Talking about hysteria...
Mar 17th 2009, 11:23 am
#46
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Ilukapool. WA
Posts: 12,467
Re: Talking about hysteria...
Mar 17th 2009, 12:04 pm
#47
Demi-God
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Talking about hysteria...
[QUOTE=Notts_bloke;7390808]
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...soffice/myths/
QUOTE]
You'll need to look at the Met Office's pdf while you go through this:
Ok, let's take this fact sheet fact by fact.
Fact 1. Agree. Nobody argues that the climate is warming, nor is there an argument that CO2 emissions contribute to warming. The issue is how much the CO2 emissions contribute. The top part of figure one, the green line, is based on a mathematical model. Not on fact.
Fact 2. A bit of a double handed argument. They say that you can't assess climate on the basis of a mere ten years, but then they base almost their entire argument on a fifty year period. If the climate continues to cool, as it has since 2001, what will they say then? But we know the Earth is warming. This isn't disputed. The rate of warming is the issue. They also say that there has been an unprecedented rise in temperature in the last fifty years. Let's look at that. According to their own graph (Figure one, black line) the temperature rose about 0.4°C between 1960 and 2009 (that's a rate of 0.008 per year). According to the same graph on their own fact sheet the temperature rose 0.8°C between 1905 and 1945 at a rate of 0.02 per year. So not only is the warming in the last fifty years not unprecedented it is not even 50% of the rate of the fastest warming period in the last 100 years (a time, when there was very low output of CO2, by the way).
Fact 3. Carbon dioxide is amplifying the warming of the earth. Nobody disputes this. By how much though? No information here.
Fact 4. “Changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years, increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy. “ This is patent nonsense. If the sun goes out, will the earth continue to warm? Perhaps they mean “observed changes in the Sun's energy”. Fuzzy writing like this is the primary problem with the argument they are trying to put forward. What the graph shows, by the way, is that the sun has been outputting considerably more energy in the latter half of the 20th century than it put out in the first half. And as we've alreadydiscussed, the most rapid warming period of the last 100 years was at a time when both the sun's energy and the C2 output was low. Or, perhaps, this was a time when CO2 had an effect, which has now disipated? This doesn't invalidate the argument that recent warming is due to primarily the sun.
Fact 5. Depends on how good their model is, since this “fact” is based on it. They obviously don't have much confidence in it themselves since the range of possibilities they present is 1.5-6°C. Against a normal range of 0.5 per hundred years this is a potential error of around 300%. Would you pay to have you car fixed if they said there was a 1 in 300 chance of the repair being successful? By the way, the green line on this chart isn't very much different to what would happen naturally with a very small effect from CO2.
Fact 6. Rain? Rain? They're supposed to be talking about temperature. Doesn't their model predict temperature? And, by the way, those two images are not very similar. If I, without a computer model, was to predict the rainfall in the next year I would come up with a very similar diagram, certainly one which is as close as thier model's effort. Rain in the tropics and temperate ragions, dry in the rain shadow and desert regions. Surely no one is going to fall for this?
The myth they present:
Cosmic rays have not been used in the argument presented by the paper I linked to above, so those authors obviously agree that the cosmic ray possibility is yet to be proven as well.
This PDF does not answer either of my questions.
I'm sending this to the Met office, by the way, to see what their response is.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...soffice/myths/
QUOTE]
You'll need to look at the Met Office's pdf while you go through this:
Ok, let's take this fact sheet fact by fact.
Fact 1. Agree. Nobody argues that the climate is warming, nor is there an argument that CO2 emissions contribute to warming. The issue is how much the CO2 emissions contribute. The top part of figure one, the green line, is based on a mathematical model. Not on fact.
Fact 2. A bit of a double handed argument. They say that you can't assess climate on the basis of a mere ten years, but then they base almost their entire argument on a fifty year period. If the climate continues to cool, as it has since 2001, what will they say then? But we know the Earth is warming. This isn't disputed. The rate of warming is the issue. They also say that there has been an unprecedented rise in temperature in the last fifty years. Let's look at that. According to their own graph (Figure one, black line) the temperature rose about 0.4°C between 1960 and 2009 (that's a rate of 0.008 per year). According to the same graph on their own fact sheet the temperature rose 0.8°C between 1905 and 1945 at a rate of 0.02 per year. So not only is the warming in the last fifty years not unprecedented it is not even 50% of the rate of the fastest warming period in the last 100 years (a time, when there was very low output of CO2, by the way).
Fact 3. Carbon dioxide is amplifying the warming of the earth. Nobody disputes this. By how much though? No information here.
Fact 4. “Changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years, increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy. “ This is patent nonsense. If the sun goes out, will the earth continue to warm? Perhaps they mean “observed changes in the Sun's energy”. Fuzzy writing like this is the primary problem with the argument they are trying to put forward. What the graph shows, by the way, is that the sun has been outputting considerably more energy in the latter half of the 20th century than it put out in the first half. And as we've alreadydiscussed, the most rapid warming period of the last 100 years was at a time when both the sun's energy and the C2 output was low. Or, perhaps, this was a time when CO2 had an effect, which has now disipated? This doesn't invalidate the argument that recent warming is due to primarily the sun.
Fact 5. Depends on how good their model is, since this “fact” is based on it. They obviously don't have much confidence in it themselves since the range of possibilities they present is 1.5-6°C. Against a normal range of 0.5 per hundred years this is a potential error of around 300%. Would you pay to have you car fixed if they said there was a 1 in 300 chance of the repair being successful? By the way, the green line on this chart isn't very much different to what would happen naturally with a very small effect from CO2.
Fact 6. Rain? Rain? They're supposed to be talking about temperature. Doesn't their model predict temperature? And, by the way, those two images are not very similar. If I, without a computer model, was to predict the rainfall in the next year I would come up with a very similar diagram, certainly one which is as close as thier model's effort. Rain in the tropics and temperate ragions, dry in the rain shadow and desert regions. Surely no one is going to fall for this?
The myth they present:
Cosmic rays have not been used in the argument presented by the paper I linked to above, so those authors obviously agree that the cosmic ray possibility is yet to be proven as well.
This PDF does not answer either of my questions.
I'm sending this to the Met office, by the way, to see what their response is.
Mar 17th 2009, 12:23 pm
#48
Demi-God
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Talking about hysteria...
As for the New Scientist link you provided, I think the discussions that each has appended to it provide considerable food for thought.
Mar 17th 2009, 12:35 pm
#49
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,043
Re: Talking about hysteria...
[QUOTE=Burbage;7391167]
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...soffice/myths/
QUOTE]
You'll need to look at the Met Office's pdf while you go through this:
Ok, let's take this fact sheet fact by fact.
Fact 1. Agree. Nobody argues that the climate is warming, nor is there an argument that CO2 emissions contribute to warming. The issue is how much the CO2 emissions contribute. The top part of figure one, the green line, is based on a mathematical model. Not on fact.
Fact 2. A bit of a double handed argument. They say that you can't assess climate on the basis of a mere ten years, but then they base almost their entire argument on a fifty year period. If the climate continues to cool, as it has since 2001, what will they say then? But we know the Earth is warming. This isn't disputed. The rate of warming is the issue. They also say that there has been an unprecedented rise in temperature in the last fifty years. Let's look at that. According to their own graph (Figure one, black line) the temperature rose about 0.4°C between 1960 and 2009 (that's a rate of 0.008 per year). According to the same graph on their own fact sheet the temperature rose 0.8°C between 1905 and 1945 at a rate of 0.02 per year. So not only is the warming in the last fifty years not unprecedented it is not even 50% of the rate of the fastest warming period in the last 100 years (a time, when there was very low output of CO2, by the way).
Fact 3. Carbon dioxide is amplifying the warming of the earth. Nobody disputes this. By how much though? No information here.
Fact 4. “Changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years, increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy. “ This is patent nonsense. If the sun goes out, will the earth continue to warm? Perhaps they mean “observed changes in the Sun's energy”. Fuzzy writing like this is the primary problem with the argument they are trying to put forward. What the graph shows, by the way, is that the sun has been outputting considerably more energy in the latter half of the 20th century than it put out in the first half. And as we've alreadydiscussed, the most rapid warming period of the last 100 years was at a time when both the sun's energy and the C2 output was low. Or, perhaps, this was a time when CO2 had an effect, which has now disipated? This doesn't invalidate the argument that recent warming is due to primarily the sun.
Fact 5. Depends on how good their model is, since this “fact” is based on it. They obviously don't have much confidence in it themselves since the range of possibilities they present is 1.5-6°C. Against a normal range of 0.5 per hundred years this is a potential error of around 300%. Would you pay to have you car fixed if they said there was a 1 in 300 chance of the repair being successful? By the way, the green line on this chart isn't very much different to what would happen naturally with a very small effect from CO2.
Fact 6. Rain? Rain? They're supposed to be talking about temperature. Doesn't their model predict temperature? And, by the way, those two images are not very similar. If I, without a computer model, was to predict the rainfall in the next year I would come up with a very similar diagram, certainly one which is as close as thier model's effort. Rain in the tropics and temperate ragions, dry in the rain shadow and desert regions. Surely no one is going to fall for this?
The myth they present:
Cosmic rays have not been used in the argument presented by the paper I linked to above, so those authors obviously agree that the cosmic ray possibility is yet to be proven as well.
This PDF does not answer either of my questions.
I'm sending this to the Met office, by the way, to see what their response is.
You clearly have more time on your hands than I do.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...soffice/myths/
QUOTE]
You'll need to look at the Met Office's pdf while you go through this:
Ok, let's take this fact sheet fact by fact.
Fact 1. Agree. Nobody argues that the climate is warming, nor is there an argument that CO2 emissions contribute to warming. The issue is how much the CO2 emissions contribute. The top part of figure one, the green line, is based on a mathematical model. Not on fact.
Fact 2. A bit of a double handed argument. They say that you can't assess climate on the basis of a mere ten years, but then they base almost their entire argument on a fifty year period. If the climate continues to cool, as it has since 2001, what will they say then? But we know the Earth is warming. This isn't disputed. The rate of warming is the issue. They also say that there has been an unprecedented rise in temperature in the last fifty years. Let's look at that. According to their own graph (Figure one, black line) the temperature rose about 0.4°C between 1960 and 2009 (that's a rate of 0.008 per year). According to the same graph on their own fact sheet the temperature rose 0.8°C between 1905 and 1945 at a rate of 0.02 per year. So not only is the warming in the last fifty years not unprecedented it is not even 50% of the rate of the fastest warming period in the last 100 years (a time, when there was very low output of CO2, by the way).
Fact 3. Carbon dioxide is amplifying the warming of the earth. Nobody disputes this. By how much though? No information here.
Fact 4. “Changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years, increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy. “ This is patent nonsense. If the sun goes out, will the earth continue to warm? Perhaps they mean “observed changes in the Sun's energy”. Fuzzy writing like this is the primary problem with the argument they are trying to put forward. What the graph shows, by the way, is that the sun has been outputting considerably more energy in the latter half of the 20th century than it put out in the first half. And as we've alreadydiscussed, the most rapid warming period of the last 100 years was at a time when both the sun's energy and the C2 output was low. Or, perhaps, this was a time when CO2 had an effect, which has now disipated? This doesn't invalidate the argument that recent warming is due to primarily the sun.
Fact 5. Depends on how good their model is, since this “fact” is based on it. They obviously don't have much confidence in it themselves since the range of possibilities they present is 1.5-6°C. Against a normal range of 0.5 per hundred years this is a potential error of around 300%. Would you pay to have you car fixed if they said there was a 1 in 300 chance of the repair being successful? By the way, the green line on this chart isn't very much different to what would happen naturally with a very small effect from CO2.
Fact 6. Rain? Rain? They're supposed to be talking about temperature. Doesn't their model predict temperature? And, by the way, those two images are not very similar. If I, without a computer model, was to predict the rainfall in the next year I would come up with a very similar diagram, certainly one which is as close as thier model's effort. Rain in the tropics and temperate ragions, dry in the rain shadow and desert regions. Surely no one is going to fall for this?
The myth they present:
Cosmic rays have not been used in the argument presented by the paper I linked to above, so those authors obviously agree that the cosmic ray possibility is yet to be proven as well.
This PDF does not answer either of my questions.
I'm sending this to the Met office, by the way, to see what their response is.
Mar 17th 2009, 12:53 pm
#50
Demi-God
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Talking about hysteria...
[QUOTE=Notts_bloke;7391259]
You have to spend time if you want to save the world.
What we need to be is correct in this. I think either way we cannot afford to make a mistake. If catastrophic global warming is being caused by carbon dioxide output we need to act. But that action may be incredibly dangerous to the stability of our society.
On the other hand if carbon dioxide is not causing catastrophic climate change we need to ensure we do not embark on a course of action that may well destory our civilisation.
Therefore we need to have the climatologists address all the arguments against their mathematical models. They are the ones who say we need action, but they have not proven their case.
For example, how have they modelled the activity of the Sun? Or are they just assuming it will maintain its current high level of activity?
What we need to be is correct in this. I think either way we cannot afford to make a mistake. If catastrophic global warming is being caused by carbon dioxide output we need to act. But that action may be incredibly dangerous to the stability of our society.
On the other hand if carbon dioxide is not causing catastrophic climate change we need to ensure we do not embark on a course of action that may well destory our civilisation.
Therefore we need to have the climatologists address all the arguments against their mathematical models. They are the ones who say we need action, but they have not proven their case.
For example, how have they modelled the activity of the Sun? Or are they just assuming it will maintain its current high level of activity?
Mar 17th 2009, 12:57 pm
#51
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Talking about hysteria...
No, we don't have 1000 years of data to prove that our current climate change is caused by humans, but lets face it - if something smells like fish, tastes like fish and looks like fish - then it's probably fish. As I say, it doesn't matter who or why it's happening; point is we have to reduce it, which we can do.
Rant over
(Perhaps the Scots would like to grow olives and grapes in Scotland again as the Romans did 2000 years ago).
Mar 18th 2009, 9:29 am
#52
Demi-God
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Talking about hysteria...
Why do we have to reduce IT?? Do you mean reduce CO2 output or climate change? Yes, it is a good idea to reduce CO2 output but, if climate change is a natural process, man is probably incapable of stopping a process that has always been occurring.
(Perhaps the Scots would like to grow olives and grapes in Scotland again as the Romans did 2000 years ago).
(Perhaps the Scots would like to grow olives and grapes in Scotland again as the Romans did 2000 years ago).
That's religion, not science.
