2 things :
1. You do have an enormous effect on the ecology of the planet and you really need to change your complete lifestyle to reduce your ecological footprint by 90%, not just piss around buying ecological lightbulbs and carbon credits.
2. The popular idea of Global Warming doesn't exist ! There have been no dramatic temperature changes, it hasn't been proved that there is a connection between man made CO2 and weather. And news stories of future catastrophes like floods, extinctions are ridiculous.
- There you go my own sense of logic based on true facts puts me at odds with both sides of the global warming debate
As ever everyone hates me. There are always two sides to every argument and consistently I find both are wrong, when you use true facts and logic.
The true facts always point in the way of a 3rd argument no-one is talking about.
Don't panic, You should be keeping a low carbon footprint for lot's of other reasons. CC is so complicated and there are so few facts so there's large scope for guessing and the guessing can get extreme, so the media don't understand and muddy the waters by leaving the public with the impression that we'll all be underwater next year.
Average global temperatures have been consistantly going up faster than normal, measured CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up, but no cause and effect has been proved so the facts end there. After that there's a lot of contention : Science splits in 2 one set led by the UN IPCC say it's probably likely due to CO2 cos by writing manmade CO2 into Climate Computer models you get a simulation the same as reality, the other lot seems to have a lot of strong arguments like you can't extrapolate that far, cos the models miss out lots of other things etc. It's gets bitchy "that UN lot have a political agenda and are after scare story grants", "those other lot they're all paid by the oil companies" etc
The developing world is where huge CO2 production is likely.
If the scientist really start to drastic actions in their own lives, that when we should copy them.
Understanding Global warming is the complex argument I have ever seen
Ozone Layer Hole ,Smog, the Earth's getting hotter, the weather is changing, the sea levels rising, the local newspaper show the towns will disappear under the sea, the glaciers are going to melt, there's going to be a catastrophe, We have to reduce CO2, it's all America's fault, we've got to buy a hybrid car, solar panels, windpower, hydrogen fuel cells, carbon trading systems, those sceptics they're all paid by the oil companies, the scientists are all dependent on grants saying it's true, see the Greenies were right all along, what are the facts ? I never saw a clear story in the papers explaining the story from start to finish so I had to check it myself.
Once again the media fails to get perspective. this is the most important job
What I found was there are some facts, there are some theories, there's a lot of politics and it's difficult to figure out what we should do.
- - Proved getting hotter faster, but not by much.
- - Proved more atmospheric CO2.
- - Hypothesis that some manmade CO2 is not being absorbed by plants so causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 accepted as being highly highly likely.
- - Hypothesis that it's this extra CO2 that causes most of the change in increase of temperature accepted as being highly likely (No cause and effect proved).
- - Extrapolation upon extrapolation to say that extinction of XYZ frog is caused by manmade CO2 is very very weak science.
- - Prediction based on extrapolation upon extrapolation to say the town XYZ will be under 2 feet of water in 500 years time or that grape harvests in the UK will be higher in 50 years time are extremely weak science. (not cos scientists are stupid, it's just that there is nothing more complicated than climate science).
- - What to do ? Live a simple life, don't buy stuff to make you "green" and copy the scientists if they stop having children etc .
- For other reason's you should be reducing your carbon footprint, and encourage others the same
- The main hypothesis is that manmade CO2 is causing climatic changes well outside the "natural" patterns.
- It's not proven. And so extrapolations made from this claim like : changes in weather, flooding or other disasters are subject to dispute.
- the UN IPCC is the main organisation behind the theory and most scientists seem to support it. They argue we have to completely change energy use, so that CO2 in the atmosphere can begin to fall.
- but a significant number of equally well qualified scientists disagree. Not just a bunch of cranks,(one petion claims 19,000 scientists). They argue that we might be on the wrong track.
- It's a difficult matter cos on one side there is no problem we can carry on as normal. On the other side ..we have to completely rechange our way of life and it will cost trillions of dollars. And even then we might not succeed
- If average temperature rise stopped it would mean the CO2 hypotheisis is not correct
- Best not to panic , the effect of more CO2 would not be not faster warming it's an ever smaller rise in climate , but the longer you wait the longer it would take for upper level CO2 to drop back to old levels
- If it is true it's a question of stopping the developing world, not just you buying a hybrid car. Stop consumerism, stop population, increase plant cover
Points of Fact and conjecture
To do the "right thing" Actions have to be justified, by the facts and logic and perspective
- - Fact : we are in a warm period following an ice age so evry year the temperature increases a tiny amount
- - Fact : average global temperatures seem to be rising a fraction faster in the last 100 years
- - (the temp rise is not by much, but it's argued a little could unbalance the system and cause catastrophe)
- - Why it's risen scientists are not sure
- - The Greenhouse theory is widely accepted as a natural process that has always happened. Gases in the atmosphere allow the sun in, but don't allow some of the heat out.
- - CO2 makes up around 3% of these gases
- - CO2 was very high during the creation of the planet then levels of CO2 seem to have been stable for 26000 years
- - CO2 in high altitude seems to have risen since the industrial revolution
- - it's hypothisised that the CO2 has caused the levels of temp rise
- - Are the high levels of CO2 due to to man ?
1. The type of CO2 in fossil fuels has a different Isotope balance to plant CO2. The Isotope balance in the atmosphere seems to indicate a higher level of CO2 from fossil fuels.
2. It fits the models. Scientists have produced Computer Climate models, when they factor in manmade CO2 the models reproduce rising temperatures.
- - So most scientists say we should reduce CO2 emmissions
- - other are neutral or disagree saying 1. climate always varies, and there are many other factors
- - the idea of manmade CO2 causing warming is a guess - No one has proved this as climate science is very very complicated,there too many variables, it's not a simple cause and effect cos, there are many feedbacks in the system, for example volcano eruptions cause more CO2 in the atmosphere, but they also cause lots of dust blocking the sun
(- cause and effect is not proved, but how likely that it is a strange pattern is natural. Well in a million e.g's in science then sometime you are going to get a natural pattern that looks unnatural.
- No one can put a convincing figure on the reality of the hypothesis above saying it's highly likely.
- Ozone hole theory seemed to have been proved right. But no one predicted the hole would close as quickly as it seems to.
- How much money do you throw at a maybe ? e.g. the Russians might attack us ..quite a lot .(
- - there are good guesses and bad guesses. To what degree is it a good guess ?
- - Fact when you do burn carbon you usually release some smog which does damage the local enviroment
- - generally few scientists say 100% of global warming is manmade, again so CC is complex cos different causes
- - If temperature patterns started to change downwards, then a lot of people will look stupid
- - On the net seems to we a heated debate between 1. people who deny CC is most likely caused by manmade CO2 (called deniers by the second lot), and the the lot that argue that, there is no other explanation other than CC is most likely caused by manmade CO2 (called deniers by the first lot). There are a lot of vested interests and grants etc
- - Climate has always varied. There have been warm periods in the past like in England in the middle ages or Greenland in the Early Viking time, but these may not have been global) in Antartica colder
- - Volcanoes have effected climate blocking whole summers
- - In some places the temperature has gone down
- - maybe there is a problem with the temperature readings, has the local enviroment of the sensors changed i.e. more of them are in urban areas these days cos of urbanisation ?
- - CO2 levels have't risen every year 1998 they stayed still)
- - nature produces far more CO2 than man, plants, organisms, marine life , volcanoes etc
- - Water vapour is a much bigger greenhouse gas, aren't we worrying to much about CO2 ?
- - historically CO2 levels have increased after the temperature has risen, so some argue warming causes more CO2 not the otherway around
- - The public think more CO2 means faster temperature rise, but this is not true. killer fact is in CO2 argument effect is reverse logarithmic, before saturation one more CO2 has a fraction of the effect of the last one. Cos if one molecule is behind another then it only reflects the heat that has come thro the first. And if we were at saturation then there would be no effect at all.
- - A reoccuring problem in climate science is that working close to the margin of error
- - It appears you can play games with statistics if you have enough of them you can always find gloom. In the same way if you are in a room with 23 people one of them will probably have the same birthday as you. extreme value theory http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/extreme_value_fallacy.htm
- - A lot of disputes about numbers etc and extrapolation from them. Seems
the pattern is of taking 2.3+ 2.3 and coming out with 6. Instead of saying we don't know guess upon guess upon guess becomes a weak argument.
- - The problem for green movement is that if Global warming is disproved it would reflect badly on green movement ..never trusted again.
- - isn't it dangerous to set off down a path - taking us ages to get back from legalising cigarettes and lead in petrol, MMR ?
- - the call for urgency, adds another twist to the argument "there is no time for more research we have to act now". It reminds me of the attitude towards nuclear weapons when they first came out "we have to bomb the bomb now, or the whole world will get destroyed"
- - since CC is so complex it's a dangerous simplification, you might get rid of CO2 and then screw the whole model up with a volcanic eruption or small nuclear leak -me
- If there was no manmade CO2 the climate would still change. Climate has always been variable if it didn't fluctuate you 'd have problem.
Bible 7 good 7 bad years
- - change doesn't necessarily mean disaster, we fear change.. nature changes all the time
- - having wind power is not important cos it will make any difference to the climate, but cos it supplies with an alternative, low smog generation, cheaper etc still nowhere near as good as not using the enrgy in the first place
- In a parallel Earth the same as here, but burning of carbon, would the temperature not be rising ?
- It would be good if the media could explain - better understanding of scientific principles, double blind trials, peer level review
what is an absolute proof, testing procedure concensus etc
It's vitally important to sceptical about CC. Yes it's part of the
scientific process to criticise any scientific theory
since climate science is so complicated temperatures could end up going down or sea levels falling
- The argument that increased carbon burning causes our current warming carries a lot of weight. For sure the majority of experts believe this. But there is a big difference between fact and expert opinion. It's entirely possible that the other experts are right.
- UN IPCC is one pushing CO2 line many scientists disagree
- building or manufacturing anything even it's a "green product" usually involves using a lot of energy and therefore creates a lot of CO2
- the amount of energy received on this planet from sun in 2 hours is more than mankind uses in a year..seems reliable : One Planet Radio 4,
This would mean 1. we'll never run out of energy and 2. Where the hell does all this heat go ?
- The amount of energy in nature, like volcanoes, earthquakes, tornado systems is many magnitudes higher than the energy mankind uses.
- It seems you get a guess that CO2 causes the warming, a guess that this will disasters like bad weather, flooding or sea rise. What about the positives increased crops in some areas ? People like stability. It's still guaranteed whatever we do makes any difference, but people with the lowest footprint live closer to nature, which should be more stable.
- facts and logic work. Hysteria and panic are damaging ..green fascism
- anyone who can put an argument without hysteria is more worth listening to
- ...If anyone can explain it simply, then it's probably not true (same as too good to be true)
- if it has an alarmist quippy tone loses credibility
The evil greenie
- lives in a western country, moved to the countryside 30 years ago, built an ecological house, had 6 kids and has now bought a highbrid car. Has created a CO2 footprint magnitudes larger than his friend who stayed in the city, no kids, has no car, walks usually, lives in an old apartment (lagged).
The countryside guy inevitably travels more, cleared land removing CO2 sinks, generated a lot of CO2 in construction materials etc (especially cement). And there was a lot of CO2 generated in the manufacture of the hybrid car not to mention the disposal of his old car.
- The effect of population is not talked about much. What would be the situation if the Americans had been having 10 kids each and the Chinese were 3 billion not 1 billion. It seems what causes high CO2 is not high poulation, but high consumption western culture, that's why Africans are greener. Can we say that 1 American generates as much CO2 as 30 Africans. Then when the rest of the world are little Americans there would be a big problem.
- Anyone who switches off the TV standby and makes a baby is contributing massively to energy use
Plant Trees ?
- - Now what if our green family actually all go out and plant trees. Would that make them goodies ?
- - We can be sure that trees absorb more CO2 than bare earth..
- - What is the CO2 effect of different types of crop e.g. sugar beet vs trees vs grass vs peat bog ? Each tree is a column of carbon, wheras the crop could also be regarded as a column of stored carbon, burn the tree or convert the sugar to CO2 and you have more CO2
- - It's argued that grassland has twice as much carbon stored cos of the amount of organic matter under the soil
- - Ecological balance is better in the long run
- - Would it be good to monocrop ?
- - What about the redneck who planted 1 million trees ? ..depends where he plants the trees
- not talked about much, maybe cos would give a false sense of security. I have planted a tree so therefore I can drive 50,000 miles in my SUV. Of course it would be best to plant the trees and not use your SUV. Or is it, it has been proved ecologically damaging to plant the wrong kind of trees.
- - Is a guy who does nothing better ?
What should you do ?
(- Messing around with nature on the ground does seem to harm ourselves. So we know it's best to keep simple. We have conquered nature though. In Nepal we can live in areas where before there was too much malaria.)
What to do
It's not what we do, but about what the billions in the developing world will do. If you want to reduce future CO2 it's them you have to reach. 1. they have the normal strategic incentives to reduce energy use.
When it comes to planes it's a complex matter cos you can't switch to hydrogen fuel, cos water is a more important Greenhouse gas than CO2. You'd probably have to switch to nuclear powered planes and the complications they would bring.
- Encourage research to get to the facts
Tinker at the edge- Out of your car and on your bike
- If every single person in the world did it you'd probably not cause a global catastrophe
- - you won't cause smog
- - you won't be contributing to using up easy fossil fuels
- - you'd be keeping down the price of energy, cos as the developing world wants electricity demand is going up forcing up prices
- - by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels we make ourselves safer from terrorists
- - it's good for you health
- If every single person in the world did it would amost certainly have no effect on climate
- you'll take to your bike and 20 people in India and China will buy a car..I've seen
Real change : change your whole lifestyle anything less radical increases CO2 problem
- In a thing so complex the best thing is to sidestep the question. So you don't have to spend days thinking about it. The Majority of Scientists believe we should reduce MMCO2 emmissions even though cause and effect has been established. We have to believe them and look for them to lead. One thing is for sure government commitments such as 15% of energy should come from renewables are just tinkering at the edges. CO2 use will just keep growing . Never mind just switching the TV off instead of leaving it on standby. we should really expert scientists to take serious measures to really reduce todays carbon consumption :
Then with essential energy use for hospitals etc maybe we get CO2 energy use down to 40% of todays values. At the same time half of the British scientists would be in the developing world begging the governments not to use fossil fuels and building an alternative energy supply based on renewables for them. Then maybe in 70 years time atmospheric CO2 will have fallen back to pre industrial revolution. Meanwhile there should be a crash building program of nuclear reactors.
- only taking flights in emergencies,
- wearing their wooly hats inside cos they'll be turning the heating off completely,
- hot water for washing only one day a week,
- Only buying food and services and an end to buying manufactured goods,
- an end to living in the countryside or commuting from the suburbs,
- stop having children,
- the university summer holiday switched to the winter.
- It won't mean no catastrophes
Whatever happens there will still be normal catasrophes in the future we have today : 200,00 people dying a day, 225,000 peolple died in the Tsunami, 8 million people died in the Congo wars. Shouldn't we tackling todays catastrophes ? Did we save lives in the Pakistan and Afghanistan eartquakes
What should the government do ?
- Try to find out if we are going down the right road, by proving if reducing manmade CO2 will stop tempertures going up.
- It would be better if the government could get people not use more electricity so we don't have to worry about a fossil fuel station vs nuclear
- How far should the government go ? Should we pay double for electricity ? knowing that if you do you are cutting money from hospitals. Have we even got grounds for delaying decisions. Reminds me of the debate about magic energy machines .."wow if it's works we have free energy, it's worth a £100m bet, except it isn't cos there really a zero percent chance of it working.
- Reduce use so don't need to build
- carbon-trading idea looks ludicrous, cos if you decide not to consume you don't get credit
- Hold off building until the cost of not building gets too big
- have a lot of alternatives
- Plan with flexible power stations ones you can change your coal fired power station into a woodburning one, or oil burning into a biofuel. Obviously can't switch nuclear to biofuel though.
- Invest in fusion research
- work out a safe alternative fuel for aircraft. Hydrogen won't work cos will generate the greenhouse gas of water vapour
- Many people will happily chant the unhelpful mantra : Its all the American's fault
- Where is most CO2 increase going to come from in the future ? Now guess figures are US uses 20% of worlds energy with 5% of pop. We can bet the proportions will be exact to population in the future ie China and India will be using 30% and whole developing more like 70%. It doesn't matter what the 10,000 people do in an English town what matter is the 200,000 people in the Chinese town. The future is not about us it's about them.
- They will need electricity for their hospitals. The Developed could educate them to have simple life, less consumer products, but more services like piano lessons, technology should bring lower energy consumption, help them have a walk to culture
- Look forward 5 years time : CO2 will definitely be greater cos developing world effects, whatever we do ..temp as gone down don't need to worry about CO2, temp gone up you can switch fuels
- More CO2 will come from what the developing world does.. if they copy us they can get relatively cheap fuel, If they plan alternatives they are not dependent on other nations etc. They need to do hedge their bets. They can also switch fuels later if the politics gets better, or temp falls
- Look forward 10 years time : CO2 will definitely be greater cos developing world effects. It might take us 20 years to get back to zero
The problem is 10 years extra CO2 take 10 years longer to get out. If we stop today it takes 10 years to get it out. Continue for 20 years it will take 20 years to get it out
- Look forward 20 years time: pretty sure we will know if CO2 is the problem for sure. It will take us 40 years to get back to normal Problem - start phasing out fossil fuels, switch stations to biofuels. No prob continue as before
- Look forward 50 years time :no-one can say what CO2 will be, cos might be new fuels, might have been catastrophe like flooding, (but would it be any worse than normal Earthquakes and volcanoe events ?)
- Look forward 100 years time : . Planet will probably culturally be on top of energy use and science will have brought us better supplies
What is catastrophe,
- flooding ? most stuff is not worse than natural phenomenon like Earthquales volcanoes etc ,
- Uninhabitable north of Paris ? move poulation nearer Equator, Sahara might be inhabitable by then
- Complete ecological collapse ..up and till ow nature has always been a self correcting system
What a Chinese puzzle this global warming lark is, even Agatha Christie couldn't come up with a more complex plot.
I am still disturbed that I could not find one clear scientifically presented, mathematical and logical clear explanation of global warming on the net. So I have to trawl thro lots of stuff and come up with my own . Critical thinking and normal scientific procedure are important, but the argument is distorted by politicians and fundraisers either cos theyare really convinced there is no time to lose or cos they know if they make out it's really urgent they can get more credo and money.
If you have scientific facts then you can make planning and good decisions, if you don't you can't just rely on the newspapers. e.g. If you ingest a kilo of cyanide then you will die 100% guaranteed. In other cases it's much more difficult e.g. smoke a packet of cigarettes a day you'll probably die early, you have a hell of a time working out the probabilities,. Now we know it's. definitely not a good idea to smoke a packet a day, but 1 or 2 cigs in your life time isn't going to make a great difference
Time critical ?
In 20 years time it is likely in the case of global warming that there will be more facts. The trouble is it is time dependent so you can't just put off decisions like normal. And even that is complex, more CO2 hardly makes any difference to greenhouse effect. One you have painted on one layer of molecules onto the atmosphere, it doesn't matter much if you have a second layer as they can only reflect the energy that get's round the edge of the first lot. However its the same effect backwards, if you stop CO2 production it wouln't reduce greenhouse effect straight away you have to wait for the outside layers to fall away. Do nothing for 5 years CC stays the same, stop then and it would take another 5 years to get back to you were in the first place.
Distortion : Media coverage doesn't help there is a lot of press hysteria : London is not going to be completely under water in the next 500 years, indeed the whole thing is so complicated the ultimate effect could be just as likely to leave Dover miles away from the sea. The politics clouds the issue too. The Green organisations can't resist the urge to be smug and say "I've been right all along these evil capitalists are bringing doom". For them it could be too good to be true, great for fundraising etc, and when things are too good to be true then they usually aren't true.
It goes against the natural human psychy of "to know" and be in control. I would almost argue the opposite people want to feel so big, "look we did it", whilst I instincive feel that humans are so much smaller than nature , that it's almot certain changes are not caused by us.
we know the ozone layer was due to us ?
"Oh my God Global warming the Ice is going to melt sea levels are going to rise"
A "we are not all doomed !" story, doesn't sell many papers or generate many grants.
You can prety much discount anyone who says makes any predictions about future climate effects of manmade CO2 GW, cos if it is a true effect then it has never happened before and therefore you can't make any predictions.
Catastrophe ? Just cos temps go up it doen't mean it will ultimately end in catastrophe (what is catastrophe anyway), but it would be great it one year average temeratures fell and that would straight away mean there's no global warming..
A catastrophe might be the Thames Barrier getting breached and a few hundred offices getting flooded or it might be an ice age when you can't live anywhere north of Paris. Whatever the planet isn't going to die
Notes on what to do
argument seems to be that nature generates much more CO2, but
the only thing that has changed is a bit more man made so this must be the
cause of increased atmospheric CO2
- But the thing is for us mere mortals living a simple life does mean low CO2. My own previous research shows that much more energy is used in manufacturing stuff. 6% of manmade CO2 comes from cement making alone. So my own philosphy of simple life, don't travel by vehicle everyday causes far lesss CO2. Not buying saves much more energy than not using standby on your TV.
- course people in both sides of the debate have money to lose... lots of money for research etc
What to do ?
- You have a possibility of catastrophe
- We have no idea of what the possibility of catastrophe is .. so if we do anything drastic we might be going along the wrong road
- If we stop all man-made CO2,
- We do know that burning carbon does generate other bad pollutants like smog which do damage our local atmosphere- so reducing carbon burning is a good thing.
All in all living a simple life - reduces smog, and may reduce the possibility of catastrophe even though this possibility maybe marginal in the first place, the only negative of this is decreased economic activity might deprive people of earning money i.e. less Africans might earn there way out of poverty.
Links/ research - all quotes unless in green or italics
|Mainly searched anti sites - to look for glaring errors.
- http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_article.htm#natural very good Open University page
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm excellent news story about hype and distortion by Simon Cox and Richard Vadon
the audio report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm
- http://www.junkscience.com/ main anti site pretty good
- Their main Climate change page - http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ ...
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon
are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially
local, regional and planetary problems.
- numbers page 2 years out of date
- http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html How Do We Know that the Atmospheric Build-up of Greenhouse Gases Is Due to Human Activity?
- BBC Climate Change Experiment. after they got large effects for manmade CO2, they found they had a large software error
- How much CO2 is manmnade ? 3.4%
- confusing cos it's argued that atmospheric CO2 has a higher proportion of manmade cos most natural is in the plant cyle (How much CO2 in the atmosphere is manmade possibly 10% of GHG (meaning 2.5%) of all GH gases). The main idea is it's argued natural CO2 goes into the atmosphere, but comes straight back out as it's aborbed by plants rt of natural cycle)
- No one talked about the effect of all the extra heat we send up presumably cos the engy we use is nothing compared to what the sun sends in a few hours. Apparently the same gases that do the greenhouse effect are the ones that send most the heat back into space
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbsn/F2801717 - planet science messageboard pretty Good
- We are so much smaller that the sun, how can we dream that we effect global climate. It's a midge against a giant
- - http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php site by scientists agueing against climate change panic
- article does car manufacture more generate CO2 (in 14 years life) 10% but 50% of toxics http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=lw900
- - http://www.co2science.org/scripts/ CO2ScienceB2C/subject/c/summaries/carbondioxide.jsp
argues the reverse of popular.. that increasing temps cause increased CO2 as historical observations say CO2 increase the years after the temp has increased not before
- there are a number of other studies that demonstrate a complete uncoupling of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature during periods of significant climate change
- - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
arguies convincingly that manmade CO2 is not the main cause of climate change
- - Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
good clear stats and graphs
- - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
There had been years when the world's atmosphere had gained one billion metric tonnes of the gas, while in other years it gained as much as six billion. How much did changes in the world's industries and agricultural practices affect the rate of the rise?
"The point is there little proof and a lot of conjecture."
- - Most sites do say we should reduce manmade CO2, but no one is able to provide any proof. So it is true global CO2 has increased since the industrial revolution. It is no guaranteed if we had never burnt anything climate change would not have happened.
- "Many consensus opinions are wrong. Think pre-Iraq War Intelligence."
25 problems with Gores film..pretty good
- from Gore Primer http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/a_skeptics_prim.html
Well, one of the early revelations about Mann's work is that all the data before 1450 or so comes from studying the tree rings of one single tree. Yes, that's one tree (1). Using the evidence of this one tree, Mann flattened the temperature over the 500 year period from 1000-1500 and made the Medieval warm period just go poof. Wow!
hockey stick graph is now becomig accepted as wrong
- why is the extra CO2 due to man ? no proof but 2 strong theories
- - 1. When you put it into the computermodels it seems to work
- - 2. www.realclimate.org says "13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically (0.15% "doesn't seem much to me") just as the CO2 starts to increase" -- around 1850 AD.(fossil fuels have lower 13C/12C ratios than the atmosphere).... I guess they getting this be careful of concensus of opinion Reminds me me of the scientist who insisted that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium..he was against consensus, but right
1 A 1841 Tasmanian marker has shown the ocean has
CO2 not constantly increasing 1992 CO2 stayed same
- - temp of earth rose 0.6C last century most happened
- - figs may not be accurate cos temp taken in urban areas
- - southern hemisphere has cooled
- - West Coast USA 1982 El Nino raised sea level by 35cm temporarily and
then it went back down
- arguments can be bitching especially from doommongers
- http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ check this
can't believe govts emmissins figs China etc
- http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba282.html says no cause effect
sea level rise stats are not accurate, very variable
many places have fallen depends on many factors
- Tuvalu is critical, but in last 30 years sea levels no
Although the future state of global climate is
there is no reason to believe that catastrophic change
The Earth’s surface has warmed slightly, but floods,
droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes have not changed
worse. The atmosphere may warm because of human
but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be
than 1 °C, and probably less, in the next 100 years.
A lot of very complex work has been done on general
models (GCMs) over the past 20 years; of which none
has been verified by evidence. Satellites provide the
and this does not show the warming trend predicted by
the GCMs. Even the climate models promoted by the IPCC
not suggest that catastrophic change is underway. They
that increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give
rise to a
warmer and wetter climate in most places, in
nights and warmer winters. Generally higher latitudes
warm more than lower (equatorial) latitudes. This
milder arctic winters and, coupled with increased
CO2, it also means a more robust biosphere with more
crops and ground cover for more animals and people.
This is ...
He claims no problem
So where does all this leave us? First, I would
emphasize that the basic agreement
frequently described as representing scientific
unanimity concerning global warming is
entirely consistent with there being virtually no
problem at all. Indeed, the observations most
simply suggest that the sensitivity of the real
climate is much less than found in models
whose sensitivity depends on processes which are
clearly misrepresented (through both
ignorance and computational limitations). Attempts to
assess climate sensitivity by direct
observation of cloud processes, and other means, which
avoid dependence on models,
support the conclusion that the sensitivity is low.
More precisely, what is known points to the
conclusion that a doubling of CO2 would lead to about
0.5C warming or less, and a
quadrupling (should it ever occur) to no more than
about 1C. Neither would constitute a
particular societal challenge. Nor would such (or even
greater) warming likely be associated
with discernibly more storminess, a greater range of
Second, a significant part of the scientific community
appears committed to the
maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted.
Alarm is felt to be essential to the
maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over
whether the models are correct
(they are not), but rather whether their results are
at all possible. Alas, it is impossible to
prove something is impossible.
As you can see, the global warming issue parts company
with normative science at a
pretty early stage. A very good indicator of this
disconnect is the fact that there is widespread
and even rigorous scientific agreement that complete
adherence to the Kyoto Agreement
would have no discernible impact on climate. This
clearly is of no importance to the
thousands of negotiators, diplomats, regulators,
general purpose bureaucrats and advocates
attached to this issue.
At the heart of this issue there is one last matter:
namely, the misuse of language.
George Orwell wrote that language “becomes ugly and
inaccurate because our thoughts are
foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it
easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
There can be little doubt that the language used to
convey alarm has been sloppy at best.
Unfortunately, much of the sloppiness seems to be
A question rarely asked, but nonetheless important, is
whether the promotion of
alarmism is really good for science? The situation may
not be so remote from the impact of
Lysenkoism on Soviet genetics. However, personally, I
think the future will view the
response of contemporary society to ‘global warming’
as simply another example of the
appropriateness of the fable of the Emperor’s New
Clothes. For the sake of the science, I hope that
future arrives soon.
july 1936 was hotter in US
basis of petition CO2 not causing warming
19,700 scientists from around the world signed the
following petition refuting that global warming was in
fact a potential catastrophe-in-waiting:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant
and animal environments of the Earth."
- CO2 has gone up to almost record levels since Industrial revolution , but
280–300 µL/L during warmer interglacials now 381 - claims increased by 110ppm but that would mean before also was quite
- Total upper level CO2 is 2.97 × 1012tonnes =2970 10 power9tonnes
annual from volcanos 130 to 230 teragrams =10power12 g=10power6 Tonnes
or 0.13 to 0.23 10power 9 tonnes
man made emmission is 24 10power 9 tonnes . Seeming to say manmade is 100 times more than volcanoes. ( it's a guess and may not include all the CO2 expelled from other blow holes etc and one super eruption could expel more than man makes in one year. ) you have to watch all those zeroes in calculations ! I got confused with teragrams and tonnes, and got volcanic production to be 130 times more than man when usually much smaller than man. 1 tonne is a million grammes. Seems atmosphere contains 137 years of todays annual human production. It has increased since industrial revolution by 37%=802 10 power9tonnes = about 33 years of flat out production at todays level, but surely for the first 100 years manmade was a fraction of this - is it possible that the 802 is all human. Also people get confused between Carbon and CO2 24 billion CO2= 6 billion Carbon.
- greenhouse effect also depends more on water in atmosphere
More than 98 percent of all CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by
sources other than by man. For example, CO2 is produced by forest fires,
volcanoes, fermentation and animal and plant respiration.
- Too often, experts, and even scientists study and report the effects of
on climate in a manner that is similar to the story of five blind men
describing an elephant. Each one views the elephant as a completely
different being because he doesn't include the information from any of
- met office site - quite pro IPCC
says normal climate model would show no climate change, but if you factor in manamade then it works perfectly ..I don't believe this ..it's too convenient
- met office site argues "largely because the atmosphere already contains quite high concentration of CO2, and hence its absorption of infrared radiation (the mechanism for the greenhouse effect) is already quite saturated.", well if that's the case they are saying when it reaches a certain level then more CO2 makes no difference ...so then if the temp is increasing the model shouldn't show it increasing at any faster level
Yet there own chief scientist said on the radio "It's as simple as this more CO2 means more global warming", misleading
- Open U has good short articles -
- Professor Richard Lindzen
good logical argument
- After I did my research the last thing I found by Prof Stoot London U, who I have heard many times on Radio 4's One Planet and TV, he surprising even more sceptical and sets out his arguments very cleary here http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_stott.htm
Philip Stotts good site
his essay calling it a myth
The EU, which politically and militarily wants to be compared to the US actually produces more CO2 per unit area, more CO2 per person and more CO2 in total than the USA
Increasingly ludicrous carbon-trading schemes;
+ A sudden, and rising, interest in 'adaptation' to climate change;
+ An awful lot of gibberish about YOU doing your bit with your light bulbs and your rubbish (largely a waste of time);
+ A load of waffle from young, eager, fresh-faced political hopefuls, like David Cameron and David Miliband, not to mention from all the soppy Lib Dems (you can shoot snipe off their backs); and,
+ Increasingly angry Greens, who will, nevertheless, continue to employ the 'global warming' hype to try to change your evil ways of living;
+ Meanwhile, world emissions will continue to rise, and, as ever, climate will change - but in what directions? Who knows?
It's helpful to believe the worst and give up fossil fuels hence making us safer from terrorism
- Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, has concluded: "Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
- If it's an edge effect ie nature gives 175 Billion tonnes and we generate 25 billlon extra and the cliff edge is 180 then stopping 5 billion would make no difference at all. We would have to cut back 20 billion or not at all
people say that most greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor 99% to 0.15 CO2. Could it be that due to land clearance there is more water vapor in the atmosphere ?? No -one has said this
- - On radio 4 Lombert (The Skeptical Enviromentalist )does say he believes in CC, just he says the response is wrong. His pricing puts no gain on measures against CC. He said something like spend £1 get 2p benefit
But surely stopping consuming costs nothing and has a payoff ?
Spend £16bn getting AIDS under control and the payoff will be £60bn saved.
He estimates a 1ft in 100 year sea rise not 7m.
- The Met office guy ..very clearly said "more Greenhouse gases more warming", but this is clearly wrong. It's very misleading given the facts mentioned on their own website. I guess he is trying to simplifly the argument for the public ..1. most people don't realise water is the biggest GH gas 2. the relationship between warming is not linear.
- I just watched an open University programme a particularly interesting part was when the Met office scientist bloke put manmade CO2 into their climate model. When they ran it, it actually produced a temperature rise twice that of what has happened. They then factored in another chemical into it (Sulphur dioxide I think) they said this produces a cooling effect. So then the model did reproduce what has actually happened over the last 100 years. But you have to be sure of your science ..cos someone is going to say “Ah we need to cool the planet down so we need to do is produce more of the cooling pollutant”, The next thing you know someone would prove the science wrong and you be stuck with the problem of removing the other pollutant from the atmosphere.