02GF74
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 12:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
It's hardly from an unbiased source though, is it? - The US Government.
The matter is essenitally unproven and unprovable.
yep ^^^^ smart51 got t his right - what are the bets the so-called prominent scientist were specifically chosen?
|
|
|
|
|
JAG
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
JAG - get your coat...
Err No. This is a grown up debate and I can acknowledge that Bluemoon has some specialist knowledge on this subject. He has my respect as someone who
has worked hard to gain knowledge in his field.
However most seem to think this means all scientists will ALWAYS be right on everything - I don't.
My biggest problem with the global warming/CO2 link is that the data I have seen presented only talks about the last 150 years. From memory the claim
is 0.5 Celsius (on average) in 150 years.
Sounds like nothing in no time to me.
It is believed that our planet is 4000,000,000 years old so 150 years is a very small sample.
I don't doubt that we ARE warming 
My biggest beef is with the claim that it's because of something we are doing or have done.
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
Hi Jag.
Temperatures collated from the last 1000 years:
Green house gas output:
(IPCC report)
Does that help?
Dan
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
Personally I really couldn’t give a toss what others believe whether its science, theoretical science or religion and certainly not going to get into
a debate about which group of scientists are correct when they can't even agree amongst themselves.
Mr Whippy, you are talking out of your derriere. They do agree amonst themselves - we are experiencing global warming - fact. What they can not agree
on (and it really is a very small minority now) is the cause of the change in climate. If you want to understand some of the research done, then check
out this webiste. I see no reason for the worlds governments to make us all panic. After
all, we are screwing ourselves when we sign up to emissions cuts etc, as the 2nd/3rd worlds are really not likely to follow suit.
The evdence is there, and with the exception of America, the majority of developed countries are in agreement.
And if you think we only have data for the last 50 or so years, then what about ice cores/pollen grains/fossils etc. There is loads of evidence, just
not evidence you can assoiciate with a thermometer!
Just for your info, the last ice age in the UK was in fact just 400 years ago, and during that time the Thames frooze over so much they had 'ice
fairs' on it as a regular event.
You are all entitled to your opinion, and this is just mine!
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:17 PM |
|
|
Dont all the farts from cows n the like cause more problems ?
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:19 PM |
|
|
Hi Jag as above link this shows the C02 increase:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html
Taken this is the figure from the page (metoffice):
The thing is the CO2 has not been this high for a very very long time..
Dan
[Edited on 11/4/08 by Bluemoon]
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:21 PM |
|
|
The don't fart, they burp, and yes it it a problem, which is why a lot of UK farmers are being advised to move to other form of feed that makes
them burp less. I think they have the potential to cut it by 65% by diet change alone (my Mrs is one of the people advising them and the
government).
Bluemoon - good data there mate, and a series of well made arguments. Is your second name Gore?!
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:35 PM |
|
|
Right Cow farts, this is relase of CH4.
 
IPCCradiativeforcing
The above IPCC figure shows the relative amount that different things are thought to contribute to climate change. A positive radiative forcing equals
a warming effect. as you can see the CH4 contribution is much less than the CO2 forcing part.. But it is still significant but not the dominate
effect.
Just as a bit of background I work on aerosols at the moment (particles in the atmosphere) these tend to cool the atmosphere..
Cheers
Dan
[Edited on 11/4/08 by Bluemoon]
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:51 PM |
|
|
What caused the other Ice ages?
Them dinosaurs must all have had V12 jags!
Don't know anything about it but I just find it a little suspicious, that every "solution" to this problem involves taking more
money from the tax payer.
Why is that?
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
larrythelathe
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
TAX
i don't think anyone feels fluffy at the tax side of things
[Edited on 11/4/08 by larrythelathe]
|
|
|
JAG
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
Bluemoon;
Thanks for the data.
Your first graph shows departures in temperature from a 1961-1990 average. It also contains the 95% confidence interval* for the data. The calculated
data (taken from tree rings, corals etc...) has a huge confidence interval band that in some cases covers the range of data at the right hand end of
the same graph. Hence similar departures to those currently observed COULD have occured anywhere between 1000 and 1600.
*Confidence Interval means that we are 95% confident that the actual result lies somewhere in the range shown by the grey bands. The only way to
narrow the band is with more sample data - which is very difficult to obtain.
Your second graph once again proves that the possible temp' range is enormous and we just can't be sure of the actual temperatures for the
last 1000 years. Hence we've got no solid baseline for comparison.
Your third graph demonstrates something I have NO PROBLEM believing - we emit lot's of gas and we've only been doing it for a very short
period (in terms of earth history anyway).
But this data still only covers 1000 years in a lifespan, so far, of 4,000,000,000 years.
That's less than 0.000025% of the actual time in which this planets atmosphere has existed and show variation.
So I find the data interesting but no way is it conclusive.
How about all other influences?
Correlation does not mean causation afterall.
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 02:59 PM |
|
|
Indeed Jag,
but can you explain why the increase in CO2 dose not increase radiative forcing? this must be the point in your argument.
Dan
ps the 2nd graph is a running avarage so the random (but not systematic) error is reduced so, but like you say more high quality data would be nice.
[Edited on 11/4/08 by Bluemoon]
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 04:56 PM |
|
|
It's clear Bluemoon's got the technical side of this discussion covered but can i just raise a couple of points?
On this forum and another (motorsport related) i have seen big discussions like this about Climate Change and clearly a large proportion of the
demographic that uses these car-related forums have a very sceptical view of the subject.
As a Chartered Scientist what drives me crazy is that a lot of the criticism implies (or directly states!) that the scientists involved in research
into Climate Change are incompetent or corrupt, and either just trying to justify increasing their research budgets or acting as puppets of corrupt
governments. Perhaps some are, and indeed it would be naive to think every single one was entirely altruistic, but we're talking thousands of
professional people from all across the globe here. The generalised implication of mass dishonesty is offensive, frankly, and especially on such an
important subject.
Secondly, many of the criticisms cite random pub facts like the contribution of volcanic eruptions or solar cycles or whatever. Seemingly the
suggestion is that these haven't been taken into account by the qualified and experienced experts in this field. The actual physics of these
mechanisms IS included and discussed in detail in the report. The reason they are not allocating responsibility to any of these things is because
they've investigated it and found evidence that they are not responsible. That's how the method works.
I just don't understand how so many people can criticise the science of the subject yet concede that, for example, they haven't even read
the IPCC report and examined its claims and evidence critically. They just assume that it will be incorrect or misleading propaganda of some sort and
that actually reading it is not necessary or useful when forming an opinion on it. Now *that's* bad science! I'm not talking about anyone
specifically on here, by the way, just ranting on this subject in general.
On the point of "correlation does not imply causation", which someone quoted earlier from the funny people with the whole Spaghetti
monster thing, that's a good soundbite but it's actually a misrepresentation of scientific method and is more a criticism of bad science
in general rather than that specific logical relationship. Scientific method fundamentally relies on being able to establish cause and effect. The
design of a proper scientific experiment should be done in such a way that the relevant variables are isolated and, for the conditions given,
correlation does then indeed equal causation. So, by designing the experiment properly we should be easily able to prove that the decline in pirate
numbers isn't responsible for Climate Change then! 
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 05:00 PM |
|
|
It's not what causes it, it's what we can do to reduce the possibility thereof...
Fact: humans cut down the very last tree on Easter Island and they died out because they lost their source of food.
|
|
|
JAG
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 05:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
but can you explain why the increase in CO2 dose not increase radiative forcing? this must be the point in your argument
No because that's not the point of my argument. My argument is that there is not enough data to provide a strong trend - hence any conclusion of
causation is prone to massive error. Yet this conclusion (CO2 causes global warming) is taken as fact and trotted out whenever it suits the politicos
and the general public swallow it and (as you can see on this thread) trot it back out as though it's proven fact.
quote:
Scientific method fundamentally relies on being able to establish cause and effect
I accept this point but don't think we have any fundamental evidence that establishes cause and effect and yet we have a conclusion.
quote:
As a Chartered Scientist what drives me crazy is that a lot of the criticism implies (or directly states!) that the scientists involved in research
into Climate Change are incompetent or corrupt
Not the scientists - but I do believe that their political masters (who provide huge funding for all research) are corrupt and prone to claiming
whatever suits them. I also think that the scientific community has been duped by them in the same way we are all being duped.
Afterall is said and done I appreciate all of the inputs (even the childish stuff) and wish you all well. I feel better for getting it off my chest
As ever time will tell
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 05:53 PM |
|
|
http://www.icecap.us/index.php is a very interesting site, with contributions by some big names.
http://climatesci.org/ also offers some useful insights, one of the conclusions being that whilst CO2 is undoubtedly a contributor to GW, the IPCC
have been blinkered by it to the exclusion of other human influenced GW effects.
The biggest issue I have with GW is it's abuse by governments as a huge source of revenue, and from there is not difficult to see how scientists
could be influenced to come up with the "correct" data.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 06:24 PM |
|
|
There was a documentary on Channel 4 (?) about a year ago which was very sceptical about the links between CO2 and global warming.
It was VERY convincing and I have not believed a word about emmisions related global warming since.
It was also on youtube or similar but seems to have been disappeared - does anyone else remember it?
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
I do remember it. But how hard would it be to find a group of people who disagree with the majority and are willing to participate in a tv program
that gives them a platform?
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 06:54 PM |
|
|
"The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, i remember that. A nice, balanced piece of technical journalism, as you might infer from the
title. For a while Channel 4 had a feature on the mini website they created for it where you could ask questions of the experts featured in the show.
Reading them gave a very diferent impression than was presented during the programme itself.
Sensationalist shows attract more attention than dry documentaries. The show gave a voice to those most critical of the IPCC methodology &
findings but didn't balance that properly. For a more even-handed view of the strengths & weaknesses of the IPCC report, check out
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
which is the detail of the peer review procedure where thousands of experts in the field were asked to examine the report before publication. It also
contains a list of who they are and where they're from, so you can get an idea of whether their views are authoritative or not.
|
|
|
jono_misfit
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 08:08 PM |
|
|
I remember that program, i also remember a couple of the scientists they interviewed said that their names were on that report. The went on to say
that it was significantly changed between the review draught that they were given and the final release. Despite complaints their names were not
removed from the supporting scientists list.
Im sitting on the fence as im not convinced either way, however i dont believe CO2 is THE issue. It seems illogical to me that with the amount of
different factors that there is a singular responsible item. It is more likely to be a combination of issues and occurances.
I try to minise my energy usage but thats mainly because it cost me less and I would rather spend the money on my car.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 08:27 PM |
|
|
its all well blaming cows farting but at the end of the day (and indeed the next morning too) its us who are breeding them.
The fact is we will in the space of 300 years turn most of the fossil fuels into free CO2. This is a colossal amount of CO2, storing it took millions
of years of solar power.
On the plus side, when they run out there wont be such a problem!
I think we can safely say that man will not start any proceedures likely to store CO2 again due to the energies involved. So the before (the
industrial age) is seperated from the after (the fossil fuels run out) by a vast amount of free CO2.
Now im not man enough to work out how many tonnes or what percent this might actually be, but does it not seem likely that this change in atmospheric
CO2 might have some effect? To me its obvious that it has to.
|
|
|
Agriv8
|
| posted on 11/4/08 at 08:44 PM |
|
|
too Hot for me I am of to the Pub for some Co2 propelled beer.
Regards
Agriv8
Taller than your average Guy !
Management is like a tree of monkeys. - Those at the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. BUT Those at the bottom look up and see a
tree full of a*seholes .............
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 12/4/08 at 07:35 AM |
|
|
The link with CO2 and warming can be proven in the lab, it's a simple experment, you measure how much (longwave) radiation passes though a test
cell of gass, you will find a percentage is removed/and abosrbed by the gas. As energy is conserved this "loss" heats the gase up... So
more CO2 equals more warming to first order...
Where it get's intreasting is the other effects that might counter this (aerosols for example, a negative feedback).. Also some effects make it
worse (positive feedback). This is the real can of worms, we then get into talking about chaotic systems etc etc but even so all the observations and
models are still pointing to a warming effect..
If you look into the responce of a chaotic system you will become very wored about what we are doing to the atmosphere/earth.. Predicting what is
going to happen is difficult...
Dan
|
|
|
t.j.
|
| posted on 12/4/08 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
After 2012 the temperature will drop!
The Maya's knew.
So then all the "CO2-believers" can say:
All Al's input did help......
It's not that i'm not into envoirment.
It's only this: put your help and money into the things which are proven.
Help the poor, help the Africans, stop war (if possible), be carefull with waste,
So if you want to donate ......
Please feel free to correct my bad English, i'm still learning. Your Dutch is awfull! :-)
|
|
|
