Climate Change Deceit & Facts.

All very interesting no doubt but still does not address the central fact that temperatures have risen to levels higher than than they are now and dropped again in cycles 5 times in relatively recent geological history. During which time man and his effect on the world has steadily increased. If man’s effect was so significant you would expect temperature to rise and continue rising, without falling, to levels many times in excess of where they are are now. Or to put it another way what caused the previous 5 rises in temperature, since man’s effect could only have been negligible at best?

“Natural” cycles caused the previous rises in temperature, as has been said many times before.

Man’s impact has only become significant in the last few hundred years.

The following comment is by no means fact and yet again focus on temperature rather than climate change as a whole: “If man’s effect was so significant you would expect temperature to rise and continue rising, without falling, to levels many times in excess of where they are are now.”

All of the above is very interesting but goes nowhere in terms of addressing the pace of climate change.

The speed of the change of state is the critical element.

A slow progessive change even if it produces a higher end state, is easier to accommodate and adapt to. A smaller total change that takes place in a compressed time span can and will cause issues.

Edit: Calm down charlie, i saw steven’s dodgy, un-referenced (and peer-reviewed?) graphs first. Don’t be jealous :p

I am still waiting for a reply to my #68 in which I asked: ” Or to put it another way what caused the previous 5 rises in temperature, since man’s effect could only have been negligible at best?”

…this period also corresponds with a large growth in: population, agriculture, urbanisation, and deforestation, all of which have had an impact on the environment; but we have enormously advanced in terms of human knowledge and welfare, we do not wish to go back to the primitive standards of pre- industrialisation, which seems to be the aim of the greens…

All of which are human impacts…
As for returning to primitive standard of living, is your objection perhaps simply about not being able to be fed a diet of mindless tv glop???
Besides which i don’t believe the changes in lifestyle being discussed do mean a return to living in mud huts; that type of claim, facetious as it is, does however make good scaremongering if one does not wish to have to accept responsibility for ones lifestyle and the impact of that on the world.

.

A few points.
1) What are the sources for your data?
2) What level of independent peer review of it has taken place?
3) Essentially you are stating that there is a large conspiracy involving a majority of scientists around the world designed to convince the populance that climate change has human elements.
4) Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hide collusion on a large scale?
5) To what ends is this conspiracy being undertaken?
6) Who gains from it?
7) Is your tin foil hat securely tied on? :p

Australian sea level data highly exaggerated

The Australian government has been accused of exaggerating sea level rises, stating that Australia will experience a one metre rise by 2100, when the evidence shows a likely rise of 0.13m, about five inches.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/26/australian-sea-level-data-highly-exaggerated-only-5-inches-by-2100/

Fig.3

Plots 2 and 3 are from tide gauge records. Plot 4 is a reconstruction of sea level changes. Plot 5 is from satellite data.

Plot 1 is the claimed sea level rise as given by the Australian government.

The authors of the report criticising the government conclude:

In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:
(1) The official Australian claim of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).
(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).
(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted.
The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future.

Steven

As for the graph i pointed out the correllation between the post blue line predictions and the actual temp as represented by the black line. A point i note you ignore. Presumably as it does not fit well with your belief.
– about only a third of the model temperatures are superficially correlated, if you look carefully

The numbers show climate change is occuring, this will be in part due to natural cycles; the numbers also show a significant increase in the last two hundred years, a time period that coincides with industrialisation.
– this period also corresponds with a large growth in: population, agriculture, urbanisation, and deforestation, all of which have had an impact on the environment; but we have enormously advanced in terms of human knowledge and welfare, we do not wish to go back to the primitive standards of pre- industrialisation, which seems to be the aim of the greens

It is only logical if the only element one is concerned for is oneself and ones immediate future. At times, such as when confronted by a bear or pack of wolves, that is a necessary human response, it would be uplifting to think that at some point the majority of the human race could raise themselves (dare one say evolve?) just slightly above this very limited and limiting viewpoint
-yes, if only the greens could raise their game by looking at observed reality and not the fantasies produced by incomplete computer models

Just a reminder of the planet’s temperature cycles where we are at a relative low point…

Steven

All very interesting no doubt but still does not address the central fact that temperatures have risen to levels higher than than they are now and dropped again in cycles 5 times in relatively recent geological history. During which time man and his effect on the world has steadily increased. If man’s effect was so significant you would expect temperature to rise and continue rising, without falling, to levels many times in excess of where they are are now. Or to put it another way what caused the previous 5 rises in temperature, since man’s effect could only have been negligible at best?

I must admit i had initially missed the implication of your temperature point.
The reference to “numbers” rather than temperature was however deliberate as i was seeking to include the output from human activity in the picture rather than a simple increase or decrease in temperature, the output has an impact on temperature but climate change is not simply about temperature.
This is the error many make in continuing to talk of “global warming” in my opinion. Climate change can also mean a decrease in temperature in certain regions.

It is however the rapid increase in temperature and other numbers which does come at the exact same time period as industrialisation which provides a corelation for me. The absolute value of the overall temperature is interesting but not necessarily significant, the pace of change is the critical (damaging?) element rather than the end state.
Just as in a car crash if we can slow the speed of the change in state to a manageable level allowing ourselves to adapt gradually to each successive state through the progress of the change then we stand a good chance; if we attempt to or are forced to move from one state to another with too much speed the outcome is going to be less favourable.

Correct me I have misunderstood your comments but you do not appear to have addressed my point but by implication you seem to accept that primitive man in small numbers has had as big effect as modern man in huge numbers. Thankfully I have no knowledge of the ducks you are familiar with.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, i’m more than likely to conclude that it is a duck.

As i said earlier none of the counter “evidence” provided to date to attempt to demonstrate no human impact on climate change shows me anything to convince me that the duck is not a duck.

As i’ve said before many of the actions advocated to address climate change would be good for the human race and adopting them would not have a negative impact other than some change being required.
Humans generally object to change and as has been pointed out will also seek to manipulate a situation for profit. Those unfortuante facts do not however diminish the argument re human impact on climate change and the actions that could be taken to address it as they exist whenever humans attempt to undertake activity.

[QUOTE=snafu352;2018316
The numbers show climate change is occuring, this will be in part due to natural cycles; the numbers also show a significant increase in the last two hundred years, a time period that coincides with industrialisation.[/QUOTE]

Exactly – your point in my italics is quite correct. Current near surface temperatures have been at these levels 5 times in the past 9,000 years. It is your second point for which there is no provable correlation.

Or more likely the above is a representation of your hopes and desires to fit in with your beliefs :rolleyes: :highly_amused:

As for the graph i pointed out the correllation between the post blue line predictions and the actual temp as represented by the black line. A point i note you ignore. Presumably as it does not fit well with your belief.

The numbers show climate change is occuring, this will be in part due to natural cycles; the numbers also show a significant increase in the last two hundred years, a time period that coincides with industrialisation. That is no co-incidence in my opinion and to date none of the “evidence” convinces me that it is.

As for bad policy and profiteering, that may well be occuring and impacting us; however to dismiss climate change and the human impact due to these negative aspects of human behaviour is not logical and verging on nutty conspiracy type of thinking in my opinion.

It is only logical if the only element one is concerned for is oneself and ones immediate future. At times, such as when confronted by a bear or pack of wolves, that is a necessary human response, it would be uplifting to think that at some point the majority of the human race could raise themselves (dare one say evolve?) just slightly above this very limited and limiting viewpoint.

All good daily fail stuff…

…On one level it’s the fear… illustrated here by many attitudes to human causes of climate change…

The graph was from the Climate Committee and the DM pointed out that it was misleading. Is that not the role of the press? Or do you prefer it that everyone meakly accepts the government’s ex cathedra proclamations?

On the issue of fear, a French philosopher, Pascal Bruckner, recently caused a storm amongst the leftists and environmentalists in France, when he published his work, ‘Fanaticism of the Apocalypse’, attacking the green movement as fearmongers. http://m.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/scorning_the_propaganda_of_fear_35NPhGM05z5vuBNPRHVobI

“I do not attack ecology per se,” Bruckner says of his book. “I attack that degraded religion which emerges from it and turns into a culture of fear, hatred of progress and well-being.
“Why must we renounce all the joys of life under the pretext of global warming?”

If even leftist philosophers are entering the debate against the scare tactics of the green doomsters, we must be getting close to the end of their fading but malevolent influence.

Steven

If it wasn’t for our ever changing weather, most wouldn’t know how to greet each other every day, Like, “Nice day today Fred”. (Note, this happens very infrequently in the U.K.as it mostly rains) 😮

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Do you know I really don’t think I can be bothered to rehearse the arguments which Snafu and others reject. We have done so here so many times in different threads.

However specifically to your last point the cost of our escalating fuel bills, which no doubt contribute to the state of GB, would have been far lower had the government not launched themselves full pelt into acceptance of AGW and the dire prognoses made and the resulting energy policy which grew out of it here and in Brussels. And you do not need to turn a page of the Daily Heil to understand the numbers. They are all on the DECC website. Frightening stuff!

.

All good daily fail stuff.

You do realise that the black line and the red lines post the blue line actually do show correllation don’t you?

If over the next decades the black line does head south or flatlines then yep, it’s all a big con or we’re all doomed there’s nothing we can do about it, take your pick of either.

The level of unsupported, head in the sand, dismissal based on “evidence” such as graphs published by the daily fail, is sad and probably does indicate that the human race will ultimately disappear up it’s own rectum due to greed and a lack of willingness to change.

Somebody posted a thread asking the question what’s wrong with GB?
On one level it’s the fear of change and lack of acceptance that things cannot always be the same that has dragged Britain down; neatly illustrated here by many attitudes to human causes of climate change.

Lincoln -I think its a good plan ! We are being taxed for wind farms -the more they put up the more free energy the companies get and eventually they can give us all free electricity as it won’t cost anything to produce according to them ! There is only one drawback ! We will only be able to have free electricity on windy days!

More’s the pity they didn’t see sense about 10 years ago before setting in train one of the most money wasting scandals in post-war history.

http://www.energytribune.com/75990/margaret-thatcher-global-warming-provides-a-marvelous-excuse-for-global-socialism

This is a timely article on the late Lady Thatcher and the global warming issue.

Even the EU now has doubts about AGW.

The EU is seeing the error of their ways. “The European Environment Agency said, in 2011, the assumption “that biomass combustion would be inherently carbon neutral…is not correct…as it ignores the fact that using land to produce plants for energy typically means that this land is not producing plants for other purposes, including carbon otherwise sequestered.”

Some realism at last from the EU.

Steven

They’re unlikely to be Gary’s size, Jim. Fair’s fair.

Good point Lance, “Gary, your a tight old git, get your dogs some doggie wellies”
(Lance said. 😀 )

Jim.
Lincoln .7

They’re unlikely to be Gary’s size, Jim. Fair’s fair.

😀 LOL .My wellies are also designed for sheep with my velcro glov- – – – – -:diablo:

Well someone enjoys the snow