Reply to: Global Warming Officially Dead

[ace00]

5 years in the long run is nothing, we could get random fluctuations.
I'll take your bet provided all 5s are changed to 50s - that is I bet the average temperature over the next 50 years will be higher than the previous 50.

Great - I'll put it in my Will, I'm sure my dependants will appreciate their winnings.
Wouldn't take that bet anyway, I think it is getting warmer, but as part of a natural cycle (the same cycle that led to the Thames freezing over for a large part of the 18th century).

[sasguru]

"5 years from today the average global temperature as measured by (satellite ?) for the previous 5 years will be lower than the average as measured for the past 5 years to today. I will take that bet. Would you?"

I'll take the lack of reply as a no then?
You shouldn't argue with me, I'm always right.
It's a burden to be honest.

5 years in the long run is nothing, we could get random fluctuations.
I'll take your bet provided all 5s are changed to 50s - that is I bet the average temperature over the next 50 years will be higher than the previous 50.

[ace00]

"5 years from today the average global temperature as measured by (satellite ?) for the previous 5 years will be lower than the average as measured for the past 5 years to today. I will take that bet. Would you?"

I'll take the lack of reply as a no then?
You shouldn't argue with me, I'm always right.
It's a burden to be honest.

[dang65]

Finally, with the world about to head into recession, don't you think it's time to send the Cult of Global Warming to bed? Especially if that cult has the potential to destroy the world's economy as we try to achieve the impossible (ie. stop man's impact when it's not even man's impact causing the problems).

So, are you admitting that there are problems, but denying that it's anything to do with human activity? Or do you think there are no problems?

As has been pointed out loads of times on here and elsewhere, the "Green taxes" are being charged to people and industries which cause the most polution to the environment. That doesn't necessarily have to be anything to do with "Global Warming", just whether you're making the place smelly, noisy, dirty, congested or chemically unpleasant. Do you really think you shouldn't pay for that?

The alternative, which would make a lot more sense really, would be to actually ban activities which cause environmental damage, but politicians don't have the guts to actually do that outright. By constantly upping the taxes they'll hopefully start having some kind of impact, even if it's "the poor that suffer most" etc etc.

[sasguru]

I generally find that taking the opposite position to Mailman will generally lead to the truth. I rest my case, ladies and gents.

[DimPrawn]

Gordon never mentions anything about GW, except "drivers of big cars must pay more tax". That's the level of his engagement in the subject.

[Mailman]

Secondly, there were a tiny fraction of the number of people we have now. Here's a graph from Wiki. The world's population has nearly trebled in size since 1950. If the climate changes to the point where crops get damaged regularly, or pests spread to zones they never affected before, or huge areas become uninhabitable, then it won't just be a case of migrating to the next valley to find food. It could all get very, very messy. Already has in some places.

So what was the cause of water rising that swamped the civilisations off the Indian cost about 5000 years ago?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/609248/posts

Global warming due to over population?

What gets me is that all these super duper climate models DID NOT predict the cooling that's been going on over the last 10 years...and most certainly DID NOT predict snow in April!

If Global Warming (tm) gets any worse we will be in danger of freezing to death!

Finally, with the world about to head in to recession, don't you think its time to send the Cult of Global Warming to bed? Especially if that cult has the potential to destroy the worlds economy as we try to achieve the impossible (ie. stop mans impact when its not even mans impact causing the problems). Surely GB has to introduce a tax on volcanoes CO2 emissions?

Mailman

[ace00]

1. Would you bet that the average global temperature will rise or fall in the coming years?
2. Correlation does not imply causation. First thing you learn on a basic statistics course. There may be a confounding variable.
3. Why do you think you understand climatology, a complicated subject. Are you an expert in statistical/mathematical modelling? If so why aren't you doubling or tripling your daily rate?

Next week, the milkman will expound on why quantum physics is all wrong.

1. Of course not, that is not a reasonable bet. Here's one, it's provable too!
5 years from today the average global temperature as measured by (satellite ?) for the previous 5 years will be lower than the average as measured for the past 5 years to today. I will take that bet. Would you?

2. Correct - tell that to the global warming lobby.

3. I don't, but I do understand scientific method, and that you should never underestimate the stupidity of crowds. I also understand that models of massivly complex systems that you don't understand with incomplete data input extrapolated over many years do. not. work.

[ratewhore]

I think Dang is correct when he points out the population issue. There is so much information and misinformation on the climate change issue I cannot form a considered opinion.

I do think the main problem is population though but that's as far as my thinking (and time) takes me...

[dang65]

Take a look at the graphs:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

How can AGW supporters say that the past 10 years of steady temperatures (even falling last 2 years) are a "blip"? You can't just ignore evidence that doesn't fit your model.

The evidence clearly shows correlation with sunspot activity over various time-scales.

And how would AGW explain little ice age, medievel warm period and even ice age? Or the fact we're in a post ice-age warm period?

BBC page which gives responses to these standard climate sceptic beliefs.

Also, I don't really get this thing about the Earth being 4.54 billion years old and survived fine in the past so what's the problem. It's not the Earth that we have to worry about, it's the Humans. Humans have also survived extremes in the past, but our ancestors had a couple of advantages. Firstly, they knew how to survive from day to day, where to gather food and how to hunt animals, and loads of other skills which are only remembered now in the "Third World".

Secondly, there were a tiny fraction of the number of people we have now. Here's a graph from Wiki. The world's population has nearly trebled in size since 1950. If the climate changes to the point where crops get damaged regularly, or pests spread to zones they never affected before, or huge areas become uninhabitable, then it won't just be a case of migrating to the next valley to find food. It could all get very, very messy. Already has in some places.

It always seems to me that it's got to be worth organising a bit of self-sufficency, grow some food, generate some power, harvest some rainwater etc. Not to "save the environment" but to prepare for a time when the environment isn't going to be able to save us.

[DimPrawn]

1. Would you bet that the average global temperature will rise or fall in the coming years?
2. Correlation does not imply causation. First thing you learn on a basic statistics course. There may be a confounding variable.
3. Why do you think you understand climatology, a complicated subject. Are you an expert in statistical/mathematical modelling? If so why aren't you doubling or tripling your daily rate?

Next week, the milkman will expound on why quantum physics is all wrong.

So what are saying? Man made CO2 definately is the cause of a warming climate? If it is really bad that the global temperature rises (more energy, more storms, floods and extremes), how is it bad if it falls or stays the same?

No one knows fook all, especially the so-called self-styled "climate gurus".*


* Apologies to Chico there.

[sasguru]

Take a look at the graphs:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

How can AGW supporters say that the past 10 years of steady temperatures (even falling last 2 years) are a "blip"? You can't just ignore evidence that doesn't fit your model.

The evidence clearly shows correlation with sunspot activity over various time-scales.

And how would AGW explain little ice age, medievel warm period and even ice age? Or the fact we're in a post ice-age warm period?

1. Would you bet that the average global temperature will rise or fall in the coming years?
2. Correlation does not imply causation. First thing you learn on a basic statistics course. There may be a confounding variable.
3. Why do you think you understand climatology, a complicated subject. Are you an expert in statistical/mathematical modelling? If so why aren't you doubling or tripling your daily rate?

Next week, the milkman will expound on why quantum physics is all wrong.

[DimPrawn]

It's now being renamed to:

Global Staying About the Same, Maybe a little Cooler, Who Knows, Just Keep the Taxes.


HTH

[DaveB]

Take a look at the graphs:

And how would AGW explain little ice age, medievel warm period and even ice age? Or the fact we're in a post ice-age warm period?

Technically we are still in an Ice Age now. By definition, in glaciological terms, an Ice Age is any period where there are extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.

An the difference between Global Warming and Climate change is that Global Warming is the precursor to Climate Change.

[Likely]

The Earth has existed for ???????? billion years. Do you think article based on 10 years of observations can be precise ?