Is Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon?

[Paul mabbott]

Didn't realise you had any sense ....

Let's change the subject and suppose that I were going on an airplane. A most unlikely thing but I would like to be assured of facts: the pilot was qualified, the aircraft had a mechanical check-up, the air control people were sober, &c - facts. I would not be assured by a pilot who thought he knew how to work the plane, nor a technical assessment that the plane was *probably* air-worthy, &c, &c - opinions

So I would apply the same criteria to people messing about with the world's atmosphere.

PS: the last time I travelled by 'plane, the pilot was a Serb by the name of Captain Cokup.

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

Can I join you Chris, I've got some Hart's Breath made up

It's a pity, all this "Facts v Belief" I just use my senses

Will

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by annmaria

Hi there Chris, Earth Hart and any one else who is sitting comfortably
Having said that I had nightmares about being chased by Giant Ladybirds so this thread is not healthy for me either.
Annmaria

Perhaps it wasn't a nightmare....maybe it was real. Who knows, it could be an unforeseen side effect of global warming that all the 'experts' have missed.
You saw it here first folks!

Regards, Chris

[Strontium]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

You saw it here first folks!

Regards, Chris

Another hypothesis formed - good job I heard that higher temperatures caused by illness can make changes to the activity of neurotransmitters in the brain because of thermal dynamics of the enzymes - that can affect dreams and make them vivid and kind of technicolor..

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by annmaria

So It seems sadly only the so called experts are to have their way....this I do not think is healthy in any debate or for wild about Britain.
Having said that I had nightmares about being chased by Giant Ladybirds so this thread is not healthy for me either.
Annmaria

We're coming to get you ....

[annmaria]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

We're coming to get you ....

Oh No that ones got whiskers........
Now I'll never get to sleep
Annmaria

[annmaria]

Thats better a light supper usually does the trick
Annmaria

[Coley]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Is that your signature? Can you have a picture as your sig?

[Strontium]

Is he trying to give some anatomical account of the ladybird? or is he giving an aphids eye veiw?

[Earth Hart]

Being a Yarnweaver, I tend to speak from my hart & sometimes allow my emotions to come to the fore when it comes to Climate Change & Global Warming, because I want my 2 grandchildren to have a good life. I have no scientific background whatsoever and have never really been able to put that side across but I have no need to when Paul is around. This piece is one of the most succinct I've come across. Nice one Paul

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

The temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is not, and never has been, constant. Therefore, naturally, we would have global warming or global cooling - both amount to a part of climate change.

Most scientists have stressed that concerns are with climate change rather than global warming pers se.

What we are concerned about are anthropogenic changes - i.e. climate changes due specifically to human activity - this will all be added to (or taken away from ) any natural climate changes. It must be admitted that many people have taken advantage of these two vectors to confuse the issue so that they don't have to take any action ...

Therefore if you want a simple label for what we can do something about then it has been there for a long time - anthropogenically enhanced climatic change - but it's not very catchy is it?

This is where you see the problem - use a comprehensive definition of what the problem is and some people will say, "That's too technical, can't cope with that .... ". Use a simplified term like global warming or climate change then people (sometimes the same ones ) will say, "You're over-simplifying .... it's a natural phenomenon .... " .... anything really so that they don't have to change their life-style

The further complication is that when we talk about 'climate change' it is actually as variable as that on the local scale. The atmospheric temperature globally will rise, but this doesn't mean that Britain (for instance) will end up with nice calm Mediterranean climate [I have more than once had people saying, "I don't mind about global warming - I'll be able to go to Brighton rather than Marbella for holidays ...."]. What has always been clear about the British isles is that with changes of weather systems in the northern hemisphere, weather on these islands would become almost unpredictable (it's not easy to give a weather forecast at present!) .... don't say you weren't warned, thirty years ago ..... or earlier ...

[SparklySarah]

As far as I know, it is a natural phenomenon, but we're also adding to it with pollution. We're actually due for another ice age (though an ice age is any timt that there is ice on the planet) and also a polar flip which could be interesting. If you think about all the phases the earth has gone through (learned most of this in archaeology) it heats up and cools down naturally, like a method of controlling itself. Also thinking on what this world has gone through, we shouldn't be worrying about the world warming up, we should be worrying about us! The world can cope with it, it's done it several times before!! I'm interested to know what effect the plar flip will have on the world though.........

Sarah

[Greengardener?]

Hello all,

The IPCC's last report should really have put an end to the are we/ aren't we to blame argument that has, frankly, been postulated for far too many years. (please see http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf for the report if you have the time and patience!) The IPCC report is based on studies of a large number of peer reviewed papers, and there are a large number of meta-analyses (where a group collates and compares a large number of studies on a certain topic to show overall trends, which tend to be subject to less bias, and fewer overall errors due to the number of data collected) that have been collated that show that anthropogenic (ie man-made) climate change is real and is happening (please see the following examples - although many more exist in academic journals which most will not be able to view without subscription - AAAS ATLAS OF POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT or BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science).

There is a general consensus within the scientific community that global anthropogenic climate change is the biggest challenge facing humankind today. Many of the scientists that do not agree with this view have been shown to be funded from interested parties, such as the oil companies and others. I understand that science can be wrong, but when you have such a consensus from so many different branches of the scientific community - from geologists and climatologists (i.e. those that deal with the massive scale over incredibly vast time frames) to ecologists and microbiologists (the small scale and relatively tiny timescales) and everything in between, there really must be something to it. Even George W. Bush has recently publicly stated that the activities of humans is having a catastrophic effect on he Earth's climate!

The consensus is that, unless we can keep the changes down to *an average* (to allow for natural fluctuations of the Earth's temperature) of 2 degrees celsius from pre-industrial levels, then the effects will be catastrophic and irreversible. We are already seeing average changes of 1.6 degrees, and therefore we must see a peak in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, and then a steady decline thereafter, in order for this change to be manageable.

We are all seeing the effects of these changes - last summer's rain, and every month being "the hottest on record" and this is no coincidence. The incidence of natural disasters is increasing, and will only get worse.

We are effectively watching Rome burn while we all fiddle. However, we do have some hope, because the Kyoto treaty is due for renewal at the end of next year. There are a number of discussions going on around the World, the main ones of which started in Bali last year, will go onto Poznan this year, and will cumulate in Copenhagen next year, where the World's actions and responsibilities will be decided. Side discussions are also going on at EU level, and at the G8 and many other fora. The best thing that we can all do is go with the huge weight of scientific evidence and understand that it is real and that NOW is the time for both our politicians and us as individuals to take clear and decisive actions to help the situation.

I hope that the references that i have provided are useful. I could go on a lot more about this, but as this is only my second ever post on this forum, I think that I will leave it there for now. I don't want to alienate potential friends before i have made them

But please, can we have fewer "is it real" questions, or maybe next time I should just reply with a straight 'yes'.

Thanks all

GG?

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by Greengardener?

Even George W. Bush has recently publicly stated that the activities of humans is having a catastrophic effect on he Earth's climate!

Yes, old GW came out, but the military were holding a gun at his head. For the past two to three years an Intelligence Assessment has been taking place. If you haven't already got it here's http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/...telligence.pdf They've got the President, whoever gets the job, by the short & curlies

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

Yes, old GW came out, but the military were holding a gun at his head. For the past two to three years an Intelligence Assessment has been taking place. If you haven't already got it here's http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/...telligence.pdf They've got the President, whoever gets the job, by the short & curlies

Has no one seen the Exxon adverts (on Setanta or Eurosport?)? If even Exxon/Esso is recognising the problem then we should be scared. Mind, they're not suggesting anything so tricky as driving less, using smaller cars etc etc but they have confidence in improved burning techniques Still, they've admitted the problem, shame it may be thirty years too late .... I should think that's one of the reasons that Burning Bush has had a change of mind ....

[griffgrouch]

Originally Posted by Greengardener?

Hello all,

The IPCC's last report should really have put an end to the are we/ aren't we to blame argument that has, frankly, been postulated for far too many years.

Out of interest, could you advise us on how many of the authors of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Rerport 'Summary for Policy Makers' are scientists?

[griffgrouch]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Has no one seen the Exxon adverts (on Setanta or Eurosport?)? If even Exxon/Esso is recognising the problem then we should be scared. Mind, they're not suggesting anything so tricky as driving less, using smaller cars etc etc but they have confidence in improved burning techniques Still, they've admitted the problem, shame it may be thirty years too late .... I should think that's one of the reasons that Burning Bush has had a change of mind ....

They are not admitting anything, it's marketing, that's all (clever too). They are the last people that would say it's ********

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by griffgrouch

Out of interest, could you advise us on how many of the authors of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Rerport 'Summary for Policy Makers' are scientists?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...g1-annexes.pdf lists the scientists. You have to wade through a glossary of terminology first - but that itself might be of use to some of us ...

[griffgrouch]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...g1-annexes.pdf lists the scientists. You have to wade through a glossary of terminology first - but that itself might be of use to some of us ...

The assessment is gone over line-by-line by politicos, and if they don't like what they read, they change it, about 25 in total. Because some of the scientists have been involved somewhere down the line, their name is included. Many have tried in vain to get their name taken from the list.

Anyway, the IPCC's outcomes are based on flawed computer models that do not match real data. Nowhere in the models did they predict the cooling of the last six years. They do not even use the sun (solar irradiance and eruptivity) as an input variable for the models, nor clouds. Models cannot predict climate (at the moment), they can hardly predict weather.

There is also massive errors in the temp data collecting - most of the soviet cold data was lost and the UHIE is not taken into consideration.

When we have the next 10 years of cooling, you will not hear of this any more.

Some interesting reading, but a little long winded.. http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

Anyway, I need to open a bottle of red.

[Greengardener?]

Originally Posted by griffgrouch

Out of interest, could you advise us on how many of the authors of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Rerport 'Summary for Policy Makers' are scientists?

Grr, i was preparing a whole list of references and allsorts on the various people that authored the report. Many of them have been researching scientists for years, and are at the head of their respective fields. Then my computer crashed, and it is way past tea time, so I am not going to go back over them now. but a full lis of these scientist can be found on the IPCC site, and you can google to see what they are up to. Sorry, I was doing this for you, but i have other appointments tonight. I may try and go back over this at some point this weekend!

GG?

[Greengardener?]

Originally Posted by griffgrouch

The assessment is gone over line-by-line by politicos, and if they don't like what they read, they change it, about 25 in total. Because some of the scientists have been involved somewhere down the line, their name is included. Many have tried in vain to get their name taken from the list.

...
Some interesting reading, but a little long winded.. Opposing the IPCC dogma

Anyway, I need to open a bottle of red.

Sorry Griffin Grouch, I have just had a very quick look into the site you link to. What has John Mclean Published, or the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (where he seems to get his information from) published in scientific journals that has been open to peer review? The IPCC may be flawed, but they base their evidence on scientific papers that have been published and have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. I have only had a very quick look at these sites, but I am not sure I could say the same for either, I'm afraid.

We are all entitled to our viewpoints, but I would urge you to scrutinise your sources. There are many out there, but some are less transparent than others.

Enjoy that bottle of red, I think I will go and do the same.

GG?

[Earth Hart]

When I see them doing something other than lip-service then I might give a cheer but as yet, there's nothing ecological/green about Exxon except lovely advert that con folks into believing they are acting on CC Give 'em 10yrs & they might really do something.

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott