Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. 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.
I have two qualifications, a law degree followed by counselling and psychotherapy. I spent ten years or so teaching law before qualifying as a therapist, and the principle of a fair trial, offering both sides and only convicting beyond reasonable doubt is essential in all civilised societies. Both my parents are barristers so have a lifetime's familiarity besides my own studies, and they have to become experts on all sorts of technical stuff by their own efforts depending on what case they are assigned to.
As a result they have to source a wide area of unrelated knowledge, which is then in turn fed to a jury, totally unqualified in nature, who are still allowed and accepted to be able to assess any properly presented case. I also love science and have read it all my life, only switching after a year of A levels as my maths couldn't handle that side of things. I did however manage statistics as I can arrange figures but not manipulate them.
The one sided trial and subsequent prosecution of mankind for GHG emissions and following alleged results is a travesty of every single legal principle yet allowed to continue worldwide unabated. The vast uncertainties, growing with every new study of solar and oceanic changes affecting climate mean we should never have spent a single cent or penny on 'climate change mitigation' which is all taken from other immediately worthy causes including people's energy bills, third world aid funds etc, as we simply aren't sure enough by any stretch.
A lawyer and a jury rely on expert witnesses. Although beso appears to know many of mine personally at least I have not relied on articles by journalists or Greenpeace for my data, most in fact comes from universities and as they do not support the IPCC agenda are all collectively ignored by the politicians and willing media. They're all online however and if you look you discover the uncertainty is so great the figures that make up world temperature or sea level have so many local and measurement variations they were only designed for coastguard services and short term weather forecasts, trying to extend them more than months ahead while they never could is sheer lunacy and this is strongly implied by the IPCC caveats. Everyone can read a graph and compare sea level figures for the last and next century, and understand simple findings, the complex mechanisms behind the findings are trusted to be worked out by the experts, as long as they cover themselves by explaining the uncertainty behind them which many do not unless you check for yourself. Collect the total of studies and far from a consensus they basically contradict each other infinitely, as the system was never designed to cope with such precise scrutiny as it stands. You can't make world policies on such a basis.
As a result they have to source a wide area of unrelated knowledge, which is then in turn fed to a jury, totally unqualified in nature, who are still allowed and accepted to be able to assess any properly presented case. I also love science and have read it all my life, only switching after a year of A levels as my maths couldn't handle that side of things. I did however manage statistics as I can arrange figures but not manipulate them.
The one sided trial and subsequent prosecution of mankind for GHG emissions and following alleged results is a travesty of every single legal principle yet allowed to continue worldwide unabated. The vast uncertainties, growing with every new study of solar and oceanic changes affecting climate mean we should never have spent a single cent or penny on 'climate change mitigation' which is all taken from other immediately worthy causes including people's energy bills, third world aid funds etc, as we simply aren't sure enough by any stretch.
A lawyer and a jury rely on expert witnesses. Although beso appears to know many of mine personally at least I have not relied on articles by journalists or Greenpeace for my data, most in fact comes from universities and as they do not support the IPCC agenda are all collectively ignored by the politicians and willing media. They're all online however and if you look you discover the uncertainty is so great the figures that make up world temperature or sea level have so many local and measurement variations they were only designed for coastguard services and short term weather forecasts, trying to extend them more than months ahead while they never could is sheer lunacy and this is strongly implied by the IPCC caveats. Everyone can read a graph and compare sea level figures for the last and next century, and understand simple findings, the complex mechanisms behind the findings are trusted to be worked out by the experts, as long as they cover themselves by explaining the uncertainty behind them which many do not unless you check for yourself. Collect the total of studies and far from a consensus they basically contradict each other infinitely, as the system was never designed to cope with such precise scrutiny as it stands. You can't make world policies on such a basis.
Thank you, there is a certain logic in the way you craft the information, I wasn't certain whether it was a scientific background or not.
I adore watching the AGW/CC arguements foment and watch people get rabid about the topic whether they have the ability to put the right information across or not. I avoid getting into the fight if I can, much more interesting to watch the evolution of the argument.My own background is science, Bsc in Physics, MSc in Atmospheric Dynamics I work for a weather services provider.
I adore watching the AGW/CC arguements foment and watch people get rabid about the topic whether they have the ability to put the right information across or not. I avoid getting into the fight if I can, much more interesting to watch the evolution of the argument.My own background is science, Bsc in Physics, MSc in Atmospheric Dynamics I work for a weather services provider.
Gawd, in one way I don't blame you keeping out as it's a busman's holiday, but at least could adjudicate on a few of the figures with some direct authority as one of our expert witnesses. Of course even they often disagree, which is the very base of the 'reasonable doubt' principle.
It doesn't matter how many PhD's you've got, if something isn't certain then no one can measure it. Humans have an innate desire for answers, and sadly even the top PhD's are driven to provide them even when they really aren't able to, some know this and do to save face, while others are so determined to deliver they let stuff out way below the level of use required and the public can't usually tell the difference and rely on it all regardless.
If you look elsewhere in science medicine knows extremely well what it can and can't both diagnose, treat and cure. Patients don't need politicians to tell them what works as a few weeks or so after treatment most will find out themselves. Clearly if you have something like a stomach ulcer then before the cause was discovered you would have been treated with antacids for life, suffered severely and never be cured. One doctor wanted the answer, and poisoned himself with campylobacter to test if they caused ulcers, which is now the recognised cause and curable in many cases as a result. But before he found out everyone either didn't know the cause or blamed it on stress and excess acid.
Astrophysics is a science which changes daily, as is quantum physics. No one knows what dark matter is, even if it exists, but we know the uncertainties. Higgs bosons are the same, and again no one claims to know better. So if you look at the margins of science where knowledge is just being discovered you don't have or expect certainty. But the absolute certitude beso and millions like him hold worldwide has made something no more than a possible assertion (a climatologist called the radio once anonymously, clearly genuine as described the whole studies his department had made over the years, and admitted despite all the efforts and data they did know after taking the temperature measurements and eliminating other possible causes, the only thing left was CO2). Now he put himself out as a representative, and otherwise used the argument to promote action as he still believed there was some sort of problem, but he admitted the industry had only based a world policy on an argument from ignorance, or assumption.
Medicine is a very good example of certainty as if they know we get the results quickly. If they don't then ditto. But it extends right across science. In law the statutes are written, the rules of interpretation are written, and the case law rules are the same since courts began. There are uncertainties built in some areas, but limited in scope and all with prescribed treatments such as the appeal mechanisms. But science relates to the natural world and discoveries are often way way beyond our current ability to learn them.
Had CO2 remained stable then I reckon no one would have noticed the temperature rising in a silly way (as it hasn't), and even if some thought it a little quick to rise could only have put it down to unknown as yet natural causes. But as CO2 did rise then the hamsters got busy trying to work out the consequences of it carrying on. The 1990 IPCC 1st report had some wild and woolly figures of a 2C rise by 2010 for instance (so I'm told, I'm not reading all of that as well thanks) and guess what, Kyoto was based on the earlier reports which have since been superseded.
No one foresaw either a flat period of a few years let alone a decade, or a fall in sea levels in even a single year. Of course not, it's a complex, non-linear open system. We can't imitate it and know the sensitivity to CO2 as we've never had to before and anything based on that foundation will produce nothing but fantasy.
It doesn't matter how many PhD's you've got, if something isn't certain then no one can measure it. Humans have an innate desire for answers, and sadly even the top PhD's are driven to provide them even when they really aren't able to, some know this and do to save face, while others are so determined to deliver they let stuff out way below the level of use required and the public can't usually tell the difference and rely on it all regardless.
If you look elsewhere in science medicine knows extremely well what it can and can't both diagnose, treat and cure. Patients don't need politicians to tell them what works as a few weeks or so after treatment most will find out themselves. Clearly if you have something like a stomach ulcer then before the cause was discovered you would have been treated with antacids for life, suffered severely and never be cured. One doctor wanted the answer, and poisoned himself with campylobacter to test if they caused ulcers, which is now the recognised cause and curable in many cases as a result. But before he found out everyone either didn't know the cause or blamed it on stress and excess acid.
Astrophysics is a science which changes daily, as is quantum physics. No one knows what dark matter is, even if it exists, but we know the uncertainties. Higgs bosons are the same, and again no one claims to know better. So if you look at the margins of science where knowledge is just being discovered you don't have or expect certainty. But the absolute certitude beso and millions like him hold worldwide has made something no more than a possible assertion (a climatologist called the radio once anonymously, clearly genuine as described the whole studies his department had made over the years, and admitted despite all the efforts and data they did know after taking the temperature measurements and eliminating other possible causes, the only thing left was CO2). Now he put himself out as a representative, and otherwise used the argument to promote action as he still believed there was some sort of problem, but he admitted the industry had only based a world policy on an argument from ignorance, or assumption.
Medicine is a very good example of certainty as if they know we get the results quickly. If they don't then ditto. But it extends right across science. In law the statutes are written, the rules of interpretation are written, and the case law rules are the same since courts began. There are uncertainties built in some areas, but limited in scope and all with prescribed treatments such as the appeal mechanisms. But science relates to the natural world and discoveries are often way way beyond our current ability to learn them.
Had CO2 remained stable then I reckon no one would have noticed the temperature rising in a silly way (as it hasn't), and even if some thought it a little quick to rise could only have put it down to unknown as yet natural causes. But as CO2 did rise then the hamsters got busy trying to work out the consequences of it carrying on. The 1990 IPCC 1st report had some wild and woolly figures of a 2C rise by 2010 for instance (so I'm told, I'm not reading all of that as well thanks) and guess what, Kyoto was based on the earlier reports which have since been superseded.
No one foresaw either a flat period of a few years let alone a decade, or a fall in sea levels in even a single year. Of course not, it's a complex, non-linear open system. We can't imitate it and know the sensitivity to CO2 as we've never had to before and anything based on that foundation will produce nothing but fantasy.
David H //Here's the standard 22,000 year sea level diagram produced by many universities etc.
(I've seen the last few hundred years blown up and it's absolutely rock steady, 3.2 mm for years, 3mm and suddenly dropped in 2010 or so)//
Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
Firstly that graph comes from a creation science website and is not atttibuted to any source. But I will let that go.
More importantly it covers such a large time that one horizontal pixel is fifty years while one vertical pixel of half a metre. It is irrelevant to the discussion where we are dealing with millimetres of rise in a few years..
Then we are expected to accept you claim about having "seen it blown up". What about the link I posted to the detailed graph from the Univversity of Colorado? It completely disagrees with your assertion.
You claim it is "totally unaffected by any of the temperature variations of the last 150 regardless of up, down or sideways."
Bullsh1t. The temperature is rising and the sea level is rising. Of course it doesn't respond on a daily or even a monthly temperature because the ocean is huge and changes take a long time.
The claim that the six millimetre fall in a year was totally unexpected is utter rubbish. It is a normal fluctuation in the level and similar changes have been seen over and over again in the data. But the tern is unmistakably upwards.
(I've seen the last few hundred years blown up and it's absolutely rock steady, 3.2 mm for years, 3mm and suddenly dropped in 2010 or so)//
Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
Firstly that graph comes from a creation science website and is not atttibuted to any source. But I will let that go.
More importantly it covers such a large time that one horizontal pixel is fifty years while one vertical pixel of half a metre. It is irrelevant to the discussion where we are dealing with millimetres of rise in a few years..
Then we are expected to accept you claim about having "seen it blown up". What about the link I posted to the detailed graph from the Univversity of Colorado? It completely disagrees with your assertion.
You claim it is "totally unaffected by any of the temperature variations of the last 150 regardless of up, down or sideways."
Bullsh1t. The temperature is rising and the sea level is rising. Of course it doesn't respond on a daily or even a monthly temperature because the ocean is huge and changes take a long time.
The claim that the six millimetre fall in a year was totally unexpected is utter rubbish. It is a normal fluctuation in the level and similar changes have been seen over and over again in the data. But the tern is unmistakably upwards.
David H //The CO2 questions are spurious for two reasons, one is they are not guaranteed to go up as you say and two, science does not know the point in the atmosphere CO2 becomes saturated. It may well be near that point right now, but they don't know and never will until it's happened as no computer model can do that for them. //
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Are you expecting lumps of carbon dioxide to precipitate out of the sky? Saturatuion is not an issue in the atmosphere. It is a mixture not a solution. While carbon dioxide is added the concentration will rise.
// are the unknown level of CO2 saturation when it can no longer trap heat,//
The behaviour of carbon dioxide and radiation is precisely known from laboratory measurements. There is no practical limit to the heat trapped by the gas. Once again yo have no idea what you are talking about.
// plus the totally unknown future feedback from sea evaporation, cloud increase and dwell time. //
Not totally unknown but successfully modelled.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Are you expecting lumps of carbon dioxide to precipitate out of the sky? Saturatuion is not an issue in the atmosphere. It is a mixture not a solution. While carbon dioxide is added the concentration will rise.
// are the unknown level of CO2 saturation when it can no longer trap heat,//
The behaviour of carbon dioxide and radiation is precisely known from laboratory measurements. There is no practical limit to the heat trapped by the gas. Once again yo have no idea what you are talking about.
// plus the totally unknown future feedback from sea evaporation, cloud increase and dwell time. //
Not totally unknown but successfully modelled.
You definitely don't understand what happens with carbon dioxide when you claim that it won't definitely go up.
We burn stuff it goes into the atmosphere. I hope at least you will agree with that. At present about half the addition is being absorbed into the ocean. However the ocean can only take so much and as its temperature rises (and it IS rising) this amount will decrease.
The carbon cycle takes many thousands of years. Once released that CO2 will be around for millennia. There is in fact much more CO2 in the ocean than the atmosphere and if we need to get the level down we will have to process vast amounts of material.
It isn't a matter of changing our behaviour and letting nature quickly recover. It won't recover. There is no going back on human time scales. If CO2 proves to be the problem the science has indicated then we, or more accurately our descendents) are stuck with it.
We burn stuff it goes into the atmosphere. I hope at least you will agree with that. At present about half the addition is being absorbed into the ocean. However the ocean can only take so much and as its temperature rises (and it IS rising) this amount will decrease.
The carbon cycle takes many thousands of years. Once released that CO2 will be around for millennia. There is in fact much more CO2 in the ocean than the atmosphere and if we need to get the level down we will have to process vast amounts of material.
It isn't a matter of changing our behaviour and letting nature quickly recover. It won't recover. There is no going back on human time scales. If CO2 proves to be the problem the science has indicated then we, or more accurately our descendents) are stuck with it.
While you can accuse the those who accept the scientific modelling as not having hard evidence we have far more evidence than the deniers.
The deniers have no model whatsoever of how nothing will change despite the trillions of tons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. The assertion that nothing will happen is based on nothing more than faith born of ignorance.
Moreover every piece of so called evidence put forward by deniers and especially the cr@p by the likes of David H has been shown to be complete rubbish.
The profound ignorance of scientific principles and mechanisms is evident. The blatant lies about the data are obvious. Yet still they insist their faith should prevail as the basis for public policy.
The deniers have no model whatsoever of how nothing will change despite the trillions of tons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. The assertion that nothing will happen is based on nothing more than faith born of ignorance.
Moreover every piece of so called evidence put forward by deniers and especially the cr@p by the likes of David H has been shown to be complete rubbish.
The profound ignorance of scientific principles and mechanisms is evident. The blatant lies about the data are obvious. Yet still they insist their faith should prevail as the basis for public policy.
As an interested bystander, I'm finding all this quite amusing.
i see profoundly entrenched positions and masses of incontestable proof for each opposing opinion.
This has always been the case with scientific theories. Eminent authority executed people for asserting that the earth went round the sun.
The only thing you can say with certainty of a scientific theory is that it will be supplanted in the long term, from Phlogiston through to Newton & Einstein.
As a humble FCA, rooted in reality, I say let's follow the money.
If you're making a career in global warming, does it pay to be pro or anti?
Most of the jobs, grants and government funding go to the pros.
Sorry to digress from your enjoyable trench warfare. At least you can have a break by attacking my ignorance.
i see profoundly entrenched positions and masses of incontestable proof for each opposing opinion.
This has always been the case with scientific theories. Eminent authority executed people for asserting that the earth went round the sun.
The only thing you can say with certainty of a scientific theory is that it will be supplanted in the long term, from Phlogiston through to Newton & Einstein.
As a humble FCA, rooted in reality, I say let's follow the money.
If you're making a career in global warming, does it pay to be pro or anti?
Most of the jobs, grants and government funding go to the pros.
Sorry to digress from your enjoyable trench warfare. At least you can have a break by attacking my ignorance.
venator // i see profoundly entrenched positions and masses of incontestable proof for each opposing opinion. //
It the positions were incontestable then there would be a point to the entrenched position on both sides.
But the evidence provided by the denialists is high contestable to the point of being complete rubbish. However the denialists can't, or more likely won't, rationally and objectively consider the mertis of the case.
What more can anyone need to see this demonstrated than the ridiculous position David H has taken on the sea level data. Anyone viewing the graph published at the University of Colorado can easily see that his claims are completely unsupportable.
The quotes from so called "professionals" are easily discounted as I have done to a sample of those in this thead.
It the positions were incontestable then there would be a point to the entrenched position on both sides.
But the evidence provided by the denialists is high contestable to the point of being complete rubbish. However the denialists can't, or more likely won't, rationally and objectively consider the mertis of the case.
What more can anyone need to see this demonstrated than the ridiculous position David H has taken on the sea level data. Anyone viewing the graph published at the University of Colorado can easily see that his claims are completely unsupportable.
The quotes from so called "professionals" are easily discounted as I have done to a sample of those in this thead.
venator // This has always been the case with scientific theories. Eminent authority executed people for asserting that the earth went round the sun.
The only thing you can say with certainty of a scientific theory is that it will be supplanted in the long term, from Phlogiston through to Newton & Einstein. //
Eminent authority was not of science but the church so that is hardly a plausible parallel. Copernicus and Gallilao were the ones risking their lives.
Denigrating science is a favourite of the deniers. They point to ancient failed hypotheses and then portray the best of of modern scientific theory in the same mold.
Phlogiston dates from the seventeenth century at a time when we had barely gotten beyond Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the basis for chemistry.
Again the proposition does not hold up to scrutiny of the facts.
In fact modern fundamental scientific theory has not been supplanted in a very long time. The fundamental principles underlying the interctions of waves that we also know as particles has not budged for the best part of a centruy.
It gave us the tools to determine the true nature of space though observation and application of the theory. Meanwhile the dogma raged on about steady state versus a dynamic Universe. The deniers paint the steady state as an example of science surplanted but in fact it was the theoretical science that prevailed. The Universe has been found to obey the Laws that were discovered before the observations confirmed them. The philosophical argument was ultimately worthless.
Then you try to tar Newton with the same brush. In fact Newton's Laws stand proud to this day as an excellent example of the power of theroetical science. Einstein did not surplant Newton but built upon his work so that it covered objects moving at stupendous velocity.
And then they try to embroil Einstein and pretend that Relativity is probably inaccurate is completely disingenuous. Any new theory will have to build upon it like Einstin upon Newton and that will be a hell of a task. We are at the centenary of Relativity and nothing but nothing has scratched it.
Likewise Quantum Mechanics. It is even more disagreeable to traditional common sense yet it perfectly describes everything we know outside of Relativity. Unification of these two therories is the holy grail of science. This is why scientists make suggestions like the Higgs and why we built the biggest most complex machine to work out if is in fact the correct description of reality at the almost unimaginably small scales.
Then lets consider other great theories unsupplanted. Boyle's Law, The Universal Gas Equation. Perfect to this day.
Moreover the real power of theoretical physics is evident when one considers that Boyle's Law is a consequence of Quantum Mechanics and can be derived from it, albeit by very complex mathematics. But very complex maths is something humans have developed to an extraordinary level and highly skilled mathematicians have applied it to describing the way the universe works.
Indeed the great leap forward came with the invention of Calculus which offered ways to deal with complex relationships in a manageble way. Little wonder Newton was both a leading physicist and the most important author of Calculus.
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics also show us that the human vulnerabilty of relying on "common sense" can bring us to very wrong conclusions. Common sense was the main objection to these theoies and many leading scientists of the day died without accepting the new theories. Einstein himself never accepted Quantum Mechanics.
Your common sense is misleading you on Global Warming. Likewise I fear we will have to wait for generational change for the ordinary person to accept the theoretical science will again prevail over ignorance and heresay. Unfortunately it will probably come too late.
The only thing you can say with certainty of a scientific theory is that it will be supplanted in the long term, from Phlogiston through to Newton & Einstein. //
Eminent authority was not of science but the church so that is hardly a plausible parallel. Copernicus and Gallilao were the ones risking their lives.
Denigrating science is a favourite of the deniers. They point to ancient failed hypotheses and then portray the best of of modern scientific theory in the same mold.
Phlogiston dates from the seventeenth century at a time when we had barely gotten beyond Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the basis for chemistry.
Again the proposition does not hold up to scrutiny of the facts.
In fact modern fundamental scientific theory has not been supplanted in a very long time. The fundamental principles underlying the interctions of waves that we also know as particles has not budged for the best part of a centruy.
It gave us the tools to determine the true nature of space though observation and application of the theory. Meanwhile the dogma raged on about steady state versus a dynamic Universe. The deniers paint the steady state as an example of science surplanted but in fact it was the theoretical science that prevailed. The Universe has been found to obey the Laws that were discovered before the observations confirmed them. The philosophical argument was ultimately worthless.
Then you try to tar Newton with the same brush. In fact Newton's Laws stand proud to this day as an excellent example of the power of theroetical science. Einstein did not surplant Newton but built upon his work so that it covered objects moving at stupendous velocity.
And then they try to embroil Einstein and pretend that Relativity is probably inaccurate is completely disingenuous. Any new theory will have to build upon it like Einstin upon Newton and that will be a hell of a task. We are at the centenary of Relativity and nothing but nothing has scratched it.
Likewise Quantum Mechanics. It is even more disagreeable to traditional common sense yet it perfectly describes everything we know outside of Relativity. Unification of these two therories is the holy grail of science. This is why scientists make suggestions like the Higgs and why we built the biggest most complex machine to work out if is in fact the correct description of reality at the almost unimaginably small scales.
Then lets consider other great theories unsupplanted. Boyle's Law, The Universal Gas Equation. Perfect to this day.
Moreover the real power of theoretical physics is evident when one considers that Boyle's Law is a consequence of Quantum Mechanics and can be derived from it, albeit by very complex mathematics. But very complex maths is something humans have developed to an extraordinary level and highly skilled mathematicians have applied it to describing the way the universe works.
Indeed the great leap forward came with the invention of Calculus which offered ways to deal with complex relationships in a manageble way. Little wonder Newton was both a leading physicist and the most important author of Calculus.
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics also show us that the human vulnerabilty of relying on "common sense" can bring us to very wrong conclusions. Common sense was the main objection to these theoies and many leading scientists of the day died without accepting the new theories. Einstein himself never accepted Quantum Mechanics.
Your common sense is misleading you on Global Warming. Likewise I fear we will have to wait for generational change for the ordinary person to accept the theoretical science will again prevail over ignorance and heresay. Unfortunately it will probably come too late.
birdie //We've debated on this subject at length before. I find it interesting that you use the exact same techniques on David as you did with me. You repeatedly insulted my intelligence because my views didn't accord with your own; //
Indeed but I do not insult the intelligence of peolple for disagreeing but I draw the line when they make claims that are in bold conflict with facts that anyone can view.
David H's claims about the sea level fal into this description.
I also object to those who reject complex scientific models and choose to draw a line between two points six months apart while claiming that it is a downward trend when it is obvious that it in no way represents the data.
And to those whose models expect the temperature rise should exactly follow the carbon dioxide immediately as it is released because that interpretation avoids the conclusion they will not consider. Ironically they claim that the models used by the IPCC lack sophistication. @@
Indeed but I do not insult the intelligence of peolple for disagreeing but I draw the line when they make claims that are in bold conflict with facts that anyone can view.
David H's claims about the sea level fal into this description.
I also object to those who reject complex scientific models and choose to draw a line between two points six months apart while claiming that it is a downward trend when it is obvious that it in no way represents the data.
And to those whose models expect the temperature rise should exactly follow the carbon dioxide immediately as it is released because that interpretation avoids the conclusion they will not consider. Ironically they claim that the models used by the IPCC lack sophistication. @@
Beso, there's one major difference between my assertions and yours. Mine are in the present. Reality wins!
What I've posted here is a fraction of the studies casting doubt on AGW. Like any court case some defences are good whereas some fall down on closer inspection, but science is under a duty to try and disprove its unknown theories. It has not here, quite the opposite, they all act like you in saying it's certain and go and play with your toys. Why would that be? I'd say fear (in your case) or financial interests as venator said with the leaders. You've been sucked in so far you can't see the light at the end of a tunnel with a telescope.
Basically rather than try and pick silly holes in one or two graphs I present (I always have more) if you take them all together mine show a) the changes since 1850 are within insignificant variations and b) you can't rely on any of them whichever side they come from as they are too variable. Your assertions however are simply the extreme projection beyond even the IPCCs wildest dreams, taking the small percentage of fearful scientists who have put CO2 sensitivity up there with methane (it can't be but who cares when you're scared like a little child) and acting like 'if you wait long enough it's all going to blow up!). No, it isn't, it hasn't and from what I've learned it simply can't.
How you have managed to ignore every moderating claim put forward by the IPCC to make sure this very reaction is avoided and the masses aren't scared to death confirms my original view, you are obsessed from extreme fear so your lower brain has kicked in and logic has left the building. That has affected enough people that we have the evil policies in place which are making the poor poorer and the hungry starve to death. This collective madness is killing people as the masses want to save people not yet born at the expense of those dying right now. That's not sanity, it's pure lunacy and you are part of that lunacy. Get a grip and read the IPCC caveats. It's nothing like you say and the fact you've dismissed their authority tells me exactly what I suspected was true. As for the sea level I don't bung stuff out here till I'm 99% sure of it. It's creeping up so slowly it's going to stop regardless of the rise in CO2. That 22,000 year graph was one of many the same simply as there's only one recognised measurement going back that far and whichever source you use the last 8000 years have been creeping up and dwindling to an eventual zero. That goes against everything you believe in and I can't apologise for reality conflicting with your fears and paranoias.
What I've posted here is a fraction of the studies casting doubt on AGW. Like any court case some defences are good whereas some fall down on closer inspection, but science is under a duty to try and disprove its unknown theories. It has not here, quite the opposite, they all act like you in saying it's certain and go and play with your toys. Why would that be? I'd say fear (in your case) or financial interests as venator said with the leaders. You've been sucked in so far you can't see the light at the end of a tunnel with a telescope.
Basically rather than try and pick silly holes in one or two graphs I present (I always have more) if you take them all together mine show a) the changes since 1850 are within insignificant variations and b) you can't rely on any of them whichever side they come from as they are too variable. Your assertions however are simply the extreme projection beyond even the IPCCs wildest dreams, taking the small percentage of fearful scientists who have put CO2 sensitivity up there with methane (it can't be but who cares when you're scared like a little child) and acting like 'if you wait long enough it's all going to blow up!). No, it isn't, it hasn't and from what I've learned it simply can't.
How you have managed to ignore every moderating claim put forward by the IPCC to make sure this very reaction is avoided and the masses aren't scared to death confirms my original view, you are obsessed from extreme fear so your lower brain has kicked in and logic has left the building. That has affected enough people that we have the evil policies in place which are making the poor poorer and the hungry starve to death. This collective madness is killing people as the masses want to save people not yet born at the expense of those dying right now. That's not sanity, it's pure lunacy and you are part of that lunacy. Get a grip and read the IPCC caveats. It's nothing like you say and the fact you've dismissed their authority tells me exactly what I suspected was true. As for the sea level I don't bung stuff out here till I'm 99% sure of it. It's creeping up so slowly it's going to stop regardless of the rise in CO2. That 22,000 year graph was one of many the same simply as there's only one recognised measurement going back that far and whichever source you use the last 8000 years have been creeping up and dwindling to an eventual zero. That goes against everything you believe in and I can't apologise for reality conflicting with your fears and paranoias.
This is all rather fun, rabid, unjustifiable defence of positions that while not incorrect are not completely correct either. As you are dealing in almost all AGW/CC cases with hypothesis there is no right answer until such times as we are all flooded out of our homes or we plunge into another ice age. There is compelling evidence for both scenarios you just don't get to hear about the latter because it doesn't form the basis of the IPCC reports.
If you fail to acknowledge another position and argument then you fail to acknowledge the fundamentals of science, hypothesis and theory against counter hypothesis and counter theory. Only physical evidence can prove or disprove theory, there is not enough evidence to prove either theory as yet. If, as an intelligent human being you do not see what's really going on then I'll personally discount your argument, that's you Beso.
AGW (note the term) heresy is thrown on those who refuse to follow the IPCC way because they continue to ask why. CC heresy is a point held by those who still think the earth is flat! Climat change is a natural cycle that we really don't completely understand yet, mother nature can't help but throw us curveballs and to be blunt thats the whole point. We, after maybe 50 years of getting to grips with the science involved don't truly have a grasp of it yet because we still can't predict either short range or long range effects with any accuracy. How much higher were the seas SUPPOSED to be last year?
The fundamental thing for any scientist (real or would be couch scientist) is the word WHY. If you stop asking why you fail to understand the basic fundamentals of scientific exploration itself.
I put a statistic up in an earlier post about the total ratio of Anthrpogenic Greenhouse Gas contributions adding up to around 0.28% of the TOTAL greenhouse effect (it in one of the big journals being spun out of all reality-feel frre to find it for yourselves). If this number is accurate then 99.72% of all change on earth is natural, you might think mother nature has a handle on all this.
One day we'll get a grip on it but until then please keep asking why.
If you fail to acknowledge another position and argument then you fail to acknowledge the fundamentals of science, hypothesis and theory against counter hypothesis and counter theory. Only physical evidence can prove or disprove theory, there is not enough evidence to prove either theory as yet. If, as an intelligent human being you do not see what's really going on then I'll personally discount your argument, that's you Beso.
AGW (note the term) heresy is thrown on those who refuse to follow the IPCC way because they continue to ask why. CC heresy is a point held by those who still think the earth is flat! Climat change is a natural cycle that we really don't completely understand yet, mother nature can't help but throw us curveballs and to be blunt thats the whole point. We, after maybe 50 years of getting to grips with the science involved don't truly have a grasp of it yet because we still can't predict either short range or long range effects with any accuracy. How much higher were the seas SUPPOSED to be last year?
The fundamental thing for any scientist (real or would be couch scientist) is the word WHY. If you stop asking why you fail to understand the basic fundamentals of scientific exploration itself.
I put a statistic up in an earlier post about the total ratio of Anthrpogenic Greenhouse Gas contributions adding up to around 0.28% of the TOTAL greenhouse effect (it in one of the big journals being spun out of all reality-feel frre to find it for yourselves). If this number is accurate then 99.72% of all change on earth is natural, you might think mother nature has a handle on all this.
One day we'll get a grip on it but until then please keep asking why.
Thanks for that slapshot, I tend to work alone with a few exceptions, but such a relief when someone comes along and explains it calmly and clearly, and as a scientist people ought to bloody well accept your authority!
I had to shoot out before so forgot the CO2 saturation, ie heat saturation. CO2 has a very patchy absorption spectrum. It's basically an insulator but unlike water vapour or methane not a very good one. The official figure was CO2 provided 1C of the total 33C greenhouse effect at 260ppm, and without more than equations to go by would double to 2C at 560ppm. It's up by 50% and risen 0.8C on a rising trend so where's the feedback?
The IPCC actually said (I only found this last night) that overall food production would increase up to 3C anyhow, on top of the fewer deaths from cold, so a pretty good deal either way I'd say. But back to the saturation. CO2 can't infinitely trap heat. Instead it's a law of diminishing returns. The more you add the less effect it has till no more can be trapped. It's similar to drawing the curtains. If you pull them a little closer they'll keep blocking more light till the window's covered, then however much more material you add they can't do more than that.
I've read the main papers on heat saturation and heard the author on the radio. They are very clear, they know it's going to happen but as it's never happened before when we were here to see it they have no idea when as it's not possible to calculate at all. They said it could be 500ppm, 1000ppm or even 400ppm but it's totally a 'wait and see'. But one thing it does say is however high it did get somewhere along the road it wouldn't make any difference. It would just be there doing absolutely nothing.
beso and his merry men talk to me and others like we're inventing it as we go along, the only fault I'm inevitably guilty of is not having a science degree or a friendly scientist to vet every single item before I interpret it, plus for no money. So the individual studies vary but the total together weigh heavy on the side of doubt as slapshot said. As a cricket umpire knows, when in doubt, not out. We've been caught, bowled and hit wicket without even a replay.
Anyway, this article explains both CO2 sensitivity, absorption spectrum and saturation limits so everyone without a BSc can understand it, but only of course if they have an open mind. http://climateclash.c...-trapping-a-critique/
It's so simple that my original point any lay person can easily follow it means lay people with the required information are as adequate to decide as anyone. If David Bellamy or Johnny Ball (as they both do generally) could stand in front of a hall of children and read the rudiments of this paper then they'd get it no less than the muck about dying polar bears and melting ice caps (except they freeze as well). You can't blind people with science when the explanation is simple. Using qualifications (except Al Gore doesn't have any in science as far as I know) to dismiss opposition only works when they can't understand it without them. This is hardly such an example and as I don't even know if beso's a scientist can't tell here.
As for the sea level rise then besides having read the conventional studies first and found them so lacking then checked for myself, it's not controversial. Temperature is big time. I've seen diagrams shifted by 60' or so from almost flat to a 1 in 2 hill. Many times. That is not science either, it's what Bernie Madoff or Enron did, and surprise surprise Enron created carbon trading. So the biggest 'solution' to the problem was illegal before made law. Lovely.
Anyway, here are plenty of lovely simple sea level diagrams, long and short term. The 3mm annual rise is pretty constant whichever way you magnify them, and that naughty 6mm drop is a surprise to everyone except beso. Sea level rose a full 10 inches in the last century, hardly a drastic response to whatever rise there was. cont
I had to shoot out before so forgot the CO2 saturation, ie heat saturation. CO2 has a very patchy absorption spectrum. It's basically an insulator but unlike water vapour or methane not a very good one. The official figure was CO2 provided 1C of the total 33C greenhouse effect at 260ppm, and without more than equations to go by would double to 2C at 560ppm. It's up by 50% and risen 0.8C on a rising trend so where's the feedback?
The IPCC actually said (I only found this last night) that overall food production would increase up to 3C anyhow, on top of the fewer deaths from cold, so a pretty good deal either way I'd say. But back to the saturation. CO2 can't infinitely trap heat. Instead it's a law of diminishing returns. The more you add the less effect it has till no more can be trapped. It's similar to drawing the curtains. If you pull them a little closer they'll keep blocking more light till the window's covered, then however much more material you add they can't do more than that.
I've read the main papers on heat saturation and heard the author on the radio. They are very clear, they know it's going to happen but as it's never happened before when we were here to see it they have no idea when as it's not possible to calculate at all. They said it could be 500ppm, 1000ppm or even 400ppm but it's totally a 'wait and see'. But one thing it does say is however high it did get somewhere along the road it wouldn't make any difference. It would just be there doing absolutely nothing.
beso and his merry men talk to me and others like we're inventing it as we go along, the only fault I'm inevitably guilty of is not having a science degree or a friendly scientist to vet every single item before I interpret it, plus for no money. So the individual studies vary but the total together weigh heavy on the side of doubt as slapshot said. As a cricket umpire knows, when in doubt, not out. We've been caught, bowled and hit wicket without even a replay.
Anyway, this article explains both CO2 sensitivity, absorption spectrum and saturation limits so everyone without a BSc can understand it, but only of course if they have an open mind. http://climateclash.c...-trapping-a-critique/
It's so simple that my original point any lay person can easily follow it means lay people with the required information are as adequate to decide as anyone. If David Bellamy or Johnny Ball (as they both do generally) could stand in front of a hall of children and read the rudiments of this paper then they'd get it no less than the muck about dying polar bears and melting ice caps (except they freeze as well). You can't blind people with science when the explanation is simple. Using qualifications (except Al Gore doesn't have any in science as far as I know) to dismiss opposition only works when they can't understand it without them. This is hardly such an example and as I don't even know if beso's a scientist can't tell here.
As for the sea level rise then besides having read the conventional studies first and found them so lacking then checked for myself, it's not controversial. Temperature is big time. I've seen diagrams shifted by 60' or so from almost flat to a 1 in 2 hill. Many times. That is not science either, it's what Bernie Madoff or Enron did, and surprise surprise Enron created carbon trading. So the biggest 'solution' to the problem was illegal before made law. Lovely.
Anyway, here are plenty of lovely simple sea level diagrams, long and short term. The 3mm annual rise is pretty constant whichever way you magnify them, and that naughty 6mm drop is a surprise to everyone except beso. Sea level rose a full 10 inches in the last century, hardly a drastic response to whatever rise there was. cont
The Colorado diagram looks pretty clear to me although it only covers since 1992 but does show the 3.2mm annual rise until last year.
Here's a 109 year one (presumably from 1900-2009) http://ncwatch.typepa...120a4c4a1c3970b-800wi
Here's a local rise rate from Holgate (not sure where it is) which looks pretty unremarkable http://climatesanity....std-dev-digitized.jpg
Meanwhile here's a totally different one since 1992 http://www.friendsofs...ay/GlobalSeaLevel.jpg
I will concede one point to beso, on further inspection the sea level diagrams do indeed vary wildly, I knew temperature did but was surprised to see sea levels have not been constantly measured depending who does it, I know why as there are also many ways to measure it- floats, satellite, local selections etc, but now realise they are nearly as rough as temperature estimates.
This does mean I discovered more (as is always the possibility) but all it has done was further muddy the water and confirm my own conclusion that it's too doubtful to know. The more we look the more noise we find, that's not a theory but a hypothesis in the making.
Here's a 109 year one (presumably from 1900-2009) http://ncwatch.typepa...120a4c4a1c3970b-800wi
Here's a local rise rate from Holgate (not sure where it is) which looks pretty unremarkable http://climatesanity....std-dev-digitized.jpg
Meanwhile here's a totally different one since 1992 http://www.friendsofs...ay/GlobalSeaLevel.jpg
I will concede one point to beso, on further inspection the sea level diagrams do indeed vary wildly, I knew temperature did but was surprised to see sea levels have not been constantly measured depending who does it, I know why as there are also many ways to measure it- floats, satellite, local selections etc, but now realise they are nearly as rough as temperature estimates.
This does mean I discovered more (as is always the possibility) but all it has done was further muddy the water and confirm my own conclusion that it's too doubtful to know. The more we look the more noise we find, that's not a theory but a hypothesis in the making.
Stop press, the 'combustion industry' fund a climate change research institute!
http://news.yahoo.com...-funds-182949289.html
The money's massive for oil companies, they get twice as much money for the same oil without lifting a finger through price rises. Too complex for hotheads to follow though.
http://news.yahoo.com...-funds-182949289.html
The money's massive for oil companies, they get twice as much money for the same oil without lifting a finger through price rises. Too complex for hotheads to follow though.
Well well, I've just been told who set up the CRU through funding. Strange bedfellows indeed, except they all have vested interests. You don't donate money as a business and expect to lose it.
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order)
British Council,
British Petroleum,
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health,
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust (Trust was originally endowed with a shareholding in Lever Brothers, which subsequently became part of Unilever.)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants, (?)
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,
Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency,
Sultanate of Oman,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd., (UK based ‘independent’ ‘radioactive waste’ management consultants.)
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order)
British Council,
British Petroleum,
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health,
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust (Trust was originally endowed with a shareholding in Lever Brothers, which subsequently became part of Unilever.)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants, (?)
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,
Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency,
Sultanate of Oman,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd., (UK based ‘independent’ ‘radioactive waste’ management consultants.)
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
Out of that list David, how many are government agencies or departments? How much goverment money is being pushed around into Climate Change and why? Ask yourself why there was such a stramash over the University of East Anglia emails?
One more wee thing before I become a spectator again, If you had research and evidence that suggested that CO2 saturations were at their max at the END of a warming period rather than the precursor to it, how would you anticipate governments to react??
One more wee thing before I become a spectator again, If you had research and evidence that suggested that CO2 saturations were at their max at the END of a warming period rather than the precursor to it, how would you anticipate governments to react??
