Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

I beg your pardon

0 Replies

Variables are the whole problem in the global warming debate. The global warming religionists want to deny that they are there. The skeptics, however, see them and realize that they put the religionist-style absolutism re global warming into serious question.

It isn't that we deny the theory of global warming, but that we suspect it is just that--a theory that doesn't always hold up under the lens of objective scrutiny untainted by emotionalism, political correctness, or opportunity for personal gain, power, prestige.

I think most of us agree that we have been in a warming trend for some time though that has apparently leveled off for the last seven or eight years. The only reason that seven or eight-years may be significant is that we can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere during those seven or eight years and it is up sharply.

So.......if CO2 is the driving force behind global warming, shouldn't we have seen a continued upward trend in global average temperatures during that seven or eight years? But there has been no such trend in the last seven or eight years. That may mean something or it may mean nothing, but it is a reasonable question to ask.

All I have ever asked is that government policy that affects gazillions of people, that may restrict our choices and freedoms, and especially that may doom whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty be based on honest and competent science and not on emotionalism or political correctness or opportunity for personal gain, power, prestige.

2 Replies

@parados,

I beg your pardon. You obviously did not read my post. Note:

Parados and other alarmists are incapable of explaining the evidence on Global Temperature 1856 -2000 given in Nature Magazine in 1999.

Global temperature rose .o4 C from 1910 to 1940 but then did not rise at all from 1940 to 1980. How could this be? Can Parados explain this? Certainly, the CO2 otput in the world was much greater from 1940 to 1980. But Parados won't explain this. He can't!

I'll put in elementary school language. WHY, IF INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT, AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS, ETC. WERE MUCH HIGHER FROM 1940 to 1980, DID THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE NOT RISE, NOT RISE, NOT RISE FROM 1940 TO 1980 INASMUCH AS THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ROSE FROM 1910 TO 1940 WHEN INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT, AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS, ETC, WERE OBVIOUSLY MUCH LOWER FROM 1910 TO 1940.

see
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

All I have ever asked is that government policy that affects gazillions of people, that may restrict our choices and freedoms, and especially that may doom whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty be based on honest and competent science and not on emotionalism or political correctness or opportunity for personal gain, power, prestige.

Well said Foxfyre.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So.......if CO2 is the driving force behind global warming, shouldn't we have seen a continued upward trend in global average temperatures during that seven or eight years?

Not necessarily. Any time you add energy to a system the first thing you will get is turbulence. In a global weather system the turbulence can last years or decades resulting in higher than normal frequencies of unusual weather extremes.

But none of that really matters, because as I have been pointing out, the long term natural trend is very stable and predictable and will ultimately win out over all the short term fluctuations.

No matter what we do, global temperatures are going to rise to the same approximate peak that they have over the last 500k years. And then, no matter what we do, they are going to crash just like they always have.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So.......if CO2 is the driving force behind global warming, shouldn't we have seen a continued upward trend in global average temperatures during that seven or eight years?

Not necessarily. Any time you add energy to a system the first thing you will get is turbulence. In a global weather system the turbulence can last years or decades resulting in higher than normal frequencies of unusual weather extremes.

But none of that really matters, because as I have been pointing out, the long term natural trend is very stable and predictable and will ultimately win out over all the short term fluctuations.

No matter what we do, global temperatures are going to rise to the same approximate peak that they have over the last 500k years. And then, no matter what we do, they are going to crash just like they always have.

So far as we know. Because of the myriad range of 'theories' out there, the best scientists don't know any more than educated guesses of probabilities of very broad trends and their theories about those change from time to time. That's why the rest of my comment was that the recent trend of seven or eight years in which there has been no appreciable increase in global temperatures weighed against the known rise in CO2 levels may mean something or it may mean nothing. It is certainly too short a period to make any kind of judgment re global climate change.

But it is reasonable to ask the question of why it is and should it factor into the theory that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has or will push the global temperatures up even though your point of view about that probably addresses the question quite well.

If any of us had a crystal ball showing definitetive reasons for past climate shifts and what is currently occuring and what the future holds, this would be a lot easier.

0 Replies

@Deckland,

Thanks Deckland and welcome to the debate. It has been going on for a very long time here, but from time to time we need to revisit points previously addressed. Smile

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

And that, rosborne 979 would vindicate the much maligned Dr. Singer who wrote the fine book- "Global Warming--Every 1,500 years."

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Thats the entire point, since its known that the cycles of climate are already understood from a geological perspective, and that a normal condition for climate is actually cooling, why then are we so sure that we are in some climatic catstrophy entering from some percieved "greenhouse gas" model?

Ive not seen any evidence that , to me , is even halfway compelling.

2 Replies

I have heard that Australia is unbearably hot. I wonder whether their water supply is in danger.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Thats the entire point, since its known that the cycles of climate are already understood from a geological perspective, and that a normal condition for climate is actually cooling, why then are we so sure that we are in some climatic catstrophy entering from some percieved "greenhouse gas" model?

I don't know FM. Normally I follow the precepts of "standard" science, but I find myself on the skeptical side of "Global Warming".

It's pretty clear to me that the planet is warming. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that. However, it's not clear to me just how much of that warming is coming from human activity and how much is part of the natural cycle (as shown in the graphs which I keep posting).

I think what's got everyone in the scientific community so worried is that gigantic spike in CO2 at the end of the graph. At the very least that thing seems abnormal in the historic cycle. But will it make any difference, or will that ice core graph simply repeat itself regardless of how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

That's exactly the confusion most of us are faced with; we're not sure how much of the global warming is natural or man made. Looking at the cycles of earth's weather patterns for millions of years doesn't make the current warming trend unusual or unexpected. As scientists learn more about the history of earth's weather through the ice at antarctica, you would think they could provide a bit more information on what they are finding, and their best guestimate about the current warming trends.

There's also the issue not only of man-made CO2, but the increase in livestock that also produces CO2.

1 Reply

So if the global warming religionists--whether they be well intended or opportunistic--should find their house of cards tumbling down about them, will we then go back to alarmism re global cooling? As a cold climate is much harder on both man and beast than is a warm climate, will we see massive construction of green houses to grow human food and animal feed and begin exploring how to tap thermal heat from the Earth's core to survive an impending ice age?

Should the short-lived global cooling 'concern of the 70's', followed by the near hysteria re global warming crisis of the 1990's and the current decade, then be quickly followed by a full blown warning of an ice age, how seriously will the people be inclined to take that I wonder? I'm guessing that even the most sheeplike of the sheep will not follow shepherds who keep switching destinations but never quite reach the sheepfold forever. Or maybe they will.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Mr. Farmerman seems to be well read and scientifically knowledgeable, but I wonder if he thinks that the EVIDENCE from the Dansgaard analysis of the oxygen isotopes( which I previously cited) is materially flawed.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

But, Rosborne 97 9, you certainly are aware that the media has manipulated the reports most non-scientists read. An October 2007 survey of US scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC's Working Group I, found that only 20 percent of respondents claim to believe that human activity is the PRINCIPAL driver of climate change.

See
http://.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

1 Reply

There are enough scientists on both sides of the spectrum to question the reliability of which side to believe. I'm now on the side of great skepticism about human influenced global warming, but I say that as an uninformed neophyte with very little scientific information.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I think Cicerone Imposter has missed a most important point. It is not only the methane produced by livestock, It is also the intellectual flatulence produced by some bloggers. And, in that respect, sadly, you lead the field.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Indeed, the BBC recently ran a very quiet story telling us that the deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales have hovered around twenty-five thousand each year. In Europe as a whole, about two hundred thousandpeople die from excess heat every year while 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold.

0 Replies

The population of the European Union is a shade under 500 million. The death rate per 1000 people is 10.1, so about 5 million people die in Europe every year. You're trying to tell me THIRTY PERCENT of them die from extreme cold? That's right up there with heart disease. Why don't any othe public health metrics mention it? Might it be that that statistic, like so many you post, is nonsense? You want to document it.? Incidentally, the death rate from extreme heat looks like nonsense too. For example, deaths from the extremely hot summer of 2003 for Europe are widely reported to have been in the region of 50,000. A huge leap from that to 250,000. Any reputable demographic source, as opposed to some denialist blog, for those figures?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

The BBC report:

Quote:

Friday, 11 January, 2002, 08:54 GMT
UK has 'most cold weather deaths'
Pensioner in front of fire
Pensioners are urged to take cold weather seriously
More people die from the cold weather in Britain than in any other European country, including Siberia.

Up to 50,000 more people die in the UK during the winter months than in the summer, according to new research.

Wrapping up warm and keeping moving when hanging about in the cold really can save your life

Professor William Keatinge
Most deaths caused by the cold are from strokes and coronary thrombosis in people aged over 55 rather than flu, said Professor William Keatinge, of London's Queen Mary and Westfield College.

"Many people here simply do not take the cold seriously and appreciate the danger it poses.

"Simple things like wrapping up warm and keeping moving when hanging about in the cold really can save your life," he said.

Fuel poverty

Even in the city of Yakutsk in Siberia, where temperatures plummet to -40C, there are fewer deaths than Britain in winter.

He said the deaths are triggered by a thickening of the blood when people are exposed to the cold, and are often not attributed to the weather conditions.

Flu is only to blame for 2.4% of the deaths in winter, due to wider immunisation and fewer new viral strains.

In his research, published in the British Medical Journal, Professor Keatinge argued more government money is needed to be put into tackling fuel poverty.

And the charity Friends of the Earth has called for a national programme to fight fuel poverty, for example through better home insulation.

FoE co-ordinator Martyn Williams said: "This research highlights once again the scandal of excess winter deaths in Britain.

"They are a consequence of cold weather - and to the poor state of our housing stock compared to other European countries".

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know