data. [ QUOTE ]
You may be right, but any interpretation of insurance claims data, with so very many imponderable influences, is hardly a reliable proxy for global warming. FWIW, the population of the USA, which has by far the greatest influence on those figures, increased from about 200million to 320 million between 1980 and 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ] These do not look like recognisable US population figures. What is your source please? Even on your figures the increase in insurance losses still vastly outstrips the rise in population. Even more so for the real population figures imho.

[ QUOTE ]
We can swop referenced data until the cows come home.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually no; I've provided references for the data I have used. Please feel free to do likewise.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is the selection of the "right" data.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed. I'm not a scientist, nor do I have an axe to grind. I just happen to judge that the risks associated with climate change and the possibility/probability of MMGW to be too great to ignore.
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. Check the temperature change between 1860 and 2000 as shown on your two graphs. You may be surprised at the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]Errrmmm, one refers to global temperatures, the other to the Northern Hemisphere. I'm clearly missing something here. Also, my eyesight is not so precise as to be able to accurately extrapolate graph figures with that degree of precison on the thousand year graph. Aside from the apples and oranges comparison, I'm not sure I understood your point.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Now I have to say Jimi that you are not reading my posts properly either. Of course there is a general correlation between sunspot activity etc and global temperature increases IN THE LONG TERM, but in the period in question 1926 to present, there is no robust correlation between these factors and the rapid increases in temperature that have been recorded by reputable meteorology bodies worldwide. In fact the most rapid upward changes since 1926 have been in periods of relatively quiet sunspot activity. If you consider this very recent period and the increase in temperature as a stand alone event sunspots are not relevant.
The following is an extract from the Fraser Report
________________________________________________________________
On average, models used for attributing recent climate change to human interference assume that natural forcings alone would have yielded virtually no change over the 20th century, and global cooling since 1979.
Climate models that include only natural forcings estimate that over the 20th century there would have been no change or a slight cooling (up to 0.5C) everywhere on Earth.
When the same models are run over the post-1979 interval, they propose that natural forcings alone would have yielded no change, or cooling, everywhere except for a small portion of the Bering Strait and a few other locations.
________________________________________________________________

In other words ALL natural forcings including sunspots, volcanos, et al. with no increase in man made phenomena would not collectively explain an increase in global temperature at all. In fact a decrease of up to 0.5deg C would be expected.
IN THE POST 1979 INTERVAL. Over longer periods the Sun of course has an effect and was possibly the driver for the medieval warm period mentioned. This cannot be stated with any certainty however as data was not collected in medieval times.
What can be said with certainty is that it certainly does not explain the increase since 1979 as the sun has been relatively quiet during that same period. In fact it only has a very marginal effect 1926-2004 and cannot explain the increase without man made phenomena.
 
“I think possibly a selective cull is called for. Who shall we shoot first?”
Nice to see the zealots are treating the debate in a balanced manner.



The ice-cube debate shows that protagonists can’t even comprehend simple physics, let alone complex causal arguments.


I see lots of fuzzy graphs posted to “prove” MMGW.
I could create wonderful graphs and post them on here. I wouldn’t put any faith in either.


I also see lots of zealots bickering about each other’s data.


Slowboat is on the right wavelength[ QUOTE ]
1. GW is happening

2. It is irreversible

3. It is unstoppable

4. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Get used to the idea and lets move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

However much financial pain and lack of one-use plastic bags we endure it will make absolutely no difference in either scenario because if

a) MMGW is a myth, we can’t affect the advance of Global Warming because our efforts are not relevant.

b) MMGW is real we can’t affect the advance of Global Warming because our efforts are but a gob in the spittoon of US and Oriental pollution.


You seem to have opened up the old wounds with this thread. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: The data

Ok the new house I have built can be heated by 2.5KW, I am installing the ability to provide 75% of the heat we do need from geo-thermal, most of the normal lighting can be supplied by solar power. The cars now use 75% less fuel than a year ago, so I concider I have reduced our carbon foot print as much as or more than most.

Now if as I am told GW goes back to the 1920's, now 80 years ago, why is HMG and the scientists only now saying anything, if the problem is so terminal why wait.
In the last 20 years HMG has closed down the Hot Rocks project for geo-thermal energy, a project developing wind farms based in Cornwall, not funded the BL mini that was doing 100 mpg in the 70's, infact the engine was only given to the Chinesse a couple of years ago with Rover.

We have a problem that appears to have been with us for years, yet HMG has done nowt, but want the public now to pull there finger out and suffer, and we wander why the public has little interest in the problem

Then all we get are graphs and charts that only interest, or are understood by people that issue them. If straight forward logical info was issued, not just flanel, the public may be interested.

If you explain how, with the USA, China, India, and Russia doing nothing,or increasing polution, the UK getting rid of platic carrier bags is going to sort out global warming and save the world, the public may take interest.

If on the other hand, what ever we do cannot stop it, why are we not planning how to live with it.

If in 1930 when we are told it started, we did nothing, so ended up the situation we have now. If to-day we do the wrong thing because we beleive we can cure it, when we as a nation cannot, we are no better than the ones that started it the problem.

If you turn round and say, by recycling plastic bags anf bottles you will reduce global warming by 5% people will respond, give them non numbers they will not.

Brian
 
Re: The data

A very sketchy composite response to Boatmike and Sgeir, for the reason at the bottom of this post.

Sgeir: The "earlier period" I referred to was 1910 to 1940. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding here. This also addresses your subsequent response.
Of course I know the data are not "yours", but it's a convenient shorthand.
The best known manipulation appears to be the now discredited "hockey stick", which made the MWP and LIA disappear. |
You are right about the population figures - I transposed the 2 - it should have bee 220 million and 300 million- and I agree that does not account for the rise in insurance claims, but that does not make insurance figures a remotely reliable proxy for global warming.
The temperature graphs are capable of sufficient resolution, even with my poor eyesight. The Northern Hemisphere graph shows about 0.45C change and the global graph shows about 0.75C change. The 66% difference seems unlikely, especially since the gobal figure includes the NH figure and that would probably point to something like double that difference. The point is that correlation between them appears suspect.

Boatmike: My reasons for saying "I have seen arguments" was one of time. I don't care what you do or don't believe, but your "If we can't identify any other cause, its must be X." case is not worthy of you or of an answer. The solar activity correlation has been documented, but again, I'm not going to search for it now. Jimi, help please.

I have just been told that SWMBO has osteonecrosis of the jaw, which adds to my not insignificant existing problems, so I don't give a FF for GW and will now dip out of this.
 
Damned Lies and Statistics

The way to a zealots heart is through slanted information.
Why is it that no matter what anyone says, someone can prove the very opposite?Then using the same information the whole thing can be turned on its head adjusted sideways and rotated to prove that the earth was always flat except at the edges.
The whole point of the thing is that it has no point.If global warming is real and has been the result of mans recent efforts then it can be reversed by mans efforts.If on the other hand it is not real and is part of the insane brigades attack on common sense then what about it?
Of all the things that worry me about life on this rock as we hurtle through space GW or the lack of GW is so far down the list that an electron microscope would be needed to see it.
I am old enough to remember that those that knew these things told us that we were all going to freeze in the near future if we didn't do something about it.Now we are all going to drown,be washed away,die of starvation,die of whatever you like.The only thing I know is that we are all doomed.
Here ends the first lesson of the gospel according to Ed.
Now on a lighter note who's going to be the first to see that I am thick or just a zealot(why is it that the anti's are thick but the pro's aren't?)
 
Re: Non Blind denial

No I do not mean that Webcraft, you have missed my point. I really thought you were a bit more intelligent than just to throw a non-positive comment away. It really goes to prove the argument about entrenched opinions about the scientific debate, which really has no absolute proof either way, & even if it does - so what.

What I said was the whole global warming debate is not the issue that Joe public is interested in, & in any case it will become a non-issue if we have proper leadership. Not the crap that is dished out like today by GB. What nobody has explained is how we get to an 80% reduction in green house gases in 42 years?
Get rid of all transport, power stations & manufacturing etc.?

Lets get real & have a sensible debate on what we/government are going to do to bring down pollution. I really cannot be arsed if there is global warming or not, because without some trusted leadership on explaining the positive ideas that we have, then we will get nowhere.

The government have totally missed the plot in my view, along with all the negative press there has been, as usual lots of rhetoric but no solid proposals apart from lets put up taxes to pay for it- Pay for what? is all I want to know.

As for the comment about my toys I really feel that is below even your brainless whit. You know nothing about my lifestyle, or me, so these type of comments are total unnecessary, in particular as you have taken the sentence completely out of context.

poter
 
Re: Damned Lies and Statistics

How about a starting point,

What is the UK carbon foot print, and what is the global carbon footprint?

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top