http://www.google.co.uk
Cool - go ahead and use it to back up your argument. What you say does not seem consistent with this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
See, e.g., fig 6.4
Chat Forum
[closed]
Global warming - see for yourself
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Hainey said..
They are saying that in the last century it has been down to man, with no contribution from natural sources
The IPCC said..
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
I don't agree with your assessment of their conclusion. Specifically you state they claim 'no contribution from natural sources' where as the IPCC state,' Most of the observed increase....'.
I clicked on your link above and all I got was a search engine front page.. Can you be a little more specific with your references so I can follow up on your point of view?
Posted 2 years ago # -
sorry
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hainey, can you give me your opinion on this please?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Actually, one good thing to google is a historical graph of Temperature Versus CO2. It quite happily shows that increases in CO2 lag temperature increase and are not the cause. Something which has been known for a long time but merrily swept under the carpet.
Posted 2 years ago # -
My opinion on that graph,
Well i think the legend is too large and the size of the font takes the focus away from the graph itself. Colour choice is ok, but yellow is never a good one, i would have mixed it up with maybe a variance in full lines and dashed lines. I think the title font is too large, and i prefer arial narrow font myself.
As far of the data goes, well its anyones guess, you have to speculate to accumulate!
Posted 2 years ago # -
From the reference I posted earlier:
7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE
Sceptic
Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans.
Counter
This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, this time, CO2 is leading temperature. Furthermore, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from man-made emissions, and levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records. They may in fact be higher than at any time in the last three million years.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hainey,
On what basis do you doubt the data?
..and as stated above, isn't CO2 increase currently LEADING temperature increase and not lagging as you correctly state has been observed in the historical ice core record?
Posted 2 years ago # -
To be honest i haven't really looked at the graph and what it all means, i tried but the legend took the focus away from the data and i couldnt concentrate. However, from what i see they seem to be speculating a temperature rise of about 5deg by 2100.
You know what, they could be right, there could be a rise in temperature. Of the severity i think they are being a little knee-jerk. Maybe a degree or 2
But is this down to man? I don't think so. I think its part of a natural cycle.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Let me let you into a little secret about what happens in the scientifitic community
Professor Bob goes to university
Professor Bob becomes an expert in his field
Professor Bob gets funding from an establishment for his research
Professor Bob is happy.
Professor Bob finishes his research and its not the answer the establishment wanted to hear.
Professor Bob is asked to choose between his scientific morals and his money
Professor Bob wants money
Science loses.Posted 2 years ago # -
I think its part of a natural cycle.
Thinking something without a valid reason to think it is usually the preserve of religion. Fine for feeling happy on a Sunday morning, but a poor basis for gambling with the future.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Good point hainey, that's exactly why you can't trust those denial scientists that are funded by the oil industry and Saudi Arabia.
Much better to look at the findings from the independent bodies , funded by the state, charity or academia.
Posted 2 years ago # -
funded by the state
yes, totally unbiased!!Where do you think academias money comes from?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thinking something without a valid reason to think it is usually the preserve of religion
Ok, how about "It is because of a natural cycle"
Natural cycles of global warming have been proven to exist, the hypothesis of global warming due to man has not.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mark, that's a good graph - its similar to this one:
see that - if we continue on that basis, then by 2050 everyone will be obese, and 2100 then obesity rates will be over 200% of the population, and thats really quite scary!
Since when has drawing a graph and extrapolating a future predicted curve been anything like an accurate guide to what will happen - especially concerning something as complex as global climate, which is so complex that we cannot model all the variables (primarily because we don't know them all) - its like creating a computer model of cancer - we cannot do it, as we don't really understand the disease.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oh come on, some graphs are useful:
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hainey you are beyond parody. My favourite claim is that there are more tress NOW than there ever has been
I hope you are just troling
z-11
Since when has drawing a graph and extrapolating a future predicted curve been anything like an accurate guide to what will happen
Population growth?Posted 2 years ago # -
Why is that your favourite? Do you have information to the contrary?
Posted 2 years ago # -
see that - if we continue on that basis, then by 2050 everyone will be obese, and 2100 then obesity rates will be over 200% of the population, and thats really quite scary!
Hmm .. there are reasons why that cannot happen, as you know. However, there is no reason to think that current activities will not cause CO2 to increase, and no reason to think that temperatures will fall, or even stabilise, with increased CO2.
Other than that - good point.
Since when has drawing a graph and extrapolating a future predicted curve been anything like an accurate guide to what will happen -
especially concerning something as complex as global climate, which is so complex that we cannot model all the variables (primarily because we don't know them all) - its like creating a computer model of cancer - we cannot do it, as we don't really understand the disease.We do the best we can, and check the predictions against known data.
Or we just stick our fingersin our ears and whistle.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hey look - hainey posted a graph!! Not relevant, but slightly amusing.
Well done!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Zulu, I was merely asking for an opinion on a graph.
But you seem to be making a comparison between a graph showing projected temperature increases consisting of 8 independent studies with a graph of one study showing how many fat people there may be in the future.
Temperature? Fat people?
I'm not seeing a similarity... What was your point?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mark - its all down to one word:
projectedLinear regression and prediction is a very dodgy area, with very low levels of confidence in complex models
Posted 2 years ago # -
DrJ, glad you found it amusing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The report was produced by 620 authors and editors from 40 countries, and reviewed by more than 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I,[8] which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007
They had confidence enough in it though ... why not you
You are correct that it would be better if there was stronger measure than extrapolation but genuinely what else can we do but predict from current known facts? The models explain the weather for the last century and all give broadly similar results.
What would you suggest as an alternative measure... I can't see what else we can do can you?
Posted 2 years ago # -
620 authors, 40 countries, 620 experts and governments.
man thats a lot of bribes to come up with complete drivel.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Linear regression and prediction is a very dodgy area, with very low levels of confidence in complex models
Correct. Which is why no-one is doing that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
hainey - Member
620 authors, 40 countries, 620 experts and governments.man thats a lot of bribes to come up with complete drivel.
EVIDENCE please TROLL for either the drivel bit or the bribe and who on earth is doing the bribing ?Posted 2 years ago # -
No trolling.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Regardless of views on global warming:
Measures to control the burning of hydrocarbons are beneficial.
Measures to control asset stripping forest and agricultural land are beneficial.In my opinion subsidies to alternate energy companies are totally wrong because the better alternative is to penalise the polluters.
BTW there is a graph somewhere that ties global warming to the increase of gears on bikes - I'm doing my bit by riding singlespeed - how about you lot?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Agreed epicyclo,
Posted 2 years ago # -
no evidence AGAIN - just have that as my coment to your every post to save me the time of posting it.
EDIT: to summarise then you dont belive there is a link between any of this but you both agree it would be beneficial to do something.I am now as confused as you two.
Well given my posting I can understand why you are confused about where I stand on this issue
Posted 2 years ago # -
Posted 2 years ago #
-
is that OK you agree you have never evidenced your claims or Ok you will evidence them
Posted 2 years ago # -
To summarise, so its clear for you:
I believe that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, it is a proven thing and well understood.
I think that global warming and cooling due to man made issues, CO2 etc is a myth and a con by many to extract money from green taxes. I think that the natural cycle of the planet is the main influence of climate temperature.
I also think that preservation of our natural resources is fundamental.
Natural global warming and cooling - FACT
Man made global warmin and cooling - THEORYPosted 2 years ago # -
Z-11
Linear regression and prediction is a very dodgy area, with very low levels of confidence in complex models
And you can make it look even more dodgy when you project the line off the edge of the graph, which is what you just did.
What scientists do is to make the projections they are comfortable with.
If you asked the scientists behind the obesity graph whether they would draw the same conclusions you did, then I'd suggest not.
Sorry, Z-11 that point was crap and you know it.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
