For "Global warming denial nonsense" to exist you have to have a clearly measurable global warming. Although both local, land/sea/air/proxy/satellite measurements disagree, the whole average the IPCC and most deniers alike seem to have accepted is a world average increase of 0.8C since 1850. That's about half a degree a year. Going back into the official archives (it's too late to dig for links, they are freely discoverable and no point making them up) there have been sharp peaks (I mean a few degrees or more) in a century before every single ice age, using of course proxy data as no other exists prior to the 19th century when temperatures began being measured.|
But a 0.8C rise over that period is something which would not have become anything more than a continued trend between small ice ages had the CO2 not risen. Meanwhile the direct indicators, sea level and ice coverage are far easier to measure, although far from perfect. The ice is more complex of the two, as does not stay still for long and what melts today can freeze tomorrow, relatively speaking. There was a 2% overall drop in 2007, and that is slowly recovering. The land ice is 91% Antarctic, which has not been decreasing. These are from the University of Illinois own long term measurements and used worldwide as reference.
The sea level however needs measuring across the world and averaged out as although water finds a level in a small scale sea does not to the same extent as has so many other influences- tide, orbital precession etc as to make it wobble like a jelly. But add the lot together for an average using what they have got, and we get 9 inches a century. That's since 1850.
So, the global warming has produced a less than 1 degree rise in 160 years and a 9 inch rise in sea in 100. The ice has varied, and reduced a little as it must in a rising phase. As I said before, had CO2 not risen in the same period very few if any people would have said a word and carried on about their business. The sum total of global warming is provided by computer based scenarios that don't fully play out till after we're all dead. In fact every single IPCC and related prediction from the 90s for the shorter term has failed to happen to my knowledge, and if you collect each one per year and compare them to the previous year (which a couple of interested observers have done) you will see they are even more wild than the actual climate in the present in their variations.
Sorry, that is no case for any jury of peers (get it?!).
Reply #361. Jun 24 11, 6:23 PM
Predictions from the 90s failed? I don't think so. Here are some models from the 80s and 90s plotted against actual observations. Looks like a pretty good match to me. True though that ice melt and sea level rise have occurred faster than predicted.|
So contrary to what satguru might think, what the scientists were predicting in the 90s has come to pass.
Reply #362. Jun 25 11, 12:34 AM
"I dealt with this 1998 nonsense before, do I have to go over that again?" |
No. Sorry to put you to any trouble.
Reply #366. Jun 25 11, 8:35 AM
Skeptical Science is a site purely designed to squash all data that disagrees with AGW at any cost. They simply use their superior knowledge of science to give the impression they have the ability to destroy any equally qualified colleague's work. The fact is that the disagreeing data is just as valid as any on the other side, the whole area is actually so complex we are in our infancy at measuring it, and till recently had no reason to measure it in such detail as climate science was the province of short and long term forecasting up to 60 days maximum, and scientific research out of pure interest.|
Now there is an agenda in place they like us to believe that suddenly because a few obscure lecturers raised the rising CO2 issue in the 80s, coincidentally exactly when the brand new satellites produced totally different temperature measurements to the old methods, they have the ability to work out both worldwide phenomenon accurately and even long term into a century or more. Hubris at best, pure dishonesty at worst. You can rearrange and rebase data till you're black in the face, all those details mean zip when measured against a barely noticeable rise in temperature and even smaller in sea level regardless of all the high falutin peer reviewed double dutch that's thrown at us every day by the media who love a good story. I'll have to look up my own site demonstrating the way that the predictions simply change so often and so widely if you use those criteria one of them will always be right as they have so many goes. Science? Feh!
Reply #367. Jun 25 11, 8:52 AM
""I dealt with this 1998 nonsense before, do I have to go over that again?" |
No. Sorry to put you to any trouble."
Sounds a bit like a maths teacher talking to a child who 'doesn't get it'. Stand in the corner please Lesley...and face the wall!
Reply #369. Jun 25 11, 9:35 AM
That was funny jonnowales. I'm sitting in class enjoying this. Some students though can get somewhat mouthy. Shhh.|
Reply #370. Jun 25 11, 11:17 AM
I'm already there, Jonno. Please will you pass me my pointy hat? |
Reply #372. Jun 25 11, 1:16 PM
My bottom line is that the sheer diversity of data tells me one thing at least, they cannot agree as one side is determined to prove they are right (regardless of the reasons) and will go to any lengths to exaggerate and adjust the figures when they don't demonstrate the same expectations as they do. That is not science but base human nature and does the ones who claim it is a certainty no favours at all. Meanwhile we have the independents, organisations such as coastguards and older diagrams of historic records which were made before anyone had thought of climate change.|
There are dozens of diagrams showing a medieval warm period way warmer than now, sea level measurements over centuries which barely grow, and flat temperatures in certain areas going back for decades. These tend to come from long term institutions who others should be using for their data, but seem to find alternatives and when for instance the UK and Pacific US coast records both show no significant rises for decades in two datasets you then see either different ones measured by others or worst of all the same data adjusted to look quite different.
It is impossible to have confidence in making any policies let alone conclusions from an infant branch of science which Philip Stott, an environmental professor at London University, says knows no more than 20% of what it needs to about the climate. Secondly it has never been possible to extrapolate chaotic systems, it is physically impossible to collect the slightly predictable and totally unpredictable elements of the climate more than months ahead, and most of them are no better than random in the Met Office at least as we hear them and laugh every year. If you expect that level of hedging (they only have a standard 51-49% confidence over things like warm summers) combined with expectations of seeing 100 years ahead you are dreaming. Combine that with the +/-400% error margin of the IPCC 2100 temperatures which should never have been allowed as make a nonsense out of the whole issue to any outsiders. If they admitted they simply don't and can't know, and didn't spend my money and yours on totally inadequate alternatives which cost ten times plus more than existing fuel then there wouldn't be a fuss. But they've gone ahead and turned society upside down as if it was a certainty both now and in the future. That is like cutting off your childrens' legs to stop them running into the road. Except you do know that will work. Governments worldwide should not act on what are no more than tentative and totally polar theories, we simply haven't got the data in or the expertise to try and do more than study this issue and certainly not enough to make dangerous and destructive changes to our lives and economies.
Reply #373. Jun 25 11, 2:28 PM
"There are dozens of diagrams showing a medieval warm period way warmer than now,"|
I'm sure there are, but we don't live like they did then. No I'm afraid the planet is in serious trouble (MHO) but no point in changing life styles - too late for that (MHO)
Reply #374. Jun 25 11, 2:59 PM
Lesley, I have a hat with a nice big 'D' on it but maybe it should stand for denier rather than dunce. The 'D' is green though, so that's a start to your rehab right?|
Boxjaw, there are plenty of corners to go around. :)
Reply #375. Jun 25 11, 3:10 PM
D is what I was hoping for. I had to look at the word "denier" three times before I twigged that it means one who denies - not how fine my tights are. |
Have you got any other colours? My school uniform was bottle green, and I haven't worn green since I left school. Can I come out of the corner yet please?
Reply #376. Jun 25 11, 3:28 PM
Minutes after I wrote above I found an almost identical article on Facebook. The governments and media use certainty, the canny scientists do not. Each new finding is provisional, and frequently overturned. You are urinating into the wind (see how I can switch terms there almost smoothly?) imagining a computer model can imitate the existing climate, let alone where it's going tomorrow and god forbid 100 years ahead as the mavens at IPCC did in the 90s. That is not gospel, it is pure folly, and every developed country and many others have paid for it and continue to. Who knows that the long list of likely benefits of a warmer climate (not based on someone's IT department but historical records) was not concocted by deniers, but the IPCC 2007 report? Fewer cold related (ie overall, as they are always more) deaths, more food production, less energy usage, things I've always said and been shouted down, although they are officially part of the UN's own data!|
If you don't believe a computer can imitate a human brain (which few if any I hope would) then why does anyone think it can imitate the world's climate system? The levels of complexity are pretty well similar yet I doubt many would take a computer simulation of a brain's activity seriously, let alone what it would be doing next year!
Reply #378. Jun 25 11, 6:08 PM
Oops, and missed a bit, Robin, what I said about historic records is sufficient already for a pretty clear idea of a warmer world. There are many documents and even empty wine bottles from way north of where grapes could grow now, all saying how lush the fields were and relatively healthy the population, up to a certain level warm is good, it does not cause anything different to everything we already have, and current studies show extreme weather is not connected with heat, and as for sea levels they cannot change at a rate quicker than the time it takes a whole generation to move out from as they have done as long as man has been on the planet. But surely the effect is what we're looking at here, which I've just described based on a combination of IPCC reports and historic records. Even if we had speeded up an existing warming phase a little (which previous predictions in the 90s put at 1-2C by 2010, a major clanger which was part of my earlier general prediction failures) the effects haven't exactly kicked in yet (bear in mind my first equation, 260ppm-520ppm = 1C with no feedback) and we are pretty much dead on for that. You'd both need major positive feedback (which hasn't happened as the figures only tally without any) or the virtually impossible delayed feedback no one expected or mentioned, which is getting less and less likely by the decade. If the effect is not so bad, then why worry about possible causes?|
Reply #379. Jun 25 11, 6:18 PM
The whole idea of global warming (or climate change, or whatever the poor, deluded fools are calling it nowadays) is very simple. Mankind is burning fossil fuels, and this process releases so-called "greenhouse gases," mostly carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. This, in turn, causes global temperatures to rise. That's the theory. The problem is that the facts don't match the theory. If there was any truth in theory, global temperatures would rise directly in correlation with the concentration of greenhouse gases. They haven't. Global temperatures rose very slightly from the middle of the 19th century until the end of the 20th century, and since 1998, they have been falling. As we are approaching another Maunder Minimum, expect to see temperatures drop more quickly. There are many things that affect global temperatures, but burning fossils fuels is so insignificant that it can be discounted. A bunch of leftist alarmists want us to drastically alter our lifestyles, and ruin our economies, in homage to a theory that has been disproven over and over again. These same people, when not preaching the dangers of global warming, are probably communing with crystals or running naked in the woods and talking to trees. Al Gore is the new P. T. Barnum. |
Reply #380. Jun 26 11, 12:04 AM
Legal / Conditions of Use