The Great Global Warming Swindle

[wonderwaif]

Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't the dictionary?
Perhaps you should leave the serious thinking to the scientifically literate, eh, luv?

I'm glad you're here Sassie.
As a scientifically literate person who has read and understood that document you were waving around the other week, would you be kind enough to answer Zathras's question?
Thanks.

[sasguru]

I'm glad you're here Sassie.
As a scientifically literate person who has read and understood that document you were waving around the other week, would you be kind enough to answer Zathras's question?
Thanks.

From Zathras:

Why is it no climate model based on Co2 emissions accurately predicts current temperatures. The only model to be accurate uses solar activity?

I don't believe the above assertions. Please provide the evidence?

PS This is going to be my last posting on the topic of anthropogenic climate change. It's a complex topic and requires a bunch of reading and thinking and knowledge of modelling. Most people on this site are either incapable or too lazy to do the reading or thinking and not knowledgeable enough about the modelling.
Suffice it to say I used to be a sceptic, but on studying the issue, I changed my mind, as the balance of evidence (which is all we have in science - there are no certainties) leans towards the fact that human activities are significantly altering their environment for the worse.
It's not as if I care, I don't want to have kids (can't stand the snotty buggers) but how many of you sceptics have children? If you're sure you're not affecting their future then carry on as you were.

[Paddy]

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN panel of thousands of international scientists, widely regarded as an authority on climate change issues, established a consensus many years ago that most of the warming experienced over the last half-century has been attributable to human activities.

However, scientists acknowledge that rises in temperatures can potentially cause massive increases of greenhouse gases due to various natural positive feedback mechanisms, for example the methane released by melting permafrost, ocean algae's reduced capacity to absorb carbon at higher water temperatures, and the carbon released by trees when forests dry up.

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age (which began two hundred years ago).

Climate scientists have used information in ice cores, which contain air samples trapped by snow falling hundreds of thousands of years ago, providing an ancient record of the atmosphere's makeup, to establish that throughout the numerous glacial and interglacial periods on record, temperatures have closely tracked global CO2 concentrations.

The fact that background atmospheric CO2 levels, shown for example by the famous Keeling curve, displaying precise measurements going back to 1958, are now known to be well above concentrations experienced in hundreds of millennia, as displayed by the ice cores, is considered by most of the scientific community as incontrovertible proof of mankind's influence on greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, Abdusamatov even disputed the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. The phenomenon by which gases such as methane and CO2 warm the troposphere by absorbing some of the infra-red heat reflected by the earth's surface has the effect of a global thermostat, sustaining global temperatures within ranges that allow life on the planet to thrive.

But Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing ‘greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

The 1998 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets greenhouse gas emission targets for the period up to 2012, entered into force two years ago following ratification by 141 countries, which together account for over 55% of the world's gas pollutions. However, most environmentalists now consider its targets inadequate to enforce the emissions cuts necessary to curb climate change.

Russia ratified the treaty in November 2004, making it legally binding. But the world's top polluter, the United States, is still reluctant to sign on for fear the treaty's emission commitments will slow down the country's economic growth.

[DimPrawn]

Fecks sake people, everyone knows and it is proven 100% that Climate Change (not Global Warming - it might get colder, stay the same or something else) is cause by VW Touregs and BMW X5 in Chelsea. Especially the ones with full leather and sat nav.

HTH

[zathras]

From Zathras:

Why is it no climate model based on Co2 emissions accurately predicts current temperatures. The only model to be accurate uses solar activity?

I don't believe the above assertions. Please provide the evidence?

With pleasure. The assertion comes from here; http://www.scientific-alliance.org/t...te_climate.htm

Confidence in the models has not been encouraged by the fact that, even when using historical data, none of them has been able to predict present-day temperature correctly. The models are unable to account for the temperature rise between 1920 and 1940, the subsequent cooling to 1975 and the absence of warming in the satellite record since 1979.

It may also be worth taking note of the following;

Accurate weather prediction more than a few days ahead is still not a certainty, and realistic modelling of complete climate systems is far beyond our present capabilities and understanding of the physics and chemistry of climate. Existing models are based on simplified assumptions, which in some cases are highly inaccurate simplifications of the real system, thereby reducing their reliability to predict future climate.
.
.
.
The complex nature of global climate places limitations on the predictive power of computer models, the outputs of which are dependent on the quality of the data put in. This raises large questions over the certainty of the results produced. Indeed, different models have produced very different results, leading to projections based upon wide margins of temperature changes. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has suggested changes of between 1.50C and 5.80C between 1990 and 2100.
.
.
.
Climate change data over the past 100 years contain many discrepancies; for example, surface temperature measurements disagree with recent measurements from satellites and balloons. While some researchers predict C02 levels will be 8 times pre-industrial values, others doubt if they will even double. Many of the scenarios used by the IPPC to make their projections are based on improbably high rates of economic growth in the Developing world, with related C02 emissions similarly over-estimated.
.
.
.
For each of its three assessments so far the IPCC has produced two linked reports, a technical report and a summary for policy makers. Many scientists expressed concerns that the level of certainty expressed in the policy document does not reflect the scientific evidence, interpretations and conclusions found in the technical report.

[Lucy]

But I thought everything on the telly was true

Thanks ass I needed to be reminded. Well, probably not given the trash I've read about road user charging of late.

And I guess my PhD was all for nothing...

Oh, and "Nigel Lawson destroyed the economy" hahahahaah, you really are some kind of pinky numpty.

[sasguru]

With pleasure. The assertion comes from here; http://www.scientific-alliance.org/t...te_climate.htm

Who are the "Scientific Alliance"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...218957,00.html

'Nuff said?

[sasguru]

And I guess my PhD was all for nothing...

.

Just proves the declining standards of education.

[Lucy]

Who are the "Scientific Alliance"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...218957,00.html

'Nuff said?

hahaahah assbum reads 'the guardian'


hahahahaahahah now that is it !

[Spacecadet]

Who are the "Scientific Alliance"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...218957,00.html

'Nuff said?

Any line of thought needs to be challenged, its called debate.