The Global Warming Lie

[GreyWolf]

Agreed.

[GreyWolf]

Temperatures back down to 1997 levels.

[KALSTER]

"Global warming still definitely on, though"
"This year we have seen a very persistent and strong La Niña, which brings cooler water to the surface of the Pacific Ocean," he says. "This has a global impact on weather and temperatures, and is one of the key reasons why this year does not figure as highly as 2010 in the rankings."

Ok... point conceded. Well then it would still stand to reason that the climate would change. Like I said I would be worried if it did not.

Climate is expected to change, but when we help it along, we have something we can, at least in principle, control. The fact that we aren't doing it is of concern.

[doo_much]

Kenny is a consulting engineer with degrees in physics and mechanical engineering.

Impressive enough, though no guarantee of competence in climate science. Neither is being a nice guy I'm afraid.

My statement was in reply to your stating that he seemed '... a bit of a moron'.

I have no qualifications that allow me to comment on the climatic sciences either - but I have a deep seated distrust in something that is being 'sold' with so much fervour. Too much PT Barnum and too little clear-cut facts.

I am convinced that Climate Change is a fact (thank goodness) - I just wonder about the claims that it is anthropogenic.

[doo_much]

Temperatures back down to 1997 levels.

I love the Bootnote:

*It is Mr Stott's job to attribute climate change to man-made and natural causes. The Met Office says he is an expert in doing this.

[RuadRauFlessa]

Ooom Doo I have to agree there. I vaguely remember reading an article with some pie graphs in them that said that the human impact or rather production of green house gases is about 5% of the total being produced at any given time. A cow taking one dump produces more harmful gases than my car chowing a tank of unleaded.

EDIT:
Ok I have to bite my tonge...

In 2006 FAO estimated that meat industry contributes 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gasses. This figure was challenged in 2009 by two World-Watch researchers who estimated a 51% minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impa ... nvironment

It is still due to us hoarding the animals for slaughter. How about we all stop eating red meat Climate issue solved by one simple resolution.

[GreyWolf]

How about we all stop eating red meat

[hamin_aus]

I'm with GreyWolf

Some men want to save the world

I just want to eat red meat and watch it burn...

[KALSTER]

My statement was in reply to your stating that he seemed '... a bit of a moron'.

I think I might be coming across as a supreme a-hole. I understand why you made the remark. I just didn't see the bit about him having a physics and mechanical engineering degrees and thought it even more strange that he would make such comments despite it. Like I said, many of his points are exactly the stock points of deniers that have been thoroughly refuted. As a scientist (presumably) he should have known better.

To be sure, I don't claim to be an expert either, but that doesn't stop me from using the bit of knowledge I do have and investigating the matter objectively. I have done this and my conclusion, and that of the vast majority of appropriately qualified scientists, is that there is a general climate warming trend and that we are largely responsible for it. The evidence available is just overwhelming.

but I have a deep seated distrust in something that is being 'sold' with so much fervour. Too much PT Barnum and too little clear-cut facts.

I have the same crap detector, but this case is a bit different. The fact is that, as far as we can tell, the climate is warming and we are to blame. The repercussions of this could be devastating to our progeny, but precious little is being done about it, even given the seriousness of the matter.

[GreyWolf]

we are to blame.

I am not convinced.

[doo_much]

we are to blame.

I am not convinced.

+ 1

[KALSTER]

we are to blame.

I am not convinced.

+ 1

Doesn't matter now anymore anyway. We are all going to die.

[doo_much]

Doesn't matter now anymore anyway. We are all going to die.

True. I think I'll use cirrhosis of the liver, although I do not discount the possibility of a massive miocardial infarction.

But it does matter since all these new green taxes are cutting into my cholesterol and alcohol consumption.

[CapNemo]

I have done this and my conclusion, and that of the vast majority of appropriately qualified scientists, is that there is a general climate warming trend and that we are largely responsible for it. The evidence available is just overwhelming.

I don't really care about this subject but I'm curious how many sources of the base data to make all these claims have been used Oh and for good measure anyone know how much green house gasses that volcano in Greenland or Iceland or some such that grounded all those flights added?

[KALSTER]

I don't really care about this subject but I'm curious how many sources of the base data to make all these claims have been used

The ground based weather stations number in the thousands, with only a few marine stations. The satellite data though covers the majority of the planet. They all show warming and exactly in the way predicted.

Oh and for good measure anyone know how much green house gasses that volcano in Greenland or Iceland or some such that grounded all those flights added?

The Iceland volcano in 2010 pumped around 150000 tonnes of CO2 into the air every day, but it actually caused a slowing in CO2 emissions, as the planes it grounded would have produced much more. .

[CapNemo]

Interesting thanks and how long back does that satellite data go to be able to determine that it is a man made phenomenon and not a natural cycle? Oh yes and were they only looking at CO2 (yes I stupidly only asked about CO2 sue me) when comparing it to the plains since there are much worse green house gasses than CO2?

Oh and ok fine I'll maybe spend 5 minutes to go read up on it some time

[KALSTER]

Satellite data goes back to Nov '78, with better and better instruments coming along through time. The current processed data from satellites and those from conventional weather stations can only show direct measurements of temperatures and is extensiv enough to show clear climate trends (averaged changes over decades). Beyond a certain point proxies need to be used to find out what the solar irradiance was, what CO2 content was, Melancholic cycles, solar cycles, etc, etc.

Oh yes and were they only looking at CO2 (yes I stupidly only asked about CO2 sue me) when comparing it to the plains since there are much worse green house gasses than CO2?

They look at a combination of greenhouse gasses, including CO2, methane and water vapour. The thing is that while some greenhouse gasses are stronger than CO2, CO2 is one of the primary climate forcing agents because of the length of time it spends in the atmosphere. Methane for example is a much stronger greenhouse gas, but it does not last long in the atmosphere before being broken down into it's components (which include CO2). So while CO2 is not the only culprit (we have 1.5 billion heads of cattle in the world that each belch out around 200 litres of methane every day), it is the most significant anthropogenic source of climate change.

Oh and ok fine I'll maybe spend 5 minutes to go read up on it some time

Great, because after ignoring all the controversy about anthropogenic global warming, the science is actually very interesting indeed. I recommend this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... start-here . A very nice site that.

I think I mentioned two Youtube channels earlier in the thread as well that tackle most of the issues climate sceptics have.

[doo_much]

Kalster - what is your opinion of 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

[KALSTER]

He raised some good points, but made some bad ones as well. Didn't like the way he presented it and the tone of the whole thing. Not a fan of Gore at all actually. I suppose he creates some awareness, but I'd rather like it if he just kept quiet. He also likes to repeat fallacies, like talking about how warm it was in a single area in one year and such. He might win over a few uninformed people, but is probably alienating a lot of people with half a brain as well.

[doo_much]

... but is probably alienating a lot of people with half a brain as well.

Indeed. Even some ones with fully functional ones.

Reason I'm asking is that the RC website you recommended waxes lyrical about the darn thing.

[KALSTER]

Damn. :/ What it definitely did do was bring the issues to the public's awareness and it did it pretty effectively. I guess for the average Joe a presentation where the normal scientific if's and but's were built in might not have been as effective as it was for a lot of people. I guess it is difficult to have it both ways. I guess if RealClimate is talking about it, it also takes to explaining some of it's claims as well in the right context. Don't let that put you off though. They actually treat the details with proper diligence as far as I can see and is run by actual climate scientists afaik. From the about page:

"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum."

I remember there was another documentary by someone else as well at some point which I liked a bit more, but I can't remember what it was.

[KALSTER]

This was posted on another forum:

This last month, Nature published a reconstruction of artic sea ice going back 1400 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10581.html

A good run down of the paper is here:
"Prior to the recent decline, there were periods of sustained greater sea ice (about 1250 to 1450, and 1800 to 1920) and periods of sustained lesser sea ice (before about 1200). The minimum of sea ice before the industrial revolution was even earlier, around the year 640. There were also two later episodes of sea ice decline, in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, but none of these other declines even comes close to the “falling off a cliff” of sea ice we’re seeing today."
1400+ Years of Arctic Ice | Open Mind

[Anakha56]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... mpaign=rss

Results are in: 2011 was hot, but not that hot
By John Timmer | Published 12 minutes ago

A number of organizations (NASA, NOAA, and the UK's Met Office) all track the changes in global temperatures. With 2011's data complete, all of them have now run the numbers, and their results are roughly in agreement. Different groups have placed the year as either the 9th or 11th warmest year of all time, largely as a result of a persistent cold period in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation(⇣?) .

NASA is the odd man out, placing 2011 as the 9th warmest year on record. Slight differences in analysis methods—issues like how to handle areas with very few records—lead NOAA and the Met Office to place it just on the other side of the top 10. This is largely because the Pacific has been in the cold, La Niña phase of ENSO since part way through 2010. That was enough to keep 2010 from being exceptionally hot, and has now dropped 2011 to the bottom of the top-10. A warm, El Niño phase is expected to arrive some time in 2012. Since there's some lag between the onset of ocean warming and a response in the atmosphere, we shouldn't expect to see any records broken again until 2013 or so.

By NASA's estimate, this means that nine of the 10 warmest years in the instrument record have occurred this century; as NOAA puts it, all 11 years of this century are within the 13th warmest on record. NOAA also notes that it's the 35th consecutive year that temperatures have been above last century's average. Despite this general warmth, most of the past decade has seen a very similar annual temperature, suggesting that climate change may have plateaued. NASA's announcement addresses this explicitly, but concludes that we really can't reach any conclusions until we have readings from the next El Niño.

Realistically, the planet is going to keep us waiting for a couple more years before we can determine if the similarity of recent temperatures is a trend or a momentary blip. Which is rather inconsiderate, given that people will undoubtedly continue to argue about climate change in the intervening two years.

[GreyWolf]

New Australian PM wants to remove Carbon tax:


Link.

[hamin_aus]

New Australian PM wants to remove Carbon tax

Good riddance!
He's also set to repeal the mining taxes that are hurting us in WA