|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 27, 2009 17:30:46 GMT
Guests can post on a far wider range of subjects on this board than on any of the other message boards I belong to, Skylark. RV actually WANTS to join but apparently there's some problem with his e-mail address.
I don't know why but I've had that on a few sites myself so obviously certain forums must have peculiar rules about the type of e-mail addy they allow.
I wouldn't just surf the internet for knowledge, by the way, good though it is in many ways.
Temperatures have dropped sharply in the last ten years; the general trend overall IS towards a FALL and NOT a rise in temperatures; the HOTTEST years in the 20th century coincided with the LOWEST period of CO2 emissions; it was HOTTER in Roman times than it is now; it was also hotter in the late mediaeval period; and there's global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto, NONE of which can be blamed on human activity even by the most paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I agree with you and RV about the need to be careful.
I'm temperamentally the LAST person to sympathise with corporate oil barons and people like that but when a salesman comes calling I want to keep my sceptical hat on.
I'd say the evidence in favour of global warming is diminishing all the time and more and more scientists are beginning to abandon or at least make cautious noises about its simplistic approach to things.
I also don't forget the fact that many of the people who support the theory also come out with total bovine excrement like 'we need millions of people to die' (and that's just in the UK - worldwide they want a genocide Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would have been proud of.)
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 27, 2009 17:34:55 GMT
I've now modified the security settings on this board to allow guests to post. RV is welcome to post here (though I wish he'd join properly!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 18:25:58 GMT
Well, the links I've produced above show that is not so. At the risk of repeating myself, 1998 was the hottest year in recent history so if you take that as a base yes, temperatures may have fallen. But 1999 - 2009 shows a rise, doesn't it - albeit a small one?
Although I take your point about the internet, this is a message board and the internet is the only source we have. This may sound a bit rude, but I'm not going to take anyone's word about how things are without seeing some research to back it up.
I'm not sure either about scientists changing their minds in droves. Quite a number seem to have gone with the global warming idea after arguing against it (eg Bellamy, though of course he was hardly a climatologist).
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 27, 2009 20:01:02 GMT
Far too much to plough through on this subject. I am not going to address seven pages of stuff, but I will point out a few more obvious facts.
First of all, people like Booker get to say what they say because they ignore all the evidence that does not support their so-called hypothesis. You cannot ignore (say) 600 glaziers melting then point to thirty that are not and suggest the 30 that are not are significant.
Nobody is suggesting that normal variations in climate do not happen nor are we saying that these normal variations will cease to exist. Sure things like sun spots will affect the climate, but that is not the issue. The issue is the influence OUR actions have on the climate.
Increased activity from the sun will heat up the Earth as the energy reaches the atmosphere, but it depends on what happens to that heat once it reaches our atmosphere that determines the effect it will have. That is the critical point of this debate. We all accept that natural events will influence the temperature, however our emissions will mean that instead of that energy being absorbed and eventually dissipated, that energy will be stored in the atmosphere for longer. This is why so many deniers tend to get themselves tied up in knots. They spend the time looking for alternative sources for the heat we are measuring, but the source of the heat is not relevant; it what is happening to the heat once it has been generated that is important.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 27, 2009 20:04:29 GMT
But how many people know that without the Greenhouse Effect this planet would be in deep Ice Age Nobody disputes that, although the climate change deniers try, the point is that if we upset the balance that will have a seriously long term effect on our climate.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 27, 2009 20:05:39 GMT
I've now modified the security settings on this board to allow guests to post. RV is welcome to post here (though I wish he'd join properly!) Yeah well ther you go!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 27, 2009 21:23:10 GMT
T For the global warming hypothesis to be true, an invariant relationship would be needed Why? Surely Global Warming would have different effects in different parts of the World?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 29, 2009 22:24:42 GMT
Here’s how the facts have changed since 2003, to the point where there is no evidence left.
1 The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no signs of the telltale "hotspot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint.
Something else caused the warming.
2 The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out. Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years, temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out of the window.
Something else caused the warming.
3 Temperatures are not rising. Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has NOT warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend.
The computer models don’t know what it is.
4 Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all the warming it can do. Adding twice the CO2 doesn’t make twice the difference. the first CO2 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player, especially the manmade portion.
Something out there affects our climate more than CO2 and none of the computer models know what it is.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 30, 2009 1:00:24 GMT
Here’s how the facts have changed since 2003, to the point where there is no evidence left. You see Lin, simply calling something ‘facts’ do not make them facts. I am not too sure who published these ‘facts’, but they are outright liars. Seriously, if these are the type of people who trust, you really need to examine your sources. 1. This Australian guy, David Evans has simply not a clue. He has taken something completely out of context and twisted it into something that he claims disproves global warming. He suggests that here is no ‘unique signature’ Wereas the truth is a lot simpler: When if you read the science you will find that the entire troposphere acts as a signature (or hotspot as he puts it) with the space over the tropics acting as a focal point. No-one has suggested that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. It is a straw man argument. Please look at Chapter 9 of the IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007: ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdfOn page 675 is Figure 9.1, which shows “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model” from five possible causes of global warming. Part (c) shows the signature of “well-mixed greenhouse gases”. Part (f) shows the warming pattern from “the sum of all forcings” (considered by the model). Both (c) and (f) show a large, intense hotspot over the tropics at about 190km — it is the most dominant feature in both diagrams 2 Again, this is a another cynical miss representation of the science. Again, there is no ‘detailed’ study as your source suggests. This is always formed part of the theory, again nobody is claiming that CO2 is responsible for the initial heating. The entire is suggesting that the CO2 is responsible for the heat being trapped in the atmosphere 3 Simply not true: www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1704 A straight forward lie: www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652Lin you obviously prefer the spokesmen for the oil industry and those who advocate free markets and shun the science, but if you actually read the science, you will find it an interesting subject. If you can stop hating science for long enough, you will see your flim flam men for what they really are: Sick bastards out to destroy the environment.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 30, 2009 5:11:54 GMT
But look at global temperatures over a longer period. We had what is called 'mini Ice Age' from about 1300 to 1800. Maybe it was caused by a swing in the Gulf Stream. Since about 1750 temperatures have been rising. Sure, it coincides with the Industrial Revolution, but you can't pretend there was enough carbon di around in 1800 to make any difference. Deforestation and increased methane might have had some effect. More likely is that waiming allowed more crops and contributing towards greater urban industrialisation.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 30, 2009 10:26:49 GMT
But look at global temperatures over a longer period. We had what is called 'mini Ice Age' from about 1300 to 1800. Maybe it was caused by a swing in the Gulf Stream. Since about 1750 temperatures have been rising. Sure, it coincides with the Industrial Revolution, but you can't pretend there was enough carbon di around in 1800 to make any difference. Deforestation and increased methane might have had some effect. More likely is that waiming allowed more crops and contributing towards greater urban industrialisation. So what has happened to the extra heat that our CO2 should have trapped? Deforestation and methene both contribute to GW and no-one disputes that, but the CO2 should have trapped giga jules of energy. If, as some have claimed, it has not, then two main questions arise: 1) Why not? 2) What has been trapping the heat?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 1, 2009 21:32:10 GMT
CO2 is never harmful- more would be great for all life on the earth.
all plant life has been operating under a CO2 depletion for 1000's of years.
If there is global warming- find the culprit- it certainly isn't the 5% of CO2 that man is responsible for.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 1, 2009 22:24:28 GMT
CO2 is never harmful- more would be great for all life on the earth. To say it is never harmful is just pure wrong. Nature is a balance, too much of one substance, like water, CO2 or whatever and you cause damage. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere and you end up collecting too much energy. That energy has to get spent somewhere and it ends up causing damage. If there is global warming- find the culprit- it certainly isn't the 5% of CO2 that man is responsible for. Can you possibly explain: 1 Where the heat that the extra CO2 should have stored up went if not into the atmosphere? 2 The scientific process that would get it there? 3 Why the World’s greatest scientists can’t find it there? 4 What indivisible force is creating the heat that would appear where the heat trapped by would and in the same quantity? Let me see if I get this right. You are saying that the CO2 that we are producing, somehow despite the laws of physics tell us does not trap the energy that it should, instead the energy is being transferred via an unknown process to an unknown destination and another unknown process is then generating heat from an unknown energy source is replacing the original heat? Not only that, it is placing this heat where would expect to find it if the CO2 we where producing DID trap it AND in the quantity that we would expect that CO2 to trap? How plausible to you find that? On a scale of one to ten, how plausible do you think that sounds?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 1, 2009 22:32:42 GMT
I'm not a scientist, RV. But I'll think over what you said because I haven't made my mind up on the debate yet.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 1, 2009 22:58:42 GMT
Yet for some reason you feel able to to decide that the scientists in the field are wrong, without any understanding of the subject? Why is that, Lin? Why do you think you can spot a flaw in the theory that the best scientific minds on the planet have missed? Is it likely that you would say 'It is the Sun that did' and you would find that the entire IPCC would have failed to put that in the calculations? In your OP you mentioned some 'facts' that a Right Wing journalist Booker published. How many of those facts are true, half true, false, not relevant irrespective of whether they are true or not? Look at the facts again, and find out how they change the science, lin. Be honest here Lin. Not only to me and the board, but to yourself. How much of this denial is driven by an actual flaw in the science and how much is it a desire for the science to be wrong? What do you REALLY think? If you deny it enough do you think the laws of nature will change, or are you just wanting life to carry on until thing break down? If you and your ilk win and you destroy the environment, will that be a victory?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 1, 2009 23:40:29 GMT
I don't want to destroy the environment but then I don't want to kill millions of people like the extreme environmentalists DO.
I don't think you have to be an expert to be entitled to an opinion.
All I know is that I've quoted a lot of facts from a variety of sources, including a Nobel Prizewinning scientist and NASA.
I also know that the statistics DO show that the theory of global warming has a lot of holes in it.
They also show that there is NOT an invariant relationship between CO2 and global warming while there IS one between sunspot activity and global warming.
If you are a scientist then you would realise that makes the SUNSPOT theory MORE likely to be true than the CO2 one.
You're also using what my hubby would call an 'argumentem ad hominem' by bringing Booker's politics into it.
Didn't the Communist Lysenko put forward fake data to support an untrue hypothesis in biology?
Haven't there been other lies by left-leaning scientists that have been exposed?
I am open minded, RV.
I don't like the oil barons but I don't like the experts either.
The laws of nature may not change but the environment and the universe DO.
The laws themselves may be unchanging but our knowledge of them increases with time and with it our understanding of the world and our interpretation of the laws changes.
In answer to your specific question, I am a seeker after truth.
I honestly DO find serious problems with the establishment theory.
I note that Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth,' which I saw recently on TV, had to admit that there were SEVERAL inaccuracies in it when they put it after the credits at the end.
How much of the pro-gw/co2 lobby is driven by hatred of the poor? How much of it is driven by a desire to destroy civilisation? (And don't tell me people like that don't exist because I've seen enough of you to realise you're not that naive!)
I'm open minded and willing to be persuaded.
Are you?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 2, 2009 0:45:17 GMT
I don't want to destroy the environment but then I don't want to kill millions of people like the extreme environmentalists DO. How many people have already died and how many will die because of climate change? You do realise that the poorest in planet will die, and have died because of climate change? I don't think you have to be an expert to be entitled to an opinion. You need to be able to understand the facts and the theory to have an opinion, though. You cannot say ‘CO2 is not a greenhouse gas unless you understand what is meant by CO2 and greenhouse gasses and their properties. Not an expert, perhaps, but you cannot dismiss someone who is an expert , if you do not understand the theory. All I know is that I've quoted a lot of facts from a variety of sources, including a Nobel Prizewinning scientist and NASA. I also know that the statistics DO show that the theory of global warming has a lot of holes in it. Yes, but none of the sources you quote disprove the theory of Global Warming. That is the problem Lin. You have been conned. There are no ‘holes’ in theory. There are minor uncertainties but no holes as such. They also show that there is NOT an invariant relationship between CO2 and global warming while there IS one between sunspot activity and global warming. I am afraid that is just not true Lin. Again you are being conned into believing that something is relevant when it just is not the case. CO2 is trapping the energy from the Sun and storing it in the atmosphere in the form of infra-red end of the spectrum. Solar sunspots are dealing in ultra violet end of the spectrum. It is the infrared capture that is causing global warming. In any case, the Sun has been at it’s dimmest for 150 years. The mistake you are making is you are assuming that we are looking for an alternative source to the heat; that is not the issue; the issue is the amount heat trapped, not where it comes from. You see, Lin, there is no point in having an opinion on a subject unless you understand the issues. The issue is the trapped heat. Sunspots are hot trapping the heat. You're also using what my hubby would call an 'argumentem ad hominem' by bringing Booker's politics into it. Didn't the Communist Lysenko put forward fake data to support an untrue hypothesis in biology? Haven't there been other lies by left-leaning scientists that have been exposed? First of all, Booker’s politics are relevant here because it is ideology that drives him in this. The implications to his ideology are profound. That why he is using discredited and debunked arguments. He is not attempting to convince scientists he is try to convince Tories, an easier audience. How many left leaning scientist have falsified evidence in the past. It is here and now we are talking about. If you have evidence that this has been falsified, lets see it. The laws of nature may not change but the environment and the universe DO. The laws themselves may be unchanging but our knowledge of them increases with time and with it our understanding of the world and our interpretation of the laws changes. Sure the environment changes, but they only change within the laws of physics, they do not change at a whim. We may change how we perceive and interpret laws of the universe, but the deniers are trying to suggest that the laws of physics are changing and they cannot show us evidence of this change. If the laws of nature are changing, tell me how, why and when. I note that Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth,' which I saw recently on TV, had to admit that there were SEVERAL inaccuracies in it when they put it after the credits at the end. Some minor discrepancies, but not on the fundamentals of the science, pictures of polar bears and a few other things. The film does not make up any part of the scientific studies, it is a documentary film. A bit like saying that a part of an Auschwitz documentary film inaccuracy proves the holocaust was a hoax. How much of the pro-gw/co2 lobby There isn’t such a ‘lobby’ this is not politics, this is science. This is about what you can prove, not what you want to be true. Again you miss the point. Science is not politics. No-one in the science sphere is driven by anything other than a desire for the truth. I'm open minded and willing to be persuaded. Are you? Sure, show me something that disprove the existence of the Greenhouse effect and I will change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by maggie on May 2, 2009 14:22:22 GMT
What happened to the hole in the ozone layer that we heard a lot about some years ago. We were all going to get frazzled, but that seems to have been forgotten.
Is it still there?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 2, 2009 15:02:19 GMT
What happened to the hole in the ozone layer that we heard a lot about some years ago. We were all going to get frazzled, but that seems to have been forgotten. Is it still there? The despite the industry lobbyingagainst it, the ban on CFCs has meant that some of the damage has been repaired.
|
|
|
Post by maggie on May 2, 2009 15:04:09 GMT
What happened to the hole in the ozone layer that we heard a lot about some years ago. We were all going to get frazzled, but that seems to have been forgotten. Is it still there? The despite the industry lobbyingagainst it, the ban on CFCs has meant that some of the damage has been repaired. Well that's good news.
|
|