[Archived] The Weather

[Bazzanotsogreat]

The only 100% truth that you must see, will be when global warming either happens, or doesn't happen.

Thats not the debate global warming is happening Defiantly

From the Stern review:

This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years.

And there lies the crux of the counter-argument, just because we don’t know defiantly what is causing global warming; we are assuming its man-made Co2 because it’s the most likely cause.

An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.

Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures.

Again Science is unable to to give us a definite answer 2-5 degrees C is a hell of difference in terms of global mean temps

This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a global scale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C.

Link to more of the Stern review

So, which part of the science is wrong Bazza and what about the overwhelming body of scientific evidence? I would have thought that when Scientists present overwhelming conclusions, that we laymen might accept it, unless we had real reason to doubt it.

I can’t see why you have such a problem with my opinion, I have no-where stated that global warming isn’t down to man-made Co2 levels, its just that neither side of the debate have any evidence that is truly compelling. It seems that the main point of those championing the man-made Co2 theory, is that it must be that by process of elimination; which is why they have had such a struggle convincing world governments as the science isn’t compelling enough to convince people 100%.

Like ive said you can believe what you like , that’s you’re entitlement. I am yet to be swayed by either argument; until some boffin can come onto the television and say that man-made Co2 emission is defiantly behind the rise in global temps whilst dispelling all the other competing theories, people such as myself have the right to reserve judgement. Although I believe the Bali conference is big step in the right direction in trying to change our polluting ways

Edited December 17, 2007 by Bazzanotsogreat

[den]

until some boffin can come onto the television and say that man-made Co2 emission is defiantly behind the rise in global temps whilst dispelling all the other competing theories,

That's what they are saying Bazza. There are other minor contributing factors they say, but the overwhelming reason for climate change is man made.

Anyhow, I've done more than enough arguing on here today, so fair do's - merry christmas Bazza.

Edited December 17, 2007 by den

[Flopsy]

Actually, Den, I read an interesting column by one of the scientists who is sharing the Nobel Prize with Gore. He actually didn't seem to be convinced. Can't post a link, but if you send me your email address, I might be able to mail you the link (not sure if it has expired yet).

Have you read and absorbed all of the counter arguements, or are you just listening to one side, which is what you are accusing Baz of.

Oh, and Flopsy, thanks for asking, but I'm in Ireland until Friday, so no problems here!

well other than being in Ireland, and having to fly back into an ice storm thats covering the whole seaboard, better hope they've got enough fuel to reach florida

[Eddie]

Eddie as far as im aware the US was at the Bali conference? If they were doing almost everything they can to fight it? They would of either not turned up at all, or rejected the proposal without discussion. The Neo-Cons are playing party politics with the GW and im not sure if they even have an agenda, there primary focus seems to be on the surge in Iraq. Im pretty sure that the Democrats if elected will sign and ratify any future treaty.

The first person to use Global warming as a political tool was our very own iron lady, during the miners strike. She set-up a panel to investigate global warming and any future political policy

Yes I'm sure the democrats will, but then the democrats also have fewer links with oil and several other business sectors that have a lot to lose from these sorts of agreements. The fact that they've decided to attend doesn't really say much, they have had so much pressure put on them over the past few years that if they hadn't turned up there would have been an uproar. The only real thing you can look at is that the one major treaty regarding climate change that has been passed by virtually everyone, that being the Kyoto protocol, has not been signed or ratified by the United States. To further that point, they kyoto protocol doesn't even set out any requirements for developing nations apart from the need for them to monitor their situation, the actual requirements relating to reductions are placed purely on already developed nations. I have no problem with you not believing in global warming, I think it's silly, as you have absolutely no scientific training and you are going against the vast majority of experts who spend their lives researching this, but still it hasn't been proven; however, to come up with some sort of a conspiracy theory that basically has nothing to support it is going a bit too far. Global warming can be used as a political tool, just like any other issue, but that doesn't mean that it has been created for political reasons. Gore wouldn't be back in the limelight without it, the democrats would probably have slightly less support, but they haven't paid off the scientific world just so that they can get a couple million (at most) more votes come 2008.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Yes I'm sure the democrats will, but then the democrats also have fewer links with oil and several other business sectors that have a lot to lose from these sorts of agreements. The fact that they've decided to attend doesn't really say much, they have had so much pressure put on them over the past few years that if they hadn't turned up there would have been an uproar. The only real thing you can look at is that the one major treaty regarding climate change that has been passed by virtually everyone, that being the Kyoto protocol, has not been signed or ratified by the United States. To further that point, they kyoto protocol doesn't even set out any requirements for developing nations apart from the need for them to monitor their situation, the actual requirements relating to reductions are placed purely on already developed nations. I have no problem with you not believing in global warming, I think it's silly, as you have absolutely no scientific training and you are going against the vast majority of experts who spend their lives researching this, but still it hasn't been proven; however, to come up with some sort of a conspiracy theory that basically has nothing to support it is going a bit too far. Global warming can be used as a political tool, just like any other issue, but that doesn't mean that it has been created for political reasons. Gore wouldn't be back in the limelight without it, the democrats would probably have slightly less support, but they haven't paid off the scientific world just so that they can get a couple million (at most) more votes come 2008.

You clearly haven’t read my first post, where I stated that there is definitive evidence of climate change, what I am yet to be totally persuaded by is the role that humans are having on climate change

Again Eddie you have onl skim-read my post and assumed my opinion, people dont seem to grasp that there is a difference between climate change which is a definate & man-made climate change which is a probable. Eddie you bang on about the Kyoto procal but how manu nations who signed up to actually adhered to their targets?

You are extremely naïve if you don’t believe that global warming is not been used as political tool; it is a source of unlimited funding for governments especially us high tax paying westerners and acts as a double edged sword in restricting the growth of the newly emerging nations such as China, India & Brazil etc

If these countries are so keen on the Environment why don’t they invest some money into things that will actually improve the environment? For starters spend some serious money on the science of climate change, to prove the doubters wrong and give us an unequivocal answer, at the moment all we get is probable or most likely type answers

No-one Scientist to my knowledge has dispelled the notion than rising co2 levels follow increasing temperatures, rather than the other way around as we are lead to believe.

[Flopsy]

Bazza, you would never believe it if they could provide proof.

Here's an idea for people, Climate change is a fact of life, what can we do to ensure that we, as a species doesnt make it any worse? Beside having climate change conferences as far away from the Western world as possible?

Still, on the plus side, at least its cold now, it might kill of the rats and insects still knocking around.

[Eddie]

Bazza, applause all round. You managed to retreat from your initial statement at record speed. I'm not going to argue with the fact that virtually every aspect of almost every international agreement has been totally ineffective and I won't disagree, as I said in my previous post, that global warming, like any other political issue that has ever existed, can and has been used as a political tool; but that is still a million miles away from it only being in existance, or at least popular, because western governments want to use it to hold back developing nations. You have absolutely nothing to back you up, it's simply crazy. It's one of those "well you can't prove it happens", we can't prove a ton of what science says happens, but that doesn't mean you can come up with some crazy alternative and think it deserves just as much recognition or is potentially as realistic. The fact remains that governments around the world, both in developed and less developed nations, recorgnise and support initiatives to reduce emissions. On top of that, many of the countries in the west that are most vocal when it comes to this are some who would have the least to gain from keeping less developed nations down; I mean you really can't tell me that Sweden are hell-bent on preventing China from becoming even more powerful. As I said, don't believe it if you want, but seeing as 99% of the scientific world believes something, if you are going to come up with an alternative and give it air-time, you better have some pretty impressive facts and figures to support it, especially when you choose to reject the generally accepted view on the basis that no one has shown you any hard proof.

[Ozz]

I preferred it when everybody rowed about racism!

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Bazza, applause all round. You managed to retreat from your initial statement at record speed.

My original post, please try to read Eddie before coming across all Presumptuous

Ive still not seen any evidence of Man made global warming that convinces me 100%. There is a competing theory that is gaining strength , that declares that rising Co2 levels come after temperature increase not the other way around, so therefore something else other than Co2 is causing global warming. The earth is obviously warming; but it has done this 100’s of times over a multi-million year cycle. Vikings farming in Greenland and Romans producing wine in Northumberland etc

Might the earth’s warming be more relevant to the cycle of solar radiation? In conjunction with rising Co2 levels. I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly

As ive said 3 times know the world is warming fact, is the world warming because of human activity Possibly? and there the distinction should be made.

Times article

The climate and the sun

Edited December 18, 2007 by Bazzanotsogreat

[Eddie]

I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly

What you are essentially saying is that global warming is being manipulated, possibly even created or at least exaggerated, by the west in order to keep lesser developed nations down, but you haven't actually produced anything to support that theory, which is really quite a bold statement. Tell me how else I should take that statement. I'm not looking at whether or not you believe in global warming, not whether co2 causes global warming or global warming causes rising levels of co2, simply that last piece there. As I've said, so far the landmark international agreement regarding global warming places no requirements for reduction on the lesser developed nations, whilst the EU has also agreed to reduce emissions. I'm not saying individual parties won't use it to their advantage, of course they will, it is a political issue, but that doesn't mean it is being used on the international scene in that same way. I mean, let's look at car manufacturers, those furthest behind in terms of "green" cars are the American car manufacturers, in other words, any initiatives that are introduced will hurt them most and will actually help Asian producers. For an example on this, next year France is introducing a tax based on a cars green level, now this will pretty much price American cars out of the average persons market, it is highly beneficial to the Asian market as I believe that no popular Asian car will be on the wrong-end of this tax, one very popular French model will be.

[den]

My original post, please try to read Eddie before coming across all Presumptuous

As ive said 3 times know the world is warming fact, is the world warming because of human activity Possibly? and there the distinction should be made.

Times article

The climate and the sun

Not everyone's impressed with the times author.

The truth of the climate and the sun.

[American]

Interesting quotes from the climatologist I spoke of earlier:

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer....

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

The most interesting point he makes is that meteorologists/climatologists can't even accurately predict what is going to happen within a week, much less what is going to happen within the next year/decade/century.

I bet most of you don't trust your local weather forecast, though, but are perfectly willing to trust these hypotheses.

[philipl]

That the climate is warming DRAMATICALLY- incontrovertible fact.

How much warmer how faster- debatable but it will get warmer inevitably by virtually any method of calculation on any hypothesis

The impact on life on Earth and how quickly- estimates vary from bad in our life time to civilisation-ending catastrophic by the middle of the century

Non-man made causes- some solid evidence, shaky science in most cases

Man-made causes- increasingly convincing mass of evidence with the shaky science being shaken out

Sensible approach- accept that the world is getting warmer and man has something to do with it. I think it is pretty intuitive that if you release millions of years of stored carbon over less than 150 years, all that energy and residues are going to go somewhere and do some damage.

Now comes the tricky bit- do what? I am struggling to whole heartedly embrace any of the "big schemes" knocking around as unambiguously good or helpful. Oil tars, biofuels, wind power, hydro-electric, nuclear all have big questions over just how beneficial they are on balance.

The approach I would immediately take would be to focus on human behaviour and quit all our energy inefficient bad habbits. In the '70s when fuel started getting expensive, best fuel consumption went from 30 mpg to 50 mpg. Now we should be looking for the national car fleet to AVERAGE 40+ mpg in a very short period of time. Walk or use public transport where feasible. Energy efficient lighting should simply replace what we have and conventional bulbs removed from sale. Switch off when not in use when it will make a real saving. Install photo-elctric panels and water heat exchangers. Use electronic means of communication where possible.

These are all things we each can do and I do. I don't know by how much this has cut my carbon footprint but I am sure these pretty easy to do, not particularly disruptive or time-consuming changes would make a very significant contribution to meeting the intial targets.

[Eddie]

Interesting quotes from the climatologist I spoke of earlier:

The most interesting point he makes is that meteorologists/climatologists can't even accurately predict what is going to happen within a week, much less what is going to happen within the next year/decade/century.

I bet most of you don't trust your local weather forecast, though, but are perfectly willing to trust these hypotheses.

Obviously he knows more than I do, but there's a bit of a difference between those two things, at least in my opinion. It would be like me saying that I could tell you that Derby will be relegated, but I can't tell you the score in their next game. It seems easier to see patterns and and trends, rather than predict specifics, particularly when those specifics could be changed by some very slight variations, which isn't really true when you're looking at the larger picture. I wouldn't trust a scientist who told us that the average temperature in 2020 will be 101°, but I'm willing to believe them if they make a general prediction based on a vast amount of research.

[philipl]

Frankly, it is little to do about forecasts, American.

It is the trends in the factual data over the past 50 years which are scary. Can you point to anything in the data which shows it stopping or reversing?

It is all pointing to something that is bad at best and catastrophic at worst.

All the rest is bushshit.

Picking up on dropping temperatures in Europe, it is worth noting that Europe sits at latitudes which elsewhere in the world north or south of the equator suffer from far harsher climates. IF one effect of global warming is a weakening of the Gulf Stream then Europe's whether will revert to type associated with its latitude which will mean very much colder in winter whilst the lack of moisture will result in arid hot summers in the south of the continent.

People in the UK tend to think of New York as being roughly as far north as London- it is in fact on the same latitude as Rome and some of those places having ice crippling storms recently are as far south as Malta is.

Talking of which, the skies looking north were full of typical snow clouds with a gorgeous red hue as the sun set. We then got some pretty chunky hailstones for a few minutes. The temperature here at the moment is 16 during the day and 10 at night- the sea temperature is still around 18 which keeps things pretty temperate despite the northerly winds.

It needs a strong north easterly to drop the temperature to around 4 which is as cold as it gets. The weather office has a picture of the only recorded frost back in 1987.

Edited December 18, 2007 by philipl

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Not everyone's impressed with the times author.

The truth of the climate and the sun.

Den from your own article

Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate

, the truth is we simply do not know for sure what apportion of blame can be attached to natural and man-made processes.

I can’t believe that you get attacked for stating that the man-made argument isn’t 100% accurate, even the adamant pro man-made theory couldn’t argue different. My own opinion is this world is warming fact, is it warming through man’s intervention probably, and is the world warming because of solar, natural patterns possibly. Until we improve the science to be fool-proof there is no point chastising people who have a differing opinion.

The Bali conference is a small step in the right direction in terms of us as human- beings cutting back on our wasteful inefficient behaviour. Yet surely if we are to invest trillions in carbon efficient technology and carbon trading then maybe we should spend some of that cash on better weather forecasting models and research to give us some proper answers. As American said in a previous post we can’t with any certainty predict localised weather for the following week never mind global temperatures in 2030

[Alan75]

I preferred it when everybody rowed about racism!

CLASSIC

[den]

Quote Bazza:

I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly You can't back that up with any science whatsoever, that's why this debate continues. What you are saying there, is that global warming doesn't exist, it's all a political argument.

Jonathan Porritt was on radio this morning, discussing global warming. He points to the fact that around 20 scientists world wide, go against the overwhelming number of scientists who back the global warming evidence. Out of these 20, not one of them have produced or written a paper on the subject. They simply say they don't believe the evidence - which is now your position, different from where you started.

You need 100% proof that global warming is real, yet link to any minor article that doesn't approve the theory.

Edited December 19, 2007 by den

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Quote Bazza:

I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly You can't back that up with any science whatsoever, that's why this debate continues. What you are saying there, is that global warming doesn't exist, it's all a political argument.

Global warming does exist fact, but we are not completley sure as too its causes and what blame should be apportined to man's influence. GW is different to man-made GW.

Jonathan Porritt was on radio this morning, discussing global warming. He points to the fact that around 20 scientists world wide, go against the overwhelming number of scientists who back the global warming evidence. Out of these 20, not one of them have produced or written a paper on the subject. They simply say they don't believe the evidence - which is now your position, different from where you started.

You need 100% proof that global warming is real, yet link to any minor article that doesn't approve the theory.

I think you will find that there alot more than 20 scientists worldwide that are scpetical of the man-made global warming theory

Without doubt politicians have pointed to the influence of man because of the extra revenue that can be raised via taxation (you can’t tax the sun), the fear and control it imposes on its citizens and it will slow the growth of newly industrialised nations. I honestly believe that this theory has some credence

It’s rather like banging your head against a brick wall on this website, if you have a differing opinion from the liberal majority. If you actually read any of my posts I have not changed my own opinion, you should know im not that kind of poster

I have never stated that world is not warming my point is that we do not know for any certain how much blame can be apportioned to its potential causes, and therefore if we do not know the effect of volcanoes & solar patterns on the atmosphere how do we know for sure the effect of Co2 ? We think that Co2 is the major cause and it is sensible to act however my own opinion is that I am yet to be convinced completely by that argument

[American]

Frankly, it is little to do about forecasts, American.

It is the trends in the factual data over the past 50 years which are scary. Can you point to anything in the data which shows it stopping or reversing?

It is all pointing to something that is bad at best and catastrophic at worst.

And in the 1000s or 1100s there was also a trend of temperatures rising. Like most things associated with the earth, it was a swing that eventually went in the other direction. The current data over the past 50 years (some of which showed cooler temperatures) is just where the trend is now.

As for the whole - "Well, the major scientists say so", the major scientists also said that the earth was the center of the solar system, that the earth was flat, etc.

We were also told by a lot of these major scientists just 5-10 years or so ago that Antartica was going to melt away. As my prior post says, Antartica has more ice now than in recorded history. Real reliable guys that you're listening to....

[den]

American, Bazza - if you want to deny the science, to have any credibility, you must say where it's wrong. Neither of you have, or could do.

[American]

I've said many times where it is wrong, and where it has been proven wrong. Tell me one prediction of the past 20 years that has come true (the ones that say - by 2003....., not the ones that say - within 100 years). All of the predictions get revised after about 5 years, which shows how hard it is to predict the climate.

[den]

I've said many times where it is wrong, and where it has been proven wrong. Tell me one prediction of the past 20 years that has come true (the ones that say - by 2003....., not the ones that say - within 100 years). All of the predictions get revised after about 5 years, which shows how hard it is to predict the climate.

Remind me then, which part of the stern report is wrong?

[Cheshireblue]

We were also told by a lot of these major scientists just 5-10 years or so ago that Antartica was going to melt away. As my prior post says, Antartica has more ice now than in recorded history. Real reliable guys that you're listening to....

Surely that is not true? There are serious concerns over the viability of polar bears because the ice packs are melting earlier and earlier and not spreading as far south as they used to.

I have no science to back up that statement, but if there is more ice than ever, surely the polar bears would not be under threat?

Simple way to cure global warming is to plant more trees. You can produce as much CO2 as you want if you have enough trees to convert it back into oxygen.

[American]

Wrong pole, Chesh.