Unfortunately GG, every time you equate 'weather' and 'climate' you imply that you don't understand the problem, or that you're being wilfully misleading.
Prosecute Climate Change Advocates
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
Unfortunately GG, every time you equate 'weather' and 'climate' you imply that you don't understand the problem, or that you're being wilfully misleading.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,589
- Reactions
- 14,324
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
My question is how did the 2035 figure ever get included in the official IPCC position.
It is so scientifically absurd and was so vehemently challenged by glaciologists, there can be only 2 answers.
1/ Extreme incompetence combined with arrogance.
2/ Intentional misinformation (AKA fraud).
Either way, with this and all the other issues, the credibility of the IPCC is in tatters.
My question is how did the 2035 figure ever get included in the official IPCC position.
It is so scientifically absurd and was so vehemently challenged by glaciologists, there can be only 2 answers.
1/ Extreme incompetence combined with arrogance.
2/ Intentional misinformation (AKA fraud).
Either way, with this and all the other issues, the credibility of the IPCC is in tatters.
- Joined
- 5 March 2008
- Posts
- 951
- Reactions
- 141
Sneak'n,
I'll take up this challenge if you and other true believers are ready to address the following....
1. For hundreds of millions of years plant-life has been having an unnatural effect on the planet by sequestering vast amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and placing it underground to the detriment of the climate. The CO2 levels have dropped to such low levels over the last few million years that vast ice sheets have been able to cover large areas of the planet. Luckily for the planet a species has evolved to the point where it has been able to re-release this carbon back into the atmosphere to help restore the CO2 balance back to more 'normal' levels.
2. If the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are currently, then why isn't the temperature and sea level the same as then?? ie 3-6 degrees warmer and 15-40 metres higher?? If you believe in a lag and CO2 is it, then current levels of Co2 in the atmosphere should have you argueing to spend vast amounts on adapting to the changes likely to happen and not on reducing the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. What would the climate be doing, change wise, without the influence of man, given that we are at the end of a 'natural'
warming period anyway (or very close to it).
brty
I'll take up this challenge if you and other true believers are ready to address the following....
1. For hundreds of millions of years plant-life has been having an unnatural effect on the planet by sequestering vast amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and placing it underground to the detriment of the climate. The CO2 levels have dropped to such low levels over the last few million years that vast ice sheets have been able to cover large areas of the planet. Luckily for the planet a species has evolved to the point where it has been able to re-release this carbon back into the atmosphere to help restore the CO2 balance back to more 'normal' levels.
2. If the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are currently, then why isn't the temperature and sea level the same as then?? ie 3-6 degrees warmer and 15-40 metres higher?? If you believe in a lag and CO2 is it, then current levels of Co2 in the atmosphere should have you argueing to spend vast amounts on adapting to the changes likely to happen and not on reducing the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. What would the climate be doing, change wise, without the influence of man, given that we are at the end of a 'natural'
warming period anyway (or very close to it).brty
Unfortunately for this species, it has never existed when CO2 levels were at their so-called 'normal' levels, and it has a tendency to build its main population centres in low-lying areas close to the ocean, thereby leaving it exposed to severe risk of flooding etc. if sea levels rise back to 'normal' levels.
Although the absolute levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are a problem, what's a bigger issue is the rate of increase. 280 -> ~390ppm, or about 40% increase in roughly 200 years is far too fast to allow natural systems to adapt. So, there's an inherent lag. Your argument is that we accept the inevitable and plan for it, however, logically, since we can put the stuff into the atmosphere so fast, we can also remove it pretty quickly if we choose to do so, thereby possibly preventing the issues in the first place.
3. What would the climate be doing, change wise, without the influence of man, given that we are at the end of a 'natural'
The global average temperature would be about 0.75C degrees cooler and the climate would be roughly the same as it was pre-industrialisation. We may be at the end of a warming period, but, left to its own devices, global climate doesn't generally change drastically on the order of decades, more on the order of centuries. Estimations of global temperature from ice core data express historical temperatures as a difference compared to the average temp. over the last 100 years. The estimations show that the global average temp (GAT) drops to 9C under the current average during the peak of the last four ice ages, and rises to +2C over the current average during the warming periods following the last 4 ice ages. Presumably this is where the "we should limit temp increase to 2C" comes from. Those peak temperatures have been accompanied by CO2 levels of around 300-320ppm.
I can only repeat that the science of forcings - radiative forcings in the climate context - is pivotal to global climate change. Do you wish to explain why you are not prepared to discuss this vital aspect of climate science?
That would only be true if the empirical evidence that shows warming was not available. Do you contend there is no emperical evidence in recent times to suggest the earth has warmed?
- Joined
- 5 March 2008
- Posts
- 951
- Reactions
- 141
Sidamo,
That is total garbage, as the type of events in the past, huge volcanic eruptions (think yellowstone) or asteroid strikes have changed things on a massive scale very quickly, yet the natural systems have adapted. Any change causes natural systems to adapt. What the true believers are trying to say with this cr@p is that existing natural systems need time to move their terrain to a similar climate space that they enjoyed before. What the real science shows is that changes occur very quickly, the climate tends to change abruptly and plant and animal systems evolve into something new to accommodate the changes in climate.
So what was the 'younger dryas'?? an aberration in the data that didn't exist???
Which "same", the climate of the little ice age or the climate of the medieval warm period?? The historic records clearly show that the climate is constantly changing, so why would it now not be changing???
brty
That is total garbage, as the type of events in the past, huge volcanic eruptions (think yellowstone) or asteroid strikes have changed things on a massive scale very quickly, yet the natural systems have adapted. Any change causes natural systems to adapt. What the true believers are trying to say with this cr@p is that existing natural systems need time to move their terrain to a similar climate space that they enjoyed before. What the real science shows is that changes occur very quickly, the climate tends to change abruptly and plant and animal systems evolve into something new to accommodate the changes in climate.
So what was the 'younger dryas'?? an aberration in the data that didn't exist???
Which "same", the climate of the little ice age or the climate of the medieval warm period?? The historic records clearly show that the climate is constantly changing, so why would it now not be changing???
brty
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,589
- Reactions
- 14,324
ROFL Is English not your first language?
Let me rephrase - "anthropogenic" climate change is a hypothesis, particularly co2 induced AGW.
- Joined
- 15 January 2008
- Posts
- 691
- Reactions
- 1
In all fairness brty - not the best of arguments to put forward. As while, yes, there have been significant events that have had rapid effects on the climate, these events are usually accompanied by mass extinctions and the following adaptation and balance occur over millennia.
IF the rapid relative increase in atmospheric CO2 is to blame for the observed temp increases and IF it portents future temperature rises outside the survival envelope for critical species in the food chain, Earth will not be a very nice place to be for a time span significantly greater than the average human life.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Brty. Although I agree with what you are saying here, isn't the issue that is of concern to us is whether the human species can adapt to such quick changes. I have no doubt the planet and biological life in general will survive abrupt climate changes, what is of concern to me as a human being is will human beings survive.
I presume we're trying to avoid the 'adapt by extinction' and 'adapt by mass death' options?
We all know the planet will soldier on and adapt to whatever we throw at it. The question is how will modern society adapt to the changes. When the climate has changed very suddenly in the past, there tends to have been nasty consequences, cf: dinosaurs, and there are now so many of us that we're a lot more susceptible to changes than we were even 200 years ago.
As for Younger Dryas, I never suggested the climate didn't change, just that *in general* it doesn't do so rapidly. Your highlighting of an event when it did change rapidly 12000 years ago, doesn't invalidate what I said at all.
"Pre-industrial" refers to approx. 1750. Again, I never suggested the climate doesn't change, merely that it would be approximately 0.75C cooler *on average* than it is now, given that that is the estimated contribution our extra C)2 has made to temperature. The climate would still be changing, it would most likely just be oscillating around a lower mean.
As recently as 1900 there were less than a billion people on the planet. Pressure for food/water/land/resources was consequently a lot less. Given that forecasts put 9 billion or so of us on the planet by 2050, with a large part of that 9 billions requiring far more resources than your average 1900 person (incl. requiring those resources for a much longer life), you can see why there might be less 'give' in the system and less resiliency to possible consequences of climate change.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,841
- Reactions
- 19,153
Don't forget that by taking action now, we are guaranteeing truly massive ecological disruption in non-CO2 ways in order to lower CO2 emissions. That's not the sort of thing I'd like to do without reasonable certainty that it's actually necessary...
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
Why climate change is a 'scam'
Here's a link to an interview by The Age with Lord Monckton
http://media.theage.com.au/opinion/...c-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html
Good to hear he touches on the consequential school of ethics when it comes to hunger in third world countries and the use of bio-fuels. Rather than just follow the deontological fallacy of the science.
Here's a link to an interview by The Age with Lord Monckton
http://media.theage.com.au/opinion/...c-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html
Good to hear he touches on the consequential school of ethics when it comes to hunger in third world countries and the use of bio-fuels. Rather than just follow the deontological fallacy of the science.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 15,034
- Reactions
- 13,420
Christopher Monckton has quite a good mind and I would heed carefully what he says.
I sat in the seat next to him on a plane once from Denver to London in the 80s, when he was under fire for his controversial policy on AIDS. He proposed quarantining those with the disease and testing everyone yearly, in order to eradicate it. I thought it would never get up, and it didn't. I told him so.
He is correct on this Weather debate though. All this EPS nonsense will make paupers out of the Third World.
Perhaps we should quarantine Gore, Kev07, Wong et al? This belief in theendoftheworld is like AIDS.
gg
- Joined
- 7 September 2009
- Posts
- 272
- Reactions
- 3
That's your answer? I show why your claim that the Himalayan glacier issue has nothing to do with the science, and you don't contest what I've said - but you don't mind making the claim again. I answer your posts with the best data science has to offer, and instead of telling us where you're getting your data you just wave you hand and claim "cherry picking".
Do you even know what cherry picking is? (You clearly don't know what ad hom means). How on earth is posting the generally accepted temperature record "cherry picking"? Please, tell me what you think cherry picking is.
You dismiss the model. Oh, you can't be confident they could know the temperatures in a year, let alone ten. Well here's the predictions from the mid-90's - this is the data from the IPCC TAR Summary for Policy Makers. The grey part shows the expected range, the dotted lines the scenarios. The full blue and red lines are the actual observed data in the more-than-ten years following the report (GISS and HadCRU respectively):
I'd say that's a PRETTY GOOD MATCH, wouldn't you? Done with 15-odd years less of data collection, research and computing power than we have now.
So what on EARTH do you base your scepticism on, exactly? Do you have any figures, or do you just make them up?
Look, let's put the science aside for a moment. Let's go to first principles.
To believe that the majority of scientists on earth are engaged in a vast conspiracy, you have to believe that there have been no defectors. Any one could come out of that system with a massive paper trail - just the sort of thing that "Climategate" pretended to be (and if there are any readers who still think that those leaked emails showed a god-damn thing about faked science, please feel free to point out something in there that convinces you of that, and I'll be happy to address it).
There are tens of thousands of people working on this. Any one of them could blow the lid off this by coming out with a paper trail. They would be RICH AND FAMOUS - or as rich and famous as any scientist could get. There are thousands of papers published, thousands of research projects in progress, every one with many people intimately involved and every one would have to be manipulating data or hiding it to conform to the "orthodoxy". The paper trail would be immense.
Yet... nothing.
You guys suggest that they're all doing this for the funding - but :
1. Note that the research scientists who are saying that AGW is happening are the guys saying the science is sown up. They don't get funding for something they say they know, they get money to explore new things. Different people altogether get money for solutions (politicians, media wh0res, engineers, and so on).
2. Any individual who broke ranks with evidence would be a world wide celebrity. They would be in the history books. They would have interview deals, book deals, adoration galore, and a truck load of money. And you think that not one single poorly-paid graduate student has bothered to copy some emails, nab a hard drive? That they're all pawns of the conspiracy, every single one?
If you guys believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Look, to try to put this in a trading context (even if I don't know trading from my own backside), you're like people who have read, over and over, that market makers manipulate the spread just to take out retail traders. You think this despite all the people who know what they're talking about saying it's nonsense. You think it despite the fact that it's way too hard and way too expensive to be worth the bother. You think it only because you've been sitting in little echo-chamber forums and blogs for so long that you think it's obvious. Even though, to the rest of the world, the idea is ludicrous.
There's nothing in it for the research scientists to lie like this. They are not the ones profiting. And even if they were, the idea of a conspiracy so vast, with massive inducements for the first person to break ranks, is just flat out impossible. You guys point to something like the Himalaya thing, a peice of propaganda (if that's what it was) so completely idiotic (they KNEW the media had it, so if they'd knownthey were wrong about the data they MUST have known it would come out and damage their credibility) that this would be the single dopiest conspiracy in the history of the world.
Yet you credit them with an international conspiracy of immense proportions, maintained against the direct interest of the individuals involved.
Further reading:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288
---
...and now you're quoting Monckton as a reliable source??? Dear GOD, people!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/
Attachments
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
I am surprised that someone with your apparent stature, throw and influence couldn't change his mind GG.
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
That's your answer? I show why your claim that the Himalayan glacier issue has nothing to do with the science, and you don't contest what I've said - but you don't mind making the claim again. I answer your posts with the best data science has to offer, and instead of telling us where you're getting your data you just wave you hand and claim "cherry picking".
Do you even know what cherry picking is? (You clearly don't know what ad hom means). How on earth is posting the generally accepted temperature record "cherry picking"? Please, tell me what you think cherry picking is.
You dismiss the model. Oh, you can't be confident they could know the temperatures in a year, let alone ten. Well here's the predictions from the mid-90's - this is the data from the IPCC TAR Summary for Policy Makers. The grey part shows the expected range, the dotted lines the scenarios. The full blue and red lines are the actual observed data in the more-than-ten years following the report (GISS and HadCRU respectively):
I'd say that's a PRETTY GOOD MATCH, wouldn't you? Done with 15-odd years less of data collection, research and computing power than we have now.
So what on EARTH do you base your scepticism on, exactly? Do you have any figures, or do you just make them up?
Look, let's put the science aside for a moment. Let's go to first principles.
To believe that the majority of scientists on earth are engaged in a vast conspiracy, you have to believe that there have been no defectors. Any one could come out of that system with a massive paper trail - just the sort of thing that "Climategate" pretended to be (and if there are any readers who still think that those leaked emails showed a god-damn thing about faked science, please feel free to point out something in there that convinces you of that, and I'll be happy to address it).
There are tens of thousands of people working on this. Any one of them could blow the lid off this by coming out with a paper trail. They would be RICH AND FAMOUS - or as rich and famous as any scientist could get. There are thousands of papers published, thousands of research projects in progress, every one with many people intimately involved and every one would have to be manipulating data or hiding it to conform to the "orthodoxy". The paper trail would be immense.
Yet... nothing.
You guys suggest that they're all doing this for the funding - but :
1. Note that the research scientists who are saying that AGW is happening are the guys saying the science is sown up. They don't get funding for something they say they know, they get money to explore new things. Different people altogether get money for solutions (politicians, media wh0res, engineers, and so on).
2. Any individual who broke ranks with evidence would be a world wide celebrity. They would be in the history books. They would have interview deals, book deals, adoration galore, and a truck load of money. And you think that not one single poorly-paid graduate student has bothered to copy some emails, nab a hard drive? That they're all pawns of the conspiracy, every single one?
If you guys believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Look, to try to put this in a trading context (even if I don't know trading from my own backside), you're like people who have read, over and over, that market makers manipulate the spread just to take out retail traders. You think this despite all the people who know what they're talking about saying it's nonsense. You think it despite the fact that it's way too hard and way too expensive to be worth the bother. You think it only because you've been sitting in little echo-chamber forums and blogs for so long that you think it's obvious. Even though, to the rest of the world, the idea is ludicrous.
There's nothing in it for the research scientists to lie like this. They are not the ones profiting. And even if they were, the idea of a conspiracy so vast, with massive inducements for the first person to break ranks, is just flat out impossible. You guys point to something like the Himalaya thing, a peice of propaganda (if that's what it was) so completely idiotic (they KNEW the media had it, so if they'd knownthey were wrong about the data they MUST have known it would come out and damage their credibility) that this would be the single dopiest conspiracy in the history of the world.
Yet you credit them with an international conspiracy of immense proportions, maintained against the direct interest of the individuals involved.
Further reading:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288
---
...and now you're quoting Monckton as a reliable source??? Dear GOD, people!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/
I'm questioning the philosophy behind the solution. An ETS. I owe no duty to a science that claims I morally should do so, if the consequences of such bring suffering. If fellow human beings will become hungrier and poorer as a result of an ETS, I vote no.
Hunger is suffering.
GL
Attachments
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
Imagine if an ETS became like a free market Enron. I can hear the traders now.
Instead of "Let 'em freeze or let 'em sweat."
"Let em starve."
Which is the great thing about ASF, at least you get to ask why?
Instead of "Let 'em freeze or let 'em sweat."
"Let em starve."
Which is the great thing about ASF, at least you get to ask why?
- Joined
- 19 May 2006
- Posts
- 69
- Reactions
- 0
The following email lobbed into my inbox today. Can't confirm the veracity of it though so take it as you will.
<COPY>
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway ... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
[scroll down]
I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
</COPY>
<COPY>
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway ... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
[scroll down]
I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
</COPY>
- Joined
- 27 November 2009
- Posts
- 58
- Reactions
- 0
Hey GG
I used to sit on your side with this argument. I was always arguing with friends that there was no "solid" evidence of GW. It is easy to dismiss a lot of the "science" when there is an obvious conflict of interest (ie a report from a scientist from the "Global Warming Research Institute") They are never going to publish anything which disputes the argument.
Now I am no researcher, or scientist for that matter, however after spending 6 months looking at the topic during a Post Grad unit I now find it pretty difficult to argue that a) Global warming is not occuring (I never argued it wasnt, I just argued that humans were not the cause and it was "natural") b) Humans are not the primary cause.
If you have plenty of time on your hands read the Stern Report. I found it pretty interesting and it opened my eyes to a lot of unknowns. It is bloody long, so just pick out the parts you find interesting.
I would be interested to hear if, after reading the Stern Report, you still maintain your argument.
All the best.
Blacky
I used to sit on your side with this argument. I was always arguing with friends that there was no "solid" evidence of GW. It is easy to dismiss a lot of the "science" when there is an obvious conflict of interest (ie a report from a scientist from the "Global Warming Research Institute") They are never going to publish anything which disputes the argument.
Now I am no researcher, or scientist for that matter, however after spending 6 months looking at the topic during a Post Grad unit I now find it pretty difficult to argue that a) Global warming is not occuring (I never argued it wasnt, I just argued that humans were not the cause and it was "natural") b) Humans are not the primary cause.
If you have plenty of time on your hands read the Stern Report. I found it pretty interesting and it opened my eyes to a lot of unknowns. It is bloody long, so just pick out the parts you find interesting.
I would be interested to hear if, after reading the Stern Report, you still maintain your argument.
All the best.
Blacky
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 16,328
- Reactions
- 8,346
I think prosecuting climate change advocates is just a waste of energy. We just need a good ol neck tie party to string up a few of the main culprits and that will quieten down the rest of the rabble.
I'm glad (maybe ) that Garpal and co have seduced a few new people into arguing against their denier conspiracy theories. I just hope these newbies don't spend too much time working out that no amount of considered scientific research, logical argument or even the simple possibility that even if there was a 10% chance our CO2 emissions were going to knock us off we should do something about it is going to move these guys. Good luck.
Over and out.
I'm glad (maybe ) that Garpal and co have seduced a few new people into arguing against their denier conspiracy theories. I just hope these newbies don't spend too much time working out that no amount of considered scientific research, logical argument or even the simple possibility that even if there was a 10% chance our CO2 emissions were going to knock us off we should do something about it is going to move these guys. Good luck.
Over and out.