Jump to content

Climate Change. Threat to the World?


Paul6754
 Share

Recommended Posts

So the theory is that increasing CO2 levels directly cause increasing temperatures by the GHG effect.

All things being equal, yes.

 

However in the graph it is seen that from 1880 to 1910 CO2 levels increase whereas temps. goes down, from 1940 to 1978 CO2 levels go up but temp. goes down, from 1980 to 2020 CO2 levels go up and so does temp.

So there is a consistent/steady increase in CO2 levels from 1880 to 2020 but not a consistent/steady rise in temp. So rising levels of man made CO2 cannot be the sole reason/driver for the temperature increase seen since 1880 'til present day. Man made CO2 may play a role but just how much of a role is the major question.

Look at these climate model projections. None of them show a linear response to increased CO2. So the question is, why do you expect a linear temperature response to CO2?

 

spacer.png

Let me tell you why the models are not linear. What they do is they estimate climate forcings.  A climate forcing is something like a volcanic eruption. A volcanic eruption will cause a dip in temperature due to increased aerosols (dust particles) blocking sunlight. So, if say there's a major volcanic eruption on average every 10 years, this will be given as an input to the model. Then, they will run the model several times with the time and severity of the eruption changed and finally take the mean of all those runs.  When they hindcast the model they will use the exact values of the volcano eruption as an input. This is how the models are validated. That is just one forcing, of course. There are several others.

My thoughts are there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere and it is not a potent enough GHG for it to be the sole driver of climate change particularly when water vapor is a much more potent GHG and present in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapor must be playing a role together with the processes that have always changed the climate since the day  the earth was formed, they just haven't stopped or taken a break.

Now we're talking about feedbacks. CO2 rises causing temperatures to rise causing increased water vapour and so on. This is a positive feedback. Water vapour doesn't just increase on it's own, something has to trigger that. So when climate sensitivity is calculated, positive and negative feedbacks are taken into account. Without any feedbacks the climate sensitivity is 1.2C. Getting an exact value for those feedbacks is very difficult, so error bars are used. At the moment the most likely value for climate sensitivity is around 3C.  It's important to note that the difference between an ice age and not has been as little as around 4.5C. So think of a 3C change in that context.

Hence the notion that western countries should destroy their economies in support of a weak theory involving CO2 is just ludicrous, the IPCC is part of the UN which is a political organization intent on wealth redistribution in the world. The Paris accord was an absolute farce and the upcoming jolly in Glasgow will be the same.

Before we get to policy we need to accept the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/09/2021 at 04:15, hillmanhunter said:

So the theory is that increasing CO2 levels directly cause increasing temperatures by the GHG effect.

All things being equal, yes.

 

However in the graph it is seen that from 1880 to 1910 CO2 levels increase whereas temps. goes down, from 1940 to 1978 CO2 levels go up but temp. goes down, from 1980 to 2020 CO2 levels go up and so does temp.

So there is a consistent/steady increase in CO2 levels from 1880 to 2020 but not a consistent/steady rise in temp. So rising levels of man made CO2 cannot be the sole reason/driver for the temperature increase seen since 1880 'til present day. Man made CO2 may play a role but just how much of a role is the major question.

Look at these climate model projections. None of them show a linear response to increased CO2. So the question is, why do you expect a linear temperature response to CO2?

 

spacer.png

 

The issue with the graph you posted in your last post is nothing to do with a linear response to CO2, it is about two portions of the graph, each approx. 30 years long, showing an increase in CO2 levels but a decrease in temperature, so how can it be concluded that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature as all the data doesn't show it. You simply cannot pick and choose what data is used in such an analysis, all the data from 1880 to present has to be used.

This 1880-present CO2/Temp graph/data set (1880-present) you posted above is one of the most often referenced. Hence in the absence of other compelling data one can only conclude that there is no definitive evidence that man made CO2 is driving the slight increase in the average global temperature of the world and with it climate change, none whatsoever.

The graph above showing climate projections is worthless in the context you use it, computer projections are only useful if being compared to real measured data. It is also bad science to use data from 1955 - present to try and justify data from 1880 - present, ie any computer projections should use the same set of data as the measured hard data, 1880 - present.

I do not expect a linear temperature response to CO2 but if the theory of increasing levels of CO2 causes increased temperature by the green house gas effect in the atmosphere then there should be NO 30 year periods where  the CO2 levels go up and temperature goes down, none, zilch.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this data is there are other processes driving the temperature rise and climate, CO2 may play a role but how much is the main question.

On 13/09/2021 at 04:15, hillmanhunter said:

 

Let me tell you why the models are not linear. What they do is they estimate climate forcings.  A climate forcing is something like a volcanic eruption. A volcanic eruption will cause a dip in temperature due to increased aerosols (dust particles) blocking sunlight. So, if say there's a major volcanic eruption on average every 10 years, this will be given as an input to the model. Then, they will run the model several times with the time and severity of the eruption changed and finally take the mean of all those runs.  When they hindcast the model they will use the exact values of the volcano eruption as an input. This is how the models are validated. That is just one forcing, of course. There are several others.

Now we're talking about feedbacks. CO2 rises causing temperatures to rise causing increased water vapour and so on. This is a positive feedback. Water vapour doesn't just increase on it's own, something has to trigger that. So when climate sensitivity is calculated, positive and negative feedbacks are taken into account. Without any feedbacks the climate sensitivity is 1.2C. Getting an exact value for those feedbacks is very difficult, so error bars are used. At the moment the most likely value for climate sensitivity is around 3C.  It's important to note that the difference between an ice age and not has been as little as around 4.5C. So think of a 3C change in that context.

Before we get to policy we need to accept the science.

HH, we've all read and heard that stuff and it's trying to come up with reasons/explanations to support and make excuses for a weak theory which at the end of the day point to the fact that CO2 is not the control knob of the world's climate, it just isn't.

How do you explain the existence of the Roman warm period around ca 50BC and the medieval warm period around ca 1200AD, what caused the temperature to rise then as man wasn't putting much CO2 into the atmosphere in those days. The medieval warm period cooled into the little ice age around the 1700/1800's from which the world is warming up from now.

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/09/2021 at 09:11, hillmanhunter said:

temperatures rise > places become inhospitable > populations forced to migrate > increased competition for natural resources > conflict

Climate change: World now sees twice as many days over 50C

Wet bulb temperature: The crucial weather concept that actually tells us when heat becomes lethal

People now live longer and healthier lives that they ever have thanks to the availability of cheap energy from fossil fuels. There is more food around and less famine, people generally live far better lives now than they did compared to 100 years ago.

The people and governments of the 3rd world want access to fossil fuels to provide cheap energy to pull themselves out of poverty and build their economies.

There is no increase in severe weather events around the world, it is a figment of the imagination by those who's salary and careers depend on propagating this climate myth.

One of the largest climate change cons ever is showing photos of forests burning linking the images of hot fires to hot weather and climate change. Forest fires in America (CA, OR, WA etc) and probably elsewhere are the result of human activity,  building homes/towns in dry forest areas and  Greens Policies preventing regular forestry management. 

The health of most dry forests around the world depends on regular forestry management and controlled burns to keep the forests healthy and prevent dry under growth forming on the forest floor which catches fire on a lightening strikes or as a result of arson. The fires once established burn out of control and take  some putting out and are easy picking to be blamed on climate change when that is not the case..

https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/oregon/stories-in-oregon/why-do-a-controlled-burn/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the graph you posted in your last post is nothing to do with a linear response to CO2, it is about two portions of the graph, each approx. 30 years long, showing an increase in CO2 levels but a decrease in temperature, so how can it be concluded that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature as all the data doesn't show it. You simply cannot pick and choose what data is used in such an analysis, all the data from 1880 to present has to be used.

This 1880-present CO2/Temp graph/data set (1880-present) you posted above is one of the most often referenced. Hence in the absence of other compelling data one can only conclude that there is no definitive evidence that man made CO2 is driving the slight increase in the average global temperature of the world and with it climate change, none whatsoever.

The graph above showing climate projections is worthless in the context you use it, computer projections are only useful if being compared to real measured data. It is also bad science to use data from 1955 - present to try and justify data from 1880 - present, ie any computer projections should use the same set of data as the measured hard data, 1880 - present.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever. There are negative forcings. It's like saying you can disprove that a heater causes a room to warm up by opening a window.

Climate Forcings and Climate Models

I do not expect a linear temperature response to CO2 but if the theory of increasing levels of CO2 causes increased temperature by the green house gas effect in the atmosphere then there should be NO 30 year periods where  the CO2 levels go up and temperature goes down, none, zilch.

If the negative forcings are big enough then why not?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this data is there are other processes driving the temperature rise and climate, CO2 may play a role but how much is the main question.

But you're not talking about temperature rises, you're talking about pauses. Logically what you wrote makes no sense.  A period of no increase in CO2 but an increase in temperature is what you would need for your point to logically make sense.

How do you explain the existence of the Roman warm period around ca 50BC and the medieval warm period around ca 1200AD, what caused the temperature to rise then as man wasn't putting much CO2 into the atmosphere in those days. The medieval warm period cooled into the little ice age around the 1700/1800's from which the world is warming up from now.

I don't have an issue with regional temperature variations. I'm not sure why you think I should.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no increase in severe weather events around the world, it is a figment of the imagination by those who's salary and careers depend on propagating this climate myth.

Normally, you'd back that up with some evidence. 

Climate change: World now sees twice as many days over 50C

 

People have eyes, they can see what's going on.

"Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California in Los Angeles, said so many records were being set in the US this summer that they no longer made the news: “The extremes that would have been newsworthy a couple of years ago aren’t, because they pale in comparison to the astonishing rises a few weeks ago.” This was happening in other countries too, he said, though with less media attention. “The US is often in the spotlight, but we have also seen extraordinary heat events in northern Europe and Siberia. This is not a localised freak event, it is definitely part of a coherent global pattern.”"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

The issue with the graph you posted in your last post is nothing to do with a linear response to CO2, it is about two portions of the graph, each approx. 30 years long, showing an increase in CO2 levels but a decrease in temperature, so how can it be concluded that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature as all the data doesn't show it. You simply cannot pick and choose what data is used in such an analysis, all the data from 1880 to present has to be used.

This 1880-present CO2/Temp graph/data set (1880-present) you posted above is one of the most often referenced. Hence in the absence of other compelling data one can only conclude that there is no definitive evidence that man made CO2 is driving the slight increase in the average global temperature of the world and with it climate change, none whatsoever.

The graph above showing climate projections is worthless in the context you use it, computer projections are only useful if being compared to real measured data. It is also bad science to use data from 1955 - present to try and justify data from 1880 - present, ie any computer projections should use the same set of data as the measured hard data, 1880 - present.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever. There are negative forcings. It's like saying you can disprove that a heater causes a room to warm up by opening a window.

Climate Forcings and Climate Models

I do not expect a linear temperature response to CO2 but if the theory of increasing levels of CO2 causes increased temperature by the green house gas effect in the atmosphere then there should be NO 30 year periods where  the CO2 levels go up and temperature goes down, none, zilch.

If the negative forcings are big enough then why not?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this data is there are other processes driving the temperature rise and climate, CO2 may play a role but how much is the main question.

 

If the increase in CO2 levels is driving the increase in Temperature there should NOT be 30 year periods of time where CO2 levels increase but temperature levels go down. The only explanation for this is that CO2 is NOT driving the increase in temperature and hence the earth's climate, ie there are other processes going on which control the earth's temperature (You call them forcings/negative forcings), I maintain they're the same processes that have always controlled the earth's temperature and hence climate for millions of years which man does NOT fully understand. 

The reasons why CO2 doesn't control the earth's temp. and climate is there is not enough of it in the atmosphere and it is not a very powerful green house gas.

11 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

But you're not talking about temperature rises, you're talking about pauses. Logically what you wrote makes no sense.  A period of no increase in CO2 but an increase in temperature is what you would need for your point to logically make sense.

I'm pointing out temperature decreases and we both agree that CO2 levels have consistently gradually increased from 1880 - present. The decrease in temperature levels happens over 30 year periods even when the CO2 levels go up. How does that happen if CO2 drives the temperature, it just cannot be dismissed as "Forcings (See above), how come there are no such forcings from ca 1980 - present, volcanoes and all types of weather events have happened during this time period just as before.

11 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

How do you explain the existence of the Roman warm period around ca 50BC and the medieval warm period around ca 1200AD, what caused the temperature to rise then as man wasn't putting much CO2 into the atmosphere in those days. The medieval warm period cooled into the little ice age around the 1700/1800's from which the world is warming up from now.

I don't have an issue with regional temperature variations. I'm not sure why you think I should.

So how did the Roman and Medieval warm periods occur and disappear if man was not pumping CO2 and other green house gases in to the atmosphere. Also, how reqional were they as I doubt it was known these warm periods were regional as there were very few weather stations around the world in those days.

HH who knows whether the CO2 theory is right or not but it doesn't appear at the moment there is any solid explanation for the slight rise in the global temp of the world and the science certainly isn't settled. To my eyes there is no definitive data or proof that CO2 is the bad boy in fact just the opposite is true.

We all should be worried about politicians, celebrities and interest groups strutting about the world telling us to give up fossil fuel powered cars, flying, eat less meat and scaring children 'cause we all know they won't.

I'm not  advocating to do nothing but certainly am against the UN/AOC etc plan to solely focus on CO2. Much better would be to spend on research and develop to improve/produce new technology  to gradually replace and preserve fossil fuels. A few nuclear power stations in the UK right now wouldn't go amiss.

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Liam Norton anyone?

Had an appallling interview on GMB the other day. Didn't back his points up with evidence and did himself no favours by storming off. Should have done proper research and it doesn't help the cause with interviews like that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know you've given a bad interview when ITV presenters are hammering you and you are on the side of combatting climate change 🤣

 

Those ER and their offshoots have such bad PR - I get that their protests are very newsworthy and they get a lot of coverage but they also universally piss everyone off at the same time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the increase in CO2 levels is driving the increase in Temperature there should NOT be 30 year periods of time where CO2 levels increase but temperature levels go down. The only explanation for this is that CO2 is NOT driving the increase in temperature and hence the earth's climate, ie there are other processes going on which control the earth's temperature (You call them forcings/negative forcings), I maintain they're the same processes that have always controlled the earth's temperature and hence climate for millions of years which man does NOT fully understand. 

You said periods. It's period as it happened once, over 100 years ago, when CO2 levels were a mere 7% above pre-industrial levels and it hasn't happened since. Why hasn't it happened again now that CO2 levels are almost 50% above pre-industrial levels?

The reasons why CO2 doesn't control the earth's temp. and climate is there is not enough of it in the atmosphere and it is not a very powerful green house gas.

Interesting. How much needs to be in the atmosphere to "control the earth's temp"?

I'm pointing out temperature decreases and we both agree that CO2 levels have consistently gradually increased from 1880 - present. The decrease in temperature levels happens over 30 year periods even when the CO2 levels go up. How does that happen if CO2 drives the temperature, it just cannot be dismissed as "Forcings (See above), how come there are no such forcings from ca 1980 - present, volcanoes and all types of weather events have happened during this time period just as before.

Eh? Forcings happen all the time, otherwise the temperature change would be smoother. Just look at any temperature graph. The wiggly bits are either forcings (or unforced natural variability such as ENSO events).I get the impression you don't understand the mechanisms in play. Solar output, Earth's tilt, CO2 levels, volcanic eruptions, industrial pollution etc all play their part. 

So how did the Roman and Medieval warm periods occur and disappear if man was not pumping CO2 and other green house gases in to the atmosphere. Also, how reqional were they as I doubt it was known these warm periods were regional as there were very few weather stations around the world in those days.

Regional variations can happen, currents can shift, polar vortexes can get stuck. What can't happen is a shift in global temperature without a change in energy balance. Find one of them and you might be onto something.

we know they were regional by using proxies.

HH who knows whether the CO2 theory is right or not (scientists know it's right) but it doesn't appear at the moment there is any solid explanation for the slight rise (>1 degree change in mean temperature is not slight) in the global temp of the world and the science certainly isn't settled (yes it is). To my eyes there is no definitive data or proof that CO2 is the bad boy in fact just the opposite is true (ok, show me).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

You know you've given a bad interview when ITV presenters are hammering you and you are on the side of combatting climate change 🤣

 

Those ER and their offshoots have such bad PR - I get that their protests are very newsworthy and they get a lot of coverage but they also universally piss everyone off at the same time. 

All these insulate Britain mouthbreathers do is, to some extent, alienate some people against the very real threat of climate change. I'd read someone held up in traffic jam had a stroke and medical treatment was consequently delayed. Well done you <ovf censored> idiots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

You know you've given a bad interview when ITV presenters are hammering you and you are on the side of combatting climate change 🤣

 

Those ER and their offshoots have such bad PR - I get that their protests are very newsworthy and they get a lot of coverage but they also universally piss everyone off at the same time. 

He's probably being controlled by his mother?

Apparently,she's a Labour councillor who's already been arrested four times this week!!

Edited by For Us All
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doha said:

All these insulate Britain mouthbreathers do is, to some extent, alienate some people against the very real threat of climate change. I'd read someone held up in traffic jam had a stroke and medical treatment was consequently delayed. Well done you <ovf censored> idiots. 

I read about that. It's a very sad story. Isn't it shocking that her son felt the only way to get her to hospital on time was driving himself due to ambulance delays- our ambulance service cannot currently cope and needs more staff. This is not the first time the unavailability of ambulances has had an impact on someone's life and this is an important issue which needs addressing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...