Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

Recommended Posts

As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't

 

The other two threads are:

Man Made Climate Change Discussion

Natural Climate Cycles Discussion

 

Please keep to the thread (or threads) which best suit your views. This should allow for a more reasonable debate for all sides without the need for anyone to be defending their view, or attacking other views. As ever the forum guidelines apply in terms of not disrupting the forum with your posts, so please ensure that doesn't happen. 

 

This is an opportunity for people with similar views to get together, discuss views and related news, refine ideas and opinions and hopefully learn more about the subject at hand. It's also a chance for people who would like to learn more about the subject to read the differing views and  information, which may help them to form opinions and get involved in these or the more general discussions. So please treat these threads with respect.

 

Examples for this thread may include discussing research and information from the various sources which don't subscribe to the IPCC type view on climate change and mans influence on it, sharing views about those, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

 

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

 

interesting points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The observed global-warming rate has been nonuniform, and the
cause of each episode of slowing in the expected warming rate is the
subject of intense debate. To explain this, nonrecurrent events have
commonly been invoked for each episode separately. After reviewing
evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest
instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture
is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal
episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that
the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated
by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. A
recurrent multidecadal oscillation is found to extend to the preindustrial
era in the 353-y Central England Temperature and is likely an
internal variability related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO), possibly caused by the thermohaline circulation variability.
The perspective of a long record helps in quantifying the contribution
from internal variability, especially one with a period so long that it is
often confused with secular trends in shorter records. Solar contribution
is found to be minimal for the second half of the 20th century and
less than 10% for the first half. The underlying net anthropogenic
warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady
since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related
ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming,
the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming
of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming
rates. Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability,
often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40%
of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.

 

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/Tung_and_Zhou_2013_PNAS.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence that GW is not taking place again more quotes from baffled GW scientists .Tha even THOUGH co2 IS RISING FAST it cannot be linked with GW because world temperatures isen"t rising Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg provides an audio comment:

Marotzke refuses to say how long, though. We do know that CO2 was at about 280 ppm for 1000 years before the Industrial Revolution, and that during this time the global temperature fluctuated more than 1°C (in sync with solar activity). Of course Marotzke only wants to go back to 1900, as beyond that there is no correlation with CO2.

What we are seeing here is a relatively short-term fluctuation, If one really wants to know how CO2 and global temperature are related, then you have to look at a longer time period.â€

Kirchhof then adds (my emphasis):

At this point Kirchhof of Green radio of the German Federal Department of the Environment are finally admitting that there are suddenly many more unknowns than they first thought, that the warmist scientists are indeed baffled, and that the science is not settled after all.

…there is no doubt about the greenhouse effect, but even so this warming pause is remarkable because the climate scientists with all their models did not expect this.â€

At the 2-minute mark, a somewhat surprised host is forced to ask how can it be that the temperature has not risen even though more CO2 is being emitted into the atmosphere. Here Kirchhof, in summary, admits they don’t know why:

 

Answer they know GW isen"t taking place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 is a trace gas.

 

Its  0.04% of the atmostphere  - not 0.4%... its 0.04%!!!!!!!!!   It's a tiny amount!  and there are so many more things that are stronger ''greenhouse gasses'' such as water vapour!

 

  How people can blame a trace gas for climate change is completely beyond me......Solar cycles, AMO and PDO will have massive effects compared to a trace gas of 0.04%

 

   I know that CO2 has doubled over the modern times but starting from such a small number should leave whole CO2 argument completely without foundation but people keep banging on about it because they are desperately looking for a pattern that fits.

 

   I don't deny that CO2 fluctuates with temperature but its been proven in simple lab experiments that cold water can hold much more CO2 than warmer water, and for me it would make far more sense that CO2 has followed temperature rather than causing it....... If man breaks this strict correlation then so what.... Its not going to make any meaningful difference to climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Co2 has no effect on world temperatures as again and again proven facts Co2 is rising ,yet world Temps are falling Co2 .More cold records broken across the World USA experiencing record cold spring Iceland have record cold for Mayhttp://www.newsoficeland.com/home/environment/item/1319-record-cold-may-in-iceland-176-below-zero

 

Co2  cannot have a warming and cooling effect as GWarmist are suggesting.

Edited by pottyprof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember what Paul said This is an opportunity for people with similar views to get together, discuss views and related news, refine ideas and opinions and hopefully learn more about the subject at hand. It's also a chance for people who would like to learn more about the subject to read the differing views and  information, which may help them to form opinions and get involved in these or the more general discussions. So please treat these threads with respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA  average mean has dropped 3c in the last year Posted Image

Edited by pottyprof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some food for though regarding science in a lab and actual real life observations. Anyone familiar with Gore tex will know exactly what I mean, during the 90's WL Gore brought out a 2 layer fabric which they claimed through extensive testing was more breathable than the 3 layer equivalent. All the lab test backed up these claims of better moisture transportation in a two layer garment, however once it went on sale to the general public such claims were soon found to be wanting as the lining they inserted to protect the gore fabric inhibited breathability in real world conditions. Now the point of this is simple really as just because a theory works in a lab in the real world the results can be quite different, so we can put that theory to test with CO2 and feedbacks in the atmosphere, what we know in a lab could be actually quite the opposite in the real world, or is climate science above this sort of real world observational evidence.

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska"s ice the same thickness as January Posted Image

The latest the ice has broken up before was May 20 1964.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska"s ice the same thickness as January Posted Image

The latest the ice has broken up before was May 20 1964.

 

What ice is that? Sea Ice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rational approach would be to acknowledge increased CO2 is NOT 100% a bad thing nor is it inherently dangerous, but rational would be asking to much from these hysterical so called science sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rational approach would be to acknowledge increased CO2 is NOT 100% a bad thing nor is it inherently dangerous, but rational would be asking to much from these hysterical so called science sites.

If it was so much of a problem, governments world wide would be falling over each other, with money no real object, to replant huge areas of damaged rainforest....... and other areas.... Wouldn't they?Wouldn't they...?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this CO2 plant food things is one of those situations where sceptics take what happens in a controlled environment to work exactly the same everywhere in the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would weeds manage to grow more, but other plants will be 'restricted by lack of nutrients'?It's another variation on global warming killing off pretty flowers and butterflies, while automagically helping yucky things like jellyfish or rats to thrive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, CO2 could only act as a fertilizer if it, itself, is in short supply whilst all other nutrients are in surplus? More abundant carbon dioxide can hardly benefit plants growing in marginal conditions due to, say, a shortage of molybdenum?

 

In a lab, however, everything is possible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert COand water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by COinclude earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard COas a nutrient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert COand water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by COinclude earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard COas a nutrient.

So long as they add the necessary amount of additional nitrogen, which is already in shorter supply than CO2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... where sceptics take what happens in a controlled environment to work exactly the same everywhere in the world ....

 

Eh? And I thought I was highly critical of some modes of scientific discovery. TBH this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel of put-downs. How do you propose to reduce degrees of freedom unless it's in a controlled environment. Do you think that stuff (like CO2 absorption and emmisivity) only works in a controlled lab and not anywhere else?

So long as they add the necessary amount of additional nitrogen, which is already in shorter supply than CO2...

 

Given that nitrogen constitutes 78% of the atmosphere, are you suggesting that not only we are warming the planet, but we are also using up the atmosphere?

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Given that nitrogen constitutes 78% of the atmosphere, are you suggesting that not only we are warming the planet, but we are also using up the atmosphere?

On the contrary. I'm acknowledging the fact that, under ideal conditions, CO2 can be seen as beneficial, in some ways...That, when supplied with appropriate increases in their limiting nutrients, plants should grow better given more CO2...I think that everyone realizes that upwards of 90% of a plant's biomass is derived from CO2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't

 

The other two threads are:

Man Made Climate Change Discussion

Natural Climate Cycles Discussion

 

Please keep to the thread (or threads) which best suit your views. This should allow for a more reasonable debate for all sides without the need for anyone to be defending their view, or attacking other views. As ever the forum guidelines apply in terms of not disrupting the forum with your posts, so please ensure that doesn't happen. 

 

This is an opportunity for people with similar views to get together, discuss views and related news, refine ideas and opinions and hopefully learn more about the subject at hand. It's also a chance for people who would like to learn more about the subject to read the differing views and  information, which may help them to form opinions and get involved in these or the more general discussions. So please treat these threads with respect.

 

Examples for this thread may include discussing research and information from the various sources which don't subscribe to the IPCC type view on climate change and mans influence on it, sharing views about those, and so on.

 

 

Re-posting the above as a reminder to those who are trying to sneak their opposing views into this thread - the three separate threads were setup with a specific goal and that was to allow people with similar views to discuss them without the need to continually defend their position. So please can we keep it to that, and those who wish to challenge the views  in here do so within the appropriate forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C02 and it's "warming properties" is also beneficial to humankind given that fact that cold weather kills more people than warm weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...