Forums > Social Discussion > The Great Global Warming Swindle
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Was the title of a documentary shown on Channel 4 in the UK last night. It made me very very angry. Here's a brief outline of some of the reasons why...
Statement of technically accurate but irrelevant facts
Examples...
Carbon Dioxide is natural.
The sun affects climate
Climate was changing before humans evolved
Water vapour has a radiative forcing effect greater than carbon dioxide
These statements are all true. However, they none of them in any way disproves, or even contests the IPCC position on Anthropogenic Climate Change.
The IPCC does not think carbon dioxide is unnatural. What the hell is unnatural exactly? The only thing I can think of are those things designated as supernatural. Of which none are as decisively proven to exist as co2.
The sun affects climate. Really? Perhaps the authors of the documentary had failed to read this section of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2001)
https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm
Its titled solar forcing of climate. Anyone fancy a guess as to what its about?
Climate was changing before humans evolved. Yes. I think Anyone who took science A-levels, or has read anything about chaos theory will be aware of this. The IPCC certainly are. Or as the IPCC put it in 2001
https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/504.htm
Water Vapour has a greater radiative forcing effect than co2. Yes. This an integral part of the IPCC's position. How exactly is this supposed to dispute things?
https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm
What we can determine then, is that the documentary either deliberately misrepresents the IPCC position or hasn't read it.
As far as techniques go, its a methodologically interesting one. They facts they call upon are true (obviously so) however the consequences they draw from these facts are untrue. What this suggests, is that to present an accurate picture, one must not simply lay down the facts - suggesting that there are a limited and definitive series of facts, but distinguish from the multitude of true facts, which ones are relevant to the issue at hand. In the case of the documentary, the facts are entirely irrelevant to the argument.
use of discredited data
One of the central scientific claims of the documentary was that evidence from globally respected scientists has proved that the troposphere - which should according to ACC be warming - is in fact cooling, casting a major doubt over the adequacy of the IPCC's claims. This claim is based on a paper by globally respected atmospheric scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer published in 1992.
What the documentary failed to include however, was the minor series of details, that in 2005, three seperate studies,
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...631abf93113a577
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1556
all suggest that the 1992 data was massively flawed - as the troposphere is warming in line with ACC models.
Leading Christy to admit that is figures were incorrect in August 2005
https://environment.newscientist.com/chan...-climbdown.html
In this case the documentary appears to have deliberately deceptive - why use a 15 year old paper which has subsequently been dismissed by its own author as a central argument? Possibly because there wasn't much of an srgument to make.
statement of outright lies
Such as your body is made of co2
The environmental movement is the biggest threat to African development
The IPCC is driven towards sensationalist conclusions in order to make headlines and retain funding
The first statement is just stupid.
The second is misleading. If president Bush's preconditions for a US cut in fossil fuel use (a global cut - ie everyone else has the same cut, so they don't get an 'unfair' economic advantage over the US) was the position of the environmental movement this would be fair. However Bush is rarely regarded as an environmentalist. Instead, the proposal of most 1st world environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, is a global per capita carbon cap - with an emission trading scheme so that heavily polluting industrial nations can buy credits from less developed countries. The implementation of this scheme would see a massive redistribution of wealth as we in the 1st world started paying hundreds of billions of pounds to many of the world's poorest countries.
The third statement is directly contradicted by the predictions of the IPCC and the empirical observations which have been made since. In 2001 the IPCC predicted the global temperature change and sea level rise by the publication of the 2007 report. Both predictions were wrong. Both temperature and sea level had risen by more than the IPCC's predicted maximum. This would appear to be in line with comments such as Prof Bob Spicer's comment that the IPCC is 'necessarily conservative' due to the fact that it works by consensus. Indeed the program gave the Gulf Stream and it's potential disappearance as an example - this is something the 2007 report has suggested is extremely unlikely to happen.
Reliability of sources
A good place to start when analysing a documentary is ist maker...
https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/another-species-of-denial/
Not exactly a good start... And what about his scientific sources?
A number of them, such as Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen are the same fossil fuel funded cronies that get brought out time and again...
(for a For a good assessment of Lindzen's scientific claims click here
Singer is one that I find particulary amusing... Especially as seems to crop up so often. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]
Singer's deposition
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years.
That someone is paid a shedload of cash by companies who have a vested interest in deceiving the public on a certain issue does not prove them wrong, but will arise suspicion. That someone attempts to deceive the public by lying about the existence of this funding hardly allays these suspicions.
It is also worth noting that Singer has in the past ben paid by the tobacco industry - and unsurprisingly was one of the foremost scientific experts heading the campaign which claimed that the link between smoking and cancer was 'junk science.'
There's more... Much more to rip into about this program. As you can possibly tell I'm still seething about it.
There may be some doubt over the IPCC's claims, and there will always by an element of uncertainty about the effects we're having on the climate (a hitherto unknown negative feedback may kick in tomorrow - but there's no evidence that it will, and resultantly its insane to factor this in to contemporary discussion about ACC), however, the positions presented by 'The Global Warming Swindle,' were complete garbage.
It's a fantastic argument for why broadcast media sucks - a programme like that which has a lot of money poured into it, claims to be based on scientific evidence would probably present a fairly compelling argument to someone with little knowledge about the subject bar a few daily mail headlines...
Was the title of a documentary shown on Channel 4 in the UK last night. It made me very very angry. Here's a brief outline of some of the reasons why...
Statement of technically accurate but irrelevant facts
Examples...
Carbon Dioxide is natural.
The sun affects climate
Climate was changing before humans evolved
Water vapour has a radiative forcing effect greater than carbon dioxide
These statements are all true. However, they none of them in any way disproves, or even contests the IPCC position on Anthropogenic Climate Change.
The IPCC does not think carbon dioxide is unnatural. What the hell is unnatural exactly? The only thing I can think of are those things designated as supernatural. Of which none are as decisively proven to exist as co2.
The sun affects climate. Really? Perhaps the authors of the documentary had failed to read this section of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2001)
https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm
Its titled solar forcing of climate. Anyone fancy a guess as to what its about?
Climate was changing before humans evolved. Yes. I think Anyone who took science A-levels, or has read anything about chaos theory will be aware of this. The IPCC certainly are. Or as the IPCC put it in 2001
Written by: IPCC
complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system
https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/504.htm
Water Vapour has a greater radiative forcing effect than co2. Yes. This an integral part of the IPCC's position. How exactly is this supposed to dispute things?
Written by: IPCC
Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed (Hall and Manabe, 1999).
https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm
What we can determine then, is that the documentary either deliberately misrepresents the IPCC position or hasn't read it.
As far as techniques go, its a methodologically interesting one. They facts they call upon are true (obviously so) however the consequences they draw from these facts are untrue. What this suggests, is that to present an accurate picture, one must not simply lay down the facts - suggesting that there are a limited and definitive series of facts, but distinguish from the multitude of true facts, which ones are relevant to the issue at hand. In the case of the documentary, the facts are entirely irrelevant to the argument.
use of discredited data
One of the central scientific claims of the documentary was that evidence from globally respected scientists has proved that the troposphere - which should according to ACC be warming - is in fact cooling, casting a major doubt over the adequacy of the IPCC's claims. This claim is based on a paper by globally respected atmospheric scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer published in 1992.
What the documentary failed to include however, was the minor series of details, that in 2005, three seperate studies,
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...631abf93113a577
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1556
all suggest that the 1992 data was massively flawed - as the troposphere is warming in line with ACC models.
Leading Christy to admit that is figures were incorrect in August 2005
https://environment.newscientist.com/chan...-climbdown.html
In this case the documentary appears to have deliberately deceptive - why use a 15 year old paper which has subsequently been dismissed by its own author as a central argument? Possibly because there wasn't much of an srgument to make.
statement of outright lies
Such as your body is made of co2
The environmental movement is the biggest threat to African development
The IPCC is driven towards sensationalist conclusions in order to make headlines and retain funding
The first statement is just stupid.
The second is misleading. If president Bush's preconditions for a US cut in fossil fuel use (a global cut - ie everyone else has the same cut, so they don't get an 'unfair' economic advantage over the US) was the position of the environmental movement this would be fair. However Bush is rarely regarded as an environmentalist. Instead, the proposal of most 1st world environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, is a global per capita carbon cap - with an emission trading scheme so that heavily polluting industrial nations can buy credits from less developed countries. The implementation of this scheme would see a massive redistribution of wealth as we in the 1st world started paying hundreds of billions of pounds to many of the world's poorest countries.
The third statement is directly contradicted by the predictions of the IPCC and the empirical observations which have been made since. In 2001 the IPCC predicted the global temperature change and sea level rise by the publication of the 2007 report. Both predictions were wrong. Both temperature and sea level had risen by more than the IPCC's predicted maximum. This would appear to be in line with comments such as Prof Bob Spicer's comment that the IPCC is 'necessarily conservative' due to the fact that it works by consensus. Indeed the program gave the Gulf Stream and it's potential disappearance as an example - this is something the 2007 report has suggested is extremely unlikely to happen.
Reliability of sources
A good place to start when analysing a documentary is ist maker...
Written by: George Monbiot
In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made
https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/another-species-of-denial/
Not exactly a good start... And what about his scientific sources?
A number of them, such as Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen are the same fossil fuel funded cronies that get brought out time and again...
(for a For a good assessment of Lindzen's scientific claims click here
Singer is one that I find particulary amusing... Especially as seems to crop up so often. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]
Singer's deposition
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years.
That someone is paid a shedload of cash by companies who have a vested interest in deceiving the public on a certain issue does not prove them wrong, but will arise suspicion. That someone attempts to deceive the public by lying about the existence of this funding hardly allays these suspicions.
It is also worth noting that Singer has in the past ben paid by the tobacco industry - and unsurprisingly was one of the foremost scientific experts heading the campaign which claimed that the link between smoking and cancer was 'junk science.'
There's more... Much more to rip into about this program. As you can possibly tell I'm still seething about it.
There may be some doubt over the IPCC's claims, and there will always by an element of uncertainty about the effects we're having on the climate (a hitherto unknown negative feedback may kick in tomorrow - but there's no evidence that it will, and resultantly its insane to factor this in to contemporary discussion about ACC), however, the positions presented by 'The Global Warming Swindle,' were complete garbage.
It's a fantastic argument for why broadcast media sucks - a programme like that which has a lot of money poured into it, claims to be based on scientific evidence would probably present a fairly compelling argument to someone with little knowledge about the subject bar a few daily mail headlines...
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
so then the increases in "freak" weather today could be for the same reasons yes?
Like I said I don't believe in graphs (by the way it DID have a Y - axis on the PDF file. the X-axis was time and also the "normal temp" of 57 degrees fahrenheit and the Y axis went up to 59 degrees) but this one showed global temperature increase at approximately the times given for biblical disasters which are probably the only written accounts of such from the time.
in all the graph promoted the idea that freak weather and diseases can be attributed to increases in global temperature (a long time ago and not very scientific but is taken from records distorted by time) the very same as the IPCC
How about this guy peter dietze[ says he was on the IPCC report, not a climatologist however and he did this report.
I get confused over the IPCC stuff to be fair, loads of scientists some not climatologists yet doing climate study
he seems to believe that there is not enough carbon to create a climate problem. he may be crazy... if so then why is he on the IPCC
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1174553381)
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Mynci
Could global warming have been the cause for noahs flood and (some) of the 10 plagues of Egypt, boils increase in insects (beetles and flies) locusts, hail (freak weather) I don't reckon the water into blood, death of first borns (although could have been a tropical disease) or plague of dark (unless there was an eclipse and lots of clouds).
Even if we accept that the story in Exodus has elements of truth in it, there's no reason to invoke global climatic changes. Much of the weather effects could be explicable just by "normal" freak weather and local climate
so then the increases in "freak" weather today could be for the same reasons yes?
Like I said I don't believe in graphs (by the way it DID have a Y - axis on the PDF file. the X-axis was time and also the "normal temp" of 57 degrees fahrenheit and the Y axis went up to 59 degrees) but this one showed global temperature increase at approximately the times given for biblical disasters which are probably the only written accounts of such from the time.
in all the graph promoted the idea that freak weather and diseases can be attributed to increases in global temperature (a long time ago and not very scientific but is taken from records distorted by time) the very same as the IPCC
How about this guy peter dietze[ says he was on the IPCC report, not a climatologist however and he did this report.
I get confused over the IPCC stuff to be fair, loads of scientists some not climatologists yet doing climate study
he seems to believe that there is not enough carbon to create a climate problem. he may be crazy... if so then why is he on the IPCCEDITED_BY: Mynci (1174553381)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Linking global warming and the events of the Bible may be inadequate. A flooding can have many reasons and according to the attitude men had back then (as surfacing in the term "Mediterranean") "the world" was even smaller as it is today - or vice versa, the individual nations were "the centre of the world". Further we have to take into account that back then, stories could describe actual events, or simply been taken as metaphorically...
Whilst climatic changes are natural and working in cycles, it is mankind's un-necessary "contribution" to this phenomenon, which may put him in the position of some fool, sawing off the very branch he is sitting upon himself.
In the end it doesn't matter much, but certainly it seems as if our contribution to the phenomenon can be limited. Denial of the indisputable fact that mankind in fact IS (at least) contributing to (if not even causing) global warming, is performed under obvious motifs.
Just as US families can legally sue the state of Sudan and smokers can legally sue tobacco companies in the US - families and states who loose property and suffer from rising sea levels may be able to sue (US) companies for contributing to the problem (against better knowledge).
So what is easier (within one lifetime) to act, or even make an attempt to, or simply question the validity of evidence?
Currently a CO2 reduction programme is running and it seems that (apart from a few EU countries) nobody is willing or able to reduce their output. This on the other side creates political pressure and especially it puts pressure upon the companies to establish sufficient technology (which is costly).
So the (US) government and (US) companies have a mutual interest in order to dilute scientific evidence.
I guess there is a good reason why other scientists are working on climate change, too - can't think of it right now. Thought congestion...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1174554732)
Linking global warming and the events of the Bible may be inadequate. A flooding can have many reasons and according to the attitude men had back then (as surfacing in the term "Mediterranean") "the world" was even smaller as it is today - or vice versa, the individual nations were "the centre of the world". Further we have to take into account that back then, stories could describe actual events, or simply been taken as metaphorically...
Whilst climatic changes are natural and working in cycles, it is mankind's un-necessary "contribution" to this phenomenon, which may put him in the position of some fool, sawing off the very branch he is sitting upon himself.
In the end it doesn't matter much, but certainly it seems as if our contribution to the phenomenon can be limited. Denial of the indisputable fact that mankind in fact IS (at least) contributing to (if not even causing) global warming, is performed under obvious motifs.
Just as US families can legally sue the state of Sudan and smokers can legally sue tobacco companies in the US - families and states who loose property and suffer from rising sea levels may be able to sue (US) companies for contributing to the problem (against better knowledge).
So what is easier (within one lifetime) to act, or even make an attempt to, or simply question the validity of evidence?
Currently a CO2 reduction programme is running and it seems that (apart from a few EU countries) nobody is willing or able to reduce their output. This on the other side creates political pressure and especially it puts pressure upon the companies to establish sufficient technology (which is costly).
So the (US) government and (US) companies have a mutual interest in order to dilute scientific evidence.
I guess there is a good reason why other scientists are working on climate change, too - can't think of it right now. Thought congestion...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1174554732)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
(scrolls back up) please excuse me for defending a position that you seem to enjoy taking, Mynci... yet I find OWD's reactions (almost) offensive...
but that might be only due to accumulation
What will happen, if temperature levels rise?
I'm certain, somebody pointed this out already.
Apart from Bangladesh and the Maledives vanishing, it's less about being dead after getting washed off, but more about tumbling in the big wave, while it's happening.
BTW It's (too) easy to dismiss increasing amounts of Hurricanes, as long as you don't have to face one yourself...
(scrolls back up) please excuse me for defending a position that you seem to enjoy taking, Mynci... yet I find OWD's reactions (almost) offensive...
but that might be only due to accumulation What will happen, if temperature levels rise?
I'm certain, somebody pointed this out already.
Apart from Bangladesh and the Maledives vanishing, it's less about being dead after getting washed off, but more about tumbling in the big wave, while it's happening.
BTW It's (too) easy to dismiss increasing amounts of Hurricanes, as long as you don't have to face one yourself...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes. And some of them are. We're talking about a trend in the global climate not local events.
By the way, I'm confused by your use of the wink smiley: you seem to use it when you say something that you think will be tricky for us to answer.
Ok:
1) Why post a graph (if you can call it that) if you don't believe in them?
2) It did not have a y-axes - it marked the temperature twice, and those 2 points weren't even the extremities (it marked the lowest point, not the highest).
3) Even if there was a y-axes, the whole thing is meaningless because there is no source data cited on it.
"Promoted the idea" is a good way of putting it! It does nothing to substantiate the idea, because it is worthless for almost anything.
It is well accepted that we don't have good data on temperature before the mid 1800s. If you use data before that, it is hard to exclude local variations or get exact measurements. IF that pdf was actually worth the amount of time I've put in to writing about it (it's not) then it would be claiming the some of the most dramatic swings I've seen. However, that means nothing, as for all I know they have just drawn a stupid picture.
Huh? Does the IPCC use the bible for research? Really? I don't have the list of cited works from all 4 IPCC reports committed to memory just yet, but I'd be willing to bet that there is no reference to it there (you could say I'm 90% sure...)
On the subject of being 90% sure - one of the reasons they say that is because the data isn't as good as it could have been. I would have thought that they would be 100% sure of the data taken in the last 150 years, but they are going back a lot further. The are looking at many different peer reviewed papers, seeing that there is a trend across all of them and drawing conclusions from that - the whole process is open, clear and peer reviewed (to them, I can't find any open record of the review process online. I think that is a shame).
I found this page on him if that helps, but there is nothing about the IPCC. He was actually a reviewer not an author and I can't find any open record of what changes were submitted or accepted, so we have no way of knowing if he actually contributed at all.
You're right - I'm not sure why they asked some of these less relevant people (words chosen carefully) to review the work. I can think up all sorts of things, like pressure to include them from larger corporations so they get more weight in the debate, worries about calls of censorship by them if they were excluded thus casting doubt over it before it was published etc etc.
I have no way of knowing if there is any truth in these ideas, and if fact the chances of them being true is slim. Maybe they were just included as reviewers as a friendly act? They did sign Fred Singer's petition, so maybe they all got a copy?
Oh, if you want to play the same of posting all the deniers and having us knock them down then you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Written by: Mynci
so then the increases in "freak" weather today could be for the same reasons yes?
Yes. And some of them are. We're talking about a trend in the global climate not local events.
By the way, I'm confused by your use of the wink smiley: you seem to use it when you say something that you think will be tricky for us to answer.
Written by: Mynci
Like I said I don't believe in graphs (by the way it DID have a Y - axis on the PDF file. the X-axis was time and also the "normal temp" of 57 degrees fahrenheit and the Y axis went up to 59 degrees) but this one showed global temperature increase at approximately the times given for biblical disasters which are probably the only written accounts of such from the time.
Ok:
1) Why post a graph (if you can call it that) if you don't believe in them?
2) It did not have a y-axes - it marked the temperature twice, and those 2 points weren't even the extremities (it marked the lowest point, not the highest).
3) Even if there was a y-axes, the whole thing is meaningless because there is no source data cited on it.
Written by: Mynci
in all the graph promoted the idea that freak weather and diseases can be attributed to increases in global temperature
"Promoted the idea" is a good way of putting it!
It does nothing to substantiate the idea, because it is worthless for almost anything. It is well accepted that we don't have good data on temperature before the mid 1800s. If you use data before that, it is hard to exclude local variations or get exact measurements. IF that pdf was actually worth the amount of time I've put in to writing about it (it's not) then it would be claiming the some of the most dramatic swings I've seen. However, that means nothing, as for all I know they have just drawn a stupid picture.
Written by: Mynci
(a long time ago and not very scientific but is taken from records distorted by time) the very same as the IPCC
Huh? Does the IPCC use the bible for research? Really? I don't have the list of cited works from all 4 IPCC reports committed to memory just yet, but I'd be willing to bet that there is no reference to it there (you could say I'm 90% sure...)
On the subject of being 90% sure - one of the reasons they say that is because the data isn't as good as it could have been. I would have thought that they would be 100% sure of the data taken in the last 150 years, but they are going back a lot further. The are looking at many different peer reviewed papers, seeing that there is a trend across all of them and drawing conclusions from that - the whole process is open, clear and peer reviewed (to them, I can't find any open record of the review process online. I think that is a shame).
Written by: Mynci
How about this guy peter dietze[ says he was on the IPCC report, not a climatologist however and he did this report.
I found this page on him if that helps, but there is nothing about the IPCC. He was actually a reviewer not an author and I can't find any open record of what changes were submitted or accepted, so we have no way of knowing if he actually contributed at all.
Written by: Mynci
I get confused over the IPCC stuff to be fair, loads of scientists some not climatologists yet doing climate study
You're right - I'm not sure why they asked some of these less relevant people (words chosen carefully) to review the work. I can think up all sorts of things, like pressure to include them from larger corporations so they get more weight in the debate, worries about calls of censorship by them if they were excluded thus casting doubt over it before it was published etc etc.
I have no way of knowing if there is any truth in these ideas, and if fact the chances of them being true is slim. Maybe they were just included as reviewers as a friendly act? They did sign Fred Singer's petition, so maybe they all got a copy?
Oh, if you want to play the same of posting all the deniers and having us knock them down then you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
By the way Mynci, I'm getting confused as to what your argument is. Could you maybe reiterate it or point me to a post that explains it? How did you form your argument? Just interested.
By the way Mynci, I'm getting confused as to what your argument is. Could you maybe reiterate it or point me to a post that explains it? How did you form your argument? Just interested.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Yes, they could be. And they probably mostly are.
An increase in global tempertures is going to make a statistical difference, not a readily apparent one. There's never going to be an instance at which a person can point to a hurricane and say "global warming caused that". But a 5% increase in adverse weather and local climate effects translates to a considerable human cost.
Written by: MynciWritten by: jeff(fake)Written by: Mynci
Could global warming have been the cause for noahs flood and (some) of the 10 plagues of Egypt, boils increase in insects (beetles and flies) locusts, hail (freak weather) I don't reckon the water into blood, death of first borns (although could have been a tropical disease) or plague of dark (unless there was an eclipse and lots of clouds).
Even if we accept that the story in Exodus has elements of truth in it, there's no reason to invoke global climatic changes. Much of the weather effects could be explicable just by "normal" freak weather and local climate
so then the increases in "freak" weather today could be for the same reasons yes?
Yes, they could be. And they probably mostly are.
An increase in global tempertures is going to make a statistical difference, not a readily apparent one. There's never going to be an instance at which a person can point to a hurricane and say "global warming caused that". But a 5% increase in adverse weather and local climate effects translates to a considerable human cost.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
I use the wink in case someone takes offense sym, not be tricky, I do this light heartedly I don't want direct comments to be taken as insults, I enjoy debate and don't take anything on here personally as I hope others don't.
that Peter dietze thing you posted I think is mentioned in my link (a link within the link) as him actually having nothing to do with it and actually asking for his name to be removed or it being a different P.Dietze I know there was 1 such event on there
Fire tom I read your link and
[quote : link]
Some effects on both the natural environment and human life are, at least in part, already being attributed to global warming. Glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and extreme weather events, are being attributed at least in part to global warming. While changes are expected for overall patterns, intensity, and frequencies, it is difficult or impossible to attribute specific events (such as Hurricane Katrina) to global warming.
seems pretty vague to me the "difficult or impossible to attribute specific events to global warnming" and if you talk about events generally (micro or macro scale), isn't that just a group of specific events?
I won't line up the scientists for you to shoot down, however why would so many put their name against the IPCC?
My argument is not clear cut I was throwing obstacles at you to see if anyone had any doubts about IPCC findings, because what I wanted to know was, if the IPCC suddenly changed it's stance (it won't I don't think there is too much money involved) would you all? if the IPCC took another look at findings, realised they had over dramatised the effects and things wouldn't be so bad would you agree with them or has the idea of the global warming disaster been so ingrained in peoples heads through the media that they have lost the ability change their minds or absorb new ideas?
Most people on here are pretty intelligent.
I may have been a bit strange in my arguements BUT the point I want to make is what if the IPCC are wrong? millinons of pounds will have been spent on something we can do nothing about (which I see it as anyway because until the fuel is gone or is made illegal by every country on Earth we will use it)
could the funds have been put to better use? is CO2 the problem or are there other far more serious man made pollutant problems that are being overlooked and under funded by this dogged pursuit of an unattainable goal? and finally IS global warming (CO2)research a way to pay a scientists way if they agree with the IPCC? because if they don't it's a proffessional black listing even if it was done with good intentions.
Also, as I said on page 1 if I didn't argue this would have been an agreement thread more than a discussion. occassionally I like to try and defend the most unlikely causes because looking at things from the other perspective helps. hell I could argue for global warming so well if I wanted to now because I have so many arguements to choose from
I use the wink in case someone takes offense sym, not be tricky, I do this light heartedly I don't want direct comments to be taken as insults, I enjoy debate and don't take anything on here personally as I hope others don't.
that Peter dietze thing you posted I think is mentioned in my link (a link within the link) as him actually having nothing to do with it and actually asking for his name to be removed or it being a different P.Dietze I know there was 1 such event on there
Fire tom I read your link and
[quote : link]
Some effects on both the natural environment and human life are, at least in part, already being attributed to global warming. Glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and extreme weather events, are being attributed at least in part to global warming. While changes are expected for overall patterns, intensity, and frequencies, it is difficult or impossible to attribute specific events (such as Hurricane Katrina) to global warming.
seems pretty vague to me the "difficult or impossible to attribute specific events to global warnming" and if you talk about events generally (micro or macro scale), isn't that just a group of specific events?
I won't line up the scientists for you to shoot down, however why would so many put their name against the IPCC?
My argument is not clear cut I was throwing obstacles at you to see if anyone had any doubts about IPCC findings, because what I wanted to know was, if the IPCC suddenly changed it's stance (it won't I don't think there is too much money involved) would you all? if the IPCC took another look at findings, realised they had over dramatised the effects and things wouldn't be so bad would you agree with them or has the idea of the global warming disaster been so ingrained in peoples heads through the media that they have lost the ability change their minds or absorb new ideas?
Most people on here are pretty intelligent.
I may have been a bit strange in my arguements BUT the point I want to make is what if the IPCC are wrong? millinons of pounds will have been spent on something we can do nothing about (which I see it as anyway because until the fuel is gone or is made illegal by every country on Earth we will use it)
could the funds have been put to better use? is CO2 the problem or are there other far more serious man made pollutant problems that are being overlooked and under funded by this dogged pursuit of an unattainable goal? and finally IS global warming (CO2)research a way to pay a scientists way if they agree with the IPCC? because if they don't it's a proffessional black listing even if it was done with good intentions.
Also, as I said on page 1 if I didn't argue this would have been an agreement thread more than a discussion.
occassionally I like to try and defend the most unlikely causes because looking at things from the other perspective helps. hell I could argue for global warming so well if I wanted to now because I have so many arguements to choose from A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
true, but if it is "normal" increases even several tiny "normal" increases how is it man made global warming? and how does the IPCC report help?
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: MynciWritten by: jeff(fake)Written by: Mynci
Could global warming have been the cause for noahs flood and (some) of the 10 plagues of Egypt, boils increase in insects (beetles and flies) locusts, hail (freak weather) I don't reckon the water into blood, death of first borns (although could have been a tropical disease) or plague of dark (unless there was an eclipse and lots of clouds).
Even if we accept that the story in Exodus has elements of truth in it, there's no reason to invoke global climatic changes. Much of the weather effects could be explicable just by "normal" freak weather and local climate
so then the increases in "freak" weather today could be for the same reasons yes?
Yes, they could be. And they probably mostly are.
An increase in global tempertures is going to make a statistical difference, not a readily apparent one. There's never going to be an instance at which a person can point to a hurricane and say "global warming caused that". But a 5% increase in adverse weather and local climate effects translates to a considerable human cost.
true, but if it is "normal" increases even several tiny "normal" increases how is it man made global warming? and how does the IPCC report help?
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Fair enough
I agree, and tend to take it as read that no personal insults are intended
Well it sounds like he was sent a copy to review, submitted a load of changed that were rejected and then objected when he was listed on the list of reviewers. Donno, but that sounds plausible.
Yes, I would change my mind to agree with them for as long as they followed the best peer reviewed science that was available to them at the time and remained true to the scientific method. That is what makes climate science different from a religion: if we are shown to be wrong we will change our minds. In fact, our minds are only made up AFTER we have seen evidence for something.
I'm sure you'll understand that I can't speak for everyone, but I do not believe the IPCC for the kicks I get out of it! There are a lot of problems with perception and understanding of science in the wider public, and that is one of the reasons why programs like this one become so popular and believed: people aren't very good at critical, logical thought. I have no reason to think that anyone would change what they thought about climate change just because science did - just look at the vast array of 'healing' methods (homeopathy for example), all the pseudo-science nonsense (like shampoo adverts for a start) and worst of all religion that we are brainwashed with every day. With all of that being so popular and 'mother nature' being seen as some holy being that is made up of everything that is 'clean' and 'pure' I don't think there is any hope of changing the 'greeny' movement in the future. I just don't have a go at them because they are coincidently agreeing with the science, but I really don't think science had much to do with the start of the movement. I could go on - but I think you get the idea.
There is a lot we can do, and we should attempt to act now if only because it is a good chance to balance the inequalities in the world we see today. Despite what that program said, I see climate change action as something that will harm us in the west far more than any 3rd world country. Any attempt to unify the world can only be good, right?
Well I for one would like to see more wars against countries that don't accept our unfair trade agreements that serve only to promote western capitalism.
Failing that, we can always use some more nukes - I *love* those things! Just thinking about melting the flesh of some dirty peasants makes me go all tingly inside
Well it's greenhouse gas that is the problem, but it happens that CO2 is the main one that we emit. Methane has a greater greenhouse effect, but we don't emit very much of that (*insert joke about Chutney here*) so it's not a very big worry. It will be a worry when the ice caps melt more (they are melting quicker now than we expected, and the IPCC didn't take this faster rate in to account, so if anything the effects will be worse and quicker than they estimated, but I don't think any research in to the difference it will make has been done yet) and they start to chuck out tonnes of the stuff.
Not agreeing with the IPCC: Well, there are many people who don't, but they wouldn't get blackballed if they could show some sound reasons behind it. Most of the people I've heard whining about this are the people who are either mad or sell outs, and they are using that argument as another tactic to discredit the idea.
You have to remember that scientists give the highest awards they have to people who prove them _wrong_. When you publish a paper, your peers try to knock you down, show you up, prove you are wrong, because that is how science works. So when some wacko guy steps up (like our friends with that graph) and talks some nonsense, it is only right that other scientists knock them down - that is what they are there for!
As I said, you should become a flat earther - you'll learn a lot about the world that way too!
Written by: Mynci
I use the wink in case someone takes offense sym, not be tricky, I do this light heartedly I don't want direct comments to be taken as insults, I enjoy debate and don't take anything on here personally as I hope others don't.
Fair enough
I agree, and tend to take it as read that no personal insults are intended Written by: Mynci
that Peter dietze thing you posted I think is mentioned in my link (a link within the link) as him actually having nothing to do with it and actually asking for his name to be removed or it being a different P.Dietze I know there was 1 such event on there
Well it sounds like he was sent a copy to review, submitted a load of changed that were rejected and then objected when he was listed on the list of reviewers. Donno, but that sounds plausible.
Written by: Mynci
if the IPCC suddenly changed it's stance (it won't I don't think there is too much money involved) would you all?
Yes, I would change my mind to agree with them for as long as they followed the best peer reviewed science that was available to them at the time and remained true to the scientific method. That is what makes climate science different from a religion: if we are shown to be wrong we will change our minds. In fact, our minds are only made up AFTER we have seen evidence for something.
Written by: Mynci
if the IPCC took another look at findings, realised they had over dramatised the effects and things wouldn't be so bad would you agree with them or has the idea of the global warming disaster been so ingrained in peoples heads through the media that they have lost the ability change their minds or absorb new ideas?
I'm sure you'll understand that I can't speak for everyone, but I do not believe the IPCC for the kicks I get out of it! There are a lot of problems with perception and understanding of science in the wider public, and that is one of the reasons why programs like this one become so popular and believed: people aren't very good at critical, logical thought. I have no reason to think that anyone would change what they thought about climate change just because science did - just look at the vast array of 'healing' methods (homeopathy for example), all the pseudo-science nonsense (like shampoo adverts for a start) and worst of all religion that we are brainwashed with every day. With all of that being so popular and 'mother nature' being seen as some holy being that is made up of everything that is 'clean' and 'pure' I don't think there is any hope of changing the 'greeny' movement in the future. I just don't have a go at them because they are coincidently agreeing with the science, but I really don't think science had much to do with the start of the movement. I could go on - but I think you get the idea.
Written by: Mynci
I may have been a bit strange in my arguements BUT the point I want to make is what if the IPCC are wrong? millinons of pounds will have been spent on something we can do nothing about (which I see it as anyway because until the fuel is gone or is made illegal by every country on Earth we will use it)
There is a lot we can do, and we should attempt to act now if only because it is a good chance to balance the inequalities in the world we see today. Despite what that program said, I see climate change action as something that will harm us in the west far more than any 3rd world country. Any attempt to unify the world can only be good, right?
Written by: Mynci
could the funds have been put to better use?
Well I for one would like to see more wars against countries that don't accept our unfair trade agreements that serve only to promote western capitalism.
Failing that, we can always use some more nukes - I *love* those things! Just thinking about melting the flesh of some dirty peasants makes me go all tingly inside
Written by: Mynci
is CO2 the problem or are there other far more serious man made pollutant problems that are being overlooked and under funded by this dogged pursuit of an unattainable goal? and finally IS global warming (CO2)research a way to pay a scientists way if they agree with the IPCC? because if they don't it's a proffessional black listing even if it was done with good intentions.
Well it's greenhouse gas that is the problem, but it happens that CO2 is the main one that we emit. Methane has a greater greenhouse effect, but we don't emit very much of that (*insert joke about Chutney here*) so it's not a very big worry. It will be a worry when the ice caps melt more (they are melting quicker now than we expected, and the IPCC didn't take this faster rate in to account, so if anything the effects will be worse and quicker than they estimated, but I don't think any research in to the difference it will make has been done yet) and they start to chuck out tonnes of the stuff.
Not agreeing with the IPCC: Well, there are many people who don't, but they wouldn't get blackballed if they could show some sound reasons behind it. Most of the people I've heard whining about this are the people who are either mad or sell outs, and they are using that argument as another tactic to discredit the idea.
You have to remember that scientists give the highest awards they have to people who prove them _wrong_. When you publish a paper, your peers try to knock you down, show you up, prove you are wrong, because that is how science works. So when some wacko guy steps up (like our friends with that graph) and talks some nonsense, it is only right that other scientists knock them down - that is what they are there for!
Written by: Mynci
Also, as I said on page 1 if I didn't argue this would have been an agreement thread more than a discussion.
As I said, you should become a flat earther - you'll learn a lot about the world that way too!
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Probably. although I'm still confused about some issues with CO2 I've looked at loads of graphs and this one of temp versus CO2 (although the axis are a bit out of line the lines are clear and most have shown similar data.
firstly why has global temperature dropped recently according to ice core data?
and secondly (probably easily explained) if you look at the first graph on the first link in the "last 25 years" section (and I have seen this many times) co2 levels are dramatically switching up and down with a net UP, the explination for this seems to be that during the summer plants uptake more CO2 reducing levels but not all the way back to before the season started. the thing that confuses me about this is... we have 2 hemispheres so surely there would be 2 summers? did IPCC records for CO2 uptake take measurements from both hemishperes and balance the data or was everything taken from 1 source and that used? I agree there seems to be a net increase but with ice caps retreating there should be an increase in weathering so as ice caps melt MORE CO2 will be removed from the air. the question is can we strike a balance so we do not produce more co2 than the plants and rocks can FIX from the atmosphere?
I wonder if Man could prevent an Ice age like this (finding a balance with nature with regard to CO2 emissions)? and would an ice age be worse than global warming
I've enjoyed this
Probably. although I'm still confused about some issues with CO2 I've looked at loads of graphs and this one of temp versus CO2 (although the axis are a bit out of line the lines are clear and most have shown similar data.
firstly why has global temperature dropped recently according to ice core data?
and secondly (probably easily explained) if you look at the first graph on the first link in the "last 25 years" section (and I have seen this many times) co2 levels are dramatically switching up and down with a net UP, the explination for this seems to be that during the summer plants uptake more CO2 reducing levels but not all the way back to before the season started. the thing that confuses me about this is... we have 2 hemispheres so surely there would be 2 summers? did IPCC records for CO2 uptake take measurements from both hemishperes and balance the data or was everything taken from 1 source and that used? I agree there seems to be a net increase but with ice caps retreating there should be an increase in weathering so as ice caps melt MORE CO2 will be removed from the air. the question is can we strike a balance so we do not produce more co2 than the plants and rocks can FIX from the atmosphere?
I wonder if Man could prevent an Ice age like this (finding a balance with nature with regard to CO2 emissions)? and would an ice age be worse than global warming
I've enjoyed this
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
This will be my nerdiest responce ever. I'm invoking rpg combat systems.
You've got a sword. You roll the d20 to determine if you hit the monster (lets say it's 10 or more). You'll pretty much have a 50/50 chance of whacking it then.
Now lets say you've got a +1 sword. All rolls to hit get +1 to the dice role. You will then only need a 9 or more. It's still random, but much more likely. And so on with +n swords.
The dice roll here is analogous the "random" influences on the weather. The +n is analogous to the effects of global warming. Whilst the random influences are strictly speaking more important, the overall constant effect of the +n or warming will have a very real statistical effect.
Written by: MynciWritten by: Mynci
so then the increases in "freak" weather today could be for the same reasons yes?Written by: jeff(fake)
Yes, they could be. And they probably mostly are.
An increase in global tempertures is going to make a statistical difference, not a readily apparent one. There's never going to be an instance at which a person can point to a hurricane and say "global warming caused that". But a 5% increase in adverse weather and local climate effects translates to a considerable human cost.
true, but if it is "normal" increases even several tiny "normal" increases how is it man made global warming? and how does the IPCC report help?
This will be my nerdiest responce ever. I'm invoking rpg combat systems.
You've got a sword. You roll the d20 to determine if you hit the monster (lets say it's 10 or more). You'll pretty much have a 50/50 chance of whacking it then.
Now lets say you've got a +1 sword. All rolls to hit get +1 to the dice role. You will then only need a 9 or more. It's still random, but much more likely. And so on with +n swords.
The dice roll here is analogous the "random" influences on the weather. The +n is analogous to the effects of global warming. Whilst the random influences are strictly speaking more important, the overall constant effect of the +n or warming will have a very real statistical effect.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
Posted:
It was nerdy, but I understood it!
It was nerdy, but I understood it! Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
geek
geek There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Post deleted by Mynci
Post deleted by Mynci
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think the point is that the +n is warming above what we would expect from the normal pattern. That warming is caused by the greenhouse effect from having more greenhouse gases, and we are emitting those gases.
The problem is that is has a positive feedback loop in it: more ice caps melting = more greenhouse gases = warming = ice caps melting.
I think the point is that the +n is warming above what we would expect from the normal pattern. That warming is caused by the greenhouse effect from having more greenhouse gases, and we are emitting those gases.
The problem is that is has a positive feedback loop in it: more ice caps melting = more greenhouse gases = warming = ice caps melting.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
yeah I misread Jeffs post because my browser is pants and when writting my post browser crashed and submitted it, sorry,. apologies to jeff for deleted post. so event effected by global warming would be:
n in 20 (for your analogy) yes?
sym
however more ice caps melting means LESS green house gases. as I pointed out earlier it means more rocks are exposed (causing weathering) and more plankton and plant life thrive, this is how previous periods of warming have been reversed into Ice ages. ice caps melting are the way to equalise the temperature NOT a way to increase greenhouse gases.
what melting ice caps DOES do is effect water currents, by shifting the warm - cool temperature differences between surface and deep water.
I can't see how freak weather effects can effect other weather effects. (not including the infamous butterfly effect)
yeah I misread Jeffs post because my browser is pants and when writting my post browser crashed and submitted it, sorry,.
apologies to jeff for deleted post. so event effected by global warming would be:n in 20 (for your analogy) yes?
sym
however more ice caps melting means LESS green house gases. as I pointed out earlier it means more rocks are exposed (causing weathering) and more plankton and plant life thrive, this is how previous periods of warming have been reversed into Ice ages. ice caps melting are the way to equalise the temperature NOT a way to increase greenhouse gases.
what melting ice caps DOES do is effect water currents, by shifting the warm - cool temperature differences between surface and deep water.
I can't see how freak weather effects can effect other weather effects. (not including the infamous butterfly effect)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
In the analogy that would be accurate, but I think you're overextending it a little. Imagine a world where there are about a million d20 and you can't see any of them, and your getting there.
The point to take home is that global warming would lead to a statistical increase in adverse conditions, but not to any concrete weather effects that could be decisively stated as being "caused by" global warming.
Written by: Mynci
so event effected by global warming would be:
n in 20 (for your analogy) yes?
In the analogy that would be accurate, but I think you're overextending it a little. Imagine a world where there are about a million d20 and you can't see any of them, and your getting there.
The point to take home is that global warming would lead to a statistical increase in adverse conditions, but not to any concrete weather effects that could be decisively stated as being "caused by" global warming.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I don't know as much about chemical weathering, but from what I can tell (from a scan of wikipedia) it is a way of sequestering CO2, not methane.
Please tell me I'm wrong - because that is a very worrying bit of information if I'm reading it correctly.
some good (not directly related) links:
Can 2°C warming be avoided?
Antarctic's ice 'melting faster'
What triggers ice ages?
I don't know as much about chemical weathering, but from what I can tell (from a scan of wikipedia) it is a way of sequestering CO2, not methane.
Written by: wikipedia
Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 23 over a 100 year period. This means that a 1 tonne methane emission will have 23 times the impact on temperature of a 1 tonne carbon dioxide emission during the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (about 10 years), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 63. The methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750 and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.
Please tell me I'm wrong - because that is a very worrying bit of information if I'm reading it correctly.
some good (not directly related) links:
Can 2°C warming be avoided?
Antarctic's ice 'melting faster'
What triggers ice ages?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes, but there isn't an equal balance of land mass, so there will be a difference between the 2. The sea will have some sequestering effect, but I'm not sure what is greater: sea or biomass.
Either way, we're looking at 5 year or more trends, so yearly difference will be included in that data.
I'm not 100% of the source of the IPCC data, but my guess is that they will have mostly collated past research from all over the world. I'd be interested to know how much original research they did actually *looks*
edit: This doesn't help the first question, but it does show some of the workings of the IPCC. The whole site is worth looking at actually: https://www.climateaudit.org/?p=661
EDITED_BY: Sym (1174659213)
Written by: Mynci
we have 2 hemispheres so surely there would be 2 summers?
Yes, but there isn't an equal balance of land mass, so there will be a difference between the 2. The sea will have some sequestering effect, but I'm not sure what is greater: sea or biomass.
Either way, we're looking at 5 year or more trends, so yearly difference will be included in that data.
I'm not 100% of the source of the IPCC data, but my guess is that they will have mostly collated past research from all over the world. I'd be interested to know how much original research they did actually *looks*
edit: This doesn't help the first question, but it does show some of the workings of the IPCC. The whole site is worth looking at actually: https://www.climateaudit.org/?p=661
EDITED_BY: Sym (1174659213)
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
They were (in 2001)...
https://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11083-sea-level-rise-outpacing-key-predictions.html
So the IPCC has shown itself to be overly conservative in its predictions - not a sensationalist group given to wild unsupportable claims in order to attract more funding.
Should this be taken as a reason to believe that we should ignore the advice of the leading scientific experts on the subject? Well no... But it does mean that you shouldn't have unshakeable faith in the predictions of people who don't claim to have definite answers, but whose data strongly suggests that there is currently an anthropogenic impact on global climate.
Yes - it was quite obviously per capita, as suggested by the statement at the end... However the your confusion here is caused by your lack of a secondary school science education.
My post is about carbon dioxide. This can be deduced by my listing CO2 twice... You on the other hand refer to tonnes of carbon. Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are not the same thing... This is where the periodic table comes in... Carbon has an atomic weight of 6. Oxygen has an atomic weight of 8. Carbon Dioxide has one atom of carbon and two of oxygen, thus an atomic weight of 24. To obtain the amount of carbon in c02 you therefore divide by 3.666 (24/6=3.666)...
Thus you're statement ought to read the average domestic carbon dioxide waste per person is 3.66 tones - meaning that industrial, commerical and transport add up to the other 5.74 cubic tonnes.
Actually this is wrong. According to the UK Government, last year the total waste has changed to 9.2 cubic tonnes CO2 per capita.
https://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/regionalrpt/localghgdefrasum20061127.pdf
of this 2.6 tonnes are domestic. 2.6 tonnes are transport and 4.1 tonnes are commerical and industrial. And yes that does add up to 9.3 but I guess that's government statistics for you (or they rounded things to 0.1 but added more accurate totals for the sum total).
You're right that the statistics can be misleading though... They do not include emissions for international flights or shipping - meaning that they are inevitably lower in industrialized nations than they should be. Assuming that the average UK citizen is more likely to fly to their holiday destination than the average Cambodian (who is unlikely to get a holiday at all) we can then understand that these figures actually make the difference look smaller than it really is in most cases. This also leads to the logical absurdity that means according to government figures - for us to meet our 60% carbon dioxide emissions cut by 2050, one efficient method is to ship/fly goods out, have them processed/made overseas and shipped back to the UK for sale. Using their methods this creates far less of an environmental problem than local industry.
I'm less clear on how it affects the UK/US difference - as many Americans fly to go on holiday within their own county their emissions (I think) are counted - and this may partially explain why their average per capita emissions are over double that of the UK and Japan - hardly backwards nations filled with peasants... I'm also unclear on whether UK/US carbon emitted blowing up bit of Iraq count as our emissions or wheter they're put down as Iraqi emissions? Any suggestions?
Written by: Mynci
I may have been a bit strange in my arguements BUT the point I want to make is what if the IPCC are wrong?
They were (in 2001)...
Written by: NewScientist
Predictions of how much sea-levels would rise due to climate change, made by a key UN report in 2001, were conservative, say researchers on the eve of the release of the new update of the report.
Stefan Rahmstorf at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, and colleagues, compared the predictions made in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with the actual subsequent data. The factors they compared were temperature, sea-level rise and concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The researchers found that changes in CO2 concentrations between 1990 and 2005 followed the 2001 predictions of the computer models "almost exactly" (see graph, right).
Although the last IPCC report was released in 2001, the models used to make the predictions essentially did not include actual data from after 1990. This is because the models are based on equations representing the best understanding of the physical processes that govern climate, and in 2001 they were not fine-tuned to reproduce the most recent data.
Exceeding estimates
On temperature, the actual rise was near the top end of the range of the 2001 temperature predictions (see graph). Recent data from NASA and the UK's Hadley Centre show that the average global temperature rose by 0.33°C between 1990 and 2006.
With sea-level rise, however, the researchers found that the range of 2001 predictions were lower than the actual rise. Satellite data shows that levels have rose by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2006. The 2001 IPCC report, in contrast, projected a best-estimate rise of less than 2 mm per year.
However, the actual sea level rise does match the upper limit of the IPCC's predictions, if the significant uncertainty about the behaviour of land ice is taken into account. This uncertainty stems from the fact that the likely contribution of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets to sea-level rises is still largely unknown.
"Previous projections, as summarised by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level," conclude the scientists, writing in Science.
On Sunday, Rahmstorf told Associated Press that "in a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk".
https://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11083-sea-level-rise-outpacing-key-predictions.html
So the IPCC has shown itself to be overly conservative in its predictions - not a sensationalist group given to wild unsupportable claims in order to attract more funding.
Should this be taken as a reason to believe that we should ignore the advice of the leading scientific experts on the subject? Well no... But it does mean that you shouldn't have unshakeable faith in the predictions of people who don't claim to have definite answers, but whose data strongly suggests that there is currently an anthropogenic impact on global climate.
Written by: dream
Average amount of CO2 emissions per year in cubic tonnes (2003)
US 19.8
UK 9.4
Argentina 3.3
Cuba 2.3
Bangladesh 0.25
Uganda 0.06
Cambodia 0.04
So on average, 500 Cambodians emit as much co2 as one american
Written by: mynci
Another interseting statistical fib I think you missed per person on that statement, the other factor here is are you talking about domestic waste, or total industrial waste? in the UK it is 1 cubic tonnes of DOMESTIC carbon waste PER PERSON, this does not take into account industrial waste, so your figure of 9.4 means there is 8.4 cubic metres of industrial carbon waste per person 2003)
Yes - it was quite obviously per capita, as suggested by the statement at the end... However the your confusion here is caused by your lack of a secondary school science education.
My post is about carbon dioxide. This can be deduced by my listing CO2 twice... You on the other hand refer to tonnes of carbon. Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are not the same thing... This is where the periodic table comes in... Carbon has an atomic weight of 6. Oxygen has an atomic weight of 8. Carbon Dioxide has one atom of carbon and two of oxygen, thus an atomic weight of 24. To obtain the amount of carbon in c02 you therefore divide by 3.666 (24/6=3.666)...
Thus you're statement ought to read the average domestic carbon dioxide waste per person is 3.66 tones - meaning that industrial, commerical and transport add up to the other 5.74 cubic tonnes.
Actually this is wrong. According to the UK Government, last year the total waste has changed to 9.2 cubic tonnes CO2 per capita.
https://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/regionalrpt/localghgdefrasum20061127.pdf
of this 2.6 tonnes are domestic. 2.6 tonnes are transport and 4.1 tonnes are commerical and industrial. And yes that does add up to 9.3 but I guess that's government statistics for you (or they rounded things to 0.1 but added more accurate totals for the sum total).
You're right that the statistics can be misleading though... They do not include emissions for international flights or shipping - meaning that they are inevitably lower in industrialized nations than they should be. Assuming that the average UK citizen is more likely to fly to their holiday destination than the average Cambodian (who is unlikely to get a holiday at all) we can then understand that these figures actually make the difference look smaller than it really is in most cases. This also leads to the logical absurdity that means according to government figures - for us to meet our 60% carbon dioxide emissions cut by 2050, one efficient method is to ship/fly goods out, have them processed/made overseas and shipped back to the UK for sale. Using their methods this creates far less of an environmental problem than local industry.
I'm less clear on how it affects the UK/US difference - as many Americans fly to go on holiday within their own county their emissions (I think) are counted - and this may partially explain why their average per capita emissions are over double that of the UK and Japan - hardly backwards nations filled with peasants... I'm also unclear on whether UK/US carbon emitted blowing up bit of Iraq count as our emissions or wheter they're put down as Iraqi emissions? Any suggestions?
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Again, you're getting silly with the scale. The amount of CO2 generated by a bullet or bomb is minimal in comparison with the amount of gasoline burned in a day. Even when they were burning oil fields, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of oil generated (and therefore burned) in the rest of the world.
Plus, the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis severely cuts the amount of CO2 that they would generate/be responsible for in their lifetime.
From a global warming perspective, killing innocent babies is extremely effective. They younger they are killed, the less of a carbon footprint they leave right?
Perhaps it's not best to mix the two.
Written by: dream
I'm also unclear on whether UK/US carbon emitted blowing up bit of Iraq count as our emissions or wheter they're put down as Iraqi emissions? Any suggestions?
Again, you're getting silly with the scale. The amount of CO2 generated by a bullet or bomb is minimal in comparison with the amount of gasoline burned in a day. Even when they were burning oil fields, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of oil generated (and therefore burned) in the rest of the world.
Plus, the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis severely cuts the amount of CO2 that they would generate/be responsible for in their lifetime.
From a global warming perspective, killing innocent babies is extremely effective. They younger they are killed, the less of a carbon footprint they leave right?
Perhaps it's not best to mix the two.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
But the cost of shipping 10s of thousand troops there and back and all the equipment, plus the fuel they burn every day will add to the total emissions of a country.
In 2003 the per capita emissions in Iraq were 2.7 - that will have gone up if the emissions of the war were added to their total.
I don't think dream was saying that the Iraq war caused global warming - he was asking if activity in a country by occupying forces counts for that country or the occupying one.
If it did, that might explain why the American empire has the highest emissions.
But the cost of shipping 10s of thousand troops there and back and all the equipment, plus the fuel they burn every day will add to the total emissions of a country.
In 2003 the per capita emissions in Iraq were 2.7 - that will have gone up if the emissions of the war were added to their total.
I don't think dream was saying that the Iraq war caused global warming - he was asking if activity in a country by occupying forces counts for that country or the occupying one.
If it did, that might explain why the American empire has the highest emissions.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Well of course the PER CAPITA emissions will go up. If it keeps gettin ugly, there won't be any CAPTITA to PER.
Keep in mind that 2.5% of the entire Iraqi population has been killed in the war! 655,000 people won't ever drive a car/buy a product that's been shipped or flown/buy food/or use ANY energy EVER again.
Not only that. They won't have any more kids. Or grandkids.
Honestly, I can't imagine a more effective way to cut down on CO2 emissions than by killing people. Even if you need to fly people out to kill those people.
I'm obviously not advocating that, I'm just talking numbers. And perhaps suggesting that we need to balance ethics when discussing any issue.
Well of course the PER CAPITA emissions will go up. If it keeps gettin ugly, there won't be any CAPTITA to PER.
Keep in mind that 2.5% of the entire Iraqi population has been killed in the war! 655,000 people won't ever drive a car/buy a product that's been shipped or flown/buy food/or use ANY energy EVER again.
Not only that. They won't have any more kids. Or grandkids.
Honestly, I can't imagine a more effective way to cut down on CO2 emissions than by killing people. Even if you need to fly people out to kill those people.
I'm obviously not advocating that, I'm just talking numbers. And perhaps suggesting that we need to balance ethics when discussing any issue.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
Apparently the west coast of Canada lost three months worth of sunshine this winter! EEEEK! Thank God I was gone. that is 150 hours of sunshine, missing. It rained, then it rained some more, still raining. And no, it is not el nina or el nino, or el nemo. Apparently it is just an inexplicable weather abberation. That's what the news said.
Yet it serves us bloody well right for our heavy polluting habits. Maybe three months of rainy misery gave people time to think.
I am sure more people kill themselves in the gloomy damp dark rainy season, so maybe that will help the situation, eh, NYC?
Apparently the west coast of Canada lost three months worth of sunshine this winter! EEEEK! Thank God I was gone. that is 150 hours of sunshine, missing. It rained, then it rained some more, still raining. And no, it is not el nina or el nino, or el nemo. Apparently it is just an inexplicable weather abberation. That's what the news said.
Yet it serves us bloody well right for our heavy polluting habits. Maybe three months of rainy misery gave people time to think.
I am sure more people kill themselves in the gloomy damp dark rainy season, so maybe that will help the situation, eh, NYC?
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Following this, the US seems to have joined the Kyoto protocol in it's own ways (by simply killing other nationals in order to make up for their excessive CO2 emissions) - fair enough.
Now, what is the CO2 footprint of a bullet and how many of them are needed to kill someone (count those which miss their target)... ?
But I get the idea: The CO2 footprint of every soldier fighting (anywhere and assuming that he does his job right) is lower as of the one who plants a tree.
As in: How many trees would one have to plant in order to reach the CO2-reduction of a (successful) soldier?
Sheds some pretty new light here (*humms "Twilight-Zone"*)
BTW "balancing ethics before discussing" cuts the fun out of it...
Following this, the US seems to have joined the Kyoto protocol in it's own ways (by simply killing other nationals in order to make up for their excessive CO2 emissions) - fair enough.
Now, what is the CO2 footprint of a bullet and how many of them are needed to kill someone (count those which miss their target)... ?
But I get the idea: The CO2 footprint of every soldier fighting (anywhere and assuming that he does his job right) is lower as of the one who plants a tree.
As in: How many trees would one have to plant in order to reach the CO2-reduction of a (successful) soldier?
Sheds some pretty new light here (*humms "Twilight-Zone"*)
BTW "balancing ethics before discussing" cuts the fun out of it...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Ok then, seeing as we're straying from rational thought:
A body will emit carbon as it de-composes. I don't know how much, but there will be some. If it is cremated then some of it will go in to the atmosphere. If it's buried then I guess in the short term there is no real effect.
However.
In the war there are fighter jets, helicopters and armoured vehicles moving about all the time. I would have thought the jets are the worst polluters of them all.
So: every (us) solder has:
About 15 tonnes of C02 emissions (assuming they use less at home because of spending time over seas) plus the emissions from flying over to kill the people in the first place plus the emissions from whatever form of transport they use to burn about the place in.
That means that before they leave home, each US solder has to kill about 5 Iraqis each, but after everything else they have to kill about 6 each.
So, with 140,000 of them, they have about 150,000 more people to kill.
Now I might go off and try to get some information on dreams question.
Ok then, seeing as we're straying from rational thought:
A body will emit carbon as it de-composes. I don't know how much, but there will be some. If it is cremated then some of it will go in to the atmosphere. If it's buried then I guess in the short term there is no real effect.
However.
In the war there are fighter jets, helicopters and armoured vehicles moving about all the time. I would have thought the jets are the worst polluters of them all.
So: every (us) solder has:
About 15 tonnes of C02 emissions (assuming they use less at home because of spending time over seas) plus the emissions from flying over to kill the people in the first place plus the emissions from whatever form of transport they use to burn about the place in.
That means that before they leave home, each US solder has to kill about 5 Iraqis each, but after everything else they have to kill about 6 each.
So, with 140,000 of them, they have about 150,000 more people to kill.
Now I might go off and try to get some information on dreams question.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
Military vehicles aren't paricularly fuel efficient:
M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank 0.6 mpg
Bradley Armoured Fighting Vehicle 1.5 mpg
HMMWV 8 mpg
On top of that a lot of energy needs to be used to manufacture and transport the heavy vehicles to the battlefield.
Nuclear powered aircraft carriers can get + marks for not using oil for fuel, but they are still releasing energy that was previously locked up in matter. Our use of energy affects global warming in two ways. There is the greenhouse gasses effect, and also the effect of adding energy that was in the fuel.
Explosives are another form of oil based fuel, and rebuilding destroyed buildings needs yet more energy.
Military vehicles aren't paricularly fuel efficient:
M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank 0.6 mpg
Bradley Armoured Fighting Vehicle 1.5 mpg
HMMWV 8 mpg
On top of that a lot of energy needs to be used to manufacture and transport the heavy vehicles to the battlefield.
Nuclear powered aircraft carriers can get + marks for not using oil for fuel, but they are still releasing energy that was previously locked up in matter. Our use of energy affects global warming in two ways. There is the greenhouse gasses effect, and also the effect of adding energy that was in the fuel.
Explosives are another form of oil based fuel, and rebuilding destroyed buildings needs yet more energy.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I forgot to put [/sarcastic statement, completely missing even a particle of reason] behind my post... grant me pardon on this one.
As for the rest I'm with you, waiting for Sym to return with an answer...
I forgot to put [/sarcastic statement, completely missing even a particle of reason] behind my post... grant me pardon on this one.
As for the rest I'm with you, waiting for Sym to return with an answer...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
back to dreams mention of holiday flilghts, would you say that each flight was counted twice? once as a fraction fro a person taking the flight and once as industrial emissions? and would that flights emissions be placed at:
a) country of origin
b) country of Plane ownership?
I can see somethings being counted several times that example gives 3 possible sources of CO2 emissions for 1 flight.
Personal
Industrial (airporrt) say UK
industrial (airline) say quatas (because they don't crash)
personal emissions must come from cars, smoking breathing.
electrical and gas emissions (if any) would surely be industrial (as the producers)
how is personal actually measured?
back to dreams mention of holiday flilghts, would you say that each flight was counted twice? once as a fraction fro a person taking the flight and once as industrial emissions? and would that flights emissions be placed at:
a) country of origin
b) country of Plane ownership?
I can see somethings being counted several times that example gives 3 possible sources of CO2 emissions for 1 flight.
Personal
Industrial (airporrt) say UK
industrial (airline) say quatas (because they don't crash)
personal emissions must come from cars, smoking breathing.
electrical and gas emissions (if any) would surely be industrial (as the producers)
how is personal actually measured?
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
International flights aren't counted at all, from what I can tell. They have no effect on any figure.
Good points on the other things. I think that things are more likely to not be counted than counted twice - so it would be safe to assume that the total actual emissions are higher than the figures we see, but I don't know what side of the industry/per capita emissions it should be added to.
International flights aren't counted at all, from what I can tell. They have no effect on any figure.
Good points on the other things. I think that things are more likely to not be counted than counted twice - so it would be safe to assume that the total actual emissions are higher than the figures we see, but I don't know what side of the industry/per capita emissions it should be added to.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [great global warming swindle] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > The Great Global Warming Swindle [139 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com