Travel1 min ago
Global Warming and Climate Change
54 Answers
According to NASA scientists in Maryland, the polar ice caps, far from shrinking, are actually increasing in size this year.
Some facts to prove the Global Warming myth is just another stealth tax increase tactic.
To the north of Canada, ice now covers two million square kilometres more than it did the past three winters and is between 10mm and 20mm thicker than last year.
In the Alps, they've just had their best snowfall for 20 years.
Climate Change?? regarding our own snowy Easter, I remember a rhyme we were taught at school that went like this, "March winds doth blow, and we shall have snow."
Some facts to prove the Global Warming myth is just another stealth tax increase tactic.
To the north of Canada, ice now covers two million square kilometres more than it did the past three winters and is between 10mm and 20mm thicker than last year.
In the Alps, they've just had their best snowfall for 20 years.
Climate Change?? regarding our own snowy Easter, I remember a rhyme we were taught at school that went like this, "March winds doth blow, and we shall have snow."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
The point, which I probably haven't been clear on is this:
We cannot affect natural CO2 production.
CO2 is held both in the atmophere, but also in the oceans, which act as a carbon sink. Without man, the atmosphere still could not support the levels of CO2 except for the fact that the oceans hold it.
Imagine the oceans are at 9/10 capacity with just naturally occuring CO2. That is the starting position. Remember, we cannot affect natural CO2 production.
Now we want to add a load more C02 into the sink, the equivalent of 2/10. If we add too much, it will end up in the atmosphere where we know it will cause climate change.
That's the problem. It's not that the natural stuff doesn't contribute, it's that that we can't do anything about that but the stuff we can do something about is too much for the system.
We cannot affect natural CO2 production.
CO2 is held both in the atmophere, but also in the oceans, which act as a carbon sink. Without man, the atmosphere still could not support the levels of CO2 except for the fact that the oceans hold it.
Imagine the oceans are at 9/10 capacity with just naturally occuring CO2. That is the starting position. Remember, we cannot affect natural CO2 production.
Now we want to add a load more C02 into the sink, the equivalent of 2/10. If we add too much, it will end up in the atmosphere where we know it will cause climate change.
That's the problem. It's not that the natural stuff doesn't contribute, it's that that we can't do anything about that but the stuff we can do something about is too much for the system.
Hmm, maybe someone can tell me how they recorded the temperature 500 years ago.
How about 100 years ago?
How accurate were those figures?
How can you tell me that what we are seeing is not a natural process when we do not actually know what the temperatures were 500 years ago.
Currently, we cannot predict what the temperature will be tomorrow, next week or even next year - but we are expected to believe scientists when they tell us that they can predict what will happen in 100 years time!
Sorry, but on this subject I am with AOG and Loosehead
How about 100 years ago?
How accurate were those figures?
How can you tell me that what we are seeing is not a natural process when we do not actually know what the temperatures were 500 years ago.
Currently, we cannot predict what the temperature will be tomorrow, next week or even next year - but we are expected to believe scientists when they tell us that they can predict what will happen in 100 years time!
Sorry, but on this subject I am with AOG and Loosehead
Vic, there is no dispute that CO2 in the atmophere causes a greenhouse effect (though there is undoubtedly dispute over the specifics of what this will be manifested).
The levels of carbon isotopes trapped in things like ice and tree trunks and corals is not controvertial and can be cross referenced against each other and tell us a great deal about temperatures and general conditions.
The fact that particular isotopes are related to human actiivity - the burning of fossil fuels - is again not controvertial.
We don't need to know what the precise temperatures were 500 years ago to have a very good understanding of what is happening now, and fortunately, the IPCC climate models that tell us climate change is a reality don't require such data to work.
Happily (or rather unhappily) the data from all those old models also supports the case for antropogenic global warming. There's a good free source on the methodologies here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
The levels of carbon isotopes trapped in things like ice and tree trunks and corals is not controvertial and can be cross referenced against each other and tell us a great deal about temperatures and general conditions.
The fact that particular isotopes are related to human actiivity - the burning of fossil fuels - is again not controvertial.
We don't need to know what the precise temperatures were 500 years ago to have a very good understanding of what is happening now, and fortunately, the IPCC climate models that tell us climate change is a reality don't require such data to work.
Happily (or rather unhappily) the data from all those old models also supports the case for antropogenic global warming. There's a good free source on the methodologies here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
The IPCC give details of possible warming changes for the year 2100 with an error of 400%.
How would you like to buy a house from me - cost is between �100,000 and �400,000.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvir onmentalfuture.html
How would you like to buy a house from me - cost is between �100,000 and �400,000.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvir onmentalfuture.html
Michael Crichton is sadly deluded about climate change and his book 'State of Confusion' lives up to its title but not in a way the author intends.
There are extensive online resources giving step by step debunkings of Crichton's claims, including the specific claim mentioned and one which is, in any case, not even accurate reportage - the actual range of figures is about 60% around the mean, representing an error of 3.6 degrees.
This is obviously still substantial, but given that it is based on a 100 year projection into the future which has a great many variables is actually not nearly as substantial as Crichton wants to present it and in any case is a deviation of precisely the kind of scale one would expect for pretty much *any* future projection and not particularly noteworthy outside of a methodological point (which indeed it is in IPCC literature).
Bring it down to 50 years and that error is smaller still.
Debunks of Crichton:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion-i i-the-climatologists-return/
http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publicati ons/PDF_Papers/Perry2003.pdf
00:05 Thu 27th Mar 2008
There are extensive online resources giving step by step debunkings of Crichton's claims, including the specific claim mentioned and one which is, in any case, not even accurate reportage - the actual range of figures is about 60% around the mean, representing an error of 3.6 degrees.
This is obviously still substantial, but given that it is based on a 100 year projection into the future which has a great many variables is actually not nearly as substantial as Crichton wants to present it and in any case is a deviation of precisely the kind of scale one would expect for pretty much *any* future projection and not particularly noteworthy outside of a methodological point (which indeed it is in IPCC literature).
Bring it down to 50 years and that error is smaller still.
Debunks of Crichton:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion-i i-the-climatologists-return/
http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publicati ons/PDF_Papers/Perry2003.pdf
00:05 Thu 27th Mar 2008
AOG, surely the rhyme is 'The north wind doth blow and we shall have snow...'?
http://www.rhymes.org.uk/the_north_wind_doth_b low.htm
http://www.rhymes.org.uk/the_north_wind_doth_b low.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/c richton-thriller-state-of-fear.html
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/20050 3/michael-crichton-state-of-fear.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/article s/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
http://www.helium.com/items/414416-state-globa l-warming-debunked
Incidentally, Crichton got the 400% from Pat Michaels, a well known climate change denier. This is him:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat _Michaels
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/20050 3/michael-crichton-state-of-fear.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/article s/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
http://www.helium.com/items/414416-state-globa l-warming-debunked
Incidentally, Crichton got the 400% from Pat Michaels, a well known climate change denier. This is him:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat _Michaels
so he ha a phd in Ecological Climatology and you don't think he has a valid point?
Sadly, of course he has to get his money from the industries as no government will give money to fund research in to proving that it is an exaggeration.
I don't think that anyone would disagree with the sentiment that the climate is constantly changing - but how much of it is due to humans and how much of it is natural is the debate.
WE are spending billions of pounds every year on something that scientists can not show for definite will occur.
Sadly, of course he has to get his money from the industries as no government will give money to fund research in to proving that it is an exaggeration.
I don't think that anyone would disagree with the sentiment that the climate is constantly changing - but how much of it is due to humans and how much of it is natural is the debate.
WE are spending billions of pounds every year on something that scientists can not show for definite will occur.
Jake - a very good analogy.
There have been articles about the following in recent times and about how dangerous they are:
Red wine, beer, peas, beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, etc etc. Do I eat / drink the aforementioned? Yes.
Waldo - No you are missing the point - what change in climate is due to humans? That is not a provable fact but at best a guestimate.
There have been articles about the following in recent times and about how dangerous they are:
Red wine, beer, peas, beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, etc etc. Do I eat / drink the aforementioned? Yes.
Waldo - No you are missing the point - what change in climate is due to humans? That is not a provable fact but at best a guestimate.
Hiya. I have to admit I'm not convinced about mankind's input to climate change. The earth heats and cools on its own and nothing we do, or don't do, will change that.
10,000 years ago Britian was covered in ice, which in the history of this planet, is a blink of the eye.
Europe 8, 000 BC
10,000 years ago Britian was covered in ice, which in the history of this planet, is a blink of the eye.
Europe 8, 000 BC
"Waldo - No you are missing the point - what change in climate is due to humans? That is not a provable fact but at best a guestimate."<i/>
Ah, okay; that's not what I thought you were saying. So you accept that we know how much CO2 production is down to human activity, and that we know that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Are you disputing that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to climate change, then?
Or does your objection rest solely on the fact that no credible scientist would be stupid enough to predict an exact amount of climate change in a system with so many unknown variables, but instead give a range of responses depending on different scenarios?
Ah, okay; that's not what I thought you were saying. So you accept that we know how much CO2 production is down to human activity, and that we know that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Are you disputing that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to climate change, then?
Or does your objection rest solely on the fact that no credible scientist would be stupid enough to predict an exact amount of climate change in a system with so many unknown variables, but instead give a range of responses depending on different scenarios?
People are right to be sceptical about what scientists claim. It was scientists who told us 30 years ago that we'd all have robot butlers and be flying to work in personal hover suits by now.
Anyway, as long as China continues to open about 20 coal fired power stations every week an extra tax on chelsea tractors isn't going to do alot to save the planet, and the politicians know that.
Anyway, as long as China continues to open about 20 coal fired power stations every week an extra tax on chelsea tractors isn't going to do alot to save the planet, and the politicians know that.
Sorry about that jno, you are quite correct it is the Noth Wind, not the March Wind. But still we do tend to have North Winds even in March.
All round a very good and informitive debate, but the conclusion is we do not know, nobody does.
If Man could control the climate, then there would be no Deserts, and no Floods.
All round a very good and informitive debate, but the conclusion is we do not know, nobody does.
If Man could control the climate, then there would be no Deserts, and no Floods.
That might be your conclusion, but it's not mine nor, very much more importantly, the IPCC's.
That human activity is responsible for the production of CO2 necessary for effecting global climate change is known beyond the shadow of the merest scintilla of error. Numerous attempts have been made to falsify the IPCC models but they actually validate them. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model -data-comparison/)
The only bit we don't know (and would be foolish to attempt to state as it's not possible to know all the variables) is precisely and specifically what will happen in terms of temperature rise if we carry on the way we are now.
Those who say this means 'we just don't know are' like a man falling from a plane without a chute who works out that depending on what he lands on, he'll either break both legs, both legs, both arms and his spine, or just burst like a ripe melon and this therefore means that it's not possible to say if the landing will hurt...
That human activity is responsible for the production of CO2 necessary for effecting global climate change is known beyond the shadow of the merest scintilla of error. Numerous attempts have been made to falsify the IPCC models but they actually validate them. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model -data-comparison/)
The only bit we don't know (and would be foolish to attempt to state as it's not possible to know all the variables) is precisely and specifically what will happen in terms of temperature rise if we carry on the way we are now.
Those who say this means 'we just don't know are' like a man falling from a plane without a chute who works out that depending on what he lands on, he'll either break both legs, both legs, both arms and his spine, or just burst like a ripe melon and this therefore means that it's not possible to say if the landing will hurt...
