Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Manmade Climate Change Discussion


Paul

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury
  • Weather Preferences: Enjoy the weather, you can't take it with you 😎
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury

Do you think the greenhouse effect exists at all? Do you think greenhouse gasses have any effect on temperature (ignoring our own CO2 emissions for now)?

Greenhouse gases, methane, nitrogen, water vapour , ozone  and of course carbon dioxide, all contribute naturally to warming our planet by about 33c. But we have since the industrial revolution at around 1750, spewed out vast amounts of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels. My point is why on earth is the main culprit C02 held responsible for the main reason the earth has warmed when there is a a big increase in sea ice around the globe. If C02 was such a great warmer why is this happening. It certainly goes against common sense that's why the debate is ongoing, because theres undenial proof that nature has the upper hand with the fluctuations of warmer and colder phases on the planet, not mankind. Surely, there would be little if any ice left on the planet, if C02 was such a warmer has the media etc point out. We have been burning fossil fuels now for well over 250 years, plenty of time for C02 to prove itself a warmer....and a winner!  :nonono:  :closedeyes:  :nonono:

Edited by ANYWEATHER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddington, Buckinghamshire
  • Weather Preferences: Winter: Cold & Snowy, Summer: Just not hot
  • Location: Cheddington, Buckinghamshire

Greenhouse gases, methane, nitrogen, water vapour , ozone  and of course carbon dioxide, all contribute naturally to warming our planet by about 33c. But we have since the industrial revolution at around 1750, spewed out vast amounts of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels. My point is why on earth is the main culprit C02 held responsible for the main reason the earth has warmed when there is a a big increase in sea ice around the globe. If C02 was such a great warmer why is this happening. It certainly goes against common sense that's why the debate is ongoing, because theres undenial proof that nature has the upper hand with the fluctuations of warmer and colder phases on the planet, not mankind. Surely, there would be little if any ice left on the planet, if C02 was such a warmer has the media etc point out. We have been burning fossil fuels now for well over 250 years, plenty of time for C02 to prove itself a warmer....and a winner!  :nonono:  :closedeyes:  :nonono:

 

Arctic sea ice is in a terrible state. Antarctic sea ice is holding up well and even increasing due to feedback effects as a consequence of warming, the processes that would usually inhibit sea ice growth in that region are being inhibited themselves due to changing ocean circulations thanks to increasing temperatures. This process will not continue indefinitely.

 

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but please read up a bit on the science on the various aspects and impacts of climate change, your opinion may change.

 

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. That is undeniable fact. By refusing to acknowledge this virtually invalidates your post.

Edited by Nick L
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.

I saw a study years ago (can't remember where now) that suggested that sea ice area would temporarily increase in some areas as a result of higher than normal rates of calving from land-based glaciers. 1) They'd add extra ice; 2) they'd cool the water immediately around them causing more pack-ice to form in winter.

 

It's general trends that should be looked at, not local effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

So stewfox, what are your reasons for having a less apocalyptic view of the world's circumstances?It's a conundrum. On the one hand the pro GW man-made argument is pretty compelling. It's hard to argue with really. 

 

I think you have found your correct thread  :cray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Greenhouse gases, methane, nitrogen, water vapour , ozone  and of course carbon dioxide, all contribute naturally to warming our planet by about 33c. But we have since the industrial revolution at around 1750, spewed out vast amounts of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels. My point is why on earth is the main culprit C02 held responsible for the main reason the earth has warmed when there is a a big increase in sea ice around the globe. If C02 was such a great warmer why is this happening. It certainly goes against common sense that's why the debate is ongoing, because theres undenial proof that nature has the upper hand with the fluctuations of warmer and colder phases on the planet, not mankind. Surely, there would be little if any ice left on the planet, if C02 was such a warmer has the media etc point out. We have been burning fossil fuels now for well over 250 years, plenty of time for C02 to prove itself a warmer....and a winner!  :nonono:  :closedeyes:  :nonono:

 

Greenhouse gases, methane, nitrogen, water vapour , ozone  and of course carbon dioxide, all contribute naturally to warming our planet by about 33c. 

 

So, here you acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has contributed to warming.

 

But we have since the industrial revolution at around 1750, spewed out vast amounts of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Here you acknowledge that we have caused an increase in CO2, which you previously acknowledged in a greenhouse gas, capable of causing warming.

 

My point is why on earth is the main culprit C02 held responsible for the main reason the earth has warmed when there is a a big increase in sea ice around the globe. If C02 was such a great warmer why is this happening... We have been burning fossil fuels now for well over 250 years, plenty of time for C02 to prove itself a warmer

 

But, you don't really believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because global sea ice cover has been above average for a short while (despite the long term trend being downward, and despite sea ice volume still being below average)? Does that mean that you don't accept that the world has warmed over the last 150 years? That sea levels have risen? That the ice sheets have been melting? That glaciers have been retreating? That plants and animals have been shifting north? That oceans have been accumulating heat? Or any other number of things that clearly demonstrate that the world is warming?

 

If global sea ice cover goes below average next month, does that prove that CO2 is a GHG and the world is warming? Or should we perhaps look at more than just short term fluctuations in sea ice?

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Greenhouse gases, methane, nitrogen, water vapour , ozone  and of course carbon dioxide, all contribute naturally to warming our planet by about 33c. But we have since the industrial revolution at around 1750, spewed out vast amounts of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels. My point is why on earth is the main culprit C02 held responsible for the main reason the earth has warmed when there is a a big increase in sea ice around the globe. If C02 was such a great warmer why is this happening. It certainly goes against common sense that's why the debate is ongoing, because theres undenial proof that nature has the upper hand with the fluctuations of warmer and colder phases on the planet, not mankind. Surely, there would be little if any ice left on the planet, if C02 was such a warmer has the media etc point out. We have been burning fossil fuels now for well over 250 years, plenty of time for C02 to prove itself a warmer....and a winner!  :nonono:  :closedeyes:  :nonono:

 

Nick and BFTV have already responded to this but just to clarify nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas, because it is transparent to infrared light. Just as well or we wouldn't be here.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury
  • Weather Preferences: Enjoy the weather, you can't take it with you 😎
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury

Nick and BFTV have already responded to this but just to clarify nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas, because it is transparent to infrared light. Just as well or we wouldn't be here.

Nitrous Oxide..... :closedeyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dumfries, South West Scotland.
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and cold in winter and dry and very warm in summer
  • Location: Dumfries, South West Scotland.

I think you have found your correct thread  :cray:

How? I'm open minded. I'm not sure I share the doomsday scenario that some on here paint. I'll be long dead for a start before anything of real significance happens (not the correct attitude I know but it's a fact)So it's a question of whether I see it as a matter so damaging and serious and convincing that I should really sit up and take notice. The saying "there's lies, damn lies and statistics" has never been so apt. This debate is full of contradictions and opposing opinions.I'll keep an eye on both threads in the coming weeks, months, years and I'll see if I can discern where we are heading
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I think you have found your correct thread  :cray:

 

I do not think were in any way trying to 'capture' another supporter here Stew? Ask anyone who posts on this thread whether they 'support' the changes we see/will see and you'll find that none of us do. This does not mean that after we have examined the science we find the conclusions of change inescapable. 

 

This is why I have so much difficulty with understanding the folk who deny, or try to re- assign, the properties of the pollutants we have poured into our planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution or find it difficult to accept the scale of those impacts world wide? When we examine the manifestations of those forcings ( as BFTV kindly does above) then what other know forcing , at play over the period, could be responsible for those impacts? 

 

We even have some folk trying to majik up some forcing from the 'known' naturals that has suddenly ( and remarkably coincidentally ) gone rogue in some way or another to bring about these impacts???

 

I'm sorry but to me we all start out Sceptical only to end up accepting that the massive scientific consensus is correct and that it is our polluting that is at the root of the changes we see. No amount of pointing out anomalies is going to nullify the general swathe of impacts across out planet ( atmosphere, ocean and land surfaces).

 

EDIT: As for being dead before any significant impacts take place? Some folk will point to the noughties as the time we passed through the 'point of no return' with GHG concentration so high as to guarantee significant change. As we saw with the Sea ice we can be many decades off with our timings of events and as the recent posts in the Antarctic thread show 'new' and better modelling can sometimes bring our last best guess forward by many decades. As the scientist there states " its like a snow avalanche. We don't know when it will do but when it does it will be fast". We have many such changes now primed and waiting to 'flip' be it Sea ice, Glacial ice, Ice sheet, methane or ocean circulation. All of them have shown that they have, in past epochs, rapidly altered state. Last years paper looking at the global warming 'plague' had the first countries impacted in 2020 but all nations impacted by 2060 (?) I certainly hope to be still here in 2020!!! 

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

How? I'm open minded. I'm not sure I share the doomsday scenario that some on here paint. I'll be long dead for a start before anything of real significance happens (not the correct attitude I know but it's a fact)So it's a question of whether I see it as a matter so damaging and serious and convincing that I should really sit up and take notice.The saying "there's lies, damn lies and statistics" has never been so apt. This debate is full of contradictions and opposing opinions.I'll keep an eye on both threads in the coming weeks, months, years and I'll see if I can discern where we are heading

 

Firstly I think doomsday scenario a ridiculous phrase and an incorrect interpretation of my viewpoint which I consider realistic given my current understanding of the science. In view of this I see no reason not to adopt the precautionary principle. I seem to remember similar arguments prior to the Montreal Protocol.

 

As for you'll be long dead for a start before anything of real significance happens. That may well be true but unfortunately you are not the only one that has to be considered and many poor areas in the world are being effected already and millions are grave danger through changes in water supply and crop degradation.

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddington, Buckinghamshire
  • Weather Preferences: Winter: Cold & Snowy, Summer: Just not hot
  • Location: Cheddington, Buckinghamshire

Nick and BFTV have already responded to this but just to clarify nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas, because it is transparent to infrared light. Just as well or we wouldn't be here.

 

Well spotted!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury
  • Weather Preferences: Enjoy the weather, you can't take it with you 😎
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury

Well spotted!

Did I not say it was Nitrous Oxide :nonono:  :cc_confused:  :cc_confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

Greenhouse gases, methane, nitrogen, water vapour , ozone  and of course carbon dioxide, all contribute naturally to warming our planet by about 33c. 

 

So, here you acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has contributed to warming.

 

But we have since the industrial revolution at around 1750, spewed out vast amounts of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Here you acknowledge that we have caused an increase in CO2, which you previously acknowledged in a greenhouse gas, capable of causing warming.

 

My point is why on earth is the main culprit C02 held responsible for the main reason the earth has warmed when there is a a big increase in sea ice around the globe. If C02 was such a great warmer why is this happening... We have been burning fossil fuels now for well over 250 years, plenty of time for C02 to prove itself a warmer

 

But, you don't really believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because global sea ice cover has been above average for a short while (despite the long term trend being downward, and despite sea ice volume still being below average)? Does that mean that you don't accept that the world has warmed over the last 150 years? That sea levels have risen? That the ice sheets have been melting? That glaciers have been retreating? That plants and animals have been shifting north? That oceans have been accumulating heat? Or any other number of things that clearly demonstrate that the world is warming?

 

If global sea ice cover goes below average next month, does that prove that CO2 is a GHG and the world is warming? Or should we perhaps look at more than just short term fluctuations in sea ice?

 

Global sea ice downward trend nope

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

World warmed last 150 yrs , marginally but that's natural variation with marginal sea level rise

Edited by stewfox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dumfries, South West Scotland.
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and cold in winter and dry and very warm in summer
  • Location: Dumfries, South West Scotland.

Firstly I think doomsday scenario a ridiculous phrase and an incorrect interpretation of my viewpoint which I consider realistic given my current understanding of the science. In view of this I see no reason not to adopt the precautionary principle. I seem to remember similar arguments prior to the Montreal Protocol. As for you'll be long dead for a start before anything of real significance happens. That may well be true but unfortunately you are not the only one that has to be considered and many poor areas in the world are being effected already and millions are grave danger through changes in water supply and crop degradation.

Well, the fact that it was said we are beyond the point of return. Even if we stopped now effects would still be felt etc that is pretty grim. Doomsday is perhaps harsh but it's certainly not looking good.That's fair enough. The same caution should be applied to predictions then... The effects aren't fully known and when major rises in sea level, when large areas of land become unsuitable for vegetation, will occur.We don't know the earth won't re-balance itself regarding CO2 etc or some factor may not come to our help
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Global sea ice downward trend nope

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

World warmed last 150 yrs , marginally but that's natural variation with marginal sea level rise

 

Yep, that shows a downward trend. As does other data. Something tells me that slight, recent upward trend in Antarctic sea ice cover hasn't managed to counteract this

Posted Image

 

Nope, we know it's not natural variation. I refer you to post 2608 from this thread.

 

Marginal sea level rise?

Posted Image

 

 

Interesting that you don't question the obviously false claims by anyweather. Anyway, I don't think this is the right thread for your "scepticism".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Global sea ice downward trend nope

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

World warmed last 150 yrs , marginally but that's natural variation with marginal sea level rise

 

If that is the case there are two obvious questions. What are the natural variations to which you refer and as we know for a fact the rapid rise of CO2 in the atmosphere why have the laws of physics been suspended?

 

Posted Image

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999190

 

 

State of the art satellite technology proves CO2 almost non existent Global Warming influence http://www.c3headlin...-influence.html

 

The above statement is a complete fabrication. if you read the paper you will see it says nothing of the sort and is the usual distortion to fit ideological aims. I won't woffle on but here is the abstract and link to the paper ( open access) so readers can judge for themselves.

 

 

[1] We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes. While previous work has focused on a single period of record, we select analysis timescales ranging from 10 to 32 years, and then compare all possible observed TLT trends on each timescale with corresponding multi-model distributions of forced and unforced trends. We use observed estimates of the signal component of TLT changes and model estimates of climate noise to calculate timescale-dependent signal-to-noise ratios (S/N). These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length. Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999190

 

'proves'? Keith, if you take a misleading, no deceptive (look carefully at what it's plotting) graph from a dodgy self serving site as proof no wonder you're as immovably sceptic as you are :)

Edited by Devonian
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

This is quite funny.

 

Media Matters on the Las Vegas Denier Fest

 

Alexander Zaitchik of Media Matters has a very funny sendup of the Las Vegas denier fest that is being put on by the Heartland Institute. Given the articles from WUWT over the next week are bound to be nothing more than deadly dull faded denier tripe, being rehashed one more time, the Media Matters article is like a little ray of sunshine peeping through the thick fog of denial. It's also informative.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/media-matters-on-las-vegas-denier-fest.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Its interesting how the other thread post all these facts like there a done deal. Extra heat going into the oceans its a theory nothing more. Seeing a straight global sea ice line and say its declining if we exclude a few recent years. Global sea levels are above the long term average the reason can be debated but cant that simple statement be accepted

 

Its interesting how the other thread post all these facts........

 

That's odd? I thought we were all meant to post 'facts' to support our arguments/observations???  Maybe this is a very telling statement about how the other thread go about things?

 

Extra heat going into the oceans its a theory nothing more.........

 

You see this is where using 'Facts' comes in? The global buoy system is now providing good data and over a long period of time so we know that the oceans are amassing heat ( then they would have to be seeing as the 'facts' tell us we have an increasing energy imbalance on our world?)

 

 Seeing a straight global sea ice line and say its declining...........

 

Now would that be 'area' Stew?  wouldn't 'how much' be better displayed as a volume so we knew 'how much'? How is that line now? Better still why not just lump all the worlds ice onto a graph and look at the line we would get then? Take a peek at the daily losses across Greenland a.t.m. and see how many such days would wipe out the gains in 2m thick Antarctic sea ice anoms........... there , that was easy wasn't it and can you argue with the 'Facts' ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Do we really have to go down the route of explaining what a scientific theory is, all over again!? How far can it's selective dismissal go?

 

I mean, gravity is just a theory, so maybe I shouldn't base any decisions on it. I should climb to the tallest building in Cork, jump off, flap my arms and fly off to the climate denier conference in Las Vegas? Though I'd best be careful, I don't want to fly off the edge of the planet, given that the spherical Earth is just a theory. While in Vegas, I should stop washing and begin eating rotting food out of dumps, 'cause, you know, germ theory is just a theory, right?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Apart from the few who appear to be playing 'devils Advocate' do we know of anyone from the other thread who is science based, or has a healthy respect for Science BFTV?

 

To me it appears that the majority posting there are content to hear only what they wish to hear ( esp. if it is dressed up as 'science' ) whilst trying to 'demonise' all the Scientists whose work opposes their 'chosen' view?

 

I think they labour under the opinion that most others are exactly like themselves and so do not realise what buffoons they can appear when they make such ridiculous statements ( as if they were 'Facts')?

 

I'm reminded of the graph that shows a persons perception of their own ability as opposed to their actual ability.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999488

 

 

When have you ever seen any doom and gloom posts come to fruition?answer never ,all have seen the end of Arctic ice stories the end of Antarctic ice stories,wait a second AGW causes ice growth and ice loss ,AGW  are fighting hard to find logical reasons for ice growth which they fail to do, so they resort to insults and gagging of opposing views instead.

 

At least as far as I'm aware nobody on this thread knowingly posts links to blogs that have so obviously deliberately misinterpreted scientific papers to fit their own dogma. I assume it's because they can't produce intelligent scientific arguments themselves. As for insults and gagging, that's laughable when you consider just one example from the other thread. Why the mods allowed this while others get carded is beyond me.

 

 

That thread is like a cesspit of vindictiveness and hate as usual!They really don't like anything contrary being pointed out one bit.It's a pity denier can't be added to the swear filter, but 10% of the thread would vanish if it were.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...