Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Manmade Climate Change Discussion


Paul

Recommended Posts

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.

Thank you for your replies. I've been away all day and I'm only just back so I'll read them properly later. However, - from a quick skim read - they are what I was wanting.

Regarding exaggerations. Well the press most likely exaggerate claims made 10 years ago and thus they would appear to be struggling to come true. They didn't of course mention the lower projections. Like I say, I've only had mainstream media for information, I've never studied or deeply looked into the subject so hence I'm here trying to do so properly and not what the daily mail/ guardian etc tell me :)

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.

Ok, so what (going back to BFTP's post) would we expect with such natural drivers being in favour of cold, how much cooler should temps be in theory? And how does this compare with currently?

Is this level of warming unprecedented? Have we not had warmings in the past?

Also, then how can we stop this? Do you (as a group) see this as something that can be slowed and ultimately reduced very significantly?

Rather gloomy if we can't...

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.

Also, why are there two threads? Surely it defeats the point of debate and discussion to stop opposing sides discuss with one another...

Edited by SW Saltire
  • Like 1
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.

Just don't go there!!! It's not an ideal compromise, but it's turned out to be the one that causes the least conflict, given the diametrically opposed positions of various members on here and the inability of some to accept that others are entitled to their own opinion.

Edited by Crepuscular Ray
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Also, then how can we stop this? Do you (as a group) see this as something that can be slowed and ultimately reduced very significantly?Rather gloomy if we can't...

 Correct me if I'm wrong with any of this Guys but this is my best 'understanding' of what we are being told so would prefer correcting if I have things wrong!

 

 

SWS, I believe we are well beyond 'stopping' it as we have a lot of forcings still waiting to manifest so if we quit producing GHG's tomorrow we'd still have another few decades of changes to endure before things levelled out ?

 

Some folk worry ( I include myself here) that we might have already pushed too hard and that some of the changes we have seen over the past two decades mean it is impossible to return to how it used to be before? ( esp. the blighters that have been driven extinct!!!).

 

Many folk seem a little messed up with 'timing' and so will read the results of predictions and expect them yesterday! I also think some folk do not understand that, unlike the graphs, change happens in a series of jolts and not a steady, continual year on year change? Some of those 'jolts' can be very large though!!!

 

What we need to do is accept the level of change we have let ourselves in for ( and not deny it up until it has occurred and left no time to act) and mitigate those expected changes. The move from fossil fuels is something we need to do, AGW or not, so why such reluctance to move to the place we know we need to go to?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
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

Thank you for your replies. I've been away all day and I'm only just back so I'll read them properly later. However, - from a quick skim read - they are what I was wanting.

Regarding exaggerations. Well the press most likely exaggerate claims made 10 years ago and thus they would appear to be struggling to come true. They didn't of course mention the lower projections. Like I say, I've only had mainstream media for information, I've never studied or deeply looked into the subject so hence I'm here trying to do so properly and not what the daily mail/ guardian etc tell me :)

 

If the press can be relied on for one thing, it's exaggeration! The truth is, we don't have the ability to forecast the ups and downs in ENSO, the Pacific trade wind oscillations, when volcanoes will erupt, how much particulate pollutions we might emit, how active the solar cycles will be, etc, etc and so we cannot predict global temperatures with much accuracy for just a few years in advance.

 

However, over a multi-decadal time span, those natural ups and downs even out and things driving the long term climate trends can become clear, just like CO2 or the orbitally driven changes throughout the ice ages.

 

 

Ok, so what (going back to BFTP's post) would we expect with such natural drivers being in favour of cold, how much cooler should temps be in theory? And how does this compare with currently?

Is this level of warming unprecedented? Have we not had warmings in the past?

Also, then how can we stop this? Do you (as a group) see this as something that can be slowed and ultimately reduced very significantly?

Rather gloomy if we can't...

 

It's hard to say exactly how global temperatures would have gone without CO2, but we do know that the planet was on a long term slow cooling trend up until the beginning of the 20th century.

 

Posted Image

 

One of the reasons that scientists can be so confident that we are causing the current warming, is through their understanding of past warming events. We know that most long term changes to the climate are driven by the Milankovitch cycles, which are variations in the movement of the Earth as it orbits the sun. These cause relatively small changes in the distribution of energy reaching the Earth's surface, which set numerous feedback processes into gear, such as greenhouse gas changes, which then cause the large warming and cooling episodes we associate with the glacial/interglacial flips during the Quaternary. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is quite remarkable, though as we know, correlation doesn't mean causation. So we need more evidence to show that CO2 actually causes warming.

 

Posted Image

Another way that scientists are sure that we're causing warming is by looking at the physics of the greenhouse effect. We can measured the energy reaching the Earth's surface and the energy leaving into space. If there is more energy coming in than going out, the climate warms. If there is more going out than coming in, things cool. Currently, we have more coming in than going out and so we simply have to be warming.

You can also look at that energy in more detail, examining the spectrum of light, especially the part that CO2 is known to absorb in the thermal infrared range, which is emitted by the Earth's surface after visible light has warmed it up. Satellites have observed less of this thermal infrared reaching space, which means that something is keeping it "trapped". After absorbing the thermal energy, CO2 then re-emits it in all directions causing much of it to return to the surface. This can also be measured, and it has been found to be increasing, providing further evidence that CO2 is the culprit for warming!

 

 

As for how we stop this... that's the tough part. It's probably why so many people deny the effect that we're having on the climate. We have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, which means moving from the "safety" of fossil fuels to alternative and renewable energy sources. That prospect strikes fear into the heart of a lot of people, who believe their current comfortable way of life may be threatened.

 

Also, why are there two threads? Surely it defeats the point of debate and discussion to stop opposing sides discuss with one another...

 

Things tend to become quite heated between the two sides, and the exchanges rarely resemble an adult discussion. Separating things seemed like an attempt to try something new whilst allowing both sides of the debate to express their opinions. Whether the current format lasts or not remains to be seen.

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 5
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.

CR, yeah, I do and see that. However, they now can't (really) respond to your answers to me. They can have no influence on my thinking. I'll admit I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other and that I don't had much real knowledge on it. Therefore, receiving one way traffic is hardly allowing me to make my own mind up... Isn't that the purpose of debate? : to provide a platform where opposing arguments can be argued and neutrals can read it and form their own opinion...

Maybe members of the other thread can (politely) reply to posts such as BFTP, Knocker Gray-Wolf et all's posts...

Gray-Wolf (would abbreviate your name but with this topic thread name that may cause confusion!!!)

I do accept there won't be a linear graph of warming or even exponential. However, this makes it harder to analyse and harder to ultimately believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Ok, so what (going back to BFTP's post) would we expect with such natural drivers being in favour of cold, how much cooler should temps be in theory? And how does this compare with currently?

Is this level of warming unprecedented? Have we not had warmings in the past?

Also, then how can we stop this? Do you (as a group) see this as something that can be slowed and ultimately reduced very significantly?

Rather gloomy if we can't...

 

I was writing this before noticing the detailed answers above. I'll just add this.

 

You might notice that the rise is CO2 concentration in the Vostok ice core record lags the temperature rise by between 600 – 800 years. This is sometimes used to maintain that therefore CO2 cannot be driving up global temperatures.The interpretation is incorrect. What we see in the Vostok record is a consequence of what is known as Milankovitch cycles.

 

The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not fixed. It varies with a period of about 100000 years. These variations result in changes to the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun and where this energy is deposited. At the beginning of a cycle the Earth’s temperature will start to rise. The ability of water to retain CO2 depends on temperature and so this rise in temperature results in a rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. This increased CO2 concentration further amplifies the warming which then further increases the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The net result is that the surface temperature increases by about 10oC and the CO2 concentration rises by about 100 ppm. An important point, however, is that the orbital variations alone cannot explain this temperature rise. It requires amplification due to enhanced levels of atmospheric CO2.

 

Later in the cycle, however, the orbital variation changes the amount of energy the Earth is receiving so that temperatures start to decrease. The cooler oceans are able to absorb more CO2 and atmospheric CO2 levels also start to decrease. This reduces the warming influence of CO2 and the system returns back to where it was at the beginning of the cycle. This process can also repeat. There is essentially a feedback relationship between temperature and CO2 levels.

 

The problem today, is that the rise in CO2 is not because of a rise in surface temperatures. It’s because of us releasing CO2 into the atmosphere through our use of fossil fuels.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

CR, yeah, I do and see that. However, they now can't (really) respond to your answers to me. They can have no influence on my thinking. I'll admit I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other and that I don't had much real knowledge on it. Therefore, receiving one way traffic is hardly allowing me to make my own mind up... Isn't that the purpose of debate? : to provide a platform where opposing arguments can be argued and neutrals can read it and form their own opinion...Maybe members of the other thread can (politely) reply to posts such as BFTP, Knocker Gray-Wolf et all's posts...Gray-Wolf (would abbreviate your name but with this topic thread name that may cause confusion!!!)I do accept there won't be a linear graph of warming or even exponential. However, this makes it harder to analyse and harder to ultimately believe.

 

Surely the simple way around that SW is to ask question in the other thread why they don't believe.

  • Like 2
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

We have been burning C02 for centuries now, if that gas is such a warmer of this planet why oh why have we got ice on both bottom and top of Earth. :cc_confused: Global sea ice looks very heathy...  CO2, is really useless at warming the Earth it seems..... :closedeyes:

post-6830-0-81235400-1404673209_thumb.gi

Edited by ANYWEATHER
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.

CR, yeah, I do and see that. However, they now can't (really) respond to your answers to me. They can have no influence on my thinking. I'll admit I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other and that I don't had much real knowledge on it. Therefore, receiving one way traffic is hardly allowing me to make my own mind up... Isn't that the purpose of debate? : to provide a platform where opposing arguments can be argued and neutrals can read it and form their own opinion...Maybe members of the other thread can (politely) reply to posts such as BFTP, Knocker Gray-Wolf et all's posts...Gray-Wolf (would abbreviate your name but with this topic thread name that may cause confusion!!!)I do accept there won't be a linear graph of warming or even exponential. However, this makes it harder to analyse and harder to ultimately believe.

We all wish. The one thread for all approach turned into less of a debate and more of a custard-pie fight. None of us is entirely happy with the compromise, but it's less like utter mayhem than the alternative. I can appreciate that it's difficult for anyone trying to learn their way round the subject, but the boss is unlikely to change his mind.

 

Oh, and what Knocker said about asking in both threads. Then make up your own mind.

Edited by Crepuscular Ray
  • 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.

Thanks BFTP for that grey post. It seems fairly reasonable and a fair analysis of the GW view.

That correlation seems pretty strong between CO2 absorption and temperature variation in the Antarctic ice cover.

How do we go about this renewable energy policy then?

Windfarms already cover at lot of the land (ok there is the sea but some don't like them)

Solar panels - pretty expensive really

Wave power - still in it's infancy frankly

Compared to the sheer power of nuclear they are a distant second

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.

CR and Knocker, but then I'm going to copy and paste what they say and put in here which will get responded to. Then I'll post those responses to the other thread and so it continues... Bit of a thankless task really

Are the old threads available?

Thanks Knocker, for that post about reasons for previous warmings - Milankovitch cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

No I didn't mean that SW. Just pose the question and weigh up the reasoned replies and that will give you some idea of the pros and cons.

 

Regarding solar it is rapidly dropping in price and supplies a significant amount of electricity in Germany.. I had some figures but they are elusive but I'm sure Google will find it.

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

Also, why are there two threads? Surely it defeats the point of debate and discussion to stop opposing sides discuss with one another...

 

 

Because the 'debates' got heated mods decided to split them out and set up two different threads. 

 

We now have two threads largely about finding articles of google and posting  them (usually from different end of the spectrum).

 

Not ideal but not sure how you can have a 'debate'

 

I post largely in the other thread as I don't like this 'done deal' , 'world coming to the end approach' and obviously see mans influence far less then some (based on data from 2014) I could of course change my mind in 2024 with different data

Edited by stewfox
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.

Because the 'debates' got heated mods decided to split them out and set up two different threads. We now have two threads largely about finding articles of google and posting them (usually from different end of the spectrum).Not ideal but not sure how you can have a 'debate'I post largely in the other thread as I don't like this 'done deal' , 'world coming to the end approach' and obviously see mans influence far less then some (based on data from 2014) I could of course change my mind in 2024 with different data

Yeah, I saw that lots of articles and counter articles are posted in each. To fit the agenda of each thread. Hardly condusive to ground breaking debate if I do say so...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. On the other hand, it subscribes to the 'no supreme being' philosophy as if there were they'd surely save/help us. Also, there could of course be unforeseen circumstances/events that stop global warming reaching crisis point for the majority of the world. Is the glass half-full (optimistic or perhaps wishful thinking?) or is it half-empty (pessimistic or is it being realistic?) Edited by SW Saltire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Hi again SWS!

 

I have learned to live by the " Do unto others...." philosophy. not because I'm a do gooder but because to live in a selfish ,self serving way leads to a mind set that those around you will be doing the same ( and some far better at it than you!) and this leads to a paranoid existence.

 

In the debate you will often hear the other thread call AGW a 'conspiracy' and accuse science of 'fixing data'........ the above explains why and below expands on that 'why'.

 

In this so called 'debate' we have a group of incredibly wealthy individuals and industries that perceived that any attack on CO2 emissions would negatively impact their ability to make money. They have employed folk and funded others to do their best to interfere with the dissemination of  scientific information/findings on the subject. They even employed the folk that the tobacco industry used for years to do a similar job on the medical evidence regarding smoking so as to limit the compensation they would need to pay out for wrongly advertising 'benefits' of smoking ( claims died with the claimant and so the longer they kept the debate going the less compensation the tobacco comps would be sued for).

 

So apart from an argument with 2 sides you have an ongoing 'muddying' of information reaching the likes of you by this nasty set of individuals and the organisations they fund/bankroll.

 

These individual are often referred to as the " Paid Misleaders". They have the best access to the science and advisors to help them understand the science so they are fully aware of the problems we face but prefer to use that knowledge to best further their own aims ( and not humanities).

 

You will often see posts in this thread taken from the other thread and dissected as they are at best 'ill informed' and at worst a direct attempt to mislead others ( esp. ones who do not know a lot about the subject). most are 'cut and paste from a few blogs that have ties with the misleaders and, until funding was recently 'hidden' by the major corps, received 'grants' and donations from them. ~To date the main offending blogs have not posted anything other than school playground type attacks on individual Scientists and organisations bringing information about the problems AGW is bringing to us ( some even giving out scientists addresses so that their families are attacked/threatened!!!).

 

On your quest for an informed opinion on where we are in understanding climate change be aware both of the paid misleaders and also their paid affiliates! By all means visit them but also check out their assertions across the web.

 

EDIT I think the last time humanity strayed it was only to follow their own personal lusts and forsake that deity.... if he wiped out the globe for that what would he do for the 'sins' we have committed against that deity's creation this time around????

Edited by Gray-Wolf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Vale of Belvoir
  • Location: Vale of Belvoir

We have been burning C02 for centuries now, if that gas is such a warmer of this planet why oh why have we got ice on both bottom and top of Earth. Posted Image Global sea ice looks very heathy...  CO2, is really useless at warming the Earth it seems..... Posted Image

Your science is pretty poor - you can't burn CO2, it's produced by burning fossile fuels and if we didn't have the warming effect of greenhouse gasses the planet would be too cold to sustain the life it does.Its only since the industrial revolution that vaste quantities of CO2 have been pumped into the atmosphere.

As for global sea ice the total figure may be high but Antarctica amounts are higher which offsets the dreadful state of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

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

Your science is pretty poor - you can't burn CO2, it's produced by burning fossile fuels and if we didn't have the warming effect of greenhouse gasses the planet would be too cold to sustain the life it does.Its only since the industrial revolution that vaste quantities of CO2 have been pumped into the atmosphere.As for global sea ice the total figure may be high but Antarctica amounts are higher which offsets the dreadful state of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

My science is really not poor, but perhaps the way I worded the post is! Yes ,CO2 is a result of burning fossil fuels, but the fact that we have been burning fossil fuels in such large quantities and for so long and indeed CO2 is still rising , why do we still have ice over the poles etc if CO2 is such a good greenhouse gas.... :nonono:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

My science is really not poor, but perhaps the way I worded the post is! Yes ,CO2 is a result of burning fossil fuels, but the fact that we have been burning fossil fuels in such large quantities and for so long and indeed CO2 is still rising , why do we still have ice over the poles etc if CO2 is such a good greenhouse gas.... :nonono:

 

The ice sheets, icecaps and glaciers of the Arctic contain just over 3 million km3 of ice, the bulk of which is locked into the Greenland Ice Sheet, with the remainder being in the icecaps and glaciers of the Canadian Arctic, Iceland, Svalbard, Alaska, Franz Josef Land, northern Scandinavia, Severnaya Zemlya and Novaya Zemlya.

 

Using your scientific knowledge, given say a 2C rise in temperature, howl long would it take for this area to become ice free? And this is ignoring Antarctica. And you are avoiding PeteGs point. How come the planet is a liveable 15C and not -18C. The importance of CO2 as a warming agent isn't because it has failed to melt the ice sheets in 150 years, which is ludicrous anyway, but because it's vital for life on earth as we know it.

  • Like 3
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

My science is really not poor, but perhaps the way I worded the post is! Yes ,CO2 is a result of burning fossil fuels, but the fact that we have been burning fossil fuels in such large quantities and for so long and indeed CO2 is still rising , why do we still have ice over the poles etc if CO2 is such a good greenhouse gas.... :nonono:

 

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)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You see , to me . here we go again!

 

Anyweather's post appears typical of one of the type that have me wondering if a portion of the folk who are actively 'denying', both the changes and the science, are doing so out of fear of what they are being told? 

 

I'd outlined in a post above what I personally feel is going on and so would expect nothing more than trouble and bother should I try and straighten some of the misconceptions he appears to hold about the issues? ( just a comparison of the mass of ice lost each year across Antarctica with the mass of annual  'extension' to the sea 2m thick sea ice we have been seeing since the 80's).

 

And this then ties in with what I warned o above about the 'tactics' in play by the group aligned to the climate misleaders where they deliberately provoke response with ridiculous claims but make the spat so uncomfortable as to make many 'normal' folk reluctant to enter into the fray?

 

From the outside an observer sees nothing more than a 'to do' and anything to do with the science and the facts is lost among the ugliness.

 

I would ask the 'non combatants' to look at the data on the massive Antarctic land ice losses ( that is ice lost to the planet) compared to the annual increase in sections of the Sea ice around the Antarctic  and decide which is the more important?

 

We have heard ( and continue to hear?) about the 33rd coolest winter in America yet very little about one of the warmest Arctic winters on record..... which of these is of most importance to us all ? Yet which have you personally heard most about ( and from where and for why?).

 

The information is out there folks, please do not wait for it to come to you as the folk most active in pushing the impacts of climate change are those attacking it ( with the help of the paid misleaders media outlets /connections).

Edited by Gray-Wolf
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

An article that has appeared at Judith Curry's blog. It's a very good article about adjustments to surface temperature data, written by Zeke Hausfather.

 

HotWhopper briefly discusses it

Zeke Hausfather: Understanding adjustments to surface temperature data

For direct link.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/#more-16155

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

 

"BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes"

At last we will get to pull away from this nonsense of having such an overwhelming consensus look like an ongoing debate!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...