Karl`s PC Help Forums

Since 2001, no global warming
scholar - 29-12-2007 at 22:39

No annual increase in temp since 2001, in spite of increase in greenhouse gasses

Quote:
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It?s not a viewpoint or a sceptic?s inaccuracy. It?s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

It's good to see some plain evidence, openly presented, that does not conform to the global warming hoax.:D


Redwolf5150 - 30-12-2007 at 00:28

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
No annual increase in temp since 2001, in spite of increase in greenhouse gasses
Quote:
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It?s not a viewpoint or a sceptic?s inaccuracy. It?s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

It's good to see some plain evidence, openly presented, that does not conform to the global warming hoax.:D


Probably funded by the Bush administration or the gas industry.

kewl_glasses


scholar - 30-12-2007 at 00:40

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Probably funded by the Bush administration or the gas industry.

kewl_glasses
roffle roffle roffle roffle
Yeah, that's how British scientists are funded.
roffle roffle roffle
But the facts remain the same. :D


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 09:04

The article also says

"the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature."

and

"Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UKís Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) itís apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980."

and

"Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles"

and

"Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures."


But the assumption he's making is that the temp rise, which he is admitting HAS occurred, will be continuous every year and that if it ever flattens out for a few years, then the process has stopped. On the time scale involved (many decades for the next century or so) blips can easily occur for a few years, as the weather is a complex thing. So quite simply, there is not enough evidence to say global warming has finally stopped. Note that he does not say global warming has not occurred but that he thinks it has stopped, which is a bit different to your opinion ("global warming hoax").

And of course you are not a scientist. So should we listen to you because you've done so much research on the topic, and read so many research articles on it and studied it for so long, with your non-existent science qualifications. It's amazing that we have tv programs in the UK where a writer of fiction, a journalist, a politician and a tv presenter were asked their opinions on global warming and when they spoke against it, saying the scientists don't know this or that, the audience clapped.
What do they know about climatology? As little as you I'd guess.


Chrno - 30-12-2007 at 09:20

I find it interesting that the last few global WARMING meetings have been canceled due to ICE STORMS. lips_sealed


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 09:23

And you might want to look at this (it has taken the average between 1961 and 1990 as its basepoint to measure relative to)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUGNS.html
and this
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html
Both show the measured trend quite clearly, with fluctuations occurring in the short term. Your man's article refers to a six year period, the data presented covers 158 years.
As someone said, an inconvenient truth...

Extra
OR look at this, based on the work of 120 UK met scientists over the last 15 years
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/climate_greenhouse.pdf


Chrno - 30-12-2007 at 09:25

At the same time are you prepared to fight the fact that we've also had the COLDEST years on record as well? NOAA says that as well about our winters buddy. :P


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 09:35

Well why don't YOU go tell the people who have been studying it for so long that they are not assessing the data correctly. I'm sure they'll listen to you, with your vast experience of scientific research.

We've had many of our mildest winters over the last decade...

However, energy from the sun fluctuates on an 11 year cycle, and we are on a down cycle just now, which possibly explains the claimed flattening of the average global temp rise (are you suggesting that all the measurements are wrong about that?), and cold winters wherever you are - US perhaps, with it's large land mass which makes it very susceptible to winter cooling in the down cycles.

BUT I suggest you take up the argument with a climatologist and a meteorologist rather than expect me to know every answer to whatever data you present at random of short term fluctuations.
Throwing in a random figure (if it's true) and expecting someone to be able to explain every minute detail instantly is a well-known confusion tactic, as I'm sure you knew when you did it.


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 09:53

Can you give us a reference to the strange "coldest years on record" info that you are quoting? As a quick look at the global data I found certainly doesn't show that!!! The weather data shows nothing anywhere as cold as the periods around 1650, 1770, and 1800 - 1850.
Have a look here of really cold weather
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


EDIT
and NOAA don't seem to be agreeing with you either
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_observing.html

(Facts are so annoying, aren't they ;) )


Chrno - 30-12-2007 at 10:50

Hey buddy, how about not talking like you are in fact the knower of all and a scientist yourself.

Why don't you go take a look at the AWOS and Region Observation Networks and compile THAT data instead, since that data is compiled on a basis of year to year. It's much more USEFUL to compare REAL information.


Chrno - 30-12-2007 at 11:00

I'd like to also add, that your link to NOAA clearly indicates lack of informationt to base such a theory on. Since there is no way to clearly indicate temperature prior to the 1860's we can not confirm previous temps other than past writings.

In addition records of temperatures and climate such as hot and cold can only be kept back to a certain date, no shorter than the year 1000 AD.

OBSERVE
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

I would like you to note the Ice Age which you have previously mentioned, there are also ideas of a similar issue occuring with heat upon the same basis. Since there's no accurate data as said prior to the 1860's, which can be supported by modern day temperature/climatic conversion, an established theory can not be made nor supported.

Therefore the idea of global warming is meerly that, an idea, because we have no idea how the Earth warms and cools, if it does so in fact. An effect must have a cause, as the ice periods had causes related to the earth, the heating can also have a similar effect.

Using this same logic you can come to a conclusion of green house gasses, while they have merrit (no mistake) alone, green house gases would've been SEVERE in the early 1900's-1930's when the burning of fosil fuels in excess was not uncommon. Proposed argument which you are persuing, suggests that in the 1930's Florida should've sank, and most of the ice caps should have melted, did they?

Your play Mr. Scientist.


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 11:14

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrno
Hey buddy, how about not talking like you are in fact the knower of all and a scientist yourself.

I am a scientist.
I have a BSc in chemistry and a PhD in chemistry and recently got another BSc just for fun, this time in computing.
I've studied or worked at
Strathclyde Uni
Edinburgh Uni
Glasgow uni (lecturer)
City of London Poly (Research fellow)
Oxford Uni (Research fellow)
Warnborough college (lecturer)
Oxford Brooks uni (lecturer)
Mid Kent college (lecturer)
Canterbury Christchurch uni

nananana

What qualifications do you have???

EDIT
Quote:

OBSERVE
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

shows global warming, doesn't it. As well as the short term fluctuations that confuse people.


LSemmens - 30-12-2007 at 11:49

It's certainly warm enough here 30C in my study with the Air- cond running flat out!


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 12:02

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrno


OBSERVE
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html


Using this same logic you can come to a conclusion of green house gasses, while they have merrit (no mistake) alone, green house gases would've been SEVERE in the early 1900's-1930's when the burning of fosil fuels in excess was not uncommon.

Your play Mr. Scientist.

Well, the link you give above shows exactly that! A strong rise in global temps from about 1905 to 1945, with fluctuations due to things like solar activity. Thanks for posting that link.

Aren't facts sooooo annoying.

PS What did you say your experience as a scientist was?
Still waiting for that recent years being the coldest years ever data you mentioned...


marymary100 - 30-12-2007 at 12:06

I'm impressed Dr John. Pity you moved away from Scotia...........


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 12:08

I came down south to educate the natives...


marymary100 - 30-12-2007 at 12:22

There'll always be a candle in the window lighting your way back .....................:)


Wilbur - 30-12-2007 at 15:39

What was the world like pre ice age............hotter/colder ?
Since the Earth has shifted on its axis over time, I am not surprised that the temperatures move about a bit.
Maybe the sun is getting hotter, or maybe we have moved a bit nearer ?
As the above shows, I am certainly not a scientist, but I do wonder about all the fuss being made about climate change and how we are all going to die, either through drowning or heat.
It's not as if temperatures have not changed at all over the years, but mankind is still around even despite natures best efforts to kill us all off.....or so scientists would have us believe.
If our country (UK) is going to heat up a bit, then fine, it means I won't have to spend out so much in the winter time on heating, which in turn cuts down on the energy needed to produce the extra gas and electricity needed.............oh heck, I am going all 'green' now....:o

'Global warming' is just another panic to frighten us all into paying more in taxes, and to give all the doom and gloom merchants something else to worry us with...........as if, Aids/bird flu/dutch elm disease/mad cow disease/foot and mouth/some animal species who no one has ever heard of have extincted themselves.........blow me, that has never happened before either...shocked_yellow
Why worry so much, the human race has been around for a few thousand years and have survived ice ages, vulcanoes, the Earth plates shifting about to make new land masses etc.........things happen, so why get ones knickers in a twist ?


John_Little - 30-12-2007 at 16:50

I'm afraid I find myself agreeing with my old mucker, Dr John. In fact, I find it quite worrying that people should be clutching at straws for an excuse to keep driving their 4X4s and jetting about from place to place several times a year.

We have one article here in a sea of contrary advice from numerous sources the whole World over. You'd better believe it or we are all doomed.

Having said that, it is also a fact that Britain could suffer colder weather as a consequence of global warming - certainly colder winters - due to the change in the course of the Gulf Stream; the thing that gives this island the temperate climate that we enjoy but geographically shouldn't have.

Plebian John GCE Maths (failed) GCE Physics (Failed) English GCE (passed)


Theravad - 30-12-2007 at 17:29

Quote:
Originally posted by dr john


However, energy from the sun fluctuates on an 11 year cycle, and we are on a down cycle just now, which possibly explains the claimed flattening of the average global temp rise (are you suggesting that all the measurements are wrong about that?), and cold winters wherever you are - US perhaps, with it's large land mass which makes it very susceptible to winter cooling in the down cycles.

.


The sub-spot cycle is an interesting one ( particularly to us radio-heads who depend on an ionised F1/F2 layer to use HF ) and the solar input of late has been pants.

There is a scientific area of astro-climatology (or something) from whence came a book "the chilling stars" which suggests (and provides evidence-a-plenty) correlation between cloud formation and cosmic radiation. Thus average temperature and cosmic radiation. There is also an effect called global dimming where sublight is getting weaker owing to the amount of particulate polution in the air.

Climate change is inevitable and continuous. The effects of human carbon emissions are debatable. There is however many, many other good reasons to limit our resource consumption and thus carbon emissions. Any true climate model must take cosmic radiation and a whole raft of other factors into consideration.

The biggest threat to global existence is the Western idea of "growth is essential" - thus we have a government who 'needs' economic growth of > 3% and builds new airport terminals despite trying to limit emissions. We can also limit our carbon footprint by reducing the world population ( more than two kids is a sin type culture ). No-one talks about population control!

T


Chrno - 30-12-2007 at 21:55

I find scientists boring John. :)
You still have failed to answer my original question as to what the temps were pre-1880's when there was no formal way to measure temeprature.

Those darn facts really are annoying ;)


Wilbur - 30-12-2007 at 22:44

Our 'celebrities' show us the way.............like 'Sting' who preaches to us about saving the world, and then takes a holiday in Australia on a luxury yacht at around £17500 a day.........how much energy has that taken to fuel for his little jaunt ?
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=505211&in_page_id=1773

Then there is of course old goody two shoes Geldoff, who lives in a huge house.........how much energy does that take to heat in the winter time ?
As for that cringe making Christmas record put out by 'Band Aid'................I mean, take a look at some of the words:

and There Won't Be Snow In Africa
this Christmas Time
the Greatest Gift They'll Get This Year Is Life
where Nothing Ever Grows
no Rain Nor Rivers Flow
do They Know It's Christmas Time At All?

When does Africa get snow anyway ?
Do they even celebrate Christmas ?
A load of kak :o

Mind you, old Bobby big gob Geldoff has been mighty quiet of late, perhaps he is still sulking over his last stupid idea which went down like a lead balloon.
'Celebs' just like to keep their out of date names in the media by nipping off to Africa, tut tut about conditions there, lecture us all about not doing enough, and then nip off tot eh nearest luxury Hotel to have a posh meal and a nice shower before heading off home to their pent houses.

Meantime our (UK) Government and others are donating zillions of pounds/dollars into the country...........but I digress smokin:


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 22:49

Why don't you ask NOAA how they produced the graph that YOU so kindly pointed out to us and linked to?
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

However. Data collected from ice cores and tree ring studies have been used to estimate general global temperaures further back in time. As I didn't do that research, I can't explain it all to you (certainly not in th etime and space available in a forum!) and I don't have any notes handy to educate you with. Though I doubt you'd be able to understand it anyway.

I personally never quoted any figures before the 1880s, apart from pointing out the very well documented cold spells in certain periods of time. (Major rivers freezing for several months, for example.)

As I said before, throwing in random questions and expecting me to be an expert of every subject and to be able to answer it perfectly is a typical confusion tactic. It's main aim is to be able to say "see you didn't answer that one". Another confusion tactic often used is to ask several questions and as soon as an attempt is made to answer one question, throw in others, again in an attemopt to ensure that some go unanswered.

I'd guess the reason you find scientists boring is you probably find science too difficult to understand (and you've probably not met many scientists).

Oh, and thermometers were invented long before 1880
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer
Fahrenheit was making thermometers in 1724...

Still waiting for your data that supports your claim that some of the recent years are the coldest on record, of course.

And still waiting to hear your excellent qualifications and vast experience (how old did you say you were) that enables you to criticise the research of scientists who study global warming, and thus make your opinion important.


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 22:54

Wilbur, relax, relax...

what have celebs got to do with global warming - they're not scientists (well most aren't)

Relax.


marymary100 - 30-12-2007 at 22:57

Are we all going to have to post our credentials to offer an opinion in this thread?:o


scholar - 30-12-2007 at 23:13

10 misconceptions about global warming

I especially would like to draw attention to this part:

Quote:
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes"

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 23:16

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Are we all going to have to post our credentials to offer an opinion in this thread?:o


Of course not, ;) but the kid did suggest I wasn't a scientist, and was criticising scientific research, so it seemed natural to know on what basis he was qualified to criticise work done by hundreds of scientists over many years. If it turned out that instead of being a 17 year old (well, nearly 18 ) he was a climatologist or meterologist, then he'd be able to give a reason why his view was worth listening to. And of course he did say that some of the coldest years on record were recent years, and all I asked was where he got the info from. Something he hasn't answered yet.


Redwolf5150 - 30-12-2007 at 23:20

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
10 misconceptions about global warming

I especially would like to draw attention to this part:
Quote:
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes"

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


Gee, according to SourceWatch, here is the bonfides on the "Friends of Science" that put up the info you just cited, Scholar:

"The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]

In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry."


Here's the link to the rest of the info. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

Very suspect creds, IMHO.

Be real careful who you believe when it comes to this subject. We can't afford to be "wrong."

kewl_glasses


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 23:24

From the site scholar mentions

"MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. "

And from their home page http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=11
"While FoS does not do any research..."

Now please go view the graph that Chrno so kindly linked to
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

Still think that site is telling you the truth?
Perhaps NOAA know more about global warming that a group who admit they don't do any research!


But this thread is showing signs of becoming a list of sites saying one thing and other sites saying something else and is likely to get boring soon. When people start ignoring the research , it becomes hard to explain things to them, especially within the limitations of posting in a forum. I prefer to listen to hundreds of scientists who have carried out research for many years than a few people who have not and just give an opinion, or think science is boring.


Redwolf5150 - 30-12-2007 at 23:26

Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
From the site scholar mentions

"MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. "

And from their home page http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=11
"While FoS does not do any research..."

Now please go view the graph that Chrno so kindly linked to
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

Still think that site is telling you the truth?
Perhaps NOAA know more about global warming that a group who admit they don't do any research!


Or read the entire article at the link I posted above.

kewl_glasses


dr john - 30-12-2007 at 23:41

Apologise, I may have called you scholar, must have been scrolling up and down too much and had scholar in mind when I was typing.
I've read the whole thing now.

Interesting. VERY interesting

Must stop scrolling so fast and reading from two browsers at once.


Chrno - 31-12-2007 at 00:05

Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
If it turned out that instead of being a 17 year old (well, nearly 18 ) he was a climatologist or meterologist, then he'd be able to give a reason why his view was worth listening to.


You haven't listened yet. :P
Honestly, you can't simply make a simple statement that doesn't have you bragging about your cridentials...and likewise you keep questioning everyone elses, hmmm...one sided coin.

Even NOAA is incapable of making those accurate deductions. Because they didn't exist. *sigh*

PS: Your statement is descrimination. Even I know that. I don't take kindly either, not only is that illegal, it's offensive.


LSemmens - 31-12-2007 at 08:18

Dr John has stated his reasons for his assertions, and credentials to show his credibility. Please be succint, Chrno, What is your area of expertise? Why do you believe your assertions citing credible sources?

Note: WIKIpedia, or any other "general information" site could not be classed as credible in this case, so sources must, in this case, be climatology and/or meteorology based.

My Creds: KF Mod with a big Kill1, apart from that Years in Landscaping and telecommunications and also related to scientists.


dr john - 31-12-2007 at 11:28

The ONLY person whose credentials I've enquired about are yours, Chrno. And I only mentioned mine when YOU suggested I wasn't a scientist.

I also note that first you say I should look at what NOAA says, then when I pointed out that the data which YOU so kindly pointed us at clearly showed global warming, suddenly you tell us we can't believe what NOAA says.

So obviously we'd like to know what it is that makes you such an authority on science that you can challenge the research of hundreds of scientists conducted over several decades (longer than you've been alive in fact), and what enables you to say so catagorically that NOAA is incapable of posting the results of their research (which you pointed us at remember).

Seems a fair thing to ask.

PS How is it illegal discrimination to say that if you were a scientist rather than a school kid, then your opinion on a scientific research topic would be more believable ???

PPS Did you read the article that Redwolf pointed out? Interesting, isn't it. The objectors to global warming just happen to be "retired" oil-company employees, funded by oil companies.


Wilbur - 31-12-2007 at 12:31

What is the time scale of this global warming that people are argueing about ?
Is it 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years ?
5 - 10 years, maybe worth a discussion, but 50 years or so ??
We won't be around then to worry about it, and the scientists that may well sort the problems out have not yet been born.
Why worry about something that you scientists can argue until you are blue in the face about, but can actually do nothing about.......no one can.
You can't say how things will be, because no one knows, you can only make your guesses of what might be, and you won't be around long enough to find out.

The weather people can only just forecast the weather for the next couple of days with any accuracy, and have a rough guess as to what it might be like next week.........let alone what the climate might be like in 10 + years or so.

The climate has changed during my 60 odd years, and seasons are not as well defined as they used to be.....even I can see that things are changing, but then they always have.
If it were not for forests decaying millions of years ago we would not have any coal, so we must be thankful that all those trees died off when they did.
Where I live the land used to be under the sea......take a look at the side of cliffs and see the layers of sea shells and stuff buried yonks ago when it was a sea bed.........the sea receded, but we didn't all die off, which would be the prospect put out if scientists had been around then.

I mean, tell me in nice simple words.........what exactly have we got to worry about with climate change in the UK ?..............I don't live in any other part of the world, so I am not interested in what happens there.

If it gets warmer, then humans will do what we always do.......we adapt.
This would probably mean that if the climate does get warmer, then houses will be built to keep us cool and not warm........no need for all that extra insulation and central heating.....cheaper too :)
How nice to sit on ones balcony on a nice warm sunny evening and watch the palm tress and perhaps a nice crop of bananas growing in ones back garden.
So............why exactly should we worry about it ?

I think scientists should spend their time discussing what the price of a loaf will be in 5 years or so which would make a lot more sense as it is more important, than prattling about discussing something that no one can really predict, or, do anything about.


LSemmens - 31-12-2007 at 12:54

If you've only lived in Britain, Wilbur, you have some rude shocks happening, should Global Warming be true. I lived in the tropics for many years, where Bananas do grow. there are two seasons that you must contend with - The Buildup (days of 100% humidity and more - don't ask, I don't know, when it threatens to rain, but never does for weeks on end) is also called the suicide season, and, the Knock 'em downs, which are similar to the build up, but you do get some rain. Oh, and the temp averages around 33C.

Where I now live the temp gets up to 44C and higher. So your insulation needs are still there and you need to trade your heating for cooling. As you acclimatise to this warmer weather, you'll also find that you need heating when the weather gets cooler during the winter months.


Wilbur - 31-12-2007 at 13:17

Not been around much, but I have spent 2 1/2 years in Cyprus, 1 year in Bahrein (just a little hot and humid there, but we all survived) and a couple of holidays in Darwin/Brisbane for a few weeks.......I just adapted to the climate, and yes it was hot, and no, I didn't yearn for the cold wet damp dismal weather here in winter time in the UK. or for the halfarzed weather we call summer here either :D
Yep, Oz does have its extemes, but at least the weather there is pretty predictable so you can plan on doing something outside weeks in advance, unlike the weather here.
Yes, if I were younger, had money I would move out to Australia.........and you like living there really too :D


LSemmens - 31-12-2007 at 13:31

Then don't move to Melbourne! One advantage, I suppose, if you don't like the weather, wait for about half an hour.


janet - 31-12-2007 at 14:24

Chrono asked if Dr J was a scientist - so he posted his credentials.

No one else has been asked for theirs... no one else is posting theirs.

I dislike academic contests of "who has more letters after their names" but if someone were to tell me I had no idea about my field of expertise...

Well, tbh, I'd just laugh - at least that's what I've done here fairly recently. But then, to do else would be to identify myself more clearly than I like.

However, Dr J had a point - if you ask if someone is qualified, they're well within the bounds to post why they can claim to be so.


John_Little - 31-12-2007 at 14:59

I posted mine. I didn't mention the CSEs though. I've got an Art O level by the way. I could draw you a picture if the arguments are too complicated.

John


janet - 31-12-2007 at 15:51

:) I suspect that was meant as a dig, but as I'm rather well known in my field for including diagrams and coloured charts, as they make the complex ideas easier to understand, I'll just say, "thank you". :)


dr john - 31-12-2007 at 17:49

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
I posted mine. I didn't mention the CSEs though. I've got an Art O level by the way. I could draw you a picture if the arguments are too complicated.

John

I failed O-level art.
My art teacher said I drew like Picasso, but the difference was Picasso meant his drawings and paintings to come out that way, and mine just did...:bon):bon):bon)


marymary100 - 31-12-2007 at 18:39

We can't all be experts in everything, although some give the impression that they are.

I am a visual learner so would welcome the charts as well and a bit of colour coding wouldn't go amiss.:)

I've taught all subjects Daz but wouldn't consider myself a mathematician or a scientist or a musician or an artist etc etc as I don't have either a degree or post graduate qualification in any of these disciplines. I know a lot about a lot of things but I would never consider myself to be an expert in any field other than my line of work.

However, on this issue, I have a great deal of respect for the enquiry skills of proper researchers and/or scientists who have been peer reviewed following publication in respected scientific journals. Their theories are published showing which bits of evidence they have gathered and based their findings on. I also look closely at the people who have funded their research as sometimes that negates the finding at least as far as I'm concerned.

On balance, I believe that global warming is far from being a hoax and that there are enough real scientists worried about it for me to try to adapt my own lifestyle to make it more carbon-footprint friendly.

To do otherwise is anti-social in my opinion.

The evidence of those "experts" who say it is a hoax is, so far, unconvincing.


janet - 31-12-2007 at 18:55

Peer review has its own issues but it's the best thing we've got. :)


Wilbur - 31-12-2007 at 20:18

Just had a Google for 'carbon footprint' and found loads of sites trying to flog stuff to stay a bit 'green'....:D
Just for fun I even filled out one of the 'calculate my carbon footprint' thingies and apparently I use/produce 2.73 tonnes of the stuff just being alive and living in my house :D

What the heck is a 'carbon footprint' when it is at home anyway ?.............I mean, just the name of it is enough for me to think 'twaddle'.

Then of course there is the usual guff about climate change and how the ice is melting...........not like it hasn't been for donkeys years..........but us humans have just got around to noticing this and panic about something that can't be changed so that Governments can raise more taxes.

We can't do anything about nature and rising sea levels..........ask King Canute, because he reckoned he could :D


scholar - 31-12-2007 at 21:45

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
I especially would like to draw attention to this part:
Quote:
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes"

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
Please notice that no one has posted anything that shows that any of the above is false.

Does anyone with knowledge deny that this had been part of the 1996 report, until it was removed from the final draft?:)


dr john - 1-1-2008 at 09:37

Scholar, how on earth would anyone here know if that was true or not?

I'm willing to bet none of us were involved in drawing up the report in 1996, nor were any of us able to read the draft report at that time. So no-one can say whether it is true or not.

Even if it was deleted, (and of course we have no knowledge whether or not is ever was in the report at all) it could have been deleted as more data was examined during the study and the statement found to be false.


dr john - 1-1-2008 at 09:49

Scholar, your favourite anti-global warming site says this

Quote:
Myths / Facts

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. "


But when we look at the graph kindly pointed out to us by chrno,
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html
we see that the rises in the last 100 years do NOT match those over the last millennium at all. We do NOT see variations of 0.6 to 0.8 degrees occurring over the rest of the millennium but only +/- 0.2 degrees variations, and we DO see the 0.8 degree rise in the last 100 years or so.

So their opening shot is in fact a lie. It is NOT a myth.

And, as has been pointed out by redwolf, they are funded by oil companies with a vested interest in saying there is nothing to worry about.