[Closed] Global warming - see for yourself

For every hypothesis there is a counter hypothesis or argument. This is the great and exciting thing about science. Unfortunately the climate models that are used are only as good as the data that is put into them. A lot of the IPCCs arguments aren't based on fact, they are based on prediction. In fact there own research goes into great detail as to why ALL[b] the global warming and cooling over the last 400,000 years has been caused by natural occurences, sun activity, volcanos etc. But seemingly this is now not relevant for the 21st century!? Why is that? Is it because the IPCC scientists have their wages paid by the same governments who are a little strapped for cash right now? The same governments who are charging us green taxes but building more roads, more airports and less investment in public transport?

[i]All the research i have seen categorically links fluctuations in temperature on earth to sun activity[/i]

So the Earth should have been getting colder for the last 50 years of decreasing solar activity hainy. Your own logic is against you.

Sun cycles, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity cycles. None of them explain either current CO2 levels or current warming. On the contrary as my sun activity link from NASA clearly states if you read it.

All the research i have seen categorically links fluctuations in temperature on earth to sun activity.

Quote some so I can decide to believe you or not

No, its because the scientists are all in the pay of the lizard-people and the secret one world government. However, I believe that they do take other causes of climate change into account and they do not appear to explain recent changes in the climate.

Also, prediction is usually considered a reasonable way of investigating, given the current difficulty of taking measurements in the future, what is likely to happen in the future.

I already have Mark, hainy is ignoring it as it proves he is wrong to attribute current warming to solar activity.

[url= http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm ]NASA solar cycles[/url]

If NASA is right then we should really take their projections into consideration and predict even faster global warming as higher CO2 levels and a higher level of solar activity in the next decade combine to rapidily increase temperatures.

If NASA is right then we should really take their projections into consideration and predict even faster global warming as higher CO2 levels and a higher level of solar activity in the next decade combine to rapidily increase temperatures.

Which seems to be being borne out by reality as temps are rising WAY faster than predicted.

irrespective of the arguments laid out, Hainey seems to be in a natural cycle whereby they come across as a bit thick

For every hypothesis there is a counter hypothesis or argument. This is the great and exciting thing about science.

Yep - and if the counter hypothesis is shown to be better, it will be accepted; and if not, it will be tossed in the bin. And that process has led to the current state of our understanding, which is that man-made global warming is happening.

NASA is government funded right?

There are plenty of papers out there which link it, don't have the time to search now. But google global warming, sunspots, thousand year high - you'll get the picture.

At the end of the day, Scientists can not prove that global warming is directly linked to Man. Neither can we categorically say that its not.

My main issue with it all is that its not science anymore, its more of a religion. And we all know where religion gets us! Those of us who question the scriptures of global warming are labelled heretics or deniers - as quoted recently an innuendo intended to link us to something as horrific as the holocaust.

I am looking forward to the global warming inquiry (like the Iraq war enquiry at the moment) where the leaders of the world go on the stand to proclaim that they heard the evidence from a cab driver.

which is that man-made global warming is happening.

iDave - a welcome contribution to the debate, it was well thought out, intuitive, showed a hugh amount of imagination and a creative mindset. Thanks so much for setting down your copy of the Daily Star for 10mins to type those few words!

epicyclo,

Maybe you can demonstrate your experiment to me in person!

I'll be photographing the Puffer again this year (and although this is completely off-topic I recently put together a slideshow from last year - [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/30973426@N06/sets/72157622326565395/show/ ]click[/url])

So you think we can deforest much of the land mass of the planet thus reducing the carbo sink and release CO2 stored away in the geological record, and the climate won't change at all. I don't know how old you are Hainey but the younger the better as then you'll have longer to observe.

I don't agree with cutting down the rainforests no.

Not sure where you are going with that question?

Wow, Sun and Daily Star in one day, don't think I could manage that actually. I'm too busy being intelligent, ingenious, and creative.

thats your opinion, not everyones, and that doesn't make it correct!

Umm, no, it's not an opinion, it's a very rough summary of the conclusions of most scientists who have looked at the issue in detail.

My main issue with it all is that its not science anymore, its more of a religion.

Duuhhhh. I despair. As you said above, it's a process of hypothesis and counter hypothesis, but to select one above the other requires work. On the one hand you have teams of scientists collecting data and working out models; on the other hand you have hainey saying "oh, it's all down to extra people wee'ing in shoes" (or whatever). The two don't have the same weight. If you have a counter hypothesis, fine, but you need to put in some effort to substantiate it.

I am looking forward to the global warming inquiry (like the Iraq war enquiry at the moment) where the leaders of the world go on the stand to proclaim that they heard the evidence from a cab driver.

No need to wait. The evidence is all there, in the public domain, but you can't be arsed to read it.

DrJ.

Stating it over and over again doesn't make it anymore true.

There are equally as many scientists in ths world who disagree with man made global warming as who agree with it. That is why it is so highly debated throughout the world.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations ]list here no dissenters [/url]

There are equally as many scientists in ths world who disagree with man made global warming as who agree with it. That is why it is so highly debated throughout the world.

NO that is not true. The vast mahority of scientist and scientific institutes accept global warming and man made global warming.

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

[b]Can you evidence this or any of your ludicrous claims?
[/b]

Science is not just about saying something it is about evidencing it almost everything you have said has no evidence to support it. and you are failin gto grasp the basic issue

as Edukator said how can reducing our ability to store carbon whoilst releasing vast quantities of the stored carbon have no effect? What will this effect be?

hainey,

Did you read the item in the link by Dave in the post just before your first?

If not, then please do. It says everything I would like to say in response to your recent posts, but better.

But just to answer one of your later points directly. You said:

LL[b] the global warming and cooling over the last 400,000 years has been caused by natural occurences, sun activity, volcanos etc. But seemingly this is now not relevant for the 21st century!? Why is that?

It's because we've only been burning large amounts of fossil fuels for the last 100 years, and because there are now a lot more of us.

Population at the turn of the (20th) century was less than 2 billion. Now it's 6.7 Billion.
Number of those using electricity at the turn of the century was 0. Now it's three quarters.
Number of cars at the turn of the century was a few thousand. Now its 600,000+
Number of passenger jet planes at the turn of the century was 0. Now it's about 18,000

Obvious really.

If you are approaching your side of the debate from a "purely man is responsible for global warming" without any consideration from what we already KNOW - not hypothesis then you make think its obvious.

If you look at the IPCCs figures, they talk about global fluctuations in temperature of extremes of +/-5 degC, they discuss CO2 levels once in our atmosphere 18 times what they are now. Sea level rises of over 3m. And these are not one offs, this has happened multiple times in a cyclic fashion for the last 400,000+ years.

Now, in the last century, temperatures have risen by 0.6degC, CO2 levels have risen by 30% and the sea levels have risen by 10cm. - Not a good trend in anyones book, but no where near anything as extreme as seen before.

So, the IPCC put all the extreme global warming and cooling cycles down to natural phenomenon before the industrial revolution, and are now putting the last relatively minor fluctuations down to man? Doesn't add up.

obvious really

Indeed, what we need is a good old fashioned plague!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4755328.stm

Hainey.. I looked at the link you provided but it doesn't show a link between solar activity over the last 5 years and that it predicts for the future and global warming TREND.. Can you give me another link to one that makes this link? Cheers.

I think that ultimately being less environmentally destructive and creating technologies that work well WITH the environment rather than using it destructively makes sense whether the whole thing is driven by man or not. Sustainability and "green" tech, more careful energy use etc all make sense whether we're heading toward man-made self-destruction or not. And since there is still considerable argument, look at it from a case study arrangement:
1) There's nothing wrong and man does nothing - yeay.
2) The world's changing and man does nothing - oops.
3) There's nothing wrong and man does something that turns out to be needless - yeay, and look we have new fuels/technology and live better with our resources
4) The world is changing and we can slow/stop it - yeay.

That's 3 yeays to 1 oops, does it not make more sense to do what we can instead of sitting back and hoping it goes away?

120mm or 140mm on a Cotic Soul?

sorry, left off some 000s

Number of cars now - 600,000,000

not what the IPCC concluded though is it Hainey ...are you better qualified than them?
Why not send them your findings ?
I like the way you use their arguments to support yours but ignore their conclusions .... very amusing.

It is very likely that human activities are causing global warming

[i]1) There's nothing wrong and man does nothing - yeay.
2) The world's changing and man does nothing - oops.
3) There's nothing wrong and man does something that turns out to be needless - yeay, and look we have new fuels/technology and live better with our resources
4) The world is changing and we can slow/stop it - yeay.[/i]

5) The worlds changing, and man does something that turns out to be pointless, so squanders a huge amount of resources on trying to change something, instead of concentrating on something which [b]did[/b] make a difference.. (eg, instead of concentrating on carbon reduction, we put our resources into reducing other impacts of human activity on the planet such as chemical pollution, deforestation, desertification etc. ) a big old wild goose chase, oops

hainey,

At least quote the SAME wrong stats at us in your posts.

First you said:

From about 1840 to 1890 the temperatures slowly rose by about 0.6degC. Then from 1890 to 1965 they slowly dropped by about 0.6degC. From 1965 to present day they have risen 0.4degC.

But then you said

Now, in the last century, temperatures have risen by 0.6degC,

Come on, which one do you like? Final answer?

Did you look at that link BTW? Here it is again with a more snappy clicky:

[url= http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/ ]Why some people are so vociferous in denying something they don't really understand[/url]

5) The worlds changing, and man does something that turns out to be pointless, so squanders a huge amount of resources on trying to change something, instead of concentrating on something which did make a difference.. (eg, instead of concentrating on carbon reduction, we put our resources into reducing other impacts of human activity on the planet such as chemical pollution, deforestation, desertification etc. ) a big old wild goose chase, oops

But none of the "solutions" to it are ever going to be pointless, your option is essentially number 2 in my list. Regardless of whether climate change occurs or not we need to find better fuels, reduce power use/waste and attempt to reduce our reliance on ever decreasing resources - that's just common sense. Reducing deforestation is part of the whole current climate-related attack anyway, reduction of pollution is already ongoing and tightening further.

z-11,

sorry I didn't respond to those 2 really long posts you made, I would have but I was too busy at the time.

anyway, on your latest,

Don't you think that the important problems of deforestation and desertification are part of the overall climate change problem? And will be tackled as part of tackling that problem?

I think our main area of disagreement comes about because of our different views on the conectedness of things. Seems to me that you like to break down problems into specific small(er) problems before tackling them, whereas some of us here accept that things as being more complex (and possibly too complex to really understand how absolutely all the factors work together) but understandable enough to realise that as things stand we are onto a bad bet if we do nothing about it.

I really really hope that you are right and that climate change is not going to be as bad as many scientists think. The difference is that I for one would rather not take the chance.

I think contrary to what you say you are choosing to conclude what you want to read from the IPCC.

They have stated that extreme climate change up until a century ago was down to natural phenomenom. Since the industrial revolution it is humans fault with no influence of natural phenomenon? Talk about choosing an argument to suit your own agenda.

I think rightplaceright time highlighted a great point:

With such dramatic population increase
With such a huge increase in demand on natural resources
With such a huge increase in car ownership and hence CO2 output
and all the knock on effects of this, we have seen a temperature increase of....wait for it 0.6degC.

Oh.

Thats it?

You mean that billions more people, billions more gases, billions more cars has had LESS of an effect than natural causes dating back hundreds of thousands of years?

Well the evidence speaks for itself!

I pretty much agree with what coffeeking says, whether global warming is man made or not, it does not give us the freedom to pilige (spl) the earths resources and treat it like a uni student treats a war memorial. Anything we can do to keep our planet nice and pretty for generations to come is a good thing. However, the money being grabbed from us in the name of green taxes should be better spent on curing disease, famine, better technology etc.

I think contrary to what you say you are choosing to conclude what you want to read from the IPCC.

"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."

we have seen a temperature increase of....wait for it 0.6degC

Words fail me 🙄 😉
[img] [/img]

Still no references in any post or an answer to this question

what will be the effect of reducing our ability to store carbon [de-forestation]whilst releasing vast quantities of the stored carbon [fossil fuels]?

The Government are doing everything they can to stop global warming..
that is why despite huge protests from friends of the earth, local residents and other environmental groups about a development out the back door of my house, The government and the forestry commission granted permission to chop down a woodland that was planted 10/12 years ago "looks great now aswell" to build...FLOODLIT five a side footy pitches of which there are already 2 others within 4 miles of this site.
Wait for it...there is an empty feild next to the woodland owned by the same person but the trees are going....
And yeah there are bats and all sorts of nice things living there..

this has been on the tele and everything and it still got granted..

Thats how committed the Mp's are to the issue and its one of the many reasons i believe absolutely nothing they say....

Rightplace: Don't you think that the important problems of deforestation and desertification are part of the overall climate change problem? And will be tackled as part of tackling that problem?

Part of the climate change problem, yes, my worry is that carbon is seen as a panacea and fix it all solution that might be wide of the mark!

as you said: [i]some of us here accept that things as being more complex (and possibly too complex to really understand how absolutely all the factors work together) [/i] - this statement works both ways, fixing carbon doesn't necessarily fix the problem! so, what we're hearing from the scientists is that "carbon dioxide" is the problem, so the politicians are concentrating on fixing it - we see solutions like carbon sequestering and biofuels coming out, billions and billions of dollars will be poured into fixing the carbon problem...

What nobody in the climate change lobby appears to be asking is "what if it isn't carbon"

If it is not a carbon dioxide related issue - then all the effort we pour into reducing carbon output and trying to reform the "carbon economy" is time, effort and money pissed up the wall - [b]if[/b] climate change is an inevitable natural variation, then we need to concentrate the efforts on mitigating the effects - as i suggested before regards agricultural and irrigation infrastructure in arid/borderline arid areas, preparations for the need for mass migration, and coping with the political and physical challenges that might create.

[b]if[/b] climate change is going to happen anyway, then the people most at risk are the billions of subsistence farmers - in the comfortable developed world we can put all our effort behind cutting carbon on the [b]chance[/b] that this might stop climate change, or we can put it all into direct effort to make living in those regions most likely to be affected viable, knowing that this is likely to payback whatever the outcome.

Junkyard,

You are missing the point.

To put it simply.

IPCC are saying that prior to the last century it had nothing to do with man and we saw huge changes on multiple occasions to the climate.

They are saying that in the last century it has been down to man, with no contribution from natural sources (not sure why nature stopped having an effect 100 years ago but i am sure they can answer that one) and since man has been involved temperatures have risen 0.6degC (or 0.72degC according to some sources) Anyway, in the grand scheme of things - not a lot.

I can not answer your question regaring global storage of carbon dioxide as i don't know the answer. I don't know what the earths potential to store carbon actually is. Do you? I have already stated that deforestation is not a good thing. I completly oppose it. However, it is estimated that there are now more trees in the world than there ever have been, the problem is that they are all small saplings so in the short term don't have the potential of larger trees so we need to wait until they have matured.

Oh and the Forestry Commision gave this land owner a grant £50,000 to plant the tree's in the first place..great EH!!!!!!!!!!!

And local's including me gave money to take them to the high court, residents raised £15,000 but guess what it was lost and the chain saws a buzzing as we speak.... 🙁

hainey,

If you can relate .6 degrees to the changes I mentioned and accept that as probable causation, then that is a big step forward (although to be picky it's a little bit more than .6 degrees)

The next bit you need to think about is whether .6 degrees in 100 years is important. It might not sound a lot but it is, not just because of the size of the rise, but also the speed at which it has happened.

There is a lot of thermal lag in the system as increased air temperature very slowly starts to warm the seas. Already we already have a lot of heat energy caught up in the system that is predicted to cause more extreme weather events and destroy many important species like corals (home to 25% of marine life).

Also, we aren't going to cut our emissions sufficiently to stop average temperatures rising more. The very best we can hope to do is to limit rises to 2 degrees in the next century. That means changes in the environment that will be too fast for many, many species to adapt to. And the weather will get even more unpredictable - likely effect things such as hurricanes in the southern hemisphere.

Rising sea levels. We are already in line (current emissions) for 1m sea level rise this century. So even in this country we'll be spending billions on a new London flood barrage, maybe flood protection for cities like Portsmouth. Loss of farmland in East Anglia. And globally there will be massive problems in countries like Bangladesh.

There's a few to be going on with.

If the science is still uncertain on climate change, what's wrong with just trying some of these measures to cut CO2 for 50 years, and then looking again?

Most people in 2009 are better off than ever before
Not many people in this country are starving
We would create a more elegant & efficient system for using our resources
We would have more time to understand the Earth
We would have more oil/gas/minerals etc left over for future generations

If we find after 50 years that man really cannot affect the Earth then game on, fire up the V8s again, get in your planes, turn the heating on with the window open.....simple

hainey,

You are wrong in your analysis of the IPCC report. They do consider all of the potential causes of climate change.

You can't relate a 0.6degC to man, thats what i am saying. Its impossible to say that when 400,000 years of history tells a different story.

I am interested to hear about your thermal lag theory!!!!

It's not my theory. But here it is.

CO2 causes the atmosphere to heat up relatively quickly. A warmer atmosphere causes the oceans to warm up, but much more slowly. As the oceans start to warm they do a much poorer job of regulating (limiting) rising temperatures in the atmosphere. If we can limit CO2 it will also take the oceans a lot longer to cool than the atmosphere.

BTW - have you read the linked article yet?

You can't relate a 0.6degC to man, thats what i am saying. Its impossible to say that when 400,000 years of history tells a different story.

Can you provide a refernce to these data that you are quoting?

www.google.co.uk