Global Warming: The BBC finally admit that the debate is NOT over!

[birdie1971]

Amazing. The BBC have finally admitted that Global Warming may not be caused by humans after all. After years and years of insisting that “the debate is over”, we now get this story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Does this signify a new era where the general public will finally be given some hard facts about this issue as opposed to the highy dubious and politically motivated pronouncements from the Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change [IPCC]?

[jno]

The story quotes a couple of people from the IPCC.... but oh dear, I've just been informed that they are highly dubious and politically motivated! Can I believe a word they say?

Only when they agree with you, perhaps?

[birdie1971]

Jno.

When you work for a body that calls itself the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it stands to reason that in order to continue to be a corporate government entity, you need to promote “climate change” as being real and man-made.

The IPCC's mandate is as follows:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the above statement indicate that the IPCC have already decided on the reasons for climate change? They're only looking at the data that supports the idea of man-made global warming.

I'm not particularly interested if the IPCC agrees with me or not. What I am very interested in however, is a proper scientific debate on the issue of human induced global warming. This debate has never taken place because the IPCC's assessments have never been adequately publicly scrutinised and debated. Broadcasters such as the BBC and many others have blindly accepted the so called findings of the IPCC without a moment's hesitation.

Even a brief look at this document reveasl that the summaries are often wildly at odds with the actual data contained within. Have you seen the chapter on computer models? Then chapter when the IPCC admit that they are worthless?

By the way – do you want to know the real reason of climate change? I'll give you a clue...

Look up in the sky on a clear day. See that big yellow ball... ?

[borisbrain]

I'm no scientist, but I have to admit that I find it hard to believe that global warming is linked to CO2 emissions. Any schoolkid will tell you that 79% of the atmosphere is nitrogen, 20% oxygen and ALL the other gases account for the remaining 1%, which includes CO2 at about 0.3%. Hardly the sort of figures which will transform this planet into Venus. CO2 is a natural by-product of human and animal existence. We breathe in, CO2 comes out.

There's no denying that global warming is happening though. Tens of thousands of years ago the planet was in an ice age, and we're not any more. It started to get warmer a heck of a long time before the Industrial Revolution or anybody had the bright idea to set fire to oil. I don't know what is responsible for global warming, but for us to try to control the temperature of the planet makes us all a bunch of Kings Canute, trying to order the retreat of the seas.

[beso]

If you think a small amount of something can have no effect just try a swallowing piece of cyanide the size of a grain of salt.

Despite CO2 being only a small proportion of the atmosphere the industrial age has increased it by about 35 percent. Half of it has been emitted since 1975 and the rate is incresing. We relaese far more than is released by respiration.

Although the models still require refinement it does not mean they are worthless. There is no doubt that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce the reradiation of heat into space. Less heat out means temperature rise. A primary school kid can work this out. Whether the temperature is rising or falling in the short term is irrelevant.

Many people don't realise that CO2 does not break down by itself and assume if we stop relaeasing it one day the level will rapidly fall as it did with fluorocarbons. This is NOT the case. It doesn't break down but must be reintegrated into the earth's geology taking many thousands of years to do so. In the short term in dissolves into the ocean making it more acidic. However the ocean dissolves less as temperature rises so the ocean will start releasing it again as temperatures rise.

There is a vast amout of misinformation promulgated by the sceptics. For example some claim that volcanos are the main source despite human releases being 130 times larger.

I am amazed that so many clueless people presume to know better than the climate scientists. There has been proper scientific debate. IThe sceptics claim it hasn't happened when in fact they simply disagree with the findings because they don't want to change what they are doing.

[flobadob]

Perhaps 50 million years ago other guys faced the same dilemma cos of their actions and we're just following the trend.

[R1Geezer]

i've been saying it for years! No one has ever been able to tell me how 4% of somthing can have more effect than 96% of something! Still Jake will be along soon to chastise us evil non believers!

[birdie1971]

Long post warning....

I assume, Beso, that you are referring to me as 'clueless' as to the causes of Global Warming (or Climate Change as it is now known – funny that isn't it? You almost never hear the media calling it 'Global Warming' anymore; it's now 'Climate Change' because even if it gets colder, the climate has 'changed' so we're right! Heads I win, tales, you lose!)

Let's take a look at some historically provable facts about Earth's climate...

15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of
the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 metres lower than currently.

15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea
levels rise. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven.

The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

[birdie1971]

Cont'd...

8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: Temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The oceans of the world are some three meters higher than currently.

The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over; mountain
glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes
over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the
marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present
level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present.

The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern
Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America
takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine
grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The
period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as
much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming
scientists for the next century.

The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

[birdie1971]

1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common.

The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again.

The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids warn of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation".

The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 1998 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.

So there we have it! It's all our fault.

It's so obvious now! And there was I 'cluelessly' thinking it was all due to some external influence such as... oh, I don't know...

maybe...

the sun?

[jake-the-peg]

Birdie

The problem is that you have to do the maths - Sorry It's hard science with big computers sitting around talking about general principles does not show you what is going on.

Nobody denies that in the past there have been changes in the climate.

Some are called Milankovitch cycles and are well known

*BUT* when you plug all the data into the computer models you can account for these with what is known.

This last change is different - You can only account for it if you take into account Human activity.

Human activity is small but the atmosphere is already highly loaded we are putting something like 2% in every year *which is not being taken out.*

2% this year and last and the one before that etc. etc. etc.

Want some hard facts?

Try the Royal Society - the worlds first and most respected scientific institutions

I think you'll find most of your points coverred in their list of misleading arguments:

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229 />
The sun is number 6

However when you look at the numbers

[rojash]

"No one has ever been able to tell me how 4% of somthing can have more effect than 96% of something! "

Perhaps you missed Beso's example: "If you think a small amount of something can have no effect just try a swallowing piece of cyanide the size of a grain of salt."

[New Judge]

Yes, rojash, but the reason Geezer probably ignored (rather than missed) beso’s example is because it is specious. Cyanide (in any quantity, even the small amount mentioned) is profoundly toxic to humans. Carbon dioxide (even in large quantities) contained in the atmosphere is not.

Te biggest tragedy of all in this debate (the ins and outs of which have been argued many times here on AB) is not that it isn’t over, but that it never properly began. The notion of man-made “climate change” was seized upon by politicians of all colours and in all countries as an ideal way for them to further bully and tax their electorates into submission. When was there ever a debate in Westminster which discussed whether or not I could use a tungsten filament 100w light bulb? But, by now no longer being allowed to do so, I will somehow prevent climate change. And I’m expected to believe that.

The solutions (apart from inefficient, expensive light bulbs that make some people ill)? “Renewable” sources of course. So let’s see - the total proposed wind farm output for the UK will cost a fortune, despoil the nation and (if they ever get built and the wind is blowing hard enough) will cut the total global carbon emissions by a whopping 0.05%. Meanwhile, China opens up a new coal fired power station every week.

There has been no debate. Our politicians (or more precisely officials from the ever invasive EU) have simply signed up to various carbon reduction treaties because to have refused to do so would see them branded as heretics.

[R1Geezer]

As the judge says all this cyanide sh1te is irrelevant, ok I'll put it simply, which of these is likely to get you drunk, I pint of liquid containing 4% alcohol or a pint of liquid containing 96% alcohol? Capiesch?!

If mankind has control of 4% of the Carbon and the planet controls the rest, who is most likely to be able to affect climate?

Are we learning yet?

[jake-the-peg]

Rojash

Let me try

Imagine you have a pint glass 98% full and I add another 4%

The Earth has a certain capacity to absorb CO2 - "Carbon sinks" - our bit is pushing it over the edge - Every year more builds up in the atmosphere because the sinks cant absorb it all

Of course if you can work out a way to get the Earth to reduce the amount of Carbon it puts out we're all ears and fame and fortune will be yours.

We can control the CO2 we emit - we cannot control the CO2 the Earth emits.

Doing the numbers and the Science behind it is difficult - understanding the principle is not

[birdie1971]

Jake - “I think you'll find most of your points covered in their list of misleading arguments”

My previous post was not a set of “arguments”. It was a list of historically verifiable climatic events. Events which no one can adequately explain.

We have been asked to believe that the earth's climate is changing because of man's contribution to the total volume of CO2in the atmosphere. But the earth's climate has always changed. It's gone from cold to warm; from warm to cold without mankind having any influence on it whatsoever.

But now we are being told (quite categorically) that the reason for change is our fault. This is utter nonsense.

I'm all for recycling wastage. Myself and Mrs Birdie are ardent recyclers to the point of obsession. I realise that we cannot continue dumping rubbish into landfill. But I draw the line at blaming the entire human race for an apocalyptic catastrophe that is completely unproven seems increasingly unlikely to happen.

You state, “... when you plug all the data into the computer models...”. I assume you mean the very models that the IPCC admit are potentially inaccurate to the point of being completely useless. Computer models only work if they accurately represent reality which all of the current climate models fails to do.

[birdie1971]

As an example of how utterly fraudulent the Global Warming argument is, take a look at the Maldives. This is an area of the world that should be most effected by Climate Change (formally known as 'Global Warming') because of it's low altitude above sea level. In fact, the Maldives has had tidal gauges in position for some time now – since the 1980s. The sea level at the Maldives have also been monitored by satellites since the 1990s.

And..... are the Maldives now under water?

Are they slowly submerging in the sea?

No. They are not. In fact, according to satellite data and sea level gauges, the sea level has dropped since the 1980s. Not by much, but it has still dropped.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The sun has more to do with climate than anything we can do. It's the reason we exist at all.

The sun drives all existence on our small planet. But the one small problem with the sun being in charge of climate is Governments of the world can't tax sunlight.

But they can tax you for CO2 emissions.

It's a con of epic proportions. And I believe it starting to unravel.

[birdie1971]

And my spelling and grammar is utterly appalling. Sorry.

[New Judge]

[Two-part post]

I’m pleased to at last have at least one or two allies in this argument which has been raging on AB (and of course everywhere else) for some time now.

However, I am no longer concerned with the argument itself, which whilst it is interesting and perhaps a little curious, is not worthy of any serious consideration once it is reasonably, but perhaps unfashionably, analysed. My ire is directed towards the “perceived wisdom” which always takes a hold when any debate rages in this country, with sensible argument being squeezed out, and opponents denounced as heretics. As a result it is now proposed that a fine be levied on people putting food scraps in the wrong dustbin that is far greater than that likely for somebody who steals from a shop or drowns a sack full of puppies. However, the politicians know best; the decision has been made; “the debate is over”.

So I now prefer to confine my comments to the stupidity of politicians and their advisors who suggest that man can influence what is clearly a global natural phenomenon. For sheer arrogance UK parliamentarians and EU officials take some beating. In the mould of those who suggested that King Knut could control the tides, they set targets for global temperatures. They set up “carbon limits” and a “carbon exchange”.

[New Judge]

[Cont’d]

Dan Norris, MP (who is, apparently, Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment) says with complete conviction “With about 4% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the UK coming from landfill sites, there is a clear link between using landfill and climate change.”

So that would be 4% of the 2.5% that the UK contributes to global emissions. This 0.1% is of course 0.1% of just the 4% which is attributable to all human activity. So this “clear link” is a result of just 0.004% (four parts in every 100,000) of harmful gases which are said to be produced by UK landfill with which the Earth, apparently, cannot cope. And to combat this everybody must have five dustbins in their front garden, use them religiously as instructed, or face a punitive fine.

Turning to the Rural Affairs section of his portfolio Mr Norris went on to say that his next task would be to look at farming activities because flatulent cattle produce “huge amounts of harmful gases”.

So a junior minister thinks he has it in his remit to stop cows from farting. And I’m supposed to take all this seriously.

I look forward to further proper debate as a result of Paul Hudson’s article. But I don’t think I’ll hold my breath just yet.

[Twenty20]

So, if we've got global warming, how come the Earth's temperature has been cooling for the past 10 years (since 1998)? That's a fact that all sides of the argument seem to agree on.

And anyway, who's to say what the 'correct' temperature of the Earth should be? Why is the temperature that we're at now the right temperature? Maybe the 'correct' temperature is several degrees hotter than where we are now, like it was a couple of thousand years ago in Britain.