'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

ZTD

tomhill wrote: »

ZTD wrote:

That's old news - he was cleared. However the timeline and sequence of events is interesting. It does show that if you don't sing the right song - you will be persecuted, just like the heretics of old.

Genuine legitimate criticism of the science isnt criticised as being based upon agenda but poor science is. It remains that Lomborg isnt a climatologist and is severely isolated in his opinion.

To be honest, I can't recall climate being a major part of his arguments. A lot of it was forest cover, disease, pollution, health etc.

It was an exercise in crunching the numbers, and his education is ideal for that. In other parts it was just exposing critical flaws in assumed positions. Probably anyone could have done that bit.

tomhill wrote: »

Consensus science does have its problems but how else would you decipher reliable information

I'd look at the evidence, that's E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. not O.P.I.N.I.O.N. and come to my own conclusions.

Sometimes people are right, sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are both. Lomborg was (IMHO) mostly right, but did come up with some crap some of the time. Trying too hard to "explain" and not really concentrating enough on crunching the numbers IMHO.

tomhill wrote: »

ZTD wrote:

Or by the sunspot cycle (see the link previously supplied).

It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation,

That's not true either - there is a significant warming effect from the radioactive decay in the middle of the earth. You know, the thing that gives us lava. All of the early "models" of thermodynamic equilibrium omitted this. Easy to dismiss it, because it can't really be seen, but something that keeps most of a planet above 1000C does deserve some respect.

tomhill wrote: »

Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.

Well first of all you're only bothered by the heat that reaches the earth. That's the only bit that affects the weather.

tomhill wrote: »

This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

Well it has.


Now remember you're dealing with heat, so it's not just the absolute height that matters. Area under the graph will also be important. Also given luminance changes will lead to wavelength changes which will dance with absorbsion bands in the atmosphere, it all gets hideous complicated very quickly.

Thirty years is probably far to short a time to conclude anything from that graph - try it over a much longer period. I believe the sunspot thing I provided went back to 1600 or so. (There's a nice discussion on there about sunspot numbers and temperature).

But that graph does prove irradiance hasn't been constant.

tomhill wrote: »

There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere!

I notice in this the assumption that as soon as the heat input *STOPS RISING* then the temperature should stop rising. Is that a good assumption?

Assume you put a pot of water on a gas ring. You light the gas at time T. It takes one-tenth of a second to ignite. The gas goes (or glows) no hotter from this time onwards. Has the pot reached its maximum temperature at time T+0.1 secs?

tomhill wrote: »

ZTD wrote:

And dwarfing changes in carbon dioxide emissions.

Yer but no but. Water will dwaft the effect of carbon dioxide but it will be carbon dioxide which is responsible for changing the 'conditions' in which the water operates. Higher temperatures - caused by co2 - will increase humidity.

You are making the implicit assumption that only CO2 can drive temperature that drives water vapour. Let us assume a non-CO2 temperature rise. This increases water vapour. Which then increases the greenhouse effect. Which then causes temperature to rise. Which then causes water vapour to increase. (ETC).

Which dwarfs any rise in CO2.

tomhill wrote: »

Why exactly ... there is little doubt that demand for air travel has increased dramtically over the last few years. There is little doubt that this has happened by accident. Without the cheap flights strategies implemented by the air industry many of the flights would be too uneconomical to service. Create the need and and the demand will follow.

I'm not really sure what you mean by a "cheap flights" policy by the air industry. All things tend to reduce in price due to competition. Computers are probably the best example of that.

Of course cheaper stuff gets bought more. But the old joke of not worrying about something being sold at a loss because "you'll make it up on volume" is just a joke...

ZTD

westernpromise wrote: »

Turbines running up and down are inefficient in the same way that a car is more efficient when cruising at a constant speed than when stopping and starting all the time. The actual contribution of wind farms to emissions reductions is fatally undermined by this.

I wouldn't say they were fatally undermined, but certainly it is an important consideration.

Wind turbines are far more successful at generating Government grants than electricty from wind.

denny250

star2007 wrote: »

To reply to the above two posts...

I'm very happy to quote wikipedia & people to edit it if they know what they're talking about. I'm always in favour of hearing a new fact or different perspective on an issue. It may not change my mind on an issue, but it will deepen my understanding of it.

What makes you think the people you are quoting as "fact" on wikipedia know what they are talking about

the opinion of the people you quoted on wikipedia is completely opposite to mine and the vast majority of the people on this board as we are starting to realise
once again it is only an opinion not scientific fact

magyar

westernpromise wrote: »

That's exactly the problem. Because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, you have to keep all your normal power generation on standby to replace that capacity. Turbines running up and down are inefficient in the same way that a car is more efficient when cruising at a constant speed than when stopping and starting all the time. The actual contribution of wind farms to emissions reductions is fatally undermined by this.

Absolute myth. Intermittency isn't nearly the problem everyone thinks it is; yes you will still need to have extra capacity, although not nearly as much as people imagine, and wind resource forecasting is easily accurate enough to schedule in convensional plant in line with demand forecasting.

opinions4u

Manmade global warming is a scientific theory, not a proven law of science. It may or may not be happening, or maybe just a small part of something that is happening.

What is the "correct" temperature for planet earth? I don't think anybody knows. Hard to define unaceptable warming if we don't know what an acceptable temperature is in the first place.

What is the "correct" sea level?

Why were temperatures hotter in the past? Or colder?

When we say "there was more snow when I was younger", we are considering a tiny part of the planet for a tiny part of the planet's existance. What we see in our lifetime is not proof of any bigger climate pattern.

If Britain warmed up, would we all holiday in the UK and reduce our carbon emissions anyway?

Why has the hottest year in the USA just been changed from 1998 to 1934? Because modern weather stations are being housed in silly places like car parks or next to heat emitting air conditioning units, so are not always reliable.

Is urbanisation causing increases in heat? Surveys of weather stations in rural areas that haven't moved show little or no evidence (collectively) of increasing temperatures.

My view is that we should continue the research, challenge beliefs with real science but spend very little on implementing solutions to a problem that we are still unable to prove exists beyond reasonable doubt.

If the UK were to replace all its power sources for wind turbines, the whole nation would have to be covered in the awful things - they cannot be described as a sustainable option on a large scale.

Instead of spending £billions on "curing" global warming we should be investing in research for cleaner sustainable power.

Final question - why does our government supply schools with Al Gore's movie when it is riddled with scientific inaccuracy and sensationalism? I find this sort of educational brainwashing exceedingly sinister.

nej

opinions4u wrote: »

What is the "correct" temperature for planet earth? I don't think anybody knows. Hard to define unaceptable warming if we don't know what an acceptable temperature is in the first place.

What is the "correct" sea level?

Why were temperatures hotter in the past? Or colder?

Exactly! There is no "correct", or even "normal" temperature for earth. It has been changing since the birth of the planet and will continue to do so.

Sea level - ditto. Remember, flooding can be a good thing. Without it, we'd still be attached to France... Less flippantly, it has shaped the world as it is today, for better or worse, and will continue to do so.

Hotter/Colder in the past? Both, of course. And it'll be hotter/colder in the future as well.

I don't get how some people assume that the earth would have entered a period of complete temperature (and sea-level) stability - for the first time in its billions of years of history - had man not come along and invented the car and the aeroplane.

magyar

I have to say I don't see the logic in these (undeniable) comments that sea levels and temperatures have historically gone up and down. The issue is 'is man adversely affecting these natural changes, and what can we do about it'.

gogreenOHNO

If you all think that what we humans are doing to the planet is bad wait until mother nature turns up the gas. Remember Mt ST Helens. It coughed and the sky became dark. Now thats what I call CO2 emmissions. The whole world was covered in Volcanos like St Helens belching out clouds of toxic stuff before we came along. This GW thing is about human Presavation. When we are gone old mother nature will elevate some other creature to take our place. Enjoy

sidneykidney

A couple of years ago they said it had been the hottest since the 1930's...does that mean there was global warming in the 1930's as well!!!!!!

rfburke

What everyone seems to forget is that there is no such thing as a “Law” of science, eg gravity it is merely a theory which is substantiated by observation and experimental evidence.
Scientists use the term “theory” to describe Evolution and gravity as a substantiated hypothesis. Global warming falls into this category of theories. That in no way means that it is untrue.
There are no qualified independent scientists who can prove global warming is not man-made. “Sceptics” happily throw random hypothesis into the debate and sit back while reputable scientist run around refuting their claims.
The burden of proof is on the “sceptics” to prove that it is not happening. There is not one, not a single proven or backed up scientific study which can show global warming is occuring and that it is not man made, why is that?
The people who support the “its not man made” camp are the same as the people who support “creationism”. They have vested interests in the continued debate and public misinformation. (As a by-note creationism is not a theory, as it cannot be tested, it is a belief)
Nearly every single observation which they (sceptics) link to the effect and throw out as being a source of warming can be substantiated by climate models and observation.
People who are in denial will never believe as they are in a circular belief system, and no amount of evidence will dissuade them, and not until the water is around their waists will they believe anything different.
Please read the new scientist article on global warming. you'll find explanation for all of the following;
The cooling of the south pole
Ice on the Thames
Colder in the 1600’s?
Solar variation?
Natural phenomena (volcanoes).

So, not one person who believes in creationism, or non-man made global warming can produce evidence to support their belief. The burden of proof is on them to prove the rest of the world wrong.