petec
Member
- Location
- North Somerset
According to someone on the BBC last week there is a temporary blip in climate change. How do they know? Have they a special forcaster are there jobs at risk?
Temporary blip in rate of climate change
- Thread starter petec
- Start date
- Location
- Near Beeston Castle
They "think" they know why it has happened and based on that reasoning they predict it will be a temporary change.
TheTallGuy
Member
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Basically it's the alleged "Climate Scientists" trying to explain why their theories and predictions don't match up with what's happening in the real world. These alleged scientists are trying to make predictions based on very thin information - we only really have around 50 years of accurate information & some of that is suspect, all the rest is based on assumptions and extrapolations going back millions of years.
FonterraFarmer
Member
- Location
- Waikato, New Zealand
So as you chaps on the otherside of the world would say "Total rubbish" ?
back in the late 70's the experts were predicting a mini ice age
Pedders
Member
- Location
- West Sussex
posted on another thread
there has now been at least 17 years of lack of warming as predicted by the climate change models despite CO2 emissions rising ... ..so its more than a blip it is now statistically significant
there has now been at least 17 years of lack of warming as predicted by the climate change models despite CO2 emissions rising ... ..so its more than a blip it is now statistically significant
Pedders
Member
- Location
- West Sussex
contrast the above graph with this one
its look pretty obvious that temperature and Co2 are not corellated .....
its look pretty obvious that temperature and Co2 are not corellated .....
Daniel
Member
- Location
- Mildenhall, Suffolk
The whole climate change industry is just an excuse to create jobs and raise taxes.
Yes and now for the veggies to blame meat eaters for it
Daniel
Member
- Location
- Mildenhall, Suffolk
It's incredible the grip these people exert on society based on a few unsubstantiated scientific claims. Basically all of the JD bashing on here is due to the climate change nazis demanding that perfectly decent engines be stifled with emissions crap!
TheTallGuy
Member
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, as there are so many factors that affect our climate that there are things going on that could be masking the effect of CO2, there is also the possibility that it's a delayed action. Personally I tend towards the sceptic camp as regards mans contribution to climate change, but with an open mind.
I do think that it's a jobs for the boys scheme - just look at how anyone who questions/doubts the "science" is denounce as a heretic and denied funding. That said, I have no objection to taking reasonable steps towards reducing our so called carbon footprint.
One of the biggest wheezes is that in the late 80's, the predictions were that the polar ice caps would be pretty much melted by now and my house would be under water...
Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
The physics of radiative forcing is a first or second year undergrad topic and so it's understandable that people may not be that familiar with it. Worth learning the basics of it and if you do you'll see that greenhouse gases like CO2 will increase the amount of heat trapped within the whole planet.
See here: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/explained-radforce-0309
To a physicist, to question this mechanism is a bit like saying that you don't really think that gravity exists. The debate becomes more controversial when the exact amount of extra heat being trapped is under question and the issue of climate sensitivity - i.e. in crude terms what is the specific heat capacity of the Earth?
From this if you put heat into a system then it's going to warm up in the same way that if you put a pan on the stove the water will get hotter. The complexity starts when you ask in what way will it heat up and by how much and that's why the models differ from one another and people have lots of arguments. There are many different ways in which heat can be stored within the Earth and an increase in surface temperature is just one way, and not a particularly major way too. About 90% of the extra heat trapped goes into the ocean and so you can have a lot of heating without noticing very much on the surface of the land (which only occupies about 30% of the surface of the planet).
There has recently been a warming of the Pacific in its deeper depths which it is claimed explains where the extra heat that is being trapped has gone to. The obvious thing to question here is if the heat is going into the oceans does this mean there isn't a problem. Again do some reading, but the oceanic processes are quite finely balanced and small changes in temperature can change cause entire cycles to stop or go in a different direction.
This is a quite good summary piece:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full
Personally I think even if you are sceptical then I think there's a good argument that reducing your CO2 footprint in a lot of cases will not be that much more expensive than business-as-usual (whatever that is), if at all. Take the argument about so-called green taxes on energy bills. The bits that were cut was energy insulation for some of the poorer households which pay for themselves several times over and are demonstrably a no-brainer. For sure there are things like FiTs which are often an overly expensive way of producing clean energy. On the other hand though think of the hidden cost of having to fight wars to "stabilise" areas that we depend on for oil and the amount of shady regimes we have to support just because they happen to sit on quite a large chunk of the world's oil and gas. A lot of the cost of things like oil is hidden in the military budget and the lives lost fighting to protect those resources. I'd quite like not to have to depend on the Saudis and the Russians, and so anything that is home-grown (be it fracking done properly, tidal, solar or whatever) then that's a good thing in my book.
See here: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/explained-radforce-0309
To a physicist, to question this mechanism is a bit like saying that you don't really think that gravity exists. The debate becomes more controversial when the exact amount of extra heat being trapped is under question and the issue of climate sensitivity - i.e. in crude terms what is the specific heat capacity of the Earth?
From this if you put heat into a system then it's going to warm up in the same way that if you put a pan on the stove the water will get hotter. The complexity starts when you ask in what way will it heat up and by how much and that's why the models differ from one another and people have lots of arguments. There are many different ways in which heat can be stored within the Earth and an increase in surface temperature is just one way, and not a particularly major way too. About 90% of the extra heat trapped goes into the ocean and so you can have a lot of heating without noticing very much on the surface of the land (which only occupies about 30% of the surface of the planet).
There has recently been a warming of the Pacific in its deeper depths which it is claimed explains where the extra heat that is being trapped has gone to. The obvious thing to question here is if the heat is going into the oceans does this mean there isn't a problem. Again do some reading, but the oceanic processes are quite finely balanced and small changes in temperature can change cause entire cycles to stop or go in a different direction.
This is a quite good summary piece:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full
Personally I think even if you are sceptical then I think there's a good argument that reducing your CO2 footprint in a lot of cases will not be that much more expensive than business-as-usual (whatever that is), if at all. Take the argument about so-called green taxes on energy bills. The bits that were cut was energy insulation for some of the poorer households which pay for themselves several times over and are demonstrably a no-brainer. For sure there are things like FiTs which are often an overly expensive way of producing clean energy. On the other hand though think of the hidden cost of having to fight wars to "stabilise" areas that we depend on for oil and the amount of shady regimes we have to support just because they happen to sit on quite a large chunk of the world's oil and gas. A lot of the cost of things like oil is hidden in the military budget and the lives lost fighting to protect those resources. I'd quite like not to have to depend on the Saudis and the Russians, and so anything that is home-grown (be it fracking done properly, tidal, solar or whatever) then that's a good thing in my book.
TheTallGuy
Member
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
I've read many thousands of pages on the issues & I understand a most of the physics put forward, but most of what is put forward is based on very poor information - despite what CC scientists say, we only have around 30-50 years of accurate information and even within that 30-50 years there are many inconsistencies in the reliability of that data. Anything outside of those dates is based on suppositions and extrapolations, especially when they try to claim they know what temperatures and CO2 levels were around millions of years ago & yes I do understand how those figures are produced.
I'm not saying that CC isn't happening, nor am I denying that man has a part in it - I am on the fence as regards to the significance of our part and as to what the effects are - especially since very little of what has been predicted has actually come to pass.
I'm not against working towards reducing CO2 emissions, but often the wrong approach is used to the detriment of what they are supposed to be trying to achieve. Take for instance solar panels - if you look at the whole life environmental cost, they don't measure up very well, the methods of producing the panels, their useful lifespan and the recycling processes are not that good. As of next year, new diesel locomotives in the UK will have to be Stage IIIB compliant, for which there is no real solution & even when there is it will be prohibitively expensive, so instead of being able to use relatively modern designs the operators (freight in particular) are having to use 50 year old locos with old style engines pumping out far more CO2 & other nasties... even the ones that they re-engine will have to be old style engines because there aren't IIIB compliant engines that would fit - all this despite the fact that railways are significantly greener than road!
CC is an emotive subject and the debate will almost certainly go on for many years to come.
I'm not saying that CC isn't happening, nor am I denying that man has a part in it - I am on the fence as regards to the significance of our part and as to what the effects are - especially since very little of what has been predicted has actually come to pass.
I'm not against working towards reducing CO2 emissions, but often the wrong approach is used to the detriment of what they are supposed to be trying to achieve. Take for instance solar panels - if you look at the whole life environmental cost, they don't measure up very well, the methods of producing the panels, their useful lifespan and the recycling processes are not that good. As of next year, new diesel locomotives in the UK will have to be Stage IIIB compliant, for which there is no real solution & even when there is it will be prohibitively expensive, so instead of being able to use relatively modern designs the operators (freight in particular) are having to use 50 year old locos with old style engines pumping out far more CO2 & other nasties... even the ones that they re-engine will have to be old style engines because there aren't IIIB compliant engines that would fit - all this despite the fact that railways are significantly greener than road!
CC is an emotive subject and the debate will almost certainly go on for many years to come.
Pedders
Member
- Location
- West Sussex
the poor information only comes from one side though ...the pro warming lobby
TheTallGuy
Member
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
I wouldn't say that - unfortunately the anti-warming lobby has some real fruitcakes and conspiracy theorists, which doesn't help the case at all!
Pedders
Member
- Location
- West Sussex
really ? do you mean people like James Delingpole or Anthony Watts ...or Jo Nova or Christopher Monckton ...Nigel Lawson..Andrew Montford Ian Plimer Matt Ridley Christopher Booker, the GWPF..... ? or do you have some other fruitcake and conspiracy theorists in mind ?
one or two on the other side too, who was that ex vice president who flew all round the world telling his theory and blaming lots of things on air travel
TheTallGuy
Member
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Al Gore - one of the biggest crooks in politics (in my opinion). Not only did he fly around the world in private jets and owns several large houses consuming lots of energy (later claimed to be renewable!), but also had investments in many companies that benefit from his political campaigning.one or two on the other side too, who was that ex vice president who flew all round the world telling his theory and blaming lots of things on air travel
I don't normally read the Daily Fail, but this article made me chuckle, I'm surprised they weren't demanding Mr Gore hand back his Nobel prize and be lynched from a lamp post! As I've said before, and Dr Ed Hawkins seems to agree - we don't really know how big an effect we are having and that there are lots of unknowns. I would go so far as to say that we don't even know how much we don't know.
Pedders
Member
- Location
- West Sussex
I think the time for ambivalence is long gone ....17+ years of missing global warming has done for that ...we do know that whatever has been happening (if anything) hasn't been caused by man made co2 emissions