[Closed] Global Warming - why do "experts" still deny it?

alex222 - Member
I think you'll find epicyclo that if we can reduce the rate that deforestation is occuring the total effect of man made global warming can be reduced or offset.

If we look at places that were originally forested and then cleared we can see evidence of [u]local[/u] climate change. On coastal regions it seems to have a direct co-relation with the amount of rain falling inland. But lets not plant any trees in Scotland - it's wet enough as it is 🙂

What I am sceptical about are:

1. the claims that manmade gas emissions are numerically significant enough to affect the global climate compared to naturally occurring phenomena.

2. the periods of measurement. There are not hundreds of years of global temperature measurement, other than in civilised areas.

3. the modelling process. The models do not and cannot possess all the variables. Just because it is a computer programme devised by a clever fellow does not mean it is correct for everything. It is only correct on the assumption that the only variables affecting our weather are those used in the programme.

Some (not all) of the reasons I am sceptical:

1. We had a warmer climate in the past, and I think it's safe to say this was not a man made phenomenon. This has not been explained.

2. Sea levels: During this period of warmer weather the sea level was not several metres higher than it is now. (London would have been underwater) It was not sufficient to melt all the Arctic ice. There is historical data to suggest the ice was at a higher latitude than it is now.

Things that I believe can affect the global climate:

1. Particulate emissions. A major volcanic eruption can put enough tiny particles and gases into the air to have a global effect. Historically this affected both hemispheres and resulted in some bitter winters in this country and absent summers. Numerically a volcanic eruption dwarfs our puny human efforts. A good example was Krakatoa. The big event of my lifetime was the fear of a nuclear winter following an exchange of nuclear weapons to produce the same result- that would have been a manmade cause of global cooling.

2. Cycles of the sun. Again this dwarfs anything we can do.

There are lots of things that can affect local climate. Deforestation as mentioned, heavy particulates from industrial processes, dumping of industrial poisons into the water table etc.

Wow! Again, appalling self-interest, ignorance and hyperbole on each side as usual.

Even more concerning are the views from those who claim to have an environmental or scientific professional background.

Pleased I missed this 'debate' 😉

midgebait - Member
Wow! Again, appalling self-interest, ignorance and hyperbole on each side as usual.

You obviously have the answer, please enlighten us 🙂

"Cycles of the sun. Again this dwarfs anything we can do."

Really? Then explain why the planet is continuing to get warmer, despite the sun's brightness being the lowest ever recorded.

ransos - Member
"Cycles of the sun. Again this dwarfs anything we can do."

Really? Then explain why the planet is continuing to get warmer, despite the sun's brightness being the lowest ever recorded.

What records? You have the figures for 1,000 AD and preceding millenia? Insufficient variables.

And ditto for the records of global temperatures. Insufficient variables.

A model constructed on assumptions gives garbage results.

despite the sun's brightness being the lowest ever recorded.

I love this one,two questions

1.How old is the sun ?
2 How many years of data do we have ?

Now work out % of the answer to Q2 to the answer to Q1.Then tell me that these stats have any credibility at all !

You claimed that the cycles of the sun dwarf anything we do. The sun is getting dimmer. The planet is getting warmer.

So if it's not anthropogenic activity, there must be other natural factors at play. What are they?

How long has the sun been getting dimmer ?
Maybe that explains the recent global cooling then (last 5 years)

There's nothing in this discussion that hasn't been said before.

I'm firmly on the side of those that believe that the significant measured increase in greenhouse gases will result in an increase in global temperatures. I don't believe that anyone has demonstrated that these increasing concentrations have resulted from anything but our activities, including changes in land-use of fossil fuel combustion. There is absolutely nothing insignificant about our impact on the planet. Increasing greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the atmosphere and, unless we want to wait and see, the only way to forecast the impact is using the much maligned models. Yes, there are a lot of vested interests but there are a lot of scientists, including those leading the field of climatology, that a genuinely concerned about the impacts.

For the west, it's likely that we will generally be able to afford the early impacts of climate change but the climate is a big system and will continue to change for centuries. Yes, there have been previous changes in climate. There were previously communities in what is now the north sea, but it's a bit more difficult moving or protecting our current settlements! Someone will be paying a bit more council tax for that if we don't pay up now to change our behaviour.

As usual the impact is largest on those living in the margins, like the few billion poor on earth. For some of these it will make life really very unpleasant. It's largely the 'we'll be ok' view that's what pi$$es me off.

"How long has the sun been getting dimmer ?
Maybe that explains the recent global cooling then (last 5 years)"

We aren't experiencing global cooling.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

We aren't experiencing global cooling

You need to learn how to read graphs !

Over the last 5 years.... is the figure of 2005 higher or lower than 2009 ?

"Over the last 5 years.... is the figure of 2005 higher or lower than 2009 ?"

You need to enrol in Statistics 101.

Is 2009 higher or lower than 2008?

You see, that's the problem with cherry picking data, you make it fit any conclusion you want.

Meanwhile, grown-ups will note that there is no cooling trend.

You need to enrol in Statistics 101.

Is 2009 higher or lower than 2008?

You see, that's the problem with cherry picking data, you make it fit any conclusion you want.

Meanwhile, grown-ups will note that there is no cooling trend

I love the way you try and use the "bigger picture" arguement yet you are using figures over tiny periods of the earths history !
You still haven't answered the question as to when has the sun become dimmer ? You can't relate the two 'till you have done this.

You see, that's the problem with cherry picking data, you make it fit any conclusion you want

So true 🙄

There doesn't seem much point in arguing with someone who demonstrably doesn't know the difference between weather and climate, or basic statistics. The sun is getting dimmer and the earth is getting warmer. There is no cooling trend.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html

He didn't say that there was a cooling trend

he said [i]"Maybe that explains the recent global cooling then (last 5 years)"
[/i]

Which is correct - there has been cooling over the [u]last five years.[/u] equally there has not been any discernible significant trend over the [u]last ten years[/u]

you can argue about the causation, however the data (if correct) reflects his point accurately.

"Which is correct - there has been cooling over the last five years. equally there has not been any discernible significant trend over the last ten years"

Err, no. It's possible to pick two years that would give an apparent trend, but any statistician will tell you that no conclusion could be drawn by doing so. The overall trend is upwards.

There has been an overall warming trend over the last ten years. Please don't fall into the trap of using an abnormally warm year (1998) as your baseline.

Short version

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

I reckon his knowledge of stats will be just a little better than yours – he analysed numbers blind by the way so he did not know what he was looking at.

LONG Version

However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

So independent statisticians or Internet MTB ers ...It really is a tough one to call can someone help me ?

EDIT: please dont edit your comments Z-11 😉

[i]Err, no. It's possible to pick two years that would give an apparent trend, but any statistician will tell you that no conclusion could be drawn by doing so. [/i]

Indeed, choose 1998, you get a downward trend, choose 1998 you get a (slight) upward trend, choose 1997 and there is no trend at all - hence my statement that there is [u]no discernible significant trend[/u]

your quote "[i]There has been an overall warming [u]trend[/u] over the last ten years[/i]" is unsupportable given your own comment quoted above that a statistician would say no conclusion could be drawn and also the quote that "The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880"

"your quote "There has been an overall warming trend over the last ten years" is unsupportable"

Really?

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

I reckon he knows more about it than you do.

[img] [/img]

The reason i have picked a period of "the last 5 years" is to try and work out if his conclusion that the "recent" dimmer sun has a positive correlation with temperatures increasing.He seemed to suggest that despite a cooling sun the temps were increasing.
I don't know the answer,which is why i asked him to provide stats saying when this dimmer sun had started.
If it was over 50 years then the trend of warming compared to a dimmer sun would be true.However if the dimming of the sun was recent(last 5years) then it is clearly false.
I don't know the answer i'm just intrigued as to how he came to the conclusion. 🙂
Thanks

Were Doomed

Sorry, been away doing some work!

HADCRU data, global mean, for the last decade

Feel free to torture it yourself and look for a trend in the last decade (98-08, as the 2009 data not complete) then look at the trend for 97-07 and the trend for 99-partial 09

then draw a trend for the three sets of data, and they're so widely different, that I'll stand by my statement that its impossible to draw a [u]significant discernible trend[/u] for the last decade worth of data

1997 0.351
1998 0.546
1999 0.296
2000 0.27
2001 0.409
2002 0.464
2003 0.473
2004 0.447
2005 0.482
2006 0.422
2007 0.405
2008 0.327
2009 0.440

1998 is one of the record annual highs of the last 100 years or so, as it shows in the dataset you've listed. You're right that there has been no significant increase in the data set from 1997 to 2009 but there's a very high likelihood that this is due to natural variability. That's pretty much what the posted graph shows. Remember also the the values listed are the amount of +ve deviation from a longer term (30 years I'd guess without looking?).

When the natural 'noise' no longer offsets the temperature increase due to GHG emissions we'll see another increase. If we don't see that it's back to the drawing board and I for one will feel very relieved that I'm wrong. If not then its going to be a big case of told you so!

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Even more concerning are the views from those who claim to have an environmental or scientific professional background

Why is that Midgebait? Perhaps those of us who work in the field of environmental services have seen most of these fatalistic graphs or heard all of the 'we doomed and the planet is dying' arguments before.

During the last 14 - 15 years I've done everything from embracing the whole green agenda and doing voluntary work, to giving up a fairly decent commercial career so I could go back to university to re-train before starting at the bottom of a long career ladder in the environmental world. I've now come almost full circle dealing with issues in the highly commercial world of recycling having turned my back on the more extreme elements and views of the environmental movement. Why? Well, I hate to say this but the arguments being used on this forum are exactly the same as the ones being thrown around 10 years ago. They haven't changed and, perhaps more crucially, the earth hasn't really changed. Terrible floods, desertification and forest fires are more down to poor resource management and nonexistant land stewardship practices than anything else, and less to do with what comes out of the tail pipe of my car or what sort of lightbulb I use. Even if climate change is taking place I would suggest it is taking place at a rate far slower than the deep greens are suggesting and we should probably focus our efforts on other more immediate areas of concern such as poverty, malaria, terrorism etc.

Thanks Big Dave, you've reassured me.

I'll stop listening to the IPCC, the national science societies of EVERY developed country, NASA, The Met Office and everyone I've ever met who is actually involved in climate science.

I agree with you Big Dave about the more extreme claims of the environmental movement and I don't think they help matters at all. The media approach to the subject is also turning off large numbers of people. I also agree entirely that poverty, malaria and terrorism are more immediate concerns. But, if we try to tackle these without tackling climate change then I think we're onto a losing battle as all of these will be impacted. Stern's most recent book goes into this quite nicely. The same goes for trying to tackle climate change without tackling poverty and development. A good global agreement should do all rather than be focussed on a single issue. Ironically the effects of climate change will affect those that are mostly affected by poverty, terrorism etc.

To go from saying that these other problems are more important to arguing against the well established science behind climate change is disingeneous. I don't have any illusions about how serious the impacts of climate change will be, maybe not in 10 or 20 years but we're expecting people 50 and 100 years down the line to take the costs of tidying to our mess.

to understand this a bit better look up, please do a bit of research:

look up Climate forcing (for non believers thinking this is all mother nature) , a classic example of this is the Maunder Minimum

then look up anthroprogenic climate forcing (for the pessimists)

and read:

[url= http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/14778.full ]this paper[/url] (bit out of date now)

that will give you a small overview into the factors that contribute here.

It is indisputable that humans have had an effect on climate, however we have such a small data set to work with, with massive assumptions it is hard to make predictions.

One thing is for sure, the climate is changeable to say the least: we have had tropical climates world wide with much higher sea levels than present, conversely we have been in glacials etc, what all the geological data collected lacks is the 'anthropogenic climate forcing' factors.

put it this way, temprature rise is not that biger problem, will be long term (food production) but in the short to medium term (geologically speaking) sea level rise is gona be a problem. approx 60% of the worlds population live within 5m of current sea levels. That is a lot of major citys. Current rates are at give or take a few . of a mm 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per annum. it wont take that long before peoples feet get wet.

I was at a talk with South West Water last year, when they informed us (with backing by the EA) that in the next 10-15years the flood defences protecting parts of the Somerset levels (think bridgewater) will be uneconomic to maintain, Porlock salt marshes were lost to the sea in the last 10 years to sea level rise. Sea level rise is a real problem.

All in I will make sure my kid is gona grow up to be a civil engineer, he / she will have a lot of work on!

Thanks Big Dave, you've reassured me

Happy to be of assistance 😉

But seriously, paradigms within scientific thinking do shift and in my opinion the rather hysterical one we are living through right now will itself evolve to one that is more reasoned and pragmatic. By all means read the research outputs of the IPCC and Met Office. On a personal level I prefer to be a bit more critical of the way some of the messages are presented and formulated.

Anyway, each to their own but I'm certainly not going to loose any sleep over the issue of climate change and I'll definitely keep on questioning the policy decisions that are made on the back of it.

in the next 10-15years the flood defences protecting parts of the Somerset levels (think bridgewater) will be uneconomic to maintain

I always thought Bridgwater was a bit of a dump anyway...

neil,

I'm impressed. You've actually added something new (to me) to a climate change discussion.

Thanks.

You people still going.

It amuses me the passion with which the tree hugging hippy camp steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that those asking for proper debate on this subject have a valid point.

It amuses me the passion with which the tree hugging hippy camp steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that those asking for proper debate on this subject have a valid point.

Your lack of self-awareness is staggering. You denialists keep making the same claims, which I and others refute with evidence, which you then ignore. Presumably because it doesn't fit with what you've already decided upon.

It was ever thus.

You people still going.

It amuses me the passion with which the tree hugging hippy camp steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that those asking for proper debate on this subject have a valid point.

Is that the people with data and peer reviewed research then?
You gave no reference in any post just ill informed outbursts like the above ... that passes as debate for you then?

neil said

I was at a talk with South West Water last year, when they informed us (with backing by the EA) that in the next 10-15years the flood defences protecting parts of the Somerset levels (think bridgewater) will be uneconomic to maintain

Sorry, I'm going to digress (but then everybody else seems to). I wonder if SW Water have told anyone else about this? Hinkley Point (5 miles N of Bridgewater) is one of the proposed sites for a new nuclear power station.

Isn't there one there already?

That new government advert, with the kid being read a bedtime story, makes me cringe. I think that might just succeed in pissing off a whole new tranche of people.

Obvious really

[img] [/img]

'Sorry, I'm going to digress (but then everybody else seems to). I wonder if SW Water have told anyone else about this? Hinkley Point (5 miles N of Bridgewater) is one of the proposed sites for a new nuclear power station.'

yep they have. the existing power station is typically >10m so not a problem there, and the new one is the same. A mate is an engineer on the site investigation there. You have to get the settlement calculations right for the reactor foundation, that's for sure!

[url= http://www.streetmap.com/map.srf?x=321140&y=146085&z=120&sv=321140,146085&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=554&ax=321140&ay=146085&lm=0 ]map[/url]

Roads leading to it?

What's really important though is how this affects my riding through the woods and hills 😀

At least it's not as bad as the potential impact on my skiing.

I wonder, if the reason George W Bush resisted any talk of MMCC is because, instead of listening to the respected scientists in the field, he, as a MTBer, spend his time lurking on STW taking advice fae the 'top experts' here?

I'm no scientist, but the hard-nosed palaeoclimatic types I've encountered are a long way from the faddish, funding-driven, politically-motivated alarmists that some would [i]oh-so-like[/i] them to be... not surprising given that they generally think about the last ice age in the way that most of us think about last week. "Climate-change" has [i]always[/i] been a [url= http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/reset/embed.php?File= ]funding priority[/url] (as some two hundred years' worth of Quaternary research literature demonstrates). It ain't a new thing.

BTW, this kind of statement - [i]"we are far too insignificant to have any kind of effect on something as big and complex as the Earth"[/i] - is, frankly, disingenuous. It may be true over geological timescales, but it's bloody complacent given extant rates of pollution and habitat loss.

Perhaps those of us who work in the field of environmental services

Big Dave, I wish that those involved in environmental services in Leeds would just empty my bloody bins rather than anything else.

What was your speciality in environmental services, bin wagon driver or dog muck and sweet wrapper patrol?

😀

This is brilliant! 6 pages of arguing caused by a bloke who owns a mtb holiday company in Spain trying to drum up some trade by saying that it's lovely and warm here in Malaga at the moment.