Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[keithlucky]

South America hit by cold spell and plenty of snow http://t.co/bqyZfh5ywv

 

[4wd]

Simon Keeling having a good rant about out of date flawed models still being used to churn out alarmist tosh.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_pkmpwRII4

[Methuselah]

4, that is not a 'rant'; it is a very good, open minded piece of scepticism...It's also true.

[UV-RAY]

It's what I've been saying for the last few years 4, junk in junk out science.

[VillagePlank]

Climate scientist James Hansen was absolutely correct way back in 1988 [1]

 

Scenario C, which presumes that there are no CFCs and that CO₂ is perfectly balanced between sinks and sources, is a computer model prediction published, and peer reviewed, that actually follows observed temperatures. Since CO₂ is now at > 400ppm and rising, therefore the sinks are not soaking up the sources, the only plausble explanation is that CO2 is not driving climate. The IPCC agree with this assesment since their climate sensitivity parameter is broadly inline with Scenario C

 

 

Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined. It represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and other trace gas emissions such that the annual growth rates are zero (ie the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000

 

 

I wonder why this startling piece of academic and scientific research is being ignored?

 

[1] http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf (Page 9345, Scenario C)

Edited July 26, 2013 by Sparkicle

[4wd]

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

A good (or even un-missable) read about the recent Andrew Neil/Nuticelli nonsense.

 

 

Climate advocates may want to claim that the ‘missing heat’ theory of ocean warming explains the lack of surface warming in the last decade or so. It may even turn out to be correct. But the controversial theory is still embryonic, and is a shift away from the emphasis that has been given in the very recent past to atmospheric and surface temperatures. Moreover, this revision has consequences for the estimation of climate sensitivity and its effects at the Earth’s surface — ‘impacts’ — as many scientists from across the climate debate have observed. Interviews with climate scientists on these questions might be interesting in their own right, but right now, they wouldn’t likely shed any light on the UK government’s policies.

 

 

[UV-RAY]

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

A good (or even un-missable) read about the recent Andrew Neil/Nuticelli nonsense.

 

An excellent read for any lurkers  ( GW take note ) out there, an honest appraisal of where we are at.

[loafer]

This was posted on another forum I frequent, and seems dangerously logical...

If you understand numbers you may want to do some calculations and research yourself. I suggest the following:

1) Find a 400,000 year long Vostok Ice Core temperature+CO2 graph. Study it carefully. Ask yourself why in the presence of high CO2 temperature suddenly drops, and why in low CO2 the temperature suddenly rises. Then think about the impossibility of that graph if CO2 were to drive temperature.

2) Do the Beers Lambert law calculation. CO2 is about 395ppm (up from 280ppm) and interacts with IR (infrared) about 5% as much as water vapour at 40,000 ppm. So the CO2 increase changes the absorption length by (40000 + 280 * 0.05) / (40000 + 395 * 0.05), or makes a difference of about 115 * 0.05 / (40000 + 280 * 0.05) = 5.75 /40014 = 0.0001436997051 or 0.014%.

3) Looking again at the absorption graphs of IR in water, think about the IR hitting 71% of the planet: water. IR is stopped by water, only the top 1mm will absorb the heat, which will promptly evaporate forming a layer of water vapour above the water. This is in a way far more of an 'IR mirror' than any CO2 in the troposphere or higher - so by AGW this should actually cause cooling because the bigger IR reflector has just been formed on the surface. The moral of this is that the oceans only get heated by visible light, not by IR so AGW can't heat up water.

4) Look for the tropospheric hotspot predicted by AGW. It isn't there, because AGW is wrong, the mechanism is wrong.

5) CO2 doesn't reflect IR downwards at the earth, the molecule re-radiates IR in a 360 degree spherical pattern, which means that CO2 is actually a better heat conductor than air, not an insulator.

There are other scientific reasons why AGW must be false, but lastly think about the fact that we've had about 10% rise in CO2 while global mean temperatures (a meaningless statistical measurement BTW) stopped about 15-18 years ago. That alone falsifies the CO2 = heat theory, and there is no scientific explanation for it except for the obvious: the AGW theory is wrong and CO2 is irrelevant.

[keithlucky]

Solar cycle 24 on track to be the weakest for 100 http://t.co/NSghGXdz2Z

[keithlucky]

Latest from DMI Arctic sea  Ice extent bucking the alarmist trend

http://t.co/qDDjwYHmkc

Edited July 31, 2013 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

 One of the coolest summers in Arctic recorded this year

Some data even showing a refreeze well over a month early, http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

charts show over 100000sq km higher in the Arctic than this time  last year ,with the Antarctic also at record sea ice levels ,the press is very quiet compared to the scaremongering of this time last year.,this proves that newspapers are dominated by GW alarmists .

[keithlucky]

Must watch co2 alarmist smashed

[Jax]

Just out of curiosity, what "if" the currently described change in climate is all or almost all naturally driven, what then?

 

Would that mean the drive to stop it as people want was/is a waste of time, money and effort?

 

If it is naturally driven, green taxes would be nothing but a tax, our "focus" for the future would have been wasted and tomorrow would be worse than say if the world accepted it and put in the time, money and effort to better prepare for that day instead?

[Gray-Wolf]

I suppose that depends on whether you view pollution and destruction of eccosystems as 'morally right' or whether we should still be dumping our nastier ways in favour of more sustainable, kinder to our planet, ways Jax?

[Jax]

I suppose that depends on whether you view pollution and destruction of eccosystems as 'morally right' or whether we should still be dumping our nastier ways in favour of more sustainable, kinder to our planet, ways Jax?

But that is not what I was asking was it, I was curious to know what if it is "naturally" driven change that is taking place, what will we all do then?

 

fight as hard as we might but I do not think we will win against nature.

[jethro]

Just out of curiosity, what "if" the currently described change in climate is all or almost all naturally driven, what then?

 

Would that mean the drive to stop it as people want was/is a waste of time, money and effort?

 

If it is naturally driven, green taxes would be nothing but a tax, our "focus" for the future would have been wasted and tomorrow would be worse than say if the world accepted it and put in the time, money and effort to better prepare for that day instead?

 

We're running out of fossil fuels - climate change science demands we reduce our CO2 emissions, CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. The coincidence of the science demanding reduced emissions and being encouraged/taxed to use less energy, eeking out our dwindling supplies, is I'm sure, purely coincidence.....

 

Taxing us all to develop green energy supplies via wind, solar etc.....I'm guessing you can get away with that one easier if you sell the idea on the basis of 'saving the planet'. Certainly a bit more palatable than admitting the energy companies have spent the profits, failed to invest in the future and that we're approaching a dangerous level of not being able to produce enough energy, via fossil fuels.

 

Yes, I'm cynical about all the climate disaster nonsense but leaving aside the validity of the science for a moment..... What government, in their right mind, would press head long into creating another new industry like Fracking, give huge tax advantages to encourage the development of Fracking, plan and promise a future of continued growth and cheap energy costs (which encourages careless use) if the concerns and claims of future climate change were as real as are being claimed? The claim is the world is doomed unless we drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and reduce emissions......Plan A: Let's build a future based on cheap Gas.

 

Is it just me who can see a flaw in that plan....

[Methuselah]

We're running out of fossil fuels - climate change science demands we reduce our CO2 emissions, CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. The coincidence of the science demanding reduced emissions and being encouraged/taxed to use less energy, eeking out our dwindling supplies, is I'm sure, purely coincidence.....

 

Taxing us all to develop green energy supplies via wind, solar etc.....I'm guessing you can get away with that one easier if you sell the idea on the basis of 'saving the planet'. Certainly a bit more palatable than admitting the energy companies have spent the profits, failed to invest in the future and that we're approaching a dangerous level of not being able to produce enough energy, via fossil fuels.

 

Yes, I'm cynical about all the climate disaster nonsense but leaving aside the validity of the science for a moment..... What government, in their right mind, would press head long into creating another new industry like Fracking, give huge tax advantages to encourage the development of Fracking, plan and promise a future of continued growth and cheap energy costs (which encourages careless use) if the concerns and claims of future climate change were as real as are being claimed? The claim is the world is doomed unless we drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and reduce emissions......Plan A: Let's build a future based on cheap Gas.

 

Is it just me who can see a flaw in that plan....

Actually J, I find myself far more sympathetic to the idea of paying 'green' taxes (so long as they what it says on the tin) than I do to Osborne's current policy of giving tax-payers' money, hand-over-fist, to those expecting to make a mint out of fracking...

[VillagePlank]

Is it just me who can see a flaw in that plan....

 

Tut-tut: next you'll be trying to persuade me that just because Africa and South America's coast look the same, it certainly doesn't mean that they were once connected. Pah!

[jethro]

Actually J, I find myself far more sympathetic to the idea of paying 'green' taxes (so long as they what it says on the tin) than I do to Osborne's current policy of giving tax-payers' money, hand-over-fist, to those expecting to make a mint out of fracking...

 

Me too.

 

I think it's utterly bonkers to rely on yet another finite source for our energy. The wind will always blow, the Sun will always shine and the tides will always turn; surely the sensible thing is to plan for the future based on an infinite source of energy. 

[loafer]

I must have missed this - what money are they giving the frackers?

[jethro]

I must have missed this - what money are they giving the frackers?

 

Huge, ginormous tax incentives.

[Methuselah]

I must have missed this - what money are they giving the frackers?

http://rt.com/news/fracking-uk-generous-tax-rate-319/

[loafer]

Oh - I didn't miss anything, then.

 

That isn't giving them money, it is taking less money from them.

[stewfox]

But that is not what I was asking was it, I was curious to know what if it is "naturally" driven change that is taking place, what will we all do then?

 

fight as hard as we might but I do not think we will win against nature.

Surely its not a question of 'winning' against nature but living within its boundaries.

 

There are many things naturally driven in nature and we have dealt with them for centuries .e,g built a sea wall, put a roof over our heads etc

[jethro]

Oh - I didn't miss anything, then.

 

That isn't giving them money, it is taking less money from them.

 

I thought I was the pedantic champion around here.

 

Can you see the sense in forging ahead with Fracking, given the concern about climate change and CO2 emissions?