We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion
Comments
-
Can we assume your particular area of expertise does not encompass any of the sciences relating to climate change?
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.
I know what is good science and bad science and I resent your implications.
No I am not a climate change scientist. However, I am experienced in evidence based science and I know about using statistics.
To present a graph showing only CO2 levels and temperatures is entirely intended to show the relationship of the two - otherwise it is totally meaningless.
How can you say "the graph is clearly intended to show correlation between temperature and CO2 since around 1900 to the present" but not "trying to infer an accurate relationship between the two before"?
Either there is a relationship or there is not, and my original point was that the graph should show this.
If climate change is happening in a way the earth has never experienced before and the cause is man-made through CO2 emissions, then surely we can come up with a better graph than that?"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution." Homer (Simpson)0 -
This is exactly the point the sceptics have been making in this discussion.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 proof that man-made emissions are causing climate change does not seem clear. Even if the greenhouse gasses are becoming a dominant factor, the relative low levels of CO2 compared to methane, etc, would seem to indicate a lower contribution to change.
The reasons we know cigarettes cause cancer and HIV causes AIDS are due to good scientific research and overwhelming evidence presented in the proper manner.
Can I just say, before this degenerates into a slagging match, that I (and hopefully any sceptic) would agree that we must save energy, reduce pollution and stop deforestation.
But bombard us with good evidence, not insults."Beer. Now there's a temporary solution." Homer (Simpson)0 -
Misterh please look at the last graph I posted. Note nearly all the gases have predominantly an anthropogenic origin as can be seen by their steady increase over the past 100 years including methane which is included as a greenhouse gas. (CO2 is only about half of the total man produced greenhouse gases by radiative effect)
I am still awaiting of a defined bet with any sceptic who wishes to put their money were their mouth is without running for cover.
Where has Worldwheeler gone BTW? What about betting on an increase in the average global surface temperature using a baseline of the last 5 years verses the next 5 years from (and including) February 09 using the HadCRUT dataset? Evens money, name your price?0 -
I am still awaiting of a defined bet with any sceptic who wishes to put their money were their mouth is without running for cover.
What are the terms of the bet?
Global warming is 100% due to man? or what percentage?
How do we decide who has won?
Note:
Repeated assertion ain't proof!!0 -
What are the terms of the bet?
Global warming is 100% due to man? or what percentage?
How do we decide who has won?
Note:
Repeated assertion ain't proof!!
There are a lot of people claiming it isn't warming for any reason (eg, it is cold this week in the UK, it hasn't warmed over the last 10 years so we are approaching an ice age) hence the bet is just on temperature. The fallback to the excuse "it isn't anthropogenic" usually happens during a warm spell.
What's your particular non anthropogenic forcing precusor, solar flux, cosmic rays, volcanoes? perhaps we can objectively factor these in given reasonable assumptions.0 -
There are a lot of people claiming it isn't warming for any reason (eg, it is cold this week in the UK, it hasn't warmed over the last 10 years so we are approaching an ice age) hence the bet is just on temperature. The fallback to the excuse "it isn't anthropogenic" usually happens during a warm spell.
What's your particular non anthropogenic forcing precusor, solar flux, cosmic rays, volcanoes? perhaps we can objectively factor these in given reasonable assumptions.
Your assumption was that we could read your mind and know the " bet is just on temperature" Don't go for a job in William Hill;)
I don't pretend to know the answers about GW - way above my pay grade - I leave that to eminent 'scientists' like Al Gore with his 'Nobel prize for a Powerpoint Presentation'
What I do know is GW is a god sent opportunity for the UK Government to act unilaterally(well almost) and hike taxes.
One thing is certain, if GW is attributable to man, the GreenPeace activists need to start some 'sit-ins' in China, India etc instead of a field on the proposed new runway at Heathrow.0 -
At the risk of throwing things completely off course, but I remember all the scientists saying that the earthquake that caused the Boxing Day Tsunami, actually moved the earth on it's axis, this caused everything to shift slightly out of place, and lo and behold, the very next summer was a total washout, they were blaming it on the jetstream shifting, and the same happened the next summer, has not one of them put two and two together and managed to link the earth's axis shift with the weather conditions that we have been experiencing since that day? It's not the jetstream that moved, its the land beneath it.0
-
I didn't.
How can you say "the graph is clearly intended to show correlation between temperature and CO2 since around 1900 to the present"
If climate change is happening in a way the earth has never experienced before and the cause is man-made through CO2 emissions, then surely we can come up with a better graph than that?
Of course the graph is pretty basic; Cepheus is, I'm sure, aware of his/her audience and keeping it basic (though the graph may not come from basic data).
If you want greater detail, the data and corresponding graphs are available in plenty of scientific journals.0 -
If solar activity is the primary non-anthropogenic forcing for global warming where is the solar equivalent of the hockey stick graph?
.
.
.
.
.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards