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

Oh, sorry RPRT, I forgot you told us that you were convinced by the argument... you never told us which aspects of that argument of course though 😉

Ashmo, I would guess its something to do with - Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. Am. J. Sci., v. 301, p. 182-204.

Junkyard - Ratty, my former login here was Labrat... twelve years in pharma toxicology research, oh, the things I could tell you about torturing data to prove something is safe 😈

Ernie - hello kettle, this is pot, colour check, over 😀

why do you call him ratty ernie?

😕 Because he's labrat ?

Plus "ratty" sounds more cuddly.............I've always liked Wind in the Willows

rightplacerighttime - Member
CaptJon said:

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias
No it's not. I know quite a lot about them (the SPPI) and they are a completely biased bunch of f'in nutters.

I was just being polite in my first post.

That, and your other posts on this thread confirm to me you're not interested in evaluating evidence presented to you in anything like a rigorous manner.

Ashmo, I would guess its something to do with - Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. Am. J. Sci., v. 301, p. 182-204.

I wasn't being awkward, I genuinely couldn't find the paper. The typeface made Berner look like Bemer.

Unsuprisingly the paper has been placed in an erroneous context.

a general point:

That paper uses modelling to reconstruct paleozoic temperature. Now these models are NO WHERE near as constrained as Pleistocene climate models, for which we have a pretty much spot on idea of paleogeography and a direct record of atmospheric composition since circa 400kya. Yet these models are rejected and the less constrained deep-time models are used as a pro-sceptic argument.

a fundamental point:

Humans do not exist on a 100's mya timescale. At different times in time different climate forcings become important. Vostok/GRIP/EPICA have shown that natural changes in co2 occur in the Quaternary which are of similar size to anthropogenic input. If a natural input which correlates well with changes catastrophic (to humans at least) changes in near time, on time scales important to humans. An extension upwards of these trends is not unreasonable given the C budgets involved. The obvious conclusion therefore that those changes are important, not changes in the Paleozoic where paleo-geographies and resolvable timescales are totally different.

This thread has just gone round in circles now and it's clear you're just another "sceptic" who, for whatever reason, refuses to listen to professionals, evidence and reason but likes listening nutcases putting together graphs in Excel in their bedrooms.

So yeah, in a bit Charles.

No Ashmo, I'm a skeptic who thinks that the alarmist extrapolation of data to "prove" that the sky is falling in, the end of the world is nigh and we're all going to die because of climate change of a fraction of a degree is a wholly pointless exercise, given

i) Adaptability of the human race, and

ii) The real, tangible threats and immediate challenges that face the vast majority of the worlds population [b]now[/b] and in the near future

When we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets start worrying about tomorrow.

Nearly a million people die every year from malaria, last year up to half a million kids were subjected to blindness through Vitamin A deficiency -the financial cost of dealing with this would pale into insignificance against the amount of money being bandied around in cap and trade CO2 credits.

The only thing that can be known for certain is that some level of climate change, up or down, sooner or later, is an inevitability - the human race is foolish to think that it can stand like Canute preventing it, and needs to concentrate on how it will adapt to cope with it!

CatpJon said (about me):

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.

But a page later he said:

your other posts on this thread confirm to me you're not interested in evaluating evidence presented to you in anything like a rigorous manner.

Quite the analyst aren't you?

The only thing that can be known for certain is that some level of climate change, up or down, sooner or later, is an inevitability - the human race is foolish to think that it can stand like Canute preventing it, and needs to concentrate on how it will adapt to cope with it!

Or even better, get the nuclear rocket program back up and running and move to Mars (we've got the whole planetary warming thing sussed after all).

When we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets start worrying about tomorrow.

The thing is, climate change is likely to cause all of those things you are worried about. That's why I for one am worried about climate change.

I would also argue that our rate of economic growth and the speed at which we are exploiting and burning hydrocarbons are in themselves (even without the climate change) causing all those things.

But in any case it's not a zero sum game. You can worry about all those other things AND worry about climate change.

BTW we had plenty of money to deal with malaria long before cap and trade, but we chose to spend it on other things. Again, it's not a zero sum game. Why do you make such an idiotic point?

Why do you make such an idiotic point?

rprt - I would imagine Cptnjohns opinion might have been swayed by the comment

But on the point of the ad hominem criticism of the report, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know exactly what points it makes because I haven't read it

climate change is likely to cause all of those things you are worried about

All the more reason to do something about [b]them[/b] then, because if you're wrong about the cause, and it is independent of CO2, then the precautionary principle would suggest its the safest action to take...

[b]Money is finite. Choices have to be made.[/b]

Indeed!

5th Elephant

It's idiotic because Z11 presents it as if it was a straight choice between cap and trade and preventing malaria - which of course it isn't.

I'm not against spending money on preventing malaria but that is an unrelated issue. Trying to combine the two is a straw man argument.

Z11 said:

Whilst of course asserting that you had been thoroughly convinced by open minded analysis of the arguments rather than merely backing the consensus!

Are you telling me that you read EVERYTHING on the science of climate change?

Or do you use your discretion and read what you think might be genuinely informative? For example, stuff that you know is peer reviewed?

Z11 said:

All the more reason to do something about [b]them[/b] then

I thought I made it clear in the same post that you quote that I think it would be good to slow down our exploitation of fossil fuels anyway, because I think that our rampant thirst for oil is causing all of those problems you mention.

edit - and which would of course happily have the knock on effect of reducing CO2 and climate change.

5th Elephant said:

Money is finite.

Sorry, missed this first time, and maybe I shouldn't risk the thread going off at another tangent, but maybe you should think about that statement a bit more.

Or do you use your discretion and read what you think might be genuinely informative?

No rp - I just dismiss things out of hand because I disagree with the source! 🙄

regards my statement on money - Sorry again RP, I thought you made it clear the problem was

our rate of economic growth

I didn't dismiss it out of hand - I told you, I already had an opinion about the group that published the report.

That is not "out of hand"

Do you not see that?

dismissing it without reading it [b]is[/b] dismissing it out of hand rp!

The reflexive dismissal of any study or report because of its source is an intellectually lazy excuse not to have to think, period. It's a convenient excuse not to have to face evidence that challenges your existing fervent belief!

regards my statement on money - Sorry again RP, I thought you made it clear the problem was "our rate of economic growth"

I don't understand your point.

[img] [/img]

Spot the difference.

The Ordovician glaciation is a temperature drop that we don't have an explanation for. Gondwana went over the pole which with a low CO2 level would have been enough to cause a glaciation, but CO2 estimates for the period are high and the glaciation would have required a rapid fall in CO2 or some other event such as a rapid fall in solar output. How the Earth was able to lose so much heat and get so cold at the time if CO2 did remain high is still not clear. We need an event or set of conditions and we don't have either yet - unless you know different.

The Carboniferous glaciations fit quite well with what we've seen in the Quaternary: low CO2, north-south land masses restricting ocean circulation and a significant land mass over the pole favouring ice formation.

Edit: The authors of the [url= http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf ]paper[/url] the CO2 graph is derived from recognise that the resolution of their model is insufficent to show changes in CO2 over periods of 10 million years which could explain the Ordovician glaciation. Just because their graphs doesn't show a drop in CO2 doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Z11 - have you read it? (there may be a test later)

Sorry Edukator - are you saying that that does not represent an overall, long term downward trend in CO2, or are you trying to say It represented something I never claimed?

we don't have an explanation for

Hmm, ok then, that settles things doesn't it?

The difference between the two similar looking graphs on the previous page in case nobody spotted it is the range of possible values Berner's model kicks out (if you accept his method of calculating paleo CO2 is accurate). The resolution is such that using it to make correlations with temperature graphs with much higher resolutions will produce anomalies.

These reservations and cautions as to the use of Berner's data don't detract from the point I made when originally posting the graph (with the error range) many pages back: that current temperatures and CO2 levels are lower than they have been through most of recorded gelogical time but that CO2 are rising rapidly towards levels that haven't been seen for about 25 million years. We have every reason to believe that those higher CO2 levels will lead to a return condtions not see for miilions of years and those conditions will include higher atmospheric energy levels and temperatures than man has ever known.

Is it correctthat the IPCC has again used information that is incorrect. last week it's glaciers and this week it's extreme weather events since the 70's.
Whoever is right in this debate, they really do need some lessons in getting the truth out not what they believe is the truth. Armagedon porn is not going to get a change in how we live.

Crikey - its like a weekly occurance

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/153911/Bogus-flood-claims-fuel-global-warming-lies-

🙄

I know the asylum gives you access to the computers but not at the weekend the break is great for us all 😆

The claim was correct at the time of the report but the authors changed their conclusion. Due to this so did the IPCC. Imagine letting the evidence change your view - I cant think why you cannot understand this 😉

Never mind all this climate change malarkey, have any of you been on the Alpha Course?

Well Hainey it looks like you posted them to death, pity as once past the insults this was very interesting debate. Particularly z11 posts, still reckon we have an issue on GW though. Having said that we'ed be better just facing up to the damage to our(and those after us) world resources doing stuff about it.

Junkyard, i admire your devotion to the cause! 😆

I also love your stereotypical religious reply of accuse someone of being insane if they question your science! You couldn't fit into the mould better if you tried! 😉

also love your stereotypical religious reply

Your accusations of "religious replies" seem almost religious.

Where were you accused of being "insane" BTW?

I know the asylum gives you access

a·sy·lum (-slm)
n.
An institution for the care of people, especially individuals with physical or mental impairments, who require organized supervision or assistance
I may have been saying you are mentally impared - daft, silly , perhaps even dim witted whatever but mainly I was just being sarcastic.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its claims on an unpublished and unverified ­report.

it then ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the ­evidence supporting the link was too weak

the paper on which the IPCC based its claim, written in 2006 by a disaster impacts expert, had not been scientifically scrutinised at the time the body issued its report

🙄

So to now draw focus away from the topic in hand, you are going to try and get involved in a debate regarding the meaning of an asylum?

FFS get a grip! 😆

Junkyard, i admire your devotion to the cause!

I also love your stereotypical religious reply of accuse someone of being insane if they question your science!

You couldn't fit into the mould better if you tried!

WTF are you on about ? Do religious people really accuse people of being insane for questioning their science ?

Ermm, YES.

erm yes Hainey it is clearly me who does not answer your question can you read read my post whereI answered you - can you recall my two questions you have left unasered for about 6 pages now even after I answered yours 🙄

[b]The claim was correct at the time of the report but the authors changed their conclusion. Due to this so did the IPCC.[/b]

EDIT:I see little point in continuing this it is futile if you actually believe that religous people call people [b]insane[/b] for not believing in their science..do you know what these words mean?. Religion uses faith NOT science even the religous accept faith is the bedrock of their belief system not science - deary me.
Happy trails

Regards the inclusion of the bullshit himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 in the IPCC report - one of the most telling quotes ever revealed came out over the weekend

Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

There, thats the difference between [i]science[/i] and politics!

Z11

I think you highlight a very important point that scientists aren't very good at playing politics. In this case a scientist made a poor decision.

However, the glaciers are melting and the basic science (CO2 as a cause of climate change) is still sound.

My personal interpretation of this is that scientists are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being taken seriously by politicians and a few have made some unwise (non-scientific) attempts to raise the profile of the problem.

Doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

American justice last night ruled that companies can provide unlimited financing for political parties. Exxon will be happy now it can buy the Republicans it didn't already own.

But in any case it's not a zero sum game. You can worry about all those other things AND worry about climate change.

BTW we had plenty of money to deal with malaria long before cap and trade, but we chose to spend it on other things. Again, it's not a zero sum game. Why do you make such an idiotic point?

It's idiotic because Z11 presents it as if it was a straight choice between cap and trade and preventing malaria - which of course it isn't.

I'm not against spending money on preventing malaria but that is an unrelated issue. Trying to combine the two is a straw man argument.

[b]RPRT - I'm afraid it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say told you so on this one:
[/b]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/25/climate-aid-uk-funding

[i]A £1.5bn pledge by Gordon Brown to help poor countries cope with the ravages of climate change will drain funds from existing overseas aid programmes to improve health, education and water supplies, the government admitted today.[/i]

Z11 - you're not really looking beyond the superficial story.

The important point is still [b]we chose[/b] this route.

Who says we've only got 1.5 bn to spend on overseas aid? Who says we've got to cancel one to do the other? Who says we couldn't scrap Trident instead and do both?

Try to look at the bigger picture, not just the headline.

Thanks for that link though. Did you see these pictures on the same page?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/jan/14/sinking-sundarbans-peter-caton?picture=357996151 ]climate change? What climate change?[/url]

of course not his blinkered view prevented him seeing the whole picture

Fantastic photos of the damage caused by the cyclones there RPRT

Correlation does not mean causality!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

Of course, cutting down all your mangrove swamps doesn't help either... As Nils Axel morner noted:

""[i]Much has been said about the future flooding of Bangladesh with an assumed death toll in the order of tens of thousands of people. The country is very vulnerable to flooding. This is correct. The effect from an assumed sea level rise is quite another thing, however.
I have just returned from a short study of the coastal conditions in the Sundarban delta in Bangladesh.
At Kotka, a city located in the delta, it was possible to document firm evidence of strong coastal erosion with no rise in sea level. This implies that we get the same observational answer as in the Maldives; no present sea level rise.[/i]"

Can you offer me any information that there has actually been a sea level rise in the sundurbans..... or is it just another case of hype getting in the way of the facts!

Oh I keep popping in and out of this thread and boy is it funny. Watching the deniers floundering about trying to prove black is white with some of the grossest distortions of scientific method I have ever seen. Zulu - you are a treat to watch in action. Never have I see such a pile of steaming balderdash from one person. to pick up on one -Nils Axel Morner is a crank paid by lobby groups to rubbish global warming. You can find a crank to support any point of view you want but they still remain a crank. Sea level rise is a proven fact. There is no doubt about this at all. it can be and has been measured. global warming is a fact - proven and measured. You might be able to argue that it is not man made but to deny its happening? Unbelievably stupid. Are you blind?

Junkyard and the rest of the ones talking sense - I have no idea how you have been so patient with this numpty.

Keep up the good work - its highly entertaining