07 Nov 06
There's an interesting article in the Telegraph about global warming. A former scientific adviser to the Thatcher government claims that much of the UN data on climate change is fundamentally flawed.
I wondered if any of the people on here who actually know something about global warming theories have anything to contribute.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
07 Nov 06
"In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.
This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.
"
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by WheelyYes, what about the Medieval Warm period? What is the explanation for the fact that Greenland used to be habitable and is now covered in ice?
There's an interesting article in the Telegraph about global warming. A former scientific adviser to the Thatcher government claims that much of the UN data on climate change is fundamentally flawed.
I wondered if any of the people on here who actually know something about global warming theories have anything to contribute.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
I accept that we are warmer today than in 1850, but are we signifcantly warmer than in 1000?
What's the p-value?
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by spruce112358Ug, this crap again?
Yes, what about the Medieval Warm period? What is the explanation for the fact that Greenland used to be habitable and is now covered in ice?
I accept that we are warmer today than in 1850, but are we signifcantly warmer than in 1000?
What's the p-value?
Historically the earth has warmed and cooled naturally for centuries. This is not debatable.
Presently the earth is warming again. This is not debatable.
What IS being debated is whether or not this current warming period is from natural causes, as was the case in the past, OR is it due to man made causes from releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The main difference between historical and current warming periods is that at no time in the past during warming cycles did greenhouses gases reach the levels that we are at now and are predicted to be at in the near future.
To say global warming this time is just the result of natural causes as in the past completely ignores the greenhouse gas issue. You are saying in effect that greenhouse gases have no effect on global warming, or a negligible effect anyway. This is counter to what virtually every scientist in the world today believes, save just a small percentage.
The point is that even if somehow these small percentage of scientists are correct, and that despite all the scientific evidence, the current global warming is somehow due to natural causes, we are taking a huge gamble on the future of this planet. The precautionary principle demands we take action, but the doubting thomas' of the world are causing inaction.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by uzlessNot at all. The question is "Will it get hotter than it has been in the past?"
Ug, this crap again?
Historically the earth has warmed and cooled naturally for centuries. This is not debatable.
Presently the earth is warming again. This is not debatable.
What IS being debated is whether or not this current warming period is from natural causes, as was the case in the past, OR is it due to man made causes from releasing greenho ...[text shortened]... y principle demands we take action, but the doubting thomas' of the world are causing inaction.
That's why the Medeval Warming period is important. If it gets no hotter than that and then stabilizes or starts cooling off again, then there is no issue except for hotel development along the Greenland coast.
So that actual temperature we will reach is important, not just the change from 100 years ago.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by uzlessInteresting. However, I'm interested in what knowledgeable people think about the actual statements in this article relating to "facts" that the UN has distributed.
Ug, this crap again?
Historically the earth has warmed and cooled naturally for centuries. This is not debatable.
Presently the earth is warming again. This is not debatable.
What IS being debated is whether or not this current warming period is from natural causes, as was the case in the past, OR is it due to man made causes from releasing greenho ...[text shortened]... y principle demands we take action, but the doubting thomas' of the world are causing inaction.
This guy is basically accusing the UN of trying to deceive everyone.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by WheelyWell, for one thing he's wrong that the IPCC graphs don't show the Medieval warm period. If you look at the graphs showing the data then you see a cooling trend from 1000 AD to 1900AD. There are fluctuations. I, personally, would trust the IPCC data, from multiple sources, over the graph he shows (it looks to be quite an old graph, and you'll note it has no scale - it may be schematic only, or based only on one data series).
Interesting. However, I'm interested in what knowledgeable people think about the actual statements in this article relating to "facts" that the UN has distributed.
This guy is basically accusing the UN of trying to deceive everyone.
He does make a good point about the fact that the Vostoc / EPICA temperature data seems to predate it's CO2 conc. This is not as serious as he makes out. I would suggest that no proxy is going to be a perfect representation. The isotope data will definately be much more accurate than the CO2 data, simply because it's easier to isolate the water than the CO2 sample from ice. It is also possible that CO2 levels in the ice suffer some kind of "inertia", prossibly due to gas diffusion from the core to the environment (since the gas in the core will be under pressure).
I'd have to look at his other claims, but can't really be bothered right now.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI was hoping you'd be able to take a look. Thanks for what you've managed so far. If you get a chance and the inclination, I'd be interested to hear more of your views.
Well, for one thing he's wrong that the IPCC graphs don't show the Medieval warm period. If you look at the graphs showing the data then you see a cooling trend from 1000 AD to 1900AD. There are fluctuations. I, personally, would trust the IPCC data, from multiple sources, over the graph he shows (it looks to be quite an old graph, and you'll note it ...[text shortened]... sure).
I'd have to look at his other claims, but can't really be bothered right now.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotSpin, spin, spin.
"In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientif ...[text shortened]... ort, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.
What computer were you using in 1988? I think mine had 64k of memory. Present climate models and predictions are infinitely better today than in 1988.
UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team
UK taxpayers money funds research councils that disseminate these funds over a huge range of scientific studies including climate research. And?
a Bible-length document presenting presenting apocalyptic conclusions
Journalistic spin.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeePresent climate models and predictions are infinitely better today than in 1988.
Spin, spin, spin.
What computer were you using in 1988? I think mine had 64k of memory. Present climate models and predictions are infinitely better today than in 1988.
UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team
UK taxpayers money funds research councils that disseminate these funds over a huge range of scientifi ...[text shortened]... ]a Bible-length document presenting presenting apocalyptic conclusions[/i]
Journalistic spin.
How do you know how right they are, did you go to the future and check?
UK taxpayers money funds research councils that disseminate these funds over a huge range of scientific studies including climate research. And?
Why didn't other UN countries chip in?
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by mrstabbyHow do you know how right they are, did you go to the future and check?
Present climate models and predictions are infinitely better today than in 1988.
How do you know how right they are, did you go to the future and check?
UK taxpayers money funds research councils that disseminate these funds over a huge range of scientific studies including climate research. And?
Why didn't other UN countries chip in?
No need - you use them to produce hindcasts of past climates, which they do very well at.
Why didn't other UN countries chip in?
They do - the IPCC is formed from scientists from many countries who all get their funding from their respective governments.