Global warming - What's your "opinion"?

[portlock seagull]

We still on for promotion tho?

Be just our luck WW3 breaks out and the Leagues are postponed in late March.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The world has been pumping crap into the atmosphere for the last 300 years or so, to think it will not have an effect is a bit barmy.

The WORLD has been evolving for 4500 million years, to think we know it all right now might be a little presumptuous, Galileo was a nutter once......

 

[larus]

My opinion doesn't matter when facts speak for themselves.

Them ice caps are melting....

Hmm, appears that NASA doesn't agree with you.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

and

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

But, hey-ho, keep trotting out the main-stream media bias and don't do any reading.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

I 100% think it's man made and believe the science behind it, but maybe in 200 years people will look and laugh at us, just like we do for people thinking the earth was flat.

Until science tells me otherwise, I'm in.

 

[larus]

Jesus. This displays an utterly shocking level of ignorance about environmental study and science as a whole.

PS Is it really true you work in healthcare metrics?

Karl et al (the recent NOAA 'pause-busting data) has been debunked as unreliable, failure to adhere to the NOAA standards and cannot be reproduced by others as the software and data have been lost! WTF.

I know you're a tree-hugging, left-wing, green zealot, but try reading about the subject beyond the scope of the guardian and MSM.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

She has her own wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry.

Excerpt :

Curry was a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[8] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[8][9] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[8][10]

Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[8][10] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[11][12] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[13]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[14] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[15] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[16] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[16]

So, with respect, when idiots start saying that the science is settled, yet people who understand this in far more detail than you or I say there are many unanswered questions, I know who I will back.

 

[GT49er]

Scientists have only just discovered things and it keeps happening they also get proven wrong........

Another point to note is that Science (until the mid 1990s) could not explain or accept the notion of a rouge wave at sea for example,a wave 100feet high,they do now.....they might 100 years from now explain and accept the notion that climate change is after all complete in it's natural causes.

Yes, having to accept the existence of rouge waves must have left them all with red faces...........................................

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The scientists are right or are they driven by a shady leftist agenda

I'm a scientist, and for me a hypothesis is worthless if it cannot be tested. The only way to test a hypothesis about global warming is to change something, show it changes something else, then reverse the change and show the secoind thing change back. In fact yiu should really repeat the experiment several times to make sure the changes were not 'chance'. Clearly this cannot be undertaken wrt global warming.

The reason I voted for the middle option is that historically we have either been heading towards global warming or an ice age, and the evidence suggests the former. However the reason I am skeptical that it is man made is that the changes in temperature over the last few hundred years are quite small compared with the huge swings that have repeatedly put us into warming or ice. As the temperature increases,therefore, it may have a man made component or not.

If you focus on the last 150 years, since the Industrial revolution, you can plot some warming that of course correlates nicely with increasing global population, greenhouse gasses etc. But it would be bizarre if this were not the case, even if there were no cause-effect relationship. Thus, population and greenhouse gases have increase in 150 years, and temperature has increased. Cause and effect? The timescale is far too short to tell, and the changes too small for me to care, really.

Do I recycle etc? Yes, because it is no skin off my nose, and I certainly don't like the look or smell of landfill full of nondecomposing shite. Do I think we should move way from fossil fuels? Yes - they are running out. Am I in favour of green energy, low energy light bulbs etc? Of course - why waste energy? Do I worry about plants and animals becoming extinct because of climate change? No. It has happened many times before and will happen time and time again. And by the way I think the biologists who have discovered and revived some bacteria frozen for millenia are stark raving bonkers. We have made small pox virtually extinct and, I am sorry tree-huggers. I am positively delighted about that.

Happy to be persuaded that we are causing global warming to an extent that really matters, and that I should personally be doing more, but it will take some pretty convincing argument, backed up with proper experimental evidence (rather than regression analysis and hot air).

 

[beorhthelm]

I 100% think it's man made and believe the science behind it, but maybe in 200 years people will look and laugh at us, just like we do for people thinking the earth was flat.

upto 120 years ago the consensus was everything moved through the aether, despite increasingly the emprical evidence conflicted with that. once it was proven to be wrong, science came up with new theory about the underpinnings of the universe and went onto great discoveries. earlier work assuming aether didnt disapear, it was still valid, just had better explaination. but these days your called ignorant if you support the scientific method.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Look at what's happened between 1917 and 2017. In 100 years we've gone a long,long way to fecking the planet. Another 100 years of this isn't sustainable. I despair for my grandchildren.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

All of the IPCC models have failed. They all predict a level of warming which we are just not seeing.

Before we had the last intense El-Nino (2015/16), there had been a hiatus with no warming trend for over 18 years. This was only broken by the strong El-Nino which has now ended, and temperatures are dropping back rapidly.

If CO2 was such an impact, then logically, as the level has got higher YOU WOULD EXPECT THE RATE OF WARMING TO INCREASE, but it's not. As I said, the hiatus in warming was 18 years and was only broken by the strong El-Nino.

........

Ffs, the climate is so frigging complex we don't understand it, yet a small change from 0.0287% to 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to wipe-out man.

One last point. CO2 is plant food and there has been a greening of the plant as CO2 has increased in the atmosphere.

Cold kills more people every year than heat, we should be grateful for any warming we get. Look at vegetation in cold parts of the world and then think of the tropics (don't say deserts as this is down to no rain, but if the planet warms then there will more moisture in the air leading to more rain).

Er, no. The Antarctic land mass is gaining ice. Also, in 2015 the Antarctic sea ice extent was at its HIGHEST level record in the satellite era. With the left-wing/green agenda we don't hear facts like this.

Hi Larus. About a year ago you posted many of these claims on here and I showed you why you were wrong. Its a shame you didn't take that in as I spent a long time researching and posting the information.

So, I'm happy to engage in debate, but before I do so again, do you mind just letting us know your agenda here, why are you so determined to argue against global warming?

cheers.

PS. On the Antarctic sea ice, the issue actually appears to be the hole in the ozone layer which has increased polar winds which is dragging cold air out over the sea and expanding the extent of winter sea ice. Global warming might have something to do with these winds. But climate effects don't work uniformally all over the world. Globally the earth is losing 35,000 sq km of sea ice per year. But I'm sure you knew that as you've raised the issue of sea ice in several places on this thread. Please don't be disingenuous with facts just to fill an agenda

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Look at what's happened between 1917 and 2017. In 100 years we've gone a long,long way to fecking the planet. Another 100 years of this isn't sustainable. I despair for my grandchildren.

The trajectory is totally the opposite in fact. I note the knicker wetting recently about London's unbreathable air. It may have had some ozone in it and statistically asthma attacks were up. Now try a lungfull of this air from around the time I was born:



You don't see anything like this, ever, in the UK these days. It won't take long before the Chinese and Indians buy into the clean air agenda. Nothing to see here. You grandchildren will be fine.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Look at what's happened between 1917 and 2017. In 100 years we've gone a long,long way to fecking the planet. Another 100 years of this isn't sustainable. I despair for my grandchildren.

Agree-
It's not,some of the things that have happened have been atrocious to say the least,yet at the same time mother nature will (after many many) hours of consideration recover,things might be a bit rough-it does not make it right and attitudes need still to change.

This is one are we could/should look at close to home-far more damage done by the average damaged peat bog than the many cars in our cities.. http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/peatlands

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

The trajectory is totally the opposite in fact. I note the knicker wetting recently about London's unbreathable air. It may have had some ozone in it and statistically asthma attacks were up. Now try a lungfull of this air from around the time I was born:

View attachment 82324

You don't see anything like this, ever, in the UK these days. It won't take long before the Chinese and Indians buy into the clean air agenda. Nothing to see here. You grandchildren will be fine.

Meanwhile China has a smog cloud 1200 miles across http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-35129258

Check it out AWFUL & SCARY here in this video https://www.theguardian.com/weather...owed-by-smog-cloud-in-timelapse-footage-video

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

The trajectory is totally the opposite in fact. I note the knicker wetting recently about London's unbreathable air. It may have had some ozone in it and statistically asthma attacks were up. Now try a lungfull of this air from around the time I was born:

View attachment 82324

You don't see anything like this, ever, in the UK these days. It won't take long before the Chinese and Indians buy into the clean air agenda. Nothing to see here. You grandchildren will be fine.

I really hope you're right

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I really hope you're right

So do I!

 

[beorhthelm]

The trajectory is totally the opposite in fact. I note the knicker wetting recently about London's unbreathable air. It may have had some ozone in it and statistically asthma attacks were up.

the recent air quality deterioration was brought on by sustained high pressure bringing over polluted air from the continent. all that industry in Germany isnt emitting fairy dust. and long term problems in cities are with the soot from diesels, heavily pushed in europe to reduce CO2 output. fortunatly seems the Chinese, experiencing the problems of smog, are already getting on to cleaner energy with renewables and nuclear.

 

[larus]

Hi Larus. About a year ago you posted many of these claims on here and I showed you why you were wrong. Its a shame you didn't take that in as I spent a long time researching and posting the information.

So, I'm happy to engage in debate, but before I do so again, do you mind just letting us know your agenda here, why are you so determined to argue against global warming?

cheers.

PS. On the Antarctic sea ice, the issue actually appears to be the hole in the ozone layer which has increased polar winds which is dragging cold air out over the sea and expanding the extent of winter sea ice. Global warming might have something to do with these winds. But climate effects don't work uniformally all over the world. Globally the earth is losing 35,000 sq km of sea ice per year. But I'm sure you knew that as you've raised the issue of sea ice in several places on this thread. Please don't be disingenuous with facts just to fill an agenda

I have no agenda.

I don't disagree that there was a small increase in temperatures at the end of the last century.

I don't dispute that CO2 has increased.

However, all of the predictions about hurricanes/tornados/IPCC models etc have been wrong.

The arctic has had times in the past (early in the last century) when it's been navigatable during the summer due to lower levels of sea ice (and that would have been without sonar and satellite technology to help.

Regarding the Antarctic, just another theory to explain something which is contra to the global warming debate.

In the proxy historical temperature datasets over hundreds of thousands of years, there is evidence that temperature changes LEADS CO2 changes, not the other way around. This was even evident in the charts on Al Gores propaganda film but was conveniently overlooked.

Good science should be able to make predictions and then measure. If what you measure fails (as per he climate models), then go bask and reasses. Science should be about questioning - the science is not settled (and if you read links in post 65 re Judith Curry) you will see there are some eminent.climate scientists who are sceptical.

 

[Bakero]

Karl et al (the recent NOAA 'pause-busting data) has been debunked as unreliable, failure to adhere to the NOAA standards and cannot be reproduced by others as the software and data have been lost! WTF.

I know you're a tree-hugging, left-wing, green zealot, but try reading about the subject beyond the scope of the guardian and MSM.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

She has her own wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry.

Excerpt :

Curry was a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[8] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[8][9] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[8][10]

Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[8][10] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[11][12] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[13]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[14] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[15] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[16] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[16]

So, with respect, when idiots start saying that the science is settled, yet people who understand this in far more detail than you or I say there are many unanswered questions, I know who I will back.

Why do you believe Judith Curry but ignore the other climate scientists?

 

[rogersix]

The WORLD has been evolving for 4500 million years, to think we know it all right now might be a little presumptuous, Galileo was a nutter once......

no, he was a blasphemer

 

[BadFish]

Reminds me of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ