The Great Global Warming Swindle

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

P.S. I notice you didn't make any note on Scribbler's "irrelevant" comment.

A note to all: the next person to comment on moderation in-thread will be infracted. If you have an issue with moderation, take it to the Help Desk.

Mahatma coat

3 Simple but relevant Questions

Did the Vikings Colonise Greenland?

Is it possible to Colonise Greenland today?

With Medieval Technology?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it possible to reconstruct a global temperature record from paintings?

of course not, but they and other items of history can give an insight into the general climate of area's around the world, which is a strong indicator when compared to recent history.....

i would say just as reliable as tree ring data.....

djpbarry wrote: »

There is evidence for a lot of things, but there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the supposed Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, for the obvious reason that a global instrumental temperature record does not exist for that period of time.

Am I to assume by this comment that since proper global temp aren't available prior to roughly 1850, your whole basis of climate change is and review is to be based on 160 years worth of data??? cause anything before doesn't have a proper global instrumental temp record...

Akrasia

probe wrote: »

2. Even if CO2 has some part to play in the equation, it doesn’t really matter what Ireland or the rest of Europe does to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions – because China, India, the rest of Asia and North America will continue to suck up all the carbon based fuels on the planet to grow their economies.

To grow their economies, which are largely export based, selling disposable crap to the west?
This objection about china increasing their pollution is so twofaced it's not funny. A sisable chunk of their emissions are directly to service our wasteful lifestyle.

3. The only positive thing that Ireland and the rest of Europe can do is develop a mass market in renewable technologies which lowers the cost of renewable energy based systems. Germany is the only country to have made a dent in this direction. Make fossil fuels obsolete before they are used up.

This ought to be the strategy, develop alternative infrastructure that can allow us to develop but without excessive harm to the environment. However, this would require a major re-think of world trade regulations and competition law. We would need to tax polluting activities and subsidise cleaner alternatives (should be revenue neutral).
In the meantime we also need to participate in the global diplomatic efforts to agree carbon reduction strategies. If we believe the science, the overwhelming consesus is that we have only a few years to reduce emissions before we get into tipping point territory when the damage will be irreversible. Could you look your grandchildren in the eye and say you supported intransigence and me-feinism in the crucial negotiations to save the world?

4. EU initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are simply bureaucrats **ssing into the wind, if one can be so vulgar, in the global scheme of things. It will make absolutely no difference to climate change, and will cost business and consumers €zillions, to no useful end.

On their own yes, that is why we need a global agreement. That is what Copenhagen is for

Akrasia

zuutroy wrote: »

Huh? Its widely accepted that solar activity was at its highest level for several hundred years in the late 20th century.

It's also widely accepted that sun spot activity levelled off in the 70s but temperatures kept rising. This means that the sun can not have been responsible for the period of rapid temperature increases since 1975


http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

A note to all: the next person to comment on moderation in-thread will be infracted. If you have an issue with moderation, take it to the Help Desk.

Not commenting on moderation, but the first step is dispute resolution proceedure, as outlined by Tom Dunne, the help desk is a last ditch effort...
just wanted to make sure information is posted correctly

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

3 Simple but relevant Questions

Did the Vikings Colonise Greenland?

There is evidence that the south-west coast was colonised.

robtri wrote: »

of course not, but they and other items of history can give an insight into the general climate of area's around the world, which is a strong indicator when compared to recent history...

The point is they are not reliable indicators and they are certainly not a reliable means of constructing a global temperature record.

robtri wrote: »

i would say just as reliable as tree ring data...

Based on your extensive knowledge of paleoclimatology, I presume?

robtri wrote: »

Am I to assume by this comment that since proper global temp aren't available prior to roughly 1850, your whole basis of climate change is and review is to be based on 160 years worth of data??? cause anything before doesn't have a proper global instrumental temp record...

The instrumental temperature record is by far the most reliable evidence we have that the planet is, on average, warming. Obtaining an accurate measure of the climate prior to the beginning of this record would obviously be interesting, the important question is what is causing the current warming? It cannot be attributed to ‘natural variation’ simply because it may have been warmer in the past.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

T
The point is they are not reliable indicators and they are certainly not a reliable means of constructing a global temperature record.

they are not 100% reliable, agreed, as I stated they are indicators, if for example paintings of certain regions overa period of time constantly show ice and snow, it would be an indicator of a cold climate in that area. will it give tempretures or ranges of temps, NO... but it does indicate that the climat was cold over numerous/ possible decades... or potentially warm periods.

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on your extensive knowledge of paleoclimatology, I presume?

... well I am not aware of any tree rings being able to give readings as accurate as modern day thermoneters... unless I am mistaken..

djpbarry wrote: »

The instrumental temperature record is by far the most reliable evidence we have that the planet is, on average, warming. Obtaining an accurate measure of the climate prior to the beginning of this record would obviously be interesting, the important question is what is causing the current warming? It cannot be attributed to ‘natural variation’ simply because it may have been warmer in the past.

why not? if there earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, or solar activity has cycles, why can't they be responsible for some of the current warming??

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

It's also widely accepted that sun spot activity levelled off in the 70s but temperatures kept rising. This means that the sun can not have been responsible for the period of rapid temperature increases since 1975


http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

The sunspot cycle had two very high peaks late in the 20th century.

It's not like "cooking with gas", reduce the solar activity and temperatures immediatly drop - there's bound to be a lag.




I believe that the increased solar radiation would have warmed the oceans more during the periods of high activity, but because of the vast volume of the water it would take more than one "quiet" solar cycle to have any real effect on global temperatures. The 1998 El Nino came after a period of several very active sunspot cycles. the last cycle was much "quieter" relatice to those previously and yes temperatures have dropped in the past couple of years. If the next cycle is as quiet as being predeicted, we will have some very interesting discussions between advocates and sceptics.

bonkey

Isn't it notable, though, that the last chart posted - showing an apparent correlation - stops at 1980.

This is suspiciously close to when sunspot activity levelled off, but warming continued.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

The sunspot cycle had two very high peaks late in the 20th century.

It's not like "cooking with gas", reduce the solar activity and temperatures immediatly drop - there's bound to be a lag.




I believe that the increased solar radiation would have warmed the oceans more during the periods of high activity, but because of the vast volume of the water it would take more than one "quiet" solar cycle to have any real effect on global temperatures. The 1998 El Nino came after a period of several very active sunspot cycles. the last cycle was much "quieter" relatice to those previously and yes temperatures have dropped in the past couple of years. If the next cycle is as quiet as being predeicted, we will have some very interesting discussions between advocates and sceptics.

But look at the graphs, they both show declining peaks, the maximum sunspot activity was in 1975, since then, the spikes have been lower. But global temperatures have increased sharply since 1975. Unless you are suggesting that sun spots can force temperature changes with a lag of 40 years+ then your assertion that sun spots are currently driving temp increases simply does not stand up (Note, I said currently, it is not in dispute that sunspots affected temperature increases in the past, merely that since the 70s, we the correlation breaks down so there must be another factor at play.)


(edit, you must have looked at your own graph because in the time between me opening the thread and hitting reply you've since changed it to a different one)

Akrasia

bonkey wrote: »

Isn't it notable, though, that the last chart posted - showing an apparent correlation - stops at 1980.

This is suspiciously close to when sunspot activity levelled off, but warming continued.

Exactly what I was about to post.

Why stop a chart 30 years ago? Is there a mysterious dearth of records since 1980? This is exactly what Martin Durkin did in his documentary.
It's called cherrypicking data. (he also fraudulantly altered some of the graphs in the earlier edits of his film)

It's also interesting that the above graph shows that the temps tracked Sunspots without any significant delay, there was not a 10-40 year delay between the peak sunspot activity and the increases in temperatures, so the 'skeptics' need answer why the mechanism changed that sunspots had rapid effect on temps in the past, but now peaks in the 70's are somehow still driving temperatures 40 years later?

Not I also said that there would be a lag after a period of solar warming, the real question is what is causing the oceans surface temperature to rise!

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-causes-sea-surface-temperature-sst.html

This report claims that the changes are not manmade (caused by greenhouse gasses) so what could it be, the sun! If we see a couple of quiet sunspot cycles then we'll know!

Mozart1986

Akrasia wrote: »

To grow their economies, which are largely export based, selling disposable crap to the west?
This objection about china increasing their pollution is so twofaced it's not funny. A sisable chunk of their emissions are directly to service our wasteful lifestyle.

They aspire to our wasteful lifestyle.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Not I also said that there would be a lag after a period of solar warming, the real question is what is causing the oceans surface temperature to rise!

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-causes-sea-surface-temperature-sst.html

This report claims that the changes are not manmade (caused by greenhouse gasses) so what could it be, the sun! If we see a couple of quiet sunspot cycles then we'll know!

So on one hand we have a scientific position where greenhouse gasses are forcing climate change, this is very well supported by the evidence and the experts in the field. Based on this theory we need to act immediately to reduce emissions or else face catestrophic consequences.

On your side you have a theory that it might be sun spot activity, the evidence is ropey at the moment but it might be stronger if we wait 20 years for a few more sun spot cycles to pass.

If you were a policy maker and faced with these two scenarios, leaving ideology to the side, would you advocate action, or wait and see?

Mozart1986

Akrasia wrote: »

This ought to be the strategy, develop alternative infrastructure that can allow us to develop but without excessive harm to the environment. However, this would require a major re-think of world trade regulations and competition law. We would need to tax polluting activities and subsidise cleaner alternatives (should be revenue neutral).

Did you here about the idea to build a massive dam around a large glacial valley, thus allowing turbines to pump water in during winy spells, and releasing water back into the sea during calm spells. This would regulate the power in the grid. Massive project, but just wonderin' if anybody heard of it. If only we had thought about it when we weren't broke:mad::(

Akrasia

Mozart1986 wrote: »

They aspire to our wasteful lifestyle.

So?

Akrasia

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Did you here about the idea to build a massive dam around a large glacial valley, thus allowing turbines to pump water in during winy spells, and releasing water back into the sea during calm spells. This would regulate the power in the grid. Massive project, but just wonderin' if anybody heard of it. If only we had thought about it when we weren't broke:mad::(

Its called The Spirit of Ireland, they're still working on plans to develop these projects. I think its a very good idea.

They were never going to depend on government funding so the fact we're broke shouldn't be a major impediment, I would say the planning process and NIMBYISN would be the major barrier.

Mozart1986

Akrasia wrote: »

So?

Which means that their increasing carbon footprint will soon not be there to fuel the wests wasteful consumerism, which was what you were saying.

Whats NIMBYISN? Excuse my ignorance.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

they are not 100% reliable, agreed, as I stated they are indicators, if for example paintings of certain regions overa period of time constantly show ice and snow, it would be an indicator of a cold climate in that area.

It might, but the point is such indicators are highly subjective – how does one quantify “cold”, for example? In the context of scientific analysis, they are of little value in isolation.

robtri wrote: »

... well I am not aware of any tree rings being able to give readings as accurate as modern day thermoneters...

My point exactly. Even with all the different means of temperature reconstruction that have been employed to date, there is still a whole lot of uncertainty associated with multi-centennial temperature records.

robtri wrote: »

why not? if there earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, or solar activity has cycles, why can't they be responsible for some of the current warming??

Based on the available evidence, variations in solar activity are not responsible for the warming of the last few decades. As for ‘natural’ warming/cooling cycles, something must drive them (such as Milankovitch cycles). The planet cannot spontaneously warm - there must be a physical explanation. Dismissing it as ‘natural variation’ is a cop-out.

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

They aspire to our wasteful lifestyle.

This raises an interesting point, though, and its one of the primary reasons why the developed nations should take the lead, despite all these arguments that any savings we make will just be offset by the emerging giant economies.

They want our lifestyle.

They don't want our Victorian-era lifestyle, or what we had 50 years ago. They're not interested in what we had in the 80s. They want what we have today.

If we move on...its a pretty good bet that they aren't going to just say "hey...lets aspire to be like the developed nations used to be", but are instead going to continue to aspire to our lifestyle.

So while we move on, contining to be wasteful...what are we saying? We're saying "aspire to be wasteful, just like us".

What if the message we were sending was "Wasteful is sooo last decade. Its as out of style as the Model T Ford and the black-and-white TV"?

Akrasia

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Which means that their increasing carbon footprint will soon not be there to fuel the wests wasteful consumerism, which was what you were saying.

Whats NIMBYISN? Excuse my ignorance.

NIMBY =not in my back yard, ISN = typo (should have been ism)

Re consumerism, well, we'll need to sort that failed ideology out somehow.

it's just a frame of mind, Marketing and Advertising plays a massive role in social engineering. It's all negative in my opinion (I'm with Bill Hicks on this one)

If people are convinced that each new gadget is necessary to improve their lives, they're never going to find contentment. (They always promise more than they deliver, and they are always out of date as soon as you take them home from the shops.)

We can make things far too cheaply today, which is fine, accessible technology is good, but we can also throw them away far too cheaply.

A few laws could be introduced to combat disposable consumption.

one I can think of off the top of my head would be to Impose minimum standards and increase the minimum warranty for all new consumer items. eg: All electronic goods sold must include a 3 year unlimited parts and labour warranty. If your IPOD breaks in 6 months, that's because Apple didn't make it properly and they ought to repair it for free. (same for televisions white goods etc)

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

It might, but the point is such indicators are highly subjective – how does one quantify “cold”, for example? In the context of scientific analysis, they are of little value in isolation.

and I agree, they only are pointer/indicators ...... but they still indicate a certain climate at the time of the work...

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on the available evidence, variations in solar activity are not responsible for the warming of the last few decades. As for ‘natural’ warming/cooling cycles, something must drive them (such as Milankovitch cycles). The planet cannot spontaneously warm - there must be a physical explanation. Dismissing it as ‘natural variation’ is a cop-out.

your first sentence sums it up for me "based on the available evidence" exactly, there is not enough evidence to tell concluively what the cause of global warming is..

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

your first sentence sums it up for me "based on the available evidence" exactly, there is not enough evidence to tell concluively what the cause of global warming is..

Isn't that exactly why the stance, as enunciated by the IPCC is expressed in terms of a confidence range?

Mozart1986

bonkey wrote: »

This raises an interesting point, though, and its one of the primary reasons why the developed nations should take the lead, despite all these arguments that any savings we make will just be offset by the emerging giant economies.

They want our lifestyle.

They don't want our Victorian-era lifestyle, or what we had 50 years ago. They're not interested in what we had in the 80s. They want what we have today.

If we move on...its a pretty good bet that they aren't going to just say "hey...lets aspire to be like the developed nations used to be", but are instead going to continue to aspire to our lifestyle.

So while we move on, contining to be wasteful...what are we saying? We're saying "aspire to be wasteful, just like us".

What if the message we were sending was "Wasteful is sooo last decade. Its as out of style as the Model T Ford and the black-and-white TV"?

Sorry, in my humble opinion that argument won't float. They won't curb their growth because, as your argument goes, "they think we're cool!" Economic growth is more important to China than us. (If I'm wrong about that incredibly general statement then fine, but if you respond to this then respond to my reason, not my conclusion as the conclusion follows from & is apparent based upon the reason.) People idealise the Chinese method of governance, but as always, they forget that this governance is dynamic and revolves around people, not simple systems defined by code and legislature. When you view it on the human level you realise, like all societies and beaurocracies the system contains a lot of corruption and favour-begging. In growth this is all fine. The communist party control everything within and nothing outside their own boarders, but nobody minds and they accept the single party system/central executive and all of its members cast into society like a web. Basically, you could liken it to Fianna Fail, its central executive and its councilors down to the lowest rungs - except with much more power.

Everybody is content with this in growth. China has a massive consumer/middle-class population now and they are all - every last one of them - invested in the state. Look at it like this: what is the biggest trigger for Irish people to start voting? The answer has little to do with age and everything to do with their investments in the state. Sometimes they will invest themselves emotionally, as university students that become activists. Thats a complicated issue, which has a lot of relevance to the Chinese, but I'll only mention it in passing. The biggest trigger to vote is a mortgage. A mortgage means that people are invested in the system and the economy.

In recession, peoples investment suddenly looks a little less secure, and they start to compete a little for favour. So what does that mean for communist party members? It means they are culpible. Suddenly, a large amount of people want them to do this/that/d'other and those interests - in a recession far more than in growth - conflict.

So what happens? Democracy! Conflict is the birth of democracy. People think democracy is a weak system these days, but it only becomes apparent how powerful an idea it is under stress, recession and conflict. Thats why China didn't go into recession. It was a few weeks more prepared than we were because it happened here first and so they shifted their whole economy inwards to the burgeoning consumer classes of its cities. The communist party couldn't afford to go into recession lest a competing hegemony gain ground.

So that is why China will not curb its emissions. They will not risk going into recession proper, not at this moment. Maybe things will change and democracy will collapse and the alternate hegemonies will be too far behind the communist party to cause them an issue. But not now.

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Sorry, in my humble opinion that argument won't float. They won't curb their growth because, as your argument goes, "they think we're cool!"

I didn't suggest that they would. I suggested that if our lifestyle changes, why would they not want our new lifestyle?

So that is why China will not curb its emissions. They will not risk going into recession proper, not at this moment. Maybe things will change and democracy will collapse and the alternate hegemonies will be too far behind the communist party to cause them an issue. But not now.

China will curb its emissions. It has no choice. It already has a myriad of environmental problems which are (literally) crippling it economically. If it continues to scale up, these problems will grow and grow...and ultimately it will be the one to suffer. Global warming is, frankly, the least of its problems right now.

The real question is when China will do this, not if.

Its not an overnight solution. The developed world can't just change its entire structure overnight, and wave a magic wand, and by 2011 have China becoming the cleanest of the clean....but we do have to give them a lead to follow, because otherwise it will take them longer to get where we all know they have to go.

Mahatma coat

thank you for answering one of my Questions DjpBarry

want to hazzard a guess at the other two??

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

3 Simple but relevant Questions

Did the Vikings Colonise Greenland?

No, htey didn't. They established a colony on Greenland, which is signficantly different.

This colony consisted of two settlements (three, if you consider Middle Settlement to be seperate from Eastern Settlement) which were relatively close to each other.

Is it possible to Colonise Greenland today?

Given that Greenland is currently populated to a significantly higher extent then the Norse ever managed, this seems like a pointless question, to be honest.

To answer it though...No, although it would be possible to establish colonies on Greenland...as proven by the existence of colonies on Greenland.

With Medieval Technology?

It would be (theoretically) possible to establish colonies on Greenland using Medieval technology.Skillsets might be a problem. Similarly the environmental damage caused by hundreds of years of colonies on the island would make it tougher...but there is no reason why it couldn't be done.

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

... greenhouse gasses are forcing climate change, this is very well supported by the evidence and the experts in the field...

The problem is that the evidence and the conclusions are also questioned by other "experts in the field".

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

The problem is that the evidence and the conclusions are also questioned by other "experts in the field".

To go back to the doctor analogy, if you visit 100 physicians and 99 of them tell you that you are at extreme risk of a heart attack, while the 100th recommends full Irish breakfasts three times a day for the rest of your life, whose advice are you going to follow?