It's Bloody Cold Here - Is Global Warming All Over?

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

Although why you'd expect to be able to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and then expect to be able to describe that as being "roughly the same" is bizarre.

Now I know you aren't serious. Double the amount if CO2 in the atmosphere?!

CO2 constitutes less than three per cent of the 'greenhouse gasses' in the atmosphere. The man-made element of that three per cent is, itself, less than three per cent - in other words, less than one per cent of the total.

Even if what you meant to write was that there had been doubling of that man-made CO2, it's vanishingly unlikely that such a small contribution could have such a dramatic effect.

No, what this is really all about was revealed earlier this month in the German language newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

In an interview, the IPCC's Ottmar Edenhofer, said: "First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole"

The Left has had this cart ready since the 1960s It has simply been waiting for a horse strong enough to pull it. That horse is called 'global warming'.

andykn

A._Badger wrote: »

That would be 'the science is settled' lie, would it?

You started this with the patently absurd claim there was no alternative explanation for 'global warming' (which, of course, is no longer happening). I posted a link to a story reporting the publication of one of many alternative explanations and the best you could do was try to smear the site owner.

It was the intellectual dishonesty of warmists that started me wondering if their position wasn't a complete crock, in the first place. So do keep on ploughing that barren furrow - you'll no doubt help others reach a similar state of profound scepticism.

The trouble is, the actual paper itself doesn't come close to being an alternative explanation at all. Apart from anything else it's only looking at short term changes, days or so. Not the decades over which warming is occurring.

andykn

A._Badger wrote: »

Now I know you aren't serious. Double the amount if CO2 in the atmosphere?!

CO2 constitutes less than three per cent of the 'greenhouse gasses' in the atmosphere. The man-made element of that three per cent is, itself, less than three per cent - in other words, less than one per cent of the total.

Oh dear. Bad Science. pre Industrial levels of CO2 were about 270 parts per million by volume (ppmv). They are now around 380 and rising, only very optimistic estimates of CO2 reduction don't see 540 ppmv in a few decades.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is about half what man has produced in the time.

Take a pint glass with room for a single measure, pour in a double measure of whisky and a single measure of liquid will be spilled. There will only be a small proportion of whisky in the spill but all the spill will be due to the addition of the whisky.

Every year nature produces and absorbs many more times CO2 that man produces. It can additionally absorb a quantity equal to about half man's production but the more of man's CO2 it absorbs, the less natural CO2 it can absorb.

If you don't think the rise in CO2 over the last few decades compared with thousands of years before that is due to man, what on earth is it.

andykn

Generali wrote: »

Within science, debate isn't a bunch of websites, it's articles being published in peer reviewed journals. AIUI, people outside the 'consensus' find it very hard to get funding and there have been allegations that they are being shunned by the journals.

As I say, I have no axe to grind either way. I try to use as few resources as possible (grow my own veggies, cycle to work and so on) but I don't claim any expertise on what is the best theory on climate change. When everyone seems to gather round a single theory and get so upset if anyone challenges it makes me think something is up. Perhaps I'm just being cynical.

People get upset when science is misrepresented.

No-one serious is likely to fund research into, say A. Badgers mystery CO2 source, because we all know where it's come from.

tomterm8

andykn wrote: »

People get upset when science is misrepresented.

No-one serious is likely to fund research into, say A. Badgers mystery CO2 source, because we all know where it's come from.

Have you ever heard of the Miasma theory of disease?

It's possible that almost every scientist in the world is wrong on global warming; I think it is highly implausible that the causes of climate change are well understood, personally, because I also think it inconceivable that anyone could argue that we can accurately model the climate given the current state of computer modelling.

To put this in perspective, there are simple human created mathematically based physical complex systems that are basically impossible to model. It is implausible to me that much more complex systems derived in part from random natural processes could be modelled with any degree of certainty.

Or to put it simply: we can know historical trends, but we cannot know the result of any changes humans make to their actions will have the desired effect. We also cannot know what the climate would have been without the carbon emissions.

andykn

tomterm8 wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the Miasma theory of disease?

It's possible that almost every scientist in the world is wrong on global warming; I think it is highly implausible that the causes of climate change are well understood, personally, because I also think it inconceivable that anyone could argue that we can accurately model the climate given the current state of computer modelling.

To put this in perspective, there are simple human created mathematically based physical complex systems that are basically impossible to model. It is implausible to me that much more complex systems derived in part from random natural processes could be modelled with any degree of certainty.

Or to put it simply: we can know historical trends, but we cannot know the result of any changes humans make to their actions will have the desired effect. We also cannot know what the climate would have been without the carbon emissions.

But we do know that increasing CO2 causes increasing temps, we know we are producing CO2, we know that CO2 is rising as a result. There is negligible scientific uncertainty there.

We also know that the predictions for the resulting temp rise are subject to large error bars, but it's still "how much" that's being debated in science, not "if" that's being debated on sceptical websites.

By looking at past climate, CO2 and solar we can make a very good guess at what the climate would have continued to do without us.

millym

Interesting debate. I wonder if the cold weather could be linked to the volcanic eruption in Iceland as, historically, unusual weather patterns tend to occur after major eruptions?

tomterm8

andykn wrote: »

But we do know that increasing CO2 causes increasing temps, we know we are producing CO2, we know that CO2 is rising as a result. There is negligible scientific uncertainty there.

See my post. Have you heard of the Miasma theory of disease?

We do not know that on a global scale increasing CO2 causes increasing temps, we know that on a global scale increasing CO2 correlate with increasing temps

andykn wrote: »

We also know that the predictions for the resulting temp rise are subject to large error bars, but it's still "how much" that's being debated in science, not "if" that's being debated on sceptical websites.

By looking at past climate, CO2 and solar we can make a very good guess at what the climate would have continued to do without us.

We don't know any of the above.

I'm not sure you are getting my point: I am enough of an expert at computing to say that computer models are not credible in predicting climate change. It is not a case of margin of error: the technology is not good enough to give credible predictions.

I can say the same thing in terms of, say, economics.

Models can be useful for thinking about a problem, but any expectations that events will unfold as a model predicts are bound to end in disaster.

andykn

millym wrote: »

Interesting debate. I wonder if the cold weather could be linked to the volcanic eruption in Iceland as, historically, unusual weather patterns tend to occur after major eruptions?

They do, both Mt Pinatubo and Washington caused measureably cooler temps, but the weather's not that cold. Snow came earlier than this only 17 years ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11836547

andykn

tomterm8 wrote: »

See my post. Have you heard of the Miasma theory of disease?

We do not know that on a global scale increasing CO2 causes increasing temps, we know that on a global scale increasing CO2 correlate with increasing temps

Causation came first. Callendar, building on the work of Fournier, Tyndall and Arrhenius predicted in 1938 that increasing CO2 would lead to increasing global temps.

It's quite easy to show what the temp of earth should be with no "greenhouse effect" and it's about 30 degrees colder than it is. CO2 is one of the gases that helps with it.

And we have nothing else that either correlates or has been identified as being a likely cause of the rise.

We don't know any of the above.

I'm not sure you are getting my point: I am enough of an expert at computing to say that computer models are not credible in predicting climate change. It is not a case of margin of error: the technology is not good enough to give credible predictions.

I can say the same thing in terms of, say, economics.

Models can be useful for thinking about a problem, but any expectations that events will unfold as a model predicts are bound to end in disaster.

So what would you do, continue to increase the concentration of a known warming gas and hope it stops working? An imprecise model is better than none at all.