Reply to: '5 ways to save the world' BBC2 (last night)

[wonderwaif]

Ok.
If you've read the whole thread you would have seen that Sassie was waving this report around, saying it was the one true word that proved GW was directly linked to mans activities, and anybody who disagreed was a moron.

I think he's gone away to actually read it, and I'm sure he will be back sometime next week to explain it all to us lesser intellects.

edit:
I didn't think my earlier reply to waxman needed any sarcastic emoticons, I was obviously wrong.

[Paddy]

You, the link was to an IPCC report. Most of these reports pushing global warming use the amount of so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Models based on this have not successfully been able to predict current temperatures.

It is the results of the models that are driving the current Global Warming campaign and the results are in error then why are we looking to invest money trying to reduce them - it will have little or no effect.

Climate on this planet is a combination of many things and in addition to greenhouse gases include the earths axis, it's relative position to the Sun, the activity of the sun. Particulate matter in the atmosphere from volcanic activity. Rather than waste time, effort and money trying to reduce it, we may perhaps be better of dealing with it's effects.

The silly thing is that we need to reduce our reliance on carbon fuel sources (such as coal, oil and gas) for the simple reason that they are going to run out. We don't need to be scared into thinking our grandchildren are going to have to grow gills, and be charbroiled in their adult life.

The current taxation policy, most typically represented by the Airline tax (which is currently illegal but that is another story) is talking about disincentiving activities; but nothing about incentivising behaviour. Very little if anything about encouraging micro-generation; where small sites such as farms, individiual homes or housing estates generate their own energy using small windmills, or if coastal, wave power. Or even solar, which even in the UK could be used in conjunction with the National Grid to reduce bills and drain on the grid itself.

Government policy seems to be a one trick pony; tax it and build ever bigger Nuclear Power Plants (very clever, so our Grandchildren have to pay to get rid of it, rather than deal with global warming - very clever, not!)

Well said that man.

[zathras]

I'm not sure it that is for waxman or me,

You, the link was to an IPCC report. Most of these reports pushing global warming use the amount of so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Models based on this have not successfully been able to predict current temperatures.

It is the results of the models that are driving the current Global Warming campaign and the results are in error then why are we looking to invest money trying to reduce them - it will have little or no effect.

Climate on this planet is a combination of many things and in addition to greenhouse gases include the earths axis, it's relative position to the Sun, the activity of the sun. Particulate matter in the atmosphere from volcanic activity. Rather than waste time, effort and money trying to reduce it, we may perhaps be better of dealing with it's effects.

The silly thing is that we need to reduce our reliance on carbon fuel sources (such as coal, oil and gas) for the simple reason that they are going to run out. We don't need to be scared into thinking our grandchildren are going to have to grow gills, and be charbroiled in their adult life.

The current taxation policy, most typically represented by the Airline tax (which is currently illegal but that is another story) is talking about disincentiving activities; but nothing about incentivising behaviour. Very little if anything about encouraging micro-generation; where small sites such as farms, individiual homes or housing estates generate their own energy using small windmills, or if coastal, wave power. Or even solar, which even in the UK could be used in conjunction with the National Grid to reduce bills and drain on the grid itself.

Government policy seems to be a one trick pony; tax it and build ever bigger Nuclear Power Plants (very clever, so our Grandchildren have to pay to get rid of it, rather than deal with global warming - very clever, not!)

[wonderwaif]

how come none of the climate change models predicted current temperatures when fed historical data.

Further the only models to be accurate use solar activity, not so called greenhouse gases, of which the most potent is plain old water; which either reflect heat out of the atmosphere or keep it in by reflecting heat back to earth (which depends on type of cloud and altitude).

I'm not sure it that is for waxman or me, but I'm sure Sassie will explain all.
I'm one of the morons.

[zathras]

If it is so accurate...

how come none of the climate change models predicted current temperatures when fed historical data.

Further the only models to be accurate use solar activity, not so called greenhouse gases, of which the most potent is plain old water; which either reflect heat out of the atmosphere or keep it in by reflecting heat back to earth (which depends on type of cloud and altitude).

[wonderwaif]

Sorry WXMAN, but this is the only reliable document on Global Warming:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
And the only scientists who know anything are the ones who worked on it.

I'm sure Sasguru will explain, if he ever gets round to reading it.

HTH

[wxman]

I have been following this thread with interest, now I feel I must comment!

As some of you have pointed out there is evidence that temperatures in the Northern hemisphere are indeed running higher than the claimed 30 year average (often taken to be 1961 – 1990) but needs to be seriously revised (the average is now 17 year out of date!)

However what the Global Warming advocates fail to point out time and time again is what is happing in the southern hemisphere – where in fact it is running COLDER than the average. – have a peek at this chart here and you will see what I mean.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/

Sure, North West Europe is toasting at the moment – but what you need to understand is the Ocean currents (the major heat transport mechanism) will eventually transport the cold water up welling into the northern hemisphere. This I will predict will be 7 – 10 years time, at this time I am forecast a return to more traditional colder winters over the UK.

In the near term, this latent heat in the Northern hemisphere is advancing and extending summers. Look at the how warm already the waters are already in the Gulf of Mexico (for February) – this will have the affect of throwing out normal weather patterns in Both the USA and the UK (due to the gulf stream)
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gm/ave...0046_multi.png


In the VERY near term I am forecasting A VERY SIGNIFICANT WEATHER EVENT over Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas this weekend – read destructive Supercells and Tornadoes (in case any one is planning a trip over there..) This is quite unusual for February!

Also if you can find a book maker who will take a bet that 100f (I think that that is 38.6c) will be reached this summer – take the darn bet! And don’t bet on a white Christmas for three years!

[hyperD]

No, plant him, seal his arsehole and offset his carbon emissions.

[DimPrawn]

Shoot the maveric!

[Paddy]

Heretic!

Burn him!

No hang on, that will release CO2

Hang him!

In order hang someone you have to boil the rope to stop it stretching. That creates Co2 and water vapor.

[DimPrawn]

Heretic!

Burn him!

No hang on, that will release CO2

Hang him!

[zathras]

it's poppycock.

Where to start.

1. When given historical data, no climate model has accuratly predicted current temperatures except one. That does not use carbon but solar activity as the driver for temperature.

2. Analysis of core samples shows that carbon increased after, not before an increase in temperature

3. Vikings; established colonies in Greenland, Newfoundland and North America. These colonies were for the collecting of wood for ship building. There is an ice sheet over Greenland, not trees so that must be colder.

4. Analysis of Glaciers show an increase in size in the majority, not a decrease

5. In 1421 a fleet of ships from China (just before the Ming dynasty closed off China) travelled around the world. One of those ships travelled East through the North Atlantic; then over Scotland, up the East coast of Norway, over North Russia and thence via the Beiring Straights to the Pacific. Try doing that in a modern ship let alone a (large) Chinese junk.

6. During the mini-ice age Polar Bears where spotted in the Orkneys

7. Scientific consensus. There is n't one, plenty of scientists disagree that the current global warming is down to Man. Further if there was this is not a very good justification. Gallileo would happily agree that the Scientific consensus of his time were talking out of their collective rear-ends. They have been doing it ever since.


8. Carbon is not even the largest contributor; it is beaten by both Methane and water (in the form of vapour or clouds).

9. if it is so important why is it that the only result of the recent Stern report (written by an Economist and do you know his terms of reference) was an increase in taxes. Where are the tax benefits in using non-polluting forms of energy production such as personal windmills, geothermal, water etc?

[wonderwaif]

I refer you to the the links above. I can't spoon feed you the answers - you wouldn't believe me anyway. Why not do some research before posting?

1. I believe that he had done some research, (i.e. like yourself he did a bit of googling)
2. Why can't you spoon feed him the answers? If you are are so sure that this document provides definitive proof and GW is attributed directly to human activity you must have read it thoroughly, isn't it your duty to help others understand for the good of the planet? I asked where in the document you link to it explains previous warming/cooling cycles, you haven't actually read it, have you?


Edit:
I found this in your report:
"Changes across the last 500,000 years

It is very likely that large and rapid decadal temperature changes occurred during the last glacial and its deglaciation (between about 100,000 and 10,000 years ago), particularly in higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. During the last deglaciation, local increases in temperature are likely to have been as large as 5 to 10°C over a few decades. Over the same period there is evidence of less pronounced but nearly synchronous changes worldwide, except in high southern latitudes.
Antarctic ice cores have provided new evidence of almost in-phase changes of temperature, carbon dioxide and methane through the ice age cycles over the past 420,000 years.

There is emerging evidence for significant, rapid (time-scales of several decades or more), regional temperature changes during the last 10,000 years. However, the evidence does not indicate that any such events were global in scale. "

The first highlighted section appears to indicate that there were changes in global temperature before we started driving to work.

[threaded]

As a slight aside, I think something that is particularly worrying about this debate and others is how little 'the people' trust their government. This mistrust is clearly with good reason, but it is also potentially very damaging. There are many people now who will not believe a single word an authority figure tells them regardless of how correct or sensible it may be. What if there really is a problem that we all need to address for the sake of our own survival? We are in danger of not surviving because we simply won't believe them when they tell us. Think the little boy that cried wolf, except replace wolf with T-Rex who is going to eat the village. In conclusion, Tony Blair is responsible for us all being eaten by dinosaurs.

Actually, it is the inversion. If Tony Blair said global warming did not exist, then I'd be worried. As it is, because both him and Gordo say it's a problem, I know there is absolutely no need to worry.

Anyways, global temperatures are related to Solar output and cosmic rays. Nothing whatsoever to do with the piddling amounts of CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere.

[threaded]

Now it's very clear that this board is full of IT people who are also experts in every field under the sun but I don't think basic physics is a very good skill to have when it comes to global warming.

One thought, if you are all experts then why aren't you putting your skills to good use by discovering cures for cancer, nuclear fusion and other such mysteries known to man?

I have a very difficult day tomorrow where I have to remove a very deep brain tumour, surely there must be a qualified brain surgeon out there amongst you who can give me some advice?

Maybe if you do a "google" then you can help me?

Erm, exsqueze me, but because you've done fsck all in your life doesn't mean that some on this board haven't done some very useful stuff along the lines you mention.