US to pull out of Paris accord.

[Kalimantan Gull]

You may have stated your position which you are entitled to hold. That doesn't mean to say it's correct. It's your opinion and the opinion of articles which you have read.

Regarding the hiatus, it was not choosing 1998 as a start point, the start position was the current date (and this of course was always moving forward), and the hiatus was how far back could they go from the CURRENT DAY with no discernible warming. It reached over 18 years.

I'll say that again. The START DATE was not in the past, it was always the CURRENT date going backwards. There was no cherry picking. I hope you can understand that process. Go from now backwards. So, in Jan 2012, the start point was Jan 2012. In Dec 2012, the start point was Dec 2012.

Its maths, not opinion, and fundamentally you are wrong. The sceptics actually tried to find out how far back they could go from present day until they found a point from which there was no discernable warming. They had to go back to the 1998 spike to find that. If they went back to just 2005, they would have found warming. If they went back to 1999, they would have found warming. If they went a bit further, back to 1997, they would have found warming. 1998 was an arbitary year chosen because that spike flattened the trend line. The start point, whether Jan 2012 or Dec 2012, was irrelevant. They needed 1998 as an arbitrary date (plus had to use satellite data only, and I'm not sure they even corrected it properly, but those are just compounding issues on top of the arbitrary date range)

Can I ask you again, whats your motivation in being a climate sceptic?

 

[Seagull27]

I really need to get up to speed on the issue of CO2 emissions but here's where I'm at and why I find it so confusing:

We read about the success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol to reduced CFCs and now the Ozone hole is closing and will be closed within decades. The Climate Change websites make a big deal about this and rightly so and I've seen more than one quote data that NASA has provided proving all this. However, NASA also recently produced data about the ice caps and how since 2012, they've been increasing. The aforementioned websites when talking about ice caps either don't acknowledge the NASA data as credible or don't mention it at all. They all believe the ice caps still to be melting and at an alarming rate and state this with some compelling evidence - tracking polar bear movements, David Attenborough showing examples of glacier regions photographed by Shackleton compared to now etc etc.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just genuinely confused. I've no idea whether the ice caps are melting or not. And in just trying to find out I get increasingly suspicious of vested interests on all sides. Hence my original ask about a site, a book or a person who can present the case for and against fairly.

This is an interesting phenomenon. A quick Google shows a few suggestions from scientists as to why Antarctic sea ice isn't receding (and it is only Antarctica sea ice that is growing - Arctic ice and glacial ice is melting):

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming

https://www.ecowatch.com/whats-going-on-in-antarctica-is-the-ice-melting-or-growing-1882118412.html

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-growing-in-a-warming-world/

I'm no expert, but it appears to be something to do with local weather and climate that is influencing Antarctica recently. But again, it's important to look at the bigger picture and not get caught up with small variations in short time frames. And just because we can't explain all the details, or doesn't mean the original theory is rubbish.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

[larus]

Just because predictive models aren't accurate, it doesn't mean that past trends, with factual evidence, can be ignored. It's also a case of interpreting margin of error in the models - they may not get the numbers right, but general trends may be

On your point about the logarithmic increase; this article explains why it is still a problem far better than I can: https://skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html

And finally, whilst an increase in CO2 will temporarily increase plant growth, it is established that this effect diminishes as concentrations increase further, and other issues with the increase in CO2 will have more powerful detrimental effects.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

Let's see how well they are doing based on projections and measurements shall we?



With respect, it's not 'settled science'. Science is never settled, nor should it ever be. It should never be scared of being questioned and challenged, but the whole Global Warming is cult like IMO.

 

[larus]

This is an interesting phenomenon. A quick Google shows a few suggestions from scientists as to why Antarctic sea ice isn't receding (and it is only Antarctica sea ice that is growing - Arctic ice and glacial ice is melting):

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming

https://www.ecowatch.com/whats-going-on-in-antarctica-is-the-ice-melting-or-growing-1882118412.html

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-growing-in-a-warming-world/

I'm no expert, but it appears to be something to do with local weather and climate that is influencing Antarctica recently. But again, it's important to look at the bigger picture and not get caught up with small variations in short time frames. And just because we can't explain all the details, or doesn't mean the original theory is rubbish.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

But this is the problem with global warming. There was a period of warming of about 20 years, then a hiatus of 18 years and now a blip due to the large El Niño.

1979 was the end of a cold period - just think about the effects in the Arctic from the cold period. What will have happendee to Arctic Sea ice during this cold period? So comparing sea ice when there's been warming to the measurements at the end of a period when there had been cooling is insane.

 

[Seagull27]

Let's see how well they are doing based on projections and measurements shall we?

View attachment 85944

With respect, it's not 'settled science'. Science is never settled, nor should it ever be. It should never be scared of being questioned and challenged, but the whole Global Warming is cult like IMO.

I completely agree, science is never settled. And if a scientist managed to find hard evidence that climate change was not happening, or even that it was happening but not caused by us, then it would challenge scientific consensus. If more research backed it up, consensus would be changed.

But so far, there is no hard evidence that climate change is not happening, yet there is an awful lot that supports it. The best that skeptics have is to challenge the accuracy of some studies, but never to be able to provide evidence of the opposite. What evidence is presented is almost always easily refuted by science that is already known.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

[NooBHA]

Away from the climate change issue on this. He won't be able to drive this through.

''Big Business'' who I have a distaste for I must add will challenge it in the coming months because they need to sell themselves globally and it will affect Revenue in the US due to this policy. The man is mad he can't even realise that these large companies in the US will be unable to sell overseas at the same level as they currently do, if they pull out of this, thus affecting the levels of income coming into the US.

 

[Seagull27]

But this is the problem with global warming. There was a period of warming of about 20 years, then a hiatus of 18 years and now a blip due to the large El Niño.

1979 was the end of a cold period - just think about the effects in the Arctic from the cold period. What will have happendee to Arctic Sea ice during this cold period? So comparing sea ice when there's been warming to the measurements at the end of a period when there had been cooling is insane.

But the effects and variations of the short periods you describe - whether they are one year or 20 year periods - are miniscule compared to the bigger trends over the last 150 years. That's what we mean by saying look at the bigger picture. Small variations happen because of all sorts of cycles and events. It's the larger, more general trends that are of concern.

If we have an extremely cold year next year, that doesn't mean global warming is a lie. If we have an extremely hot year, it also doesn't support it. Even if the next 5 years in a row are the hottest or coldest we've had in 10 years, this doesn't back up or go against global warming. However, if there was a trend over the next, say, 50-100 years in either direction, then that is convincing evidence.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

[larus]

Its maths, not opinion, and fundamentally you are wrong. The sceptics actually tried to find out how far back they could go from present day until they found a point from which there was no discernable warming. They had to go back to the 1998 spike to find that. If they went back to just 2005, they would have found warming. If they went back to 1999, they would have found warming. If they went a bit further, back to 1997, they would have found warming. 1998 was an arbitary year chosen because that spike flattened the trend line. The start point, whether Jan 2012 or Dec 2012, was irrelevant. They needed 1998 as an arbitrary date (plus had to use satellite data only, and I'm not sure they even corrected it properly, but those are just compounding issues on top of the arbitrary date range)

Can I ask you again, whats your motivation in being a climate sceptic?

It was how far back they could go always from the start date. Yes, if there was a peak in a certain year, but by regressing further this was eliminated, then the premise is still valid, as over that 18 year period from the 'current' start date, there was no warming, just peaked and troughs, which in a chaotic system is not unexpected.

I have no agenda. I have no motive. As I have stated already on this thread and others, I used to believe in Global Warming, but then I started to read a lot more beyond the stuff on the BBC etc and I changed my mind.

Don't get me wrong - I am not denying that temperatures rose at the end of the last century. I dispute the 'cast iron' link between a 20 year increase in temperatures and an increase in CO2. In the past when temperatures on the planet have risen, CO2 lags temperature. So, is this effect what we are seeing the same? Warming oceans, leading to an outgassing of CO2?

The models fail, yet, if we question this, we get accused of being a denier with all of the implications linked to the holocaust deniers. Yes, that is why a lot of people use that word (but I appreciate you use of skeptic).

The climate is so complicated with so many things which impact it, yet there is a blind deviotiuon that it must be down to an increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere from 287/1,000,000 to 400/1,000,000. It's now at 4 parts per 10,000.

Water vapour is much more of a green house gas than CO2, yet that never gets discussed.

 

[larus]

Anyway, I'm outta here now. Too late for me

 

[larus]

Away from the climate change issue on this. He won't be able to drive this through.

''Big Business'' who I have a distaste for I must add will challenge it in the coming months because they need to sell themselves globally and it will affect Revenue in the US due to this policy. The man is mad he can't even realise that these large companies in the US will be unable to sell overseas at the same level as they currently do, if they pull out of this, thus affecting the levels of income coming into the US.

That's the issue. Obama didn't drive it through; it was an executive order. So, as the new POTUS, he can issue another executive order. Nothing big business can do IMO.

 

[Seagull27]

In the past when temperatures on the planet have risen, CO2 lags temperature. So, is this effect what we are seeing the same? Warming oceans, leading to an outgassing of CO2?

No - as I stated before, we can trace the extra CO2 that is in our atmosphere since the 19th century to come from fossil fuels, using comparisons of isotope ratios of various carbon sources.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

[Albion my Albion]

The Americans feel they have been shouldering much more of the cost of all these economic and earth promoting unions for far too long and Trump was the wildcard that says "pay up."

The real question is what are we and the other Euro powers going to do about it.

 

[Albion my Albion]

No doubt I'll be called all sorts names now lol

Embrace it and laugh 2 centimeters from their noses!

 

[knocky1]

Away from the climate change issue on this. He won't be able to drive this through.

''Big Business'' who I have a distaste for I must add will challenge it in the coming months because they need to sell themselves globally and it will affect Revenue in the US due to this policy. The man is mad he can't even realise that these large companies in the US will be unable to sell overseas at the same level as they currently do, if they pull out of this, thus affecting the levels of income coming into the US.

Absolutely. This would be detrimental to US corporations, as you say. On a plus side the US , non fossil fuel, energy industry is likely to continue to trade and compete globally. This despite China and India being given a massive boost.
US states should still Fight for pollution control.
He wants to open coal mines at home to provide work for US workers. Is that economically viable? Wouldn't he have to nationalise the coal industry for the second time in US history to do this?
He comes across as an ignorant dinosaur on the Paris Accord, mixing up global and globalisation.

 

[pb21]

To any sceptics/deniers can you answer these questions:

1. Why does the theory of climate change exist in the first place?

2. Why do the vast majority of those who are suitably qualified and informed agree with the general principal and scientific theory?

3. Why do the vast majority of states accept the general principal and scientific theory, and why have they implemented schemes and measures etc. to reduce the impact?

4. Why do you choose to believe the sceptical side, after all I presume you don't think climate change is proven and therefore on the same basis cannot think that it is proven that it doesn't exist.

5. If climate change is proven to exist, how do you think it should be tackled?

 

[Munkfish]

I used to be a big believer in Global Warming, but I am not convinced of the impact by man. I read a lot on WattsUpWithThat, but it is a skeptical site, but some of the posters are very knowledgeable about a huge range of subjects. What I like is that they will engage in debate and not ban posters/delete comments which are pro global warming,

I'm not saying the the climate didn't warm through the 80's/90's, but there are major natural cycles (AMO PDO, Solar Cycles) etc. yet these are totally excluded. The models consistently overestimate warming.

I know I'm going to get slated, but I am not convinced. Oh, and maybe do a little research on where this mythical 97% stat comes from.

Some questions I have:
If the increase in CO2 is purely down to man, then as the bulk of emissions have come in the last 20-30 years, why is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere not accelerating? If the answer is it's natural, then how much of the increase is natural?
If the level of CO2 is higher now than it was in the 80's, why was there a hiatus for 18 years (based on satellite figures and not land based thermometers). The hiatus was only broken by the recent El-Nino.

No doubt I'll be called all sorts names now lol

I do not know enough to say either way, I am not fully convinced that we are fully responsible as I dont believe there are enough years of data.

However what I do believe is we should try and do something about it for future generations just in case and as a species with need to be more ethical towards our approach to things.

In addition to this I am all for any new types of green eco friendly technology it is insane that we have not moved away from burning things to fuel and power our everyday lives.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

It was how far back they could go always from the start date. Yes, if there was a peak in a certain year, but by regressing further this was eliminated, then the premise is still valid, as over that 18 year period from the 'current' start date, there was no warming, just peaked and troughs, which in a chaotic system is not unexpected.

I have no agenda. I have no motive. As I have stated already on this thread and others, I used to believe in Global Warming, but then I started to read a lot more beyond the stuff on the BBC etc and I changed my mind.

Don't get me wrong - I am not denying that temperatures rose at the end of the last century. I dispute the 'cast iron' link between a 20 year increase in temperatures and an increase in CO2. In the past when temperatures on the planet have risen, CO2 lags temperature. So, is this effect what we are seeing the same? Warming oceans, leading to an outgassing of CO2?

The models fail, yet, if we question this, we get accused of being a denier with all of the implications linked to the holocaust deniers. Yes, that is why a lot of people use that word (but I appreciate you use of skeptic).

The climate is so complicated with so many things which impact it, yet there is a blind deviotiuon that it must be down to an increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere from 287/1,000,000 to 400/1,000,000. It's now at 4 parts per 10,000.

Water vapour is much more of a green house gas than CO2, yet that never gets discussed.

Well if you don't have an agenda then you certainly have some bias, is it just an aversion to the idea of climate change, or a devils advocate approach? If you have 100 pieces of information, of which 98 point towards human-caused global warming, 2 point the other way, is it rationale to focus on the 2 and argue away the 98? Of course this is incredibly complicated stuff, we don't have other planets with which to compare. The models frequently fail, but that is no reason to discard the underlying data.

A few points - CO2 levels in excess of 400ppm - you say its small but the last time we can record levels of CO2 this high in the atmosphereis over 20 million years ago, some 19 million years before man turned up on the planet. It isn't insignificant.

Yes, water vapour is a major pat of global warming (although as it rains out within a few days it doesn't have the long-term effects of CO2 or methane). Methane is also a problem, perhaps more so than CO2. H2O doesn't get discussed as much as CO2, you;re right, although trust that the scientists have it in their models

The 'pause' is not a result of natural peaks and troughs at all and that is a terrible way to look at those data. There is an underlying steady increase in temperatures and CO2 levels owing to burning of fossil fuels etc., and while that fluctuates that is a steady unbroken rise. Overlying that rise are two dramatic peaks because of burning of tropical peatlands primarily in Indonesia during El Nino years, in 1998 and 2015. When you overlay the two graphs you get the observed effect.

If you like reading about this, please look into those peatland and forest fires more, they were absolutely terrible. This is in many ways the frontline against global warming and very little is being done about it, this is where I work and my field of study, and indeed most of my work is trying to stop these fires and restore the peatlands. Its a dreadful situation and all this fiddling about with carbon taxes and so on on petrol is absolutely pathetic and completely the wrong way to tackle this issue.

 

[narly101]

What a ****ing idiot. Puts all of our election arguments into perspective a little; at least we don't have anyone ignorant nor selfish enough to have such little consideration for the rest of the planet.

Though it is depressing how the climate issue is (and probably always will be) only on the peripherals of political discussions. Needs far more attention and action in this country and worldwide.

My sentiments exactly. It's also one of the reasons why May has lost credibility with me after jumping in bed with the coal and gas industry, and trodden roughshod over renewable energy.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I do not know enough to say either way, I am not fully convinced that we are fully responsible as I dont believe there are enough years of data.

However what I do believe is we should try and do something about it for future generations just in case and as a species with need to be more ethical towards our approach to things.

In addition to this I am all for any new types of green eco friendly technology it is insane that we have not moved away from burning things to fuel and power our everyday lives.

Exactly! Even if you don't believe in climate change, reducing our reliance on burning stuff and releasing CO2 has to be a goal, it is just logic, common sense, health, pollution, climate change, so many benefits with developing the clean renewable technologies we have. Has to be a technology goal doesn't it? We have the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system lighting us up every day delivering 1000watts per square meter each day. 1% of the Sahara desert as solar could power the world.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Climate change aside, the use of renewable forms of energy production is the here and now and him pulling out of this deal means burning more gas and oil which is economically illiterate.