Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 126
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 6 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Actually I dont understand a trend map in the slightest

The link posted with the comment you picked out shows the actual temperatures recorded at one of the clusters of weather stations used by the IPCC and shows actual termperatures that have declined which were then "trended" or "modified" to take them from a decreasing trend to an incresing one altering the actual figures by almost 2 degrees

The trend map would be a bit more useful if it also had the population density overlayed too though really, as being a mean of complete areas would also be including densely populated areas too which due to having huge increases in temperature would completely negate rural areas that have decreased which is kind of the problem with "averages" to begin with

But again youre simply claiming that "warming" proves mankind is causing the majority of it. Which is the crux here

The fact there is warming itself is irrelevant. The planet is ALWAYS either warming or cooling in a trended fashion with shorter highs and lows along the way. Thats not been or being disputed from what I can see

But even in the last 100 years we have had some pretty severe dips in climate even though the overall trend is a slow rise. If as claimed CO2 was SOOOOO significant then the climate would have also steadily risen in line with CO2. If it hasnt (which is the case) then assuming the trend is related to CO2 as a major factor is simply flawed and makes it a a minor contributor at best unable to override more significant factors at play
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 127
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 7:22:55 AM

The trend map would be a bit more useful if it also had the population density overlayed too though really, as being a mean of complete areas would also be including densely populated areas too which due to having huge increases in temperature would completely negate rural areas that have decreased which is kind of the problem with "averages" to begin with


Not really since climate is not confined to a single area. Global climate is exactly that. Global.


But again youre simply claiming that "warming" proves mankind is causing the majority of it. Which is the crux here


First of all...warming is real. It's an observed phenomenon. So using quotes on warming, seeming to indicate that the warming is somehow questioned, is rather silly. As for humankind proving it, well, given the fact that we insist on dumping billions of tons of carbon into the environment, does it take a climate scientist or common sense to realize that might actually have a detrimental effect?


The fact there is warming itself is irrelevant. The planet is ALWAYS either warming or cooling in a trended fashion with shorter highs and lows along the way. Thats not been or being disputed from what I can see


No, what is being disputed is humankind's role in that. Usually encouraged by those with a strong vested interest in continuation of the status quo. I've always found it odd that we can strip huge tracts of land of their trees, send entire species into extinction...and yet say we're not capable of influencing climate.


But even in the last 100 years we have had some pretty severe dips in climate even though the overall trend is a slow rise. If as claimed CO2 was SOOOOO significant then the climate would have also steadily risen in line with CO2.


You can cite a source for that assertion?


If it hasnt (which is the case) then assuming the trend is related to CO2 as a major factor is simply flawed and makes it a a minor contributor at best unable to override more significant factors at play


"More significant factors..." like what?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 128
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 10:09:46 AM

You can cite a source for that assertion?


Have done, many infact

But the death valley ones showing some of the lowest average annual temperatures on record that I recently posted would be a good start I suppose

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?cadeat

And Australia where the hottest temperatures were recorded at the start of the 1900s

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Even with three months missing 1961 is the hottest year , and yet CO2 has risen steadily year on year both before and after that year whilst the temperatures havent


More significant factors..." like what?


This gets SOOOO tedious considering that even many of the pro AGW scientists list these as the major climate influences having much more of an impact on climate than CO2

We have

Water vapour (clouds)
Oceanic tidal flows both short duration and multidecadel
Sea core temperature

And other significant influences would be the

suns output level and variations in solar flare and sunspot activity
methane seeing as its apparently a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2 for reasons I cant recall
heat vents
and a newly discovered climate effect by nasa which is troposheric venting

The fact CO2 has an "influence" isnt dusputed, or not by anybody I've ever seen

What is dusputed is how MUCH "influence" it has, which cant be ascertained even at a rudimentary level because even the pro AGW scientists admit openly that most of the things in that list are barely understood and therefore cant be included in modelling despite all (except for methane I think) having a much higher influence in global climate than CO2

If CO2 was as majorative climate driver as claimed then as CO2 increases global temperature would have steadily increased too rather than eratically so and periods of time where temperatures have plummetted would be non existent if no other climate driver could override the effects of steadily increasing CO2 levels

So it comes back to not whether CO2 has "an" influence, but how much of an influence and what effect in relationship to the larger and more impactive climate drivers that is because some of the major climate drivers have the ability to influence climate in both a positive and a negative direction which is why climate doesnt perfectly match the increase in CO2 but is an eratic cycle instead

Also the concept of a "climate" is a bit eroneous as its know the northern and southern hemispheres have actually had very dissimilar climates in history so the notion theres a "global" climate doesnt really float to begin with, but is a very necessary part of the AGW arguement because they cant get their models to do anything except have global trending as the climate drivers that create zonal climate disparity arent understood enough to include in the models yet and arent expected to be sufficiently researched for several decades

The idea that a trace gas is a more impactive climate influence than clouds is nothing short of laughable really, But hey, I'm sure if somebody found a way to tax people for cloud cover that would then miraculously generate immense research funding and equally doctored findings
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 129
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 10:28:30 AM

You are aware of non linear relationships aren’t you? Are you actually now claiming C02 is not a greenhouse gas – could you explain how this is as it seems to be to just be an idiotic thing to say even by you high standards


Perfectly aware ta very much

Which is why a steady increase in something claimed to be a climate driver would yeild a "proportionate" relative increase but not huge swinging decreases as observed in average temperatures all over the globe throughout the past hundred years or so

For there to be a direct link there would or should also be a steady increase that mirrored the steady increase in CO2, not a like for like percentage match, but say 1% steady increase for 25% steady increase in CO2

Thats a non linear relationship

Having temperatures that go down or stay level shows NO relationship whatsoever. Or one so minimal that various other factors have the ability to completely negate the effects in a negative trend despite the CO2 trend constantly being upwards

And thats annual averages spanning low points of years not months or weeks, not just intermittent sporadic readings

Which would in turn mean it was a marginal influence not a major driver

The only curve that actually follows a similar trend to CO2 is human population that has exploded during the past 60 years or so. But as the majority of those extra inhabitants have barely any carbon footprint at all that would at best suggest that the fact they breath is a major component, so maybe we should consider genocide in third world countries as a serious option

So the point is that if a 25% increase in CO2 causes a 0.1% increase in average global temperature then who really gives a toss?

And is it worth justifying the introduction of scaremongered global policy that would negatively impact not only the lives but mortality of billions of people. Personally I think not,

I think the money would be much better spent on more constructive projects like huge scale planting, infrastructure, healthcare, education, irrigation etc etc etc until all of the unknowns in the climate ARE fully understood

But I suspect the problem there is that in another 20 years or so we will start to see negative trending temperatures due to the sun having passed its peak output cycle so the CO2 scaremongering gravy train will start to evapourate anyway if too much financial damage hasnt already been done to the global economy
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 130
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 4:14:50 PM


The idea that a trace gas is a more impactive climate influence than clouds is nothing short of laughable really,


And yet minds brighter than yours have been convinced but only someone with as poor comprehension as you can see the truth and laugh at the experts


Blah blah blah

The "contradiction" you keep claiming isnt there, youre imagining it because youre so wrapped up in the holy church of global apocalyptic catastrophic warming you only ever see what you want to see

If you want to do a comparison about whether CO2 or water vapour is a more impactive greenhouse gas thats easy

Get two days where the amount of sunlight and the temperature are equal but where one is a cloud free night and the other is overcast then see how the nigthtime temperatures vary

The CO2 level will be practically identical both nights, but the cloud cover wont be. which is warmer?

It will be the overcast night

Daytimes now, the CO2 level is the same on sunny and overcast days. But which are warmer?

The cloudless ones obviously

thing is though, if CO2 was such a snuggly all powerful greenhouse gas cloudless nights would be just as warm as overcast ones but they arent

Infact CO2 only traps a percentage of the heat stored from the sun, clouds however stop the suns energy from getting in to begin with. So more clouds can cause either a warming or cooling trend depending on when theyre actually there

And lets not forget that heat reflected by methane, CO2 and even clouds doesnt magically stay trapped. If that was the case then concepts like "winter" would have ceased to exist decades ago as all the heat being kept in would just keep boining back and forth endlessly (which it doesnt) it still manages to escape into space like its always done albeit at a fractionally slower rate (kind of why you need warm clothing in the desert at night and always have done)

So the reason why despite what you claim its NOT a contradiction is if for arguements sake CO2 causes a 1% increase in temperature per its 25% increase in PPM, but clouds cause a 10% swing in either direction as a for instance then the CO2 change is lost in the negative trends

But the overall trend isnt JUST caused by CO2 is it? The suns output has also been increasing, tidal patterns have a huge influence on climate too, and the sea also releases millions of tons of CO2 when its warmer so even the 25% increase in CO2 cant acurately be worked how much of it is man made and how much of it is from the sea either

Clouds are indisputeably one of, if not the biggest climate driver. But have the ability to drive both positive and negative trends

Compared to them CO2 is a marginal influence and that as much as you hate to hear it still remains a fact

And no amount of crying about how bad CO2 is supposed to be will alter that in the slightest

As for unevidenced illconcived conspiracies you only need to look to the IPCC for that and all the people making a huge income out of peddling the tripe. more than enough tax payes money to make world hunger a thing of the past and provide medical care to the entire planet. But hey, rather than do that lets just waste it on scientific scaremongering about something that is unlikely to have any real impact on the globe for a hundred years or so at the very least if at all

Theres your "final solution" actually, because a lot of the 20+ trillion dollars per year of carbon credits (courtesy of Obama and Gore btw) are created by the ceasation of humanitarian projects in the third world

AGW at the moment is akin to filling a bath with 99% water, .9% ice cream then dropping in a few drops of vanilla extract and claiming the vanilla extract is what makes it wet


He did not ask about death valley or Australia mike - why did you not answer this question? Odd reply even for you


Because they and pretty much every other weather station the world over DO answer the question

If CO2 was the major and predominant climate driver its claimed then the temperature oscillations would have proportionately increased inline with CO2 levels

But as those two show quite clearly they DONT trend with CO2 levels at all, and have both practically bowed over the last 50 years rising again towards the end up having long troughs in between

Which would suggest far bigger climate drivers than CO2 are the predominant ones and that its influence is pretty minimal really

CO2 is one of many things that influence the climate, many of which arent even understood

So before CO2 can be made into a big deal we would first have to figure out what percentage of the increase is ACTUALLY from people seeing as we also know the sea releases huge amounts the warmer it gets and then remove the % of any temperature increase that is due to the sun, sun spot activity levels, methane, changes in cloud cover, oceanic patterns, heat island effect, and all the other NON CO2 climate influences

And whats left is the effect of the actual man made contribution to warming

So at the moment

1. We cant quantify what percentage of the CO2 increase is man made and whats natural
2, We cant quantify how much of any observed temperature increases are caused by other climate factors mainly because we dont understand them well enough as the majority of focus has been on one of the most miniscule trace gases in the atmosphere

And yet were supposed to panic and irrevocably screw up global finances over CO2?

For all we know even a 25% increase in CO2 might only be causing .1% of any increases in temperature, maybe its 50%, maybe 2% basically nobody really has the faintest idea what percentage of any increase is related to CO2 increases whether man made,natural or combined

And until we do the AGW stuff remains about as factual as the Xmen
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 131
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 6:15:57 PM
The link posted with the comment you picked out shows the actual temperatures recorded at one of the clusters of weather stations used by the IPCC and shows actual termperatures that have declined which were then "trended" or "modified" to take them from a decreasing trend to an incresing one altering the actual figures by almost 2 degrees


That is trend map supplied by the australian Bureau of Meteorology and not the IPCC showing how much the mean temp in all locations across australia has risen from 1970-2010. You claimed the temp had dropped.

Are you now claiming in Australia they're manipulating records for some purpose?


But again youre simply claiming that "warming" proves mankind is causing the majority of it. Which is the crux here


All i did was prove your lying threw your eye teeth. Otherwise you'd provided fact to your claim the australain climate is cooling rather than defelect from your lies...
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 132
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 7:27:56 PM
Considering the data shown on the link is the GISS data collected directly from the approved weather stations themselves I fail to see how its "me" lying

But it shows that Darwin airports own dataset also collected by the australian government does the complete opposite of what that trend map shows

And the trend map as I said doesnt show any population data. So chances are most of those being used to get the average will be in urban areas so its a meaningless reference

If you look in the NY area you have most of the towns around NY (which share both the same weather AND climate as NY city trending downwards. Yet NY rises quite significantly

So the overall trend for the area is an upward one which is a very common occurence around the globe

As for the Aus government manipulating data for "some" purpose, perhaps

Although manipulation isnt always needed, as long as you have a fast enough growing population and enough weather stations in urban areas the figures will show warming anyway thats the beauty of "averages"

Why they might want to do that though? Gee, for a government to want to do that they'd surely need some far out way they would benefit from it I guess

Its a long shot I realise, but they dont by some very slim outside chance put extra tax on fuels under the guise of cutting down on CO2 production do they?

How many extra billions in revenue per year dya reckon that raises?

http://www.cheaperpetrolparty.com/Oil_Price.php

Just to save you having to actually ponder that one
 daver888
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 133
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 8:23:27 PM
ajoke Global Warming and Science in the same sentence
How small we are yet how big we pretend to be
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 134
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/14/2011 11:27:51 PM
So the overall trend for the area is an upward one which is a very common occurence around the globe


Problem being is that austalia is mostly unihabited and has very minimal urban areas. That trend map show areas of desert that have had the mean temp rise over half a degree between 1970-201o.

Australia is the size of America but with less than 10 % of the population, England which has nearly 3 times the population fits into about 10 % of Australaia's land...

You would be full of shit, to be polite.

You claimed australia is cooling, can you provide any statistical data to match your claim?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 135
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/15/2011 3:02:30 AM
Johnie...Mike has the obfuscationist handbook and ain't afraid of using it as a hammer to every question. Highly likely, given the posting volume and predictable rhetoric, that he is being paid to troll. Best to focus on real science and people with brains so as not to be pulled into pissing contests with oil industry agents.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spincycles/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/27/conservative-white-men-climate-sceptic
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 136
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/15/2011 5:21:41 AM

Ok I will try to explain as simply as i can. If i want to know the effect of C02 on temperature obviously you must alter the C02 level whilst keeping other variables constant/controlled. You have manipulated clouds [ present or not] not C02 but then concluded something about C02 not supported by the “experiment” as this variable was not changed/ manipulated. You really dont get science or deductive logic - again observation not a question.
WTF would you not actually realise you would have to change C02 levels to see what effect C02 has .... I cant believe you were that daft tbh
Basically remove C02 form the atmosphere and let me know if it gets colder – obviously it does as and I quote you again no one disputes C02’s role so why on earth are you disputing the role of C02 whilst not actually understanding it or very basic science methodolgy


The relevance there is that several times on this thread its been claimed that CO2 is MORE significant to climate than water vapour, even in its miniscule amounts currently found in the atmosphere

If that WERE infact true, if CO2 was a far more impactive atmospheric constituent then on the cloudless night the absence of the clouds (assuming CO2 is the major driver and water vapour the insignificant one) the temperature wouldnt drop significantly

But it does, because clouds are far MORE impactive than the CO2, and without them the bulk of the stored heat still escapes despite the CO2 being there

Infact despite the increased levels of CO2 we have still had around the world some of the worst winters in recorded history over the last few decades. Something that with a dangerously hieghtened greenhouse effect in operation keeping so much heat inside the atmosphere irrespective of clouds wouldnt be happening a thats kind of how a greenhouse effect works when you boil right down to it

dismissing anything that doesnt fit in with the bible of AGW as being "wrong"

The "science" you keep going on about sceptics "not getting" is just the AGW version of how they claim it works, that isnt "actual" science, if it was then there wouldnt be any scientists that also disagree with the AGW version of science to begin with

As for the "other climate influences" theyre the major ones, unlike CO2. As the admittedly simplistic cloud cover example shows. If CO2 was MORE impactive than the clouds then their absence would cause a very minimal change in how much heat escaped on a cloudless night compared to an overcast night because the CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect caused by that would still be just as "efficient" which it actually is, its just nowhere near as "efficient" as the scaremongering tries to make it sound


The suns influence is also dismissed as "trivial" compared to CO2, problem there though is a greenhouse effect doesnt GENERATE heat, it simply slows its escape

So if the suns output declined the global temperatures would also decline as greenhouse gases dont lock in heat for eternity, they just slow its escape, which is why we DO still have winters, Otherwise we would still have the hottest average summer temperatures all year round and steadily increasing if the effectiveness of CO2 was as severe as its made to sound

The fact still remains that with a 25% increase in CO2 levels we still lose practically all the earths heat to space on a cloudless night and also on sunny cloudless winter days too.

And rather than the portents of doom and gloom, greenhouse gases are a vital part of the earths ecology. Without them the world would have a radically different climate. But the science of how much even quite large changes in CO2 have on the climate is where the science is still lacking because we cant yet remove what percentage of that 25% of CO2 is natural increases, we also cant calculate what percentage of any warming observed is due to sun cycles, variations in cloud cover and various other factors and without those we cant make any claims or correlations with any degree of acuracy to mans contribution to changes in climate

Obviously people whos living and bankbalance rely on claiming CO2 is the big bad bogey man will claim they can. But until those and many other "unknowns" are actually "known" its utter bullcrap of the highest magnitude
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 137
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/15/2011 7:55:08 AM

The "science" you keep going on about sceptics "not getting" is just the AGW version of how they claim it works, that isnt "actual" science, if it was then there wouldnt be any scientists that also disagree with the AGW version of science to begin with

The old discredited 'lack of unanimity' argument gets another outing hey?



If that WERE infact true, if CO2 was a far more impactive atmospheric constituent then on the cloudless night the absence of the clouds (assuming CO2 is the major driver and water vapour the insignificant one) the temperature wouldnt drop significantly
But it does, because clouds are far MORE impactive than the CO2, and without them the bulk of the stored heat still escapes despite the CO2 being there.

As for the "other climate influences" theyre the major ones, unlike CO2. As the admittedly simplistic cloud cover example shows. If CO2 was MORE impactive than the clouds then their absence would cause a very minimal change in how much heat escaped on a cloudless night compared to an overcast night because the CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect caused by that would still be just as "efficient" which it actually is, its just nowhere near as "efficient" as the scaremongering tries to make it sound.

Well you've convinced me. Clouds exist.


The suns influence is also dismissed as "trivial" compared to CO2...

I haven't seen it worded quite like that, but the point of negating the suns influence is because it's a common denier argument (It's the sun!), when actually solar output and global temperature are going in opposite directions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
This has been pointed out to you before yet you wheel it out again as if no one will notice?




And rather than the portents of doom and gloom, greenhouse gases are a vital part of the earths ecology. Without them the world would have a radically different climate. But the science of how much even quite large changes in CO2 have on the climate is where the science is still lacking because we cant yet remove what percentage of that 25% of CO2 is natural increases, we also cant calculate what percentage of any warming observed is due to sun cycles, variations in cloud cover and various other factors and without those we cant make any claims or correlations with any degree of acuracy to mans contribution to changes in climate.

'The science is incomplete' argument makes another appearance too hey?

Imagine you're on a sinking ship... is it wise to take no action until all the crew unanimously agree the ship really is going to sink, how fast it's going to sink, what caused it to sink, the mechanism of the causation that brought about the sinking, complete data on the construction of the hull is assembled, the data is stripped of irrelevant diagrams unrelated to the section of the hull that doesn't have a hole in it, a complete list of passengers is accessed, an analysis of the most efficient method of fitting them in the available lifeboats is performed, a meta analysis of previous rescues performed in this sector of ocean is initiated to calculate likely length of confinement to lifeboats subsequent to ship immersion, a stock take of essential supplies is undertaken ensuring all life boats have sufficient food and water to sustain life for expected duration of confinement to aforesaid lifeboats, passengers are assembled into orderly lines whereupon a headcount is performed prior to disembarking onto lifeboats etc etc

Or maybe you'd just conclude that ships have sunk many times before with the loss of all aboard so there's no point in even going to the lifeboats?

Or would it make sense just to alert everyone and try to do something, accepting all the while that your information is incomplete but having the wisdom to see that doing something increases your chances regardless of any other factor as yet unknown?

Before you choose one of the above scenarios, reflect for a moment on what people actually do, overwhelmingly so, in situations where danger looms. Whether they caused it or not.

Then reflect on the position you advocate.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 138
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/15/2011 4:59:28 PM
The sun has been claimed to be insignificant several times on this actual thread actually by some f the pro AGW posters rather than "made up"

Infact I think the suns varying output being a major climate driver was sneered at on the post before your last one infact


You are confusing what you cant do and what rational people versed in science can do. Yes they have abilities beyond your wildest dreams and beyond your comprehension.


Any observed rises in average temperature are going to be a combined influence of many things which I listed a few of a page back or so

Out of the entire list theres only about 2 which were CO2 and Methane that scientists have spent enough time studying to try and claim they know what contribution it makes

The others which they openly admit they DONT know enough about are clouds, tropospheric venting, oceanic tidal patterns, thermal vents, changes in solar output and cloud variations which are the main ones I can recall

Every single one of those WILL have an effect on the climate and therefore on the heating or cooling of the planet, but as yet they claim more research is needed to be able to define what amount of influence they might have and whether it would be positive or negative in a few of the cases

So the point really just hovers around that. Most of the major climate drivers we dont understand well enough to quantify their effect

if we cant quantify their effect we dont know what percentage of any increase or decrease in climate theyre causing

And without that we dont know what percentage of climate change is SOLELY due to CO2

And without that we dont know what percentage is due to mans activity

Because CO2 and more specifically man made CO2 is ONLY a percentage of any possible increase not all of it. And until we definitively know what percentage that actually is theres no point (other than lining peoples pockets) for all the fuss being made because for all we know mans entire contribution to warming could be something miniscule like 1% of any increases

My POV is quite simply and just that until we DO know its irresponsible to press ahead with the types of draconian poverty inducing crap the IPCC was set up to enforce because ones it done, and even if it it mans influence DID only turn out to be 1% they would never be reversed, infact the chances of the findings even seeing the light of day would be very slim

Plus without understanding the other major climate factors involved to the point of actually understanding them and their role we cant rule out the ecosystem being quite capable of correcting the CO2 variances or compensating for them anyway

But even if the planet "would" compensate eventually, even over say half a century that doesnt mean I dont think we should do ANYTHING about CO2 which I think is what you think my stance is

But simply that rather than the style and scale of changes (Well taxation mainly lets be honest here) it should be done more evenly and without the revenue centric approach the IPCC was set up to try and enforce as that has nothing at all do woth climate, and everything to do with making selective people very rich

As I've said several times a fraction of the money already spent on the AGW myth could have planted forests the sizes of small countries, provided irrigation for similar areas of desrlet land, provided food, clean water and healthcare to the entire planet

But no, instead the CCX has turned over 15 trillion dollars buying and selling carbon credits as thats "far" more important than any of those things innit

Even banning any car over 1 litre would be a postive move but has anybody even done that? Nope,

How about spending the money spend on climate change to upgrade older heating systems, install solar panels, build hydro electric dams. Nope

The ONLY thing being done to any degree is taxation

Its not about climate at all, its about revenue streams
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 139
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/17/2011 4:52:03 PM

The sun has been claimed to be insignificant several times on this actual thread actually by some f the pro AGW posters rather than "made up"

Infact I think the suns varying output being a major climate driver was sneered at on the post before your last one infact

Not 'sneered at'. Just the facts being presented.
Just as they were the first time (pages ago) you claimed 'It's the sun!' In spite of the fact the suns 'output' and 'global warming' have been going in opposite directions for the past twenty years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


The others which they openly admit they DONT know enough about are clouds,

Presenting the issue that way ^^^ gives a false impression. But perhaps that was the intention? http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.short
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101209141231.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101122172010.htm


tropospheric venting,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/1999JD901097.shtml
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/3/5205/2003/acpd-3-5205-2003-print.pdf


oceanic tidal patterns,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm


thermal vents,

http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/02/hydrothermal_ventsglobal_warmi.php
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/10/hydrothermal-vents-may-contribute-more-to-the-thermal-budget-of-the-oceans-than-previously-assumed/
http://meetings.copernicus.org/www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/07088/EGU05-J-07088.pdf


changes in solar output

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

and cloud variations which are the main ones I can recall

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm


So the point really just hovers around that. Most of the major climate drivers we dont understand well enough to quantify their effect

This is just, yet again, the old 'the science is incomplete' argument', which is, at best, a deceptive half-truth. Try reading some of the links provided above.



My POV is quite simply and just that until we DO know its irresponsible to press ahead with the types of draconian poverty inducing crap the IPCC was set up to enforce because ones it done, and even if it it mans influence DID only turn out to be 1% they would never be reversed, infact the chances of the findings even seeing the light of day would be very slim

That some people may profit from new industries is not, in itself, an argument that justifies inaction. Many people make large profits now from industries that contribute to global warming, so it seems odd to object that people might profit from sustainability.
Besides, you haven't established that pursuing sustainability is even "draconian", let alone "poverty inducing", yet you keep raising it as the scary bogeyman that should frighten us all into doing nothing.
Furthermore, and most strangely of all, you completely reverse accepted notions of rational behaviour by suggesting it would be "irresponsible" to do anything that might contribute to a better future when actually it's clearly "irresponsible" to ignore the science and do nothing.


But simply that rather than the style and scale of changes (Well taxation mainly lets be honest here) it should be done more evenly and without the revenue centric approach the IPCC was set up to try and enforce as that has nothing at all do woth climate, and everything to do with making selective people very rich

As I've said several times a fraction of the money already spent on the AGW myth could have planted forests the sizes of small countries, provided irrigation for similar areas of desrlet land, provided food, clean water and healthcare to the entire planet

But no, instead the CCX has turned over 15 trillion dollars buying and selling carbon credits as thats "far" more important than any of those things innit
Even banning any car over 1 litre would be a postive move but has anybody even done that? Nope,
How about spending the money spend on climate change to upgrade older heating systems, install solar panels, build hydro electric dams. Nope

The ONLY thing being done to any degree is taxation

Its not about climate at all, its about revenue streams

This ^^^ is just the old 'It's a Global Conspiracy Designed To Make Us All Poor' argument. It not only ignores the science, but ignores that some people make large amounts of money now from activities that contribute to global warming. It also blithely overlooks that people, and industry, will only tend to change ie; plant forests, stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, reduce emissions and drive smaller cars, build hydro-electric schemes, install solar panels, etc etc if they're compelled to by economic imperative - it's the same logic being used to drive cigarette companies out of business, and the same logic that shut down asbestos mining. It's logic that compels those who might be otherwise inclined to 'do the right thing'.
Yet you argue against it?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 140
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/17/2011 6:25:31 PM

Speaking of lemmings......................... it seems like lemming $hit may have more to do with "global warming" than CO2..........

A complete lie ^^^ The study doesn't suggest that at all.



To determine the role lemmings play in structuring plant communities and their contribution to the 'greening of the Arctic', we measured plant cover and biomass in 50 + year old lemming exclosures and control plots in the coastal tundra near Barrow, Alaska. The response of plant functional types to herbivore exclusion varied among land cover types. In general, the abundance of lichens and bryophytes increased with the exclusion of lemmings, whereas graminoids decreased, although the magnitude of these responses varied among land cover types. These results suggest that sustained lemming activity promotes a higher biomass of vascular plant functional types than would be expected without their presence and highlights the importance of considering herbivory when interpreting patterns of greening in the Arctic. In light of the rapid environmental change ongoing in the Arctic and the potential regional to global implications of this change, further exploration regarding the long-term influence of arvicoline rodents on ecosystem function (e.g. carbon and energy balance) should be considered a research priority.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/045507/fulltext
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 141
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/17/2011 6:47:08 PM

A complete lie?
Really?

Yes. Where does it say "lemming $hit may have more to do with "global warming" than CO2"?


It is easy to "prove" your point if you completely ignore the rest of the story:

As you demonstrate.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 142
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/17/2011 10:12:16 PM

we cant rule out the ecosystem being quite capable of correcting the CO2 variances or compensating for them anyway


Thats the thing we know how the earth deals with carbon and we know that we humans have mostly destroyed the earths ability to deal with carbon .

you are a troll.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 143
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 4:08:41 AM

Thats the thing we know how the earth deals with carbon and we know that we humans have mostly destroyed the earths ability to deal with carbon .


Which would actually suggest that rather than carbon taxing that will serve no purpose other than making a very small amount of people VERY rich and 99% of the worlds population MUCH poorer that perhaps "radical" concepts (anything other than JUST taxation) might be an approach like oooh I dont know, planting millions of trees for instance which could be done for a fraction of the cost of the AGW money making machine

Because the extra CO2 in the atmosphere quite possibly wouldnt be there to begin with IF it had been planting and reforestation that had ACTUALLY been focused on rather than creating new revenue streams for people who are already million or billionaires
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 144
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 4:21:37 AM
Ecosystems have been the moderating influence for most of life on Earth prior to man. What is different with us, is our ability to consume vast amounts of exosomatic energy, convert millions of years of stored carbon into atmospheric Co2, release huge amounts of nitrogen oxides in the process, do global deforestation that releases 40% of our Co2 and grow herds of high methane releasing mammals for food. Humans could plausibly have an equal influence on Co2 management by immediately reducing that exosomatic energy consumption/releases, embark on a massive reforestation effort, lower our the impacts of our food chain, and bring our numbers down to sustainable levels via incentives. If the lemmings could "plausibly" exert an influence on carbon levels, certainly we could plausibly do the same.

There is a theory that the methane bomb of pangaea splitting apart was responsible for the extinction during the Triassic, something we need to ponder as we release our GHG bombs .
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/07/25/did-methane-cause-the-mass-extinction-that-made-way-for-the-dinosaurs/

On the other hand, humans may have had a role in rapidly reducing methane emissions from megafauna that had been moderating climate, by causing their rapid extinction when we arrived on these continents.
http://www.physorg.com/news193847219.html

The fact remains, that we don't have a clue about how complicated the global thermostat is or how it works. We have seen where wild swings in certain factors can cause or exacerbate mass extinctions, and should go with the precautionary principle.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 145
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 4:38:53 AM

Anyway why would be bother when we cannot be sure etc?


Thats exactly the stance of the AGW sceptics re CO2





EVIDENCE rational and numbers please - why do you keep guessing at stuff seriously WHY


The AGW claims that deforestation stops the planets ability to ABSORB CO2 would seem to be the evidence surely?

Or do you also doubt the pro AGW scientists when anything they say doesnt JUST support carbon taxing?

If deforestation reduces the planets ability to store CO2 then it stands that the opposite would store more

Even for other enviromental reasons HUGE forest plantings would make sense, yet its not something proposed or done.

So if planting trees wouldnt make huge reductions in CO2 levels than it also cant be claimed that cutting down lots of trees DOES

You cant have it both ways
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 146
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 6:33:25 AM
Well, deforestation does have an effect on local climate in many ways. Soil moisture levels change, albedo changes, ventilation levels change, surface heat levels change.

In the CO2 area, deforestation typically is carried out to replace forest land with intensive agriculture. Depending on the type of agriculture involved, more or less CO2 will be consumed by the farming activity. I don't really recall any statistics related to the net results. Typically, the climate arguments relate only to the loss of forest area, but unless the result is a desert of some kind, then the forests are replaces by other plant life which consumes CO2. In fact, agricultural production today is dependent on excess CO2 levels for its productivity. Cut the CO2 and a few billion people will shortly start to starve.

My own view is that CO2 is a secondary effect and that global warming is basically good news up to a certain point. It produces more food, which given the proclivity of people to reproduce to excess, means less famine and starvation and the consequent depredations of the "Four Horsemen".

More recently, some scientists are coming to the conclusion that solar fluctuations cause greater climate effects than CO2, methane, and all the other theories out there. Imagine, the Sun defining our climate! What a concept!........Duh..........

Of course, there is no money in solar fluctuations. Taxation systems have no influence on the Sun. Much more profitable to hit oil companies and automobilists with taxation driven trading of obscure derivatives which will allow government and investment banks to inhale consumer cash to further their political and financial goals.......
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 147
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 6:51:18 AM

If deforestation reduces the planets ability to store CO2 then it stands that the opposite would store more

Even for other enviromental reasons HUGE forest plantings would make sense, yet its not something proposed or done.

So if planting trees wouldnt make huge reductions in CO2 levels than it also cant be claimed that cutting down lots of trees DOES

You cant have it both ways


Mike, you really could benefit from actually reading the IPCC report, rather than just rely on what others say about it. You'll find that reforestation is indeed an important part of their list of recommendations. Nobody is trying to have it both ways.

You puzzle me, Mike. You put a lot of energy into long posts on topics that interest you, but little energy into actually researching those topics of interest. The result too often is that you head off into strange directions with unsupported conclusions when a little time with google would have served you well.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 148
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 11:01:51 AM
Its not a case of "not" researching

Whats more acurate is that anything that isnt "pro AGW" regardless of the credentials or expertise of the person quoted is completely rejected by the pro AGW crowd similar to how a christian reacts to an atheists POV

Infact even when those same scientists WERE as an example IPCC ones who authored IPCC repoorts and then disagreed with the reports after being tampered with by bureaucrats to make them more scary the same happens

So for that side of the arguement ONLY people who preach doom and gloom and whos conclusions support that hypothesis are classed as "valid", everyone else isnt

I would guess with the hardline anti AGW the exact same near zealotry would also exist with a similar level of vehemence and selectivity of who is a "valid" source too

So the topic isnt that different to muslims and catholics argueing about which faith is "correct" and using their own theologians to "support" each individual claim

My point re reforestation and the IPCC though is that more than enough money is already pumped into the pro AGW arena already and yet not one single massive re forestation project has been undertaken in the last 30 years as a result of it

The CCX currently turns over $15 trillion US dollars per year, and yet all the profits go into shareholders pockets without green projects like that being funded from its immense profits

As its pretty undisputed that fewer plants leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere has we planted say 10 million trees 30 years ago who knows what effect that would have had on the CO2 levels now? Nobody does which is kind of the problem because despite being a very obvious and easy to achieve step towards lowering CO2 whilst waiting for effective replacement energy and transportation technology to emerge nobody has bothered

Which tbh is quite possibly because it "might" have caused such a large change in the amount of CO2 that it would be even harder to effectively scaremonger which would then remove the vehicle of CO2 scaremongering as a means towards huge profits and globalised taxation

Less so had the CO2 started dropping but temperatures continued to increase
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 149
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 12:07:56 PM

My point re reforestation and the IPCC though is that more than enough money is already pumped into the pro AGW arena already and yet not one single massive re forestation project has been undertaken in the last 30 years as a result of it


And my point is that by googling "large scale reforestation project" and "millions of trees planted", I found countless references to prove you wrong. Only took a second, and it's something you could have easily done yourself.

Here's one example:


An organization called Trees for the Future has assisted more than 170,000 families, in 6,800 villages of Asia, Africa, and the Americas, to plant over 35 million trees.[2] Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, founded the Green Belt Movement which planted over 30 million trees to restore the Kenyan environment.[3] Shanghai Roots & Shoots, a division of the Jane Goodall Institute launched The Million Tree Project in Kulun Qi, Inner Mongolia to plant one million trees to stop desertification and alleviate global warming.[4][5]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees

Sure, more could be done to improve reforestation efforts, but the strategy very much is part of the portfolio of options to reduce our carbon footprint.

As for this:


Whats more acurate is that anything that isnt "pro AGW" regardless of the credentials or expertise of the person quoted is completely rejected by the pro AGW crowd similar to how a christian reacts to an atheists POV


I think we simply apply different filters to determine what's credible, and no, mine are NOT limited to whether the source agrees or not with whatever my current position is. One aspect of climate science that is very much NOT settled, for example, is whether a warmer planet will lead to more frequent and/or more powerful hurricanes. Credible scientists have argued both sides, and I take care not to include hurricane frequency or intensity in my list of known consequences of global warming.

Whenever I read some new study related to climate change, if the author is not familiar I dig a bit to see what else they've published and how it was received by their peers. If the source is a known environmental group or pro-industry group I give it extra scrutiny, knowing there's a good chance for bias.

It appears to me that you simply read someone elses conclusion and decide for yourself whether it seems logical or not without doing any further digging. I may well be wrong, but the number of times you've made assertions that don't hold up to logical scrutiny or aren't supported by credible scientific research lead me to that conclusion.

When I read someone's opinion, it's just an opinion unless it's backed up by research. I started looking into global warming nearly twenty years ago, and at that time was not at all sure the extent of the human role or whether or not the planet was actually warming. But by following the research trail over the years I gradually came to the firm conclusion that matched what the research showed.

On another thread I listed the many national and international science organizations, including national academies of science from 32 countries who have issued statements supporting AGW. Not ONE credible national or international science organization has issued a current statement contesting AGW. All of those organizations based their conclusions on actual research, not just casual observation.

That means something to me. To those who oppose the concept of AGW, it clearly doesn't. To me, that means I believe in science and they don't. I certainly don't believe, as some propose, that there's some vast international conspiracy inspiring every national science organization to lie.

Mike, I don't think I've heard the conspiracy line from you, although I might have missed it in your many posts. You seem like an inquisitive guy who likes to come to his own conclusions, and I respect that. I only wish you'd apply better filters to what YOU consider credible.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 150
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/18/2011 2:12:36 PM

Mike, I don't think I've heard the conspiracy line from you, although I might have missed it in your many posts. You seem like an inquisitive guy who likes to come to his own conclusions, and I respect that. I only wish you'd apply better filters to what YOU consider credible


Its probably labelled as such, but tbh yes I dont think the AGW campaign is enviromental in nature to be perfectly honest. But niether do I think its a huge conspiracy

The actual concept is closer to the saying "a half truth is more effective than an outright lie"

But what would be called a "conspiracy" per se would only really apply to the people at the top of the money tree. On a governmental level most governments are after any and all cash they can get their hands on so when "green taxes" are such an easy and pallateable way to increase revenue any government would be foolish to not use the eco banner to the highest extent it could

But rather than being an actual "conspiracy theory" theres more than enough actual documented and public information to stop people who have been major players in the AGW issue engineering themselves pretty huge fortunes as a result from being "theory" . There doesnt necessarily need to even be a "conspiracy" for people in the same social circles to see the potential for making a small fortune and even work with others to achieve that

In any other field it would be called being entrepeneurial, seeing a business opportunity or just multiple people seeing the same wauy to make a ton of money independantly

That would apply as much to individuals as it would governments in need of new avenues of taxation

And without any "conspiracy" if a government needs to up revenue by using AGW as a reason theyre the ones who control the flow of the majority of research funding into universities and other national institutions. So a bias forming there even without any "collusion" is hardly stretching the bounds of imagination really.

Rather than being "anti" AGW though even though to anyone pro AGW I know thats how it comes across my actual view is that despite the claims of both sides niether has enough understanding of the entire interaction of the eco system to make definitive statements

Even taking a correlation like the suns output to temperature theres a pretty compelling overlap MOST of the time, but some periods where the two dont seem to follow each other exactly

The pro AGW side will claim that "proves" the sun is irrelevant and isnt driving climate

The anti AGW side will ckaim the amount of time the two DO match each other almost perfectly proves it is

My personal view there would be that it would seem to show the sun is a pretty major climate driver from the times that it is matching the temperature pattern

But the times where it doesnt show that other cycles aside from the sun ALSO have a major impact, large enough to counteract the suns influence

If the sun wasnt a major climate influence the periods where it is matching the cycle of climate would be unlikely to be there "just by chance" but rather than the times it doesnt match being used to dismiss any link I would personally be more inclined to find out what other cycles and what other climate influences COULD cause the sun to cease to be reflected in the climate

As you mentioned the hurricanes theres been a lot of research that suggests rather than the AGW flavour of climate science which has claimed increases are due to CO2s influence theres research that suggests its just a normal and natural byproduct of the multidecadal cycling of the oceanic currents

But for the pro AGW crowd the seas are claimed to be "irrelevant" because CO2 is the problem, clouds on this thread have been dismissed as a "major climate driver" too, as has the sun, the oceans core temperature

And each time clearly pro AGW sources tend to be the "debunk"

My objection isnt actually to the notion CO2 should be reduced, nor that it doesnt cause ANY increased warming

But is simply that the science is nowhere near being able to claim acurately or prove that the effects will be "immediate and catastrophic" mainly

But also that as that cant be proven in the slightest that excessive and irreversible financial policy that will affect billions of people in a very negative manner shouldnt be "rushed in" on the basis of what I do quite honestly consider to be finance driven scaremongering

And as I have said several times on the claimed temperature increases. Although I do think theres a lot of very dubious doctoring and "ammending" going on I wouldnt be surprised if SOME warming was happening. But the fact there "is" warming by itself doesnt justify doom and gloom scaremongering, excessive financial policies or carbon taxation as a means of eroding soveriegnty

Because we are nowhere near being able to remove all temperature increases that are caused by NON CO2 causes from any observed increases. So its pretty much implied to the non scientific masses that ALL warming is the result of CO2 and thats why its soooooo "urgent" to cripple world economies and introduce a world carbon currency

Problem there is its openly admitted that many other climate drivers arent understood, and as a result of that how much of any increase in temperature they cause equally cant be ascertained

Infact with some climate drivers they admit they dont even know enough to state definitively whether changes would be a positive or a negative climate driver

Which even in my completely unscientifically funded non "valid" opinion means that CO2 "could" be causing 99% of the observed warming, problem is though that it "could" also just as possibly be causing less than 1% of it too. And until the other climate influences are understood, how they interact with each other is also understood and the whole topic is examined NOT with the aim to "prove" CO2 is the cause, but to just understand how the eco system works and each constituent part interacts with all the others no majorly and negatively impactive global financial policies should be agreed

Thats not to say planting lots of trees, banning the sale of any car over 1 litre, minimum specs for new build to include water recycling, solar panels, subteranean heating etc etc shouldnt be pushed while the research is continuing because theyre unquestionably good moves irrespective of CO2s degree of influence

And even when the influence of CO2 itself can be acurately quantified we would still then need to calculate how much of the total is directly attributeable to mankind as well as how the amount would vary if our own production levelled off over time as the climate naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling. So how far from the start of the next cooling cycle are we? What will happen to climate when that begins? How much CO2 will a cooler sea absorb?

None of which can be answered acurately UNTIL we have a full interactive understanding of ALL major (and minor) climate drivers both positive and negative

Which isnt the case yet IMO

But a mostly financial emphasis on a topic that is not really a financial issue tends to look very suspicious from the outset, and more so when its quite forcibly pushed and made to sound urgent when theres no evidence to suggest it IS urgent let alone that necessary in a long term picture

So rather than pro or anti AGW I would class myself as "anti rush for financial reasons" basically and have said many times that niether side really "knows" in the slightest how the climate actually works

but both sides are claiming that specific bits that have been concluded based on a limited understanding of the whole "proves" their case, which it doesnt

So I guess that makes me an AGW athiest I guess
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures