This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to dgp:
Like everywhere else.
Got nothing to do with human intervention. The climate is naturally changing, nowt we can do about it.
And depending on which scientific view you believe we’re either going to boil or we’re entering a period of global cooling.
Like everywhere else.
Got nothing to do with human intervention. The climate is naturally changing, nowt we can do about it.
And depending on which scientific view you believe we’re either going to boil or we’re entering a period of global cooling.
In reply to dgp: If you want to talk about climate change, this is more interesting and relevant.
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/news/cairngorms-mountain-vegetation-climate-change
The Snowdon story is primarily about vegetation change due to changes to the grazing management regime (and some environmental pollution). The climate change aspect is a sideshow.
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/news/cairngorms-mountain-vegetation-climate-change
The Snowdon story is primarily about vegetation change due to changes to the grazing management regime (and some environmental pollution). The climate change aspect is a sideshow.
In reply to Roy:
This point of view is, of course, rubbish.
That human activity is warming the planet is a settled scientific certainty. The precise magnitude of the warming, and how it plays out in different parts of the planet are uncertain but the fact we are warming the earth is no longer a matter of scientific debate.
Climate change denial is now analogous with creationism, a belief held in the teeth of overwhelming evidence that it us wrong. It is verging on tinfoil helmet territory, and when you look at deniers beliefs more closely, many of them are well into conspiracy theory lunacy land,
Cheers
Gregor
This point of view is, of course, rubbish.
That human activity is warming the planet is a settled scientific certainty. The precise magnitude of the warming, and how it plays out in different parts of the planet are uncertain but the fact we are warming the earth is no longer a matter of scientific debate.
Climate change denial is now analogous with creationism, a belief held in the teeth of overwhelming evidence that it us wrong. It is verging on tinfoil helmet territory, and when you look at deniers beliefs more closely, many of them are well into conspiracy theory lunacy land,
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
No, the climate is changing, with or without our "help"
We maybe hastening the effect slightly, but it’s changing, nothing we can do about it.
I'm not in climate change denial, as i said, it's changing (and nowt we can do about it)
No, the climate is changing, with or without our "help"
We maybe hastening the effect slightly, but it’s changing, nothing we can do about it.
I'm not in climate change denial, as i said, it's changing (and nowt we can do about it)
In reply to Roy:
There's plenty we are doing about. Our activities are responsible for the vast majority of the changes over the past 150 years, and will continue to do so for as long as we keep increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Trying to pretend otherwise has no scientific basis whatsoever.
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> I'm not in climate change denial, as i said, it's changing (and nowt we can do about it)
>
> I'm not in climate change denial, as i said, it's changing (and nowt we can do about it)
There's plenty we are doing about. Our activities are responsible for the vast majority of the changes over the past 150 years, and will continue to do so for as long as we keep increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Trying to pretend otherwise has no scientific basis whatsoever.
In reply to Roy:
And your climatology credentials are what, exactly ? watching top gear doesn't count.
And your climatology credentials are what, exactly ? watching top gear doesn't count.
In reply to tony: and Graham D
As I said, we maybe hastening climate change but only slightly, and in the bigger picture over the centuries it probably makes very little difference.
We do not have enough data (150 years) to claim one way or the other, pure science speculation; no one has the definitive answer, it cannot be agreed on.
How about the little ice age in the 16th century, if that happened today, scientists would be predicting the doom of an on coming ice age. In reality it was a 50 year “blip”, solar actively e.g Maunder Minimum, volcanic action etc.
You can read report after report from either camp and depending on whose paranoia you go with form your own opinion. The global warming studies from the 80’s and 90s whose work has led to “green house” panic are being replaced by global cooling studies from the last 10 years.
But one thing that’s agreed on is it’s changing, regardless of human intervention.
All that’s been done via a paranoid lobby group, in the USA, is bring about yet another tax and create a new finical market, trading in carbon emissions.
The climate is changing and there’s nowt we can do about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
As I said, we maybe hastening climate change but only slightly, and in the bigger picture over the centuries it probably makes very little difference.
We do not have enough data (150 years) to claim one way or the other, pure science speculation; no one has the definitive answer, it cannot be agreed on.
How about the little ice age in the 16th century, if that happened today, scientists would be predicting the doom of an on coming ice age. In reality it was a 50 year “blip”, solar actively e.g Maunder Minimum, volcanic action etc.
You can read report after report from either camp and depending on whose paranoia you go with form your own opinion. The global warming studies from the 80’s and 90s whose work has led to “green house” panic are being replaced by global cooling studies from the last 10 years.
But one thing that’s agreed on is it’s changing, regardless of human intervention.
All that’s been done via a paranoid lobby group, in the USA, is bring about yet another tax and create a new finical market, trading in carbon emissions.
The climate is changing and there’s nowt we can do about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
In reply to Roy:
So, given your extensive research, can you tell me how we can have significant increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases without an accompanying increase in temperatures?
There's no doubt, and no dispute, that there are natural variations to climate. However, that doesn't stop there being an additional degree of warming resulting from our activities. We are now at the stage where our activities are overwhelming any natural changes and will continue to do so unless we act to reduce carbon emissions.
So, given your extensive research, can you tell me how we can have significant increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases without an accompanying increase in temperatures?
There's no doubt, and no dispute, that there are natural variations to climate. However, that doesn't stop there being an additional degree of warming resulting from our activities. We are now at the stage where our activities are overwhelming any natural changes and will continue to do so unless we act to reduce carbon emissions.
In reply to tony:
"We are now at the stage where our activities are overwhelming any natural changes"
Is that your extensive research conclusion then?
If we suddenly stopped producing Co2 etc, the climate would still be in a state of flux
We'd probably have to kill all the cattle on the planet to achieve this as well.
Read what I said, Did I say it was warming or cooling ?
No, I said it was changing
And
There’s nothing (nowt) we can do about it.
"We are now at the stage where our activities are overwhelming any natural changes"
Is that your extensive research conclusion then?
If we suddenly stopped producing Co2 etc, the climate would still be in a state of flux
We'd probably have to kill all the cattle on the planet to achieve this as well.
Read what I said, Did I say it was warming or cooling ?
No, I said it was changing
And
There’s nothing (nowt) we can do about it.
In reply to Roy: Roy, did you read your own link? The little ice age is an interesting phenomena, but the climate modelling takes account of natural variation in the record. The overwhelming concensus amongst those people who have been active in this field (and I grant you, because it's an overwhelming mathematical discipline, it's very hard to look at the data without some degree of interpretation by an expert first)is that yes the climate is changing, but that the anthropocentric element is real, quantifiable and potentially dangerous (to us, the planet doesn't really give a stuff).
The problem is really what you'd take as evidence? What's your starting level of understanding and what would you rather read? Good journalism (hard to come by) Good scientific papers (usually bloody hard to read) or the opinion of an assortment of political thinktanks (usually good for nothing). If it would help, I could give you a reading list
The problem is really what you'd take as evidence? What's your starting level of understanding and what would you rather read? Good journalism (hard to come by) Good scientific papers (usually bloody hard to read) or the opinion of an assortment of political thinktanks (usually good for nothing). If it would help, I could give you a reading list
In reply to toad:
Yes, please list, I'd be interested in the read.
I'll post my list of stuff tomorrow as I'm just about to go home..
Yes, please list, I'd be interested in the read.
I'll post my list of stuff tomorrow as I'm just about to go home..
In reply to Roy:
Well it's mainly based on reading peer-researched review and an understanding of the basic physics. Given what I know of the science, I cant see any reason why this should not be the case.
The climate would still be in a state of flux, but the anthropogenic component would be reduced. However, such has been the rate of increase in greenhouse gases over the past 150 years, there's a thing called global warming commitment, which would still see a temperature increase of about half a degree C by the end of the century.
It's changing, and the direction of change is all going one way.
Yes there is.
I note you chose not to answer my question about how we could have an increased concentration of greenhouse gases without an accompanying increase in temperatures.
> (In reply to tony)
>
> "We are now at the stage where our activities are overwhelming any natural changes"
> Is that your extensive research conclusion then?
>
> "We are now at the stage where our activities are overwhelming any natural changes"
> Is that your extensive research conclusion then?
Well it's mainly based on reading peer-researched review and an understanding of the basic physics. Given what I know of the science, I cant see any reason why this should not be the case.
>
> If we suddenly stopped producing Co2 etc, the climate would still be in a state of flux
> If we suddenly stopped producing Co2 etc, the climate would still be in a state of flux
The climate would still be in a state of flux, but the anthropogenic component would be reduced. However, such has been the rate of increase in greenhouse gases over the past 150 years, there's a thing called global warming commitment, which would still see a temperature increase of about half a degree C by the end of the century.
>
> Read what I said, Did I say it was warming or cooling ?
> No, I said it was changing
> Read what I said, Did I say it was warming or cooling ?
> No, I said it was changing
It's changing, and the direction of change is all going one way.
> And
> There’s nothing (nowt) we can do about it.
> There’s nothing (nowt) we can do about it.
Yes there is.
I note you chose not to answer my question about how we could have an increased concentration of greenhouse gases without an accompanying increase in temperatures.
In reply to Roy:
Have a look at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
It's an excellent overview of the science.
> (In reply to toad)
>
> Yes, please list, I'd be interested in the read.
>
> Yes, please list, I'd be interested in the read.
Have a look at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
It's an excellent overview of the science.
In reply to Roy:
Climate change: biological and human aspects - Jonathan Cowie, 2007
Global warming: the complete briefing - Houghton, J. T., 2009
The science and politics of global climate change: a guide to the debate - Andrew Emory Dessler, Edward Parson, 2005
If I was to pick one, it would probably be Houghton as the author chaired the Scientific Assessments for the IPCC. It's also quite readable.
Nothing particularly off piste here, it's cribbed from an u/grad reading list for climate change study. Sorry it isn't a website list - they aren't always that reliable, though I'm sure you can preview some/all on google.
If you need a quick fix, the met office website is a good place to start
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
and from there to the Hadley Centre
Climate change: biological and human aspects - Jonathan Cowie, 2007
Global warming: the complete briefing - Houghton, J. T., 2009
The science and politics of global climate change: a guide to the debate - Andrew Emory Dessler, Edward Parson, 2005
If I was to pick one, it would probably be Houghton as the author chaired the Scientific Assessments for the IPCC. It's also quite readable.
Nothing particularly off piste here, it's cribbed from an u/grad reading list for climate change study. Sorry it isn't a website list - they aren't always that reliable, though I'm sure you can preview some/all on google.
If you need a quick fix, the met office website is a good place to start
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
and from there to the Hadley Centre
In reply to toad:
In addition, I like Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. Other good websites include:
http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/1-1.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch
Climatewizard is quite fun:
http://www.climatewizard.org/
it lets you play with different emissions scenarios.
In addition, I like Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. Other good websites include:
http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/1-1.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch
Climatewizard is quite fun:
http://www.climatewizard.org/
it lets you play with different emissions scenarios.
In reply to Roy:
Roy Spencer's understanding (or presentation) of global warming is based on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) relating to climate sensitivity. His contention is that the actual climate sensitivity is considerably lower than is generally used in climate modelling. However, his assertions relating to climate sensitivity don't stand up to serious scrutiny, particularly when comparisons are made between contemporary climate modelling (that is, modelling of the climate over the past 150 years or so), and modelling and paleo data of the ice ages - in other words, his theories fit one or other, but not both.
Roy Spencer's understanding (or presentation) of global warming is based on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) relating to climate sensitivity. His contention is that the actual climate sensitivity is considerably lower than is generally used in climate modelling. However, his assertions relating to climate sensitivity don't stand up to serious scrutiny, particularly when comparisons are made between contemporary climate modelling (that is, modelling of the climate over the past 150 years or so), and modelling and paleo data of the ice ages - in other words, his theories fit one or other, but not both.
In reply to tony:
Well there you go, no one has the definitive answer.
All we know is the climate is changing, and there’s no long term evidence to suggest that we’re causing it.
Note the phrase "long term" above.
Tony are you a scientist of Dr R's experience etc. or are you as me a layman?
Because to dismiss an “expert” as DrR undoubtedly is, is foolish.
Well there you go, no one has the definitive answer.
All we know is the climate is changing, and there’s no long term evidence to suggest that we’re causing it.
Note the phrase "long term" above.
Tony are you a scientist of Dr R's experience etc. or are you as me a layman?
Because to dismiss an “expert” as DrR undoubtedly is, is foolish.
In reply to Roy:
Yes there is, you're just choosing sources which dispute this. I've read Roy Spencer's website - have you read any of the websites I referenced?
I have a Physics degree and much of my PhD work was concerned with radiative transfer of energy in gases, which is one of the fundamental issues in global warming. I also have a Masters degree in Environmental Sustainability, which included a module on global warming and climate change.
You're the one describing him as an "expert". If you accept Spencer's view on climate sensitivity, you're also the one dismissing many many climate scientists who take a different view. Why do you think he's right and they're wrong?
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Well there you go, no one has the definitive answer.
>
Why do you say no one has the definitive answer? Roy Spencer is one voice in among many hundreds of climate scientists. Have you read everyone's thoughts on climate sensitivity? And if you have, why do you think they're wrong and he's right? >
> Well there you go, no one has the definitive answer.
>
> All we know is the climate is changing, and there’s no long term evidence to suggest that we’re causing it.
Yes there is, you're just choosing sources which dispute this. I've read Roy Spencer's website - have you read any of the websites I referenced?
> Tony are you a scientist of Dr R's experience etc. or are you as me a layman?
I have a Physics degree and much of my PhD work was concerned with radiative transfer of energy in gases, which is one of the fundamental issues in global warming. I also have a Masters degree in Environmental Sustainability, which included a module on global warming and climate change.
> Because to dismiss an “expert” as DrR undoubtedly is, is foolish.
You're the one describing him as an "expert". If you accept Spencer's view on climate sensitivity, you're also the one dismissing many many climate scientists who take a different view. Why do you think he's right and they're wrong?
In reply to tony:
I think having a PhD and working for Nasa, gives him quite fair bit of kudos. And he is globally recognised as a subject matter expert.
I don’t think he’s right or wrong per say.
And I bow to your greater understand on this subject than mine, I’ve a mere BSc Hons (1st class) in Electronics.
There is a theory that global warming will lead to rapid global cooling.
The polar ice caps will melt, flooding the seas with cold fresh water. This will have an obvious cooling effect.
El Nino and the Gulf Stream will fail the northern hemisphere above a line through northern France will freeze, southern hemisphere on a line cutting through southern Australia will freeze.
Then there’s the magnet pole change theory, that could throw a giant spanner in to the work.
But that’s what they all are, theories and some projections are boarding on hysteria.
All I know is , I’ve just stuck my head out of the window and it’s bloody raining again Ok it's warming up double
I think having a PhD and working for Nasa, gives him quite fair bit of kudos. And he is globally recognised as a subject matter expert.
I don’t think he’s right or wrong per say.
And I bow to your greater understand on this subject than mine, I’ve a mere BSc Hons (1st class) in Electronics.
There is a theory that global warming will lead to rapid global cooling.
The polar ice caps will melt, flooding the seas with cold fresh water. This will have an obvious cooling effect.
El Nino and the Gulf Stream will fail the northern hemisphere above a line through northern France will freeze, southern hemisphere on a line cutting through southern Australia will freeze.
Then there’s the magnet pole change theory, that could throw a giant spanner in to the work.
But that’s what they all are, theories and some projections are boarding on hysteria.
All I know is , I’ve just stuck my head out of the window and it’s bloody raining again Ok it's warming up double
In reply to Roy:
No more so than thousands of other scientist (less to be honest). His media and political activities are higher, and his peer reviewed pulications lower, than you would expect.
> (In reply to tony)
>
> I think having a PhD and working for Nasa, gives him quite fair bit of kudos. And he is globally recognised as a subject matter expert.
>
> I think having a PhD and working for Nasa, gives him quite fair bit of kudos. And he is globally recognised as a subject matter expert.
No more so than thousands of other scientist (less to be honest). His media and political activities are higher, and his peer reviewed pulications lower, than you would expect.
In reply to Roy:
Hi Roy,
I'm curious as to why you think the idea that humans might influence the climate is hysterical?
Dr Spencer Ph.D. seems to be a meteorologist, and will be very used to the idea that water vapour etc can have a significant effect on radiative forcing in the short-term, but probably isn't used to thinking on the scale of tens of millions or billions of years. Looking back over the geological record it's very hard to describe the overall patterns of temperature change without linking them to carbon dioxide.
And in terms of the scale of human influence, look back at any biological innovation of the same scale and you will see significant climatic repercussions: the evolution of photosynthesis triggered the great oxidation; the invasion of the land by plants triggered a snowball earth event; the evolution of trees doubled oxygen levels again and had a role in the permian mass extinction; the rise of angiosperms caused climate change in the cretaceous; the evolution of grasslands caused cooling in the oligocene.
And then humans turn up, cover 40% of the earth in farmland, double the load of reactive nitrogen on the planet, and have a good go at releasing all the carbon locked up in one of the previous events, all in a couple of hundred years.
Hi Roy,
I'm curious as to why you think the idea that humans might influence the climate is hysterical?
Dr Spencer Ph.D. seems to be a meteorologist, and will be very used to the idea that water vapour etc can have a significant effect on radiative forcing in the short-term, but probably isn't used to thinking on the scale of tens of millions or billions of years. Looking back over the geological record it's very hard to describe the overall patterns of temperature change without linking them to carbon dioxide.
And in terms of the scale of human influence, look back at any biological innovation of the same scale and you will see significant climatic repercussions: the evolution of photosynthesis triggered the great oxidation; the invasion of the land by plants triggered a snowball earth event; the evolution of trees doubled oxygen levels again and had a role in the permian mass extinction; the rise of angiosperms caused climate change in the cretaceous; the evolution of grasslands caused cooling in the oligocene.
And then humans turn up, cover 40% of the earth in farmland, double the load of reactive nitrogen on the planet, and have a good go at releasing all the carbon locked up in one of the previous events, all in a couple of hundred years.
In reply to Roy:
He's an expert on remote sensing, which is not the same as being an expert on global warming. And if you such great store by what NASA scientists, what is about all the other NASA scientists, whose work is presented on the NASA webpages I linked to yesterday, that you don't believe.
So citing him one way or another seems a bit pointless. If you're not able to differentiate between what he says and what many hundreds of climate scientists say, I'm not sure how what you gain by citing him.
One of the most interesting examples of this recently was the BEST project. This was established in the aftermath of the East Anglia email hack, and was a fresh attempt by an avowed climate change skeptic to analyse surface temperature data using a much greater range of data than had previously been attempted. Not surprisingly, to all the climate scientists who were already convinced about the robustness of their methodologies, the BEST results served to confirm the nature of temperature increases, and to endorse the prevailing science. You can read more about this here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
and
http://berkeleyearth.org/
> (In reply to tony)
>
> I think having a PhD and working for Nasa, gives him quite fair bit of kudos. And he is globally recognised as a subject matter expert.
>
> I think having a PhD and working for Nasa, gives him quite fair bit of kudos. And he is globally recognised as a subject matter expert.
He's an expert on remote sensing, which is not the same as being an expert on global warming. And if you such great store by what NASA scientists, what is about all the other NASA scientists, whose work is presented on the NASA webpages I linked to yesterday, that you don't believe.
> I don’t think he’s right or wrong per say.
So citing him one way or another seems a bit pointless. If you're not able to differentiate between what he says and what many hundreds of climate scientists say, I'm not sure how what you gain by citing him.
>
> There is a theory that global warming will lead to rapid global cooling.
> The polar ice caps will melt, flooding the seas with cold fresh water. This will have an obvious cooling effect.
> El Nino and the Gulf Stream will fail the northern hemisphere above a line through northern France will freeze, southern hemisphere on a line cutting through southern Australia will freeze.
> Then there’s the magnet pole change theory, that could throw a giant spanner in to the work.
> But that’s what they all are, theories and some projections are boarding on hysteria.
>
There are lots of theories and lots of speculation. The fact that some of them are challenging in the extreme doesn't mean that others are well founded. One of the great strengths of the vast majority of climate modelling work is the repeatability by research groups all round the world. > There is a theory that global warming will lead to rapid global cooling.
> The polar ice caps will melt, flooding the seas with cold fresh water. This will have an obvious cooling effect.
> El Nino and the Gulf Stream will fail the northern hemisphere above a line through northern France will freeze, southern hemisphere on a line cutting through southern Australia will freeze.
> Then there’s the magnet pole change theory, that could throw a giant spanner in to the work.
> But that’s what they all are, theories and some projections are boarding on hysteria.
>
One of the most interesting examples of this recently was the BEST project. This was established in the aftermath of the East Anglia email hack, and was a fresh attempt by an avowed climate change skeptic to analyse surface temperature data using a much greater range of data than had previously been attempted. Not surprisingly, to all the climate scientists who were already convinced about the robustness of their methodologies, the BEST results served to confirm the nature of temperature increases, and to endorse the prevailing science. You can read more about this here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
and
http://berkeleyearth.org/
In reply to Papillon:
His work is marginalised by other researchers who have a finical interest in their own counter theories. And that’s visa versa by the way.
And that’s what it boils down to, securing finical backing for their own research projects be it at a university or private commercial company.
No one has a definitive answer. There is not enough data.
In general an experiment is only as good as the data you have.
On a lighter note, we can't even get a weather forecast correct more than 14 days in advance, given the vast computing power and so called knowledge we have.
Whoops I've changed subject sort of.
His work is marginalised by other researchers who have a finical interest in their own counter theories. And that’s visa versa by the way.
And that’s what it boils down to, securing finical backing for their own research projects be it at a university or private commercial company.
No one has a definitive answer. There is not enough data.
In general an experiment is only as good as the data you have.
On a lighter note, we can't even get a weather forecast correct more than 14 days in advance, given the vast computing power and so called knowledge we have.
Whoops I've changed subject sort of.
In reply to Roy:
No you've confused weather and climate.
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
>> Whoops I've changed subject sort of.>
No you've confused weather and climate.
In reply to Roy:
Here we go, as predicted, we're into tinfoil helmet territory...
Move along everyone, nothing to see here, just another paranoid climate change denier....
Cheers
Gregor
Here we go, as predicted, we're into tinfoil helmet territory...
Move along everyone, nothing to see here, just another paranoid climate change denier....
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to Roy:
Do you know that's why his work is marginalised? Isn't it possible it's marginalised because it's wrong? I know you can't say whether it's right or wrong, because you don't know enough about the subject, but don't you concede that his marginalisation might be because of poor science?
No, what it boils down to is getting the science right. I've pointed out why his explanation is wrong. I have no vested interests.
I don't know why you keep saying that. You don't know what 'enough data' is. If you read what I've posted abut the BEST project, you'll see that the amount of data is not an issue.
But you do know that weather and climate are different things, so complaining about weather forecasts is a bit pointless.
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> His work is marginalised by other researchers who have a finical interest in their own counter theories. And that’s visa versa by the way.
>
> His work is marginalised by other researchers who have a finical interest in their own counter theories. And that’s visa versa by the way.
Do you know that's why his work is marginalised? Isn't it possible it's marginalised because it's wrong? I know you can't say whether it's right or wrong, because you don't know enough about the subject, but don't you concede that his marginalisation might be because of poor science?
>
> And that’s what it boils down to, securing finical backing for their own research projects be it at a university or private commercial company.
> And that’s what it boils down to, securing finical backing for their own research projects be it at a university or private commercial company.
No, what it boils down to is getting the science right. I've pointed out why his explanation is wrong. I have no vested interests.
>
> No one has a definitive answer. There is not enough data.
> No one has a definitive answer. There is not enough data.
I don't know why you keep saying that. You don't know what 'enough data' is. If you read what I've posted abut the BEST project, you'll see that the amount of data is not an issue.
>
> On a lighter note, we can't even get a weather forecast correct more than 14 days in advance, given the vast computing power and so called knowledge we have.
> On a lighter note, we can't even get a weather forecast correct more than 14 days in advance, given the vast computing power and so called knowledge we have.
But you do know that weather and climate are different things, so complaining about weather forecasts is a bit pointless.
In reply to tony:
I did say
"And that’s visa versa by the way"
Yes I do know the difference between weather and climate, just thought I'd try a bit of humor
I did say
"And that’s visa versa by the way"
Yes I do know the difference between weather and climate, just thought I'd try a bit of humor
In reply to Roy:
Have you actually tried reading any of the stuff that toad and I have posted links to?
Have you actually tried reading any of the stuff that toad and I have posted links to?
In reply to Roy:
Why would anyone want to persuade people to continue to invest in poor research, purely for the sake of continuing to do the research?
Most people don't get into science just to 'do some research' for the sake of it, so if people are continually investing in poor research there's some lobby group providing backing. Hmm, which 'side' of the 'debate' might that be happening on?
> (In reply to Papillon)
> >
> And that’s what it boils down to, securing finical backing for their own research projects be it at a university or private commercial company.
>
> >
> And that’s what it boils down to, securing finical backing for their own research projects be it at a university or private commercial company.
>
Why would anyone want to persuade people to continue to invest in poor research, purely for the sake of continuing to do the research?
Most people don't get into science just to 'do some research' for the sake of it, so if people are continually investing in poor research there's some lobby group providing backing. Hmm, which 'side' of the 'debate' might that be happening on?
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
"just another paranoid climate change denier...."
No, I didn't say I'm in denial about climate change, READ WHAT I WROTE.
I simply don't believe either camp.
I also don’t believe that humans are the main cause of global warming on a long term basis.
Remove humans out of the equation and the climate will continue to change as it's done for millennia .
"just another paranoid climate change denier...."
No, I didn't say I'm in denial about climate change, READ WHAT I WROTE.
I simply don't believe either camp.
I also don’t believe that humans are the main cause of global warming on a long term basis.
Remove humans out of the equation and the climate will continue to change as it's done for millennia .
In reply to Roy:
no worries, its been a pleasure....
I'd thank you for yours, except you haven't made one. Instead you've trotted out the same old conspiracy theory drivel, ignored links people have patiently and respectfully supplied to relevant information, and cited as your only evidence a self publicizing creationist weather forecaster who is no longer taken seriously in the climate science field and whose claims have all been rebutted, and who despite what his website claims has worked for organisations funded by Exxon.
Check out sourcewatch.org if you are actually interested in doing anything more than uncritically accepting the skeptics' case, no matter hoe flawed it is shown to be
Cheers
Gregor
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> Thank you for your enlighten contribution to the debate
>
> Thank you for your enlighten contribution to the debate
no worries, its been a pleasure....
I'd thank you for yours, except you haven't made one. Instead you've trotted out the same old conspiracy theory drivel, ignored links people have patiently and respectfully supplied to relevant information, and cited as your only evidence a self publicizing creationist weather forecaster who is no longer taken seriously in the climate science field and whose claims have all been rebutted, and who despite what his website claims has worked for organisations funded by Exxon.
Check out sourcewatch.org if you are actually interested in doing anything more than uncritically accepting the skeptics' case, no matter hoe flawed it is shown to be
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to Eric the Red: He may be Roy Cropper! He also had a lot to say about nowt.
In reply to Roy:
we have 800,000 years worth of data (at least) from numerous antarctic ice cores, 400,000 years worth from Greenland ice cores and data covering comparable timescales from speliothem records (stalegtights/mights in laymans terms) not to mention numerous sediment core records from land and sea covering the last few thousand years in great detail.
it is an undeniable fact that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations (including but not exclusivly CO2) corresponds with an increase in average global temperatures. it is also a fact that the atmospheric levels of CO2, methane, NO2 etc have increased well beyond the natural levels experienced over the last 65 million years, at a rate never experienced before, and we are the cause of this.
you are right... nobody can know for sure what is going to happen to the climate over the next centuary or so, as this rise is unprecedented. but we can be certain that the climate will change beyond that of the natural cycle, and the more we can do to mitigate this, the better!
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> > No one has a definitive answer. There is not enough data.
> In general an experiment is only as good as the data you have.
>
> > No one has a definitive answer. There is not enough data.
> In general an experiment is only as good as the data you have.
we have 800,000 years worth of data (at least) from numerous antarctic ice cores, 400,000 years worth from Greenland ice cores and data covering comparable timescales from speliothem records (stalegtights/mights in laymans terms) not to mention numerous sediment core records from land and sea covering the last few thousand years in great detail.
it is an undeniable fact that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations (including but not exclusivly CO2) corresponds with an increase in average global temperatures. it is also a fact that the atmospheric levels of CO2, methane, NO2 etc have increased well beyond the natural levels experienced over the last 65 million years, at a rate never experienced before, and we are the cause of this.
you are right... nobody can know for sure what is going to happen to the climate over the next centuary or so, as this rise is unprecedented. but we can be certain that the climate will change beyond that of the natural cycle, and the more we can do to mitigate this, the better!
In reply to Roy:
yes the climate is in a constant state of flux, as is the normal order of things as governed by milankovic orbital cycles, plate tectonics, evolution and solar forcing to name but a few.
But if you remove humans from the equation then you decrease the atmoshperic CO2 concentrations from approx 380 ppm to approx 150 ppm, as well as decreasing the levels of other greenhouse gasses such as methane and NO2. this completely changes the equation. we will never know what todays climate would be like without our influence on the planet... maybe the earth would have slipped into another ice age, carying on from the 'mini ice age' as suggested by the current state of the milankovic orbital cycle. but we do know that our actions have acted to warm the planet above what is natural.
> Remove humans out of the equation and the climate will continue to change as it's done for millennia .
yes the climate is in a constant state of flux, as is the normal order of things as governed by milankovic orbital cycles, plate tectonics, evolution and solar forcing to name but a few.
But if you remove humans from the equation then you decrease the atmoshperic CO2 concentrations from approx 380 ppm to approx 150 ppm, as well as decreasing the levels of other greenhouse gasses such as methane and NO2. this completely changes the equation. we will never know what todays climate would be like without our influence on the planet... maybe the earth would have slipped into another ice age, carying on from the 'mini ice age' as suggested by the current state of the milankovic orbital cycle. but we do know that our actions have acted to warm the planet above what is natural.
In reply to Roy:
Other climate scientists dismiss Roy Spencer's work as well. There have been many issues with his recent papers, as well as his research in satellite data, where there have been persistent miscalculations.
In addition to being a climate skeptic, he's also a creationist - he believes that creationism/intelligent design is more likely to be correct than the theory of evolution.
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Tony are you a scientist of Dr R's experience etc. or are you as me a layman?
> Because to dismiss an “expert” as DrR undoubtedly is, is foolish.
>
> Tony are you a scientist of Dr R's experience etc. or are you as me a layman?
> Because to dismiss an “expert” as DrR undoubtedly is, is foolish.
Other climate scientists dismiss Roy Spencer's work as well. There have been many issues with his recent papers, as well as his research in satellite data, where there have been persistent miscalculations.
In addition to being a climate skeptic, he's also a creationist - he believes that creationism/intelligent design is more likely to be correct than the theory of evolution.
In reply to Roy:
No-one's denying that. The issue is whether the *current* warming is due to human causes.
Long-term means geological time, ie, millions of years. We're talking about significant changes in temperature that are happening in the space of a few decades. This is a blink of an eye in geological terms. What's also happened in the same blink of an eye is that we've increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm. The natural processes that change climate are either going in the opposite direction, or they're not strong enough to account for the warming that we're experiencing. It cannot be explained without CO2, and CO2 is sufficient to explain what's happening.
Sorry, but refusing to acknowledge the link between human CO2 emissions and the current warming, is denial.
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> "just another paranoid climate change denier...."
> No, I didn't say I'm in denial about climate change, READ WHAT I WROTE.
>
> I simply don't believe either camp.
> I also don’t believe that humans are the main cause of global warming on a long term basis.
>
> Remove humans out of the equation and the climate will continue to change as it's done for millennia .
>
> "just another paranoid climate change denier...."
> No, I didn't say I'm in denial about climate change, READ WHAT I WROTE.
>
> I simply don't believe either camp.
> I also don’t believe that humans are the main cause of global warming on a long term basis.
>
> Remove humans out of the equation and the climate will continue to change as it's done for millennia .
No-one's denying that. The issue is whether the *current* warming is due to human causes.
Long-term means geological time, ie, millions of years. We're talking about significant changes in temperature that are happening in the space of a few decades. This is a blink of an eye in geological terms. What's also happened in the same blink of an eye is that we've increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm. The natural processes that change climate are either going in the opposite direction, or they're not strong enough to account for the warming that we're experiencing. It cannot be explained without CO2, and CO2 is sufficient to explain what's happening.
Sorry, but refusing to acknowledge the link between human CO2 emissions and the current warming, is denial.
In reply to Webster:
Fair point.
However I doubt if 150 years of current human action could seriously affect the magnitude of solor events etc
Fair point.
However I doubt if 150 years of current human action could seriously affect the magnitude of solor events etc
In reply to Removed UserALL
We simply don’t have enough data long term to prove that human intervention is causing global warming.
Yes, green house gasses will increase temperatures, science fact e.g modern day emissions, but why did we have global warming when humans were not producing green house gases etc ?
No one can from the global warming argument can answer that !
For example:
The Little Ice age 50 – 60 years in the 16th century. What caused the cooling? And why did the cooling stop and suddenly and the northern hemisphere warmed up again ?
No one can say for certain. One thing there was no human intervention due to industrial growth etc.
Why did we have an ice age 18 thousand years ago, and why did it come to a relatively quick end?
That must have been the mother of all global warming !!!!
Certainly not human intervention.
No one can say either way
Variation in the solar cycle, solar energy fluctuations, oscillations of the earth’s axis (the Milankovitch theory), magnetic pole reversal.
The problem is the current global warming fraternity and very vocal and shout down all who disagree with them. As is the case with this current forum thread.
It’s very much “look we’re got some data from the last 150 years….we must be correct” But they fail to answer some of the bigger questions. Similar to the two I’ve just mentioned above.
As I said, repeatedly, the climate is changing (of its natural accord) and there’s nothing we can do about it, well perhaps a few token gestures and good will political posturing.
Enjoy the carbon tax hikes
We simply don’t have enough data long term to prove that human intervention is causing global warming.
Yes, green house gasses will increase temperatures, science fact e.g modern day emissions, but why did we have global warming when humans were not producing green house gases etc ?
No one can from the global warming argument can answer that !
For example:
The Little Ice age 50 – 60 years in the 16th century. What caused the cooling? And why did the cooling stop and suddenly and the northern hemisphere warmed up again ?
No one can say for certain. One thing there was no human intervention due to industrial growth etc.
Why did we have an ice age 18 thousand years ago, and why did it come to a relatively quick end?
That must have been the mother of all global warming !!!!
Certainly not human intervention.
No one can say either way
Variation in the solar cycle, solar energy fluctuations, oscillations of the earth’s axis (the Milankovitch theory), magnetic pole reversal.
The problem is the current global warming fraternity and very vocal and shout down all who disagree with them. As is the case with this current forum thread.
It’s very much “look we’re got some data from the last 150 years….we must be correct” But they fail to answer some of the bigger questions. Similar to the two I’ve just mentioned above.
As I said, repeatedly, the climate is changing (of its natural accord) and there’s nothing we can do about it, well perhaps a few token gestures and good will political posturing.
Enjoy the carbon tax hikes
In reply to Roy:
So you agree that increase in greenhouse gases from human activities will increase temperatures.
Lots of reasons. No one disputes there are natural variations. The fact that there are natural variations does not mean there cannot also be reasons related to human activities.
It's not a question of shouting down anyone who disagrees. It's a question of asking you to engage with the science. There's nothing about all those cases you cite that prevents there being additional climate effects arising from human activities.
> (In reply to ALL
>
> We simply don’t have enough data long term to prove that human intervention is causing global warming.
> Yes, green house gasses will increase temperatures, science fact
>
> We simply don’t have enough data long term to prove that human intervention is causing global warming.
> Yes, green house gasses will increase temperatures, science fact
So you agree that increase in greenhouse gases from human activities will increase temperatures.
> e.g modern day emissions, but why did we have global warming when humans were not producing green house gases etc ?
Lots of reasons. No one disputes there are natural variations. The fact that there are natural variations does not mean there cannot also be reasons related to human activities.
> No one can from the global warming argument can answer that !
> For example)
> The Little Ice age 50 – 60 years in the 16th century. What caused the cooling? And why did the cooling stop and suddenly and the northern hemisphere warmed up again ?
> No one can say for certain. One thing there was no human intervention due to industrial growth etc.
> Why did we have an ice age 18 thousand years ago, and why did it come to a relatively quick end?
> That must have been the mother of all global warming !!!!
> Certainly not human intervention.
> No one can say either way
> Variation in the solar cycle, solar energy fluctuations, oscillations of the earth’s axis (the Milankovitch theory), magnetic pole reversal.
> The problem is the current global warming fraternity and very vocal and shout down all who disagree with them. As is the case with this current forum thread.
> For example)
> The Little Ice age 50 – 60 years in the 16th century. What caused the cooling? And why did the cooling stop and suddenly and the northern hemisphere warmed up again ?
> No one can say for certain. One thing there was no human intervention due to industrial growth etc.
> Why did we have an ice age 18 thousand years ago, and why did it come to a relatively quick end?
> That must have been the mother of all global warming !!!!
> Certainly not human intervention.
> No one can say either way
> Variation in the solar cycle, solar energy fluctuations, oscillations of the earth’s axis (the Milankovitch theory), magnetic pole reversal.
> The problem is the current global warming fraternity and very vocal and shout down all who disagree with them. As is the case with this current forum thread.
It's not a question of shouting down anyone who disagrees. It's a question of asking you to engage with the science. There's nothing about all those cases you cite that prevents there being additional climate effects arising from human activities.
In reply to Roy:
I think you should forward your email to the IPCC as a matter of urgency. All those climate scientists just won't have thought of these matters, and I'm sure they'll be thankful for some random engineer on the internet pointing out their folly.
I can see a Nobel prize in this for you
Maybe drop some of the exclamation marks though- they have the tendency to make you look a little unhinged,
Cheers
Gregor
I think you should forward your email to the IPCC as a matter of urgency. All those climate scientists just won't have thought of these matters, and I'm sure they'll be thankful for some random engineer on the internet pointing out their folly.
I can see a Nobel prize in this for you
Maybe drop some of the exclamation marks though- they have the tendency to make you look a little unhinged,
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to Roy: Your illogical argument (an unscientific muddying of the waters) is dealt with in this document.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatcause.pdf
From the end
'The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper. FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change.'
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatcause.pdf
From the end
'The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper. FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change.'
In reply to Roy:
As I said before, life causes change. Looking at the evolution of life (which is essentially a way of moving carbon around) helps us understand the bigger questions.
The evolution of photosynthesis triggered the great oxidation; the invasion of the land by plants triggered a snowball earth event; the evolution of trees doubled oxygen levels again and had a role in the permian mass extinction; the rise of angiosperms caused climate change in the cretaceous; the evolution of grasslands caused cooling in the oligocene.
Humans are another recently appeared form of life, and have changed the way carbon is moved around on a scale similar to that of the events listed above, and as a result we can expect climatic change on a similar level too.
> (In reply to ALL
>
>
> It’s very much “look we’re got some data from the last 150 years….we must be correct” But they fail to answer some of the bigger questions. Similar to the two I’ve just mentioned above.
As I said before, life causes change. Looking at the evolution of life (which is essentially a way of moving carbon around) helps us understand the bigger questions.
The evolution of photosynthesis triggered the great oxidation; the invasion of the land by plants triggered a snowball earth event; the evolution of trees doubled oxygen levels again and had a role in the permian mass extinction; the rise of angiosperms caused climate change in the cretaceous; the evolution of grasslands caused cooling in the oligocene.
Humans are another recently appeared form of life, and have changed the way carbon is moved around on a scale similar to that of the events listed above, and as a result we can expect climatic change on a similar level too.
In reply to Roy:
Well, there's a growing community of scientists who believe that human activities have been impacting climate for far longer than the industrial age. Clearing land for agriculture has nearly always meant cutting down forests, or burning them, both of which releases carbon into the atmosphere. The forest is replaced by agricultural land, which locks up less carbon. In addition, tropical forests have been removed and replaced by rice paddies, which release methane, another greenhouse gas.
I've seen figures of 80%+ deforestation for Africa, for example, and similar high figures for other parts of the globe.
The Little Ice Age is still largely thought of as being mostly a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon. One theory is that the Black Death caused such an enormous loss of life that forests regrew and locked up more carbon, thereby lowering temperatures. It's also been suggested that the massive human die-off in North America caused by the arrival of Europeans (and new germs) also caused forest regrowth, and carbon fixing.
As to why temperatures warmed up again: industrialisation, growing populations, associated forest clearing and land use changes, etc. The other reasons were probably more important originally, with industrialisation growing over time.
Milankovitch cycles.
And now we get to the real reason you're a denier.
The question of whether or not climate change is happening and we're the cause is an entirely scientific question, and it's the one we seem to be arguing about here. It's completely disconnected to any ideas of mitigation or adaptation. Whenever I see someone in one of these arguments talk about taxes, it's an indication of someone arguing backwards. Sorry, but CO2 doesn't care about who you vote for or how much tax you pay.
> (In reply to ALL
>
> The Little Ice age 50 – 60 years in the 16th century. What caused the cooling? And why did the cooling stop and suddenly and the northern hemisphere warmed up again ?
>
> The Little Ice age 50 – 60 years in the 16th century. What caused the cooling? And why did the cooling stop and suddenly and the northern hemisphere warmed up again ?
Well, there's a growing community of scientists who believe that human activities have been impacting climate for far longer than the industrial age. Clearing land for agriculture has nearly always meant cutting down forests, or burning them, both of which releases carbon into the atmosphere. The forest is replaced by agricultural land, which locks up less carbon. In addition, tropical forests have been removed and replaced by rice paddies, which release methane, another greenhouse gas.
I've seen figures of 80%+ deforestation for Africa, for example, and similar high figures for other parts of the globe.
The Little Ice Age is still largely thought of as being mostly a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon. One theory is that the Black Death caused such an enormous loss of life that forests regrew and locked up more carbon, thereby lowering temperatures. It's also been suggested that the massive human die-off in North America caused by the arrival of Europeans (and new germs) also caused forest regrowth, and carbon fixing.
As to why temperatures warmed up again: industrialisation, growing populations, associated forest clearing and land use changes, etc. The other reasons were probably more important originally, with industrialisation growing over time.
> Why did we have an ice age 18 thousand years ago, and why did it come to a relatively quick end?
Milankovitch cycles.
> Enjoy the carbon tax hikes
And now we get to the real reason you're a denier.
The question of whether or not climate change is happening and we're the cause is an entirely scientific question, and it's the one we seem to be arguing about here. It's completely disconnected to any ideas of mitigation or adaptation. Whenever I see someone in one of these arguments talk about taxes, it's an indication of someone arguing backwards. Sorry, but CO2 doesn't care about who you vote for or how much tax you pay.
In reply to dgp: It is absolutely DESPICABLE to try and link manmade climate change denial to creationiSm and all that is associated with that, i.e fundamentalist christianity! Science is NOT a religion and there are TRUE scientists who are NOT funded by Green whoever/whatever government bodies who simply have alternative theories. These TRUE scientists are vilified for producing PURE scientific fact and scientific argument!
The argument is NOT settled.
There is only ONE thing that controls are climate; the Sun.
Ask yourselves a question! What caused the jetstream to wildly change course at the start of Feb causing the worst cold period in 30 years accross the WHOLE of Europe?
@~#{>?$% Creationism!!! Idiot!!!!!
The argument is NOT settled.
There is only ONE thing that controls are climate; the Sun.
Ask yourselves a question! What caused the jetstream to wildly change course at the start of Feb causing the worst cold period in 30 years accross the WHOLE of Europe?
@~#{>?$% Creationism!!! Idiot!!!!!
In reply to JonJavlin:
Very true.
And who would these true scientists be?
Yes it is.
The Sun is responsible for the energy entering the atmosphere. What happens then has been modified considerably by the increase in greenhouse gases, for which we are responsible.
Roy Spencer asserts that there's no such thing as human-induced climate change. He's also a Creationist. What does that make him?
> (In reply to dgp)
> Science is NOT a religion
Very true.
> These TRUE scientists are vilified for producing PURE scientific fact and scientific argument!
And who would these true scientists be?
>
> The argument is NOT settled.
> The argument is NOT settled.
Yes it is.
>
> There is only ONE thing that controls are climate; the Sun.
> There is only ONE thing that controls are climate; the Sun.
The Sun is responsible for the energy entering the atmosphere. What happens then has been modified considerably by the increase in greenhouse gases, for which we are responsible.
>
> @~#{>?$% Creationism!!! Idiot!!!!!
> @~#{>?$% Creationism!!! Idiot!!!!!
Roy Spencer asserts that there's no such thing as human-induced climate change. He's also a Creationist. What does that make him?
In reply to JonJavlin:
I think to make your argument more persuasive, you should use even more block capitals, exclamation marks and amusing random characters to pretend you're swearing.
Some abbreviations eg WTF and ZOMG would make your case absolutely convincing- go for it, you know you want to...
Cheers
Gregor
I think to make your argument more persuasive, you should use even more block capitals, exclamation marks and amusing random characters to pretend you're swearing.
Some abbreviations eg WTF and ZOMG would make your case absolutely convincing- go for it, you know you want to...
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to JonJavlin: gOOd PoINTS, welL maDe.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I have to say this made me laugh!
> (In reply to Roy)
>
> I think you should forward your email to the IPCC as a matter of urgency. All those climate scientists just won't have thought of these matters, and I'm sure they'll be thankful for some random engineer on the internet pointing out their folly.
>
> I can see a Nobel prize in this for you
>
>
> I think you should forward your email to the IPCC as a matter of urgency. All those climate scientists just won't have thought of these matters, and I'm sure they'll be thankful for some random engineer on the internet pointing out their folly.
>
> I can see a Nobel prize in this for you
>
I have to say this made me laugh!
In reply to tony:
I don’t believe Roy Spence no matter how respected he is, I don’t believe the global warming group either.
Both sets of arguments are floored; they are all based on theories and counter theories, none proven.
I don’t give a monkeys about global warming or cooling. Or what happens if the earth boils or freezes....we’re all extinct.
Mother earth will continue on with or without us, assuming the sun still shines.
Next dominant species in line please take over, this one F-ed it up.
Tony , thanks for the links yesterday, good read.
I don’t believe Roy Spence no matter how respected he is, I don’t believe the global warming group either.
Both sets of arguments are floored; they are all based on theories and counter theories, none proven.
I don’t give a monkeys about global warming or cooling. Or what happens if the earth boils or freezes....we’re all extinct.
Mother earth will continue on with or without us, assuming the sun still shines.
Next dominant species in line please take over, this one F-ed it up.
Tony , thanks for the links yesterday, good read.
In reply to tony: so the lunar cycles, therefore the sea, clouds and all the other NATURAL elements of the Earth having no influence on the climate then. Its all down to manmade greenhouse gases is it?
HAFWYBOOFNDWs!
Modified considerably! By how much? who says?
HAFWYBOOFNDWs!
Modified considerably! By how much? who says?
In reply to Roy:
So why did you cite him yesterday?
Why not? You've agreed that increases in GHGs will increase temperatures. How can you logically agree that and still say you don't believe 'the global warming group', since they're saying exactly the same thing.
The notion that increasing GHGs increases temperature has been proved in lab experiments (and I think you mean flawed, not floored).
We haven't quite f*cked it up yet. We've made a mess, but there's still time to sort it out.
> (In reply to tony)
>
> I don’t believe Roy Spence no matter how respected he is,
>
> I don’t believe Roy Spence no matter how respected he is,
So why did you cite him yesterday?
> I don’t believe the global warming group either.
Why not? You've agreed that increases in GHGs will increase temperatures. How can you logically agree that and still say you don't believe 'the global warming group', since they're saying exactly the same thing.
> Both sets of arguments are floored; they are all based on theories and counter theories, none proven.
The notion that increasing GHGs increases temperature has been proved in lab experiments (and I think you mean flawed, not floored).
> Next dominant species in line please take over, this one F-ed it up.
We haven't quite f*cked it up yet. We've made a mess, but there's still time to sort it out.
In reply to JonJavlin:
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased from about 280ppm 200 years ago to about 400ppm now - that's about a 40% increase, and it's all down to our use of fossil fuels and land use change. We've also been responsible for doubling levels of methane (which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2). and we've increased levels of a whole host of other GHGs, including some which are not natural gases such as CFCs and HFCs. Lots of detail available here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
> (In reply to tony) so the lunar cycles, therefore the sea, clouds and all the other NATURAL elements of the Earth having no influence on the climate then. Its all down to manmade greenhouse gases is it?
>
No, but then I didn't say it was all down to GHGs. >
> Modified considerably! By how much? who says?
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased from about 280ppm 200 years ago to about 400ppm now - that's about a 40% increase, and it's all down to our use of fossil fuels and land use change. We've also been responsible for doubling levels of methane (which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2). and we've increased levels of a whole host of other GHGs, including some which are not natural gases such as CFCs and HFCs. Lots of detail available here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
In reply to JonJavlin:
Didn't you just say it was only the sun that could control the climate? Now you're pointing out that, guess what, lots of things can.
Didn't you just say it was only the sun that could control the climate? Now you're pointing out that, guess what, lots of things can.
In reply to JonJavlin:
The reason for likening denial of anthropogenic climate change to creationism is that both involve the assertion that a scientific fact is actually a belief that can be challenged. And that both are egged on and funded by similar or overlapping groups of conservative big business types, largely American.
The reason for likening denial of anthropogenic climate change to creationism is that both involve the assertion that a scientific fact is actually a belief that can be challenged. And that both are egged on and funded by similar or overlapping groups of conservative big business types, largely American.
In reply to tony: But the temps have not been going up! yet the CO2 has!
the cure for climate change IS worse than the desease
http://audioboo.fm/boos/679624-matt-ridley-on-why-the-cure-for-climate-chan...
pollution is the problem. NOT manmade CO2!
the cure for climate change IS worse than the desease
http://audioboo.fm/boos/679624-matt-ridley-on-why-the-cure-for-climate-chan...
pollution is the problem. NOT manmade CO2!
In reply to Mr Powly: ditto! for warmer scientists!!!!!!
In reply to dgp: Over the last 150 years CO2 (or its equivalents) has doubled. This has been accompanied by a rise in temperature of seven or eight tenths of a degree centigrade.
OOOHHHHH!!!!
OOOHHHHH!!!!
In reply to dgp: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes half this increase to human activity.
Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”
He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.
Trivially true! AAAAAAAMEN!
Creationism! Pah!!!!
Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”
He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.
Trivially true! AAAAAAAMEN!
Creationism! Pah!!!!
In reply to Mr Powly:
It's a common trend, particularly with the American right. There's a fascinating book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called Merchants of Doubt, which looks at the way big US business, in league with libertarian political groups have funded a set of for-hire scientists such as Fred Singer to attempt to rebut charges such as 'smoking causes cancer', the dangers of DDT, acid rain, and global warming. The methodology, and the personnel in many cases, is repeated over and over again. Well worth a read, although it's truly infuriating at times.
> (In reply to JonJavlin)
>
> The reason for likening denial of anthropogenic climate change to creationism is that both involve the assertion that a scientific fact is actually a belief that can be challenged. And that both are egged on and funded by similar or overlapping groups of conservative big business types, largely American.
>
> The reason for likening denial of anthropogenic climate change to creationism is that both involve the assertion that a scientific fact is actually a belief that can be challenged. And that both are egged on and funded by similar or overlapping groups of conservative big business types, largely American.
It's a common trend, particularly with the American right. There's a fascinating book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called Merchants of Doubt, which looks at the way big US business, in league with libertarian political groups have funded a set of for-hire scientists such as Fred Singer to attempt to rebut charges such as 'smoking causes cancer', the dangers of DDT, acid rain, and global warming. The methodology, and the personnel in many cases, is repeated over and over again. Well worth a read, although it's truly infuriating at times.
In reply to JonJavlin:
It's weird though, all this funding by lobby groups and interested parties who dictate your results; none of the people I work with ever seem to get any of it!
> (In reply to Mr Powly) ditto! for warmer scientists!!!!!!
It's weird though, all this funding by lobby groups and interested parties who dictate your results; none of the people I work with ever seem to get any of it!
In reply to tony:
I've been meaning to read merchants of doubt for ages, been recommended it several times. Very sinister stuff.
I've been meaning to read merchants of doubt for ages, been recommended it several times. Very sinister stuff.
In reply to JonJavlin:
In the space of two minutes, you've gone from:
to:
Which is it?
In the space of two minutes, you've gone from:
> But the temps have not been going up! yet the CO2 has!
to:
> (In reply to dgp) Over the last 150 years CO2 (or its equivalents) has doubled. This has been accompanied by a rise in temperature of seven or eight tenths of a degree centigrade.
Which is it?
In reply to JonJavlin:
Words like lag and stable state may help you understand why most things in complex systems do not immediately respond to forcing. Have you seen any of the IPCC's new generation of integrated assessment scenarios? the kinds of action needed to limit temperature change even to 4 degrees by 2100 is pretty concerning.
Words like lag and stable state may help you understand why most things in complex systems do not immediately respond to forcing. Have you seen any of the IPCC's new generation of integrated assessment scenarios? the kinds of action needed to limit temperature change even to 4 degrees by 2100 is pretty concerning.
In reply to tony:
I citie him as the anti global warmer, sorry if I gave the other impression.
flawed typing to fast
But then it goes back to my original point, regardless of human intervention, the climate is changing and will change, warm then cold then warm.....over the next thousands of years.
But if one believes in human assisted global warming, better have a word with China, India, Australia who have massive reserves of coal just waiting to be burnt. the Oz government will not sign up to any carbon agreements, if I'm not mistaken.
Brazil and Russia with their gas reserves. Never mind Europe and USA.
Better stem the population growth as well, while we’re at it.
Yep we’re in a mess, we’re in too deep as well.
Nothing that a global catastrophe can’t fix mind you.
Read yesterday, growing meat from stem cells will be the cure to the worlds food shortage in 50 years, ha , really !!!.
Sorry, I’m getting a bit doomed and gloomed side tracked.
I do believe that we’ve had our chance, we’re Fing it up, and mother earth will just kick us off, in her own time
I citie him as the anti global warmer, sorry if I gave the other impression.
flawed typing to fast
But then it goes back to my original point, regardless of human intervention, the climate is changing and will change, warm then cold then warm.....over the next thousands of years.
But if one believes in human assisted global warming, better have a word with China, India, Australia who have massive reserves of coal just waiting to be burnt. the Oz government will not sign up to any carbon agreements, if I'm not mistaken.
Brazil and Russia with their gas reserves. Never mind Europe and USA.
Better stem the population growth as well, while we’re at it.
Yep we’re in a mess, we’re in too deep as well.
Nothing that a global catastrophe can’t fix mind you.
Read yesterday, growing meat from stem cells will be the cure to the worlds food shortage in 50 years, ha , really !!!.
Sorry, I’m getting a bit doomed and gloomed side tracked.
I do believe that we’ve had our chance, we’re Fing it up, and mother earth will just kick us off, in her own time
In reply to JonJavlin:
What bearing could this possibly have on the severity of changes to Earth's temperature?
>
> He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.
>
>
> He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.
>
>
What bearing could this possibly have on the severity of changes to Earth's temperature?
In reply to tony: my statement was based on, probably your misconceived understanding of temperature increase from IPCC and others computer projections and not fact, which is miniscule and albeit natural variation and not catastrophic warming which we have been hoodwinked in to believing!
listen to Matt Ridley....
I'm with him....
listen to Matt Ridley....
I'm with him....
In reply to JonJavlin:
Is the human body a sensible model for comparison with the global climate?
> He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.
> >
> Trivially true! AAAAAAAMEN!
> >
> Trivially true! AAAAAAAMEN!
Is the human body a sensible model for comparison with the global climate?
In reply to Roy:
Not necessarily, the last 10 000 years have been remarkably stable compared to the previous few thousand years of fluctuation; if we push ourselves out of this stability, we don't know where we'll end up.
That's an unfortunate perspective. I believe we're rather special and deserve as much of a chance as we can give ourselves. It's probably because I'm young.
> (In reply to tony)
>
>
> But then it goes back to my original point, regardless of human intervention, the climate is changing and will change, warm then cold then warm.....over the next thousands of years.
>
>
Not necessarily, the last 10 000 years have been remarkably stable compared to the previous few thousand years of fluctuation; if we push ourselves out of this stability, we don't know where we'll end up.
> Sorry, I’m getting a bit doomed and gloomed side tracked.
> I do believe that we’ve had our chance, we’re Fing it up, and mother earth will just kick us off, in her own time
> I do believe that we’ve had our chance, we’re Fing it up, and mother earth will just kick us off, in her own time
That's an unfortunate perspective. I believe we're rather special and deserve as much of a chance as we can give ourselves. It's probably because I'm young.
In reply to dgp: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/runaway_warming_unlikely/
that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop burning fossil fuels and polluting the shit out of the place.
warmers are funded by people who are just as scary as the funders or backers of some coolers.
stalemate.Therefore bad for ALL of us...
tax scam after tax scam, stupid green tech funded by crooks, managed by crooks etc..etc..
got to stop
we are raping and pillaging this Planet and it needs to stop. The sooner we stop going on about the manmade climate change bollux the better...then something might actually get done!
who wins out of all this? big oil and big business...FULL STOP
that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop burning fossil fuels and polluting the shit out of the place.
warmers are funded by people who are just as scary as the funders or backers of some coolers.
stalemate.Therefore bad for ALL of us...
tax scam after tax scam, stupid green tech funded by crooks, managed by crooks etc..etc..
got to stop
we are raping and pillaging this Planet and it needs to stop. The sooner we stop going on about the manmade climate change bollux the better...then something might actually get done!
who wins out of all this? big oil and big business...FULL STOP
In reply to Roy:
They've recently introduced a carbon tax, much against the opposition of the big mining companies. But you're right, what they choose to do will have a huge bearing on what happens. However, China is currently investing more in renewables than anywhere else.
One think humans are quite good at is adapting. Even with global warming, the human race will continue. Some places will become uninhabitable, but others will become habitable whereas now they're not. Unless things are managed better than they are at the moment, there will be considerable conflict resulting from population displacements, but unless we really stuff up, there will be still people wandering around England and Scotland doing their stuff. We're not doomed to disappear - we'll adapt to whatever comes along. I think in Europe, we'll be reasonably shielded from the worst effects, but other parts of the world will be very badly affected.
We do, however, have choices about how bad we let things get. If we act to reduce emissions, we can reduce the rate at which we warm up, and overall warming will be restricted. If, as seems to be the case at the moment, we chose not to do anything meaningful, we'll be in a bit more of a mess.
>
> But if one believes in human assisted global warming, better have a word with China, India, Australia who have massive reserves of coal just waiting to be burnt. the Oz government will not sign up to any carbon agreements, if I'm not mistaken.
> But if one believes in human assisted global warming, better have a word with China, India, Australia who have massive reserves of coal just waiting to be burnt. the Oz government will not sign up to any carbon agreements, if I'm not mistaken.
They've recently introduced a carbon tax, much against the opposition of the big mining companies. But you're right, what they choose to do will have a huge bearing on what happens. However, China is currently investing more in renewables than anywhere else.
> Sorry, I’m getting a bit doomed and gloomed side tracked.
> I do believe that we’ve had our chance, we’re Fing it up, and mother earth will just kick us off, in her own time
> I do believe that we’ve had our chance, we’re Fing it up, and mother earth will just kick us off, in her own time
One think humans are quite good at is adapting. Even with global warming, the human race will continue. Some places will become uninhabitable, but others will become habitable whereas now they're not. Unless things are managed better than they are at the moment, there will be considerable conflict resulting from population displacements, but unless we really stuff up, there will be still people wandering around England and Scotland doing their stuff. We're not doomed to disappear - we'll adapt to whatever comes along. I think in Europe, we'll be reasonably shielded from the worst effects, but other parts of the world will be very badly affected.
We do, however, have choices about how bad we let things get. If we act to reduce emissions, we can reduce the rate at which we warm up, and overall warming will be restricted. If, as seems to be the case at the moment, we chose not to do anything meaningful, we'll be in a bit more of a mess.
In reply to Mr Powly:
Yeah, I’m oldish and cynical.
But the "kicking off" will take a few thousand years, so no need to panic.
You may yet get to see a cold UK winter
Yeah, I’m oldish and cynical.
But the "kicking off" will take a few thousand years, so no need to panic.
You may yet get to see a cold UK winter
In reply to tony: LOL!! you're saying we are responsible for CLIMATE CHANGE!! LMFAO!!!
In reply to JonJavlin:
The carbon tax and the new finical markets in carbon trading, it stinks.
It should be taxed at source, meaning the oil companies etc, not the person on the street
The carbon tax and the new finical markets in carbon trading, it stinks.
It should be taxed at source, meaning the oil companies etc, not the person on the street
In reply to JonJavlin:
Umm, do keep up. Yes, we're the ones who have put all the extra GHGS in the atmosphere. That's what's causing climate change. As you said:
I'd dispute the 'trivially' bit, but he's right otherwise.
> (In reply to tony) LOL!! you're saying we are responsible for CLIMATE CHANGE!! LMFAO!!!
Umm, do keep up. Yes, we're the ones who have put all the extra GHGS in the atmosphere. That's what's causing climate change. As you said:
> Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true
I'd dispute the 'trivially' bit, but he's right otherwise.
In reply to JonJavlin:
> (In reply to tony) my statement was based on, probably your misconceived understanding of temperature increase from IPCC and others computer projections and not fact, which is miniscule and albeit natural variation and not catastrophic warming which we have been hoodwinked in to believing!
>
In the context of global averages, the increases are not minuscule, and they're not natural, and they're only the start. >
In reply to tony:
Yeah good that China is investing in its renewables, good from every point.
But it will still have a vast pollution impact for decades.
Read, a theory (more theories) about China boom/bust. As the Chinese economy grows and they become more consumer i.e.USA style, that the public will demand so much that their manufacturing base will not be able to cope. People will want ever increasing wages as a result of this consumer push.
They will have to manufacture offshore to keep their internal prices down. Manufacturing will switch back to Europe and USA.
This is to happen within the next 20 years, now where did I read this, I’ll dig it out.
Bit of a side track there.
Right off , on my bike
Yeah good that China is investing in its renewables, good from every point.
But it will still have a vast pollution impact for decades.
Read, a theory (more theories) about China boom/bust. As the Chinese economy grows and they become more consumer i.e.USA style, that the public will demand so much that their manufacturing base will not be able to cope. People will want ever increasing wages as a result of this consumer push.
They will have to manufacture offshore to keep their internal prices down. Manufacturing will switch back to Europe and USA.
This is to happen within the next 20 years, now where did I read this, I’ll dig it out.
Bit of a side track there.
Right off , on my bike
In reply to JonJavlin:
I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible.
Still with him?
> listen to Matt Ridley....
>
That'll be the Matt Ridley who said:>
I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible.
> I'm with him....
Still with him?
In reply to Roy:
Very true
Bit of a side track, but an interesting one - the industrialisation of China and other countries such as India and Brazil will have big implications for all sorts of things. Interesting times ahead.
Ride safely
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Yeah good that China is investing in its renewables, good from every point.
> But it will still have a vast pollution impact for decades.
>
> Yeah good that China is investing in its renewables, good from every point.
> But it will still have a vast pollution impact for decades.
Very true
>
> Read, a theory (more theories) about China boom/bust. As the Chinese economy grows and they become more consumer i.e.USA style, that the public will demand so much that their manufacturing base will not be able to cope. People will want ever increasing wages as a result of this consumer push.
> They will have to manufacture offshore to keep their internal prices down. Manufacturing will switch back to Europe and USA.
> This is to happen within the next 20 years, now where did I read this, I’ll dig it out.
> Bit of a side track there.
> Read, a theory (more theories) about China boom/bust. As the Chinese economy grows and they become more consumer i.e.USA style, that the public will demand so much that their manufacturing base will not be able to cope. People will want ever increasing wages as a result of this consumer push.
> They will have to manufacture offshore to keep their internal prices down. Manufacturing will switch back to Europe and USA.
> This is to happen within the next 20 years, now where did I read this, I’ll dig it out.
> Bit of a side track there.
Bit of a side track, but an interesting one - the industrialisation of China and other countries such as India and Brazil will have big implications for all sorts of things. Interesting times ahead.
>
> Right off , on my bike
> Right off , on my bike
Ride safely
In reply to tony: crikey! Good work here. I wouldn't have had the patience.
In reply to toad:
It's been enlivened a bit by the recent appearance of a genuine head-in-sand off-the-wall addition to the cast. It does get a bit dull when you see that same old bollocks and the same old refusal (or inability) to actually engage in any meaningful way.
It's been enlivened a bit by the recent appearance of a genuine head-in-sand off-the-wall addition to the cast. It does get a bit dull when you see that same old bollocks and the same old refusal (or inability) to actually engage in any meaningful way.
In reply to Mr Powly:
I'm quite impressed that someone who doesn't believe in AGW manages to quote two people who do. Or didn't believe - I'm really not quite sure.
I'm quite impressed that someone who doesn't believe in AGW manages to quote two people who do. Or didn't believe - I'm really not quite sure.
In reply to tony: err YES!!!
you cannot tell me by how much, no one can.
trivially miniscule / not half as bad as is being made out / climate change cure is worse than the desease.....
etc....
like this article shows, and especially the graph. When the facts come out it shows the IPCC projections have been WILDLY overestimated thanks to? What? you tell me!!
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5024-no-panic-scientists-reply-t...
you cannot tell me by how much, no one can.
trivially miniscule / not half as bad as is being made out / climate change cure is worse than the desease.....
etc....
like this article shows, and especially the graph. When the facts come out it shows the IPCC projections have been WILDLY overestimated thanks to? What? you tell me!!
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5024-no-panic-scientists-reply-t...
In reply to JonJavlin:
You're really scraping the barrel if you're quoting from Nigel Lawson's lot. You do know where they get their money from? That's right - oil companies. They're the ones you were castigating not so long ago.
The 1990 projection looks a bit duff, but the rest look fine. It's way to early to say anything useful about the 2007 projections.
> like this article shows, and especially the graph. When the facts come out it shows the IPCC projections have been WILDLY overestimated thanks to? What? you tell me!!
>
Why don't you tell me? Since you seem to keep changing your mind, I've no idea what you're on about. >
You're really scraping the barrel if you're quoting from Nigel Lawson's lot. You do know where they get their money from? That's right - oil companies. They're the ones you were castigating not so long ago.
The 1990 projection looks a bit duff, but the rest look fine. It's way to early to say anything useful about the 2007 projections.
In reply to tony: dear me! You seriously don't know the half of it!
its all about scale.
you sir, like it would seem there are a few on here, that bow to consensus too easily and fail to comprehend scientific argument believe man is responsible for ALL the warming and that if not checked there will be catastrophic warming and we're all doomed so we must bow to the establishment and big business, bend over and get shafted....you might like getting shafted up the posterior but I certainly don't!
there is manmade greenhouse effect causing SLIGHT warming. Despite massive CO2 increase temps have not gone up to what has been projected.
none of you know anything about solar science and its influence on the climate. None of you take a blind bit of notice to anything outside the IPCC consensus...
(those who post otherwise excepted of course, keep it coming!!)
warmers, you keep bending over.....
when this folly is scrapped, you can carry on paying for the ridiculous crooked windmills and the carbon trading BS and the realists will NOT be taxed and the money saved from these crooked green schemes can go in to new forms of energy production that make sense!
its all about scale.
you sir, like it would seem there are a few on here, that bow to consensus too easily and fail to comprehend scientific argument believe man is responsible for ALL the warming and that if not checked there will be catastrophic warming and we're all doomed so we must bow to the establishment and big business, bend over and get shafted....you might like getting shafted up the posterior but I certainly don't!
there is manmade greenhouse effect causing SLIGHT warming. Despite massive CO2 increase temps have not gone up to what has been projected.
none of you know anything about solar science and its influence on the climate. None of you take a blind bit of notice to anything outside the IPCC consensus...
(those who post otherwise excepted of course, keep it coming!!)
warmers, you keep bending over.....
when this folly is scrapped, you can carry on paying for the ridiculous crooked windmills and the carbon trading BS and the realists will NOT be taxed and the money saved from these crooked green schemes can go in to new forms of energy production that make sense!
In reply to dgp: to ALL WARMERS!
you've still FAILED to answer this:
What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
did I mention diesel froze in British skiiers tanks in the Alps this year!!
answer the question if you dare!!
you've still FAILED to answer this:
What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
did I mention diesel froze in British skiiers tanks in the Alps this year!!
answer the question if you dare!!
In reply to ALL:
this is from NASA and far more worrying than insignificant AGW!!
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
this is from NASA and far more worrying than insignificant AGW!!
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
In reply to JonJavlin:
Tell me, what the variation between the maxima and minima of solar energy, and how does that correlate to the temperature record over the past 50 years or so?
> none of you know anything about solar science and its influence on the climate. None of you take a blind bit of notice to anything outside the IPCC consensus...
Tell me, what the variation between the maxima and minima of solar energy, and how does that correlate to the temperature record over the past 50 years or so?
In reply to JonJavlin:
Probably no one has answered because it's not relevant to whether CO2 emissions are raising *average* temperatures. Note North America has had one of its mildest winters for ages at the same time as Europe has been cold.
If you really want an answer it would be something like the Navier-Stokes equations give chaotic results that will occasionally result in extremes of weather (note: weather, not climate).
> (In reply to dgp) to ALL WARMERS!
>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
>
>>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
>
Probably no one has answered because it's not relevant to whether CO2 emissions are raising *average* temperatures. Note North America has had one of its mildest winters for ages at the same time as Europe has been cold.
If you really want an answer it would be something like the Navier-Stokes equations give chaotic results that will occasionally result in extremes of weather (note: weather, not climate).
In reply to JonJavlin:
There's been abnormally high pressure over the Arctic, which has sent the Arctic Oscillation into negative mode. This tends to push the jetstream south, and Europe gets colder weather from the Arctic as opposed to milder weather from the Atlantic.
There was a piece about a week ago linking this to sharply reduced ice formation in the Barents Sea. The warmer and wetter weather that we should have got went further north, and retarded ice formation in the Arctic.
> (In reply to dgp) to ALL WARMERS!
>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
There's been abnormally high pressure over the Arctic, which has sent the Arctic Oscillation into negative mode. This tends to push the jetstream south, and Europe gets colder weather from the Arctic as opposed to milder weather from the Atlantic.
There was a piece about a week ago linking this to sharply reduced ice formation in the Barents Sea. The warmer and wetter weather that we should have got went further north, and retarded ice formation in the Arctic.
In reply to JonJavlin:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/16feb_deepfreeze/
it was because of variations in the Arctic Oscillation. Interestingly, there's a theory that global warming plays a part: "Cohen contends that since sea ice is being melted by warmer temperatures in the Arctic, more moisture is available for the atmosphere to pick up – and drop as snow. As a result, Siberian snow cover has increased, and this snow cover has a cooling effect which reaches East Asia and Europe."
> (In reply to dgp) to ALL WARMERS!
>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
>
According to this:>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
>
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/16feb_deepfreeze/
it was because of variations in the Arctic Oscillation. Interestingly, there's a theory that global warming plays a part: "Cohen contends that since sea ice is being melted by warmer temperatures in the Arctic, more moisture is available for the atmosphere to pick up – and drop as snow. As a result, Siberian snow cover has increased, and this snow cover has a cooling effect which reaches East Asia and Europe."
In reply to JonJavlin:
Presumably there's been an update since that was published in 2006, Care to share?
> (In reply to ALL)
>
> this is from NASA and far more worrying than insignificant AGW!!
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
>
> this is from NASA and far more worrying than insignificant AGW!!
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
Presumably there's been an update since that was published in 2006, Care to share?
In reply to JonJavlin:
To ALL JONJAVLIN!!!! Or any bits of you that might listen even just a little bit.
No one believes man is responsible for all changes in climate. Everyone knows that the sun, which after all supplies almost all the energy sloshing about the Earth and its atmosphere, has an input to long and short term climatic variation. You don't need to keep spouting it as if it's some revelation that will make everyone fall off their chairs and hand their grant money back to the crooked research councils.
You apparently know nothing of the long term relationship between life and energy flows on this planet. Biology has enormous power to alter climate and the physical state of the planet, which is why I keep mentioning the fact that at pretty much every major change in Earth's state for its whole history, you will find the influence of biological innovation. In this, the carbon cycle has the lead role.
Also, shit, not the actual diesel of actual British skiiers? Man. Maybe I've been wrong all this time.
To ALL JONJAVLIN!!!! Or any bits of you that might listen even just a little bit.
No one believes man is responsible for all changes in climate. Everyone knows that the sun, which after all supplies almost all the energy sloshing about the Earth and its atmosphere, has an input to long and short term climatic variation. You don't need to keep spouting it as if it's some revelation that will make everyone fall off their chairs and hand their grant money back to the crooked research councils.
You apparently know nothing of the long term relationship between life and energy flows on this planet. Biology has enormous power to alter climate and the physical state of the planet, which is why I keep mentioning the fact that at pretty much every major change in Earth's state for its whole history, you will find the influence of biological innovation. In this, the carbon cycle has the lead role.
Also, shit, not the actual diesel of actual British skiiers? Man. Maybe I've been wrong all this time.
In reply to toad:
Is that what the Bangor Uni Snow on Snowdon report said?
> (In reply to dgp) If you want to talk about climate change, this is more interesting and relevant.
>
> http://www.ecn.ac.uk/news/cairngorms-mountain-vegetation-climate-change
>
> The Snowdon story is primarily about vegetation change due to changes to the grazing management regime (and some environmental pollution). The climate change aspect is a sideshow.
>
> http://www.ecn.ac.uk/news/cairngorms-mountain-vegetation-climate-change
>
> The Snowdon story is primarily about vegetation change due to changes to the grazing management regime (and some environmental pollution). The climate change aspect is a sideshow.
Is that what the Bangor Uni Snow on Snowdon report said?
In reply to Roy:
I think you mean "There is nowt we will do about it".
To use analogy it is like being on an ocean liner ploughing towards an island at top rate. The liner needs a distance of a mile to turn effectively. What humanity as a whole is doing is waiting until it is about 200 yards off crashing then some countries argue about how far to turn the wheel (without actually turning it) while others are still happily stoking the boiler. Meanwhile those who are telling everyone to get organised and turn the damn ship are being shouted down by those who say it would disturb the passengers. Meanwhile a significant few are shouting "What island".
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
>
> I'm not in climate change denial, as i said, it's changing (and nowt we can do about it)
I think you mean "There is nowt we will do about it".
To use analogy it is like being on an ocean liner ploughing towards an island at top rate. The liner needs a distance of a mile to turn effectively. What humanity as a whole is doing is waiting until it is about 200 yards off crashing then some countries argue about how far to turn the wheel (without actually turning it) while others are still happily stoking the boiler. Meanwhile those who are telling everyone to get organised and turn the damn ship are being shouted down by those who say it would disturb the passengers. Meanwhile a significant few are shouting "What island".
In reply to JonJavlin:
thats interesting, its always been my take that big business and the establishment say exactly what you are saying (nonsense, btw), rather than supporting AGW.
How are we getting shafted by big business over AGW exactly?
> (In reply to tony) dear me! You seriously don't know the half of it!
>
> its all about scale.
>
> you sir, like it would seem there are a few on here, that bow to consensus too easily and fail to comprehend scientific argument believe man is responsible for ALL the warming and that if not checked there will be catastrophic warming and we're all doomed so we must bow to the establishment and big business, bend over and get shafted....you might like getting shafted up the posterior but I certainly don't!
>
>
> its all about scale.
>
> you sir, like it would seem there are a few on here, that bow to consensus too easily and fail to comprehend scientific argument believe man is responsible for ALL the warming and that if not checked there will be catastrophic warming and we're all doomed so we must bow to the establishment and big business, bend over and get shafted....you might like getting shafted up the posterior but I certainly don't!
>
thats interesting, its always been my take that big business and the establishment say exactly what you are saying (nonsense, btw), rather than supporting AGW.
How are we getting shafted by big business over AGW exactly?
In reply to Bulls Crack: I haven't read it, but climate isn't the primary driver for ecological change on the Welsh uplands - not to say that it doesn't have some effect, or that the climate hasn't changed, but in the case of that particular ecosystem there are more substantial drivers at work. Climate change will nudge some comunities, changing the grazing management will give it a dirty great shove (hopefully in a better direction).
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Here's the report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6264931.stm
which basically confirms what my original post was all about and what those of us that have lived in Snowdonia for many years all know - don't bank on great winter climbing in Snowdonia every year.
(Had not realised my original posting would generate so much 'hot air !'
Here's the report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6264931.stm
which basically confirms what my original post was all about and what those of us that have lived in Snowdonia for many years all know - don't bank on great winter climbing in Snowdonia every year.
(Had not realised my original posting would generate so much 'hot air !'
In reply to dgp: Gosh I didn't know Snowdon has a permanent snow covering. I've been missing something there.
In reply to toad:
It'll certainly change it in the short term but that won't necessarily either mitigate or cancel out the longer term climate change effects -something of interest to both CCW and Natural England .
It'll certainly change it in the short term but that won't necessarily either mitigate or cancel out the longer term climate change effects -something of interest to both CCW and Natural England .
In reply to ALL:
Try these as well. theories and counter theories, believe what you will
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-diox...
This is also interesting:
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/p/climate-101.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Counter-consensus-Professor-Robert-Carter/d...
Try these as well. theories and counter theories, believe what you will
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-diox...
This is also interesting:
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/p/climate-101.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Counter-consensus-Professor-Robert-Carter/d...
In reply to Roy:
More creationist tactics, "teach the controversy" when there isn't one.
You can get your "evidence" from denial websites and books by Exxon funded climate change denying retired marine geologists if you want, i'll stick to the peer reviewed literature,
Seriously, do you not think it would be worth checking sourcewatch before posting these links, it would save you the trouble of being told they were garbage,
Cheers
Gregor
More creationist tactics, "teach the controversy" when there isn't one.
You can get your "evidence" from denial websites and books by Exxon funded climate change denying retired marine geologists if you want, i'll stick to the peer reviewed literature,
Seriously, do you not think it would be worth checking sourcewatch before posting these links, it would save you the trouble of being told they were garbage,
Cheers
Gregor
In reply to dgp:
I was once like Roy, did not know who or what to beleive or actually understand the mechanisms that surround our climate and even science for that matter, until however I went back to studying 5 years ago. During this time a large proportion of it has been on climate science. If you compare the mean global temperature over the last 100000 years or so (from ice core temeperature) I don't think the changes are that startling, although the recent rate of change is. What I do find startling and concerning is the exponential increase in CO2, at the current rate we will hit 450ppm very soon. I understand the point of being critcal and question what you read, however data such as this is surely enough for people (with their own minds) to understand the climate could change significantly, (not just a few more freak weather events that have occured in the last few years).
The "proper" science is their for all to see. Quantum physics is far stranger form of science than and is based on theories that are yet to be fully understood, however this has has brought varous electronic gizmo's including life saving equipment in hospitals, yet we don't sit up and stop a doctor using this sort of stuff because we are yet to fully understand all the unversal laws. Maybe a strange analogy but hope people no what I mean.
If we choose not to accept what is staring us in the face and not act, then fine but it will be the biggest of all gambles. The alternative gamble is far less daunting in my opinion.
I was once like Roy, did not know who or what to beleive or actually understand the mechanisms that surround our climate and even science for that matter, until however I went back to studying 5 years ago. During this time a large proportion of it has been on climate science. If you compare the mean global temperature over the last 100000 years or so (from ice core temeperature) I don't think the changes are that startling, although the recent rate of change is. What I do find startling and concerning is the exponential increase in CO2, at the current rate we will hit 450ppm very soon. I understand the point of being critcal and question what you read, however data such as this is surely enough for people (with their own minds) to understand the climate could change significantly, (not just a few more freak weather events that have occured in the last few years).
The "proper" science is their for all to see. Quantum physics is far stranger form of science than and is based on theories that are yet to be fully understood, however this has has brought varous electronic gizmo's including life saving equipment in hospitals, yet we don't sit up and stop a doctor using this sort of stuff because we are yet to fully understand all the unversal laws. Maybe a strange analogy but hope people no what I mean.
If we choose not to accept what is staring us in the face and not act, then fine but it will be the biggest of all gambles. The alternative gamble is far less daunting in my opinion.
In reply to tectonic scott:
Did your studies also cover the Logarithmic effect of co2 on temperature?
> (In reply to dgp)
>
> What I do find startling and concerning is the exponential increase in CO2, at the current rate we will hit 450ppm very soon.
>
> What I do find startling and concerning is the exponential increase in CO2, at the current rate we will hit 450ppm very soon.
Did your studies also cover the Logarithmic effect of co2 on temperature?
In reply to Roy:
Agreed. Its not going to be easy is it ? but better than just ignoring/denying the elephant in the room I would have thought. Our best bet is to buy enough time to adapt.
> But if one believes in human assisted global warming, better have a word with China, India, Australia who have massive reserves of coal just waiting to be burnt. the Oz government will not sign up to any carbon agreements, if I'm not mistaken.
> Brazil and Russia with their gas reserves. Never mind Europe and USA.
>
> Better stem the population growth as well, while we’re at it.
> Brazil and Russia with their gas reserves. Never mind Europe and USA.
>
> Better stem the population growth as well, while we’re at it.
Agreed. Its not going to be easy is it ? but better than just ignoring/denying the elephant in the room I would have thought. Our best bet is to buy enough time to adapt.
In reply to JonJavlin:
Yet again somebody confusing the terms weather and climate!
> (In reply to dgp) to ALL WARMERS!
>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
>
> did I mention diesel froze in British skiiers tanks in the Alps this year!!
>
> answer the question if you dare!!
>
> you've still FAILED to answer this:
>
> What caused the jetstream to shift wildly in early Feb causing one of the worst cold snaps in Europe for the past 30 years!?
>
> did I mention diesel froze in British skiiers tanks in the Alps this year!!
>
> answer the question if you dare!!
Yet again somebody confusing the terms weather and climate!
In reply to Webster: In fairness, he confused the caps lock key as well
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Winter Conditions
This Winter Conditions page gives a summary of what is being climbed at the moment, what is 'in' nick and what the prospects are...
Loading Notifications...