IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Topic Summary: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Created On: 21 November 2012 10:41 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 10 January 2013 01:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: richwin

@geoffbenn

The enquiries. I was concerning myself with the enquiries run by the House of Commons, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Muir. The Oxburgh enquiry was supposed to examine the science but did not.

====================================================

An email exchange concerning the choice of papers follows:

WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY LORD OXBURGH (UEA REVIEWS 04)

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee to Lord Oxburgh, 21 September 2010

The Committee has asked me to thank you for giving oral evidence on 8 September, which it found very useful.

Members have two follow-up questions and I should be grateful if you could let me have written replies. Your responses may be published by the Committee. The questions follow from the questions and answers at Qq 32 and 33 in the transcript and are as follows.

- Can you explain where the list of eleven papers came from?

- Did the list arrive with the panel before the Royal Society had been consulted?

Thank you for your assistance.

Email from Lord Oxburgh to the Clerk of the Committee, 30 September 2010

Thank you for your message. The two questions:

1. The list of papers came to us from the University as a representative sample of the work of CRU that would offer us a way into the subject. We had no direct or detailed knowledge of the origin of the list but understood that the RS was involved in its production. We made no special inquiries on this matter and attached no particular significance to the origin of the list at the time, nor did we later. It in no way restricted our examination of other publications or material.

2. I think that this is very unlikely but we have no way of telling.

September 2010
====================================================
Assign marks out of ten for impartiality.

A better paper to examine would have been the one about Chinese Urban Heat islands by Phil Jones.

Questions to ask would include: 'As you are one of the world's main sources of global temperature data, how did you come to "lose" the raw data while retaining only the "corrected" data?'


Not convinced there is a significant issue here. A bit of information on these topics:

Chinese Urban Heat islands: http://skepticalscience.com/CR...d-temperature-data.htm
The inquiry also briefly dealt with the allegation "that Jones was complicit in malpractice in failing to respond appropriately to allegations of fraud made against [...] Professor Wei-Chyung Wang", whose data Jones cited in a 1990 paper on the urban heat island effect. The allegedly "fabricated" claim was that few if any of a certain selection of Chinese weather stations had moved over time. Wang's university investigated and rejected the accusation of fraud. Meanwhile, Jones responded within one year with a peer-reviewed analysis confirming the original conclusions. In any case, this was only one paper and does not change anything we know about the urban heat island effect.
The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU's work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication. [1.3.1]


Oxburgh:

Learning from the Climate Hearing
Playing the Role of the Defense Attorneys: Republicans
In most cases, the Republican congressmen asked questions in a manner which in a court of law they would be penalized for "leading the witness." They often repeated one of the myths in our Arguments Database in the form of a question, expecting their chosen witnesses to affirm the myth, and usually receiving that incorrect affirmation.

Their treatment of the opposing witness (Kerry Emanuel) was rather lawyer-like as well. Most Republican congressmen did not interact with Dr. Emanuel, and the few who did generally attempted to attack his credibility, referring to him as a green "advocate" or claiming that the Oxburgh Climategate panel on which he participated was whitewashed.
- we've already seen how easily those myths are discredited.
The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

Climategate a year later
Then Lord Oxburgh, former chairman of Shell-UK, and his panel likewise exonerated the researchers, finding that their "work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation ... are not valid."


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 10 January 2013 10:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Geoff,
The poll stinks of regression to the mean, opinion and belief within the community is divided, most probably through lack of self study of the issue.
To claim that you have changed views would require that all respondents re-vote.

There is much a foot at the moment.
Deep breath, I'm going to use Watts links since at least he preserves links of all contributors:

NASA spots the sun

Shukman corrected report

None Watts stuff:

BBC ocasionally employ sane people

Guardian readers in a tissy

In all cases it is well worth reading the comments to appreciate the diversity of views.

Regards

Dave

Edited: 10 January 2013 at 10:47 PM by HazelGroveWolf
 10 January 2013 10:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

http://www.australianclimatema...nd-climategate/


"Oxburgh's inquiry into the Climategate affair was superficial and failed to ask the right questions of the right people. It was also hopelessly biased, and allowed the "accused" to select the "evidence" on which the inquiry was based."

http://dprogram.net/2010/03/23...erest%E2%80%99/


"The university appointed Lord Oxburgh, a geologist and former chairman of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, after consulting the Royal Society, of which he is a fellow.

Professor Trevor Davies, the university's pro-vice-chancellor for research, said that the university had been aware of Lord Oxburgh's business interests but believed that he would lead the panel of six scientists "in an utterly objective way"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm


"Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...urgh_statement/


"The University of East Anglia has defended the choice of Lord Oxburgh to head its enquiry into Climategate."

Mmmm now the Lord has business interests which are set to make millions from measures to stop 'climate change' and the UoA actually chose him to investigate them.

MP's do not fiddle expenses, governments do not try to bury bad news, and banks never manipulate exchange rates and police never sell data to news papers and of course Iraq had WMD.

Get ready for the global warming over the next couple of weeks because I am sure the MET office will soon be releasing a statement pinning it in climate change.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20968076


"after a report suggested that up to half of the world's food is thrown away."

And some people think the main issue is climate change!

Regards.
 11 January 2013 01:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

"I wouldn't trust Bishop Hill blog. Who knows what they're actually showing!"

I notice you quote Sourcewatch again. Remind me, how independent is Sourcewatch? Who set it up?

Anyway, the post was not by Andrew Montford. I am sorry that he is only an accountant. If he had been a cartoonist all would have been well?

The post was by Doug Keenan. I looked him up in Sourcewatch and the information they have on him is not correct. He does not run the website they say he does. Perhaps truth and accuracy is not a big issue with Sourcewatch.

"It's a pity the provided Met Office link only leads to tables of data."

Sometimes life is a bitch and you have to plot your own data. That is why I pointed you to a link that contained both the graph and the source data which was in a file on the UKMO site.

You might want to ask the UKMO why they did not plot the data themselves. Could it be that being able to see a plot might undermine their alarmist press release?

This link you quoted has a very amusing quote: "Throughout the year, accurate forecasts and warnings from the Met Office have helped everyone across the UK ..."

Is this the same Met Office that said: "The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months."

Wasn't that just before the wettest April for some years. They now seem to be saying that they knew it was going to be wet all along.

Another of your quotes from the Telegraph states: "Four of the five wettest years since records began in 1910" The UKMO seem to have some England and Wales monthly precipitation (EWP) data going back to 1766.

My stance will be that the UKMO published data is correct and that everyone here will be able to come to their own conclusions.

My conclusion is that the words written about the data contain a lot of spin and exaggeration. Why can't they just tell it like it is?

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 11 January 2013 02:06 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

"2012 was warmest and second most extreme year on record for the contiguous U.S."

Another interesting quote. I seem to recall that when the US had a particularly cold winter that was "just weather" and it only affected the US which is about 1.8% of the earth's surface.

Now it has been hot it seems to be climate and much more representative of the global situation. Go figure - as the Americans say.

When alarmists make these kinds of comments they assume that either the person reading them will either not check them or not understand the science. This is what they rely on. Again, why can't they just tell it like it is and not always exaggerate the warmist view?

Why don't journalists ask any interesting questions? Why do they just take on face value what "scientists" tell them?

Bearing in mind the 1930's "dust bowl" in the US, I would like to ask how many of the temperature stations quoted were in existence in the 1930's? If the answer is all of them then the record stands. If the answer is only 10% of them then again it is spin. Until we know the answer to that question then all the articles must be regarded with suspicion.

Here is one bloggers take on it. If you have a better one then please post it.

"NOAA has inflated the 2012 record maximum number by adding new stations which didn't exist during the hot years of the 1930s. That is a completely illegitimate approach, suitable only for government workers."

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 11 January 2013 02:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@westonpa 10 January 2013 10:34 PM

Good points - well made!

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 11 January 2013 02:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 34
Joined: 13 October 2007

If geoffbenn had any interest in science he could have checked the accuracy of the plot posted on the Bishop Hill blog in a fraction of the time it took him to accuse the proprietor, and everyone else he disagrees with, of being untrustworthy.
 11 January 2013 02:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

I appreciate that there are not actually many votes, but we seem to have a significant swing, considering only 25% agreed in the early days of this debate:
There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change (Total Votes: 181)

Agree 87 votes 48.07 (%)

Disagree 94 votes 51.93 (%)


All down to that word 'conclusive'...?



Anyway, I'll have a go at some of those questions...


The question is ambiguous. At least two interpretations spring to mind:

1. "There is a conclusive body of evidence to support that all climate change is man-made "

2. "There is a conclusive body of evidence to support that only some climate change is man-made "

I would be surprised if you can find a climate scientist to support Q1.
So, assuming Q2, how much is "some": 99%, 90%, 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.01%. I would suggest that the answer should be "Yes" for all those possibilities but that does not make it a very useful question, does it?

Here is an interesting paper.
It seems that NASA are having a bit of a re-think on whether the sun could be involved in climate change. They obviously do not know that Skeptical Science has already "debunked" that possibility. So, how much climate change is man-made and how much could be down to the sun?

They seem to hint that the current temperature standstill could be sun-related but do not go as far as suggesting that the temperature rise in the previous century could also be caused by the sun.

I see that New Scientist has also noticed the slowdown in temperatures. They blame "natural cycles". CO2 is still increasing, remember.

So now we have some man-made climate change, some sun-made climate change and some climate change due to natural cycles. Perhaps we need to get a full list of what causes climate change and then have a bit of a rethink.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 11 January 2013 12:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: richwin

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
I appreciate that there are not actually many votes, but we seem to have a significant swing, considering only 25% agreed in the early days of this debate:
There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change (Total Votes: 181)

Agree 87 votes 48.07 (%)
Disagree 94 votes 51.93 (%)


All down to that word 'conclusive'...?

Anyway, I'll have a go at some of those questions...


The question is ambiguous. At least two interpretations spring to mind:

1. "There is a conclusive body of evidence to support that all climate change is man-made "

2. "There is a conclusive body of evidence to support that only some climate change is man-made "

I would be surprised if you can find a climate scientist to support Q1.

So, assuming Q2, how much is "some": 99%, 90%, 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.01%. I would suggest that the answer should be "Yes" for all those possibilities but that does not make it a very useful question, does it?
How about 'There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change' ...

Originally posted by: richwin
Here is an interesting paper.

It seems that NASA are having a bit of a re-think on whether the sun could be involved in climate change. They obviously do not know that Skeptical Science has already "debunked" that possibility. So, how much climate change is man-made and how much could be down to the sun?

They seem to hint that the current temperature standstill could be sun-related but do not go as far as suggesting that the temperature rise in the previous century could also be caused by the sun.

The effect of the sun has been known for quite some time, but climate change deniers have tried to claim it was the whole story: http://skepticalscience.com/so...ots-global-warming.htm
The skeptic argument...
It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."
- Nice graph

http://skepticalscience.com/so...l-warming-advanced.htm
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.


Originally posted by: richwin
I see that New Scientist has also noticed the slowdown in temperatures. They blame "natural cycles". CO2 is still increasing, remember.

So now we have some man-made climate change, some sun-made climate change and some climate change due to natural cycles. Perhaps we need to get a full list of what causes climate change and then have a bit of a rethink.

Those 3 factors have always been known. Consider the relative importance.
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...-ground-to-a-halt.html
There are other possible confounding influences. The 11-year solar cycle has a small effect. So do volcanic eruptions and smog that shades the earth. Longer term, changes in Earth's orbit are thought to trigger ice ages. But all the evidence is that in recent times and over the coming decades, ocean-atmosphere interactions are the only influence comparable in scale to greenhouse gases.

Are these cycles just something scientists have invented to explain away the lack of recent warming?
No.

What's the outlook?
Scary. If oceanic cycles do what the Met Office and others expect, then global average air temperatures will stay fairly stable - though still hotter than they have been in the past - until later this decade. The cycles will then flip into a new phase and the oceans will probably start releasing heat instead of soaking it up. Combined with continued accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that could mean that sometime round 2020, warming will start to race away again as the atmosphere makes up for lost time.


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 11 January 2013 12:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Westonpa,

If you want to be taken seriously please provide us with your name rather than hiding behind an anonymous username. That is, unless you fear that you might not want to be remembered for the stuff you post...

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 11 January 2013 12:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

The global temperature trend remains upward despite new information...

Anyone out there claiming to be perfect and to always get it right in every regard?

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 11 January 2013 07:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Westonpa,



If you want to be taken seriously please provide us with your name rather than hiding behind an anonymous username. That is, unless you fear that you might not want to be remembered for the stuff you post...



Regards


Geoff,
You seem to have taken it upon yourself to filter comments under the guise that certain user names do not conform to your personal standard despite ligitimate comment in the content of the posting.
I'm sure that the legitimacy of posters on here are verified by the moderators in terms of IET membership. As has been pointed out before privacy should be respected for all manner of reasons.
I've made my identity known but you continue to ignore legitimate points

Please respond to wesonpa's very valid points.

Regards

Dave
 11 January 2013 07:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

The global temperature trend remains upward despite new information...



Anyone out there claiming to be perfect and to always get it right in every regard?


No-one disputes warming trends or that climate changes. The anthropogenic input is very much disputed as is the natural variability input. The current models ignore solar variability as the NASA paper points out. As the paper points out there are plenty of Earth/Sun interactions that are at play and poorly understood. Even so the known solar insolation variability is 1000ppm compared to the supposed 40ppm increment of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to man (carbon dioxide still constitutes < 400ppm of atmosphere).
Geoff, I find it difficult for an engineer such as yourself to take such a stance. Our skill as engineers is to identify and understand problems without prejudice. Failure to be self critical can and should be career threatening. It is utter stupidity to suggest we have all the answers with regard to the complex chaotic climate system.
Speculative ineffective engineering projects (wind farms) will have no more impact than the political platitudes. Shale gas and nuclear are potential real world solutions to reducing genuine pollution (carbon dioxide is a vital plant nutrient and therefore beneficial given a growing population).

Regards

Dave
 12 January 2013 02:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

"How about 'There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change' "

Still don't like it. Sorry.

The climate changes and always has done. So I don't think changing what man does will stop the climate changing. If it did I think we might have a problem. We would certainly be in uncharted territory.

If we assume that the climate is changing in a bad way and that is caused exclusively by man then we have a different problem. But we have just shown that the climate is not affected exclusively by man. So that cannot be the question either.

If we look at the title of the thread: "Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?"

Then the answer is: "No" because climate started changing over 4 billion years before we arrived.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I first took an interest in Global Warming, we were being told that it was caused by people driving their 4x4s. Being an engineer, I thought I would be able to calculate how much CO2 would be saved if we banned all the 4x4s in the UK. I can't remember the figures but they were very small. I then looked at swapping incandescent bulbs for the poisonous and expensive mercury ones. Still hardly any savings.

Then I removed all private cars, and vans and lorries and boats and planes and factories and offices and houses ... in fact every manmade device that created CO2. The UK produces about 1.8% of the world's CO2 emissions. (China was not as well developed then.) All that would be saved.

Then I looked at how much manmade CO2 was increasing globally - about 0.5% per year. From which I concluded that if we shut down the entire UK and marched everyone underground into the disused coal mines then sealed the entrances we would stave off the CO2 problem for nearly 4 years (1.8 / 0.5).

H2O is also a greenhouse gas and there is roughly 600 times as much H2O as manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. So a 0.25% change in H2O level could then undo all our hard work.

Final thought: H2O is a greenhouse gas so the areas underneath it should be warm? So why are deserts like the Saraha, with a very dry atmosphere, much warmer that areas with humid atmospheres at the same latitude? Isn't that back to front if the greenhouse effect is right.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 12 January 2013 02:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

"The global temperature trend remains upward despite new information"

As always, that depends entirely on where you start the graph from.

So it is just as true to say: "The global temperature trend remains downward despite new information"

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 12 January 2013 07:03 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

The global temperature trend remains upward despite new information...

Anyone out there claiming to be perfect and to always get it right in every regard?


No-one disputes warming trends or that climate changes.
Really? I seem to have seen 1998 mentioned on here...
Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
The anthropogenic input is very much disputed as is the natural variability input.
Though 'There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change'...
Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
The current models ignore solar variability as the NASA paper points out. As the paper points out there are plenty of Earth/Sun interactions that are at play and poorly understood.
The effects of the sun which are relevant in a human time scale for instance the 11 year cycle are small, and totally over-ridden as far as the overall trend is concerned based on historic/empiricle evidence, so how much of a problem is it if such things are omitted?
Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Even so the known solar insolation variability is 1000ppm compared to the supposed 40ppm increment of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to man (carbon dioxide still constitutes < 400ppm of atmosphere).

Just because one number is bigger than another does not mean that's all you have to consider. it needs to be considered in context, in this case of balance. Without the human contribution there would almost certainly be a relatively stable situation. Sometime it doesn't take much to tip the balance...
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time - and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).


Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Geoff, I find it difficult for an engineer such as yourself to take such a stance. Our skill as engineers is to identify and understand problems without prejudice. Failure to be self critical can and should be career threatening. It is utter stupidity to suggest we have all the answers with regard to the complex chaotic climate system.
I haven't suggested that we haave all the answers, though i strongly suggest based on what I've read that 'There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change'. Nothing that you've posted has changed my view one iota...
Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Speculative ineffective engineering projects (wind farms) will have no more impact than the political platitudes. Shale gas and nuclear are potential real world solutions to reducing genuine pollution (carbon dioxide is a vital plant nutrient and therefore beneficial given a growing population).

Regards

Dave

We've already looked at the plant food myth, but here it is again:
Plant food
More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.

An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

Again, you're bringing up old myths (even ones that have already been shown to be so on this thread!) and referring to discredited blogs (Anthony Watt's WattsUpWithThat), so I really can't take your views seriously. I suggest you pick your strongest argument and stick to that, though I can't imagine what it would be...?

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 12 January 2013 at 08:33 AM by geoffbenn
 12 January 2013 07:07 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: richwin

@geoffbenn

"How about 'There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change' "

Still don't like it. Sorry.
Your choice.
Originally posted by: richwin
The climate changes and always has done. So I don't think changing what man does will stop the climate changing. If it did I think we might have a problem. We would certainly be in uncharted territory.
The cliamte has indeed always has changed and always will do, but 'There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change' so we have a responsibility and a part to play. Yes we have a problem... Yes we are in uncharted territory...
Originally posted by: richwin
If we assume that the climate is changing in a bad way and that is caused exclusively by man then we have a different problem. But we have just shown that the climate is not affected exclusively by man. So that cannot be the question either.
No one is suggesting that it's exclusively caused by man...
Originally posted by: richwin
If we look at the title of the thread: "Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?"

Then the answer is: "No" because climate started changing over 4 billion years before we arrived.
The topic title and poll question were not well thought out
Originally posted by: richwin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I first took an interest in Global Warming, we were being told that it was caused by people driving their 4x4s. Being an engineer, I thought I would be able to calculate how much CO2 would be saved if we banned all the 4x4s in the UK. I can't remember the figures but they were very small. I then looked at swapping incandescent bulbs for the poisonous and expensive mercury ones. Still hardly any savings.
My bolding of a ridiculous statement.
Originally posted by: richwin
Then I removed all private cars, and vans and lorries and boats and planes and factories and offices and houses ... in fact every manmade device that created CO2. The UK produces about 1.8% of the world's CO2 emissions. (China was not as well developed then.) All that would be saved.
Setting aside whether your calculations are correct, remember it's all about balance...
Originally posted by: richwin
Then I looked at how much manmade CO2 was increasing globally - about 0.5% per year. From which I concluded that if we shut down the entire UK and marched everyone underground into the disused coal mines then sealed the entrances we would stave off the CO2 problem for nearly 4 years (1.8 / 0.5).
It's not down to the UK to solve a global problem. Yes, we are going to have to take drastic measures because climate change deniers have mis-informed for so long that we've lost the chance for a much more gradual transition.
Originally posted by: richwin
H2O is also a greenhouse gas and there is roughly 600 times as much H2O as manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. So a 0.25% change in H2O level could then undo all our hard work.
We could do the water vapour myth...
Originally posted by: richwin
Final thought: H2O is a greenhouse gas so the areas underneath it should be warm? So why are deserts like the Saraha, with a very dry atmosphere, much warmer that areas with humid atmospheres at the same latitude? Isn't that back to front if the greenhouse effect is right.
The greenhouse effect is a global effect. Wind tends to move the air about ;-) So simplistic! Are you serious?

As is often the case, more is less. Putting out ridiculous doesn't help your reputation...

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 12 January 2013 at 08:22 AM by geoffbenn
 12 January 2013 07:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: richwin

@geoffbenn

"The global temperature trend remains upward despite new information"

As always, that depends entirely on where you start the graph from.

So it is just as true to say: "The global temperature trend remains downward despite new information"

Most certainly not! Again, are you serious? Are you focusing on 1998 by any chance? You're sounding more and more like someone who is simply trying to sow the seeds of doubt...

We've considered the 1998 myth extensively, how about this for a change:
Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?

Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable.
One of the defining traits of a chaotic system is 'sensitive dependence to initial conditions'. This means that even very small changes in the state of the system can quickly and radically change the way that the system develops over time. Edward Lorenz's landmark 1963 paper demonstrated this behavior in a simulation of fluid turbulence, and ended hopes for long-term weather forecasting.

However, climate is not weather, and modeling is not forecasting.

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 12 January 2013 08:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

More stuff that the scientists have missed out of their models:
Thawing of Permafrost Expected to Cause Significant Additional Global Warming, Not Yet Accounted for in Climate Predictions
Permafrost covering almost a quarter of the northern hemisphere contains 1,700 gigatonnes of carbon, twice that currently in the atmosphere, and could significantly amplify global warming should thawing accelerate as expected

Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost seeks to highlight the potential hazards of carbon dioxide and methane emissions from warming permafrost, which have not thus far been included in climate-prediction modelling. The science on the potential impacts of warming permafrost has only begun to enter the mainstream in the last few years, and as a truly "emerging issue" could not have been included in climate change modelling to date.

Should the active layer increase in thickness due to warming, huge quantities of organic matter stored in the frozen soil would begin to thaw and decay, releasing large amounts of CO₂ and methane into the atmosphere.

Once this process begins, it will operate in a feedback loop known as the permafrost carbon feedback, which has the effect of increasing surface temperatures and thus accelerating the further warming of permafrost -- a process that would be irreversible on human timescales.

Arctic and alpine air temperatures are expected to increase at roughly twice the global rate, and climate projections indicate substantial loss of permafrost by 2100. A global temperature increase of 3°C means a 6°C increase in the Arctic, resulting in an irreversible loss of anywhere between 30 to 85 per cent of near-surface permafrost.


How much of a risk do we want to take? Hopefully they'll catch up with where we need them to be on understanding the climate... Uncharted territory indeed Richard...

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 12 January 2013 10:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Geoff,

You seem to have taken it upon yourself to filter comments under the guise that certain user names do not conform to your personal standard despite ligitimate comment in the content of the posting.

I'm sure that the legitimacy of posters on here are verified by the moderators in terms of IET membership. As has been pointed out before privacy should be respected for all manner of reasons.

Just to clarify that anyone can post on these forums (member or not, including kitchen sales reps ), they are only likely to be blocked if they break the terms of use. So if anyone posts here anonymously claiming to be an expert on this issue then it has as much validity as if a stranger approaches you in the pub and starts sounding off. Caveat emptor.

Therefore, if posters wish to remain anonymous and want to be taken seriously, they must cite reputable sources. (Good practice anyway even if you do have demonstrable expertise.)

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

<< 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.