News59 mins ago
Extinction Rebellion Are Marching Today............
96 Answers
...........here in Manchester. I've got my poster ready and I'm going to greet them. My poster reads:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED
That should raise a few heckles!
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED
That should raise a few heckles!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT4 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling from 2002 through mid 2015, then this warming pause ended with a large El Nino event starting late 2015. The average of two analysis of satellite data gives a trend from 1979 to Nov. 2017 of 0.13 ºC/decade, which is less than half of the corresponding trend of 0.27 ºC/decade of the climate models. The mild warming of about 0.7 ºC over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
https:/
FACT: The HadCRUT4 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling from 2002 through mid 2015, then this warming pause ended with a large El Nino event starting late 2015. The average of two analysis of satellite data gives a trend from 1979 to Nov. 2017 of 0.13 ºC/decade, which is less than half of the corresponding trend of 0.27 ºC/decade of the climate models. The mild warming of about 0.7 ºC over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
https:/
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.
//Do you actually believe that liberals are best referred to as "it"?//
I have learned that it is best not to gender specific when addressing our libby community. After all one never can be sure of how they are identifying from day to day in their confused self image, 360 degree, all bases covered, open heart, closed mind existence.
Animal, Vegetable, Miserable ?
I have learned that it is best not to gender specific when addressing our libby community. After all one never can be sure of how they are identifying from day to day in their confused self image, 360 degree, all bases covered, open heart, closed mind existence.
Animal, Vegetable, Miserable ?
Statements made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been used to put
pressure on governments to formulate policies in response to the perceived threat of the climate change resulting from
a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol proposed by the United Nations calls for industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by five percent from 1990 levels by the year 2012. The enormity of the
perceived economic consequences of this has led to intense arguments between governments over the appropriateness of
reduction targets. But the real reason behind the failure to agree on a global climate treaty is disagreement on tradeoffs
between the economic and environmental risks involved.
Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface
temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites
support this. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, long before industrialization, but historical records
show no acceleration in sea level rise in the twentieth century. Increases in carbon dioxide appear to pose no immediate
danger to the planet. The gas is not a pollutant.
An understanding of global warming hinges on the answers to certain key questions. Is global climate warming? If
so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? The task of
answering these questions is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science. The
confusion has given rise to several fallacies or misconceptions. These myths and misconceptions, and how they relate to
the above questions, are explained. Although the future state of global climate is uncertain, there is no reason to believe
that catastrophic change is underway. The atmosphere may warm due to human activity, but if it does, the expected change
is unlikely to be much more than 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. Even the climate models promoted by the IPCC
do not suggest that catastrophic change is occurring. They suggest that increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give rise
to a warmer and wetter climate in most places; in particular, warmer nights and warmer winters. Generally, higher latitudes
would warm more than lower latitudes. This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly
a major threat. A more likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would
be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions,
we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health.
C. R. DE FREITAS
School of Geography and Environmental Science
https:/
pressure on governments to formulate policies in response to the perceived threat of the climate change resulting from
a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol proposed by the United Nations calls for industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by five percent from 1990 levels by the year 2012. The enormity of the
perceived economic consequences of this has led to intense arguments between governments over the appropriateness of
reduction targets. But the real reason behind the failure to agree on a global climate treaty is disagreement on tradeoffs
between the economic and environmental risks involved.
Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface
temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites
support this. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, long before industrialization, but historical records
show no acceleration in sea level rise in the twentieth century. Increases in carbon dioxide appear to pose no immediate
danger to the planet. The gas is not a pollutant.
An understanding of global warming hinges on the answers to certain key questions. Is global climate warming? If
so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? The task of
answering these questions is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science. The
confusion has given rise to several fallacies or misconceptions. These myths and misconceptions, and how they relate to
the above questions, are explained. Although the future state of global climate is uncertain, there is no reason to believe
that catastrophic change is underway. The atmosphere may warm due to human activity, but if it does, the expected change
is unlikely to be much more than 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. Even the climate models promoted by the IPCC
do not suggest that catastrophic change is occurring. They suggest that increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give rise
to a warmer and wetter climate in most places; in particular, warmer nights and warmer winters. Generally, higher latitudes
would warm more than lower latitudes. This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly
a major threat. A more likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would
be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions,
we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health.
C. R. DE FREITAS
School of Geography and Environmental Science
https:/
Togo, instead of quoting at length from the climate-change denial website FriendsofScience.org, why not check whether it is biased or not.
“Strong on Pseudo-science”
https:/
"Friends" of Science (FoS) is a global warming denialist pressure group based in Calgary, Canada.
https:/
"FoS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”
https:/
Try to find the same in ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’ or some other peer-reviewed journals. Instead of unmonitored propaganda from your favourite right-wing, climate-denying big oil-funded websites.
So, on to New Judge
// I understand perfectly how statistical analysis works; I understand about the principle of confidence limits; I understand its advantages and most importantly I understand its potential shortcomings.// @22.27
// Conversely, we have results which demonstrate with 5% certainty that a certain proposition is not true. // @22.27
This is simply not true. It is a travesty of the real situation. The 5% shows no definite conclusion. It absolutely does not demonstrate with any certainty that the proposition is false.
There are probably not more than a dozen people on here who can understand the depth of New Judge's mendacity in this , but I'll try to explain with a simplistic example
Imagine that a world champion darts player throws 100 darts aiming for a particular spot on the dartboard. Each is removed before the next throw.
We see the results of the throws on a screen. 95% of them are clustered around double top, the other five are randomly spread around the board.
Those five are outliers and carry no worthwhile information. They do not show that the darts player was aiming for something other than double-top
New Judge is claiming that those five can be used to prove that the darts player was aiming for the bullseye.
The evidence does not show that at all. For someone who claims to understand statistical analysis this interpretation is at best highly misleading and at worst demonstrates intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.
You know the famous quote from Yevgeny Zamyatin
“Don't forget that we lawyers, we're a higher breed of intellect, and so it's our privilege to lie. It's as clear as day. Animals can't even imagine lying: if you were to find yourself among some wild islanders, they too would only speak the truth until they learned about European culture.”
“Strong on Pseudo-science”
https:/
"Friends" of Science (FoS) is a global warming denialist pressure group based in Calgary, Canada.
https:/
"FoS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”
https:/
Try to find the same in ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’ or some other peer-reviewed journals. Instead of unmonitored propaganda from your favourite right-wing, climate-denying big oil-funded websites.
So, on to New Judge
// I understand perfectly how statistical analysis works; I understand about the principle of confidence limits; I understand its advantages and most importantly I understand its potential shortcomings.// @22.27
// Conversely, we have results which demonstrate with 5% certainty that a certain proposition is not true. // @22.27
This is simply not true. It is a travesty of the real situation. The 5% shows no definite conclusion. It absolutely does not demonstrate with any certainty that the proposition is false.
There are probably not more than a dozen people on here who can understand the depth of New Judge's mendacity in this , but I'll try to explain with a simplistic example
Imagine that a world champion darts player throws 100 darts aiming for a particular spot on the dartboard. Each is removed before the next throw.
We see the results of the throws on a screen. 95% of them are clustered around double top, the other five are randomly spread around the board.
Those five are outliers and carry no worthwhile information. They do not show that the darts player was aiming for something other than double-top
New Judge is claiming that those five can be used to prove that the darts player was aiming for the bullseye.
The evidence does not show that at all. For someone who claims to understand statistical analysis this interpretation is at best highly misleading and at worst demonstrates intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.
You know the famous quote from Yevgeny Zamyatin
“Don't forget that we lawyers, we're a higher breed of intellect, and so it's our privilege to lie. It's as clear as day. Animals can't even imagine lying: if you were to find yourself among some wild islanders, they too would only speak the truth until they learned about European culture.”
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles77 mins ago
ChatterBank94 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles124 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles148 mins ago
ChatterBank157 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.