Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

found this on another site :-

The existing computer models on which much of the data is predicated need to be thrown out - their methodology is totally flawed and based on unverifiable data, the original data having been destroyed by the UEA - owing to lack of space. The current models are designed to show an upward trend and can no longer be trusted. Disband the IPCC and its discredited "scientists".

Too much to hope for an apology from the AGW scaremongers?

Links and references please.

[DamnSaxon]

I mentioned a few pages back that I'd started looking particularly closely at this business because a friend had put £100 on the table for anyone who could show him the proof of manmade global warming. That was well over a year ago now. I have completely failed to find any such proof. He has completely failed to find any such proof. His son (Physics 1st, Imperial College) has completely failed to find any such proof. I saw him at the weekend, and he agreed to extend the offer to Shetlinkers.

 

AT - anyone who's been supporting manmade global warming round here! - for that £100, all that's required is to produce the "smoking gun" which implicates humanity as the threat - more precisely:

> The one peer-reviewed(*) paper which conclusively proves beyond reasonable doubt that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous levels of global warming.

 

It doesn't have to be an internet link, of course, so long as we can find the journal in the City or University library. The paper must give the full theory of how this is happening, rather than being just another extrapolation from the untrustworthy "records", which have lost all credibility. My friend is the ultimate arbiter, of course - it's his hundred quid - but he says he's happy to pay for the education.

 

(*) above - By this, he means, of course, traditional peer review, rather than the version as redefined by CRU in their email correspondence where "non-approved" views are suppressed.

 

Good luck. In the event of a hit, I'd even be convinced myself, and have to "un-convert" myself back to belief in AGW again. At least it wouldn't have cost me anything ... always did believe in free education ...

[Evil Inky]

AT - anyone who's been supporting manmade global warming round here! - for that £100, all that's required is to produce the "smoking gun" which implicates humanity as the threat - more precisely:

> The one peer-reviewed(*) paper which conclusively proves beyond reasonable doubt that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous levels of global warming.

This seems to hinge on how he defines "dangerous", though doesn't it? Demonstrating that man-made carbon dioxide was causing some degree of climate change wouldn't be enough to win the £100.

[DamnSaxon]

This seems to hinge on how he defines "dangerous", though doesn't it? Demonstrating that man-made carbon dioxide was causing some degree of climate change wouldn't be enough to win the £100.

 

Surely the whole question is one of degree, though? - Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, some degree of warming due to increasing it is only to be expected - but he thinks, as do I, that it is only to an insignificant extent. It's the "danger" we're supposed to be panicking about, after all - thus, proof needed of "danger" arising out of a modest increase in a trace gas.

[ArabiaTerra]

Try this, DamnSaxon. It's a blog post which summarises the evidence and contains links to the relevant papers. (Some of which are behind paywalls.)

So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for CO2 warming. Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.

There is also the Copenhagen Diagnosis from the IPCC.

 

Enjoy.

 

Edit: Here's another paper which I believe is relevant.

[Carlos]

This seems to hinge on how he defines "dangerous", though doesn't it? Demonstrating that man-made carbon dioxide was causing some degree of climate change wouldn't be enough to win the £100.

Dangerous = any increased risk?

An infinitesimal amount of man made warming (which he accepts?) = an infinitesimal increase in risk of quite a few things (even if the overall effect is beneficial) = dangerous?

 

On the general area I thought this was quite a well balanced article, and you have to love a Feyman quote:- “Science is the organised scepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.â€

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018438.ece

[Evil Inky]

Surely the whole question is one of degree, though? - Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, some degree of warming due to increasing it is only to be expected - but he thinks, as do I, that it is only to an insignificant extent. It's the "danger" we're supposed to be panicking about, after all - thus, proof needed of "danger" arising out of a modest increase in a trace gas.

Is he claiming that the rise in carbon dioxide will result in a insignificant rise in global temperatures, or that it will result in a significant rise in global temperatures, but that rise will not pose a sigificant danger ?

[ArabiaTerra]

Surely the whole question is one of degree, though? - Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, some degree of warming due to increasing it is only to be expected - but he thinks, as do I, that it is only to an insignificant extent. It's the "danger" we're supposed to be panicking about, after all - thus, proof needed of "danger" arising out of a modest increase in a trace gas.

See, this is what I don't get. CO2 is the most powerful climate forcing agent affecting the atmosphere, and it has increased by 40%. How can you possibly describe this as a trace gas, or, a modest increase?

[Guest Anonymous]

CO2 is the most powerful climate forcing agent affecting the atmosphere,

 

I think you will find that methane is a far more powerful climate forcing agent AT.

 

du will hae ta stop havering shiite lad

[GT]

CO2 is the most powerful climate forcing agent affecting the atmosphere,

 

I think you will find that methane is a far more powerful climate forcing agent AT.

 

du will hae ta stop havering shiite lad

 

Actually the most potent greenhouse gas is in fact water vapour

[crofter]

See, this is what I don't get. CO2 is the most powerful climate forcing agent affecting the atmosphere, and it has increased by 40%. How can you possibly describe this as a trace gas, or, a modest increase?

 

It is known as a trace gas because the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, about 99% I think. The remaining gases which make up 1% of the atmosphere include CO2 (roughly 400ppm or 0.04%) - a "trace"

 

You say CO2 has increased by 40%. Sounds very alarming. What is the increase in ppm though? 100ppm maybe? An increase of 0.01%. Modest?

[Guest Anonymous]

i dunna see the point in all this number crunching and tryin to get statistics to fit one side or the other, is root cause analysis not the overpopulation and the rate of consumption? both things equally as fruitless topics

[Evil Inky]

It is known as a trace gas because the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, about 99% I think. The remaining gases which make up 1% of the atmosphere include CO2 (roughly 400ppm or 0.04%) - a "trace"

 

You say CO2 has increased by 40%. Sounds very alarming. What is the increase in ppm though? 100ppm maybe? An increase of 0.01%. Modest?

If you think 40% is modest, you can pay me 40% of your salary

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

If you will come and do all my housework,six days per week,I will give you 40% of my pension. Currently worth around £40.

[ArabiaTerra]

CO2 is the most powerful climate forcing agent affecting the atmosphere,

 

I think you will find that methane is a far more powerful climate forcing agent AT.

 

du will hae ta stop havering shiite lad

 

Actually the most potent greenhouse gas is in fact water vapour

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere and it stays in the atmosphere for much longer, therefore it is the most powerful forcing agent. Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing agent. Please do me the courtesy of learning the difference, it's rather an important one.