[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

If you think that climate change can be accurately determined over a generation then you are sadly deluded.

theres a lot of evidence that shows that CO2 levels are at an unprecedented high, its in that paper you provided for us with the graph, there's also lots of basic science that shows that CO2 causes heat to be trapped. I cannot provide pdf's of any papers anymore as I dont have an ejournals password or SCI search password. But I have read the stuff before and know its out there.

If you think that climate change can be accurately determined over a generation then you are sadly deluded.

Few points, I didn't claim anything of the sort, generations has an s on the end. You still refuse to [b]tell[/b] [edit] me what point you're trying to make? Please address my previous post just so I can unclench my fists, it's making it really difficult to type.

🙂

hainey - Member
Burning fossil fuels whilst deforesting the planet has nver been part of previous natural ycles has it?
No

[i]Can you provide any evidence that backs yours? [/i]

How about answering easily understood questions rather than post another so vague it is unanswerable Hainey - rather like the questions asked by the sceptics you quote. Ask a daft enough question and you can be sure not to get an answer. On the other hand there are lots of very precise and complete question that require simple yes or no answers that are addressed to you by name but you keep ignoring Hainey. Yes you Hainey.

There are plenty of questions left unanswered, including:

What caused the cyclic temperature rise over the last 450,000 years?
Why did the temperature preceed a CO2 rise?
What cause the cycle temperature decrease over the last 450,000 years?
Why, although CO2 is higher than has been seen in the last 450,000 years is the global temperature not lots higher than has been seen before?
Why wouldn't we follow the same cycle now over the next 50,000 years?
Why is any contribution due to man going to alter this cycle?

You're not going to respond to me are you?

Pointing out on STW that man's current activities will lead to climatic change that is undesirable as it will lead to much suffering for many is perhaps a waste of my time. My time might more usefully be spent on a US forum or trying to reach the billions of Chinese and Indians that want nothing more than to increase their carbon footprint and will soon threaten to nuke anyone that gets in the way of their aspirations. Laters.

so you are not going to answer any question then or provide any evidence?

If you simply dont "believe" thats fine

Wiredchop

What do you want from me. Yes, i think that the planet has and can still cope with the cyclic nature of the CO2 and temp rises. I think it is a little more hardy than a glass ball. Humans impact, well its obviously not zero, we have already had a good go at screwing up the planet, but its not the actual impact is hard to determine, and will be within our generation(s). If the planet is capable of taking care of itself is it ok for us to continue on the way we are - NO, but i have said this all along.

Yes, i think that the planet has and can still cope with the cyclic nature of the CO2 and temp rises

Why do you think this?

Thanks Hainey,
I hope that didn't hurt too much, ok completely agreed, the planet can shrug us off like an itch and we won't make a scratch. How do you think humans will fare if the Earth decides to correct our tinkering?

What with say an ice age or something equivalent to a medieval warm period? Like we have seen before?

Why do I think this, because there is no evidence to suggest not. Of course, i can not prove either way! Can you? 😉

and around we go,

Do you have any evidence to support your view?

FFS not proof again Hainey you were doing well then you had learnt and were answering questions and being sensible for a bit ah well off to do something more productive like teach my dog chess

Not necessarily, I suppose we differ in the 'natural cycle' business. The crux of it is how we're threatening to tip the balance of the relatively stable 'natural cycle' which you refer to frequently. Not only in our CO2 emissions but in many many ways. If I can be more succinct, it would be to ask whether you think our actions are at risk of pushing us off of this natural cycle and that the resulting 'balance' might be very unfavourable to our way of living. And finally, whether you think we're anywhere near approaching a tipping point?

(Failing in the succinctness stakes) Was trying to get to the philosophical core of the question, beyond the graphs and committees and all that bullpoop. Whether you're someone who sees our presence on earth in our current capacity as part of the natural order. Whether you think there are any consequences of our way of life and whether these might manifest themselves sooner or later. Really global warming is just one argument in this debate. Was trying to look a little wider that's all.

Yes, the ice core sample data, showing historical cycles. Do you have any evidence to show that this won't happen again?

Hainey, during the last ice age I believe humans lived in relatively mobile small groups of hunter gatherers. Given how badly our current set up copes with extremes of weather it seems reasonable to avoid risking a major climate shift. It's not as easy to move a city, or redesign it to cope with a changed climate.

Again I'll ask the question of what you would consider 'proof' that our emissions are changing the climate and will lead to more significant changes in the future as the inertia in the system catches up?

Junkyard, you are quite craftly deflecting away from answering any of my questions. Have fun with the dog. Mine has learnt how to play twister.

p.s. I'm still waiting for my medal. Can I have it gift-wrapped 🙂

[i]What caused the cyclic temperature rise over the last 450,000 years?[/i]

Milankovitch (sp?) cycles mainly. We are worried about the impact of adding CO2 in large quatites to the atmosphere not natural cycles. If you want to know what happens when you add lots of CO2 look for periods of intense volcanic activity in the geoligal record and you'll find high CO2 and scorched deserts - the Permian.

[i]Why did the temperature preceed a CO2 rise?[/i]

Again it doesn't matter - we are intested in what happens when you add CO2 to levels way above the natural cycle and then remove carbon sinks at the same time.

[i]What cause the cycle temperature decrease over the last 450,000 years?[/i]

You mean compared with prior to 450 000 years ago. 1/ The consevation of angular momentum means the earth is very slowly moving away from the sun as tidal drag slows its rotation. 2/ Volcanic activity hasn't been especially high. 3/ The configuration and distribution of the continental crust over the Earth's surface has resulted in a pattern of ocean currents and land mass at the poles that favour ice build up and ice ages.

[i]Why, although CO2 is higher than has been seen in the last 450,000 years is the global temperature not lots higher than has been seen before?
[/i]
Because it'll take time for the planet to warm up. The ice sheet is currently buffering the impact of more energy in the atmosphere but once nearly all the continental ice has been melted temperatures will rise rapidly.

[i]Why wouldn't we follow the same cycle now over the next 50,000 years?[/i]

Because CO2 levels are now so high they will prevent cooling that would otherwise have happened.

[i]Why is any contribution due to man going to alter this cycle? [/i]

Because just as high levels of CO2 released by volcanic activity have put an end to a quiet cyclical period in geological history so man mmade CO2 has put an end to the the 450 000 year cyclical period we have observed.

Over to you Hainey. Where did you see those nonsense numbers you quoted for the levels and origins of the CO2 in the atmosphere for example? That was what dragged me into this as I don't like seeing people quoting nonsense numbers without a sourse to support their point of view.

ice core samples are evidence of past cycles, conditions have changed in a manner that wasnt seen in those cycles so what evidence is there that those cycles will repeat, other than blind hope and optimism? The ice core data does not explain how current CO2 levels will not cause warming. It has been shown in experiments that CO2 causes warming and we reckon that there is more CO2 now then there ever has been. My position has evidence, yours appears to just have hope.

Whether you're someone who sees our presence on earth in our current capacity as part of the natural order.

Thats a very good question and I would say that yes, it is part of a natural order.

Regarding tipping point, hmmm, well it certainly looks like we are at the peak of a cycle and should very soon, within a 1000 years or so, start seeing a downward trend. Ask my great great great great great great.....grandson, he will be the one saying i told you so on an internet forum somewhere! (joke)!!! 😉

No AA, my position has historical evidence where as yours is based on a prediction.

hindsight is a wonderful thing zulu but without it what do we do? What evidence do you have and why do you think its stronger?

I don't have evidence, but I'm fairly confident that the evidence being distributed as "proof" of global warming doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, primarily due to all the various correction analogues and logarithms applied to make the data "fit" the theory.

I'm also confident that the computer modelling is flawed, as it relies on the same "value added" data.

I've made it clear - I think that we need to go back to the start and QA the raw data, reflect very carefully and produce a sound scientific reason before altering any data, then reanalyse it properly and see where the science takes us!

So Edukator,

Can you explain to me why all the reasons you have quoted for temperature and CO2 change are now not applicable?

how is it a prediction? Fundamental science has evidence that CO2 causes warming and ice core data shows that CO2 levels are at an all time high. That is evidence. Your position seems to have evidence that cycles have happend in the past, but no evidence about how they will repeat in the future.

Regarding tipping point, hmmm, well it certainly looks like we are at the peak of a cycle and should very soon, within a 1000 years or so, start seeing a downward trend.

Why do you think this?

**** me I give up................again.

Thanks Hainey,
I'm satisfied, to shoe-horn my two penneth in.
I think we agree on more things than the confrontational nature of a forum would initially suggest (we persevered though :)). We are undoubtedly natural and exploiting the resources we have available to us in an incredibly effective way. None of the things we're pumping into the atmosphere or eco-system are poisonous to the earth in any way, just disagreeable with the natural systems which support our existence on earth in the first place. Whether we'll adapt and innovate to the inevitable changes in these systems our influence will cause, who's to say, depends on how good a mood I'm in as to what I think.
What I can say with relative confidence (I'm a doubtful kind of guy) is that earth will happily chug along regardless.

The proviso is, if we are inherently natural (we're no an alien force as far as we know) then anything we perpetrate on the earth is natural and part of this inherent cycle, it just might be that this cycle is a little jaggedy than the ones when we were staring at large black plinths and hammering each others heads in.

Si C

I don't have evidence, but I'm fairly confident that the evidence being distributed as "proof" of global warming doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny,

so you have no evidence, fine. Any proof of global warming wouldnt stand up to scrutiny as it cannot be proven. I will agree with you to a certain extent, but I'm not sure if your saying predictions might not be very good (no doubt true) or that it wont happen at all (the strongest evidence suggests it will).

[i]Can you explain to me why all the reasons you have quoted for temperature and CO2 change are now not applicable? [/i]

I'm pointing out that your natural cycle obsession is not applicable because man released CO2 and hacking down forest is not natural. Adding CO2 beyond natural levels resulting in warming most definitely is applicable. You're mixing things up again. Concentrate.

Edukator, you are quite happy to provide evidence of past changes, but also then happy to ignore them going forward. Why? Do you have evidence that the increase in CO2 due to man disrupts these cycles?

Wiredchops, glad of the sensible conversation.

That's fine if you don't mind being wiped out by storms on a scale not seen in the last 450 000 years Wiredchops. If however you'd rather not see everything around you flattened I suggest reducing your carbon footprint.

Volcanic events are the only past record we have of CO2 releases on a scale currently being duplicated by man Hainey. Now if you go back in geological time to those periods you'll find the Earth wasn't a very hospitable place.

Oh i see, so you are saying that it was the volcanos in the past that were responsible.

You're not really answering my question are you?

wow, some of you guys really don't understand how science works.

Which question have I missed Hainey? Could you repeat them in explicit comprehensible terms please. I've so far answered everthing you've asked me on this and the previous page. You still haven't provided a source for your 720 units of carbon in the atmoshere of which only 6 are man made.

Car to elaborate as to whom and on what subject ashmo.

so you have no evidence, fine. Any proof of global warming wouldnt stand up to scrutiny as it cannot be proven.

thats why I used the " " around the word proof.

I will agree with you to a certain extent, but I'm not sure if your saying predictions might not be very good (no doubt true) or that it wont happen at all (the strongest evidence suggests it will).

The scientist in me would say that we don't know till we get a reliable data set - which is exactly why I think its so important to reanalyse the data - what I'm sure of is that the people forecasting doom and the end of humanity as we know it, are not being critical or analytical enough of the quality of the data that they are using to back up their arguments.

If we're being told its NOT natural variance, and as such we need to take drastic action, then I want to be sure that the science backs up that action - I think the big risk (particularly with politicians involved in the process) is that we do "anything" just so as we can be seen to be doing "something" - if we CAN change the temperature by reducing CO2 emissions, great, but if we can't, then we could be headed off down completely the wrong path, because the scientists who should have been asking for an evidence based approach decided to "do the cautious thing and go with the majority view"

edit: Just a polite reality check here for all of us, in Haiti right now, tens of thousands of people are dead, many hundreds of thousands more have clearly had their lives turned upside down, by natural phenomena over which we have no control whatsoever - in the face of that, I think the prospect that we *might* get a global temperature change in the future, and as such need to drive the car 5 miles a week less, is angels on a pinhead territory

[i]If we're being told its NOT natural variance, and as such we need to take drastic action, then I want to be sure that the science backs up that action[/i]

You don't need much science, just the ability to add up, just add up the carbon content of the world production of fossil fuels and you'll have a good idea of how much carbon were emitting. That ain't natural.

HAINEY can i please have a reply to the two questions thet i add to our previous exchange.
me: "Please for the sake of my sanity , the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue."

you:"Wrong, some do, some don't."

you: "don't know, i haven't read the article, i lifted the graph directly from the web to highlight the cyclic nature that people were shouting for evidence of."
question one! PLEASE Name one qualified scientist who currently does not think man made climate change is an issue or who belives that the current tempreture rise is due to the natural cycle postulated from the ice core samples???By the way i was actually originally pointing out that the person whose graph you used does not think it shows what you cliam it shows.

me "The geologists think the world orbiting the sun and spinning on it's axis erratically is a cool theory but does not fit all the sedimentary data available"

you"Wrong, some do, some don't"

question two! PLEASE name one geologist who argues that the Milankovitch cycles fit all the sedimentary data currently available.??

Or tell us your scientific qualification?

zulu that all seems thoroughly commendable in the most part however I'm not sure I agree with you on this bit

we could be headed off down completely the wrong path, because the scientists who should have been asking for an evidence based approach decided to "do the cautious thing and go with the majority view"

The majority view of climate scientists is based on evidence that man made climate change is real, however the predictive power of models may well suffer from the problems you state. I do not know enough about how the models are made and evaluated, what does yank my chain is whenever the media repotrt models they always look at the worst case scenario. Doing the cautious thing and going with the majority view was my feelings on the matter, its not how those who study these things form opinions. I'm not a climate scientist I'm a teacher who has done research in ecology.

Or tell us your scientific qualification?

Comparing the effects of an earthquake with converting much of the planet into an unproductive desert and the bit you live on into a storm lashed peat bog demonstrates that you don't seem to have got to grips with the reslts of properly greenhousing a planet.

An earthquake is inevitable, greenhousing your planet avoidable.