View Full Version : an inconvenient truth
ciderally
17-Jan-08, 18:17
Al Gore's film....wow... think everyone needs to watch this...scary stuff but the truth...i have just finished watching it ...now i have been pretty soft on recycling and energey saving ect but it has really made me sit-up and take notice....especially the ice melt at artic, have a quick look at www.climatecrisis.com
A lot of folk swallow this tale; hook line and sinker, an alternative view: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html)
Ah yes Gore's climate models... good viewing, he would have made a better president than bush purely because he can speak well....
ciderally
17-Jan-08, 18:33
A lot of folk swallow this tale; hook line and sinker, an alternative view: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html)
i will have a look at the site you quote, but the filming of the thinning of the ice shelf, and the dissapearing glacier's has got to be a big worry to everyone
orkneylass
17-Jan-08, 19:42
Al Gore's film has been strongly challenged by some scientists and I certainly don't agree with it being presented as "fact" in schools.
George Brims
17-Jan-08, 21:30
Everything gets strongly challenged by *some* scientists. That is how science is done. But the end result is usually a consensus. In this case the overwhelming consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real. Most of those who oppose the consensus either have a political agenda or are in the pockets of the energy industry.
Ah yes Gore's climate models... good viewing, he would have made a better president than bush purely because he can speak well....Yes, and he has so many people swallowing what he is peddling that he is obviously far better at " Disseminating Disinformation" than Bush.
Besides, when the Gulf Stream stops all those "Drowning" islands will end up far larger, sea levels will drop dramatically, more land will be made available along the Continental Shelves and the poor Polar Bears will be in Polar Bear Heaven.
"Save the Polar Bear" - Speed up Global Warming before it's too late!"
Sour, disgruntled losers, especially in Politics, make the worst "advisors" possible. They will claim anything to make people feel guilty for ignoring them. Smoothies always make the best Con-Men because people think they are "such nice people" that they couldn't possibly be telling untruths!
Green_not_greed
17-Jan-08, 22:46
Ah yes, Al Bore. Global warming, huh? Is that why last week it snowed in Bagdhad for the first time in living memory????
Crusty the Clown is more believable!
I can believe in climate change, caused by a natural cycle in the earth's behaviour. However, I do believe that man is probably not helping - its how much affect man is having and if we all stopped breathing would it make any difference if the climate change is part of a natural cycle in any case? Who knows.
Channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" is also compelling viewing - blows holes in Al Gore's propaganda. I can highly recommend it.
GNG
ciderally
17-Jan-08, 23:31
al gore must have done or said something right he did win the nobel prize for his efforts....
j4bberw0ck
18-Jan-08, 00:11
Al Gore's film....wow... think everyone needs to watch this...scary stuff but the truth...i have just finished watching it ...now i have been pretty soft on recycling and energey saving ect but it has really made me sit-up and take notice....especially the ice melt at artic, have a quick look at www.climatecrisis.com (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.climatecrisis.com)
Where have you been these last several years while many of Gore's "facts" have been undermined and many of his projections ("600 foot rise in sea levels") rubbished? How do you conclude it's "the truth"?
didn't YASSER ARAFAT get one in 1994?
So did Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, what's your point?
Channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" is also compelling viewing - blows holes in Al Gore's propaganda. I can highly recommend it.
GNG
Wrong, it was debunked from the top down.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
Where have you been these last several years while many of Gore's "facts" have been undermined and many of his projections ("600 foot rise in sea levels") rubbished? How do you conclude it's "the truth"?
How can you claim that was rubbish? Al gore never attached any timeframe to that event.
Ah yes, Al Bore. Global warming, huh? Is that why last week it snowed in Bagdhad for the first time in living memory????
Crusty the Clown is more believable!
I can believe in climate change, caused by a natural cycle in the earth's behaviour. However, I do believe that man is probably not helping - its how much affect man is having and if we all stopped breathing would it make any difference if the climate change is part of a natural cycle in any case? Who knows.
Channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" is also compelling viewing - blows holes in Al Gore's propaganda. I can highly recommend it.
GNG
A common problem is that a lot of people do not understand the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER.
Gore did not "do" any of the science, he simply presented it.
Climate wise - the weather has changed beyond the variations it had when I was young; the idea that the gulf stream stopping being good for polar bears......I wouldn't want to be around if it did.
People who are unimpressed with Gore's broad brush approach, (I find it irritating too) need to remember that the rest of the population would not be convinced by a detailed statistical analysis. He has convinced people that maybe we ought do be less destructive of our planet. It took 40 years for science to prove smoking killed people, another 40 years of our present CO2 output while we wait for definitive proof doesn't bear thinking of.
Nobel prize-, why not, at least a few more people are considering carbon footprints etc.
Green_not_greed
18-Jan-08, 09:30
A common problem is that a lot of people do not understand the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER.
Gore did not "do" any of the science, he simply presented it.
I doubt that he understood any of it. What Gore presented was a very slanted view geared toward keeping us all scared and willing to pay more and more as individuals into various Government coffers. A scared population is far easier to govern - its a clever tactic that's been used successfully over and over again.
I must admit to not having seen An Inconvenient Truth; however it is my understanding that the movie/book emerged from what was originally a presentation that he had delivered, and I’m sure it has been given the Hollywood treatment. I do think you do him a disservice by stating that you think he does not understand any of it. He published a book entitled Earth in the Balance in 1992, and it is well worth a read
Of course you are entitled to postulate about the reason for his championing of Climate Change, but I can’t see how government has anything to do with it, as he is not likely to be in any significance position of power – and judging by the wave of criticism that has emanated from “influenced” sources he does not have much influence either.
Would you prefer that all information/hypothesis/theories were not made available?
I doubt that he understood any of it. What Gore presented was a very slanted view geared toward keeping us all scared and willing to pay more and more as individuals into various Government coffers. A scared population is far easier to govern - its a clever tactic that's been used successfully over and over again.
Are you overly influenced by works of fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_fear)?:confused
I doubt that he understood any of it. What Gore presented was a very slanted view geared toward keeping us all scared and willing to pay more and more as individuals into various Government coffers. A scared population is far easier to govern - its a clever tactic that's been used successfully over and over again.
What evidence is there that he did not understand it? I would believe him before Bush any day. American policy at the top has been driven by money. What is happening to Antartica cannot be ignored and as for the Gulf Stream, I certainly don't want to be around if it is wiped out.
If climate change is manmade, then we've left it far too late to stop it. Governments seem totally unable to plan for the future in anything they do. If it is just part of the earth's cycle, there is nothing we can do anyway except plan for how to deal with life in a different climate but comment re. Governments also applies.
I personally can't wait for it all go wrong, and the gulf stream to stop and it all start icing over. We haven't had any decent snow for years! I'm going to rev my car extra today to help speed up this global warming stuff!!
TBH: "So did Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, what's your point?" - [get Nobel Peace Prize]
Just that Yitzhak Rabin was Chief of Staff of the IDF and Shimon Peres was Director General of the Ministry of Defence, Yasser Arafat was a Terrorist, so doesn't seem to me that by Gore getting one means that much, the award is now political..
Don't seem to see many postings objecting with the 'Oregon Petition' involving the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM): http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)
The Oregon Petition was the fourth, and by the far the largest, of five prominent efforts claimed to show that a scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of global warming..
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.
Me? I'm just a normal bod, aren't we just in a normal cycle of heating and cooling?, seems it's taken umpteen thousand years to get where 'they say we are'.
My house is cavity walled insulated, I additionally have 4" of internal insulation, I have 12" of weft and warp insulation in the lofts, all my windows are double glazed, all my lights are low energy bulbs, I don't muir burn, I do not burn peats, most of my white goods are A-B ratings.
Of course the emerging nations of Africa MUST NOT use CO2 causing methods of heating and lighting, give 'em a small wind turbine or a solar panel, so that they can run a solitary lightbulb for a few hours, oh no can't have them destroying the Earth.. As I've mentioned I do 'my bit'.. Just the REST of the World needs to do it too.. and presumably it will take upteen thousand years to get back where we were..
Myron Ebell has some interesting observations http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html)
"When talk turns to global warming, there are only three socially acceptable opinions that may be expressed. It's going to be BAD TERRIBLE or CATASTROPHIC!
Yes, rising sea levels, if they happen, would be bad for a lot of people. But a warming trend would be good for other people.
For example, cold winter storms kill a lot of people. More people die from blizzards and cold spells than from heat waves. Increased death rates usually persist for weeks after the unusually cold temperatures have passed, which suggests that the cold is killing people who would otherwise live into another season at least. Mortality rates during heat waves are just the reverse. The increase ends and often the rate drops below normal as soon as temperatures cool, which suggests that the higher temperatures are killing people who are likely to die soon anyway. It is true that mortality rates from both cold and hot weather have been declining in rich countries for a long time. That's because wealthier societies can adapt and protect themselves better from temperature extremes. But it also appears that deaths from hot weather have been declining more rapidly than those from cold.
So modest climatic improvement would be to have fewer and less severe big winter storms. Amazingly, that's exactly what we should get if global warming theory turns out to be true. The models say that much of the warming will occur in the upper latitudes and in the winter. At the risk of further ridicule in kooky blogs in Britain, where global warming alarmism is now a religion, that sounds pretty good to me. Fewer people will die from the cold.
And once you think about it, there are likely to be other beneficial consequences as well. Life in many places would become more pleasant.
In fact, there is no question that most people prefer less severe winters. North Dakota and Maine haven't been gaining much in population. Every census since 1960 shows rapid population growth in Florida, California, Arizona, Texas and Nevada. For the elderly and infirm, warmer weather is definitely healthier as well as more pleasant.
This promising scenario of milder winters in northern regions, which would become reality in the unlikely event that global warming turns out to be as considerable as predicted, comes with a catch, however. Air-conditioning is now considered a necessity, not only in Houston and Washington, D.C., but even in some northern climes where no matter how hot it gets during the day, it still cools down at night. Air-conditioning takes a lot of energy. But to stop global warming, we're supposed to use much less energy. Given our obvious preference for living in warmer climates as long as we have air-conditioning, I doubt that we're going to go on the energy diet that the global warming doomsters urge us to undertake."
Don't seem to see many postings objecting with the 'Oregon Petition' involving the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM): http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)
You mean the same eccentric and global warming denying Oregon Institute that is an amateur outfit that works from a barn and hasn't got one climate research facility to their name?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine
And all these are in their pockets?: "This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists."
And all these are in their pockets?: "This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists."
Not true.
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists
Read the article, the mailing was a complete sham where even j4bberw0ck and GHG could have voted.
Why anyone would want to defend the OIMS is beyond me unless they have an agenda or just a devilish sense of fun.
so 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists mean nothing?
so 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists mean nothing?
The mailing was written as a pseudo peer-reviewed publication, so many will have skimmed the contents and misleadingly responded. However, the climatologists saw right through the bunkum and hardly any responded because it is their field of study.
Again, read the article....[evil]
TBH: "So did Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, what's your point?" - [get Nobel Peace Prize]
Just that Yitzhak Rabin was Chief of Staff of the IDF and Shimon Peres was Director General of the Ministry of Defence, Yasser Arafat was a Terrorist, so doesn't seem to me that by Gore getting one means that much, the award is now political..
They all won the award for their effort towards peace, wasn't that a good enough reason? As for terrorism, who exactly is the foreign power that is occupying Palestine?
Hi Rheghead: "The mailing was written as a pseudo peer-reviewed publication, so many will have skimmed the contents and misleadingly responded" Oh I see, they were conned?
TBH: " who exactly is the foreign power that is occupying Palestine?" Hmm let's not go down that road, wait till Fred gets back..
Rheghead, as a chemist what were your own observations on 'Global Cooling'? and if anyone here doesn't know much about this scare of the 70's, see this link: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm)
Global Warming; 'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased, For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Read this link: http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 (http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004) Oh yes David Whitehouse was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics so 'maybe he knows what he's on about?
Global warming hasn't stopped, the global temperature will see peaks and troughs when plotted over time, especially over many 11 year solar cycles to get a true picture. 2006 was just eclipsed by 1998 by a miniscule amount and even some scientist still maintain that 2006 was the hottest on record.
Your comments do seem very specious.
As for the global cooling from the 1950s, that was due to aerosols such as sulphates which are known to depress global temperatures.
Histories: The ice age that never was
15 December 2006
There was a chill across the world, and it wasn't just the cold war. From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode. Some say it shows climate scientists are scaremongers and shouldn't be believed, whatever they are predicting. So what happened three decades ago? And why should we believe the climatologists now?
Global cooling was a real phenomenon - and it changed global history. In the winter of 1941, it stopped the German army's advance on Moscow: grease froze in German guns and thousands of soldiers died from cold. Hitler's failure to take Moscow marked a turning point in the second world war. Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed. But by the 1970s, no one was giving thanks for global cooling. As snow banks built across the Canadian Arctic and pack ice grew in the North Atlantic, there was concern bordering on panic about where this might be leading.
In July 1971, Stephen Schneider, a young American climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in New York, made headlines in The New York Times when he warned of a coming cooling that could "trigger an ice age". Soon after, George Kulka, a respected climatologist from the Czech Academy of Sciences, warned on TV that "the ice age is due now any time".
The US National Academy of Sciences reported "a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years". As a hint of the horrors in store, weird weather in Africa led to a drought in the Sahel that starved millions.
Many climate scientists, such as Fred Singer, now a well-known contrarian, called for action to halt the cooling. US government advisers proposed putting giant mirrors into orbit to direct more sunlight onto Earth. Others suggested sprinkling Himalayan glaciers with soot to absorb heat and maintain the ice-melt that feeds the region's rivers.
What prompted this panic? Three decades of evident, if mild, cooling had set the scene, but there was also genuine concern among climate scientists based on predictions of both natural and human-made climate change.
For one thing, the atmosphere was becoming dustier and filling with pollution. Fine, light-scattering particles in the air were shading the planet's surface and, some suspected, causing the cooling. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison argued that dust storms caused by farms spreading into more arid lands were mostly to blame. Meanwhile, Schneider tried to calculate the likely cooling effect of anthropogenic air pollution and compared it with the possible warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions, which it was now clear were accumulating in the atmosphere.
In Schneider's early calculations, published in Science in 1971, the cooling effect was dominant. He said aerosols might have doubled since 1900 and could double again in the coming 50 years. Even allowing for warming from CO2, this could still mean a 3.5 °C drop in global temperatures, which "if sustained over a period of several years... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age".
At the same time, research into the history and timing of past ice ages made it clear that there had been many more than the four originally guessed at, their appearance driven by regular planetary wobbles. Worse, it was now clear that ice ages were the norm rather than the exception. According to Kulka, the most recent interval between ice ages appeared to have lasted only 5000 years. Our present interglacial had already lasted 10,000 years. An ice age was long overdue.
The early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores and with it the suggestion that climate could change very fast: the last ice age may have taken hold within as little as a century. So the cooling in the mid-20th century might not have been a short-term blip but the start of a rapid slide into the next global freeze. The cooling caused by aerosols could kick-start the process, argued Kulka.
It is often claimed today that the fad for cooling was a brief interlude propagated by a few renegade researchers or even that the story is a myth invented by today's climate sceptics. It wasn't. There was good science behind the fears of global cooling. So why did the prognosis prove so wrong?
Short memories were partly to blame. A generation of researchers had virtually forgotten the work of Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who predicted at the end of the 19th century that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would cause significant warming. This meant few took much notice when in the 1960s Charles Keeling began to show that concentrations of the gas had been rising since at least the mid-1950s.
Mistakes also played a part. Some of the calculations published with great fanfare were simply wrong. Soon after his 1971 paper came out, Schneider realised he had greatly overestimated the future cooling effect from human-made aerosols. He had assumed that the increased levels of aerosols in the air that he had measured applied globally. They did not; they related only to small areas close to their source. Moreover, much of the aerosols turned out to be natural, so that even if emissions from human sources did quadruple, their effect would be much smaller than he had calculated.
Schneider also realised that he had underestimated the likely warming effect of CO2: it would be three times as great as he first calculated. When he redid his sums, he concluded that the balance between warming and cooling now tipped strongly towards warming. In 1974, he published a retraction of his earlier prognosis - "just like honest scientists are supposed to do", he says.
The science of ice ages has also advanced since. The planetary wobbles that periodically tip the world into ice ages are not identical, so some interglacial periods last longer than others. Good theoretical work now shows that the current one is likely to be unusually long.
Finally, far from cooling, since the middle of the 1970s the planet has been warming exceptionally rapidly. The link between this and the accumulation of greenhouse gases is almost universally accepted.
Most now agree that the cold decades from the 1940s to 1970s had little to do with either anthropogenic pollution or planetary wobbles. The mid-century cooling, Bryson now agrees, was associated with the eruptions of a cluster of medium-sized volcanoes that pumped sunlight-scattering sulphate aerosols into the upper air.
All this raises an alarming question. If climatologists were so wrong then, why should we believe them now? As those who played a part in the cooling scare now readily admit, those early studies were based on flimsy data collected by very few, often young, researchers. In 1971, when Schneider's paper appeared, he was instantly regarded as a world expert. It was his first publication.
Today, vastly more research has been done into how and why climate changes. The consensus on warming is much bigger, much broader, much more sophisticated in its science and much longer-lasting than the spasm of concern about cooling.
Celestial forces may one day have the final say on climate change, eclipsing any warming we have caused. But that is likely to be thousands of years away, and unless we cut our emissions of greenhouse gases soon, the next ice age might never happen at all. Tim Lenton of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, UK, recently calculated that global warming could reach 13 °C in the coming centuries, double the difference between today and the depths of the last ice age.
The influence of aerosols should not be underestimated, however. Most climate modellers agree that aerosols are currently protecting us from some of the impact of greenhouse warming. At the extreme, says Dutch atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, they could be offsetting as much as three-quarters of warming. This has led him to suggest that we may one day need a global programme to inject sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to shade the planet from the worst excesses of global warming.
Those sulphates would have the same optical effect as the mid-century volcanic eruptions. Before the 21st century is out, he argues, the forces that shaped global cooling half a century ago will have to be used to rescue us from global warming.
From issue 2582 of New Scientist magazine, 15 December 2006, page 46-47
TBH: " who exactly is the foreign power that is occupying Palestine?" Hmm let's not go down that road, wait till Fred gets back..
Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, why would you need Fred to confirm that for you?
Rheghead: "Your comments do seem very specious."
I wondered how long that would take, yep, I'm not a Scientist, just a plain old git that I suppose has an independent mind, and read both sides of anything, and then make my own decision.
It's like religion really, billions of people around the world have their religion, you don't - judging by your comment at the bottom of each posting by Doug Adams.
Supposedly my lack of scientific training, precludes me from posting here.
Just remember Rheghead this forum is not a deep reflective scientific forum, but a place that 80% come on here for the craic, latest gossip, chew the local fat, to pass the time. It would appear that myself, attempting to basically give my own views on this particular subject, gathered over a lifetime of experience, are fair-game, fortunately in the real world, there are other things far more serious.
There was good science behind the fears of global cooling.. "Mistakes also played a part" (similar to Mann's Hockey Stick?)
TBH: "Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, why would you need Fred to confirm that for you?" I think that's a bit specious, and has had many many postings on it, if you are that interested, start yet another thread
What the heck chaps, lets just forget it. Whether it gets warmer of colder there is nothing we can do about it!! Even if the UK, USA, Europe stopped all pollution china, india, and south america will make up for it in days.....
At the end of the day, true or not, a lot of people are making a lot of money out of global warming.
Whether something is true or not does not factor into government policy. They want to make money, so they introduce 'green' taxes.
I don't know about them, but when I look at the countryside it looks awfully brown at the moment. Why waste money researching something when we could be building flood defences and doing something about the here and NOW!!
orkneylass
18-Jan-08, 16:28
This to me only adds credibility compared to all the institutes and academics dependent on funding from self-interested bodies such as governments, oil companies etc who all have their own agendas, such as raising taxation and putting up the price of their products.....
You mean the same eccentric and global warming denying Oregon Institute that is an amateur outfit that works from a barn and hasn't got one climate research facility to their name?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine)
Riffman: "Whether it gets warmer of colder there is nothing we can do about it"
Yep right (done my bit) but, anyway, where's this snow they kept forecasting; nothing here 'outwest'!
j4bberw0ck
18-Jan-08, 16:51
Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact.
Bekisman, just watch how fast the politicians and hero scientists jump on this when in a few more years they report that there's been no more global warming and in fact the planet is cooling - if the solar activity hypothesis proves true. Will they say "oh, we misunderstood the reasons for warming, but hey, it's all ok now", or will they say "Because of our heroic leadership, and efforts and example and nagging at you numpty proles and taxing you on fuel until the pips squeak, our Glorious Campaign is successful! We have halted global warming!"
My guess is it won't be the former.....
I heard it said by a university professor whose name I didn't catch on the radio the other day - the first time I've heard a pro-AGW academic mention the fact that temperatures haven't risen in the past 10 years. He said "there are early indications that we may be having some small success in containing anthropogenic global warming". Oh yeah. Right.
Rheghead's extensive quote just serves as another example of how history, just like it was in the Soviet Union, is airbrushed into whatever form is most palatable.
Warm periods in the Middle Ages weren't warm really. Mini-Ice-Ages weren't really cold. Or extended. Or properly understood until now. Funny, that. When the alternative is a simple explanation that links solar activity reliably and accurately to these variations over time, I'm inclined to go with Ockham's Razor.
Al Gore's film....wow... think everyone needs to watch this...scary stuff but the truth...i have just finished watching it ...now i have been pretty soft on recycling and energey saving ect but it has really made me sit-up and take notice....especially the ice melt at artic, have a quick look at www.climatecrisis.com
al gore must have done or said something right he did win the nobel prize for his efforts....
In October 2007, a High Court Judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in schools, but only if it comes with a note explaining nine scientific errors contained in the film.
The Judge said that some of the errors were made in, "...the context of alarmism and exaggeration," in order to support Mr Gore's views on global warming.
It is official; you can "win" the Noble prize for making nine scientific errors and presenting them to the world as established facts.
In October 2007, a High Court Judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in schools, but only if it comes with a note explaining nine scientific errors contained in the film.
The Judge said that some of the errors were made in, "...the context of alarmism and exaggeration," in order to support Mr Gore's views on global warming.
It is official; you can "win" the Noble prize for making nine scientific errors and presenting them to the world as established facts.
The judge's assessment of the 9 points was substantially flawed, however, the judge deliberrated that the film was broadly accurate and therefore, you are playing up the factual inconsistencies in a film which was meant for public viewing. It wasn't meant to be a science show for scientists.
Everything gets strongly challenged by *some* scientists. That is how science is done. But the end result is usually a consensus. In this case the overwhelming consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real. Most of those who oppose the consensus either have a political agenda or are in the pockets of the energy industry.
When the Kyoto protocol was presented to the world, over 50,000 scientists signed a petition pointing out that the evidence did not support the findings about global warming.
Is that enough of a *some* for you George?
In science, a concensus is normally achieved by the publishing of scientific papers, criticisms made by peers, adjusting of theories to fit those criticisms and the use of scientific evidence to prove or disprove the points made.
That is not what has happened with the global warming issue. A small number of scientists are trying to impose belief of a theory and ignore peer reviews that are inconvenient to them.
If you use proven Chemical Engineering techniques to calculate the impact that man made carbon dioxide contributions make on temperature, you find that the earth would increase by something like 0.005 degrees centigrade.
I am an Environmentalist. I am currently researching recycling. We only have one planet to live on, as yet. We cannot afford to get environmental issues wrong.
It will cost an incredible amount of money to make any significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. This is money that will make no difference to global warming or anything else.
This is money that could make a real difference to so many other problems that we have.
The judge's assessment of the 9 points was substantially flawed,
This is not true.
Climate wise - the weather has changed beyond the variations it had when I was young;
If you were a hundred thousand years old, that might mean something. You can't remember when Scotland had a tropical climate, or the last ice age, but those are much bigger changes than anything you have experienced and were completely natural.
Yoda the flump
19-Jan-08, 12:46
It will cost an incredible amount of money to make any significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. This is money that will make no difference to global warming or anything else.
This is money that could make a real difference to so many other problems that we have.
Regardless of the global warming issue some of the actions put in place like increased recycling and being less reliant on fossil fuels have another positive effect.
We only have a finite amount of resources on the planet, when its gone, its gone!
What is happening to Antartica cannot be ignored and as for the Gulf Stream, I certainly don't want to be around if it is wiped out.
What is happening to Antarctica? Nothing. Even the IPCC admit this. In a recent report, they showed charts of temperature variation and discussed the issues around them. The IPCC show that temperatures at Antarctica are not changing from what we consider to be the norm for our time frame.
This is not true.
it is true, see here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/#more-483
Regardless of the global warming issue some of the actions put in place like increased recycling and being less reliant on fossil fuels have another positive effect.
We only have a finite amount of resources on the planet, when its gone, its gone!
I agree about resources.
However, there is no problem with using up fossil fuels. Whether we use them now or save them for later use, we will still benefit from them and they will still be gone after we have used them up, whether it is now or whether we keep some for a later date. We will find alternatives to coal and oil. In fact, we have already found some.
It is also true that no politician is proposing that we stop using oil. Whether we use it all now or save some for a later date, makes no difference.
There was a time when there was no oil. When there is no oil again, we will have reverted to the previous natural state.
If we use up resources that we cannot find alternatives for, that is when we will have a problem and that is one of the main reasons why recycling is such a key issue.
it is true, see here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/#more-483
Now don't get silly Rheghead, we can all publish web links, such as climateaudit.org and john-daly.com
In fact, carbon dioxide never has made a difference and the historical evidence is available. The data shows that climate warms and then carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase; climate cools and then carbon dioxide levels reduce. This is conclusive that carbon dioxide has not caused global warming. The clincher is that if it did, then our planet would already have fried.
Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere today, are only just above the record low in the planet's history. Before recent times, in our planet's life, carbon dioxide levels were always very greatly higher than they are today.
You mean the same eccentric and global warming denying Oregon Institute that is an amateur outfit that works from a barn and hasn't got one climate research facility to their name?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine
This might be a point that has some validity if man made global warming proponents such as the IPCC did not use very suspect methods.
A large number of the weather stations that IPCC get data from are found in stupid places, for example:
major city university car park
major city airport
one small island that is used to represent the entire north atlantic
Now don't get silly Rheghead, we can all publish web links, such as climateaudit.org and john-daly.com
No I didn't just post any old link.
This is a link to the site that is written by real climatologists, the very ones that are recording the data and testing the global warming theory.
If you disagree with anything that they say then they are quite happy to answer any of your questions. If you think that you can prove that anthropological global warming is a load of hogwash and there is nothing to be alarmed about then they will be only too happy to listen to your views.
Go on, let me know how you get on....:roll:
Before recent times, in our planet's life, carbon dioxide levels were always very greatly higher than they are today.
Yes and how many mass extinctions are observed in the fossil record.
This might be a point that has some validity if man made global warming proponents such as the IPCC did not use very suspect methods.
A large number of the weather stations that IPCC get data from are found in stupid places, for example:
major city university car park
major city airport
one small island that is used to represent the entire north atlantic
If you have a complaint then why don't you write to realclimate and outline you misgivings about their methods?
Your link is not working just now Rheghead, so I will have to look later.
Until I do that, I cannot comment on their findings one way or the other.
You seem to be implying that they are the only ones who could be correct. That make you sound just like the IPCC.
You have lost your argument with me, so you are appealing to "higher powers" to beat me down.
Fundamental science shows that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.
Historical records demonstrate that temperature change drives change in carbon dioxide levels and not the other way round.
Man made global warming proponents tend to cite IPCC as the highest power. IPCC use models to predict what will happen to our climate. Not one of their predictions has been right.
Man made global warming proponents tend to argue that global temperatures are imminently going to rocket.
They have been saying this since 1980 or earlier. It hasn't happened. It isn't happening. It is not going to happen.
Since you are demanding that I go and argue with your chosen "experts", I expect you will want to reciprocate, so take a look at either link I suggested earlier.
I look forward to finding out how you got on.
Not one of their predictions has been right..
Since the IPCC was formed, they have predicted higher global temperatures, more extreme weather events, etc.
Which part of that prediction do you not understand?
Historical records demonstrate that temperature change drives change in carbon dioxide levels and not the other way round.
That could be irrelevent, please explain, unless you are referring to the tipping points when global warming will start to release massive amounts of methane and CO2 from Siberia? Then you are quite correct.
Since the IPCC was formed, they have predicted higher global temperatures, more extreme weather events, etc.
Which part of that prediction do you not understand?
Rheghead, you are resorting to cheek in place of a reasoned argument. I will try and maintain my cool and not respond to your disrespect.
To answer the serious part of your post, the IPCC have consistently predicted massive and imminent temperature rise. This has not happened.
Their arguments keep getting dropped. Remember the broken hockey stick? Statistical analysis shows this theory to be false.
Temperatures in the northern hemisphere have been shown to be ever so slightly higher now than in the recent past. They will never stay the same. Sometimes they go up and sometimes they go down. It is not caused by carbon dioxide.
Temperatures in the southern hemisphere have hardly changed over the same time period. In fact, by IPCC's own admission, the temperature at Antarctica has not changed.
More extreme weather?
The climate changes. That's what it does.
You think we can stop the climate changing? Let's say that such a thing is possible. What climate will Scotland be assigned? Who chooses? I know what I'd pick, but I'm also pretty confident about what I'd have to put up with.
If we can stop the climate changing; should we? What damage will we do?
That could be irrelevent, please explain, unless you are referring to the tipping points when global warming will start to release massive amounts of methane and CO2 from Siberia? Then you are quite correct.
In what way could that be irrelevant?
In the past, carbon dioxide levels were many, many times what we see today. Instead of global warming, temperatures fell and after a time lag, carbon dioxide levels fell. The general trend continued until we hit a record low of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This was in recent times, on a geological scale.
During the long, long general trend, there were periods where the planet warmed. After a time lag, carbon dioxide levels rose. The process then continued with the next cooling and subsequent reduction in carbon dioxide levels.
This seems pretty conclusive.
The temperature changes and then the carbon dioxide levels change. Not the other way round.
We are just above the record low for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. When carbon dioxide levels were far, far higher in the past, there was no global warming.
I'm sorry, Rheghead but your continual mocking and attempts at belittling had to get a response, to whit:
Rheghead: "Oregon Institute that is an amateur outfit that works from a barn"
(A Barn)? :Most of the Institute's work is carried out in a modern 7,000 square foot research laboratory, which includes a full complement of equipment for work in biochemistry and molecular biology and some specialized equipment including a Bruker ion cyclotron resonance Fourier transform mass spectrometer for work on protein deamidation. ( http://www.oism.org/ (http://www.oism.org/) )
A couple of their Faculty: (your 'Amateur outfit'):
Professor Kamen was the discoverer of Carbon 14 and the originator of many of the techniques for the use of radioactive tracers in biochemistry and molecular biology.
Professor Merrifield was the originator of solid phase organic chemistry, which now underlies many of the essential techniques in peptide, protein, and DNA chemistry and other fields of biochemistry. He invented and perfected solid-phase peptide synthesis, with which he carried out the first chemical synthesis of an enzyme. In recognition of these accomplishments, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1984.
Professor Fred Westall is an expert in the biochemistry of immunology and autoimmune disease
Professor Boehme is a Stanford University educated electrical engineer who has made many contributions to the computerized aspects of the Institute's research.
Less belittling and contempt would not go amiss?
I'm sorry, Rheghead but your continual mocking and attempts at belittling had to get a response, to whit:
Rheghead: "Oregon Institute that is an amateur outfit that works from a barn"
(A Barn)? :Most of the Institute's work is carried out in a modern 7,000 square foot research laboratory, which includes a full complement of equipment for work in biochemistry and molecular biology and some specialized equipment including a Bruker ion cyclotron resonance Fourier transform mass spectrometer for work on protein deamidation. ( http://www.oism.org/ (http://www.oism.org/) )
A couple of their Faculty: (your 'Amateur outfit'):
Professor Kamen was the discoverer of Carbon 14 and the originator of many of the techniques for the use of radioactive tracers in biochemistry and molecular biology.
Professor Merrifield was the originator of solid phase organic chemistry, which now underlies many of the essential techniques in peptide, protein, and DNA chemistry and other fields of biochemistry. He invented and perfected solid-phase peptide synthesis, with which he carried out the first chemical synthesis of an enzyme. In recognition of these accomplishments, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1984.
Professor Fred Westall is an expert in the biochemistry of immunology and autoimmune disease
Professor Boehme is a Stanford University educated electrical engineer who has made many contributions to the computerized aspects of the Institute's research.
Less belittling and contempt would not go amiss?
Pray tell what all that has got to do with climatology, tell me another thing, is there anything that they say stands up to scientific scrutiny? The answer is no.
In what way could that be irrelevant?
In the past, carbon dioxide levels were many, many times what we see today. Instead of global warming, temperatures fell and after a time lag, carbon dioxide levels fell. The general trend continued until we hit a record low of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This was in recent times, on a geological scale.
During the long, long general trend, there were periods where the planet warmed. After a time lag, carbon dioxide levels rose. The process then continued with the next cooling and subsequent reduction in carbon dioxide levels.
This seems pretty conclusive.
The temperature changes and then the carbon dioxide levels change. Not the other way round.
We are just above the record low for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. When carbon dioxide levels were far, far higher in the past, there was no global warming.
It is irrelevent because whatever was causing the rise in CO2 and thus the temperature in the distant past is not largely at work at present. In the past there was mass extinctions due to environmental changes, is that what you want to happen now? The rise in CO2 and temperature now is due to anthropological reasons and that is the initial driver to the changes which are happening over a much faster timespan.
Rheghead, you are resorting to cheek in place of a reasoned argument. I will try and maintain my cool and not respond to your disrespect.
I was never cheeky, I asked you a normal question and you avoided the answer, not for the first time i might add...
Again, which part of the proven prediction of raised temperatures and extreme weather events do YOU not understand. That prediction was made back in the 1980s, since then 17 of the 24 hottest years have happened since then. On the extreme weather front(no pun intended) every year we get more extreme weather not just locally but globally.
Which part of that do you not understand?
It is irrelevent because whatever was causing the rise in CO2 and thus the temperature in the distant past is not largely at work at present. In the past there was mass extinctions due to environmental changes, is that what you want to happen now? The rise in CO2 and temperature now is due to anthropological reasons and that is the initial driver to the changes which are happening over a much faster timespan.
The man made global warmists argue that carbon dioxide interacts with energy flowing from the sun to the earth.
The source of carbon dioxide level is absolutely and completely irrelevant. It matters not a jot where the carbon dioxide comes from. The difference between pre-existant, "natural" carbon dioxide and man made carbon dioxide makes no difference to its ability to cause global warming. That there were massive levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in the past and that they did not lead to global warming, is clear evidence that the extremely low levels of today cannot cause global warming either.
Mass extinctions now? Again, there may be specific cases of something or somethings dying out due to specific circumstances, but mass extinctions due to climate change in general, there is no evidence for.
I was never cheeky, I asked you a normal question and you avoided the answer, not for the first time i might add...
Again, which part of the proven prediction of raised temperatures and extreme weather events do YOU not understand. That prediction was made back in the 1980s, since then 17 of the 24 hottest years have happened since then. On the extreme weather front(no pun intended) every year we get more extreme weather not just locally but globally.
Which part of that do you not understand?
Which part do you not understand. That is pure cheek.
You are discussing a very short time frame and implying that the extremes for that time frame are fundamental extremes. This is inaccurate.
Each record we hit is the record since the last time.
We have been recording weather for the blink of an eye in terms of the planet's lifetime.
It is a known fact that climate has been massively different from today at various times in the past.
I have tried to post a reply concerning your weblink and all of the work I did has come to nought, since something went wrong after clicking the submit button. However, I will try to post near enough the same information again now.
Rheghead; "Pray tell what all that has got to do with climatology"
Incidentally see by your info you're a Chemist? is that in climatology by any chance?
forgot to add:
"Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds. It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published." http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)
Rheghead, I finally managed to get through to the link you posted. It does not address the issues by itself, but instead refers to other sources.
The first that I have checked shows immediate problems.
"Gore does not explicitly say that Greenland’s ice will disappear in the immediate future, merely that coastal areas will be dramatically flooded very soon."
This is misleading.
Gore says that coastal areas will be dramatically flooded very soon. He argues that this is due to ice melting from land masses and flowing into the seas.
This is alarmist. Is it true?
It hasn't happened since Gore's film was released. So what then is soon? What is dramatic, because it hasn't happened at all, never mind in a dramatic way. He quite clearly chose to use these words to scare people who do not know better.
It is already well understood that ice already floating on the sea, such as the north pole, makes no difference to sea level after it melts, since it is already a part of the sea.
Sea level is a complicated issue in itself, but there is no real evidence that sea level has risen, or is rising.
A number of groups are studying sea level. As an example, I will refer to work being carried out by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
If you refer to the link below, you will see the data being collated for a large number of pacific islands, including Tuvalu.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/floor0/recent/issue50/t50a1.htm
The graphs tend to show that sea level naturally goes up and down, in some cases rather dramatically due to things like El Nino, but there is no apparent trend.
In addition, the researchers compare their data with data collected by a previous undertaking. The old data is in good agreement with the new data. No sea level rise trend.
Now this team are man made global warming proponants and they are proving it wrong.
There is a rock off Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841.
The tidal range at this rock, is about 1 metre.
Today, the mark is still seen to represent mean sea level. That is to say, there has been no change in sea level since 1841.
There have been some specific cases of the UK coast line changing, but these are for specific reasons, such as erosion. Thurso beach is still Thurso beach.
Returning to Tuvalu.
Among the most vociferous of the pacific island protests, is Tuvalu. There is no sea level rise, as we have seen, but what is it that they want? Well, what they are demanding(!) is that America, as the (previously) largest polluter, pay them billions of dollars as compensation for sea level rise(!) caused by global warming(!) in turn caused by America's pollution.
Very good boys.
Coming back to the complicated nature of measuring sea level.
If you take a map and draw a line from about Bristol to about Newcastle, the land to the south east of the line is sinking, while the land to the north west of the line is rising. The scientific argument continues as to whether this is caused by techtonic plate movements or to isostatic bounce back, or even something else. However, if you try and measure the movement of one thing from another thing that is also moving, then you are going to encounter problems.
Now that I have started to tackle the issues from your web link, perhaps you will take a look at climateaudit.org and tell us what you think.
the world has been changing for thousands of years and will continue to change for thousands more so live for the day :D
Yoda the flump
19-Jan-08, 19:45
I agree about resources.
However, there is no problem with using up fossil fuels. Whether we use them now or save them for later use, we will still benefit from them and they will still be gone after we have used them up, whether it is now or whether we keep some for a later date. We will find alternatives to coal and oil. In fact, we have already found some.
It is also true that no politician is proposing that we stop using oil. Whether we use it all now or save some for a later date, makes no difference.
There was a time when there was no oil. When there is no oil again, we will have reverted to the previous natural state.
If we use up resources that we cannot find alternatives for, that is when we will have a problem and that is one of the main reasons why recycling is such a key issue.
What I am suggesting is a more efficient use of fossil fuels, burning then certainly is not that.
The man made global warmists argue that carbon dioxide interacts with energy flowing from the sun to the earth.
Which it does, we can observe this effect in the laboratory. Fact not fiction.
The source of carbon dioxide level is absolutely and completely irrelevant. It matters not a jot where the carbon dioxide comes from. The difference between pre-existant, "natural" carbon dioxide and man made carbon dioxide makes no difference to its ability to cause global warming.
It does matter, because since we are pumping carbon products into the atmosphere which hasn't seen the light of day since carbon dioxide levels were much higher than today then we are altering the natural balance of the Earth.
That there were massive levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in the past and that they did not lead to global warming, is clear evidence that the extremely low levels of today cannot cause global warming either.
Maybe true may be not, but again it is irrelevent unless you can ascertain and allow for other geographic and solar factors into the equation. Certainly for you to say that CO2 was higher in the distant past and there was no global warming is very misleading and counter productive if we are to get the public to appreciate that global warming is a real and present danger.
Mass extinctions now? Again, there may be specific cases of something or somethings dying out due to specific circumstances, but mass extinctions due to climate change in general, there is no evidence for.
Well you have only have to look at the latest theories relating to the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. The theory goes that a comet struck and that set off a chain of environmental events which upset the global apple cart. So there is one for a start. Then there are the mass extinctions at the end of the last ice age.
Oh yes, and more recently, the warming seas around Britain in recent years have largely been blamed for the changes in the populations of sandeels which has had a devastating effect on guillemot and puffin populations around Caithness. A mass extiction in the making there me thinks........
You are discussing a very short time frame and implying that the extremes for that time frame are fundamental extremes. This is inaccurate.
Is it inaccurate that most of the last 25 years have been the hottest on record? I don't think so. The records span back over 150 years and since the burning of fossil fuels and the levels of CO2 has risen dramatically in the last 40 years then it does take much of a logical step that CO2 and the other GHGs are doing the temperature increases. As shown by the correlation with the Hockey Stick graphs that haven't yet been debunked.
Sea level is a complicated issue in itself, but there is no real evidence that sea level has risen, or is rising.
A number of groups are studying sea level. As an example, I will refer to work being carried out by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
If you refer to the link below, you will see the data being collated for a large number of pacific islands, including Tuvalu.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/floor0/recent/issue50/t50a1.htm
The graphs tend to show that sea level naturally goes up and down, in some cases rather dramatically due to things like El Nino, but there is no apparent trend.
In addition, the researchers compare their data with data collected by a previous undertaking. The old data is in good agreement with the new data. No sea level rise trend.
Now this team are man made global warming proponants and they are proving it wrong.
There is a rock off Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841.
The tidal range at this rock, is about 1 metre.
Today, the mark is still seen to represent mean sea level. That is to say, there has been no change in sea level since 1841.
There have been some specific cases of the UK coast line changing, but these are for specific reasons, such as erosion. Thurso beach is still Thurso beach.
Returning to Tuvalu.
Among the most vociferous of the pacific island protests, is Tuvalu. There is no sea level rise, as we have seen, but what is it that they want? Well, what they are demanding(!) is that America, as the (previously) largest polluter, pay them billions of dollars as compensation for sea level rise(!) caused by global warming(!) in turn caused by America's pollution.
Very good boys.
Coming back to the complicated nature of measuring sea level.
If you take a map and draw a line from about Bristol to about Newcastle, the land to the south east of the line is sinking, while the land to the north west of the line is rising. The scientific argument continues as to whether this is caused by techtonic plate movements or to isostatic bounce back, or even something else. However, if you try and measure the movement of one thing from another thing that is also moving, then you are going to encounter problems.
You have just committed the same thing that you are complaining global warmists are doing.
Rheghead are you suggesting that only the theories of those climatologists you consider to be 'real' should be considered/believed?
I fancy that we humans are of such little consequence on this earth that all we can do is adapt to whatever mother nature chooses to throw at us - as has always been and will always be the case.
Yes we should take more care of our natural resources - that goes without saying. But reversing global warming? I don't think so.
Which it does, we can observe this effect in the laboratory. Fact not fiction.
The fact is that the effect is small and, incidentally, gets smaller as the concentration of carbon dioxide goes up. It does not lead to runaway warming. It adds 0.005 degrees, not 4 or 5 degrees.
It does matter, because since we are pumping carbon products into the atmosphere which hasn't seen the light of day since carbon dioxide levels were much higher than today then we are altering the natural balance of the Earth.
Correct. Back closer to its original natural state.
Maybe true may be not, but again it is irrelevent unless you can ascertain and allow for other geographic and solar factors into the equation. Certainly for you to say that CO2 was higher in the distant past and there was no global warming is very misleading and counter productive if we are to get the public to appreciate that global warming is a real and present danger.
I'm intrigued Rheghead, what geographic and solar factors are interacting with carbon dioxide in a different way to before? The laws of nature do not change to suit global warmists arguments. It is not misleading at all to say that carbon dioxide was higher in the distant past and there was no global warming. It is a historical fact. The global warmist argument is that carbon dioxide warms the planet and the warmer planet transfers more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is not true, since carbon dioxide has been shown not to be capable of this by calculation of the associated energy changes. This is supported by the evidence that carbon dioxide at extremely high levels by today's standards could not even cause global warming in the past, so current levels have no chance whatsoever. The entire point is that global warmists are bullying people who do not have the tools to find out for themselves, that carbon dioxide causes global warming, when we can easily see that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming. Sadly, your argument is becoming less plausible and more like the bullying tactics that global warmists have resorted to.
Well you have only have to look at the latest theories relating to the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. The theory goes that a comet struck and that set off a chain of environmental events which upset the global apple cart. So there is one for a start. Then there are the mass extinctions at the end of the last ice age.
Oh yes, and more recently, the warming seas around Britain in recent years have largely been blamed for the changes in the populations of sandeels which has had a devastating effect on guillemot and puffin populations around Caithness. A mass extiction in the making there me thinks........
The theory that a large object struck the earth and led to extinction of the dinosaurs is one theory, but there are others.
That a large object could strike the earth and wipe us out is actually a more serious threat to us than global warming. This is because such an event, if it involved a large enough object, would wipe us out. No argument, no mitigating circumstances. It is one that is difficult to predict, although we have started to watch for such an object coming our way. It is highly likely to happen at some point in the earth's future, but impossible to say exactly when it might happen.
All this is very interesting, however, we are not discussing a large object striking the earth and causing global warming. We are discussing man made contributions to the existing, natural carbon cycle.
Same goes for your ice age argument. Ice ages happen and there's nothing, as yet, that we can do to stop them. I wonder, even if we could, should we?
Then there is the warming sea and sandeels argument. You are assuming that this is not a natural phenomenon. These things have happened throughout history.
They are not related to man made contributions to the existing, natural carbon cycle.
These arguments that you are dredging up now are less good than points you have made previously and smack of desperation.
Have you had a look at climateaudit.org yet?
Is it inaccurate that most of the last 25 years have been the hottest on record? I don't think so. The records span back over 150 years and since the burning of fossil fuels and the levels of CO2 has risen dramatically in the last 40 years then it does take much of a logical step that CO2 and the other GHGs are doing the temperature increases. As shown by the correlation with the Hockey Stick graphs that haven't yet been debunked.
It is misleading to say that the last 25 years have been the hottest on record.
The record goes back 150 years? A blink of an eye as far as our planet is concerned. Go back a bit more and we find the medieval warm period, when temperatures were higher than today. By the way, they had no cars then. They did not have industry as we understand it then.
And where do these records you speak of come from? They are recorded at ground level. They are recorded in weather stations sited in major airports, university car parks and they even use one small island to represent the entire north atlantic. You put your stock in these?
Recently, satellites were used to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere. They temperature mapped the entire globe. These reading were lower than the readings recorded at wether stations. These readings were confirmed by readings taken using weather balloons. Incidentally, the global warming theory is all based on the atmosphere warming, not the surface.
How do you assess the urban island effect Rheghead?
We have also to consider the dramatic difference that we saw in global temperature calculated from surface readings when the Soviet Union broke up and all of a sudden we lost a huge number of readings across that massive land base. That massive land area also happens to include large tracts of cold region. At that exact time, the surface temperature average rose. Do you see a connection?
As for dramatic rises in carbon dioxide, we have already seen that the levels of today are extremely low and we've nearly used up the oil and gas. Once the oil and gas is gone, it's gone. Presumably at that point, you will start to worry about global cooling again (it was only about 1970 when this was a worry before).
As for 25 year high temperatures and 40 year oil burning, most of the warming discussed, happened before oil burning took off. So that is a non argument.
The hockey stick graphs tell us that we should already be seeing much greater increases in temperature than the surface temperature records show. If you look at climateaudit.org, one of the things those statisticians discuss is the hockey stick and, yes, it is disproved.
You have just committed the same thing that you are complaining global warmists are doing.
Not so Rheghead.
Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits energy just exactly the same as it always did.
Please tell me how you think geographic and solar changes affect this and I will discuss that too. I refuse to try and predict what you are assuming.
Rheghead are you suggesting that only the theories of those climatologists you consider to be 'real' should be considered/believed?
I fancy that we humans are of such little consequence on this earth that all we can do is adapt to whatever mother nature chooses to throw at us - as has always been and will always be the case.
Yes we should take more care of our natural resources - that goes without saying. But reversing global warming? I don't think so.
Well said KittyMay. We are insignificant as far as our planet is concerned.
We have to recycle as much as possible and we should spend money on efforts to help in that respect. We should not be throwing away enormous sums of money on problems that are not real, such as carbon dioxide causing global warming.
The fact is that the effect is small and, incidentally, gets smaller as the concentration of carbon dioxide goes up. It does not lead to runaway warming. It adds 0.005 degrees, not 4 or 5 degrees.
Well flippin' eck, you go tell that to them at the IPCC, i am sure Bush et al will be pleased......................but then, he already knows that because he is paying Stephen McIntyre's wages, isn't he?:roll:;)
Well said KittyMay. We are insignificant as far as our planet is concerned.
We have to recycle as much as possible and we should spend money on efforts to help in that respect. We should not be throwing away enormous sums of money on problems that are not real, such as carbon dioxide causing global warming.
Such is the many faces of anti-windfarm and nimbyism, it includes Climate Change Denial, well done![lol]
Rheghead are you suggesting that only the theories of those climatologists you consider to be 'real' should be considered/believed?
Yes, just the same as I would trust and believe a 'real' doctor who wants to operate on a child.
Would you want a non-qualified person to operate on your child?:confused
Such is the many faces of anti-windfarm and nimbyism, it includes Climate Change Denial, well done![lol]
Dear me. I post a tiny 3 line comment on a thread and am falsely accused of being anti-windfarm, a nimby and a Climate Change Denier. Anything else you'd like to accuse me of?
In order to prevent further misunderstanding Rheghead please take note that I'm anti poorly sited windfarms and don't believe windfarms will make any real impact on reducing carbon emissions, where these poorly sited windfarms are concerned my back yard includes the whole of Scotland and finally I've never denied Climate Change.
Yes, just the same as I would trust and believe a 'real' doctor who wants to operate on a child.
Would you want a non-qualified person to operate on your child?:confused
I wouldn't want a non-qualified person to operate on anyone.
Are all the climatologists in the world in complete agreement about the cause of the current changes to the climate?
Gaia will prevail and the earth will heal itself with or without our help.:)
Are all the climatologists in the world in complete agreement about the cause of the current changes to the climate?
Yes they are.
Yes they are.Except for those who dare to disagree. But if you want to keep the funding going the beast thing to do is keep your head down.
Don't fall for the "They all agree" argument. Fifty years ago only a lunatic bent on being ridiculed by the rest of the Scientific Community mentioned, Shh! don't say it above a whisper, Continental Drift. The Scientific Fact was, as everybody knew, the Continents were fixed and only a fool would think otherwise.
A Century ago everybody, including Einstein, knew that the Universe was definitely static and only a fool would suggest otherwise. Einstein even invented a force so he could explain why it didn't collapse under the effects of gravity.
Well, surprise, surprise, all the scientists of those time got it completely wrong despite the fact that they all agreed they were definitely right.
That is without mentioning that, in terms of the Earths long term Climate we are currently in one of it’s very rare Ice Ages. For the vast majority of it’s life the Earth has been considerably warmer than it is now and, indeed, warmer than even the most extreme predictions of the Climatologists, many of whom remind me of the story King Canute and holding the tide back.
The thing for everybody to bear in mind is that predicting the future is, and always will be, the Exact Science of Inspired Guesswork.
Human Beings always have and always will tend to be fearful of change they either don not understand or cannot control. That is why they invented "Gods" who had to be appeased to stop them creating "disasters".
Now we have less of a tendency to accept "Gods" as the cause of disasters Human Beings have replaced them by using "Science" as an explanation.
"The Earth is changing so we must be doing something to cause it. We must do penance to appease the “Gods of Climate Change” to stave off the forthcoming disaster. We behaved in exactly the same way centuries ago to “explain” the scourge of the Black Death. Read your history and you will find that almost every major unexplained happening has been put down by some to “Sinful Behaviour” committed by the people!
Will somebody please tell me which version of the Religion of Climate Disaster am I to believe in, Am I going to die frozen under a mile of ice in Caithness due to the Gulf Steam disappearing or am I going to die of thirst due to the drought due to the encroaching desert? Ah well, it might not matter, We may all die because of the predicted eventual arrival of a huge Meteor, or is it going to be a Super Volcano or perhaps a Giant Tsunami when half an Island disappears into the Atlantic.
I will make a prediction that one thing is certain. At some time in the future there will definitely be a massive disaster, but not today folks! ;)
Don't fall for the "They all agree" argument.
There was a lot of waffle in your post so I will just pick up this.
They do all agree on the causes of climate change, ie GHGs, solar activity etc.
Where they do disagree, and I am only talking about a very small minority, is in the effects of climatic feedbacks, the magnitude and their eventual sign.
Rheghead, in your posts, there is more and more disrespect for all who argue against you on your climate change stance. Your actual arguments are also becoming more and more ragged, with little supporting material offered. This tends to suggest that you have lost this argument.
To tackle your cheek about McIntyre and McKitrick, McKitrick spends significant time away from his own economics research to do his climate work, because he recognises the importance. McIntyre has taken an unpaid leave of absence from his career and has foregone more than a years worth of earnings.
McIntyre and McKitrick are published widely for the work that they are doing. They have a great deal of real respect for this work from diverse scientific quarters, except for the carbon dioxide causes global warming proponants.
They have shown that the broken hockey stick work conducted by Mann, was flawed. In fact, they have demonstrated that Mann's technique yields broken hockey stick graph's from random data.
They have done a lot more than this, but that should suffice for here at this time.
I have spent some time to go over your posts again, to see why you are just so stubborn. It seems that your biggest problem is your belief that recent weather can be described as extreme compared with the weather record of 150 years, together with your similar faith on recent supposedly high temperatures and again in comparison with the last 150 years.
You really need to take a look at the bigger picture in terms of weather and temperature, ie. beyond the 150 year record that humans have collated.
The medieval warm period was significantly warmer than today for hundreds of years. Recent supposed high temperatures do not come close to matching this period, which was not so long ago, as far as the planet is concerned.
Various teams have studied weather patterns and tend to find that, looking beyond our 150 year record, today's weather is not unusual.
For the UK, 2007 had several months with temperatures that were significantly below average. How do you square this with your insistence that we are getting warmer?
If the Greenhouse Effect Theory was correct, would we not be seeing a new record temperature every year by now? It has had about 30 years to start rocketing, like the broken hockey stick, but it is not happening.
A study was carried out on the size and frequency of hurricanes, but I cannot find that particular information just now.
Prompted by flooding events across Europe in the summer of 2002, Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig, published in Nature, looked at data going back to 1021 for the Elbe and 1269 for the Oder. They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in that region of Europe.
Alexander Frolov, Deputy Head of Russia's Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, stated that, "Russia does not believe in apocolyptic forecasts" of global warming.
In the Russian journal Geomagnetism i Aeronomiya (Vol. 43, pp. 132 - 135) two scientists from the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Scientists "challenge the politically-correct global warming dogma that vexes the entire world". They say that, "A number of publications report that the anthropogenic impact on the earth's climate is an obvious and proven fact when in actuality, none of the investigations dealing with the anthropogenic impact on the climate convincingly argues for such an impact."
You argue that IPCC models have predicted the weather we are seeing these years. Presumably they predicted this 10 or more years ago. Please advise which of the older IPCC models predicted today's temperatures and show how they compare with actual recorded data.
This subject depends on physics, chemistry, mathematics and systems/processes. Anyone who is sufficiently proficient in these areas, who does a little research and who puts some thought into it, can take a view and contribute to the debate. It makes no sense to try and limit the debate to Climatologists and it is plain wrong to pick one particular set of those.
Through, there was a lot of waffle in your post which didn't raise any issues. I would suggest you start reading some proper science about climate change instead of trawling through oil industry-backed websites whose writers have been scientifically discredited.
Can you provide any contribution that supports your claim that AGW is a load of hogwash from a bonafide climatologist? I suspect you can't. It is them that are doing the science. Incidentally, you seem to think that the IPCC is a uniformed think tank that is singing from the same song sheet, it isn't. It is made up of independently funded and independently research establishments that are all coming to the same conclusion. They don't all agree but that is what science debate and science consensus is all about sorting out.
If you really think that McIntyre has a point then would it interest you to know that his findings have been debunked as bad science. Like Lomborg, he isn't even a proper scientist, he is an economist/politician. And one who is funded by the oil industry which is hellbent on proving that global warming is a lie.
Rheghead, in your posts, there is more and more disrespect for all who argue against you on your climate change stance. Your actual arguments are also becoming more and more ragged, with little supporting material offered. This tends to suggest that you have lost this argument.
.
Don't take it too seriously. You have to keep in mind in an earlier post Rheghead stated that he argues different sides of arguments on different forums which means that there is a good chance he doing this here (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=294569&postcount=10). Rather than stating a personal belief he could just be arguing to help him understand both sides of the argument.
Don't take it too seriously. You have to keep in mind in an earlier post Rheghead stated that he argues different sides of arguments on different forums.
Indeed, I have seen and been through all the sceptical angles on climate change before, so i know them inside out, in fact I made up one and then I saw the thing on another forum peddled as fact and it was me that made it up! [lol] But in the end, facts caught up with me and I wasn't able to defend my sceptical lies.
Yes, it was sounding more and more like you were giving up the argument Rheghead and that is what you have now done.
Yes, it was sounding more and more like you were giving up the argument Rheghead and that is what you have now done.
No I am just saying that you have no scientific basis for your arguement. If the IPCC thought that there was anything of merit then they will retract their findings.
Like so many I am baffled and intrigued by the conflicting reports,scientific studies and the mostly dross being put about by the politicians.
I have seen some strange weather patterns but even within my life time they are not unusual and historically even less so.
If it means that we think a little more about how we use resources and respect our environent then that is to the general good.
Unfortunately I don't believe there is any genuine willingness either at national or international level to deal with these problems in a co-ordinated manner as each party is desperately trying to protect their interests and care little for those of their neighbours.
Sad reflection of the times but I suspect it could be an accurate one.
Nine inconvenient untruths
Bore's theories are so good that the schools issue a warning before they are shown...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece
Like so many I am baffled and intrigued by the conflicting reports,scientific studies and the mostly dross being put about by the politicians.
I have seen some strange weather patterns but even within my life time they are not unusual and historically even less so.
If it means that we think a little more about how we use resources and respect our environent then that is to the general good.
Unfortunately I don't believe there is any genuine willingness either at national or international level to deal with these problems in a co-ordinated manner as each party is desperately trying to protect their interests and care little for those of their neighbours.
Sad reflection of the times but I suspect it could be an accurate one.
I'm with you completely Lizz. It's all so confusing. Though given that the scientists themselves are still arguing over the model, data used, the estimates, guesstamites, predictions, forecasts, theories etc, etc, it's hardly surprising.
There is no doubt that we should think long and hard about how we use our resources. That's how it should have always been but we were encouraged to 'waste'. If we 'wasted' (electricity, petrol, food, etc etc) we needed more and more and more..... and that was exactly what was expected of us.
Through has made some really good points but I only have intuition and gut instinct to go by (rarely lets me down).
The 'consensus' believes that we have the power/ability/knowledge to reverse climate change. My instinct tells me that's absolute nonsense and prevents me from making that leap of faith (in the consensus) required to take on board the anthropogenic element of climate change.
But I'll carry on being careful about waste and energy efficiency - that makes complete sense to me.
But I'll carry on being careful about waste and energy efficiency - that makes complete sense to me.
That is all that is required. Cheers!;)
No I am just saying that you have no scientific basis for your arguement. If the IPCC thought that there was anything of merit then they will retract their findings.You still believe the sun revolves around the earth rheghead?;)
You still believe the sun revolves around the earth rheghead?;)
No, because I look at the problem from the bigger picture, but there are more eminently qualified people than me who actually do believe that and who live in Caithness. ;)
http://www.clavius.org/bibjones.html
Slander
Sent at: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:10 pm
From: Steve McIntyre
To: Through
I'm not "financed" by the oil industry. I'm retired and doing this on my own nickel.
I don't think that anything that we've written has been "debunked". In fact, our papers were reviewed by two senior panels and neither reported any errors. Wegman said categorically that our findings were correct and that Mann could not make his claims - see links at CA. When the NAS panel considered our work, they endorsed each specific point of ours that we considered. Asked at the U.S. House whether the NAS panel disagreed with any Wegman findings, North said that he agreed with them.
So it's false to say that we've been "debunked". Mann's associates have counter-attacked. I've looked carefully through their counterattacks and have been unable to identify anything that in any way refutes or rebuts our findings.
Rheghead,
How does the temperature of today compare with:
8 years ago?
700 years ago?
2,000 years ago?
10,000 years ago?
No, you don't have to trawl through search engines or whatever; I can tell you.
At all of these times, the temperature was the same.
Where exactly is the warming?
Why did your favoured climatologists call the medieval warm period the , "Halocene Climatic Optimum"? This is a period of time where the temperature was warmer than today.
During the period of 1979 to 2005, the rate of change of temperature was about 0.15 °C per decade. Yet, the temperature record shows many instances of rates as high as 1.5 °C per decade. That's 10 times faster than the rate you claim to represent global warming.
At many times in the past, temperatures have been warmer than today. Why are we here? Why are there so many different living creatures? Is it not your argument that they should have succumbed to mass extinctions? Apparently, they survived.
Incidentally, you seem to think that the IPCC is a uniformed think tank that is singing from the same song sheet, it isn't. It is made up of independently funded and independently research establishments that are all coming to the same conclusion. They don't all agree but that is what science debate and science consensus is all about sorting out.
Where exactly do I say anything like that?
The IPCC is the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change. The clue is in the title. Those people are not about to say that there is no global warming. They'd be out of a job.
Incidentally, science is not about concensus. It is about testing hypotheses, proving them, amending them or disproving them, as appropriate.
Global warming fails the test.
Slander
Sent at: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:10 pm
From: Steve McIntyre
To: Through
I'm not "financed" by the oil industry. I'm retired and doing this on my own nickel.
I don't think that anything that we've written has been "debunked". In fact, our papers were reviewed by two senior panels and neither reported any errors. Wegman said categorically that our findings were correct and that Mann could not make his claims - see links at CA. When the NAS panel considered our work, they endorsed each specific point of ours that we considered. Asked at the U.S. House whether the NAS panel disagreed with any Wegman findings, North said that he agreed with them.
So it's false to say that we've been "debunked". Mann's associates have counter-attacked. I've looked carefully through their counterattacks and have been unable to identify anything that in any way refutes or rebuts our findings.
Also included are these 84 names of scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries.
52. Stephen McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org, mathematics, philosophy, politics and economics. No discernable climate science experience. He is the guy who found the slight error in NASA's hockey stick data. He is also heavily involved in the mining industry, and even founded his own mining corporation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008
It just takes a bit of digging.....;)
Rheghead,
Something you have ignored throughout, is the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past than it is today and yet it never did force the temperature to rocket. Why is that?
Why did we not see temperature forced off the scale when our atmosphere contained:
2,000 ppm carbon dioxide?
4,000 ppm carbon dioxide?
6,000 ppm carbon dioxide?
Rheghead,
Something you have ignored throughout, is the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past than it is today and yet it never did force the temperature to rocket. Why is that?
Why did we not see temperature forced off the scale when our atmosphere contained:
2,000 ppm carbon dioxide?
4,000 ppm carbon dioxide?
6,000 ppm carbon dioxide?
I am not doubting you, but can you give links or tell me when that was so. There must be a graph you can post.
I am not doubting you, but can you give links or tell me when that was so. There must be a graph you can post.
Ha Ha!
Can't you just "Do a little digging?"
Ha Ha!
Can't you just "Do a little digging?"
I could but I would be accused of producing graphs to my choosing. ;)
Actually, that is why I have not done so. There are lots of web sites that show them, but any I pick will be subject to your inane one liners.
See what you can find, add your interpretations and we'll take it from there.
Additionally, depending on the quality of the graph, you will also see that change in carbon dioxide level lags change in temperature by approximately 800 years. Hence, temperature may cause carbon dioxide concentration to change, but carbon dioxide concentration has not caused temperature to change.
The history of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures is pretty fundamental to this issue.
I can't imagine that you'll get really stuck with finding a chart, but if you do, pm me and I'll suggest some.
The trouble with what you are saying is that there will be inherent problems with collecting proxy data over say 500 million years. No tree rings, pollen, etc. Also, the continents will have changed and the oceanic currents will have changed. Yes, the CO2 can be inferred but getting a correlation with temperature to any meaningful resolution in time is fraught with problems.
However, over the last 400,000 years there is good correlation in the form of ice core data, etc etc.
Since the continental landmasses have not changed much over that 400,000 years, we can assume that tectonic effects are constant.
Neil Howie
25-Jan-08, 01:13
I prefer my science in magazine format. Preferably with pictures. Medieval warm period, pah!
7 Biggest myths about climate change (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19426041.100)
But why bother reading?...
...it's too late to do anything about it....
!z
The idea of a static universe is one which demands that space is not expanding nor contracting but rather is dynamically stable. Albert Einstein proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology by adding a cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which in a universe of matter would cause the universe to collapse. After the discovery by Edwin Hubble that there was a relationship between redshift and distance, Einstein declared this formulation to be his "biggest blunder" proposed such a model as his preferred
Tectonic effects stay constant? Can you substansiate that Rheghead?
Now whilst I do not expect the continents to go around slapping each other on the back, the inexorable movement surely cannot be constant or can it?
Geologists, Geophysicists help me out here.
Tectonic effects stay constant? Can you substansiate that Rheghead?
Now whilst I do not expect the continents to go around slapping each other on the back, the inexorable movement surely cannot be constant or can it?
Geologists, Geophysicists help me out here.They are in constant motion so I guess he is right in some respect but assuming that is because there is no noticeable change in continental landmasses is kinda strange.:confused
George Brims
25-Jan-08, 01:49
I suspect what Rheghead meant (the chief clue being that he said it) is that over the timescale of 400k years, for which we have ice data, the continents haven't moved *much* compared to the huge movements over longer geological timescales.
I suspect what Rheghead meant (the chief clue being that he said it) is that over the timescale of 400k years, for which we have ice data, the continents haven't moved *much* compared to the huge movements over longer geological timescales.It just seemed like a backward way of getting to his point.
Could well be an explanation for that I thank you but am still trying to get my head round it.
Will have to dig deaper !
Green_not_greed
26-Jan-08, 00:00
Since the continental landmasses have not changed much over that 400,000 years, we can assume that tectonic effects are constant.
Over your own lifetime, perhaps. Its a strange view of "constant" from someone claiming to be a scientist.
Which I guess takes us back to...
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
Over your own lifetime, perhaps. Its a strange view of "constant" from someone claiming to be a scientist.
Which I guess takes us back to...
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
You failed to see my point, I never said the position of the continents was constant, the american and eurasian continents would move about 30km over 400,000 years. Not enough to have an effect on the sea currents, so in in terms of global warming, the tectonics over 400,000 years can be ignored.
Whoops sorry, thanks for the information.
The trouble with what you are saying is that there will be inherent problems with collecting proxy data over say 500 million years. No tree rings, pollen, etc. Also, the continents will have changed and the oceanic currents will have changed. Yes, the CO2 can be inferred but getting a correlation with temperature to any meaningful resolution in time is fraught with problems.
However, over the last 400,000 years there is good correlation in the form of ice core data, etc etc.
Since the continental landmasses have not changed much over that 400,000 years, we can assume that tectonic effects are constant.
The carbon dioxide concentration of our atmosphere was massive. According to man made global warming theories, the planet should now be at an unlivable temperature and the carbon dioxide levels should be even higher. The continents do not affect the manner in which carbon dioxide will absorb and re-emit energy.
Are you also trying to say that there are no problems with ice core data, especially older material?
HeinzGuderian
02-Feb-08, 23:04
I bet you believed Brave Heart n all !!! DOH
HeinzGuderian
02-Feb-08, 23:06
[evil]Convenient Lies !!
According to man made global warming theories, the planet should now be at an unlivable temperature and the carbon dioxide levels should be even higher.
Get real, where do climatologists say that?:confused
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.