IvanM

Scientists wrong but nutcase websites right?

NedKelly

Lefty pinko treehugging scientists on government payroll wrong, the rest, right!

And also bad socialist actors that have millions in the bank and could afford to pay the carbon tax for all of us. - wrong.

Amazulu

Yep

Big Galah

I get the feeling that wouldn't be a good idea.

But, being reckless, as a starting point would you agree with the research that says the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution (around 1750) was approx 275 ppm, that it was 350 ppm in 1990, and is now 393 ppm?

slapphead_otool

And straight away you slip into a side issue.

At issue is NOT the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the climate of the planet.

In fact 1) the CO2 concentration is a complex issue in its own right and 2) there are no really accurate ways of knowing the concentration prior to the industrial revolution.

Notwithstanding that, the argument centres not upon the CO2 but upon the change in the planets temperature.

Tell me how you are going to ACCURATELY determine the temperature of the planet in 1750, given that we cannot say for certain what it is today, even with modern infra-red satellite measuring systems.

In fact 2011 data appears to show that the upper atmosphere is cooling.

Big Galah

Ummmm...

When did you take "ownership" of this thread to decide what or what isn't a "side issue"?

Perhaps what you mean is, "starting from that point doesn't allow me to present my 'angle', so I'm going to have to try to steer it back that way"?

Well here's my radical 'angle':

1. It's believed by a lot of scientists that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a fact and (relatively) recent and man-made. (This comes from analysis of ice cores and the small amounts of air inside, not historical temperature recordings.)

2. It's believed by a lot of scientists that this is causing climate change, resulting in average temperature increases across the globe, year on year.

3. It's believed by a lot of scientists that this has potential catastrophic implications for the planet, and the only way to prevent this is by decreasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. One way to do this is to tax carbon (coal, petrol, other fuels) and use the money to build or invest in energy sources and companies that do not produce CO2. And here's the radical bit, over time this may stabilise or reduce the CO2 concentrations to prevent runaway warming. Crazy side-issue, huh?

If you can't even accept that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising then I don't see any reason for continuing the discussion.

There's lots of data and opinions on this of course, but your concentration on a report showing reduced temperatures in the upper atmosphere reminds me of the "Moon Landings Were Faked" conspiract theorists concentrating on things like crosshairs (or lack of) in photos. Yes, in isolation it looks odd, but does that mean you ignore the larger amount of data and reports showing the contrary view?

NedKelly

As a starting point that may be true but proves absolutely nothing.

Now draw a single graph showing temperature and CO2 and you will see that temperature rises always preceed the increase in CO2. Why is that?

slapphead_otool

1. Its simple, if the issue is simply the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, then it’s a non-issue. What concerns people is the possibility that this could lead to a change in the temperature of the planet.

Would you agree?

2. I agree with you that a lot of scientists “believe this” or “believe that”. Vast numbers of perfectly sensible and educated people also believe that Jesus came back from the dead. Not one of them has been able to replicate it though.

3. You are being economical with the truth when you say: “If you can't even accept that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising”. This isn’t what I said at all.

What I DID say was this: fact “1) the CO2 concentration is a complex issue in its own right and 2) there are no really accurate ways of knowing the concentration prior to the industrial revolution”

I stand by that comment.

slapphead_otool

Its MUCH more complicated than that. People think this is a simple subject. In fact even the simplest parts of it are incredibly complex.

The ice core CO2 measurements are highly disputed for a start. There are DIFFERENT levels for the same era from the Greenland ice cores compared to those from Antarctica. That alone pretty well stuffs up anything using that data. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT.

Where high CO2 levels HAVE been found in ice cores, the climate scientists have disregarded the data saying it was a result of “calibration problems”. IT IS NOT ACCURATE.

So the two principles of scientific data, consistency and accuracy, are not evident in the ice core CO@ measurement.

I say again, there are no really accurate ways of knowing the CO2 concentration prior to the industrial revolution.

NedKelly

I suppose it is also true that there are no really accurate ways of knowing the temperature of the planet prior to the industrial revolution either.

slapphead_otool

Absolutely not.

In fact we still don’t know it accurately. The use of infra red satellite measurement started in 1979/80. You can junk any data prior to that data as unreliable speculation.

Even then, the process is beset with problems:

Problem 1: The satellites do not actually measure the temperature, but produce data which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. Surprise surprise, different groups use different methods of obtaining temperatures from the data!

This has resulted in differing temperature data sets, even from accurate satellite measurements.

Problem 2: The satellite data set is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. This means that each set of data from each satellite is “adjusted” and weightings are added. This means further confusion over what the temperature really is.

Problem 3: The sensors deteriorate over time, meaning the data has to be adjusted by what people think the current deterioration level is. No one actually knows, because its on a satellite, so “best guess” rules.

Problem 4: The satellites actually drift around in space. It took the MMGW fanatics until 2005 to realise that the satellite data was all wrong – the data was showing the troposphere was actually cooling. This didn’t help their argument. They then noticed the satellite drift and made “adjustments” to allow for it.

Given the above I wouldn’t stake 50 quid on the reliability of even the satellite data, after its been:
•massaged to convert to temperature
•massaged to homogenise
•massaged to allow for sensor deterioration
•massaged to allow for satellite drift

Amazulu

massaged to f**k over the middle class yet again. Carbon tax is socialist wealth redistribution by another name.

slapphead_otool

I do think that the green movement, which sprang from a defeated and discredited communist and socialist left, have leapt upon the Climate Change as the means and mechanism with which to carry out their insane policies.

This is one of the reasons why many climate change evangelists are so reluctant to accept any disagreement with their argument. It is a means to their end.

Lets be honest – If you really cared about the planet the first place you would start would be a reduction in the population.

JoeBloggs80

AND THEY WANT TO EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Only if they are 98% carbon free, with no added sugar.