The Great Global Warming Debate


#1

Off topic from
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=23606&start=90

nytimes.com/2007/02/03/scien … nd&emc=rss<br%20/>


#2

Jury out as ever .

However

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm

( and it is winter down there now)

and where it is summer

And all this while the sun is ‘chilling’ by recent standards.


#3

Yes after an unusually strong El Nino in 1998 coupled with the solar maximum we got a new worldwide temperature peak. Now in the solar minimum with El Nina (which has a cooling effect) temperatures are almost as high as 1998. The next solar cycle is pretty much certain to set a new global temperature record and so will the one after that.


#4

video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … ndle&dur=3
[gvideo]https://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=316867578385904&ei=RIaFStCtJM2g-AaTia21Bw&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&dur=3[/gvideo]


#5

Ha yes the “Global Warming Swindle” documentary which is a swindle but not in the way you expect. They produce completely incorrect graphs and display trends which end in odd years which just happen to coincide where the trend wouldn’t support their point

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism

In other words the documentary is a collection of outright lies, misrepresentation, things which which were never thought to be true and things which were later disproven.


#6

The debate is pretty much over
It’s happening
It’s man made.

The only things up for question are
How severe will the consequences be?
What can we do about it?
What are the economic and social consequences of doing something about it?
Are the consequences of doing something about it worse than the impact?

Unfortunately too many people who believe that the answer to the last question is Yes, try and argue everything.

Which in my view these threads should be in Central Bank not here.

Global warming is going to be at the core of economic debate for the next 100 years.


#7

God Is Dead-Long Live the Green God
This Green Bolloxology is going to be send us back to the Stone Age.
Al Gore, John Gormley, Eamon Ryan. Any of these clowns to be trusted?
Whatever they are for-I iz agin


#8

have you a rational argument?


#9

Yeah but its possible its a blessing in disguise. Lets say we had no warming but the sun cooled.
So your choice becomes the kilometer of ice above your head or a few feet of sea water rising. Both will give more extreme weather.

Which can we deal with?


#10

We have absolutely no reason to suppose the Sun is going to enter a period of cooling, the “long term” trend for the Sun is warming and in fact in about 500 million years the Earth will be uninhabitable. Therefore we should not try to compensate for something we don’t think is going to happen, for example I probably shouldn’t shoot you right now in case you turn into a vampire.


#11

For ew3d-as regards any rational argument-my last contribution seems to be bumped for reasons to do with who knows.What I will say is global temperatures have oscillated over the millenia and beyond. How else can phenomena like the Ice Age be explained. The big scare back in the 70’s was global cooling-how come nobody is talking about the “man made” hole in the ozone layer anymore. Suggestion is that Green’s etc are opportunists surfing a wave of global neurosis. Unfortunately, just like the Global Warming-it’s not an area that lends itself to definitive chapter and verse with regard to proof.


#12

Yes, I’d much rather put my faith in Dick Cheney, Shell, Exxon and British Petroleum.

No it wasn’t.

Because it’s slowly getting better, thanks to a highly successful international agreement which restricted emissions of the gases causing the problems, hmmm I wonder if there’s perhaps some lesson we can draw from this?


#13

Ah sharper, you’d want to check some of your facts I think.

For a start we are currently in an El Nino period which is currently strengthening, not an El Nina. Also, the next solar cycle is predicted to be the lowest on record since 1928. Temperatures are also not “almost as high as 1998”, 2008 was 0.3 above the average using Hadley data while 1998 was nearly 0.6 above the average.

Also, regarding your “fact” that the Earth will be uninhabitable in 500 millions years, I’m guessing your referring to the recent paper by Guinan which actually states

Regardless of whether your an AGW “believer”, “denier” or “skeptic” the fact is, the debate is not over, we don’t know everything and we are not even close to understanding the immense complexity of our planet and solar system. Anyone who says the debate is over has gone beyond science and into the realm of faith and belief.


#14

totally agree with this statement.


#15

I was referring to the period since 1998, not right this instant. Since 1998 we’ve either not had such a strong El Nino effect or been in El Nina. 2007 was tied with 1998 for the hottest year see here

Yes I am. The long term trend for the Sun will be towards warming, not cooling. We therefore have no reason to take actions which compensate for a cooling sun. The sun will not suddenly start warming in 500 million years it will warm gradually over the period with 500 million years being the likely time at which it will become too warm. The Sun is also warmer and more luminous now than it was in the past, that’s how stars of that type work.

The scientific debate is over concerning AGW. People who don’t understand scientific processes often make claims like “we don’t know everything yet” because they don’t realise we never understand anything. We know to a high degree of certainty that the global temperature of the Earth has increased, we know to a high degree of certainty that about 75% of that is caused by human activity, we know to a high degree of certainty that the trend will continue and accelerate. We don’t know to a high degree of certainty the exact effects but we do know that various human populations will experience significant disruption as a result.

You’ll be hard pressed to find an actual climatologist who disputes either the warming trend or that humans are the main contributor to same. Meanwhile people who are “sceptical” of those positions present the same old crap again and again like “Did you know Pluto is warming! It’s the sun!” and “What to they know, it was global cooling in the 70s!”. The ozone layer one is particularly bizarre since we solved that via similar processes being proposed for climate change but then a lot of the ozone sceptics went on to join to the climate change sceptic movement so I guess it’s to be expected they’re still upset.


#16

It’s actually tied with 1998 for the second warmest, but who cares about the details right?

I know the Sun won’t just warm up suddenly, give me a break. The article states over the 500 million to 1 billion year time frame the Sun will become too warm leading to a runaway green house effect 2 billions years away. You stated something as fact that wasn’t, it was a singular detail (and only half of it at that) in a single paper by a single guy.

The debate is only over by people who wish it to be over. The climate models have been questioned already. New discoveries are being made all the time and anyone who suggests these might be worth looking at and studying more is lumped in with crazies and nutjobs as you have shown above. Climate change has become a belief, almost a religion where anyone who questions it is derided and mocked. That in my book is nothing but a bad thing.


#17

If you’re interested in the details you’ll know that 1998 is the hottest global temperature on record with 1934 being a slightly warmer year for the US. The important aspect is the trend and that’s quite clear i.e.

Here are the years 1850-2007 sorted by temperature

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/myth6_2.gif

It was an aside to a poster suggesting global warming protects us against the sun cooling. If you want to dispute whether the Earth will be habitable in 500 million years you certainly can but unless you’re disputing that the sun will warm I have no idea where you’re going with this.

Of course the models will be questioned. Science is an ongoing process and parts of the models will be shown to be wrong and be improved. The models are attempting to predict what the actual affects of climate change will be and how specific regions will be affected. It will take a lot more work and a lot more data to reach answers which have any certainty attached to them.

However we do know some of the effects already. We know sea levels will rise. We know populations dependent on glacial fresh water will no longer have that water.


#18

Your comparing two different models, the article you linked to quoted the GISS survey with which 2005 is the warmest and the title of the actual article is “2007 Was Tied As Earth’s Second Warmest Year”.

It’s about the details, it’s all about the details, something which seems to be missing a lot of the time in this debate, people on both sides seem more interested in spreading fear with sweeping half-truths.


#19

Having observed the debate extensively the “lack of detail” and half truth is primarily on the sceptic side. You had to jump on a tangential comment made by me in order to find something to dispute, purely a diversion from both the point I was making and the point I was addressing. If you really want to equivocate aside comments that I just happened to find interesting but not are not strictly representative of what most experts would state with certainty with “But what about a cooling sun” which is way outside anything supportable by anything we know then yes you’ll always find that “both sides” have problems. If you want to equivocate corrections of the detail of climate models with “But they said it was cooling in the 70s” then yes you’ll find “both sides” are wrong. If instead you evaluate the claims made by each, the consistency of those claims, the level of certainty attached to those claims and the factual support for those claims then you’ll find the sceptical position losing each and every time. So far climate change sceptics have added nothing but noise to the debate while real climatologists going about doing the actual heavy lifting work of science.


#20

Strangely, my experience is exactly the opposite. It is also the pro AGW camp who are most certain about science. As a result, I don’t consider climate debates to be debates per se, just opportunities for people to plough a new religion either side.

The development of rituals of course remain to be seen.