snowflux Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 If human activity has any effect on climate change, then it is negligible compared to the influence of other factors: volcanoes, continental drift, the earth's tilt and orbit, solar cycles and variations (the Sun will have FAR more effect on our planet than any number of cars' CO2 emissions), and so on. Sadly, the climate change guilt trip is used to pass unpopular policies (eg, green taxes) and there are to many interested governments and business for us to have a fair debate. Oh dear, someone's going to have to start right at the beginning with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 If human activity has any effect on climate change, then it is negligible compared to the influence of other factors: volcanoes, continental drift, the earth's tilt and orbit, solar cycles and variations (the Sun will have FAR more effect on our planet than any number of cars' CO2 emissions), and so on. Well, that's good news. Just out of interest, which of these factors do you consider to be causing the current changes and why? Is it continental drift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deflation Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Oh dear, someone's going to have to start right at the beginning with you! So you believe that human activity is the most influential factor on our planet's changing climate? May I suggest you read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Professor Robert Carter. He provides a cogent (ie. non-David Icke) critique of the so-called man-made climate change consensus, which when looked at in detail isn't actually a consensus at all. Indeed the notion that there is a scientific consensus on this issue is misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So you believe that human activity is the most influential factor on our planet's changing climate? May I suggest you read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Professor Robert Carter. He provides a cogent (ie. non-David Icke) critique of the so-called man-made climate change consensus, which when looked at in detail isn't actually a consensus at all. Indeed the notion that there is a scientific consensus on this issue is misleading. Might I suggest that you read any book on the subject written by somebody who knows what they're talking about (i.e. who actually works in the field of climatology) rather than a paid stooge for the oil industry? Honestly, do you (and does he!) really think that continental drift is in any way responsible for the changes in climate observed over the last few decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 If human activity has any effect on climate change, then it is negligible compared to the influence of other factors: volcanoes, continental drift, the earth's tilt and orbit, solar cycles and variations (the Sun will have FAR more effect on our planet than any number of cars' CO2 emissions), and so on. Sadly, the climate change guilt trip is used to pass unpopular policies (eg, green taxes) and there are to many interested governments and business for us to have a fair debate. If you would like data to be taken seriously you will need to post links to the source as well so that everyone can fairly judge it's veracity. However, whether reputable or not the pie chart you have posted does not unfortunately counteract the argument for anthropogenic climate change as it only addresses sources of CO2 rather than atmospheric concentrations, so it's essentially just looking at one side of the natural carbon cycle without judging it as a whole. A large amount of CO2 is naturally released into the atmosphere and then naturally reabsorbed by carbon sinks, this does not increase atmospheric levels of CO2 unless there is an imbalance. Without knowing the source of the pie chart it's hard to see whether or not they have sensibly accounted for human destruction of natural carbon sinks which greatly adds to overall human CO2 release along with direct emissions. Adding any additional amount of CO2 to the natural emissions, even if it's quite small in relation to the total, without creating comparable carbon sinks will create an imbalance that does increase atmospheric CO2. This is most likely why atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising in line with human CO2 emissions as demonstrated in the graph above. Thinking this should be otherwise is rather like assuming that your not going to end up in arrears because your mortgage is only slightly higher than your income. It is atmospheric CO2 levels which has a warming effect on global temperatures because atmospheric CO2 absorbs longwave radiation, heats up and then re-radiates in all directions, including back down to the surface. This is the mechanism which explains why recorded data has shown global temperatures rising broadly in line with atmospheric CO2 levels (with some variations due to other factors, such as those you mention, but which have not halted the long term trend). That atmospheric CO2 has risen massively in recent history is starkly shown here: http://www.skeptical...-increasing.htm The piechart you've posted does nothing to disprove either of these data sets I'm afraid, nor does it go anyway to providing a plausible explanation for them that does not involve anthropogenic climate change. I still find it very strange that anyone has bought this vested interest meme that has multi-billion dollar big oil, agribusiness, and sundry other carbon emitting industries, being outgunned and bullied by the interests of such a comparatively small sector of the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So you believe that human activity is the most influential factor on our planet's changing climate? May I suggest you read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Professor Robert Carter. He provides a cogent (ie. non-David Icke) critique of the so-called man-made climate change consensus, which when looked at in detail isn't actually a consensus at all. Indeed the notion that there is a scientific consensus on this issue is misleading. I highly suggest you read this systematic debunking of the palaeontologist (his phd was on The Functional Morphology of Bivalved Mollusca for god's sake) Robert Carter's beliefs on climatology, a field which he has never studied nor held any academic position in: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Bob_Carter.htm If you have any specific questions let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 So you believe that human activity is the most influential factor on our planet's changing climate? May I suggest you read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Professor Robert Carter. He provides a cogent (ie. non-David Icke) critique of the so-called man-made climate change consensus, which when looked at in detail isn't actually a consensus at all. Indeed the notion that there is a scientific consensus on this issue is misleading. This doesn't answer my question. How do you account for current observations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I highly suggest you read this systematic debunking of the palaeontologist (his phd was on The Functional Morphology of Bivalved Mollusca for god's sake) Robert Carter's beliefs on climatology, a field which he has never studied nor held any academic position in: https://www.skeptica..._Bob_Carter.htm If you have any specific questions let us know. However, in 2007, they were able to debunk warming by the sun....move on 6 years and they have now noticed the pause....probably caused by reduced radiation of the sun... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm I hear also that the ice caps on Mars are expanding as it too suffers the "Pause" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 This doesn't answer my question. How do you account for current observations? The "Pause" you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 The "Pause" you mean? What 'pause'? http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/cowtan-way/ You can always explain why this is wrong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 What 'pause'? http://tamino.wordpr.../06/cowtan-way/ You can always explain why this is wrong.. I get my info from the Climate Scientists at the MET. Office...as per my quote upthread... Here it is again for your information The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions: What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period? What are the potential drivers of the current pause? How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate? The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works. The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role. The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 May I suggest you read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Professor Robert Carter. How about what this Robert has to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I get my info from the Climate Scientists at the MET. Office...as per my quote upthread... Here it is again for your information The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions: What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period? What are the potential drivers of the current pause? How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate? The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works. The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role. The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity. Damn, Windows just died on me and I lost quite a detailed response to your previous post. Whatever happened to the blue screen of death? Now it just seems to get stuck trying to shut itself down... Anyway, turns out that I was posting details of studies which broadly support the papers you've cited above, so nothing lost. If you've read those papers and accept their conclusions as basically correct for the data that is currently available then I'm not sure what we've been arguing about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Damn, Windows just died on me and I lost quite a detailed response to your previous post. Whatever happened to the blue screen of death? Now it just seems to get stuck trying to shut itself down... Anyway, turns out that I was posting details of studies which broadly support the papers you've cited above, so nothing lost. If you've read those papers and accept their conclusions as basically correct for the data that is currently available then I'm not sure what we've been arguing about? guesses....I blame El Nino, as I said before...indeed, if there is any bad weather, hot weather, melting ice caps on Mars, El Nino is your answer. I reposted because a "changer" was even arguing about the "Pause"...which was inspired by your questioning my blanket "cooling is happening" assertion. I notice they are very careful about their energy in and energy out statement....ie total energy in v thermal energy out....sounds like a cop out. Logic also suggests that excess energy in the system would mean a fast loss due to conduction...and hence a plataux/aeu/auex flattening of temperatures as a whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 guesses....I blame El Nino, as I said before...indeed, if there is any bad weather, hot weather, melting ice caps on Mars, El Nino is your answer. I reposted because a "changer" was even arguing about the "Pause"...which was inspired by your questioning my blanket "cooling is happening" assertion. I notice they are very careful about their energy in and energy out statement....ie total energy in v thermal energy out....sounds like a cop out. Logic also suggests that excess energy in the system would mean a fast loss due to conduction...and hence a plataux/aeu/auex flattening of temperatures as a whole Ah, so you don't agree with the papers you cited then. The evidence posted so far does not show cooling surface temperatures (though even a small step down for a short period wouldn't negate the long term trend) or flattening temperatures as a whole. Observational data that has been posted suggests that global surface temperatures have flattened because of heat redistribution to the oceans, so temperatures as a whole (i.e. land, oceans and atmosphere) still appear to be rising. The problem with your final statement is that you're assuming the Earth and it's atmosphere is at an energy saturation point whereby no more energy can be absorbed by the system and therefore there is a possibility of having an excess. As I've said before I'm not sure this is even hypothetically possible, but it is certainly unlikely. Think about how much more energy your body could possibly absorb and whether or not you could personally survive this process and hopefully you will see my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Ah, so you don't agree with the papers you cited then. The evidence posted so far does not show cooling surface temperatures (though even a small step down for a short period wouldn't negate the long term trend) or flattening temperatures as a whole. Observational data that has been posted suggests that global surface temperatures have flattened because of heat redistribution to the oceans, so temperatures as a whole (i.e. land, oceans and atmosphere) still appear to be rising. The problem with your final statement is that you're assuming the Earth and it's atmosphere is at an energy saturation point whereby no more energy can be absorbed by the system and therefore there is a possibility of having an excess. As I've said before I'm not sure this is even hypothetically possible, but it is certainly unlikely. Think about how much more energy your body could possibly absorb and whether or not you could personally survive this process and hopefully you will see my point. you dont have to be at saturation point to have increased radiation outward...the issue is the energy difference...energy likes to remain, as does water, in balance and level..the higher the temperature of the Earth, the higher the radiation output to the Solar wind et al. I suspect the warmists are saying that CO2 is the blanket that is holding the heat in....odd then that the upper atmosphere doesnt seem to be warming...the heat is according to the warmists going "down"... This would have happened regardless of CO2 levels. The question then is why isnt the ocean frozen?....most likely because this process has always been around...yet another thing that was missed from the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 you dont have to be at saturation point to have increased radiation outward...the issue is the energy difference...energy likes to remain, as does water, in balance and level..the higher the temperature of the Earth, the higher the radiation output to the Solar wind et al. I suspect the warmists are saying that CO2 is the blanket that is holding the heat in....odd then that the upper atmosphere doesnt seem to be warming...the heat is according to the warmists going "down"... This would have happened regardless of CO2 levels. The question then is why isnt the ocean frozen?....most likely because this process has always been around...yet another thing that was missed from the model. Erm... Shortwave radiation is emitted from the sun and absorbed by the Earth. Longwave radiation is then re-radiated out from the Earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb some of this longwave radiation and then re-radiate it in all directions, including back to the Earth. You'll be hard pressed to find any scientist anywhere who doesn't think that this is how greenhouse gases basically work, or who doesn't think that there has always been a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that this is precisely why the oceans haven't frozen. It's definately not a consideration that's been missed out of any credible climate model (any which did miss it out would, by definition, not be credible) and certainly not the ones indicating a continuing warming trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Erm... Shortwave radiation is emitted from the sun and absorbed by the Earth. Longwave radiation is then re-radiated out from the Earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb some of this longwave radiation and then re-radiate it in all directions, including back to the Earth. You'll be hard pressed to find any scientist anywhere who doesn't think that this is how greenhouse gases basically work, or who doesn't think that there has always been a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that this is precisely why the oceans haven't frozen. It's definately not a consideration that's been missed out of any credible climate model (any which did miss it out would, by definition, not be credible) and certainly not the ones indicating a continuing warming trend. I think that is what I said, in lay terms. It is odd that you now say the things that "explain" the Pause were considered in the Models, yet those models now need to be adjusted to take such oceanic warming and now rivers in the air into account. So either they were taken into account, or they werent, One way or another, the models are wrong, the predictions are wrong, the theory is severely weakened, Again a lay observation, but for years, weekends were blighted with bad weather...as a young man, I supposed that there could be a man made reason for this...that during the week, production and work were at their max, transport at its max, ie, energy consumption at its max....this would heat the air and have its effect...by the weekend, the output dropped et voila, the air cooled and we had the inevitable bad weather. 5 days are more than 2 days...the global heating effect would be additive over time....nothing to do with gasses...just energy added to the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think that is what I said, in lay terms. It completely contradicts your conclusions re. saturation, heat not going down and oceans not freezing. It is odd that you now say the things that "explain" the Pause were considered in the Models, yet those models now need to be adjusted to take such oceanic warming and now rivers in the air into account. So either they were taken into account, or they werent, One way or another, the models are wrong, the predictions are wrong, the theory is severely weakened, I've not at any point been arguing on the basis of models, if you review everthing I've posted so far the evidence which I've linked to is all based on observational data. Observational data, i.e. climate changes that have already occurred, strongly supports anthropogenic climate change. You keep choosing to believe that I'm arguing on the basis of models because they are an easy target, it is much harder to construct an argument against observed data. As Sil said: What an absurd thing to say By definition, all models are incorrect on this basis, but they are still tools to inform us about complex systems, and the recent trend does not suggest the models are so comprehensively out as to nullify the agw hypothesis Again a lay observation, but for years, weekends were blighted with bad weather...as a young man, I supposed that there could be a man made reason for this...that during the week, production and work were at their max, transport at its max, ie, energy consumption at its max....this would heat the air and have its effect...by the weekend, the output dropped et voila, the air cooled and we had the inevitable bad weather. 5 days are more than 2 days...the global heating effect would be additive over time....nothing to do with gasses...just energy added to the system. When particulate air pollution builds up to a point that it can precipitate rain by providing a nucleus for raindrops to form around, this tends to happen at the weekend because particulate air pollution levels have been building up for five days straight by this point. This is sometimes referred to as the dust or smog cycle, it's nothing to do with either CO2 or temperature. Atmospheric CO2 does not fall back once output decreases, it only falls back when carbon sinks are increased in excess of carbon emissions. As previously stated, global heating has everything to do with gases: Shortwave radiation is emitted from the sun and absorbed by the Earth. Longwave radiation is then re-radiated out from the Earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb some of this longwave radiation and then re-radiate it in all directions, including back to the Earth. You'll be hard pressed to find any scientist anywhere who doesn't think that this is how greenhouse gases basically work, or who doesn't think that there has always been a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that this is precisely why the oceans haven't frozen. http://www.southampt...anic_crust.page http://www.skeptical...print.php?r=384 I hope you will excuse me if I continue to be more convinced by observed data collected by experts than by lay opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It completely contradicts your conclusions re. saturation, heat not going down and oceans not freezing. I've not at any point been arguing on the basis of models, if you review everthing I've posted so far the evidence which I've linked to is all based on observational data. Observational data, i.e. climate changes that have already occurred, strongly supports anthropogenic climate change. You keep choosing to believe that I'm arguing on the basis of models because they are an easy target, it is much harder to construct an argument against observed data. As Sil said: When particulate air pollution builds up to a point that it can precipitate rain by providing a nucleus for raindrops to form around, this tends to happen at the weekend because particulate air pollution levels have been building up for five days straight by this point. This is sometimes referred to as the dust or smog cycle, it's nothing to do with either CO2 or temperature. Atmospheric CO2 does not fall back once output decreases, it only falls back when carbon sinks are increased in excess of carbon emissions. As previously stated, global heating has everything to do with gases: I hope you will excuse me if I continue to be more convinced by observed data collected by experts than by lay opinion. but the data says we are not warming....and as I say, the warmer it got, the greater the rate of cooling...which means we could well be in a new state of balance...although some claim the pause is actually a time of cooling. indeed, inspite of all the hype, we havent had global warming for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 There has been no pause. I wish the deniers were right because I fear the consequences, but they are not right. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/12/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-not-even-a-thing/ The idea that global warming has “paused” or is currently chillaxing in a comfy chair with the words “hiatus” written on it has been getting a good run in the media of late. Much of this is down to a new study analysing why one single measure of climate change – the temperatures on the surface averaged out across the entire globe – might not have been rising quite so quickly as some thought they might. But here’s the thing. There never was a “pause” in global warming or climate change. For practical purposes, the so-called “pause” in global warming is not even a thing. The study in question was led by Professor Matt England at the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre. England’s study found that climate models had not been geared to account for the current two decade-long period of strong trade winds in the Pacific. Once the researchers added this missing windy ingredient to the climate models, the surface temperatures predicted by the models more closely matched the observations – that is, the actual temperature measurements that have been taken around the globe. England explains the study in this YouTube video. England told me: Global warming has not stopped. People should understand that the planet is a closed system. As we increase our emissions of greenhouse gases, the fundamental thermal dynamics tells us we have added heat into the system. Once it’s trapped, it can go to a myriad of places – land surface, oceans, ice shelves, ice sheets, glaciers for example. England explained how the winds help the ocean to absorb heat into the thermocline – that’s roughly the area between 100 metres and 300 metres deep. He says once the trade winds drop – which is likely to come within years rather than decades – then the averaged surface temperatures will rise sharply again. Media outlets across the world have extensively covered England’s paper. National Geographic told us the study revealed how the heat had been “hiding” in the oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 There has been no pause. I wish the deniers were right because I fear the consequences, but they are not right. http://www.rawstory....t-even-a-thing/ Heat rises. Met Office says there is a pause. Ice caps on Mars receded, and are now advancing. Warmist research vessel trapped in antarctic ice where they said there would be no ice. I call BS on the fact we are causing this, first warming, now energy escaping into the bowels of the Earth because its not warming any more. Man will never fly...Man will never go at more than 50 mph because he will suffocate...all good theories, but in reality...failed...I am sure there are a million more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Heat rises. If it was that simple, you would not get cold water rising on the west coast of south America, for example. Cold water that brings with it ocean nutrients. Met Office says there is a pause. Matt England has just explained the apparent pause. Mind you, the methane hydrates in the Arctic don't seem to be listening. Warmist research vessel trapped in antarctic ice where they said there would be no ice. It's winter in the Antarctic. I call BS on the fact we are causing this, first warming, now energy escaping into the bowels of the Earth because its not warming any more. But it is warming - record lows in Arctic ice, retreating glaciers in the Andes etc. And it is not escaping into the bowels of the earth, some of the heat is escaping into the deep ocean, from whence it will no doubt re-emerge. Man will never fly...Man will never go at more than 50 mph because he will suffocate, there is no such thing as AGW. Corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.