global warming again

[jlawrence]

Consensus. Hmmmmm.
From what I can gather the consensus is based on computer modelling which is flawed.
Now yes, that is a big sweeping statement but none the less it is true.

The computer models were ask to take us back 50 years and predict where the climate etc would be now. What did they come up with - nowt like what we've currently got. Unfortunately I can't link to where I read that as I've lost the link. The models are flawed.
I'm not saying climate change ain't happening as I believe it actually is.
What I'm saying is that the scientists really don't have a f'in clue as to what is happening or what will happen. Why don't they say this - well simply because they are believing the computer modelling. The computers spit out data and the scientists analyse it. If that data is wrong then so will the scientists conclusions. Out of all the climatologists there aren't actually that many involved in running the actual computer models. I have a distinct dislike for computer modelling which applies a human fudge factor in order to derive the result that they are expecting to see - this isn't science it's a con.

The problem is we don't really understand what will happen when the CO2 levels get higher.
Correct. But we are believing the scientists (who in turn are believing the models) that it'll be catastrophic.

In the cold light of day we have too many humans on this planet for it to be sustainable. Populations need reducing on e way or another. The various governments are never going to come to an agreement on climate change before it's way too late so it looks likely that we'll get the population reduction that we need to live on into the future.

 

[MikeG.]

What I'm saying is that the scientists really don't have a f'in clue as to what is happening or what will happen. Why don't they say this.

Because it isn't anything like true. Remotely. In fact it is disappointingly stupid of you to suggest that they don't have a f'in clue.

All predictions are given within a range. The climate change predictions made over the last 12 to 15 years have all proved to fall within the given ranges, but right at the top, or to exceed the highest predicted figures. In other words, we are facing worst-case scenarios with almost all of the predictions. Now, the fact that the computer modelling can't be perfect (because no modelling can be perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be modelling) is no reason for saying the scientists don't know what they are talking about. They do. And they are scared.

Mike

 

[big soft moose]

of course it doesnt absolutely follow that man made climate change is a fact but by the time there is absolute proof it will be too late to avert.

True I'm afraid. By the way BSM, have you seen my post about birds? What is your opinion?

Roy.

Answered on tother thread

 

[Argee]

of course it doesnt absolutely follow that man made climate change is a fact but by the time there is absolute proof it will be too late to avert.

Which assumes, BSM, that the "absolute proof" will be that which you seek to prove.

Nothing personal here, I assure you, but facts, to me, are either present or historic. I can't know of any "facts" in the future - I hear predictions, but they're not facts.

BTW, I'm not a member of the Flat Earth Society and I'm aware enough to understand (most of) the well-known arguments, but a fact is only a fact when it's proved to be so. The vast majority of the current debate relies upon predictions being accepted as facts, but surely, by now, there are enough historical reasons for anyone to work out why this singular approach is flawed.

IOW, I may not know any of the answers, but I don't claim to.

Ray

 

[wobblycogs]

I don't necessarily fully believe the models either but there are some pieces of data that are water tight.

For example it would be damn near impossible to argue that there hasn't been a rise in CO2 levels. We have direct observation, tree rings, ice cores etc etc and all paint the same picture. The conclusion is that the rise has been caused by human activity which while hard to prove conclusively (isotope ratios could probably give some evidence) is pretty much a given unless someone can come up with a good reason why a natural process would suddenly start releaseing a lot of extra carbon.

The conclusion that CO2 acts as a green house gas is also pretty indisputable, we can see on Venus and Mars what a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere does. Mars is very cold but still warmer than would otherwise be expected due to it's thin CO2 atmostphere. Venus has an atmostphere that is about a thick as earth and it's the hottest planet in the solar system. Plenty of lab studies also show CO2 acting as a green house gas.

Just combining those two pieces of evidence leads us to the conclusion that more CO2 means a generally warmer atmosphere. It's not a huge leap to therefore conclude that the weather will be more severe and that some or all of the frozen places on earth will melt. The models are trying to show us how GW affect us, in what order and over what time scale.


As an aside and from a really geeky chemistry point of view we need to be really thankful that the CO2 is a linear molecule. If it was bent, like water, we would be totally stuffed as it would act as a much stronger green house gas. The shape also explains why methane is such a strong green house gas but fortunately for us methane doesn't last in the atmostphere for long.

 

[Digit]

I have followed this debate for years jl and for every anti I can quote a pro, and for every pro I can quote an anti, so consensus? No! And I fear that the warmist's insistence on that does not help their case. I can even remember the Russian plans to melt the polar ice cap to prevent the 'forthcoming ice age' and the manner in which the idea was embraced with the same enthusuiasm as the current ideas.
One speaker was denied a platform at Copenhagen because he disagreed with the accepted view, so he published anyway. He has been studying sea currents and Polar Bear pops for thirty years and claims that the warming of the arctic is due to changes in sea currents. a la present flow of the GS.
Here's more contradictory views from Global reseach CA. I don't know if they are right or wrong, but as you point out, the models are flawed, as suggested here.

There is also admission by several intellectually honest climatologists that their predictive models are flawed. Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona, two very prominent climate modellers, recently admitted that the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (as in the fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow) are wrong. In a recent interview Russell said, “It's not ice melt, but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of man-made warming on polar ice melt.” Now that’s very interesting.

When professors Toggweiler and Russell reprogrammed their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator, then back towards it again, the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the recent Arctic warming.

Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change "a drop in the bucket." His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

Kenneth Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

Roy.

 

[big soft moose]

Which assumes, BSM, that the "absolute proof" will be that which you seek to prove.

Absolutely - but if i'm wrong and anthropogenic climate change doesnt happen then very little harm will have been done, after all fossil fuels are a finite resource s we need to prepare to live without them eventually anyway

but if those who deny it is happening are wrong the consequences will be catastrophic and by the time the "absolute proof" is available it would be too late to act

of course no one can absolutely predic the future but we can balance probabilities and risks and take intelligent action based on the risk assement.

 

[Digit]

Absolutely Wink - but if i'm wrong and anthropogenic climate change doesnt happen then very little harm will have been done, after all fossil fuels are a finite resource s we need to prepare to live without them eventually anyway

Unless of course the alternative scenario proves to be correct and that an ice age is the next scene, when we might need every bit of CO2 we can conjure up. Even the Met's graph shows temps down every year since 96

Roy.

 

[big soft moose]

Absolutely Wink - but if i'm wrong and anthropogenic climate change doesnt happen then very little harm will have been done, after all fossil fuels are a finite resource s we need to prepare to live without them eventually anyway

Unless of course the alternative scenario proves to be correct and that an ice age is the next scene, when we might need every bit of CO2 we can conjure up. Even the Met's graph shows temps down every year since 96

Roy.

in the unlikely event that that happens we will still have the fossil fuels to burn, in addition to the other forms of energy generation and better insulated houses etc developed in the mean time so its still a win win - tho in a full blown ice age we'll be screwed anyway.

 

[jlawrence]

BSM - correct they are a finite resource and at the moment we have no 'real' alternative for them. We should be preserving what we've got.

Mike, at least one lot of the scientists don't have a clue what is happening - either those in favour of the current 'consensus' or those against. You can't have it both ways - oh, ain't that exactly what I'm doing though.
Perhaps I'd be more accurate to say some scientists don't have a f'in clue what's happening or will happen. I don't pretend to know the answer, but what I do know is that data which includes a 'human' fudge factor ain't reliable data.

If you want to see weird data take a look at that link which was posted earlier. Take a close look at the graphs and you'll see something a bit odd. The zero point keeps moving. Now it could be that I simply don't understand what the graphs are showing - other than trends - but to my mind deltaMSL is the rate of change of sea level. The zero point cannot move. Is the data accurate ? it's supposed to be measured data - data measured in 2004 is still data measured in 2004 even if we're in 2010, the measurement hasn't changed and nor had the rate of change unless someone moved reference point.

I do believe something is happening. Whether we should try to do anything about it (even if we could) is another matter - I don't know whether we should or not.
If we don't do anything then conditions could be aweful in the future. But there will be a lot less people then (cos many many millions will have died) and then things will begin to improve again.
If we do do something then conditions could be a lot better in the future. But there will be that many people that life will be intolerable.

Which is the best outcome ? I don't know.

 

[devonwoody]

BSM
I think we could put enough s. it up there these days to stop an ice age with our industrial capacity?

 

[MikeG.]

I have followed this debate for years jl and for every anti I can quote a pro, and for every pro I can quote an anti,Roy.

You've not followed it objectively though Roy. You have made up your mind then sought opinions that support your viewpoint. There is, in fact concensus. Concensus isn't unanimity, otherwise the implication would be that having just one person like you on the planet means there couldn't be concensus. The fact is that the concensus amongst climate scientists is that man-made climate change is reality. There is no longer any great 50/50 debate amongst scientists (that happened 20 to 30 years ago)......the nay-sayers are so small in number as to be negligible. Most of them have connections to oil companies.

The frustrating thing about dealing with anthropomorphic climate change deniers is that it is like talking to holocaust deniers. Whatever the evidence you will get a slippery non-answer and another spurious non-point raised.

You could all stop this immediately, and turn me from my views instantly, if you could explain to me how we could have a 50% increase in the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without it making any difference to our climate.

For those that want the figures, that is 275ppm pre industrial revolution, 400ppm now.

Mike

 

[MikeG.]

Even the Met's graph shows temps down every year since 96 Roy.

Where for Roy? Our little corner of the planet? Do me a favour......go and do some reading. So what if we have had 10 cold years (which we haven't actually, but facts aren't important to you)? Utterly irrelevant. The important thing is what is happening to the temperature of the whole globe. Could you go and find out what has happened to global temperature numbers in the decade, and report back to us? Thanks Roy.

Mike

 

[big soft moose]

BSM
I think we could put enough s. it up there these days to stop an ice age with our industrial capacity?

we probably couldnt actually even if we burnt all the fossil fuel remaining but even if we could we would have to know 100% that the ice age was coming and that isnt what the majority of climate scientists think.

the point remains that taking measures to use less energy - e.g insulating houses properly in new builds and retro fitting to old builds will benefit us even if the climate does get colder - as will devising new or more efficient ways of generating energy

incidentally your above post appear to indicate that you do believe that our industrial out put is warming the planet - contrary to your earlier postings :duno:

 

[big soft moose]

You could all stop this immediately, and turn me from my views instantly, if you could explain to me how we could have a 50% increase in the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without it making any difference to our climate.

For those that want the figures, that is 275ppm pre industrial revolution, 400ppm now.

Mike

my suspicion is that the denier answer is either that your figures are wrong (they arent but who cares about facts) or that the upswing in carbon is nothing to do with industrilisation but just a natural phenonema caused coincidence

the more radical ones will then go on to assasinate your character and suggest you are personally to blame for third world poverty

The other forum I (and roy) are a members of - www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk has had this debate so often (in fact they have a whole board dedicated to climate change) that ive more or less given up trying to convince deniers - its not possible , as someone said higher up its like an inteligent person having a debate with a scientologist

 

[jlawrence]

Erm how about weather is measured in years, climates in decades.
What has happened in one decade is almost irrelevant to an overall trend.

I do actually believe that things are warming - the question is why ? and are we actually to blame ?

Please don't start quoting the 275ppm pre-revolution and 400ppm co2 levels now at me, unless you're also going to quote the levels prior to that during the 1800's etc - wasn't it somewhere around 420ppm in the early 1800's and supposedly even higher than that way back.
Is our climate the same as it was in the early 1800's - I don't know. If the CO2 levels did indeed drop by 50% in during the 1800's then what were the effects felt then.

Personally, I think if anything it is the rate of increase that matters.

As I said, I believe something is happening.
Is it man made ? - I'm yet to be convinced.
Are we helping it along ? - probably.
Should we attempt to do anything about it ? - I don't think it really matters either way, the earth will live on for a while yet and mankind will either adapt or wither away.

Should we continue burning fossil fuels at the rate that we currently are ? No I don't believe we should. They are a finite resource and I'm far from convinced that we'll have a viable alternative before they run out.

As for the nay-sayers being allied with the oil companies, that may be so but equally the others are allied with the governments. Politics and science don't mix well, but scientists have to be funded from somewhere.

Please don't compare climate change discussions with the holocaust. The holocaust happened, climate change is happening - note the difference in tense.


Why are we even discussing this ????????
To my mind there is only one reason that this is even up for discussion. That is that the majority of climate scientists are government funded and many people have a great mistrust in anything the governments do - quite rightly imho - so they dubt what is being said by bodies they are funding.
Also climate science (in the terms that know it) is a young science and the outcomes do change over the years - we're not talking about over 100's of years we're talking about changes in position over 10's of years. So some people can actually remember when the talk was of other extremes. I think there is a lot that the various scientists aren't telling us - why, perhaps they've been told by whoever is paying the bill not to tell ? - there are plenty of things out there for which there simply aren't any answers being given ?
It could well be that it is just because it is a 'new' science and they just don't know the answers yet. But the suspicion is that someone isn't telling the whole story - and I believe that suspicion is due to them being government funded. I'm convinced that if politicians and governments weren't involved then the scepticism would be way way less.

 

[Digit]

You've not followed it objectively though Roy. You have made up your mind then sought opinions that support your viewpoint.

That is not so!
I have made up my mind that there is more to it than simply CO2 levels, that it is more complex than that.
I will accept your challenge, with an open mind as I do not claim to know the answer, and give you a challenge in return.
Show me a single post where I have denied global climate change as a personal belief!

Roy.

 

[Digit]

Right Mike, I had to look this one up because it was not on my personal data base as i was not looking for anything I had made may mind up on as you suggested.
My data base contains pros and cons, as I pointed out earlier.

http://www.thisobserver.co.uk/2009/07/w ... falls.html

Are you accepting my challenge?

Roy.

 

[jlawrence]

Roy, I believe you're correct in that there is a lot more to it than just CO2.
I've made my mind up that there is enough data to support 'something is happening' - Things are changing, but in what direction and with what consequence I am far from convinced.
I think the data supports that at the moment things are warming - should we be attempting to change that ?
Are we actually to blame ? or are we merely inconsequential ? I don't pretend to know the answer to that.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter a monkeys what we do or don't do. Humans will either adapt or won't - either way mother Earth doesn't really care.
Humans do believe that they have the ability to change the outcome - whether we do or not I don't know, but if we don't try we'll never know. I'm just not convinced that we should even try.

 

[Digit]

I've made my mind up that there is enough data to support 'something is happening'

Despite Mike's comments that is exactly my stance, and the reason my data base contains pros and cons is so that I can study various opinions, and the fact that there are various opinions infers that no consencus exists.
I'm 70 this year and I don't need the Met the CRU or the IPPC to tell me that the climate has changed.
But I still doubt that we can blame it on just CO2.

Roy.