Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion

Volcano

I would guess that other massive factors are effecting it.

You're basing your opinion on guesses?

thescouselander

So the MMCC sceptics get a lot of criticism for being funded by vested interests. The IPCC are no better, they are funded by vested interests too - Governments can raise taxes because of the IPCC's recommendations and the companies involved in the low carbon economy can continue to make billions of pounds.

misterh

cepheus wrote: »

The following chart shows the changes in concentrations of CO2 and the Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past thousand years. If you this doesn't tell you that a) the earth is warming and b) it is almost definitely man made, you need to get your head examined

Interesting debate on this thread. I have to admit to being a bit of a sceptic of (man-made) Climate Change. As a scientist who has studied maths at university, I have a few problems with this graph.
I think the CO2 line is too smooth compared to the temperature line. I would like to see other scales used. It is basic scientific stats to optimise the graph to support your argument.
Secondly, although it's quite hard to tell because of the smoothing, if you look at the lines up to 1800, they seem to show CO2 changes following temperature changes. It is a hell of a leap to change that to increased CO2 causing increased temperature.
Also if you look at 1800 to 1900, CO2 is increasing as temperature is decreasing. How does that work?

Maybe I need my head examined!

cepheus

worldwheeler wrote: »

If you wan't more, there is lots of information from reputable sources out there.
Funny how these reputable sources rely on funding from bodies that benefit from the on going tax on society as the implementation of carbon tax payments. Any public figure who refutes the consensus is ridiculed and ostracised. Some scientific institutes refuse to acknowledge qualifications of scientist if the do not agree with the principle of man made global warming.

You mean Governments? Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming.

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

worldwheeler wrote: »

And if you are still convinced there is no warming I will take a bet with you on future global temperatures. Name the time period, odds and price. If not then you are like most of the rest of sceptics, fraudalent and sowing misinformation because you are only interested in your own short term future, and don't even believe your own nonsense.

I will take that bet for the period 2003-2008.

In comparison with what, the next 5 years being cooler than this period?

cepheus

misterh wrote: »

Also if you look at 1800 to 1900, CO2 is increasing as temperature is decreasing. How does that work?

No-one is saying only CO2 affects climate change. There are a wide range of natural forcings as well, solar flux and volcanic activity to name a few. What is widely acknowledged nowadays is that Greenhouse gases (including Methane,, N20, CFCs) have become the dominant forcing variable and will dominate even more in the future unless we reduce them. There is also a large time lag, the oceans absorb any excess CO2 and heat up to a point but it is getting saturated.

The variation prior to 1900 will be mainly dominated by stratospheric arosols from volcanoes.

Volcano

misterh wrote: »

Interesting debate on this thread. I have to admit to being a bit of a sceptic of (man-made) Climate Change. As a scientist who has studied maths at university, I have a few problems with this graph.

Can we assume your particular area of expertise does not encompass any of the sciences relating to climate change?

I think the CO2 line is too smooth compared to the temperature line. I would like to see other scales used. It is basic scientific stats to optimise the graph to support your argument.
Secondly, although it's quite hard to tell because of the smoothing, if you look at the lines up to 1800, they seem to show CO2 changes following temperature changes. It is a hell of a leap to change that to increased CO2 causing increased temperature.
Also if you look at 1800 to 1900, CO2 is increasing as temperature is decreasing. How does that work?

Maybe I need my head examined!

The graph is clearly intended to show the dramatic increase in, and correlation between, temperature and CO2 since around 1900 to the present. Pre-1900 is just the baseline to put the increase into context. Trying to infer an accurate relationship between the two prior to this isn't the intention of the graph and certainly can't be achieved given the thick data lines, lack of graph scale lines, original data etc.

A good scientist would know that.

kennyboy66_2

Other mad campaigns so called skeptics have waged;

1) HIV does not cause AIDS - Sunday Times 1992-93

2) Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer - Tobacco industry plus pet politicians for ever.

ModernSlave

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Other mad campaigns so called skeptics have waged;

1) HIV does not cause AIDS - Sunday Times 1992-93

2) Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer - Tobacco industry plus pet politicians for ever.

People are still trying to deny HIV causes AIDS. Her own daughter died from not being treated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore

worldwheeler

The graph is clearly intended to show the dramatic increase in, and correlation between, temperature and CO2 since around 1900 to the present. Pre-1900 is just the baseline to put the increase into context. Trying to infer an accurate relationship between the two prior to this isn't the intention of the graph and certainly can't be achieved given the thick data lines, lack of graph scale lines, original data etc.


Pre- 1900 is being used as a baseline! That would be the Little Ice Age used as the base line. Any scientist would say that was leading the results. Before you can justify a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise you would have to explain previous warming of the climate and then identify a cause for those and dismiss those causes as not occurring since 1800. I would say this has not been shown therefore you can not dismiss influences such as the Sun, orbital and inclination deviations in earths transit around the sun, Oceanic climate effects and volcanic effects. Each of these influences together with combination of them are dismissed by the arguments that a 0.01% rise in CO2 must be the reason. Plus as others have pointed out even the graph used to support MMCC shows increases in CO2 yet drops in temperature. Also the global temperatures have been dropping for the last few years.

Volcano

worldwheeler wrote: »

you can not dismiss influences such as the Sun, orbital and inclination deviations in earths transit around the sun, Oceanic climate effects and volcanic effects. Each of these influences together with combination of them are dismissed by the arguments that a 0.01% rise in CO2 must be the reason.

Nope. The magnitude of these effects and their cumulative contribution have been calculated and modelled to death.

Plus as others have pointed out even the graph used to support MMCC shows increases in CO2 yet drops in temperature.

You know that bit where I said:

"Trying to infer an accurate relationship between the two prior to this isn't the intention of the graph and certainly can't be achieved given the thick data lines, lack of graph scale lines, original data etc."

....it still applies.

Also the global temperatures have been dropping for the last few years.

Why didn't you say this at the start? If I knew you were completely clueless I wouldn't have bothered answering......