1. OCAU Merchandise now available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion here.
    Dismiss Notice

Good Climate Change Skepticism Video

Discussion in 'Science' started by Ravenclaw, Jun 30, 2008.

  1. Ravenclaw

    Ravenclaw Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,090
    I've always been suspicious about large positive feedbacks in the climate system. Here is a video on the subject:

    Don't Panic
     
  2. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    15,493
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Interesting video mate.

    In the last part of the video, the narrator shows two conclusions (if you support AGW models);

    1) Large positive feedbacks are present in the system
    2) The positive feedbacks are current masked by aerosols.

    In dealing with 1), the narrator never talks about water (usually a favourite talking point by skeptics). A small forcing by CO2 leads to a larger forcing by water vapour, in either direction. ie if co2 goes down, water vapour content would go down as well. Another factor is that a warming world, leads to a greater drying out of land, and when land dries out, it loses its carbon store.

    In covering point 2) he mentions that aerosols (if the dimming effect is true) should have shown the northern hemisphere cooling more than the southern hemisphere. If you were comparing apples to apples that would have been true, but he never mentions the effects of large land masses in the northern hemisphere, and mostly ocean in southern hemisphere. Land heats up quickly, whereas oceans buffers any heat. Which is one of the reasons why the South pole is not melting anywhere nearly as fast as the North pole.
     
  3. Maz

    Maz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Melbourne
    More people each day are beginning to wake up about the "global warming" scam.

    Picking an unusually cold year as the start point of the graph and stopping it at the highest point will definitely show increased cooling. Most Global warming graphs excludes the last few years of data and also exclude the earlier decades of measurement that shows their starting point was from a unusually low point.

    I just hope that the emission trading scheme is delayed for a few years. Now that we've had massive cooling for two years it will be great if we get a third or even fourth year of cooling. If the emission trading scheme kicks in they'll probably try and take credit for those years of cooling. :rolleyes:

    Soon enough we'll be labelling the "skeptics" those who dont accept the world is cooling.

    Afterall emissions from power/heat generation and transport represent a single percentage of total emissions on this planet. So even if we cripple our industry the very best total reduction we could possibly acheive would be a 10% reduction.

    Unless they are going to stop bushfires and the tens of billions of animals on this planet breathing and farting then emissions will stay the same.

    This is as hot as it gets, when you look at the "ice ages" plotted on a graph the average temperature is much much cooler than it is now. We better tell all the other animals on this earth to prepare to start breathing and farting extra hard when that temperature line plummets like it always does.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
    O-B-E-L-I-X likes this.
  4. hlokk

    hlokk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,189
    Location:
    WA
    Just because we have a cooler year, two or four does not mean the earth is now cooling. We've had some of the hottest years on record in the first half of this decade, but the existence of hot years themselves alone is not sufficient to say that the earth is warming either.
    What counts is the trends over time. The average temperature of the earth has been increasing. It does not mean that each year will be slightly higher than the last. However, when you apply a moving average, you can see that the trend is to increasing temperatures. Hint: you cant include the last x/2 years data for your moving average filter (with x being the width). I.e. if i'm taking a moving average of 5 years, I cant include the last two years as it would require looking into the future (which of course we can estimate, but for purposes of trends its not prudent). Same if I had a 9 year moving average, I cant include the past 4 years in that average data.

    CO2 levels have steadily increased since the the industrial revolution however, from about 280ppm to 380ppm. There is no denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which causes temperatures to increase. There is also no denying that temperatures have increased over the last century as has carbon dioxide.
    Of course, correlation alone does not imply causation. However, if temperatures increase while we are pumping a gas known to increase the greenhouse effect which is known to increase temperatures then it does demonstrate causation.
    However, the main reason that we know that carbon dioxide is causing the climate change we are seeing is because the only models that we can used to plot and predict the rising temperatures are ones that use carbon dioxide. All these other theories about sunspots and this and that do not have models which accurately predict the temperature changes.
    Now, keep in mind carbon dioxide is causing climate change, not specifically global warming. However, the globe in general is warming. This of course does not exclude cold years, or cold regions. In fact, some areas are predicted to get colder, but in general this is not the case.

    There is no debate about whether the earth is warming, whether it will continue to warm or whether humans are affecting it. The debate has now moved on to how significant are these changes going to be.


    Please get your facts correct first Maz.
    If we were to change to non-greenhouse emitting cars alone we would reduce 14% of greenhouse emissions.
    Power generation accounts for another 21%.
    Industrial processes 17%

    Thats over half right there.
    Processing, collecting and distributing fossil fuels alone would decrease greenhouse emissions by 10%. So thats just to get it to whoever uses it, not the effects from burning those fuels (except of course fuel required by the distribution)

    Complete and utter crap. Land use, fires and agricultural sources account for approximately 22% of greenhouse gasses. Keep in mind, most agricultural effects are from methane which pulls above its weight, so for fairness I have quoted the greenhouse effect, nor the carbon effect (which would be lower). Not an insignificant chunk, but if we were to stop everything else emitting, we would reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over three quarters. Not that we would/could, but i'm addressing your comment implying that bushfires and animals cause such a large amount of emissions that other sources are insignificant.

    There is a big difference between a 75% reduction and "emissions will stay the same".
     
  5. Whisper

    Whisper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,297
    Location:
    Sydney
    Some people really need to get on the same page as the rest of us.
     
  6. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    15,493
    Location:
    Brisbane
    With respect hlokk, I think Maz is talking about the human CO2 emissions in context of the overall planetary CO2 cycle. Ofcause that doesn't mean that he is right. He is still wrong on this and the cooling point :)
     
  7. hlokk

    hlokk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,189
    Location:
    WA
    And we've fast eclipsed the natural cycle, and not by an insignificant amount. Its not so much the level, more so the rate. The carbon dioxide increase is happening at an incredibly rapid pace and that is the problem
     
  8. Maz

    Maz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Quite a few Global warming alarmists here...

    The last published monthly global temperature average taking by NASA on Jan 08 was cooler than the average temperature of the entire 20th century by a massive 0.3 degree F!!!

    To say its warming is just plain stupid/crazy.

    Considering this is a science forum i may as well educate some of you.

    FACT: The largest green house "gas" by percentage and weight is evaporated water....

    Anyone got a massive pool cover? :D

    If every human on this planet sat at home in the dark, cold/heat and did not use any energy, the emissions of this planet that contribute to heating at that moment would not even drop by 10%.

    hlokk so u want to halve emissions from transport and industry. So it would halve our less than 10 percent contribution to heating this planet. Great so lets reduce our standards of living for a measly few percent!!

    The fires will still burn, the water will still evaporate, we will still breathe and we will still fart.

    Considering the last 12 months was the largest temperate drop on record for any year, i hope like hell that it doesn't happen again next year. Otherwise im going to have to start eating Baked beans and fart as much as i can to warm the place up!! ;)

    The 1990's called.. they want their Global warming back.. :D


    So you know the ideal temperature to support life on this planet?

    You do realise that after an ice age the temperatures increase?

    How do you know what rate the temperature is meant to increase by?

    How do you know if the earth wouldn't be more productive if it was 1 degree hotter?

    You are making a massive assumption that C02 levels predict our temperatures, it plays a minor part at best.

    You are a Global warming alarmist.

    You should be thanking that the temperature is above average as you wouldn't be alive now if it wasn't. Its only a matter of time until the next ice age kicks in, then things will start to die. 50, 100 or 200 years away, we are just about overdue based on the fairly accurate cycles that it follows.

    I believe it could get much worse if it gets cooler than if it gets hotter. History shows how bad it gets when the temperature drops.

    We should wait until this years Global temperature data to be complete. If it drops again by even half as much as last year then we should not introduce anything. If the temperature rises then last year may have been an extremely large unexplained glitch.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
    O-B-E-L-I-X likes this.
  9. T0fu

    T0fu Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    SYDNEY
    im fairly sure climate change is just a bit of spin the lobbyists and governments put on global warming because it sounds more passive, like its as inevitable as the seasons. Global warming is the proper name thats been around since the hippies.
     
  10. ShadowGeoff

    ShadowGeoff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,111
    Location:
    Perth
    Maz, with regards to water;

    Imagine that the climate of the earth can be represented by a massive see-saw, a beam on a fulcrum, and is balanced evenly. That represents all of the natural greenhouse vs cooling effects including water. Without the influence of humans this balance would be relativley stable, the attitude of the beam would change (or cycle) slowly over time.

    Now imagine the influence of humans adding thier few % to the 'greenhouse' side of the see-saw. The system is no longer stable, the attitude of the beam (the climate) will (must) shift until a new balancing point is found. The system is so massive, with such a range of possible outcomes, that if the system changes by only a small amount, a few degrees, it has massive consequences for humans. Furthermore, by starting a shift, we can trigger knock-on effects that accelerate the change. Our few % can trigger events that add much more than a few %.

    What I am saying is that even though our influence only represents a tiny percentage of the total components of the system the system is finely balanced to begin with, at a nice point between unlivable extremes. Our influence on the system is significant in that it alters a balance between opposing extrees and slides us further towards one.
     
  11. Maz

    Maz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Pretty much spot on.

    Also Global warming hit the spotlight grant money was flying everywhere to collect data. Then once ice/tree samples were collected showing no long term temperature increase they had to quickly save face and change names to "Climate Change"

    Such a generic term, the climate always changes so no one can disagree with that :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

    That is completely incorrect. The Earth has ice ages in cycles that kill off most of the life on this planet. I would not call that stable. Knowing that the earth is capable and plans on killing half of our population in a single decade due to cold, makes me slightly cautious when it comes to turning down our little tiny heater.

    You'd hate to turn off that little heater and get rid of it. We may need that little heater in the future and it may then be too late to get it back.

    Not that the data is showing that the temperature is rising, however if that was true then i'll play along with the following scenario.

    Global temperatures drop apparently 8 degrees lower during these "ice ages". If we can manage to increase the average global temperature by 2 degrees above the earths "warm period average" then that 8 degree drop during the next ice age may not hurt as much. A bit of heat and complaining now may result in billions of lives saved due to the long term insulation we are creating.

    The good thing out of this is even if Australia gives a slight reduction in emissions it will probably be a 0.000001% reduction to the worlds emissions, so we may be safe from our own stupidity.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
    O-B-E-L-I-X likes this.
  12. yanman

    yanman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    6,605
    Location:
    Hobart
    The moment someone starts talking about global average temperature the alarm bells start ringing. The planet contains a huge number of different climate systems that interplay to create the conditions we observe at any given time and place. Talking about changes only in global average is completely stupid. It's like averaging out all the pixels in the years DVDs and saying TV is getting pinker!
     
  13. Maz

    Maz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The alarm bells ring for a reason.

    Temperature is by far the most important variable for human life. It is the only variable that can single handedly wipe out half our population.

    If the humidity, wind speed, C02 levels, water temps/flows/acidity etc. Any of these variables could change to a given extreme and we'd survive quite fine as we have the technology.

    If the temperature manages to reach its normal temperature that it hits every ice age then we die.
     
  14. yanman

    yanman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    6,605
    Location:
    Hobart
    I don't think you understood my post at all. It's the localised changes in temperature and their causes that is what matters, not just looking at the average.
     
  15. Maz

    Maz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yes but if the Global average is reducing, then any localised point of the earth has a greater chance that it is cooling too...

    Why does localised temperature changes matter? No one cares if there is one town that got no drop in temperature but there were 1000 other towns that had half their population killed due to the cold.

    Average drop = bad.

    I'd say we have far more land that is uninhabitable due to being too cold than land being uninhabitable due to being too hot.
     
  16. hlokk

    hlokk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,189
    Location:
    WA
    First of all, I think its quite important that something actually be done. We will have increased temperatures, other associated weather effects, and various other problems. Do I think the world is going to plummet into some apocalypse? No.

    You clearly do not understand what a trend is.

    What you are saying is basically akin to saying "well, i won at the casino today, so I'm not loosing money, the house is loosing, so I'm going to keep spending money because its all different than the other days I've been here".

    Over time, when you average it out, people dont win at the casino, but sure as hell individuals win, and some come out on top in the long run. We will have cold years, we will have hot years, we will have years inbetween. However, we are experiencing a trend to increased temperatures.



    Its like ShadowGeoffs see-saw, or the oil market. Increase production by 10% has no effect if demand still outstrips supply.

    Imagine you have an office job sorting out documents. If you receive 1 extra document per day more than you can deal with, it doesnt matter whether you normally deal with 1, 10, or 1000 documents, that extra document each day is going to pile up until your desk is overflowing. The natural process if the stuff is piling up is to perhaps hire new people (assuming you're working as fast as you can), but this takes time. Nature keeps check of greenhouse, carbon, other fluctuations, but it needs time to respond. At the moment, the increase in greenhouse gases and subsequent temperature increases is faster than nature can deal with it (via feedback loops, changing migrations or shifting vegetation for example)


    Its been happening more than since the 90's. The start of this decade had a lot of hot years too.


    Some of those other questions:

    Theres a range, but it takes a while to adapt (either migration or evolution)

    Do you realise temperature increases doesnt happen this quick?

    We know the temperature increase rates from ice cores and simulations that match the data.

    Have you read any scientific studies on how productivity would change with each degree increase?

    CO2 levels affect temperature. Are they the biggest effect? They dont have to be. The important bit to remember here is that the only way to model increasing temperatures over the last decade is by using the effects of CO2. There simply arent any models with the same accuracy when we discount the effects of CO2.
    (and btw, its CO2 not C02)


    There is a difference between saying that it is an existing effect, and that we should be alarmed by it. The vast majority of climatologists (i'm talking 90%), agree that anthropogenic warming is taking place and is affected by our greenhouse gas emissions. There is discussion over how much though. I dont think the world is going to collapse, but we are going to have problems that are best dealt with now, and not later.


    Demonstrating your lack of knowledge on how this works again are you Maz. Please go read up on basic statistics and understand what a TREND is.

    The world could cool to below average temperatures for the rest of this year and the next but it does not invalidate the findings. Two anomalous years do not mean much in the long run. If we had two hot years in a row, it would not mean the world is warming on the long term scale (say decade averaged). What matters is what is the average temperature doing, are we experiencing an increased number of hot years compared to cold years?

    There is nothing stopping cold years from happening, its a natural part of things, but to assume that because this year and the last was cold that the world must now be cooling is very naive and ignorant.

    There is noise in the system, it goes up and down, but over time the trend is upwards, and this is what they are looking at. Like stocks, or gold prices or oil prices or currency exchange rates. Look at a yearly snapshoot, squint and you can see the overall trend. Now find a section thats increasing when you squint. Now zoom in to that section and I guarantee you can find days where the price dropped from the previous one, or even several days where it has happened, but when you zoom out and squint, the overall trend is upwards. If we apply a moving average filter, we eliminate the day to day fluctuations and see the trend over weeks, months or years.

    To show there is now global cooling you would need to do at least two things:
    1. Show a trend of decreasing temperatures. One or two years doesnt mean much, due to natural noise, fluctuations and anomalies.
    2. Come up with a model that is able to predict the temperatures well.

    Currently only models that take into account the CO2 levels are accurate enough. And the CO2 level is not falling. If we could correlate it with solar flares, or this or that or the other then it would lend weight to that hypothesis instead. However, other models cannot match the actual data.


    edit:

    Averages matter. Could you tell if it was a trick coin with only 5 coin tosses? If it was 60/40 to one side you could not tell whether it was a real or trick coin based on the outcomes. If you were a casino, you could even make a handsome profit on less (casinos operate on those small margins that work out in the averages). Up it to 1000's of coin tosses and you can. You can keep increasing for better understandings of the processes.

    Luckily we have actual scientists determining the effects. I get the feeling you havent read much on the effects of temperature increases we would be expecting. Do you even know much about desertification or aridification?

    edit: and either way it happens, it wouldnt matter too much if we were causing it. If we ran our powerplants on something that decreased the global temperature, something would probably still need to be done if it happened too quick. Even if one is worse, then it doesnt matter which one we are in if it needs something to be done about it anyways. If there were two situations, where either your arm or finger is removed, if you're with the terrorists who remove fingers, would you go "oh, well it would be worse if it was my arm, I wont bother doing anything about it"? Something still should be done
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
  17. yanman

    yanman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    6,605
    Location:
    Hobart
    It's fairly simple. Here's the premise at it's crudest:

    Area A temperature is up 1 degree
    Area B temperature is down 1 degree

    Global: "The average hasn't changed, nothing's wrong!"
    A: "It's global warming!"
    B": "It's an ice age!"
     
  18. Maz

    Maz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Actually no, the trend including previous ice ages and warm periods has a cooling trend.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

    I dont look at a short term "trend" i'd rather look at the long term data to put any short term increase or decrease in temperature into perspective.

    So this hot livable temperature period of time that we are living in is cooler than previous warm periods. So we wont be setting any long term records even if it went up 2 degree's.

    http://www.john-daly.com/stations/adelaide.gif
    http://www.john-daly.com/stations/darwin.gif

    Hmmm Adelaides "trend" looks slightly cooler.... The vast majority shows a downward "trend"

    Much better than a cropped 20 year graph showing a small upwards trend.

    Area A goes down by 7 degrees
    Area B goes down by 9 degrees

    Global: "The average has dropped 8 degrees like previous ice ages"

    A: "It's an ice age, can you send supplies everyones dead"
    B: "It's an ice age, can you send supplies everyones dead"
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
  19. yanman

    yanman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    6,605
    Location:
    Hobart
    Who said that the causes of local temperature change in different areas was necessarily the same thing? (hence my over simple example of one area rising and another falling)
     
  20. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    451
    Location:
    Sydney
    Apparently there is quite a lot of debate about this. Putting your fingers in your ears and trumpeting LALALA THERE IS NO DEBATE I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG doesn't make it go away.

    Trends are all fine and well. If you look at temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years, you will see cycles of heating and cooling. That is a trend. Taking the last 50 years and extrapolating that into some alarmist future scenario is not a trend; 50 years isn't even close to an adequate sample size on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old. Your definition of trend is indeed a convenient one.

    Lets not forget that the earth is a massively, vastly complex ecosystem that we are only just beginning to understand. Climate change people seem to act as though they've got the whole thing figured out. I find this arrogant in the extreme. We don't even have the technology to measure or see everything that happens yet. It could be centuries before we understand everything that contributes to our environment, if we ever do. In the meantime though feel free to keep guessing, mother nature is laughing at you just as I am.

    Too bad we have to squander trillions of dollars in the process when nations are starving, dying from disease and being overrun by dictators though. I'm sure there's no better use for all that money going into diplomats globetrotting to countless "meetings" and "summits", nor the billions and billions being spent on indoctrinating the world into The One Viewpoint.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: