- This topic has 58 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
From my own experience, not even environmental chemists know precisely what is going on. But I have no doubt that the correlation between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures is there, AND is a contributing factor. The science of it stands up.
Personally, I think this global warming is man-made, but I think the potential for destruction is blown out of proportion. We’ve been pumping masses of CO2 into the atmosphere for 150-200 years now, and people are saying that now we’re only 20 years away from 10m rises in sea levels? Behave yourself.
Global warming is here, it’s (mainly) our doing, and it will probably be a major pain in the arse for mankind in the future. However, that future is most likely a lot further away than many would have us believe.
I agree with that, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been much higher than it is now more than 12,000 years ago. Therefore human activity cannot be to sole contributor to it.
I think the summary report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is well worth reading, or at least browsing.
Go to
and click on "download the summary for policymakers"
<br>I don’t think the media is very good at explaining what is happening. This is probably because the media is full of pratts with arts degrees who think it’s a badge of honour not being able to count. Instead of actually reading this report they probably got bored on page one and phoned up their favourite rent-a-quote rogue scientist.
Throw in politicians full of agendas and hypocrisy; season with a bunch of sad cynical paranoics seeding the internet with their conspiracy spunk and you have a heady mix of ignorance, misinformation and denial.
The report is probably the best world-wide attempt at objectively measuring the situation. Page 9 gives a very good breakdown as to the likelihood of human contribution to various weather trends. It’s the first time consensus has been reached by the scientists involved as to our contribution, and the first time probabilities have been assigned to the findings.
I’m not saying it’s fact, but then clearly neither are they.
As a tangent the way they ascribe terms such as "very likely" to percentages should be of interest to anyone who gambles.
I used to run training courses on project management and problem solving and often asked a group of trainees to ascribe a percentage chance to certain phrases – such as "likely". The range of answers was always stunning!
(Edited by tooting at 7:52 pm on Mar. 20, 2007)
Quote: from Grasshopper on 7:00 pm on Mar. 20, 2007[br]See, this is my problem.
According to the evidence presented in that C4 documentary……and it was presented in a very compelling manner…….CO2 levels are a consequence of rising temperature….not the cause of it.
<br>
I’d like to hear the science behind that. CO2 is very good at absorbing heat; so if that’s true higher temperatures means more CO2, that will adsorb more heat, thus creating more CO2, then this adsorbs MORE heat and so on and so on until we’re really f**ked!
Quote: from Friggo on 7:53 pm on Mar. 20, 2007[br]
<br> CO2 is very good at absorbing heat; so if that’s true higher temperatures means more CO2, that will adsorb more heat, thus creating more CO2, then this adsorbs MORE heat and so on and so on until we’re really f**ked!
What you’re describing is positive feedback or ‘cumulative causation’ in boffin-speak.
Dave Jay is correct; atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher (and lower) in the past and there is a clear, if not linear, correlation between the concentration and global temperatures.
Didn’t see the C4 prog unfortunately, sounds a whole lot more considered than most others of the genre.
Quote: from Drone on 8:37 pm on Mar. 20, 2007[br]<br>Dave Jay is correct; atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher (and lower) in the past and there is a clear, if not linear, correlation between the concentration and global temperatures.
The correlation is a scientific fact. It’s explained by the frequency of the CO2 molecules vibrating; the vibration has a frequency in the infra-red region, it thus adsorbs IR radiation (ie heat from the sun) and traps it it the lower atmosphere, thus heating the lower atmosphere and raising temperatures. The chemistry’s easy, the fortune-telling isn’t!
(Edited by Friggo at 8:51 pm on Mar. 20, 2007)
I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle on Youtube (out of the UK right now) and it was fascinating because rarely is that side of the story heard.
And that’s what it is – two sides of a story. I don’t believe there is any hard evidence at all that humans are contributing to global warming. Many other factors need taking into account such as solar activity, natural cycles…too many people breathing out all that CO2 ;)
I’ll admit I’m a sceptic because the government (and loony "Conservative" Cameron) just want to increase taxes and tell people how they should travel, while not doing anything to improve the shoddy public transport system. That’s my take on it.
Secondly what with Al Gore and this sensationalism of an Inconvenient Truth – this Global Warming business is turning into something of a religion, or a moral argument.
Everyone wants a clean environment but to incessantly drone on about going flippin’ green makes me want to gauge my eyes out. Are there not more immediate important things to be dealing with?
Thanks for the summary GH. I’ll give it a gander on YouTube (ta Meshaheer)
As with most things keeping an open mind would seem the best policy.
…this one will run and run
Why isn’t does Global Warming affect kauto Star’s jumping an option? :biggrin:. I voted for nowt the uk can do about it by the way.
.. this has all happened in the past of course, where two different schools of thought have differing theories about a phenomena that they can only make guesses about. The theory of glacialation was roughly equally divided about 200 years ago into progressionists and not progressionists. The progressionists believed that the ice formed in the north of Europe and then gradually moved across the continent until it was completely covered. The not progressionists believed that glaciation was due to a dramatic fall in average temperatures. The not progressionist were marginalised and ridiculed until fairly recently, when it was discovered that glaciers cannot travel up hills at all and that glaciation happens everywhere suddenly and could be a result of precession.
I think the Global warming debate will rumble on for a couple of hundred years more before we know for sure.
Good blogging Mesh .. :biggrin: :cool:
Quote: from dave jay on 6:48 pm on Mar. 21, 2007[br]that glaciation happens everywhere suddenly and could be a result of precession.<br>
Indeed, it’s an interesting theory and rather apposite on March 21st.
Off topic but the precession of the equinoxes is responsible for rendering the ‘born under’ astrological star signs incorrect. The sun’s position in the zodiac now (as we see it) has fallen about three weeks behind the ‘classical’ astrological position. Astrologers would have us believe today is the first day in Aries which runs until April 19th, but infact the sun is still in Pisces where it will remain until April 13th, after which ‘true’ Aries will resume.
So when some dunderhead believer in baloney remarks "you’re a typical Aries" I suggest you reply with "yeah yeah" and a knowing smile.
As the old shepherds saying goes-<br>"red sky at night, shepherds delight. drowned sheep in the morning, global warming!"
what seems to be overlooked is that global warming is just a theory, not fact. Not proven beyond doubt, yet taught in schools like it is gospel when subjects such as natural selection barely get a look in.
Michael crieghtons "state of fear" plays on this theme and was one of the first works i was aware of that questioned global warming and was main stream accessable. Obviously as complete a work of fiction as jurassic park it is still quite disconcerting, especially when he compares it to eugenics theories carried out in the 20’s-30’s. It definitely shows that there is much information readily available if one can be bothered to delve deep enough that holds a differring view to the establishment.
But on that note, what scares me is the treatment and opinion given to those who hold this differring view which borders on the heretic label and is virtually career ending for any scientist. Just ask David Bellamy.
There is a news story doing the rounds in the main stream media(MSM) (BBC / Newspapers) regarding hacked e-mails from a climate research centre in the UK purportedly showing that leading researchers fiddled stats that would otherwise have discredited the theory of man-made global warming (and its burgeoning industry/funding).
Here’s an interesting blog by James Delingpole a MAN MADE Global warming sceptic from the Daily Telegraph.
I don’t know if global warming is man-made, or even if it is actually happening, but like Delingpole, I sure as hell don’t trust our politicians, quangos or the BBC to give me a fair, balanced account of things.Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science.
By James DelingpoleHere’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:
E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.
The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).
And the Independent:
(Yep. Nada).
And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)
And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:
Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.
The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).
A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”
Here’s the Washington Post:
Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.
The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.
(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).
Here is the BBC:
E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.
A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.
An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.
(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).
Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.
For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.
And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.
Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.
What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).
This is not altogether the MSM’s fault. Partly it is just the way of things that more and more readers prefer their news and opinion served up in snappier, less reverent, more digestible and instant for.
But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?
As Upton Sinclair once said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
So don’t expect this scandal to be written up in the MSM any time soon. But why would you want to anyway? It’s all here, where the free spirits and independent thinkers are, on the Blogosphere.
- Total Posts 17716
The thing about stealing emails is you can be very selective if your purpose is to discredit something or someone.
Anyway what’s a hacker…….a thief is he/she not…wouldn’t trust what they told me anymore than I would trust the British Governement.
Watch 2012 the movie it will scare the life out of you and you will be glad they’re doing something about Global warming
Insomniac, I worry about you sometimes all this doubting everything and negativity…so here is something to help (I hope)
This planet has been around for 4.55 Billon Years and will be around for another 5.10 Billon Years. During its existence the very spot upon which you are standing has been, Lush Rain-Forest, Desert, 100m below the sea etc…
The very idea that Man can destroy the planet is the best piece of arrogant nonsense ever.
So, when they come knocking wanting this or preaching that just tell then to **** off and bore some other chump…
Pretty well bang-on Pompete
Contrary to popular belief the ‘ice age’ didn’t end circa 12,000 years ago; the earth remains in an ice age that began circa 2.6 million years ago. From then until now and far into the future (on a human time scale) the earth has been and will remain unusually cold (on a geological time scale) evidenced by those equally unusual entities: polar ice caps. Much of earth’s history has been ice free.
This 2.6 million years of recent history has seen fluctuations in temperature with an attendant growth and decay of the ice caps. Warmer periods are termed Interglacials of which there have been around 15 and the intervening colder periods Glacials of which there have been, as might be expected, around 15 too.
The duration and intensity of these periods has been anything but uniform but there is some evidence to suggest that over the very recent past starting circa 200,000 years ago there have been three-and-a-‘half’ atypical periods comprising a very cold glacial, very warm interglacial, very cold glacial…and now we find ourselves on a warming phase once more: that first ‘half’ of a current looking-to-be-very-warm-again interglacial.
How warm it will get? no one can know
When it will cool again? no one can know
Has man hastened the natural warming process? no one can know
Is nature changing the planet? emphatically yes
Are we destroying the planet? emphatically no
Is the planet destroying us? emphatically yes, a goodly number at least
Human evolution, our civilisations and the associated explosion in population have evolved in particularly suitable climatic conditions. We are dependent on those conditions remaining static
Could 6 billion humans have survived the previous glacials and interglacials? of course not
There we have the crux of the matter at last then
‘Save the world’ the gloomy doom-mongers shout
What they really mean is a selfish ‘save the world for us’
Minimising ‘carbon footprints’, reducing CO2 emissions, recycling and any number of ‘green’ initiatives should be encouraged for what they actually are: a welcome decrease in the squandering of natural resources…
…but it won’t make a jot of difference to global climate which will carry on happily fluctuating just like it always has.
Now for Aintree where it will be wet and neither warm nor cold
Minimising ‘carbon footprints’, reducing CO2 emissions, recycling and any number of ‘green’ initiatives should be encouraged for what they actually are: a welcome decrease in the squandering of natural resources…
…but it won’t make a jot of difference to global climate which will carry on happily fluctuating just like it always has.
I am Grasshopper, and I fully endorse this message.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.