[Closed] Global warming - see for yourself

My opinion on that graph,

Well i think the legend is too large and the size of the font takes the focus away from the graph itself. Colour choice is ok, but yellow is never a good one, i would have mixed it up with maybe a variance in full lines and dashed lines. I think the title font is too large, and i prefer arial narrow font myself.

As far of the data goes, well its anyones guess, you have to speculate to accumulate!

From the reference I posted earlier:

7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE

Sceptic

Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans.

Counter

This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, this time, CO2 is leading temperature. Furthermore, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from man-made emissions, and levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records. They may in fact be higher than at any time in the last three million years.

Hainey,

On what basis do you doubt the data?

..and as stated above, isn't CO2 increase currently LEADING temperature increase and not lagging as you correctly state has been observed in the historical ice core record?

To be honest i haven't really looked at the graph and what it all means, i tried but the legend took the focus away from the data and i couldnt concentrate. However, from what i see they seem to be speculating a temperature rise of about 5deg by 2100.

You know what, they could be right, there could be a rise in temperature. Of the severity i think they are being a little knee-jerk. Maybe a degree or 2

But is this down to man? I don't think so. I think its part of a natural cycle.

Let me let you into a little secret about what happens in the scientifitic community

Professor Bob goes to university
Professor Bob becomes an expert in his field
Professor Bob gets funding from an establishment for his research
Professor Bob is happy.
Professor Bob finishes his research and its not the answer the establishment wanted to hear.
Professor Bob is asked to choose between his scientific morals and his money
Professor Bob wants money
Science loses.

I think its part of a natural cycle.

Thinking something without a valid reason to think it is usually the preserve of religion. Fine for feeling happy on a Sunday morning, but a poor basis for gambling with the future.

Good point hainey, that's exactly why you can't trust those denial scientists that are funded by the oil industry and Saudi Arabia.

Much better to look at the findings from the independent bodies , funded by the state, charity or academia.

funded by the state

Where do you think academias money comes from?

Thinking something without a valid reason to think it is usually the preserve of religion

Ok, how about "It is because of a natural cycle"

Natural cycles of global warming have been proven to exist, the hypothesis of global warming due to man has not.

Mark, that's a good graph - its similar to this one:

[img] [/img]

see that - if we continue on that basis, then by 2050 everyone will be obese, and 2100 then obesity rates will be over 200% of the population, and thats really quite scary!

Since when has drawing a graph and extrapolating a future predicted curve been anything like an accurate guide to what will happen - especially concerning something as complex as global climate, which is so complex that we cannot model all the variables (primarily because we don't know them all) - its like creating a computer model of cancer - we cannot do it, as we don't really understand the disease.

Oh come on, some graphs are useful:

[img] [/img]

Hainey you are beyond parody. My favourite claim is that there are more tress NOW than there ever has been

I hope you are just troling

z-11

Since when has drawing a graph and extrapolating a future predicted curve been anything like an accurate guide to what will happen

Why is that your favourite? Do you have information to the contrary?

see that - if we continue on that basis, then by 2050 everyone will be obese, and 2100 then obesity rates will be over 200% of the population, and thats really quite scary!

Hmm .. there are reasons why that cannot happen, as you know. However, there is no reason to think that current activities will not cause CO2 to increase, and no reason to think that temperatures will fall, or even stabilise, with increased CO2.

Other than that - good point.

Since when has drawing a graph and extrapolating a future predicted curve been anything like an accurate guide to what will happen -
especially concerning something as complex as global climate, which is so complex that we cannot model all the variables (primarily because we don't know them all) - its like creating a computer model of cancer - we cannot do it, as we don't really understand the disease.

We do the best we can, and check the predictions against known data.

Or we just stick our fingersin our ears and whistle.

Hey look - hainey posted a graph!! Not relevant, but slightly amusing.

Well done!!

Zulu, I was merely asking for an opinion on a graph.

But you seem to be making a comparison between a graph showing projected temperature increases consisting of 8 independent studies with a graph of one study showing how many fat people there may be in the future.

Temperature? Fat people?

I'm not seeing a similarity... What was your point?

Mark - its all down to one word:

[b]

projected

Linear regression and prediction is a very dodgy area, with very low levels of confidence in complex models

DrJ, glad you found it amusing.

The report was produced by 620 authors and editors from 40 countries, and reviewed by more than 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I,[8] which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007

They had confidence enough in it though ... why not you

You are correct that it would be better if there was stronger measure than extrapolation but genuinely what else can we do but predict from current known facts? The models explain the weather for the last century and all give broadly similar results.

What would you suggest as an alternative measure... I can't see what else we can do can you?

620 authors, 40 countries, 620 experts and governments.

man thats a lot of bribes to come up with complete drivel.

Linear regression and prediction is a very dodgy area, with very low levels of confidence in complex models

Correct. Which is why no-one is doing that.

hainey - Member
620 authors, 40 countries, 620 experts and governments.

man thats a lot of bribes to come up with complete drivel.

No trolling.

Regardless of views on global warming:

Measures to control the burning of hydrocarbons are beneficial.
Measures to control asset stripping forest and agricultural land are beneficial.

In my opinion subsidies to alternate energy companies are totally wrong because the better alternative is to penalise the polluters.

BTW there is a graph somewhere that ties global warming to the increase of gears on bikes - I'm doing my bit by riding singlespeed - how about you lot? 🙂

Agreed epicyclo,

no evidence AGAIN - just have that as my coment to your every post to save me the time of posting it.
EDIT: to summarise then you dont belive there is a link between any of this but you both agree it would be beneficial to do something.

I am now as confused as you two.

Well given my posting I can understand why you are confused about where I stand on this issue 😯

is that OK you agree you have never evidenced your claims or Ok you will evidence them 😉

To summarise, so its clear for you:

I believe that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, it is a proven thing and well understood.

I think that global warming and cooling due to man made issues, CO2 etc is a myth and a con by many to extract money from green taxes. I think that the natural cycle of the planet is the main influence of climate temperature.

I also think that preservation of our natural resources is fundamental.

Natural global warming and cooling - FACT
Man made global warmin and cooling - THEORY

Z-11

Linear regression and prediction is a very dodgy area, with very low levels of confidence in complex models

And you can make it look even more dodgy when you project the line off the edge of the graph, which is what you just did.

What scientists do is to make the projections they are comfortable with.

If you asked the scientists behind the obesity graph whether they would draw the same conclusions you did, then I'd suggest not.

Sorry, Z-11 that point was crap and you know it.

Very true Heiney
But if MMGW ever gets proven, wouldn't it be too late?

[i]Let me let you into a little secret about what happens in the scientifitic community

Professor Bob goes to university
Professor Bob becomes an expert in his field
Professor Bob gets funding from an establishment for his research
Professor Bob is happy.
Professor Bob finishes his research and its not the answer the establishment wanted to hear.
Professor Bob is asked to choose between his scientific morals and his money
Professor Bob wants money
Science loses. [/i]

Professor Bob is clearly a weakling and should be shunned.

I believe that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, it is a proven thing and well understood.

And do you honestly think that none of those expert climatologists might be aware of the various natural cycles in the climate?

If the current trend is a "natural cycle" then it is a new one that we have no prior evidence of.

hainey,

You've still not followed that link have you?

Here it is again:

[url= http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/ ]Why some people are scared to educate themselves about climate change[/url]

Or if hainey isn't prepared to read it, maybe the rest of you can and then you'll understand why he has no control over his behaviour?

On the one hand we have Hainey who offers no evidence to support his view, misrepresented the findings of the IPCC report, chooses to ignore world scientists because of a global bribery on behalf of ???, thinks that this is the only reason governments can think of to tax us , does not understand the carbon cycle and thinks we have more trees today than ever before.

On the other hand we have a report compiled by 620 authors and editors from 40 countries, and reviewed by more than 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I,[8] which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007 with no major dissenting voice within the scientific community.

It is a tough call as to which is most likely to be an accurate prediction of future events.

rightplacerighttime, why do you find it hard to listen to other peoples point of view? Believe it or not, i like to make my mind up about things without reading complete biased drivel. Its why i don't watch any of Michael Moores films or any of the 9/11 documentaries, because in my opinion they are unbalanced and biased and lead the weak minded to their way of thinking. I'm not saying that all the content is wrong, neither is it right, but if you watched or read all of these conspiracy theories then, well i don't know where we would be......

The moon landing was fake
The twin towers was a controlled explosion
JFK shot himself from the grassy knoll with the help of the crew of the Red Dwarf.

I have looked and read a lot about global warming and made up my opinion on it, as have you. The thing that will really make you mad is that you can't prove that you are right, whilst neither can I.

I can prove that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle - its documented everywhere. Hard fact evidence.

Can you prove that global warming is caused by man? NO.

I tell you what, we can come back in 100 years time when you are 106 and if we are living in a desert and its 5degs warmerd you can tell me you told me so if you like?

The moon landing was fake
The twin towers was a controlled explosion
JFK shot himself from the grassy knoll with the help of the crew of the Red Dwarf.

I think that global warming and cooling due to man made issues, CO2 etc is a myth and a con by many to extract money from green taxes.

DrJ, same question above applies to you. Show me PROOF of man made global warming.

No?

Ok.

I have looked and read a lot about global warming and made up my opinion on it

And your explanation of WHY when reducing our ability to store carbon [de-forestation]whilst releasing vast quantities of the stored carbon [fossil fuels] has no effect on temperature is?

can prove that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle - its documented everywhere. Hard fact evidence.

Can you prove that global warming is caused by man? NO.

Sorry chaps - it is a fair point he's got there 😀

I can prove that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle - its documented everywhere. Hard fact evidence.

You're arguing from a false point. No one denies that natural global warming and cooling has happened in the past and continues to happen today.

Likewise no one suggests that current climate change is 100% man-made and the natural cycles have somehow disappeared. (I think most scientists agree that we still orbit the sun!)

But now we have an abrupt rise over the past 100 years that doesn't fit to an existing natural cycle. How do you explain that?

Either:
- it's a new natural cycle that just started for some unknown reason.

- or it's an existing cycle that for some unknown reason has left none of the usual evidence of temperature rise.

- or the fact that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last hundred years, to the highest level for at least 650,000 years, has somehow had a nasty effect.

I tell you what, we can come back in 100 years time when you are 106 and if we are living in a desert and its 5degs warmerd you can tell me you told me so if you like?

That's the attitude we need

For an interesting connection between CO2 levels and global temperature check out the Azolla effect.

There is no proof. There is a prediction based on sound science peer reviewed by countless scientists.
There is no proof of of natural climate change either.. there IS however, sound scientific studies and sound evidence that has lead the vast majority of scientists to conclude that there has been many instances of natural climatic change in the past.

You use the words proof, fact and theory interchangeably to suit your own personal belief.. That's not science... that's propaganda.

Mark, there is proof of historical climate change. Its not postulation or prediction, its proof.

Mark, there is proof of historical climate change. Its not postulation or prediction, its proof.

But no proof of a natural cycle that matches our current one. Why is that?

Meanwhile on the what 4x4 thread member Fisher has a home that consumes 20 000kWh/year and drives this (and thinks it's green because it's got an LPG conversion):
[img] [/img]

The climatic change debate is inevitably going to cause conflict: between the cyclist and the RR driver, between the rich and poor, between corporate bullies and their victims, between haves and have nots. This is going to be a bumpy ride whether you're in an RR or not. Think now about where you want to be when oil and food are short.

Graham there is evidence to support that there are shorter period warming and cooling periods as well as the longer term trends. For example from about 1840 to 1890 the temperatures slowly rose by about 0.6degC. Then from 1890 to 1965 they slowly dropped by about 0.6degC. Predicting that cycle forward would suggest that we are now at a peak of temperature rise and in the next 50 years it will drop down again.

That is a hypothesis though and not fact! 😉

hainey,

I'm not the one who's not listening. I've asked you 2 direct questions. One of them 3 times. And you've not answered either of them.

Graham there is evidence to support that there are shorter period warming and cooling periods as well as the longer term trends.

And do you believe that the world's leading climatologists are unaware of this short cycle?

Let's try a different tact: do you accept that volcanoes may contribute to the existing natural cycles?

Volcanos have an effect on climate change, yes.

Right, if there were 100 times as many volcanoes as there are today, then does it seem likely that this would an effect on the climate?

Depends if they erupted or not.

Rightplaceright time, could you tell me if you are a troll or not?

troll

Depends if they erupted or not.

Say 100 times as many volcanoes as we have currently worldwide on land and sea, at the same activity levels as today (some erupting continuously, some smouldering, some dormant)?

Volcanos only have a significant impact on climate change if they have significantly massive eruptions where huge amounts of ash and sulphur are thrown into the atmosphere. General eruptions and activity etc i don't think has any effect.

The size of the particles also has a big effect, from what i remember from studies if large particles are thrown into the atmosphere then it blocks sunlight and has a cooling effect, but smaller fine micron size particles can have a magnifying effect and actually increase temperatures.

I am sure there is some research on the web about it.

In fact one of the interesting inadvertant things from Volcanos is there is a theory that Volcanic activity on the east pacific rise is in fact responsible for el-nino, a huge influence on our climate.

I havn't read much of this thread but it seems that many people will quite happily shit in there own bed.

I would have thought that most people would look after where they lived. Even if there is only a small chance of damaging it.

.

Right, so you agree volcanoes have an effect, but only in so much as the physical ash from eruptions, and not the continuous release of gases from all active volcanoes?

Even if that was suddenly increased by 100-fold?

worse they think sh1tting in it has no effect

As i said Graham, i am no expert on Volcanos unfortunately, i only am aware of the effects from mass eruptions not the general release of gas.

This is clearly a pointless argument. Why continue putting facts and figures on a screen. I know it you know it every one knows it. Its inconvienient to deal with so people deny it. Can we do anything to stop it? I don't know. Does flying x amount of scientists and x amounts of politicians to a place where they won't come to an agreement help? Does sitting on a computer and typing information help?

We are in a position to use our own common sense and regardless of what you believe, or choose to ignore, act. Will it make a difference though?

How can people in an ivory tower tell us to reduce our carbon footprint whilst they are increasing thiers?

I don't want to be trite but what a load of bs.

We almost certainly are affecting the world we live in. Unlike Michael Jackson however I don't believe looking in the mirror and making small changes is enough.

I know people have to travel to raise awareness etc but when Bono flys a hat out to a global warming awareness concert you have to ask yourself; is it even worth bothering? I could leave a light on for a year and it would still give me a smaller cf then if I flew items of clothing to wherever I am in the world.

As i said Graham, i am no expert on Volcanos unfortunately, i only am aware of the effects from mass eruptions not the general release of gas.

Ah well.. my argument is scuppered then 😀

I was going to make the point that volcanoes are an accepted part of the natural climate cycles.

Worldwide, volcanoes currently produce 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
If there were suddenly 100 times as many volcanoes then presumably this would have a notable effect on the climate.

[url= http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html ]In 2003 we produced around 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2, more than 100 times the amount produced by the world's volcanoes.[/url]

Argument over 🙂

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen

I hate to say i told you so! 😉

I haven't read every post on here so someone may have already pointed this out.

Regional climate change caused by human activity is proven. Central Africa - where the rainforest have been clear felled, the rains have stopped - pointing to the fact that the forests create the ideal conditions for rain to occur. Where there are areas of rainforest remaining, the rains remain, so it's not just a coincidence of trees being felled and the rains stopping because of natural climate cycles.

This is anthropogenic climate change at work. If it happens regionally, it will affect it globally - see how weather systems work.

The leaked e-mails prove nothing. Most of it is scientific jargon that has been totally misinterpreted by politically motivated people. The CRU is one of possibly thousands of climate change research centres. All producing the same climate model.

Some people need to take their heads out of the sand.

And midgebait, seriously, you're gonna believe an article written by Sarah Palin?

Because that WON'T be politically motivated will it?

I hate to say i told you so!

You told us that a right wing American politician would write an op-ed article pushing a conservative message? Thanks!! I would never have predicted that!!

The emails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

Oh dear oh dear, and you trusted these scientists? 😉

Yep, Sarah Palin is my first choice for an entirely unbiased summary of that story.

Though sometimes I listen to Mohammad Al-Sabban (Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator) for a bit of balance to Miss Palin's crazy liberal hippy rhetoric.

Of course I listen to Sarah Palin. Despite being a bit on the liberal side she's got god on her side.

The only concern is that melting ice from the natural cyclical climate change gets to those commie polar bears before the armed militia can!

I still don't get what political stance has to do with environmental science. If I want to end all immigration, and kick foreigners out, and also hug trees and save the environment, will I make a big hole in the space time continuum?

The time for talk is over what have you actually done.

The StrathPuffer is in a few weeks. I'm burning as much stuff as possible in the hope of a bit of global warming in time for it. 🙂

Forget global warming as the problem. With oil supplies pretty much limited to 90 million barrels a day and falling, yet demand expected to exceed this by over 10 million barrels a day by 2011 there is a much bigger crunch on the near horizon.

[url= http://peakoiltaskforce.net/download-the-report/2010-peak-oil-report/ ]The Oil Crunch[/url]