[Archived] Climate Change

[Steve Moss]

According to one MIT scientist, the UN's most recent climate change report is seriously flawed.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/

[jim mk2]

But then the right wing always denies climate change, because it potentially hits company profits and the extortionate salaries and bonuses company directors pay themselves.

In the meantime, the polar ice caps continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise.

[Al]

But then the right wing always denies climate change, because it potentially hits company profits and the extortionate salaries and bonuses company directors pay themselves.

In the meantime, the polar ice caps continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise.

The polar icecaps recovered significantly this year.

[Mike E]

Climate change is (imo) bs. Glacials and interglacials occur roughly every 50,000years and around 25,000 years ago was the last time we exited an ice age (glacial) meaning we are coming to (or are at) a peak temperature.

It's just related to how near we are to the sun over thousands of years, imo (I think their called Milankovich cycles).

[Amo]

Climate change is (imo) bs. Glacials and interglacials occur roughly every 50,000years and around 25,000 years ago was the last time we exited an ice age (glacial) meaning we are coming to (or are at) a peak temperature.

It's just related to how near we are to the sun over thousands of years, imo (I think their called Milankovich cycles).

+1

Man-made global warming is a myth. Mankind's Co2 contribution is minuscule, I've heard something like 3% of overall Co2 activity. 'Global warming' is just a gravy train that a lot of people have got filthy rich from. Nothing to see here, folks.

[den]

Scientists have upped their certainty that climate change is real, happening now and down to human activity, from 90%, to 95%. Apparently they never go to 100%.

Now then....... The worlds top scientists, or Melly and amorillo?

[Audax]

To be fair, one Nobel Prize Winning Physicist resigned from an organization that made their policy that global warming was occurring.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/

While another believes in it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nobel-prize-winner-climate-change-2296391

So even among scientists, there is a split.

[Amo]

Scientists have upped their certainty that climate change is real, happening now and down to human activity, from 90%, to 95%. Apparently they never go to 100%.

Now then....... The worlds top scientists, or Melly and amorillo?

95% is the figure banded around by the IPCC. They're a politically driven organization, not a scientific one. Look at the empirical evidence and perhaps you'll learn the truth of the matter, Jim. Also, I trust you're happy with the rocketing energy bills in this country thanks to these pointless, underhanded climate change programmes.

[T.J.Newton]

funny how these big climate change scares pop up at the time of wars ie. the hole in the Ozone layer(that's now acknowledged as a natural occurrence that has pretty much healed) at the time of Bush snrs gulf war and global warming(that is now seriously being questioned and again just looking like a natural phenomenon) at the time of Bush jnrs 2nd attempt at Iraq.

[den]

95% is the figure banded around by the IPCC. They're a politically driven organization, not a scientific one. Look at the empirical evidence and perhaps you'll learn the truth of the matter,

Well they are a body set up by governments, to advise governments on the current position of the scientists. Feel free to tell me what you know, that the scientists don't?

[Paul]

95% is the figure banded around by the IPCC. They're a politically driven organization, not a scientific one. Look at the empirical evidence and perhaps you'll learn the truth of the matter, Jim. Also, I trust you're happy with the rocketing energy bills in this country thanks to these pointless, underhanded climate change programmes.

Average gas bill £881, electric £531, total £1412. Source OFGEM.

Between 8-11% of domestic bills go towards environmental costs, specifically:

£21 is contributed to ECO, the scheme designed to help poorer households insulate their homes to reduce energy consumption.

£6 goes to Feed-in-Tariffs which support renewables. That's 0.42% of the average domestic bill going to pointless underhanded climate change programmes.

I would have thought £6 per annum invested in new energy sources was a pretty good deal.

Can some explain the political motivation behind climate change?

[thenodrog]

But then the right wing always denies climate change, because it potentially hits company profits and the extortionate salaries and bonuses company directors pay themselves.

In the meantime, the polar ice caps continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise.

Bloody hell! Just a few days after Milliband promises to keep energy bills low! Surely for the sake of the planet and his marxist principles he should be canvassing for energy bills to be doubled. If people turned the heating down at home and in the office there are now textiles available that will keep them warm and dry. As the saying goes... 'there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothes'.

btw the tories are equally guilty of irresponsible politicking too cos today aren't they proposing to cap petrol prices or similar?

[Mike E]

Scientists have upped their certainty that climate change is real, happening now and down to human activity, from 90%, to 95%. Apparently they never go to 100%.

Now then....... The worlds top scientists, or Melly and amorillo?

Now, come on den. You know better than to trust scientists

[Steve Moss]

But then the right wing always denies climate change, because it potentially hits company profits and the extortionate salaries and bonuses company directors pay themselves.

In the meantime, the polar ice caps continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

[Paul]

I'm not sure we can place too much credence in reports from the Daily Mail, the Daily Caller and Climate Depot.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Depends on terminology for me. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, but the speed of the climate change we're currently seeing is definitely man made in my opinion.

The most depressing thing about stuff like this for me is the ever spiralling human population. It'll be very difficult to stop our species wrecking the planet whilst we continue to more than double in numbers every 50 years.

[jim mk2]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Well as Mandy Rice Thingy said, the Mail would say that wouldn't it ? As a general rule the truth is usually the exact opposite of what appears in the Daily Mail. If the Mail confirmed that climate change was occuring because of human activity then I would be worried.

[Steve Moss]

Well as Mandy Rice Thingy said, the Mail would say that wouldn't it ? As a general rule the truth is usually the exact opposite of what appears in the Daily Mail. If the Mail confirmed that climate change was occuring because of human activity then I would be worried.

Here's a similar article from the Independent- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-size-of-arctic-ice-caps-increases-8804911.html. Is the Independent a conservative paper?

Here's an article from the "Brainerd Dispatch" which I don't think is a political magazine- http://brainerddispatch.com/opinion/guest-columns/2013-09-22/polar-ice-caps-are-expanding Here's a quote:

"Antarctica sea ice extent set an all-time record of 19.51234 million sq km on Sept. 14, 2013. And at the other pole, as of Sept. 15, 2013, Arctic sea ice extent was approximately one million square miles greater than on the same date in 2012."

And per wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs

"In August 2013 the ice extent increased to an average of 6.09 million square kilometers. A hole in the ice cover was observed near the North Pole. Antarctic ice cover reached record highs."

And to be clear, Jim, it appears that while the Arctic sea ice has rebounded this last year, compared over the decades it is not at its highest peak. But that raises the question, so what? There have been periods where the poles were very green, lush and full of life. Why are we saying the frozen tundra is its normal condition as compared to the very livable conditions in past millennia, which were almost tropical? Since when is weather and ice supposed to be stagnant and unchanging?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gorge-on-climate-change-denial-just-make-sure-you-know-its-poison-8835244.html

The Independent.

There's links available for every argument, its not worth much posting them compared to directly addressing the argument of the other side. Not sure Jim gets this either!

[Baz]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/19/climate-change-arctic-ice-sixth-lowest-in-millennia

Theres a couple of graphs in that link that debunk the "recovery" of sea ice this year, plus also show its extent in the past 1450 years.

The last time experts can determine we likely had no ice caps was around 55 million years ago, at a point where the global temperature altered 6 degrees in 20,000 years. Compare that to the 0.7 in the past 100 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

[jim mk2]

Hmm, sorry but from a US perspective I prefer to listen to and believe Al Gore's stance on climate change. But then he's one of the good guys, a Democrat.

[Steve Moss]

Sure, Jim. Take the word of a politician who has made millions off the global warming theory, and does so despite having a carbon footprint that a T-Rex would envy. Good sound judgement you're showing there.

Or you could look at the actual data. Here's a decent summary- http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/29/analysis-un-ipcc-hides-the-decline-they-are-comparing-a-statistically-insignificant-amount-of-warming-since-1998-with-three-decades-of-cooling-the-result-is-to-make-this-small-trend-sound-much-m/

What I found amusing is that the IPCC's claims only hold water with a start date of 1998. If people aren't sheep, and look to the overall data, they'd find:

". . . Their base period of 1951-2013, against which they have measured post 1998 trends, includes:-

28 years of cooling 1951-79

22 years of warming 1979-2001

12 years of cooling again 2001-2013

So, in total, during 40 out of the 62 years there has been a cooling trend. They are comparing a statistically insignificant amount of warming since 1998, with three decades of cooling. The result is to make this small trend sound much more significant than it is.

It would surely have been more honest to have compared the post 1998 trend with the 1979-98 period. If they had have done this, of course, most people would realised that the much trumpeted global warming really had stopped for the time being. And, in the IPCCs eyes, that was not the message they wanted people to hear.

By this dodgy use of statistics and the 1998 red herring, they have also tried to distract attention from the clear fact that temperatures really have flatlined since 2001."

It seems pretty obvious that that IPCC has a political agenda. I wonder if you can figure out what it is?

[dave birch]

Steve, don't confuse "weather" with "climate".

There are many variations in the weather over short periods. Climate relates to a much longer period.

Before you could convince me of any "agenda" on the part of the IPCC you'd have to come up with some stats that go back one or two millenia (they are available).

There is no doubt that the earth is warming. Whether this is down to human activity is what is under scrutiny, and it can be proven, that the rate of increase has accelerated post the industrial revolution.

It comes down to who you would want to believe, in what they are saying, for most lay people.

[Stuart]

dave, you've just described a need for data over thousands of years to show a definite trend and then suggested that 50 years have made a significant impact.

The fact is we have no idea of the trends over the millions of years that we have been orbiting the sun to say for definite either way.

Be careful, the "God of Science" is a fickle being.

[Al]

Science often gets it wrong before it gets it right. How long did it take to discredit the phlogiston theory of burning?