Global Warming & Climate Change

A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
The myth of Global Warming

There follows an abridged version of an article in Sept 2001 edition of the Chemical Engineer. It is written by Philip Stott, professor of biogeography in the University of London.

"I believe the Kyoto Protocol is bad for science, for economics, for politics and for society in the widest sense. The idea that we can control, in any predictable manner, climate change through the management of one tiny set of variables, namely human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, is so fundamental a lie that it beggars belief.

"Climate is the ultimate coupled non-linear chaotic system. Unsurprisingly, our general circulation models remain intrinsically simplistic, with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admiting publicly that it knows next-to-nothing about 75% of the major proxy variables involved.

"It is deeply alarming that a whole series of recently published heavyweight scientific papers questioning both the relationship between CO2 and temperature and the data/modelling underlying the concept of global warming have been basically ignored by the UK and European media. These scientific papers are found in major journals such as Nature, Climate Research, and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and involve institutions of the highest scientific distinction, inclusing NASA, the Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of the Ruhr/Ottawa-Carlton Geoscience Centre, Harvard University, the Smithsonian, and Stanford University. Yet, despite their undoubted scientific legitimacy, the papers have received scant public attention, above all because they do not support and legitimise the socially-constructed myth of global warming. I have tried to persuade environmental correspondents to report such work, only to be met with incredulity that such science might even exist.

"One critical focus has been on the role of that most important 'greenhouse gas' of all, water vapour (not CO2), and on the palaeo-geological relationships between water vapour, CO2 and temperature. Jan Veizer's work, for example, is widely regarded as magisterial in its decoupling of temperature from CO2, so much so that one editorial commentary written for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change regards his work as creating a crisis in the global warming myth.

"A second focus has been on the many missing, or little-known, variables in the IPCC and other climate models, including newly discovered 'Pacific' vents...If confirmed...this effect alone, which is not recognised in current climate models, could significantly reduce estimates of future climate warming. Another neglected variable is particulates. New work on black carbon and aerosols was reported in the US, but hardly at all in Europe, yet may be responsible for 15-30% of global warming, although it is not even considered in any of the discussions about controlling climate change.

"A third focus has been on the need to correct many temperature measurements, especially those taken over oceans...Studies have demonstrated that, when scientists take proxy sea-surface temperatures out of the global temperature record for the past 20+ years, and replace them with air temperature data gathered more accurately by ships and buoys, the global warming trend...drops markedly by about one third. Other scientists argue that land temperature measurements and records are equally flawed, reflecting primarily the process of urbanisation and the well-documented 'urban heat island' effect rather than any significant rise in global temperatures.

"Climate is governed by a billion variables and it is intrinsically chaotic. These variables range from the flip of a butterfly's wing, through the changing albeldo of the earth's surface, erupting volcanoes, shifting ocean currents, waves and salinity, the dynamic geometry and cycles of the earth and the sun, the ever-changing mix of gases 'natural' and 'man-made', to planetary dust and meteors. The grand narrative that we can ultimately affect or 'control' climate change in any meaningfully predictive way simply by playing about with one or two politically selected variables has to be challenged publicly.

"Even if all 180 countries ratfied the protocol and then actually met their targets - a highly unlikely scenario - we still might only affect temperature by between 0.07 and 0.2 degC, and even this could be thrown out by a couple of erupting volcanoes or altering landscape albedos.

"According to recent models, implementing Kyoto will cost anywhere between $100bn and $1000bn, with a mean around $350bn. Now that amount of money could pay off the debt of the 49 poorest countries of the world and provide clean drinking water for all."

In a letter in the following edition of The Chemical Engineer, a reader quoted Kirchhoff's Law:
"At a given temperature the ratio of the emissivity to the absorptivity for a given wavelength is the same for all gases and is equal to the emissivity of an ideal black body at that temperature and wavelength. Or in layman's terms, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas."

Discuss!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#2
Echoes several of the things I've thought about Kyoto.I don't think most of the signatories were ever really sincere about living up to the strictures of it anyway.They knew full well what it would mean for the modern industrial economy.It is the height of folly to believe that by a few adjustments we could alter such an infinitely complex system as the global climate.
 

FelixAntonius

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
1,132
Likes
102
Points
94
#3
There is a very worrying trend I've noticed over the years with the "Friends of the Earth", for them to come up with an ecological scare, then when that is disproved, to simply switch to another scare.

No one seems to be willing to question their past track record of failed scare campaigns. Remember the oil that was going to run out in another twenty or so years? Remember how the world would suffocate with de-forestation & the replacement of leaded petrol with unleaded, which is just as nasty if in diffrent ways?

Global warming, seems to be the one thing that the "Friends" can cling onto & even if it is taking place, are the reasons for it caused by man? There are so many climatic variables from decade to decade, let alone century to century. As an extreme example, would we want to go back to the mini Ice Ages of the 17th & 18th Centuries when the Thames froze & great frosts lasted for several months at a time?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
When I was in high school in the early 70's,they said greenhouse gasses would cause a new Ice Age.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#5
Very interesting DD, I'll be looking to see what the various periodicals have said about this.

Indeed, there is much controversy about Global Warming. This is why research must continue. And in the meantime, reduce industrial emissions. Why? becuase Global warming (or cooling, or whatver) is not their only effect. They change local air quality, release heavy metals, and generally damage the local habitat. And it may seem obvious, but all life on Earth consits of various local habitats.

Also, Philip Stott is professor of biogeography, a facinating dicipline, but not climatology (on the other hand, I am neither... yet :rolleyes: ) Despite the chaotic nature of the atmosphere some models have been produced which although much simpler than reality, are effective to a degree. Then theres also the blindingly obvious fact that with such a chaotic system the last thing you want to do is bung in a wildcard like industrial emissions. We don't know what the results will be, but we're going to find out if we're not carefull...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#6
It doesn't matter if you throw in a wildcard, if you have no idea which cards you have in the first place.

And just how effective are the climate models, when they can't even simulate past climate properly. Look at the papers that has been published on global waming through the decade. You will find that the temp we were going to have in a 100 years have kept going down. Reality simply didn't care about their models.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#7
I suggested elsewhere that, perhaps, Global Warming Theory wasn't necessarily anything more than something fashionable to wear for a while, and got accused of being a 'republican' of all things...

Slightly off topic, but David brought it in. My beef about FotE

Something not widely reported is the FotE engineered eco disaster waiting to happen as they strip down that oil platform they wanted to sink in a fjord. Basically, the deep sea would have dealt with the heavy metals, and other toxic crap, since that's what it does with black smokers on the sea bed anyway. The oil platform wouldn't be as toxic as one of those things... FotE admitted they were wrong, very quietly, by which time the Oil Company was commited to strip it down at the surface, where the eco-system cannot absorb the type of contaminants that were going to be released... Basically a no win. Many more cock ups like that and the Moral High Ground is going to be pretty diffcult to hold.

Having said all of the above FotE are dedicated, motivated and above all caring people, who do a job that should be done by the mouthing Governments; that is police big business. One of the biggest jobs I was involved with was triggered by FotE showing to EU environmental control that one of the big chemical companies was pumping hot sulphuric acid into one of our river esturaries. That time they were right, and the aformentioned company was almost closed, until fitting an interesing bit of kit that converted hot H2SO4 into cool, slightly brackish tasting, water and CO2 sold for bottling.

However, they really should try and get their facts, as far as there are fact in this issue, right, especially in high profile cases.

Just my twopennoth, now i have to go burn some old tyres :devil:

8¬)
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#8
Xanatic said:
It doesn't matter if you throw in a wildcard, if you have no idea which cards you have in the first place.

And just how effective are the climate models, when they can't even simulate past climate properly. Look at the papers that has been published on global waming through the decade. You will find that the temp we were going to have in a 100 years have kept going down. Reality simply didn't care about their models.
On topic comment:-

the models that have used increased/increasing levels of green-house gases have yeilded Frozen earth and hell planet with about equal frequency, hence the number of conflicting reports. Basically you pays your money and you takes your choice. Like so many things, it all boils down to an act of faith.

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
Xanatic said:
It doesn't matter if you throw in a wildcard, if you have no idea which cards you have in the first place.
Uhh... yes it does? They're there, even if we don't know about them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#10
Here's some more from the article above, which was too long type in. I concentrated the above down to the facts, but there are some more 'Fortean' thoughts in the article regarding the mythology around global warming:

"Scientists have allowed themselves to be used and manipulated by groups with strong political agendas so that science was becoming 'legitimised' by European political correctness and not by the cautious processes of science itself.

"Global warming is pure politics and myth. It is a grand narrative, invented in 1989, which carries with it both the language and the baggage of an obsessive, nearly fundamentalist, set of New Age beliefs. Global warming has become the legitimising 'science' for stemming Neo-Malthusian population expansion, limiting economic growth, controlling the car, blocking all development, attack the evil American empire, and fighting capitalism and globalisation. The recent juxtaposition of the Genoa violent anti-capitalist protests and the Bonn pro-Kyoto/anti-Bush demonstrations says it all.

"Thus when Christine Todd Whitman, Bush's newly-appointed administrator of the EPA, announced last March that the US held 'no interest in implementing that treaty', meaning the Kyoto protocol, the European 'green' movement, including European governments, went hysterical. The 'Toxic Texan' had not just rejected a treaty; he had blasphemed against the new religion so that he was instantly transmogrified into what one German newspaper, Die Woche, has called 'The Climate Killer'.

"Belief in this powerful European myth demands allegiance to a number of strict articles of faith. First, climate change over the last decade must be faster and worse than at any time during the past 1000 years or more, despite the fact that we are rising out of a 'Little Ice Age' that ended around 1880. Secondly, the cause of this dramatic change has to be human greed and growth, not 'natural' climate drivers or forcings, so that, only by sacrificing ourselves to the earth , can we atone for our sins and save the planet.

"In this sense, the religion is hardly new, because it emulates so closely the sacrificial demands of many ancient religions. Moreover, the Kyoto target for controlling the emissions of greenhouse gases must hurt economically and politically, especially the Americans; this is part of our self-flagellation...Finally, the prime sinner must be America, with its gas-guzzling, growth-orientated, polluted, Erin Brokovich world.

"Kyoto is fundamentally about a religious belief in global warming and about authoritarian 'command and control' target economics that simply will not work."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#11
harlequin said:
FotE admitted they were wrong, very quietly, by which time the Oil Company was commited to strip it down at the surface, where the eco-system cannot absorb the type of contaminants that were going to be released... Basically a no win. Many more cock ups like that and the Moral High Ground is going to be pretty diffcult to hold.

8¬)
I had the pleasure of being an insider to the Brent Spar incident which I presume you're quoting, 'Quin. They said the Spar was full of toxic sludge. It was actually mostly full of sand and water. They quoted a tonnage of this toxic sludge. The tonnage was wrong, and matched the tonnage of the entire Spar itself and not its contents. They said some samples they took showed it was full of toxic sludge. They later retracted their analysis as totally wrong as the samples were taken in the wrong place. This last piece of information got scant regard from the press, as there were no pictures of guys on powered dinghys attempting to storm the Spar whilst being blasted by water cannon. In short, the whole thing was pretty groundless, but this initial swaying of public opinion got a corporation to completely alter its strategy without any basis in fact. Would the Spar have caused any environmental damage? Extensive studies were carried out by professional scientists to ensure it wouldn't, and the decision was taken on this basis. People are quite happy to leave sunken ships on the seabed- I don't see anyone in a hurry to raise the Titanic for environmental reasons.

Now, I'm not so naive to suggest big corporations are always right - environmental concerns only detract from the bottom line, they never make money. But the hysteria whipped up in the media based on baseless and bad science actually got results, and that's something we need to be concerned about. Global warming is a much bigger issue but seems to be based on similar foundations. We must be respecting and responsible towards our environment, but FoE, Greenpeace et al know that the only way to get something they want done is to preach that something dreadful is about to happen.
 

FelixAntonius

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
1,132
Likes
102
Points
94
#12
Thanks harlequin for your reference to deep sea dumping!!!

Something that really puzzles me & for which I don't have an answer, is that during the Battle of the Atlantic, during WW2, several million tons of shipping went down in the Atlantic.

These days, whenever we have an oil spill that reach the beaches, it's analysed and it's origins identified, none seemingly, is ever identified with a WW2 wreck.

It therefore seems to follow, that the products of deep sea dumping, do not fetch up on the continental shelves, BUT, it is still condemed by the Friends of the Earth.

It seems to be a case of ideology over sense!!!!!!
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#13
Out in the deep trenches there are some pretty weird things... and some of those eat petro-chem. Very little deep oil gets to the surface either because its waxed due to the temperature,or is digested by the single celled horrors that live down there. The ocean floor has a biosphere used both to heavy metals and organic seepage from oil deposits. Thats why we dont get much of that sort of thing

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#14
Philips Stotts article is most certainly an actual opinion.

I have more say but am tired. Proper response requires some research, so more soon.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
News From Annanova

Thought this might be interesting as a possible psychological threat caused by climate change :rolleyes:


Researchers are claiming global warming could threaten British traditions like the Sunday roast.

Analysts say the Britain's psyche is so intrinsically linked to the weather that many uniquely British traits will be threatened.

Sponsor of weather forecasts Powergen, questioned 1,000 British men and women on what they feel are the top five British cultural traits.

The findings show that the British feel that each of the top five "typically British" cultural behavioural patterns, could indeed become lost to long hot summers.

Sunday roasts could become a thing of the past, with 50% saying they shun Sunday dinners in the heat and opt for barbecue type food.

Talking about the weather could cease to be the nation's favourite pastime with 61% of people admitting that guaranteed heat will make the subject boring.

Visiting the pub for a pint, could become a rarity as 54% admitted that when the weather heats up they choose a ice cold lager from the fridge, instead of a long hot walk to the pub for a pint of warm beer.

*Climate change story sent by Ananova



See this story on the web at http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_433008.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#16
About the wildcard, let us stay in the world of gambling then. If you are playing Blackjack, and you've no idea what points you have reached, would you ask for another card? It could be it would give you more than you needed, it could be it would give you less. But it doesn't matter since you have no idea what points you already have.

The same with human pollution, perhaps it is damaging. But it could also be that it is the only thing saving us from an Ice Age(Which I remember was being debated some years back.) Untill we know more, we should be careful about judging. Remember, there is no such thing as a natural disaster.

As for sunken ships, I know that where they have coral reefs they sometimes dump old airplanes. The coral reefs grow better if they have an iron frame.

But there are some enviromental surveys, where they are not continued unless they find evidence of damage. So that doesn't really make it impartial.

"FotE are dedicated, motivated and above all caring people" but that doesn't mean that if they do not do their research properly, they might end up damaging the enviroment more than helping it.
 

FelixAntonius

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
1,132
Likes
102
Points
94
#19
Thanks Chriswsm!!!

It sounds to me, as if due to global warming I will nolonger be a miserable old sod!!!!!!!

Life aint worth living:mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#20
David said:
Thanks Chriswsm!!!

It sounds to me, as if due to global warming I will nolonger be a miserable old sod!!!!!!!

Life aint worth living:mad:

:hmph: Pull yourself together and get down the pub before they all go out of business:hmph:

I am not a sunday luncher but I would sure miss the pub :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#22
David said:
Where do think I am now?

We've got a really good lock-in going on, trying to drown my sorrows. Hic:D
You take a laptop to the pub or somehting ?

Now that I what I call dedication to this Forum;)
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
19
Points
69
#24
Remember, there is no such thing as a natural disaster.

If Yellowstone Park blows it will be natural and it will be a disaster:(

problem with the measured warming of the planet over the past 200 years is that it could be natural. It is unproven whether it is linked to the increase in CO2 levels. Of course climate models are no real help as to the actual effect on weather but ....

I work in a small city at the head of an estuary and it is a fact that sea levels are rising. This rise is in the range of 1 to 3 cm over the past 100 years. Not a lot but that is an increase inthe mean sea level double it for the effect on normal high tides, triple it for the effect on highest astronomical tides. Add in low pressure and wind effects and the newly completed flood defenses start to look fragile

One last thing while I agree to what you say about the disposal of Brent Spar except that the original leases for drilling rights specified that rigs be dismantled not sunk. FoE and Greenpeace did over hupe their case and the newsrooms willingly assisted in this. That said the oil groups conived with government to break those original agreements.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#25
Well, I don't think the guy is saying global warming isn't happening. Just that we have no real reason to believe we caused it.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#26
From the dpeths of memory... wasn't the average temperature of the planet actually higher than it is now, a few million years ago?

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#27
You don't have to go back millions of years. Sometimes you hear people go "This is the warmest decade in the last thousand years" which of course means that Earth is going towards a scorched hell. Unless you give it a bit more thought, and realise this means it was just as warm a thousand years ago. If you look at a graph of the Earth's climate over the last 2000 years, you will se something interesting. The average temperature is higher than it is now(Which is why Greenland was green), but then around year 1000 it starts to go down. It reaches a minimum at around 1400(Around when we started measuring temperatures and doing meterology). Then we have some time where it is very cold(Which is why the Thames froze over) and it then starts to heat up again. And then people starts to think it must mean we humans are burning the Earth because of the industrial revolution. Even though the heat graph fits so well with a graph of solar spots.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#30
Let me see now. The biosphere takes 100's, perhaps thousands, of millions of years locking hydrocarbons into the earth's crust. Mankind spends 200+ years recovering said hydrocarbons and releasing greenhouse gasses back into the atmosphere. Let us not underestimate just how much fossil fuel human society can consume in 200+ years. At the same time pollutant by-products of said fossil fuels help impoverish biosphere, as humans defoliate, tarmac and concrete the rest.

Just because there are `scientists' and `experts' out there ready and willing to to take the Military/Industrial complex' shilling, aiding and abetting the short sighted drive for a quick buck at all costs. Interpretation and re-evaluation of statistics is where it's at, a growth industry. Why are people quite happy to believe in conspiracies involving world dominating, 12ft reptiles and the Illuminati, but don't see weak, stupid government and greedy, shortsighted oil companies as obvious co-conspirators?

Well, if the `edit North Atlantic edit Conveyor' does stop, then we'll have our ice age. If not then expect more unrest around the equator and if you live on low lying coastal spots, invest in sandbags and inflatables.

Even `Monkey Boy' Bush's regime is starting to mumble about the human impact on global warming. Just like with computers: rubbish in, rubbish out. We'll know for sure in the next 25 to 50 years. Our children will either thank us, or string us up from lamp posts.

I keep thinking of David Lynch, `Eraser head' and the Harkonnen planet from `Dune.' Still you've all done so much to reassure me, not!
 
Top