Global Warming Propaganda

[Rheghead]

It is not possible to derive any short-term conclusions from the graph. The graph lines are about 1000 years thick!

I wasn't trying to from that graph, I mentioned the hockey stick graph which does suggest that temperatures will continue to rise.

[Through]

I see yet another set of eminent scientists in the times say the sea levels will at least double the present estimates.

Toscano M A and J Wahr, 2003. Corrected Western Atlantic Sea Level Curve for the last 11,000 years. Coral Reefs 22: 257 - 270.

This paper shows sea level rise the Last Glacial Maximum. The graph shows rapid sea level rise as temperature recovered from the last ice age and then it slows away down to its present rate of about 1.8 mm per year. This is the slowest rate of sea level rise for almost 18,000 years. The next time you see David Shukman on BBC News talking about 1 metre of sea level rise, remember that even if the rate of rise doesn't keep slowing down, then it will take 556 years to rise another 1 metre.

Close to home, we have evidence that climate change is all natural: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/7735544.stm.

[Through]

So why are temperatures not rising now then Rheghead?

Like CRU say, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the lack of warming in the last 11 years.

[Cedric Farthsbottom III]

So the Global warming question comes down to two solutions.It does.Well for Weekers anyway.Pick a bit of Caithness landscape thats nearest to yer backdoor.Don't want to be seen as a Caithnessiast.Yer walking out yer backdoor in 50 years time.What is it gonnae be,just the same as normal.I think so.Or is it gonnae be folk standing on wee toattie islands waving at one another.I don't think so.Global warming propaganda is all wrote by humans.The Earth doesn't care.The planet doesn't give a cahoony about humans.The Earth has been doin just fine.The humans problem is over the moons they have learned to consciously think about things.The Earth is God.God is the Earth.The Bible was written what 1970 years ago,only translated into English what 500.I can hear the power of the Earth by the wind thats blowin outside tonight.So stick yer plonders of scientists in labs where the sun don't shine.Maybe if they went outside now and again and smelt the roses,maybe they might see a different world.The Pseudo Scientists,or the normal punter knows the answer.

[Metalattakk]

So why are temperatures not rising now then Rheghead?

Like CRU say, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the lack of warming in the last 11 years.

I think I can answer that question for Rheggy:



Multi-decadal Oscillation.

[Rheghead]

At least you're trying hard with the Vostok data Rheghead. However, there are a number of very important problems with your argument.

This graph is not a very good example and has poor resolution. However, you can see the pattern and you can see where we are in the big picture. We are on the wrong side of the hill for your argument to hold true. You can see that temperature peaked about seven thousand or so years ago and that we are already significantly cooler.

So whatever is has been cooling the Earth during the last 7 thousand years has been cooling the Earth (but you'll notice that the graph is not smooth, it has oscillations). You will notice that CO2 was going up during this time. What is your point? Whatever its true nature, it obviously has been having a greater effect than the mere 20ppm increase of carbon dioxide over that time.

Now remember Greenhouse states that increased carbon dioxide causes higher temperature, higher temperature causes higher carbon dioxide, and so on.

That is the runaway greenhouse effect that has been a buzzword of late. It is a concern due to the evidence in the Petit et al graph above but so far I think there is little evidence of it, but I'm willing to be proved wrong there.

The fact that carbon dioxide levels have been increased from their record low of all time to where they are today, would therefore mean that they should now be causing temperature increase that causes more carbon dioxide that causes higher temperatures in a rapidly increasing fashion. Yet, now we have CRU climate scientists exclaiming that it is a travesty that they cannot explain the lack of warming for the last 11 years. Clearly, carbon dioxide is not driving temperature.

Are they claiming it is a travesty that they can't find any warming in the last 11 years? In the last 11 years there have been 9 years of the 20 hottest on record. I think this 1998 cooling notion is just misleading as 1998 was just an exceptionally hot year. Plus, the Sun has been rather quiet in recent years, it is El Nino year next year so it will be interesting to see what happens.

If Greenhouse was correct and given the way that you previously presented graphs of measured temperature, we should already be setting a new high temperature every year. We're not.

That because the Earth is not a science experiment where we can do a controlled experiment on it, it is subject to chaos etc. The underlying trend of temperatures will be going up as seen by the hockey stick graph with downward trends like between 1940 and 1970 when a certain individual grabbed the headlines and exclaimed he predicted we were heading for an ice age.

As previously referenced, Rothman (2002) showed that millions of years ago, carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times the level of today. If Greenhouse was correct, temperature would have rocketed and we would not be here today. We humans are proof that Greenhouse Theory is incorrect.

That is a big jump to make the conclusion. However, quoting Rothman (not familiar with his work) is irrelevant as the Earth millions of years ago was a different place, different geology, different currents etc. And never the less, even if it was much hotter or much colder, animals continue to evolve all kinds of climate as that is what species do, they adapt to changing climates.

Also previously referenced, Fischer et al (1999) Mudelsee et al (2001) and Pagani et al (2005) (plus many others I haven't referenced here) have all shown that historic carbon dioxide and temperature have done completely different things time after time after time. If Greenhouse was correct, carbon dioxide would drive temperature upwards not just once, but every time. This is an example of how scientists test a theory against data and show whether it is correct. Greenhouse failed this test.

Normally I would agree with that if something does not follow a trend then there isn't a link between the two, as in the case that carbon dioxide levels don't follow rises in temperature, the biggest failing with these authors is that they failed to account for what was causing the changes in temperature despite the rises in CO2, so the conclusion that CO2 doesn't cause global warming doesn't quite follow.

Also previously referenced, Petit et al (1999) showed from the Vostok ice core that the end of each interglacial period over the last 421,000 years was characterised by temperature starting to fall while carbon dioxide was increasing toward a maximum value that did not arrive for hundreds of years. Greenhouse says that this is absolutely impossible.

As I said before, CO2 was not the agent causing climate change in the past. If you look at each peak, as you stated, it is characterised by a fall in temperature. A gradual downward change, a shallow slope but the temperatures were still on the top of the peak thus causing CO2 to venture into the atmosphere. I think there is a lag in the system, it may have something to do with the thermo-haline circulation. Anyway, the rise in CO2 is only characterised during the last cooling from the last peak, the other peaks show immediate coinciding drops in CO2.

You then fall into the trap of ignoring the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between 1000 and 1300, evidence of which is demonstrated in many of the papers I've referenced and for which I can quote literally hundreds more from all areas of the globe.

The Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has collated hundreds of these papers and shown that the most commonly determined temperature for MWP was 0.75 deg C higher than the Current Warm Period (CWP). So, just 700 to 1000 years ago, it was significantly warmer than now and yet carbon dioxide was much lower. Some papers actually show that MWP was up to 3.75 deg C warmer than CWP. Papers with this evidence exist from all over the world.

The Roman Warm Period (RWP) has also been shown to have been significantly warmer than CWP. So, 2,000 years ago it was warmer than now, yet carbon dioxide was much lower.

Some of my previous references have shown that not only has it been warmer in the last 2,000 years or so, but we know that there has been less ice in the North. You'll be pleased to know that I intend to reference another paper on this shortly.

As I said before, evidence for a global MWP is extremely scant however the evidence from the hockey stick graph sort of shows that temperatures were slightly warmer for 750 years then at the late end of the 19th century things clearly started to change. Global emperatures are clearly warmer than the global 'MWP' temperatures. Whether the regional temperatures of northern Europe during the MWP were hotter than the global temperatures of today is irrelevant.

Even from the rather crude version of the Vostok data that you have presented, it can clearly be seen that the recent temperature change rates you claim to be astronomical are completely dwarfed by the onset of Interglacials. It is no competition.

I agree up to a point that the certain effects which have caused the interglacial periods have proven to have changed global temperatures over a greater range but they have occurred over many millennia, even during the steep parts of the graph.

What we see over the last 150 years is a rising change in Global temperatures amounting to almost a full degree in centigrade. A very small time geologically and with nothing to explain it except a little sun activity but a huge rise in greenhouse gases.

There is no scientific concensus.
Temperature today is not a world record.
Carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past, including during periods when temperature was decreasing.
There has been less ice in the North within the last 1,000 years.
Historically, high carbon dioxide and high temperature rarely co-incide.
Since 1998, no year has been as warm as 1998. (Even the met office web site shows this.)

There is clear consensus amongst scientists.

Where has CO2 been higher than today during the last 420,000 years, the graph is there for you to see.?????

Clearly, there is a general trend over the last 420,000 years where CO2 does coincide with temperature, peaks and troughs match. Where they don't coincide, sceptical scientists have not accounted for other factors which may be having an effect or the lag in the response to temperature changes on carbon sinks. So the conclusion that carbon dioxide does not have an important effect in the here and now doesn't follow.

[JimH]

Can I refer all of you to the book "GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER BOLLOCKS" by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks. Published by Metro and available from Amazon for about a fiver.

[Rheghead]

Can I refer all of you to the book "GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER BOLLOCKS" by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks. Published by Metro and available from Amazon for about a fiver.

Despite them being medical professors writing a satirical book, I think you've hit the nail on the head here, a lot of these critics of global warming and its solutions (authors include Christopher Booker, Bjorn Lomborg, Dr J E Etherington, Patrick Michaels, Freeman Dyson, Ian Plimer, Michael Crichton, Alan Carlin, just to name a few) seem to grab the headlines then lo and behold they are bringing another pseudo-science book out on their 'controversial subject' of their own making. Could there be a coincidence?

And what makes them do it? It is gullible clowns like you , me and the rest of us that have too much money in their pocket that buy rubbish. They wouldn't be interested otherwise. Everyone loves a good conspiracy but it is dangerous when such authors (who should have the intelligence to know better) make them look like plausible scientific journals or popular science books when there is so much at stake. There can be no clear-cut solution to Climate Change when the waters are being muddied to the wider population who have no particular expertise in science. What we need is a clear unambiguous message about the true nature of Climate Change.

Clearly these climate change sceptics are self-interested, motivated by money and greed whereas authors like David MacKay in contrast have published their books about renewable energy online for free download. I'd go with the altruistic author for a start.

[Cedric Farthsbottom III]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, a lot of these critics of global warming seem to grab the headlines (Christopher Booker just recently) then lo and behold they are bringing a pseudo science book out on their 'controversial subject' of their own making.

And what makes them do it? Cause it is gullible clowns that have too much money in their pocket that buy rubbish, they wouldn't be interested otherwise. Everyone loves a good conspiracy but it is dangerous when such authors make them look like plausible scientific journals or popular science books.

Pseudo science?Thats a favourite saying on here.

How to ride a bike?

The scientist took the bike into his lab measured all the dimensions and put it into his computer.Measured the weight for propulsion then found out after all his calculations on the bike that the lab was too small to go anywhere.

The pseudo scientist,took the bike outside jumped on it,fell off a couple of times,then went off on some lovely adventures.

Science has solutions.
Pseudo Science has better solutions.

[George Brims]

I think people should realise that IPCC employ about 50 "scientists". I deliberately used quotes, because more than half of those are modellers, I mean computer programmers, who create the models they use to make forecasts.

Two points:
1) IPCC employ about 2,500 scientists. Being off by a factor of fifty is usually considered "an error" in the real world.
2) Don't get near a computer modeller in a dark alley and try to tell him/her they are not a scientist. If computer modelling didn't work, the landscape would be littered with crashed planes, burned out nuclear power stations, and people screaming at their cell phone because they can't get any service.

[tonkatojo]

I have definite proof its a load of tosh a scam, tesco is leading the business world in the fight back against global warming.

[Phill]

I have definite proof its a load of tosh a scam, tesco is leading the business world in the fight back against global warming.

Yes, good to see them taking the lead, whilst their directors trundle about in private jets.

Every little helps as the say!

[Rheghead]

I think Ed Milliband just about sums it up.

The people who want to deny or cast doubt on whether climate change is happening are the most dangerous. They want to tell people that we can stick our heads in the sand and the problem will go away.

Scientifically, they are the flat-earth brigade of the modern era. The scientific evidence from across the world shows we need to act.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...rth-brigade.do

[Metalattakk]

Ed Milliband is talking pish, though I'm not surprised you believe him, Rheggers.

[Rheghead]

Ed Milliband is talking pish, though I'm not surprised you believe him, Rheggers.

He is only taking the same scientific advice as the rest of us. Would we go into space if it was down to Flat Earthers?

[Metalattakk]

He is only taking the same scientific advice as the rest of us.

And using it to push his own party's agenda. Are you being obtuse?

Also, nice to see you didn't deny my assertion.

[Rheghead]

And using it to push his own party's agenda.

Do you know of any UK political party that disagree's with the mainstream view of the IPCC? Your implication that the scientific findings is politically motivated is laughable as it is a scientific problem that the political spectrum could do without just now.

[tonkatojo]

Do you know of any UK political party that disagree's with the mainstream view of the IPCC? Your implication that the scientific findings is politically motivated is laughable as it is a scientific problem that the political spectrum could do without just now.

I think your wrong Rheggy, all the political parties are clapping their hands and drooling about green taxes, all except the greens but what the hell.

[Rheghead]

I think your wrong Rheggy, all the political parties are clapping their hands and drooling about green taxes, all except the greens but what the hell.

Well if I'm wrong and the science is wrong then why doesn't a minority party who is desperate for support denounce the scientific evidence and get rapturous support from the electorate who is clued up on the chain of events?

Whichever way you look at it, climate warming scepticism doesn't hold water.

If one thing is true then knowledge and wisdom beats ignorance and bias every time.

[George Brims]

Some interesting reading here from a famous left-wing rag, quoting that noted Trotskyite M Thatcher was convinced on man-made global warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...of-change.html