Burn Some Tyres!

[Kurt Barlow]

You start sounding like a broken record...

I'm at work (actually working, not simply pretending to work), I don't have the time to write a meaningful summary, this is certainly no nonsensical video it's a serious presentation, if you don't want to watch it because you fear it will shake your beliefs then don't watch it, I couldn't care less what you do.

There are numerous rebuttals of Salby's work which is extremely flawed.

One of many

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html

[Kurt Barlow]

That's a summary of his conclusion, not his arguments. If you've understood the video, it should be no problem for you to summarize his argument in a few lines so I can decide whether it's worth an hour of my time.

Edit: Also, I can support all of what I've said with references to data or scientific papers. Which points do you dispute?

Basically Salby's shill trick is to take the 3 ppmv variation in Co2 caused by La Nina (increased Co2 uptake) - El Nina (reduced Co2 uptake) and presents this as evidence that anthropogenic emissions are unrelated to global increases in the concentrations of Co2.

Of course anyone with 2 or more brain cells can see through this but then his target audience are the gullible anyway.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

I'm not sure where you got the 10 years from, but you're right, that wouldn't be enough to detect a trend. The trend can be seen in the records stretching back to 1910.

You mentioned "with 4 out of the 5 wettest years since 1910 (when records begin) occurring since 2000" as being somehow significant. Ok that's 14 years instead of 10 but you get my drift.

Only having records since 1910 shows what a small data set they're working with anyway. It's hardly a surprise that as time goes records are broken since even with an unchanged climate, extreme events are more likely to occur eventually the longer you make records.

While increasing increasing rainfall in the UK is not a proof of MMGW, it is most likely attributable to it, given that we know that a warmer atmosphere can carry more water.

If 14 years is enough to prove something then fine, but if not then why bother mention it? I don't think that length of time is long enough to determine any long term trends. If in the next 14 years we don't have as much wet weather then you'll admit that your assumptions were flawed? Or more likely suddenly that is just down to weather again and we'll be onto a different "trend" that you've noticed during that period.

A few years ago the US had a massive hurricane season and at the time this was put forward as evidence of climate change. Now after a few calm years that analysis has been quietly dropped and they're onto highlighting other measures. It just looks like seeing patterns in noise that support pet theories.

[The Eagle]

There are numerous rebuttals of Salby's work which is extremely flawed.

One of many

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html

Seriously? A rebuttal from a VI blog of a GW believer? Is that the best you can come up with?

[snowflux]

You mentioned "with 4 out of the 5 wettest years since 1910 (when records begin) occurring since 2000" as being somehow significant. Ok that's 14 years instead of 10 but you get my drift.

Only having records since 1910 shows what a small data set they're working with anyway. It's hardly a surprise that as time goes records are broken since even with an unchanged climate, extreme events are more likely to occur eventually the longer you make records.

If 14 years is enough to prove something then fine, but if not then why bother mention it? I don't think that length of time is long enough to determine any long term trends. If in the next 14 years we don't have as much wet weather then you'll admit that your assumptions were flawed? Or more likely suddenly that is just down to weather again and we'll be onto a different "trend" that you've noticed during that period.

A few years ago the US had a massive hurricane season and at the time this was put forward as evidence of climate change. Now after a few calm years that analysis has been quietly dropped and they're onto highlighting other measures. It just looks like seeing patterns in noise that support pet theories.

You're misunderstanding. The trend is since 1910, not 2000! Perhaps I can phrase it better:

Over the 104 years since records began, there has been a distinct trend towards wetter weather in the UK, with 4 of the 5 wettest years occurring in the last 14 years.

[The Eagle]

Basically Salby's shill trick is to take the 3 ppmv variation in Co2 caused by La Nina (increased Co2 uptake) - El Nina (reduced Co2 uptake) and presents this as evidence that anthropogenic emissions are unrelated to global increases in the concentrations of Co2.

Of course anyone with 2 or more brain cells can see through this but then his target audience are the gullible anyway.

You clearly didn't watch the video as there was no mention of any Ninos in there at all.

Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that now you are talking out of your ass.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

You're misunderstanding. The trend is since 1910, not 2000! Perhaps I can phrase it better:

Over the 104 years since records began, there has been a distinct trend towards wetter weather in the UK, with 4 of the 5 wettest years occurring in the last 14 years.

Let me rephrase.

You are using the bit of the data with the wet weather (the last 14 years having 4 out of 5 of the wettest since 1910) to indicate something about the long term climate.

[Kurt Barlow]

You clearly didn't watch the video as there was no mention of any Ninos in there at all.

Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that now you are talking out of your ass.

You still maintaining vaccines have had no impact on public health either? I seem to remember that was one your previous threads on here.

[Kurt Barlow]

Seriously? A rebuttal from a VI blog of a GW believer? Is that the best you can come up with?

Actually it gives a pretty good synposis of why Salby is wrong.

Bit like your warped theories on vaccination......

[snowflux]

Let me rephrase.

You are using the bit of the data with the wet weather (the last 14 years having 4 out of 5 of the wettest since 1910) to indicate something about the long term climate.

I'm talking about the trend in rainfall from 1910 to 2014. The weather around the end of this period was, on average, wetter than the weather around the start of this period. Edit: And much wetter than the weather in the middle of this period. The weather is in the UK is, on average, the wettest it has been for over 100 years.

You can see for yourself here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/

[Kurt Barlow]

You clearly didn't watch the video as there was no mention of any Ninos in there at all.

Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that now you are talking out of your ass.

So explain what is happening to that 30+bn tonnes of Co2 that occurs from when you combust hydrocarbon fuels?

Or perhaps you deny the following chemistry

C + 02 = C02

CH4 + 3 02 = C02 + 2H20

[The Eagle]

You still maintaining vaccines have had no impact on public health either? I seem to remember that was one your previous threads on here.

You are of course completely off topic with this here in this thread, but if you show me proof of the contrary then I'm quite willing to change my view on that. So far I have only found proof that supports my view.

[The Eagle]

So explain what is happening to that 30+bn tonnes of Co2 that occurs from when you combust hydrocarbon fuels?

I'm not a climate scientist (and AFAIK neither are you), watch Salby's presentation to get an answer.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

I'm talking about the trend in rainfall from 1910 to 2014. The weather around the end of this period was, on average, wetter than the weather around the start of this period. Edit: And much wetter than the weather in the middle of this period. The weather is in the UK is, on average, the wettest it has been for over 100 years.

You can see for yourself here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/

Ok here's the graph:

I'd say it is pretty difficult to notice any trends amongst the noise in that set of data. In any data set with that amount of variation you're going to have areas of the graph that are higher or lower than others.

How long would you define the "end of this period" you referred to? What would you expect to see next in a similar timeframe? What would prove and disprove your theory?

I'd say you'd need to keep measuring for much longer than 100 years to draw any reasonable conclusions about the long term trends.

[swissy_fit]

I'm talking about the trend in rainfall from 1910 to 2014. The weather around the end of this period was, on average, wetter than the weather around the start of this period. Edit: And much wetter than the weather in the middle of this period. The weather is in the UK is, on average, the wettest it has been for over 100 years.

You can see for yourself here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/

Looks to me from that site that rainfall averages have taken off in the UK since the late 60s/early 70s, it's all my fault, I must stop farting so much methane!

(though it has continued since I left the UK).

But - it appeared to be getting drier from 1910 - 1970, and the industrial revolution started in about 1850, so I'm not sure the figures are much of an argument either way.

[snowflux]

Ok here's the graph:

I'd say it is pretty difficult to notice any trends amongst the noise in that set of data. In any data set with that amount of variation you're going to have areas of the graph that are higher or lower than others.

How long would you define the "end of this period" you referred to? What would you expect to see next in a similar timeframe? What would prove and disprove your theory?

I'd say you'd need to keep measuring for much longer than 100 years to draw any reasonable conclusions about the long term trends.

What theory? I was merely pointing out the to "the gardener" that the recent flooding in the UK cannot be attributed purely to building on flood plains and the like, but that rainfall has actually increased in recent years. As I said then, this in itself is certainly not proof of MMGW, but is likely to be associated with it, what with warmer air being able to hold more water.

[snowflux]

Looks to me from that site that rainfall averages have taken off in the UK since the late 60s/early 70s, it's all my fault, I must stop farting so much methane!

(though it has continued since I left the UK).

But - it appeared to be getting drier from 1910 - 1970, and the industrial revolution started in about 1850, so I'm not sure the figures are much of an argument either way.

The industrial revolution may have started around 1850, but global temperatures have not risen continuously since then. Other effects, such as the dimming effect of smoke during the 50s and 60s in particular have tended to counter the effect of increasing greenhouse gases. There is a closer correspondence between the temperature and rainfall curves, though I'd also hesitate to draw conclusions about MMGW from the graphs for a single country.

[Neverwhere]

This is the most depressing thread I've read on HPC

[swissy_fit]

This is the most depressing thread I've read on HPC

then you haven't read that many!

[the gardener]

You're misunderstanding. The trend is since 1910, not 2000! Perhaps I can phrase it better:

Over the 104 years since records began, there has been a distinct trend towards wetter weather in the UK, with 4 of the 5 wettest years occurring in the last 14 years.

Yeah but having 4 out of 5 years being clustered together is kind of what you would expect isn't it? I mean there's probably nobody here who thinks the weather is totally random (though living here in the UK you do have to wonder). No, most likely there are trends, probably several different trends, of different periods , all combining to form our climate and weather. Some trends will get the upper hand for a while before running their course and giving way to others. We've had a warming few decades and now we've had a cooling decade and a half. What's next? Who knows?

[SpectrumFX]

You are of course completely off topic with this here in this thread, but if you show me proof of the contrary then I'm quite willing to change my view on that. So far I have only found proof that supports my view.

When you can only find proof that supports your views it`s often because you`re a Texas Sharpshooter https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf

Have you read up on smallpox at all? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/

[Neverwhere]

Yeah but having 4 out of 5 years being clustered together is kind of what you would expect isn't it? I mean there's probably nobody here who thinks the weather is totally random (though living here in the UK you do have to wonder). No, most likely there are trends, probably several different trends, of different periods , all combining to form our climate and weather. Some trends will get the upper hand for a while before running their course and giving way to others. We've had a warming few decades and now we've had a cooling decade and a half. What's next? Who knows?

Noone's saying that there aren't other factors or other trends that are having an impact but how can we really think that we can pump millions of tons of something into the atmosphere without it having any effect on our weather or climate?

In relation to flooding I was referring to the two studies in the New Scientist article I quoted earlier, which indicate a mechanism which makes increased global temperatures a likely cause of the current trend, sorry if I was too definitive in the way I phrased it in my later post I assumed it would be qualified by the original article quote.

As regards to cooling are you referring to the UK in specific rather than the overall global temperature? The latter can rise while the former cools.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

[fluffy666]

Exactly, snowflux's posts are full of bold statements but short of actual proven facts as the whole CO2 'science' is based on estimates and assumption, not on hard proven and measured facts.

'Science' without facts is a pure belief system just like religions.

So you are saying that the IR spectrum of CO2 is wrong?

[fluffy666]

This is the most depressing thread I've read on HPC

.. In which people who pride themselves on independent thinking and the ability to detect arguments by vested interests bravely repeat coal/oil industry propaganda memes with precisely zero self-awareness..

I mean, we could have a situation of national energy independence with zero CO2 emissions and prices based on the onward march of technology rather than 'Whatever Vladimir Putin Feels Like Charging Today'.. but who'd want that?

[swissy_fit]

.. In which people who pride themselves on independent thinking and the ability to detect arguments by vested interests bravely repeat coal/oil industry propaganda memes with precisely zero self-awareness..

I mean, we could have a situation of national energy independence with zero CO2 emissions and prices based on the onward march of technology rather than 'Whatever Vladimir Putin Feels Like Charging Today'.. but who'd want that?

You've probably written this somewhere before, but what would your plan be for this? 100% nukes and tear down all the rest? Even the Germans aren't aiming at zero CO2 yet.