I think the fact it is a scientific one has been pointed out many times.

ahhhh yes but creationism and intelligent design theory is also touted as a "science"

more religious claptrap

I'll get back under my bridge now

It should be purely about examinable science, however the 'religious zeal' that some pro anthropometric climate change 'scientists' extol is not conducive to scientific 'betterment' and the science discipline as a whole.

rightplacerighttime – Member
epicyclo,
I've twice replied to the best of my ability with answers to your questions, but you've not replied to mine.

I did, but you may have missed it because it was in a general reply to people who took me to task for it. Here it is again:

I can't remember when I read it (I'm fairly sure it was in the Times) but there was concern that the Mafia had got its hooks into companies concerned with wind generation and they were pushing these for the subsidies. I'm happy to be corrected on this.

Here's a fresh thought:

Subsidies are bad for the environment. They come out of taxes. To pay taxes we need to consume more and create more output to get the same nett position.

Subsidies attract crooks and distort the market. Butter mountain, fictitious cattle ring any bells?

unfortunately you will never get examianble science without some form of tester bias. Even fully peer reviewed documents are still subject to the bias of the peers. it's human nature no one can be completely objective. It's also a shame that people who could be genuinely interested in making changes to lifestyle etc.. based on balanced views are put off by the screaming hysteria on both sides and just think "bugger it, i'll just carry on as usual for a quiet life"

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/klimawandel-offener-brief-an-kanzlerin-merkel-br-temperaturmessungen-ab-1701-widerlegen-anthropogenbr-verursachte-temperaturschwankungen/

link to the open letter (babel fish it if you can't do german)

this isn't a subject that's open to debate.

'debate' is something you do when you're deciding whether to give women the vote.

but you can't debate evidence.
The debate is about man's influence. The evidence on global warming and climate chance is not disputed. Man's contribution is certainly debatable. Myself, I'd say it's not that there is a contribution, but to what extent that contribution makes a blind bit of difference.

THE NORTH POLE HAS NEARLY MELTED.

Only in the summer, and it hasn't nearly melted. Current predictions have been revised as this year's sea ice minimum has actually grown, not receeded, and belief is that it may be gone by 2030, in the summer. Sea ice will form in the winter even with the predicted global temperature rises as the angle of the earth results in temperatures still lower than freezing.

Should be noted that sea ice melting makes only a very tiny difference to sea levels (due to salination), as ice displaces water (try it yourself by melting ice in a glass of water 😉 ). Same goes for Antarctic sea ice. Think of those satellite photos of ice sheets breaking up, then forget about them as you can be assured your house on the coast will not be in danger from these 😉 . The only concern with melting ice is from glaciers and ice sheets on land, and only if they are likely to slide into the sea at a faster rate than they currently do (as coastal glaciers naturally slide into the sea, but are usually replenished).

Note that sea ice minimums are based on "since records began" which was in 1979. Hence why so many of the "lowest on record" reports have been in the last few decades. That the last few decades have been warmer is again not debatable. I refer again to the fact we are just out of a mini ice age (extending from around 1400 to the early 1900s).

Funny thing climate science. Scientific consensus in the 1960s concluded that we were heading for global cooling rather than warming!

kcr said

So possibly the original comment was simply confusing predictions of a peak in world oil flow with oil actually running out? Easy mistake to make.

Possibly. But rather than us trying to guess, it would have been much easier if TZW had just answered the question in one of the many posts he/she made since I asked the question.

deadkenny – Member
…Funny thing climate science. Scientific consensus in the 1960s concluded that we were heading for global cooling rather than warming!

Yup, I was taught that in school as being the scientific consensus.

There are millions of unknown variables that are not and cannot be taken into account in the models that are being used to try to scare us. The present state of climate modelling would be just as effectively done using haruspication techniques.
It is apparently more accurate

epicyclo,

Actually I did see that. I just didn't realise that it was your answer to my question – because it isn't the answer to my question.

Just to recap:

You said:

I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.

I asked:

Can you try to explain what you think we are supposed to infer from this? What mechanism do you think is in place to link subsidies for alternative energy (which subsidies are you talking about BTW?) to the issue of global warming.

To which your answer is:

can't remember when I read it (I'm fairly sure it was in the Times) but there was concern that the Mafia had got its hooks into companies concerned with wind generation and they were pushing these for the subsidies. I'm happy to be corrected on this.

That doesn't make sense – on any level.

rightplacerighttime – Member
epicyclo
…That doesn't make sense – on any level.

Your response seemed to addressing other issues than my statement, so I tried to explain why I made my statement.

I'll rephrase it – if there wasn't money in it, there would not be the large amounts of money being spent on PR for inefficient sources of alternative energy, so we would not be hearing so much about it.

Large areas of the highlands are being raped by alternative energy companies producing negligible amounts of power and they do this because they are heavily subsidised.

And do you really believe that no-one is abusing the free money?

tazzymtb,

stop stirring it please. You've already told us you're trolling and there are enough loose ends on this thread as it is.

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

This is more rubbish. If you're going to put up stuff like this give us the source. But I'll save you the bother, it's the Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE), which sounds good, but is another made up body that doesn't do anything except publish climate denial opinion pieces. I looked into it a couple of months ago when I first heard this particular story.

epicyclo,

Are you saying that the mafia are behind a global climate change conspiracy?

rightplacerighttime – Member
epicyclo,
Are you saying that the mafia are behind a global climate change conspiracy?

Eh? No. I was quite specific about that and gave the source, and am willing to be corrected on it. What I am saying is that subsidies attract parasites.

It's no conspiracy as far as I'm concerned, just the latest apocalypse fashion. I've seen out a few in my time and they all work the same way, just like this one – a few salient facts, and a very long bow used to shoot them.

I still don't get it though. Why would the issue of global warming disappear if subsidies to alternative energy schemes were dropped? Do you think global warming was some brilliant scheme that was made up just so people could sell alternative energy?

rightplacerighttime – Member
I still don't get it though. Why would the issue of global warming disappear if subsidies to alternative energy schemes were dropped?

I think we would hear a lot less about the issue of global warming if there was no money in it for large corporations.

rightplacerighttime – Member
Do you think global warming was some brilliant scheme that was made up just so people could sell alternative energy?

Not at all, they just are opportunists jumping on the bandwagon.

I don't see any conspiracy in this, it's just the latest trendy thing to be concerned about.

Last year we saved the rainforest dolphins, this year climate change.

I'm off to bed now, so you can have the last word 🙂

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 you weren't aware. Alot of people in this thread don't seem to understand. There is a 'carbon cycle'. In many ways similar to the water cycle where by carbon is taken from the atmosphere and eventually replaced back into it. This cycle must exist for life on Earth to exist and unsurprisingly it causes global warming again which is needed for life on Earth. However, for the lamen such as I who have no green credentials or no higher understanding of increased global warming. By burning fossils with carbon in them to get energy we are increasing carbon levels in the atmosphere and by destroying the trees that absorb some of the carbon in the atmosphere, to grow. We are impacting negativley on the planets delicate balance. The reduced number of trees in the Amazon rain forest is having an unknown affect on other carbon 'sinks' such as algae in the oceans. Basically the rain forests as I understand it are an intermediate step if you like for carbon being taken and returned from the atmosphere, far more is abosorbed by the algae however we are impeding the effectivness of this algae as we are pushing it to a saturated point. Then after that no one really knows what will happen but it'll probably not be great. Us westeners probably won't be too badly affected just our servents in the developing world will suffer. But who care about them they just grow rice for us and scrap our ships.

Also worth pointing out its not so much Earth we're screwing its 'life on Earth'. The Earth with afew million years can return itself to an equilibrium. Or a state of smaller sporadic changes.

As for the heat of the sun I think that has very little to do with ice ages global temperature etc. I think you will find global temperature varies more with the orbit of the Earth around the sun and the ratio of green house gases in the atmosphere. Read Mallankavich cycles (if thats how you spell his name).

"Funny thing climate science. Scientific consensus in the 1960s concluded that we were heading for global cooling rather than warming!"

You deniers are doing a pretty good job of recycling all the old myths.

There was never a consensus regarding global cooling. A minority of climate scientists held this view into the 1970s, and when the evidence showed them to be incorrect, they changed their view.

"I think we would hear a lot less about the issue of global warming if there was no money in it for large corporations."

I think we would hear a lot less climate change denial if it wasn't for the vested interests of large corporations.

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.

I'm with you on that one. Deforestation is environment vandalism of a high order. Usually you will find government or large corporates behind it.

If we look at places that were originally forested and then cleared we can see evidence of local 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 "Maybe that explains the recent global cooling then (last 5 years)"

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

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."[/Quote]

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 😉

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.

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 no discernible significant trend

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