Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[keithlucky]

Remember this from John Cook 97percent of scientists agreed that some form of GW is taking place ? answer don"t tell the truth . http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2  Conclusion: The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.

 

[Jax]

I have still yet to see anything definitive that points to Man Made Global Warming against a natural climate "shift", as these patterns have been recorded in the past over millenia via various types of natural records,  so are we just taking the "assumption" that the recent rise in temps and CO2 is due to the current population amount of humans?

[VillagePlank]

 However, I would raise my left eyebrow, if the red line in my graph started to edge above the top 'normal' line .... 

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76273-arctic-ice-discussion-2013-melt-season/?p=2704797

Edited May 31, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

I have still yet to see anything definitive that points to Man Made Global Warming against a natural climate "shift", as these patterns have been recorded in the past over millenia via various types of natural records,  so are we just taking the "assumption" that the recent rise in temps and CO2 is due to the current population amount of humans?

I can see no doubts at all to the suggestion that manmade CO₂ causes warming; and no-one's ever suggested that it has caused all of the recent increase. That is a strawman...

 

Real sceptics (climate scientists) are, quite rightly, questioning the amount of CO₂-induced warming...

[keithlucky]

I can see no doubts at all to the suggestion that manmade CO₂ causes warming; and no-one's ever suggested that it has caused all of the recent increase. That is a strawman...

 

Real sceptics (climate scientists) are, quite rightly, questioning the amount of CO₂-induced warming...

 Sceptics believe Co2 ammount in the atmosphere irrelevant infact most believe more Co2 will promote quicker growth that will benefit the farming industry Co2 has been far higher during ice ages so co2 doesn"t effect natural global changes.Solar effects is much more relivant to climate changes than any manmade influence..

[Methuselah]

 Sceptics believe Co2 ammount in the atmosphere irrelevant infact most believe more Co2 will promote quicker growth that will benefit the farming industry Co2 has been far higher during ice ages so co2 doesn"t effect natural global changes.Solar effects is much more relivant to climate changes than any manmade influence..

Well, as a life-long sceptic, I don't believe that the amount of CO₂ is irrelevant; neither do I consider it all that likely that the farming industry will benefit form its increase. But, then, wishful-thinking ought to play no part in scepticism?

[keithlucky]

Well, as a life-long sceptic, I don't believe that the amount of CO₂ is irrelevant; neither do I consider it all that likely that the farming industry will benefit form its increase. But, then, wishful-thinking ought to play no part in scepticism?

How is more co2 not good for plant growth it improves root growth transpiration, ,which increasing turgor the basics i learnt horticultural college.Just explaining CO2 in such small  quantities does more good than harm.

Edited May 31, 2013 by keithlucky

[VillagePlank]

The problem is, Pete, that we can pretty much get a good match to the recent HadCru4 with bog-standard-statistical-techniques.

 

If we look at HadCru4 and TSI, for instance,

 

 

Current theory suggests that TSI can account for climate pre-1970, so we can do a linear correlation of this,

 

 

And we can use that to create a simple model (use equation top left) to estimate temperature anomalies,

 

 

Which, as I understand it is the reason why the majority of scientists accept that TSI is not a driver post 1970. Incidentally, I've tried it post 1970, and used the whole series and the pre 1970 series is the best match (highest r²) So far, so good, all agrees with current AGW theory.

 

However, if one looks at the TSI data, it is plainly obvious that something has changed with the data; the minimum and maximum of the peaks and troughs has got bigger. We can look at this, statistically, of course, by measuring the running variance of TSI. We choose 30 years because it is the standard climate reference period,

 

 

And, spookily, this is starting to look a little familiar. We plot this against HadCru4, and this is what we get,

 

 

Which correlates with r² = 0.758. No need for CO₂ once again - unless one thinks that human produced CO₂ affects the sun, of course! Now, why this is the case, I have no idea.

 

EDIT: Note (i) no rigging of the data by arbitrary parameters, (ii) no cherry picking of dates, (iii) no non standard super techniques to derive the signal, (iv) no insurmountable mathematics. I trust that clears up any misunderstanding,  before we start :lol:

Edited May 31, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

How is more co2 not good for plant growth it improves root growth transpiration, root growth ,which increasing turgor the basics i learnt horticultural college.

Because extra CO₂ will be of no use whatsoever, whilst other nutrients (such as nitrate, phosphate, potassium - even water and  sunlight) do not increase as well...Why haven't crop-yields already increased dramatically, as a result of the (almost) doubling of atmospheric CO₂? You can add as much of any nutrient you might care to name, in laboratory conditions; nature, however, only works with what it has...

 

Didn't Lysenko's 'work' conclusively demonstrate that nature doesn't conform to ideology?

[Methuselah]

Because extra CO₂ will be of no use whatsoever, whilst other nutrients (such as nitrate, phosphate, potassium - even water and  sunlight) do not increase as well...Why haven't crop-yields already increased dramatically, as a result of the (almost) doubling of atmospheric CO₂? You can add as much of any nutrient you might care to name, in laboratory conditions; nature, however, only works with what it has...

 

Didn't Lysenko's 'work' conclusively demonstrate that nature doesn't conform to ideology?

But, if we were not here to decimate the rain forests, increased growth would surely be able act as a natural regulator...So I'm not actually saying that you are wrong... 

Edited May 31, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[keithlucky]

Because extra CO₂ will be of no use whatsoever, whilst other nutrients (such as nitrate, phosphate, potassium - even water and  sunlight) do not increase as well...Why haven't crop-yields already increased dramatically, as a result of the (almost) doubling of atmospheric CO₂? You can add as much of any nutrient you might care to name, in laboratory conditions; nature, however, only works with what it has...

 

Didn't Lysenko's 'work' conclusively demonstrate that nature doesn't conform to ideology?

Last push lol http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/

[Methuselah]

Last push lol http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/

So, how would C4 plants benefit? How's CO₂ going to make rain fall in the Atacama, the Sahara, the Kalahari? And, how is the 'controversy' over the 'hockey stick' going to facilitate that? Is it not a red herring?

[Walsall Wood Snow]

The other day somebody told me that global warming must be true because these days on a sunny day in the UK you can get a tan/sunstroke in a matter of hours yet they also said 20-30 years ago it would have to be sunny for days for this to happen. Is this true or were they talking rubbish? Sorry if this seems a silly question but I would like an answer from somebody who knows what they're talking about.

[mikeworst]

The other day somebody told me that global warming must be true because these days on a sunny day in the UK you can get a tan/sunstroke in a matter of hours yet they also said 20-30 years ago it would have to be sunny for days for this to happen. Is this true or were they talking rubbish? Sorry if this seems a silly question but I would like an answer from somebody who knows what they're talking about.

First of all heat or warmth has nothing to do with suntan/sunstroke. A suntan is the skin producing melanin, a dark pigment, to protect the cells from damage by ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet radiation is very energetic and damaging to living tissue and much else besides. Your friends assersion is therefore incorrect as regards global warming.

Edited June 1, 2013 by mikeworst

[VillagePlank]

Unless the warming climate turns out to be well explained by flux in solar UV, of course ....

[keithlucky]

Why isen"t Jackone doing his ski blog Skiing in the Pyrenees in June for the first time http://t.co/MK1rp9fWB2

[Walsall Wood Snow]

Thanks for the replies guys.

[pottyprof]

This thread is for people who believe that climate change is not man made.  Please read Paul's opening post.

 

This does not affect the rest of the threads in this part of the forum.....

 

This is for like minded people to discuss other than man made climate change without any input from the people who do believe that climate change is man made.

 

It is that simple that even primary school kids can follow that instruction.

[Coast]

I'll post a link to this interesting, possibly controversial blog piece from James Delingpole without even passing comment on it's validity or otherwise. It's just included for debate and I make no other claims for it or against it. 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100220113/ed-davey-makes-the-silliest-speech-ever/

[Jax]

I'll post a link to this interesting, possibly controversial blog piece from James Delingpole without even passing comment on it's validity or otherwise. It's just included for debate and I make no other claims for it or against it. 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100220113/ed-davey-makes-the-silliest-speech-ever/

 

 

err this bit in the opening paragraph made me sceptical

 

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.

 

[keithlucky]

Global sea ice well above normal

 

 

[Jax]

Global sea ice well above normal

 

 

can you back this up with the site/study this data/chart came from? this is just a blog.

 

it is just a 12 month ice chart AFAICT and proves nothing over a prolonged period of time.

 

I am sceptical but even I need better proof than this to even engage an argument on the subject.

[4wd]

It's the very last bit of the series, see cryosphere graph.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
It's noticeable that since 2007 the total ice has fluctuated more due to wilder swings in Arctic cover.

[keithlucky]

can you back this up with the site/study this data/chart came from? this is just a blog.

 

it is just a 12 month ice chart AFAICT and proves nothing over a prolonged period of time.

 

I am sceptical but even I need better proof than this to even engage an argument on the subject.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

 

The long term graph will probably help too...

 

EDIT: Oops, just saw that 4wd linked to it.

Edited June 6, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid