Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Br Cornelius

Do you accept the reality of AGW ?

Do you accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ?   50 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

178 posts in this topic

You earn respect through your deeds and that is why I cannot respect Little Fish.

.

and you think that being abusive and rude is a way to garner respect then do you br?

it isn't.

it just makes you look boorish and petty.

no matter how right you may be in your argument, talking to people like they're sh!t does you no favours whatsoever, so curb the insults eh, this isn't a playground.

no-one likes arrogance. being english, you should understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

and you think that being abusive and rude is a way to garner respect then do you br?

it isn't.

it just makes you look boorish and petty.

no matter how right you may be in your argument, talking to people like they're sh!t does you no favours whatsoever, so curb the insults eh, this isn't a playground.

no-one likes arrogance. being english, you should understand that.

If you understood the history, then you might think differently. I encourage you to review some of Little Fishes debates and to draw your own conclusions about where you would willingly enter into a discussion with him. As I said, people don't debate with him anymore - for a reason.

Doug is another expert in this field who has posted in this thread, a researcher and an educator, and I have seen Little Fish drive him to similar expressions - which is quite some achievement.

As I said, its up to you who you choose to criticize or defend, but I think you are mistaken in your assessment that Little Fish is simply defending a reasonable position, he is a highly motivated Conspiracy Theorist who is capable of denying any "fact" which doesn't support his carefully crafted view that there is an elite out to kill us and return us to feudal servitude. Climate change is simply a brick in the wall he builds around himself.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence that the energy imbalance is real;

Abstract. Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during the 6-yr period 2005–2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain together constrain the net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be −1.6 ± 0.3 W m−2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.html

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, probably, I am not entirely convinced.

This is going to sound so selfish but I have come to a point I don't really care anymore. I will have long gone the way of the Dodo before anything is likely to kill us. I have absolutely no desire to return to dark ages style living.

I like eating meat, I like having the freedom of my car, I like my performance car with it's 3.0 litre engine, I like being able to get on a plane and visit places all over the world. The list is endless yet when you get down to the nitty gritty of how to reverse climate change the answers are always the same. Governments think the answer is tax and lets be honest we have no viable option for fossil fuels, unless your a conspiracy nut who believes the oil companies bought and destroyed them all.

I lived in a so called environmentally friendly house for 3 years, they were built in West Sussex with a Government grant and won numerous awards. They were so strict on what you could and couldn't do, we could only paint the walls with one type of paint.

Despite wind turbines, solar heating and electricity my bills were no cheaper than any other house. In fact the solar water heating broke down during the height of summer and bill wise we didn't even know. It was picked up at an annual service. 5 years after completion the owners are now saying the houses may need to be completely overhauled in the next 3 years and possibly even torn down in 15. The sustained wood construction is rotting at an alarming rate. The non oil based coatings simply washed away during a storm and gave the appearance the house was bleeding. The high efficiency heating systems have proved to be unreliable and difficult to fix. Any electricity that is saved by the top rated appliances is used by the air circulation system that is essential to protect the wood frame. When you weigh up they were 3 times more difficult to build and took 3 times longer, they now need extensive renovation which will take up more resources and high polluting builders equipment.

Another study I remember was about train travel. I can't remember the exact circumstances but a study was done on the pollution caused by a train travelling from London to Birmingham. Apparently if every passenger on the train had got out and done the trip in an Audi A4, it would have been more economical and less polluting.

When some truly viable solutions are available I may change the way I live my life and become less selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe, probably, I am not entirely convinced.

This is going to sound so selfish but I have come to a point I don't really care anymore. I will have long gone the way of the Dodo before anything is likely to kill us. I have absolutely no desire to return to dark ages style living.

I like eating meat, I like having the freedom of my car, I like my performance car with it's 3.0 litre engine, I like being able to get on a plane and visit places all over the world. The list is endless yet when you get down to the nitty gritty of how to reverse climate change the answers are always the same. Governments think the answer is tax and lets be honest we have no viable option for fossil fuels, unless your a conspiracy nut who believes the oil companies bought and destroyed them all.

I lived in a so called environmentally friendly house for 3 years, they were built in West Sussex with a Government grant and won numerous awards. They were so strict on what you could and couldn't do, we could only paint the walls with one type of paint.

Despite wind turbines, solar heating and electricity my bills were no cheaper than any other house. In fact the solar water heating broke down during the height of summer and bill wise we didn't even know. It was picked up at an annual service. 5 years after completion the owners are now saying the houses may need to be completely overhauled in the next 3 years and possibly even torn down in 15. The sustained wood construction is rotting at an alarming rate. The non oil based coatings simply washed away during a storm and gave the appearance the house was bleeding. The high efficiency heating systems have proved to be unreliable and difficult to fix. Any electricity that is saved by the top rated appliances is used by the air circulation system that is essential to protect the wood frame. When you weigh up they were 3 times more difficult to build and took 3 times longer, they now need extensive renovation which will take up more resources and high polluting builders equipment.

Another study I remember was about train travel. I can't remember the exact circumstances but a study was done on the pollution caused by a train travelling from London to Birmingham. Apparently if every passenger on the train had got out and done the trip in an Audi A4, it would have been more economical and less polluting.

When some truly viable solutions are available I may change the way I live my life and become less selfish.

I hear what you are saying on the house. I studied the whole concept of "Passivhause" building as part of my degree. I would never build such a house, far to technology dependent and far to vulnerable to intercostinel damp. A bad idea unless built to very high specification in a factory.

However there are ways of building which are low tech and which perform entirely better on a day to day basis, I am thinking of earth houses, hempcrete and straw bale. They all have the essential thermal inertia which is absent from high tech passivhaus' and can readily be heated with a single simple woodstove using sustainable coppiced wood.

The problem I have with your overall analysis though is that we may not have the choice to do nothing. Oil is the driver of our civilization and it has reached peak production. It has at least doubled in real cost over the last 5years and that has knocked the stuffing out of many of the things we take for granted. There are no magic bullets for this one, so we either transition to a sustainable future by choice or we accept that many of the luxury things we currently take for granted will slip out of reach of most normal people. I think that is a worse outcome than at least trying to make the monumental efforts needed to transition into a system that offers a viable future.

I suspect that train study was probably paid for by Audi :whistle:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will never be a single answer to oil, however I believe will have to use several options which will have to be developed further and not all that popular environmentally. The UK has a massive reserve of coal which we don't use, however China builds a coal power station every week is it?

One of the Scandinavian countries is powering it's trains on fuel produced from cattle entrails. Again animal farming is seen as polluting. Fuel can be grown but could never cover are total requirements we need. Algae derived bio-fuel is looking increasingly promising however.

Nuclear power is shunned upon so that is unlikely.

I certainly wouldn't count on the end of oil being the end of pollution. In fact it will probably be the complete opposite as we are forced into less efficient ways. Their will certainly be obstacles and sacrifices but it won't be the magic wand to throw us into a sustained lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The observed warming to the forcing is the basis for saying the feedbacks are strong.
no, that is a non sequitur. you have handwaved the feedback amplification issue.

a negative feedback is a dampening effect, and not (as you imply) a canceling out or a net cooling. a positive feedback is an amplification of a forcing. i don't think you understand this.

did you watch the video i posted? it explains it very clearly.

Your expressed position is that AGW is not real and it is a plot to return us to a feudal social state - so your not been consistent here.
my position has always been that the science does not support catastrophic agw. you have a disposition to misunderstand those that disagree with you, perhaps deliberately.
The concern is based on the observed warming which has already taken place not on some nebulous unmeasured warming. Your cigarette analogue is meaningless.
the cigarette analogy is not meaningless, it makes the point precisely.

why should i care if the oceans have warmed 0.09c over the last 50 years?

iirc that translates to 0.5 w/m2, which means the feedback is negative, which means there is nothing to worry about. to recap - you and the alarmists need the feedback to be strongly positive to support your position.

my question has still not been answered - "present some scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels can change climate to any degree worth fussing about."

and you should heed Marcus Tullius Cicero's wisdom - "When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hey Little Fish, I told you how i am going to play the game from now on - if you don't like it then buzz off.

Meanwhile its important to establish the credibility of you opponent before entering into any discussion.

Chill out, Bro. This is UM! Insults and flame baiting are a standard part of the "debating" strategy here: make the other guy mad so he quits thinking. I've been on sites where the kind of stuff you see here would get one banned for life. The tactic worked quite well on me until I figured out what was going on.

Little Fish is not interested in what is actually happening with climate. Her entire thing is antagonizing people. All you have to do is refuse to take the bait. I know it's sometimes tough and sometimes I still fall into the trap.

Face it: nothing you can do, say or post are going to make a believer out of Little Fish. Facts are irrelevant to her.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny. Everyone wringing their hands in woe and the world never had it so good. I think maybe its the press and the emphasis on negatives and the fact that we learn about famines that in the past would have gone unnoticed.

I walk down to the local market and it is loaded with all sorts of vegetables and fruits and seafood and specialties for people to eat, plus cut flowers and trinkets and jewelry and mobi-phones that take pictures and scarves and hats and motorbike helmets and all sorts of baby things and clothes from all over and live birds and aquarium fishes and racks of herbs and pills and spices plus about a dozen different coffees and teas and maybe thirty different varieties of rice. This is Vietnam -- that just forty years ago suffered a devastating war and has received very little foreign aid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence that the energy imbalance is real;

http://www.atmos-che...13421-2011.html

Br Cornelius

and how much will the oceans warm by the year 2100 if that paper is correct?

0.1 Celcius.

at that rate it will take 600 years to warm 1 degree by which time the oil and co2 will probably be long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill out, Bro. This is UM! Insults and flame baiting are a standard part of the "debating" strategy here: make the other guy mad so he quits thinking. I've been on sites where the kind of stuff you see here would get one banned for life. The tactic worked quite well on me until I figured out what was going on.

Little Fish is not interested in what is actually happening with climate. Her entire thing is antagonizing people. All you have to do is refuse to take the bait. I know it's sometimes tough and sometimes I still fall into the trap.

Face it: nothing you can do, say or post are going to make a believer out of Little Fish. Facts are irrelevant to her.

Doug

I just asked a question. in what realm, other than a religious one, does a question constitute "antagonizing, insults and flamebaiting"?

maybe I should apologise to cornelius for him insulting me?

and why don't you try to address the question instead of trying to discredit the questioner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing your own unbiased research proves that man has in fact sped up the current warming cycle and may be responsible for the planet heating up to temps unheard of. Glacial recession alone tells the story.

One of the most recent changes is the odd fluctuation of the polar jet stream. The winters are getting shorter, yet there are more severe storms as the temp hangs around that good snow making level.

I could go on and on with temp maps, etc...but unless you do it yourself, you'll never believe me. The fact is that it's happening and it's happening much faster and more severely than predictions can keep up with.

I am as conservative as they come, but I also make it a point to do my own research, especially when there are two opposing sides fighting it out. To deny that we are in serious trouble from GW and we as humans are at least partly responsible for the acceleration is blind thinking. There are obvious things going on that you have to be seeing right before your eyes.

Go do the research! Some glaciers have live feeds, so you can watch them all the time if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Little Fish - how is Bill Gates killing off the world through vaccines ??

The campaign to eradicate smallpox in Africa probably unwittingly spread AIDS by the re-use of contaminated needles. Bill Gates didn't have anything to do with that.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just asked a question. in what realm, other than a religious one, does a question constitute "antagonizing, insults and flamebaiting"?

You have done so with me on other threads and I have lost my cool and done the same with you. You're as much a part of the problem as anybody else. Enough of the holier-than-thou attitude.

maybe I should apologise to cornelius for him insulting me?

Maybe you should. You are deliberately eliciting that response.

and why don't you try to address the question instead of trying to discredit the questioner?

Just what question did Br. Cornelius ask? I was addressing my remarks to him.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just what question did Br. Cornelius ask? I was addressing my remarks to him.
don't be a smart alec, your contribution was to slander and insult me with lies. the two of you are shutting down discussion with your tactics, you both know that many people won't risk voicing themselves on this forum because they would expose themselves to unwanted vitriol, and that's a failure of the moderation here, and a loss for UM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

there are more severe storms as the temp hangs around that good snow making level.
severity of storms globally show no trend:

global_running_ace.png

number of global severe storms is also flat:

global_major_freq.png

the 2 plots in each graph are the n/s hemispheres

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To deny that we are in serious trouble from GW and we as humans are at least partly responsible for the acceleration is blind thinking

where is the evidence "we are in serious trouble from GW"?

how can anyone deny something which is not shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and that's a failure of the moderation here, and a loss for UM.

On that, I quite agree. It would be a much better site if UM actually enforced its rules.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing your own unbiased research proves that man has in fact sped up the current warming cycle and may be responsible for the planet heating up to temps unheard of. Glacial recession alone tells the story.

One of the most recent changes is the odd fluctuation of the polar jet stream. The winters are getting shorter, yet there are more severe storms as the temp hangs around that good snow making level.

I could go on and on with temp maps, etc...but unless you do it yourself, you'll never believe me. The fact is that it's happening and it's happening much faster and more severely than predictions can keep up with.

I am as conservative as they come, but I also make it a point to do my own research, especially when there are two opposing sides fighting it out. To deny that we are in serious trouble from GW and we as humans are at least partly responsible for the acceleration is blind thinking. There are obvious things going on that you have to be seeing right before your eyes.

Go do the research! Some glaciers have live feeds, so you can watch them all the time if you like.

as it stands today its not proven man released C02 is causing global warming. they suspect, but its nothing more than that. the atmosphere is so complex only the foolhardy rush in with predictions of certainty. the best thing about this global warming, re-branded climate change is its living History. - the models the scientist used use to predict events for periods of 3 to 5 years when these predictions didnt come true it raised questions, such as why didnt it happen, something they couldn't answer. - so what happens now, the models now predict events on times scales of hundreds of years, this way no questions will be asked or anyone held to account. a hundred years is a long time to see if the 'model' is right. - as for, there are more storms or 'strange' weather is just a trick on the human mind, if your told of more storms you start noticing storms/weather events more. - i'll give you an example. take a rare coloured car say, Yellow. now from tomorrow, keep your eye out for a yellow coloured car, now because your looking more and paying more attention you'll see the yellow car isn't as rare as first thought. (you get the gist)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man made agw, no.

Nature made agw, yes.

Does man have an effect, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

severity of storms globally show no trend:

number of global severe storms is also flat:

I note that in both graphs, the greatest number and intensity of severe storms occurred during periods of greatest increase in global temps. Both seem to be related to the DERIVATIVE of temperature, rather than to temperature itself. What would that mean? When the rate of warming increases again, the number of severe storms will go up. These make a good case for severe storms being related to warming. And that begs the next set of graphs showing the relationship between storm numbers and intensity and the RATE of warming. How about posting them?

I also note that in my own research involving storms in the interior of North America, the number of SMALL storms has increased significantly since 1965, while the number of SEVERE storms has actually fallen off, particularly large winter storms. The total amount of energy in the system has increased.

Showing just large storms is cherry-picking the data; although, I doubt you were aware of doing it. I suspect that the source you are using didn't show the small storms.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://phys.org/news...mped-earth.html

Is it possible for Mother Nature to balance things out or will she just be overwhelmed in the end ?

Edited by shaddow134

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volcanoes just happen, there is of course no "Mother Nature" with some balancing act. Otherwise Mars and Venus would be like the earth. It may be that we've been lucky that some volcanic activity bought us a decade or so. On the other hand, it is conceivable that such a level of volcanic activity is relatively normal, in which case the global warming we saw earlier was the aberration.

I think the first possibility is the more likely, when one looks even longer term, but time will tell. In the meantime what do we do?

The predictions of global warming that the scare-mongering types give us are probably exaggerated, but even a few degrees in the next century will case significant problems, so it behooves us to prevent it if we can. There is also a small but non-zero chance that we will set of processes we don't understand that will lead to runaway warming and the extinction of life (a Venus effect).

This is the sort of intervention that only government can do. Private enterprises may be well intentioned or not, but the realities of the market are such that those who are not well-intentioned have an advantage unless offset some way.

I don't think subsidies for alternative energy sources work very well -- they end up wasting a lot of money and producing very little alternative energy. However here and there there are exceptions. Research support via grants to universities is a better route. Also, of course, public resistance to change (such as resistance to offshore wind energy installations) needs to itself be resisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I at first objected to the word "reality" in the title question but when I saw the question re-worded in the poll as "science" I answered Yes. A sleight of hand. I accept the idea of it, and the study of it, or more scientifically the hypotheses and theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I at first objected to the word "reality" in the title question but when I saw the question re-worded in the poll as "science" I answered Yes. A sleight of hand. I accept the idea of it, and the study of it, or more scientifically the hypotheses and theories.

the poll is skewed to illicit a yes vote, but this is what i have come to expect from the alarmists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.