Convince a layman - Topic Powered by eve community

The following has been put together to provide a good starting point of what most climate scientists understand:

Posts: 1084

Ignored post by Steve_M posted

Billy Bumbly

Posted

Have a look at this link if you want to see an non-alarmist view of our climate.

Posts: 116

Ignored post by Billy Bumbly posted

Posted

Howdo numptie and C4's BB don't linke links in this thread. Not a bad idea.

From basic physics/chemistry from a Swedish Nobel prize winner called Arrhenius (and earlier) to the present day supercomputers it's been calculated that CO2 warms the planet. Without it Earth would be frozen solid.

Basically there's been a significant increase in CO2 in the air over the past century or so. But this man made CO2 increase (30%) is too much of a good thing and is heating up the planet at an unatural rate.

Most glaciers have been observed to be in retreat. They've even detected gravity changes over Greenland due to the amount of water it's losing.

There is a demarcation line between tundra and trees/bushes and this is going steadily northward.

Also the melt line in Grenland is receding Northwards.

Vegetation, insects, birds reptiles are migrating to cooler zones.

Ignored post by realprimate posted

Posted

Looks like the mods have been at it again.

I wonder if this will get removed?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Ignored post by TrueSceptic posted

Mubbers

Posted

Popstars having concerts - that's a sure sign we are in deep s**t.

Sorry to be facetious.

Posts: 152

Ignored post by Mubbers posted

Mubbers

Posted

Since when did Mods remove links? Odd.

Be careful not confuse evidence of GW with evidence of AGW.

Clearly the Earth is getting a little warmer it's the mechanism/consequences that are in dispute here!

Posts: 152

Ignored post by Mubbers posted

Steve_M

Posted

Check out the FAQ at realclimate.org which is (note to mods) one of the most respected climate science discussion forums, and happens to be fully moderated by humans.

I won't repost the link because I might get banned again - search for the faq link in the side-bar.

Posts: 1084

Ignored post by Steve_M posted

Steve_M

Posted

quote:
Since when did Mods remove links? Odd.

Since forever! It's done surreptitiously so you don't always notice. Sometimes whole messages or threads go. When they're bored I think they change the spelling of my words to make me look like an idoit.

Posts: 1084

Ignored post by Steve_M posted

Mubbers

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Steve_M:
[QUOTE] idoit.

LOL!

Quick work, well done Mods.

ANd I put in all htose links to teh BBC!

<GULP>

Posts: 152

Ignored post by Mubbers posted

numptie

Posted

Thanks for the replies. I tried reading some of the references, but I found the one on the Royal society useless.

I'll try to unravel things bit by bit.

Firstly, is it true that the average earth temperature has been dropping since 1998? Yes or no?

Posts: 78

Ignored post by numptie posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by numptie:
Thanks for the replies. I tried reading some of the references, but I found the one on the Royal society useless.

I'll try to unravel things bit by bit.

Firstly, is it true that the average earth temperature has been dropping since 1998? Yes or no?

No.

Ignored post by realprimate posted

Son of Mulder

Posted

Numptie

quote:
I also saw that the earth has actually been cooling since 1998. It that true?

Look at the graphs in the attached and draw your own conclusion.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Posts: 591

Ignored post by Son of Mulder posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by numptie:
Thanks for the replies. I tried reading some of the references, but I found the one on the Royal society useless.

Did you seen the menus over to the left, and that the real info is in PDF downloads?

quote:

I'll try to unravel things bit by bit.

Firstly, is it true that the average earth temperature has been dropping since 1998? Yes or no?

The reality is that 1998 was unusually warm due to El Nino. The trend is still upwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Ignored post by TrueSceptic posted

Son of Mulder

Posted

True Sceptic

quote:
The reality is that 1998 was unusually warm due to El Nino. The trend is still upwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

You can fool some of the people some of the time but just look at the red line a supposed 5 year average - it finishes 2 years before now.

If instead in the above Wikipedia article you click on the highlighted link in the text called Dataset Hadcrut 3

you'll see that the Annual smoothed series reflects a 21 point binomial filter on the raw data. Below that is the Annual data with a best fit which looks pretty flat to me over the last 5 years.

Bring on the smoke and mirrors.

Posts: 591

Ignored post by Son of Mulder posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Son of Mulder:

You can fool some of the people some of the time but just look at the red line a supposed 5 year average - it finishes 2 years before now.

If instead in the above Wikipedia article you click on the highlighted link in the text called Dataset Hadcrut 3

you'll see that the Annual smoothed series reflects a 21 point binomial filter on the raw data. Below that is the Annual data with a best fit which looks pretty flat to me over the last 5 years.

Bring on the smoke and mirrors.

No smoke or mirrors intended by me.

Looks like this smoothing business is something I need to know more about, thanks.

Ignored post by TrueSceptic posted

numptie

Posted

Thanks. I'll go through the data and try to make my own conclusion.

Next question - is it true that the hole in the ozone layer (the scare from the 80's) is getting smaller again?

Posts: 78

Ignored post by numptie posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by numptie:
Thanks. I'll go through the data and try to make my own conclusion.

Next question - is it true that the hole in the ozone layer (the scare from the 80's) is getting smaller again?

It's healing slowly due to international cooperation (180 countries - 1997 Montreal Protocol). The layer should be back to normal within 50-100 years (my guesstimate).

Ignored post by realprimate posted

APL

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by numptie:
Thanks. I'll go through the data and try to make my own conclusion.

Next question - is it true that the hole in the ozone layer (the scare from the 80's) is getting smaller again?

First notice how careful the pro-AGW people are in only providing data since 1850 - a mere sliver in time for naturally occurring GW.

This shows a naturally occurring cycle of temperature, CO2 and dust over the last 420,000 years
Ice Core Data

Second, there are serious concerns as to the political interference in the science - I have posted this elsewhere but it does show 'reasonable doubt' about the science behind the pro-AGW claims.

The pro-AGW will no doubt argue that today's temperatures are much greater than in pre-industrial history because of CO2 but this could be because of selective use of data that support AGW and data manipulation see:
Swindle and the IPCC TAR Spaghetti Graph

Posts: 187

Ignored post by APL posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by realprimate:
quote:
Originally posted by numptie:
Thanks. I'll go through the data and try to make my own conclusion.

Next question - is it true that the hole in the ozone layer (the scare from the 80's) is getting smaller again?

My memory! - started in Montreal 1987 with about five subsequent adjustments.

It's healing slowly due to international cooperation (180 countries - 1997 Montreal Protocol). The layer should be back to normal within 50-100 years (my guesstimate).

Ignored post by realprimate posted

dogaway

New Member

Posted

As another complete layman on the issue of climate change, I have a question about about CO2....if you oxidize a kilogram of carbon how much CO2 do you have? 3kg?
stuff about global warming often says how much space a ton of CO2 takes up, or whatever. But what does it take to make a ton of CO2 in the first place? a third of a ton of carbon? this is a question thats been bugging me for a while.

Posts: 1

Ignored post by dogaway posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by APL:
First notice how careful the pro-AGW people are in only providing data since 1850 - a mere sliver in time for naturally occurring GW.

"Careful"? In response to a specific question I linked to a graph showing recent years in greater resolution. In response to different questions I would've posted links to other graphs.

quote:

This shows a naturally occurring cycle of temperature, CO2 and dust over the last 420,000 years
Ice Core Data

Your point is...?

quote:

Second, there are serious concerns as to the political interference in the science - I have posted this elsewhere but it does show 'reasonable doubt' about the science behind the pro-AGW claims.

Yes there are. There have been reports of a White House staffer editing reports and of climate scientists being told to "keep quiet".

quote:

The pro-AGW will no doubt argue that today's temperatures are much greater than in pre-industrial history because of CO2 but this could be because of selective use of data that support AGW and data manipulation see:
Swindle and the IPCC TAR Spaghetti Graph

The "sceptics" don't ever select data to support their case, do they?

Ignored post by TrueSceptic posted

APL

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by dogaway:
As another complete layman on the issue of climate change, I have a question about about CO2....if you oxidize a kilogram of carbon how much CO2 do you have? 3kg?
stuff about global warming often says how much space a ton of CO2 takes up, or whatever. But what does it take to make a ton of CO2 in the first place? a third of a ton of carbon? this is a question thats been bugging me for a while.

You will be lucky to get a meaningful answer to this question because most of the figures associated to CO2 and global warming revolve around estimates which are then taken as facts.

Posts: 187

Ignored post by APL posted

APL

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by APL:
This shows a naturally occurring cycle of temperature, CO2 and dust over the last 420,000 years
Ice Core Data

Your point is...?
[QUOTE]

I thought that was obvious to anyone who looked at the graph. Climate change and global warming have been happening long before we started burning fossil fuels and if it was not for man-made/politically manipulated hockey stick models we would still be accrediting GW with the same insignificance it deserves.

I type this whilst freezing my bits off in July - how ironic. But then that'll be down to global warming won't it?

Posts: 187

Ignored post by APL posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by APL:

I thought that was obvious to anyone who looked at the graph. Climate change and global warming have been happening long before we started burning fossil fuels and if it was not for man-made/politically manipulated hockey stick models we would still be accrediting GW with the same insignificance it deserves.

Of course climate change has been happening naturally. Who has ever denied that? And who are the scientists who provide us with this information? Climate scientists. You seem content to use or dismiss their work as it suits you.

The issue is whether present warming is cyclic (due to natural causes only) or acyclic (due to our contributions in addtition to natural ones). The evidence is that present warming is acyclic.

quote:

I type this whilst freezing my bits off in July - how ironic. But then that'll be down to global warming won't it?

Lame. One cold day (or week or month or year) doesn't disprove GW any more than a hot one proves it.