Global Cooling, Its official!!

Cardew

Aliktren wrote: »

I'd be hard pressed to argue against a reduction in the use of finite resources, or the development of technologies that are more sustainable.

Are we not all agreed on that point?

My theory is that laudable objective is the primary purpose the Global Warming lobby?

I will certainly listen to counter arguments, the only one you've made concerns a theory about mass propaganda, which i'm not on board with.

Indeed it is not the only argument I have made - in fact it is the lesser of the 2 points I made.

My main point(as I stated) is that there is no proof, or IMO even convincing argument, that global warming is man made.

I have merely read arguments on both sides and happen to believe the proof sits on the side of human climate forcing.

My personal view, climate change is man made,

That sums it up. "You happen to believe" and your "personal view"

You may be right; alternatively, you may be wrong!

Christians, Moslems, Hindus and every other religion on Earth, "believe" implicitly that their version of creation, history and the afterlife is accurate - they can't all be correct!

Fine, argue against me, produce any demonstrable evidence that I'm wrong.

Not, I suggest, your finest debating point!

Pythagoras and Einstein will be turning in their grave. If they advanced a theory they went to considerable lengths to prove that theory - not stated their theory and made the assumption it was accurate until disproven.

Perhaps you can produce some "demonstrable evidence" you are correct!

Actually I have some sympathy with the argument that any Green Measures are 'Insurance' against a possible future disaster.

It is just that personally I think the risk is overstated and the Premium too high.

Aliktren

well, then lets cite a very few sources of my dreamed up belief, unlike religion Climate change is all to observable and measurable.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_topic1.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2608

and on, and on, there are lots of deniers as well, but it's rare to find data for deniers that adds up, the vast obody of observalbe, demonstrable evidence rather than "religious fervour" proves human forced climate warming

I may be wrong, my point, made several times, is that from a risk prevention point of view, I far rather to assume that the vast body of scientific evidence is right, contrary to what you might think, I took a lot of convincing, but having read several of the IPCC reports all the way through , as well as reading several books from climate change deniers and reading a significant amount around the subject, I'm firmly with the IPCC, it was a "belief" born out of exposure to both arguments and with demonstrable evidence of the facts, if you think the language I use suggests there is any form of belief here you are wrong, climate change is demonstrable fact, as is the human forcing, if the body of evidence was not behind it there is not a chance in hell that the republican government in the US would ever have conceeded it exists.Show me a graph that correlates human co2 production and temperature that does not show a link using evidencial data and I'll be genuinely interested......

Cardew

It is rather pointless to use terms like "dreamed up belief" in a rational discussion; you have not been accused of advancing original theory.


Shall we leave it that you are convinced, and I am unconvinced, about the level of global warming attributable to man.

geordie_joe

Aliktren wrote: »

Ok, I'm bored and cant resist addressing these after all.....

Originally Posted by geordie joe View Post
Not "mass agriculture" but agriculture just the same. If the weather is going to affect your crops it doesn't matter how big your field is.


IMO - wrong, and a bit naive...we rely on intensive agriculture,

Yes but if your field gets covered in an iceberg (Your word, not mine "where do you foresee that the population would migrate to if the icebergs return") It won't matter if you grow crops intensively or organically, they will still be covered in ice.

look at the coming water wars in the middle east

Are you predicting water wars now? Can I put money on it happening or is it just something you think could happen.

and the drought in Australia as only two examples of why we rely on agriculture much more now that we ever have, and if large areas of land are made useless by global warming we are not going to come out of that well (unless mass starvation of millions is well)

But global warming could also melt the snow and reveal large areas of fertile land we cannot use at present. If the antarctic ice melts we could have a whole new continent to live on.
The people in the 12th century weren't that much different to us in the sense that they ate what they could grow or kill. We do the same thing.

When did you last kill anything ??? -

That is irrelevant, the question should be "When did you last eat something that was killed" and the answer is at tea time. My point was people in the 12th century ate plants and dead animals just the same as we do.

also they had a lot more land to play with compared to the size of the population so didnt need it all to be so productive

But we have plenty of land, and will get more if the world warms up and the ice and snow melts.

But that's because the yanks are using the surplus to produce fuel, not because there isn't a surplus.

Maybe, but lets just say that warming causes the kansas breadbasket to reduce by 50% in yield, what then,

Let's just say global warming causes the Kansas breadbasket to be more productive by dumping more rain on it, what then?

Don't forget, global warming may cause the ice to melt, but it will also evaporate more water from the oceans and cause more rain to fall on the land. All these places that are suffering droughts could end up with all the water they need.

I'm also fairly sure but cant find it that I read somewhere recently that biofules were only one compoentnt of the shortage and not the whole deal

Yep, countries not selling to third world countries because they can't afford to pay for it also comes into it. For decades Europe has had butter, grain, beef mountains. Because it pays farmers to produce food it doesn't need.

Well a couple of them can come round my house

Maybe 6 billion didn't live through the ice age, but these days we have far more resource than they had. The ability to build shelter and heat it much more efficiently. We can pump drinking water, gas and oil thousands of miles accross the world. We can move vast numbers of people accross oceans.

Where are we moving them to ? - if we cant get a runway or a windmill built without protest, imagine the problems we'll have moving millions of people into someone elses back yard

You're looking at it as a democratic process. Millions of people move from country to country every year, many of then illegally and the authorities are powerless to stop it. Imagine if those authorities stopped making a token effort to stop the immigrants and actively helped them.


There may be more people today, but we have a much better chace of surviving.

The rich do, yes, the poor are screwed, we cant feed them now (well, we could by choose to do other things....)

But global warming could mean that they get the water to grow their own food. They may end up better of than us. If Africa gets more rain it could grow enough food to feed it's people, if we get more rain we could get flooded out of our homes.
Yep, and we hunted and gathered and survived. We are still hunter gatherers, only now we are smart enough grow plants so we don't have to go far to gather them. Also, hunting a cow in a barn takes a lot less time and enegy than it did when we let them roam free.

what if the cows are wiped out my disease moving North in a warming climate,

What if they are not? What if they just breed faster because the weather is warmer?

or the plants dont grow because the climate is too warm

What if they don't grow because the weather is too cold? What if they don't grow because the get a disease that wipes them out. What if the weather just gets warm enough so we can grow more crops, crops we usually have to import from countries such as south america.

What if we all end up with banana trees in our gardens?

There's no point in "What if's"

or there is not enough rainfall to irrigate,

If the world gets warmer we'll get more rain, if it goes the other way we'll grow crops in poly tunnels and when the need watering we'll just chip a bit of the nearest iceberg.
The world has enough water in it, maybe not in the right places. But we do have the technology to move it to where we want it. We don't do it much because there is no need, if the need ever does arrive we will start moving it.

we dont hunt and gather now, we produce,

Same thing in my book. A man who goes into the woods and hunts a chicken and a man who keeps chickens in his barn have one thing in common. They can both have chicken for dinner.

we live beyond our means by relying on intensive agriculture which might become impossible if the environment is hostile to the foods we like

I can't see how we live beyond our means, if we didn't have the means we couldn't live on it. As you said above, we have enough food to feed everyone, we just choose not to.

So the environment may become hostile to the food we grow, but it may not too. And there's every chance other parts of the world will become fertile and we can use that.

we survived when the plants and animals were left to fend for themselves, so we should survive now we can look after the plants and animals we need for food.

How do we do that if we cant water or feed them ??

We'll always have water, it makes up most of the planet, and the warmer it gets the more the stuff falls out of the sky.
A trend yes, but not a man made one. Anyway, the average temperature of the earth hasn't increased since 1998, so it could be we have reached the peak of tis hot spell.

Erm, evidence please, can you cite this because I would love to read the source.....

Take a look at this, it was written in 2006 but at work today I saw another one written this year that backed up the data up to 2007.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

This article is about the temperature in 2007, but the graph also shows that the world temperature hasn't risen above what it was in 1998. It fluctuates month by month, obviously. But I bet if you averaged it out you'd get a pretty flat line.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=217378

The article is actually about the temperature drop in 2007.

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

"The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."

"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it."

Interesting stuff, perhaps we are in for a cold spell and not a warm one. That'll make a lot of people look silly, won't it.

Then again, they'll just claim that all this CO2 reduction worked.!

Nice_Username

geordie_joe wrote: »

Match that 100+ years of data against the thousand, even millions of years of data that shows the temperature of the earth goes up and down in regular patterns and I know which I will put my money on too!

Just look back at the clothes people wore throughout the ages. Why did mini skirts and hot pants take off in the 60's early 70's then get replaced by maxi and midi skirts? Why were very short dresses all the fashion in the 20's and 30's? Why did victorian women wear 18 petticoats? Because it was bl**dy cold!

When the weather is warm the clothes get less, when it gets cold the clothes get more.

The world has always gone through hot and cold periods, and it just happens that it is coming to the peak of a warm period.

Nothing to do with CO2, just the sun spots.

I've read some garbage on this thread but this just about takes the biscuit.

Have you read any proper scientific studies or academic research on this subject? The IPCC report? The Stern Report? George Monbiot? Jeremy Leggett? James Lovelock?

Actually no need to reply, I know the answer.

geordie_joe

Aliktren wrote: »

but it's rare to find data for deniers that adds up, the vast obody of observalbe, demonstrable evidence rather than "religious fervour" proves human forced climate warming

Well I haven't checked every link, but so far I can't find any proof that the world is getting warmer and "experts" think man is causing it.

Also, in the very first link, it says "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)."

These figures are widely used to "prove" global warming, particularly by Al Gore. However, these figures are just not true.. If you look around the internet you will easily find that NASA actually f*cked up the figures. They then quietly corrected them and hoped nobody would notice.

The new figures show that the 1930's were the hottest, not the last ten years and 1934 was the hottest year, not the much publised 1998.

The question is, why did NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies release figures that showed the world was getting warmer. Then discover they were wrong and try to bury the information.

OK, they only admitted to calculating America's temperature wrong, but if they did that they could also have calculated the world's temperature wrong.

The new data shows that America isn't getting warmer, and it's not as warm as it was in the 1930's. I wasn't around in the 30's, but wasn't that when it was so hot and dry the soil dried up and blew away and it caused the depression.

If they use the same data, or the same formula in the calculations for the world, then they are wrong about that too.

So, so far today I have found that most global warming believers base their belief on the figures that showed 1998 was was the hottest year on record, and that 11 of the twelve years between 1995 and 2006 were the hottest.

This data has now been disproved and 1998 was not the hottest year on record, 1934 was. Only 3 of the years between 1995 and 2006 were hot and 4 of them were actually colder than 1900.

I've also learned that the world has not gotten any warmer between 1998 and 2006. Also that the top 4 "temperature measuring" institutes agree that there was a dramatic drop in world temperature in 2007. This is the faster change in world temperature ever recorded, either up or down. This change just about wipes out the last hundred years of "global warming"

This change coincides with a drop in solar activity.

As I have always known, thanks to an Isaak Asimov book I read in the 70's, it is the sun, particles from space and water vapour that controls the temperature of the earth, not man.

If the sun does decide to be lazy for a few years it's going to get cold enough to freeze the b*lls of a Man Made Global Warming Believer.

We'll have to burn more fossil fuel to keep warm, but I bet the extra CO2 we release has b*gger all effect on the temperature.

talksalot81

If I were not sat in bed reading this, I'd be rolling on the floor laughing! You lot could do a show which toured scientific conferences around the world, scientists the world over would wet themselves laughing at you!

geordie_joe

Nice_Username wrote: »

I've read some garbage on this thread but this just about takes the biscuit.

Have you read any proper scientific studies or academic research on this subject? The IPCC report? The Stern Report? George Monbiot? Jeremy Leggett? James Lovelock?

Actually no need to reply, I know the answer.

Yes, do you really believe the IPCC, and the rest?

If man isn't causing global warming then the IPCC are out of business, a lot of people will be out of a job.

Why would you believe someone who tells you you have a problem when their income depends on you having a problem?

Have you not read all the articles about scientists complaining that the IPCC edited their words, after they had approved and authorised them, to say what the IPCC wanted to say?

Have you not heard about the scientists that have asked for their names to be removed from documents the IPCC released. Because the IPCC put their made down as supporting man made global warming on the basis that they did research on it, so must agree it is true.

Have you not heard of the Global Warming Petition?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

There are over 19,000 signatories now, and.........

Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD.

Read what you want, believe what you want, but calling something twaddle is not really an argument for or against anything.

Might be better if you explain what you think is twaddle and why.

geordie_joe

talksalot81 wrote: »

You lot could do a show which toured scientific conferences around the world, scientists the world over would wet themselves laughing at you!

No, depending on who was speaking, half the scientist would laugh and the other half would nod in agreement.

I laugh at people who think man is causing global warming, and they laugh at me for not believing it.

The difference is, I can't wait for the future to get here, and they are afraid of it.

Aliktren

From the IPCC, which quotes its sources so you can check them, they are also reviewed and the list of reviewers given in the appendix


Whole report here :

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

Firstly - is CO2 higher due to human activity ......

""Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture.""


Warming....Did we cause it ?

""There is very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2 (Figure 2.4). {WGI 2.3, 6.5, 2.9, SPM}
The combined radiative forcing due to increases in CO2, CH4 and N2O is +2.3 [+2.1 to +2.5] W/m2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {WGI 2.3, 6.4, SPM} Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W/m2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W/m2. Aerosols also influence precipitation {WGI 2.4, 2.9, 7.5, SPM}
In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to have caused a small radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W/m2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {WGI 2.7, SPM}""

""The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not
warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes in surface and atmospheric temperatures, and in temperatures of the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases and stratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and
anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place""


"NASA are making it up?? .....""

NOAA (US Department of Commerce, not NASA) Data confirming they are not

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080115_warmest.html

BBC saying the same via the Met office, not affiliated ot NASA afaik

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6228765.stm

Article on the hockeystick graph with quoted references

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html

It's really the Suns fault....


Blog article from respected journal Nature that suggests that if it was all down to the sun it would indeed be getting colder....

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/sun_not_a_cause_of_global_warm.html
.


But I guess if your still relying on books written in the 70s to inform you then I aint gonna even peak your interest, so I'll leave it there....enjoy your early spring...