Global Cooling, Its official!!

geordie_joe

Aliktren wrote: »

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 ......

But the debate is "is that CO2 actually causing the earth to warm up, or was it going to warm up anyway?"

I don't know anyone on here who has tried to claim man hasn't caused the CO2 to increase.

""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,

"A very high confidence" is not conclusive proof. As Cardew pointed out, at one time every scientist in the world was highly confident Galileo was wrong.

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""

They aren't exactly committing them selves are they? "It is likely", "it is very likely", Extremely unlikely" Those are phrases used when you don't want to definitely come down one one side just in case you are wrong.

If you are wrong you can say "Well we didn't say definitely, just very likely". Are you really basing your beliefs on a body that won't come down one way or the other?

Aliktren wrote: »

"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

OK, if you look at this site you will see the text says 6 out of the last 10 year were the warmest on record, for the USA. (second bullet point) But if you look at the graph on the right, which shows the temperatures for that period you will see that the text is actually wrong. Only 1998 and 2005 are warmer, the other years actually show a drop in temperature.

You will also notice the graph is far to small for anyone to read, but click you see the full sized version.

Why do they say one thing but their data graph says another. And why do the make the graph too small to read? Are they hoping people will see the graph and think it supports what they are saying?

Aliktren wrote: »

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

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

Now this I don't believe, not the article nor the fact that you posted a link to it!!!!

The article was published on 4 January 2007, with the title

2007 to be 'warmest on record'

The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.

It's 5th March 2008 now and 2007 turned out to be the coldest year on record!

And you posted it as an argument in favour of global warming!!!

The met office is supposed to be the best weather predictor in the world, and they got it completely wrong.

I don't know what is funnier, the best weather scientist in the world getting it completely wrong, or you trying to use it as an argument that the scientists are right about global warming.

Chris Folland, head of the Hadley Centre's climate variability research, said the forecast was primarily based on two factors.

The first was greenhouse gas emissions from human activity,

The more I read this, the more it cracks me up.

Aliktren wrote: »

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...

If you look at all the books and reports prior to 1985 tall the scientist agree it is the sun that influences the earth's temperature the most. They didn't change their mind until they realised there was more money in the CO2 theory.

After all, more people are buying books about CO2 than ever bought books about sun spots. Who can blame them for putting money before the truth.

Nice_Username

I really don't know where to start with this nonsense, I really don't.

Then you'll know the earth has been getting cooler since 1998 and will be able to tell me where the global warming went, won't you?

With respect you don't appear to have even the most rudimentary grasp of global warming judging by this comment. I would strongly advise you to pick up a few proper books on the subject.

Just because my assertion doesn't fall into line with yours, doesn't make it ludicrous.

No, but I the fact that it also doesn't fall into line with 99% of the world's leading scientists does.

Now who is being ludicrous? Anyone who doesn't accept what you accept must be being paid not to accept it!!!!!!!!

Once again, go and do some research. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Remember 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Channel 4 last year? I bet you do, don't you? I bet you swear by it an take the nonsense spouted on that programme as your Bible. Here's a little research I did on all the scientists who contributed to that programme....


Paul Driessen........senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

Tim Ball..... left his job at the University of Winnipeg for the more lucrative pursuit of scientific gun-for-hire ("environmental consultant"). It looks like he found a home at the American National Centre for Public Policy Research, a Conservative front group supporting whatever initiatives their financial backers want them to endorse. Since 1997, one of their principal mandates has been to fight the environment movement in general and in particular, shoot down any regulation to decrease the emission of greenhouse gasses. Plus a member of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank

Siegfried Frederick Singer......

2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health who received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute who received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003

Adjunct Scholar, National Centre for Policy Analysis who received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom organizations who received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

Piers Corbyn....

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...-stand-up.html (can't be arsed to type)

Richard Lindzen......charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

Do you see a pattern, geordie joe?

That's easy, I believe all those scientists that you think are being paid not to accept what you accept.

See above

Why is it alright for you to say anyone who doesn't believe in global warming being caused by man is getting paid by the oil companies, but not alright for me to mention that the people at IPCC jobs depend on them supporting it?

Who do you think calls the agenda on this planet....the global mega giants of the motor and petro-chemical industries or environmental scientists? What you are suggesting is utterly ridiculous, that the whole world is being held to ransom by a few professors. There's nothing in it for them. IT'S THEIR JOB. THERE IS NOTHING IN IT FOR THEM. And they have arrived an a common consensus through years of research that human CO2 emissions are the cause of current global warming over the last 150 years and the tipping point is 2 degrees centigrade away.

They haven't been discredited time and time again as complete nonsense. People who's income depends on us believe it is CO2 that causes the earth to get hotter have tried to discredit it. But most of those people knew it was true but changed their minds when they discovered they could sell more books if they claimed it was man production of CO2.

Do you have any idea how many jobs depend on the petro-chemical industries? Probably 80% of all the jobs on this planet. Maybe more. So have you ever wondered ,then, why the scientists such as those I have listed above are so outnumbered?

Look at any science book printed before 1985 and you will see.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you asking us to disregard all the advances in science over the last 23 years? For example, post-war global temperatures brought a period of cooling and predictions in the 70s of an impending Ice Age........further advances in science after 1980 proved this not to be the case at all and in fact temperatures had been pegged bacg by CFCs in spray cans which have since been banned due to the effect on the ozone layer. Needless to say this was emitted by your buddies above in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. In fact every proposal on that documentary was shown as nothing more than false propoganda.

I'll not bother answering this as Cardew did it much better than I could.

Erm, no he didn't. The people who refused to believe Gallileo's scientific evidence were The Church, and was a metaphorical allusion to the fact that years later they, like you one day, were forced to admit they were wrong due to overwhelming scientific evidence. In fact what makes you worse is that there is ALREADY overwhelming scientific evidence but you still refuse to accept it due to your loony 'conspiracy' theories.

My head is out of the sand, that's why I know not to believe people who tell me their is a problem when their job depends on me believing I have a problem.

See last 3 points.

No increase in temperature for ten years, last year was the coldest year on record. Global warming, I'll take my chances on being embarrassed in the future.

See my first point.
.........................................................................................................................
I'm not going to respond any more on this thread, OK?
You are clearly very badly informed and it doesn't seem fair.
I would suggest that you stop taking your information from right-wing newspapers, biased documentaries and loony conspiracy websites on the internet, and instead actually read some of the plethora of evidence out there which points to the same conclusion - that human CO2 emissions are responsible for current global warming trends.

Bye and good luck.

Aliktren

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.html

Met office page updated today.....

Global cooling predicted in the 70s

From New Scientist.....



See all 26 climate myths in our special feature.
Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage (see Histories: The ice age that never was).
One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.
This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists, as at the time the planet had been cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980). Furthermore, it had also become clear that the interglacial period we are in was lasting an unusually long time (see Record ice core gives fair forecast).
However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: "We just don't know...at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling – or when." A 1975 report (pdf format) by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research.
The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity (see Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind).
Re wolly wording from the IPCC ....

The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change. Read the global reaction to the report here.


There seems to be an irony here in that one hand you complain warming is claimed as a certainty, and on the other complain when the language is couched such that it clearly identifies how certain we are as something less than 100%, nothing in life is ever certain, the world may not in fact be round....but there is a very high certainty that it is, the IPCC summmary states a very high confidence and this term is actually identified in the report footnotes as being a 9/10 percentage certainty
There is also a very nice section about how the contributors are funded (or not) but I doubt your interested

The IPCC report is free, so you are able to read it all the way through, perhaps you should try it, it's if nothing else a really interesting read in the middle about the grisly details of possible disaster scenarios....it may not convince you but you have little to lose by trying to inform yourself of alternative points of view

Aliktren

The data on 2007 on ta interweb is intersting I''ll grant you....

however....

Met office records based on 400 sets of data

Cardew

Nice_Username wrote: »

actually read some of the plethora of evidence out there which points to the same conclusion - that human CO2 emissions are responsible for current global warming trends.

I may well be wrong, but I have never seen, from any organisation, a claim that human(man made) emissions are responsible for current global warming trends.

There is clearly a concensus that man made emissions contribute to that effect etc etc.

The degree of that contribution has been the contentious issue!

Incidentally re my TIC remark about Galileo. He was very much in dispute with many of the leading scientists of his time. It was they who raised the matter with the Church - who believed from Aristotle that the Earth was the centre of the Universe.

Surely you would concede that over the ages, on a variety of issues, there has been an overwhelming scientific concensus that subsequently events have shown to be mistaken?

Aliktren

Yes, the IPCC have said this ... paraphrasing....

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
"Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004"
"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming"
"Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.7 It is likely there has been significantanthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)"

So, if you said "entirely responsible" that is not the case, high confidence that we are responsible for a significant portion of said warming - (+1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4]W/m2). whereas solar variance (+0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]W/m2)

I believe, but in turn feel free to correct, that most of the science at the time was church sponsored...interestingly the Vatican only appears in 1992 to have entirely conceeded Galileo was correct

You're right, the lifeblood of science is controversy, what ought to be persuading people about human induced global warming is just really the sheer emprical data that supports it from numerous sources....not just the scientists themselves, certainly not the government, lol

Cardew

Aliktren wrote: »

I believe, but in turn feel free to correct, that most of the science at the time was church sponsored...interestingly the Vatican only appears in 1992 to have entirely conceeded Galileo was correct

Everything in Italy was Church sponsored!

In 400 years we might entirely concede that the Green lobby were correct - until then I will keep my private jet, and allow Al Gore the same lattitude.

Aliktren

proving that the earth was round/went round the sun didnt threaten our way of life, but hey, enjoy your jet

kaya

from what i understand greenhouse gasses are 97% water vapour, the other 3% are a mixture of other gasses (co2, methane etc), so we are down to a fraction of 3% of the earths atmosphere is made up of co2, we could say 1% for arguements sake, of that 1% co2 content 95% is naturally occuring, so 5% of 1% of the atmosphere is man made c02, seems unlikley that small percentage is responsible for "global warming"

sits back and waits for an ametuer politician to explain how this miniscule percentage justifies the tax increases

Aliktren

I'm not going to explain anything, I'll let the experts do the talking.....

from the IPCC, I'm losing the will to keep quoting mutiple sources....

"

There is very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750has 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 than10,000 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. {WGI2.7, SPM}

This is page 5/8 topic two