Poll: global warming

[Neuromantic]

Right, just to add to PJD's graphs, I created some hypothetical data that would help reveal the true extent of 'Global warming'. I.e is Global Warming a new 'induced' phenomenom or is it the lengthening (or shortening) of a natural period of climate change.

So I hope research would look for something like this:




To add to this graph, mean temperatures of the Sea, as well as air in the area would be added to the graph. You would also add into CO2 emmisionography. (that would look like this:)



The point I was trying to make, is that between the first 50 years and second 50 years, is the difference the same (what you would expect if climate change was natural) or if the hypothesis that climate change is natural but exacerbated by CO2 emmisions then you would see a significant difference between the two quasi-experimental conditions. With a cross section as above, you can look at the differences internally between each polar region, as well as compare the differences between the two...is one's increase bigger than the other? for example, or are the differences in proportion? Does the CO2 really relate to climate change? Did it cause it or effect it?

I love stats and graphs! :D

[aaaae]

Right, just to add to PJD's graphs, I created some hypothetical data that would help reveal the true extent of 'Global warming'. I.e is Global Warming a new 'induced' phenomenom or is it the lengthening (or shortening) of a natural period of climate change.

So I hope research would look for something like this:




To add to this graph, mean temperatures of the Sea, as well as air in the area would be added to the graph. You would also add into CO2 emmisionography. (that would look like this:)



The point I was trying to make, is that between the first 50 years and second 50 years, is the difference the same (what you would expect if climate change was natural) or if the hypothesis that climate change is natural but exacerbated by CO2 emmisions then you would see a significant difference between the two quasi-experimental conditions. With a cross section as above, you can look at the differences internally between each polar region, as well as compare the differences between the two...is one's increase bigger than the other? for example, or are the differences in proportion? Does the CO2 really relate to climate change? Did it cause it or effect it?

I love stats and graphs! :D

Can you extend the timescale to about 8,000 BC, when the Arctic ice sheet was as far south as England please? :mrgreen:

[Neuromantic]

:D

Hahaha! I'm talking guff apprently so no ;) Just kiddin Stevo!

But I find it fascinating how the planet works, so interesting! I mainly agree with you tho' - just cyclical.

[Whitti Steve]

:D

Hahaha! I'm talking guff apprently so no ;) Just kiddin Stevo!

But I find it fascinating how the planet works, so interesting! I mainly agree with you tho' - just cyclical.

"Guff" as in - "say it again in English please.... we aint all got an IQ as high as yours ubur-brain :mrgreen:

[Neuromantic]

:D

Hahaha! I'm talking guff apprently so no ;) Just kiddin Stevo!

But I find it fascinating how the planet works, so interesting! I mainly agree with you tho' - just cyclical.

"Guff" as in - "say it again in English please.... we aint all got an IQ as high as yours ubur-brain :mrgreen:

Ahh sorry Steve, forgive me for jumping to conclusions of people on here saying I talk nonsense! :lol: :D

[Pedagogue]

:D

Hahaha! I'm talking guff apparently so no ;) Just kiddin Stevo!

But I find it fascinating how the planet works, so interesting! I mainly agree with you tho' - just cyclical.

"Guff" as in - "say it again in English please.... we ain't all got an IQ as high as yours, ubur-brain :mrgreen:

Slight spelling error there, Steve - it's "durr-brain", not "ubur-brain". :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[Neuromantic]

:D

Hahaha! I'm talking guff apparently so no ;) Just kiddin Stevo!

But I find it fascinating how the planet works, so interesting! I mainly agree with you tho' - just cyclical.

"Guff" as in - "say it again in English please.... we ain't all got an IQ as high as yours, ubur-brain :mrgreen:

Slight spelling error there, Steve - it's "durr-brain", not "ubur-brain". :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Shouldn't it be 'Uber' with an umlaut over the 'U' anyway ? :mrgreen: :lol:

[SaigonSaddler]

Is there anything in that last exchange I should be arguing with? :?

[Exile]

UN IPCC release startling new evidence of global warming:







"We're just confirming the consensus" said a spokesman, "but there's no doubt that this is the most revealing graph yet to prove AGW and extend our research jobs until we retire".

[Whitti Steve]

The above will be on BBC news later :mrgreen:

[Exile]

Mark my words - Summer 2010 will be brilliant. The Warmist Alarmists will be out in force.

2011 won't be so good, 2012 better, then I'm afraid it'll be a few years before the next decent Summer.

You heard it here first.

[aaaae]

Mark my words - Summer 2010 will be brilliant. The Warmist Alarmists will be out in force.

2011 won't be so good, 2012 better, then I'm afraid it'll be a few years before the next decent Summer.

You heard it here first.

Is that northern hemisphere summer or southern hemisphere summer? I'm hoping for lots of snow this year!!

We could do with a cool summer in 2010 in the southern hemisphere. Our boys didn't cope too well in the heat in Doha against Brazil, and we could do with all the weather help we can get in South Africa.

[Exile]

The world cup in SA is in June, slap bang in the middle of their Winter, so daytime up to mid 20s, night time down towards freezing, depending on whether you're on the coast or the highlands.

[Exile]

Nice to see the Telegraph has finally smelt a rat. Their coverage of what is now being called 'Climategate' flies in the face of the BBC's seeming ignorance of the whole affair. Just in time for Copenhagen too (I note, sadly, that Nick Griffin will represent the EU skeptics camp - smart choice from the Greens, that one).

[canadiansaddler]

Mark my words - Summer 2010 will be brilliant. The Warmist Alarmists will be out in force.

2011 won't be so good, 2012 better, then I'm afraid it'll be a few years before the next decent Summer.

You heard it here first.

wont 2012 be the last summer :?:

[Whitti Steve]

Nice to see the Telegraph has finally smelt a rat. Their coverage of what is now being called 'Climategate' flies in the face of the BBC's seeming ignorance of the whole affair. Just in time for Copenhagen too (I note, sadly, that Nick Griffin will represent the EU skeptics camp - smart choice from the Greens, that one).

The BBC's ignorance... until "credit crunch" they spoke of nothing else for 3 years. Their ignorance is more of the fact that a few lightbulbs and an electic car ain't going to make a jot of difference wether you believe it is as bad as is made out or not.

[SaigonSaddler]

Prog. on tonight - Channel 4 at 9pm

[Exile]

Here's what happens when you don't "adjust" your data:

http://climate.arm.ac.uk/averages.html

Imagine that.

[aaaae]

How much CO2 is produced flying hundreds of scientists, journalists and govt ministers out to Copenhagen, having a week long conference, thousands of limo trips etc and flying them all back?

They're just a bunch of stinking hypocrites.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

If the scientists and govts believe in what they are saying, why the hell don't they just build a load of nuclear power stations and electric cars and get on with it and save us all from having to endure their endless sanctimonious tripe?

[Morty]

If the scientists and govts believe in what they are saying, why the hell don't they just build a load of nuclear power stations and electric cars and get on with it and save us all from having to endure their endless sanctimonious tripe?

Because building renewable energy power stations, electric cars, etc, etc costs money. Which in turn means either a) higher taxes or b) less money to spend on other things such as health and education - which in turn, governments see as vote winning things.

Basically governments won't spend money that they're not going to see a payback (in their eyes) within their term of office. It comes down to the fact that politicians (in all countries and all parties) are more concerned with their own cushy life and winning of an election then actually achieving anything substantial. :evil:

(At least Maggie had her beliefs and stuck to them - regardless of who she upset and who lost out as a result - lights touch paper and stands well back!! ;-) :twisted: )

Oh, and also people want to save the planet without having to pay for it! Its the same as nuclear power stations, prisons, etc, etc - people think they're wonderful until its decided to build one in their backyard. :evil:

Rant over! ;-)

[Morty]

Global warming still not happening?? :wink: :twisted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

First 2 lines:-

"The first decade of the 2000s is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, says the UK Met Office.

Its new analysis also shows that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record."

[aaaae]

Global warming still not happening?? :wink: :twisted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

First 2 lines:-

"The first decade of the 2000s is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, says the UK Met Office.

Its new analysis also shows that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record."

I don't think anyone is saying that warming isn't happening are they? They are just disputing the cause.

[Exile]

Global warming still not happening?? :wink: :twisted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

First 2 lines:-

"The first decade of the 2000s is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, says the UK Met Office.

Its new analysis also shows that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record."

I don't think anyone is saying that warming isn't happening are they? They are just disputing the cause.

...and the extent. The Met use the global network of weather stations for temperature reports. In 1970 there were over 15000 such stations, now there's just over 5000. Those that remain are generally in urban environments, with consequent Urban Heat Island (UHI) influences - cities generate heat and are several degrees warmer than the ambient environment. It's no coincidence that as the number fell, so the temperature records show an increase in average temperature. Here's a graphic illustration:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html

Here's an example of a temperature record from a weather station in a decent location:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... itemId=552

Here's one from a weather station in an urban environment:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... itemId=901

Here's a photo of that urban environment - airconditioning exhaust, steel, concrete base and even a BBQ that gets fired up nearby influence the record from this site.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... itemId=831

You can see the difference for yourselves. UHI and environment effects contaminate data, and isn't adequately corrected by any of the climate research departments who 'study' the data and collate information for the UN IPCC.

I've got no problem saying the earth has been warming since about 1750 when the little ice age was coming to an end. I ought to point out that the little ice age was preceded by two warm spells - Roman and Medieval, both of which were warmer than the current warm spell, neither of which were accompanied by the end of the human race. :D

[Whitti Steve]

Don't panic everyone... all our £5 green taxes for flying will soon save the world :wink: :lol:

[SaigonSaddler]

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Keep working those figures Exile! :lol:

You seem to be a little out of step with the 'rest of the world', but don't let that get in the way of your personal hobby horse.

Maybe you can submit the conclusions you made on the expanding ice-sheets, backed up with data from........well don't worry about that..... :mrgreen:

[SaigonSaddler]

Global warming still not happening?? :wink: :twisted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

First 2 lines:-

"The first decade of the 2000s is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, says the UK Met Office.

Its new analysis also shows that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record."

I don't think anyone is saying that warming isn't happening are they? They are just disputing the cause.

Apparently! :|

[preacher_man]

One For the sceptics:

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-nonsense

Good read, answers a few questions already raised.

Either way, we should look after our planet. Why wouldn't we want to do that?

Anyone who has ever turned off the tv for one second, left the sofa, and thought about their fellow man and the world around them will agree....

When you've seen the world, and how beautiful it can be, you'll do everything you can to make sure it stays that way.

Another for the sceptics:

http://crooksandliars.com/bob-cesca/glo ... dium=email

Peace out...

PS. Why are climate deniers also the ones who also refuse to make any personal sacrifice? Why do they only agree on policy that would directly affect themselves? And why are climate deniers big experts on climate change, but nothing else?

[Exile]

Welcome, preacher man.

You'll have to better than a link to a magazine that's gone backwards since its heyday in the 1970s and some amusing ditty, followed by the obligatory attack on anyone whose view doesn't coincide with your own. The assumption that climate "deniers" (your word, not mine) "refuse to make personal sacrifice" is a bit off the mark too. As to being big experts on climate change, don't you think it's important enough to understand, or did you stop reading about it after you found the BBC website and Wikipedia?

I think the world IS a beautiful spot, but how we look after it should not be left to an unelected, ill-conceived, self-interested rabble of politicos at the UN who'll end up taxing me and you to death to spend on third world scams and middlemen. Out of personal choice rather than strongarming I must confess to planting trees every year in the parks around Auckland, donating to various wildlife charities and generally taking a keen interest in my environment. Others may choose to do it differently.

Oh, I've done my bit for the future of the planet by not having any offspring. :wink:

[preacher_man]

Welcome, preacher man.

You'll have to better than a link to a magazine that's gone backwards since its heyday in the 1970s and some amusing ditty, followed by the obligatory attack on anyone whose view doesn't coincide with your own. The assumption that climate "deniers" (your word, not mine) "refuse to make personal sacrifice" is a bit off the mark too. As to being big experts on climate change, don't you think it's important enough to understand, or did you stop reading about it after you found the BBC website and Wikipedia?

I think the world IS a beautiful spot, but how we look after it should not be left to an unelected, ill-conceived, self-interested rabble of politicos at the UN who'll end up taxing me and you to death to spend on third world scams and middlemen. Out of personal choice rather than strongarming I must confess to planting trees every year in the parks around Auckland, donating to various wildlife charities and generally taking a keen interest in my environment. Others may choose to do it differently.

Oh, I've done my bit for the future of the planet by not having any offspring. :wink:

Yeah I was being deliberately provocative, but I think the Scientific American article does contain a lot of valuable information, relevant to what's being discussed here. Of course, one article can never give the whole picture, and should never be relied upon to do so.

It does seem that many people who are quite ignorant about so much of everything else that happens around them, seem to have such strong views on climate change. This is just a general observation I've made. It seems the majority of us, only have interest in stuff that directly affects us. Modifying our lifestyles - cutting out some of the good stuff, and working a little bit harder to do the right thing each and every day - is something most people are not prepared to do, especially for a cause that may never actually affect themselves in their lifetime.

It's easy to say it's not happening. There is much more to gain for corporations and governments by rallying against scientific opinion, and also much more to gain for your average rich westerner.

[aaaae]

It is hard for the layman to sort the wood from the trees (ho hum!) and there are masses of sweeping generalisations, inaccuracies and exaggerations on both sides of the debate, not to mention plenty of venom and bile.

For example -

PS. Why are climate deniers also the ones who also refuse to make any personal sacrifice? Why do they only agree on policy that would directly affect themselves? And why are climate deniers big experts on climate change, but nothing else?

What's that all about? Read the link I posted above - 1,200 limos and 140 private planes in Copenhagen this week. Seems like the climate deniers (as you put it) aren't the only ones refusing to make any personal sacrifice.

The truth is the AGW lobby believe there can be no other explanation for the current warming trend than man made CO2 emissions and the skeptical lobby believe that there can be another explanation (whatever it may be). How can this be proven one way or the other?

Man made CO2 emissions can never be cut to zero. What if we cut emissions in half and the planet still warms? "We need to cut further"? What if we don't cut emissions and the planet cools "It's just a temporary blip caused by something else"? (Eg 1945 -1970)

The debate, like the debate on the Iraq war, is too entrenched on either side to be able to make any headway. One thing is for sure, the climate has and will always change, often with catastrophic effects.

In the meantime, while caviar and champagne is being quaffed in Copenhagen, 2.5 million people die of malaria each year, 3 million die from AIDS, I've heard it estimated that nearly 9 million die from malnutrition.