Climategate?

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

We are being asked to believe their guesswork/computer models, and then to spend billions upon trillions of dollars based on their predictions,

I wouldn't put too much stock on that "billions upon trillions" figure. Its only guesswork. For all we know, the real cost might be far lower.

coletti

bonkey wrote: »

I wouldn't put too much stock on that "billions upon trillions" figure. Its only guesswork. For all we know, the real cost might be far lower.

I agree. But lower than $30 trillion might amount to a lot of money too. I was using the figure given by taconnol.

Macha

coletti wrote: »

I agree. But lower than $30 trillion might amount to a lot of money too. I was using the figure given by taconnol.

Whoa - I was referencing Stern's figure and applying it to 2008 world GDP to get an annual figure. You came up with $30 trillion not me!

coletti

taconnol wrote: »

Whoa - I was referencing Stern's figure and applying it to 2008 world GDP to get an annual figure. You came up with $30 trillion not me!

If we are going to list all the things we have each come up with here, it is going to be a very tedious future!

First you say that i am wrong, that $600 million a year over 50 years is not $30 trillion.

Then you appear to agree that $600 million times 50 years is $30 trillion.

Now you seem to neither say that its right, or wrong, but just that I was the one who worked it out. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or how you are trying to add to the discussion by pointing out that I worked out that your figure of £600 million per annum, times 50 years, is $30 trillion.

Macha

coletti wrote: »

If we are going to list all the things we have each come up with here, it is going to be a very tedious future!

I didn't list everything, I listed what was relevant to clarify your misrepresentation of what I wrote. Stop confusing the issue.

Nowhere did I dispute the basic mathematics of $600 million x 50yrs = $30 trillion. What I did dispute was your willingness to ignore the costs of inaction and then you putting the figure of $30 trillion at my feet. I never said that fighting climate change would cost $30 trillion.

This is exactly how the Daily Mail gets its headlines.

bonkey

taconnol wrote: »

Nowhere did I dispute the basic mathematics of $600 million x 50yrs = $30 trillion.

I would (given that its wrong).

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

I agree. But lower than $30 trillion might amount to a lot of money too.

So even if we accept a level of uncertainty and inaccuracy, we can still see that there's an absolute shedload of money to be spent....and that's what you object to.

Its almost as though someone has taken the best information available, built the best model possible, refined it over time, and so on and so forth, and come up with this figure which is, of course, an estimate. In your terminology, its "guesswork"...but its good enough to base your objections on.

So remind me again...what, exactly, is the issue you have with people basing a stance on what you have chosen to term "guesswork"?

Macha

bonkey wrote: »

I would (given that its wrong).

Oh lord, I need to pay more attention...:o

bonkey

Or...y'know...have your important math peer-reviewed

coletti

"I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists who say that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system, Well I am one scientist, and there are many, who say that that is simply not true".



Professor John Christie, Lead Author, IPCC

bonkey

Every time I see this quote, I find myself wondering...

Does Christy understand what "consensus" means?
Does the person supplying the quote understand what "consensus" means?
If both of them do understand, then what are/were they each trying to achieve with this quote?

Yes, there is a consensus. Pretty-much by definition, that means that there isn't unanimity, and therefore it is a given that some scientists disagree.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter what any one scientist says or believes. It matters what the science shows.

Christy can believe in whatever he likes. Belief is not science....and Christy (presumably) is smart enough to know that.

coletti

Professor John Christie, M.S, Ph.D, B.A., Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society, has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research, says;

coletti wrote: »

"I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists who say that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system, Well I am one scientist, and there are many, who say that that is simply not true".

Bonkey, an anonymous profile on the interent, and whose input to the IPCC reports, if any, and qualifications, if any, are not known, says;

bonkey wrote: »

Yes, there is a consensus.

It’s a close call, but we’ll all just have to make up our on minds on the relative qualifications as to the value of the opinions of Professor John Christie and Bonkey, on this subject.

Macha

coletti wrote: »

It’s a close call, but we’ll all just have to make up our on minds on the relative qualifications as to the value of the opinions of Professor John Christie and Bonkey, on this subject.

No no, Prof Christie doesn't get to make up his own definition of scientific consensus.

University of Illinois carried out a survey on belief in climate change last year with the result that 97% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change accept anthropogenic climate change. What you have done is found one and quoted him. It doesn't change the fact that 97% do.

One swallow does not make a summer I'm afraid, no matter how much you want it to.

coletti

taconnol wrote: »

No no, Prof Christie doesn't get to make up his own definition of scientific consensus.

University of Illinois carried out a survey on belief in climate change last year with the result that 97% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change accept anthropogenic climate change. What you have done is found one and quoted him. It doesn't change the fact that 97% do.

One swallow does not make a summer I'm afraid, no matter how much you want it to.

I suppose it was to be expected that you might rush off and try to find something which flatters your own (apparently made up) mind, rather than consider whether someone who is extraordinarily qualified and involved at the forefront of the science has to say. It appears that, simply because you don't like what he says, then you decide to rubbish it, and him, and ignore him.

So what you are saying is that you prefer to believe Bonkey, an anonymous profile on the interent, and whose input to the IPCC reports, if any, and qualifications, if any, are not known, and a survey, rather than even consider what Professor John Christie, M.S, Ph.D, B.A., Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society, has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research, has to say.

Fair enough.

Macha

coletti wrote: »

I suppose it was to be expected that you might rush off and try to find something which flatters your own (apparently made up) mind, rather than consider whether someone who is extraordinarily qualified and involved at the forefront of the science has to say. It appears that, simply because you don't like what he says, then you decide to rubbish it, and him, and ignore him.

Oh the irony.

coletti wrote: »

So what you are saying is that you prefer to believe Bonkey, an anonymous profile on the interent, and whose input to the IPCC reports, if any, and qualifications, if any, are not known, and a survey.

Do you understand what the results of survey are?

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

Professor John Christie, says;
...
Bonkey, an anonymous profile on the interent, and whose input to the IPCC reports, if any, and qualifications, if any, are not known, says;

The point I was making was about the meaning of the word consensus.

The existence of a consesnsus does not prevent one, or many scientists from disagreeing with the consensus. Conversely, the existence of one or many scientists who disagree with something does not preclude there being a consensus.

Incidentally, I would note that only a few posts ago, you were calling the IPCCs credibility into question. Now you're holding up a lead author of their work as a poster-child for your position.

And just because its annoying me...if you're going to quote the guy's qualifications repeatedly, could you at least take the time out to get his name right?

coletti

bonkey wrote: »

The point I was making was about the meaning of the word consensus.

The existence of a consesnsus does not prevent one, or many scientists from disagreeing with the consensus. Conversely, the existence of one or many scientists who disagree with something does not preclude there being a consensus.

Incidentally, I would note that only a few posts ago, you were calling the IPCCs credibility into question. Now you're holding up a lead author of their work as a poster-child for your position.

And just because its annoying me...if you're going to quote the guy's qualifications repeatedly, could you at least take the time out to get his name right?

Just because I deduce, from the evidence, that the IPCC's credibility is damaged by issuing statements which are later seen to be flimsy, or incorrect, doesn't mean they are always wrong.

My "poster boy" ? I don't have a position, and just find many aspects of this debate interesting. That you think I have a position to "defend" is your assumption, and is incorrect. Just because someone doesn't necessarily agree with you doesn't mean they are defending a position. What has surprised me here is that, rather than being interested in what an eminent man in the field has to say, your instinct appears to be to want to rubbish him because you don't like what he has to say.

The desire to rush to defend what you appear to see as your position, and avoid challenging what appears to be your position is, perhaps, not the most intelligent position to take.

djpbarry

coletti wrote: »

Just because I deduce, from the evidence, that the IPCC's credibility is damaged by issuing statements which are later seen to be flimsy, or incorrect, doesn't mean they are always wrong.

So on what basis might one deduce whether or not the IPCC, or an individual who has worked with the IPCC, is correct? Judging the evidence upon which their claims are based, perhaps?

coletti wrote: »

I don't have a position...

Oh, I think you do:

coletti wrote: »

What these email show, with their crass tone and with their secretive hiding of information from others, is that scientists are jealous, secretive and downright plain nasty in pursuit of their agenda, in pursuit of more and more funding and in pursuit of their own careers.

We've seen this also with the IPCC, a body which has seemed more interested in pushing its own agenda and is prepared to be rather more than economical with the truth.

All of this damages the case they make in anyone with a smidgeon of intelligence, as it becomes harder and harder to believe those whose agenda is other than the pursuit of truth.

coletti wrote: »

What has surprised me here is that, rather than being interested in what an eminent man in the field has to say, your instinct appears to be to want to rubbish him because you don't like what he has to say.

No, bonkey did not “rubbish” what Christy said, he merely queried both the quote itself and your reasons for producing it. Queries that you have conveniently overlooked I might add, together with numerous other rebuttals and questions on this thread.

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

Just because I deduce, from the evidence, that the IPCC's credibility is damaged by issuing statements which are later seen to be flimsy, or incorrect, doesn't mean they are always wrong.

Then you would surely agree that the correct approach would be to test any given statement from the IPCC and/or its members, to see whether or not it is correct, and to accept the best conclusion we have?

This, of course, is what is done with the IPCC's reports. The reason the flaws were found is because responsible scientists took the time to continue reviewing the material. They found some small errors, which have since been corrected. Its worth pointing out that these people were amongst those who collated the reports in the first place....they are amongst those who's credibility you suggest is damaged by all of this!

You have taken issue with the notion that things are presented as "fact", but the reality is that they're not....at least, not by the IPCC. If you get the information second- or third-hand, someone else may be claiming its fact, but not the IPCC.

your instinct appears to be to want to rubbish him because you don't like what he has to say.

I'd never think of rubbishing the man. I have a lot of respect for him, as it happens. In fact, its one of the reasons I felt it important you got his name right.

The comment, however....well...lets look at it a bit closer...

Its not quite clear whether Christy is disagreeing with the notion of catastrophic impact, or the notion of consensus. If its the former, its entirely unclear what constitutes "catastrophe". He could, alternately, be saying that there isn't a consensus. He could be saying that there is a consensus, but even still there are "many" who aren't amongst that. He may be referring to relevantly-qualified scientists, or he may not.

Its a brilliantly formulated, vague sentence, which is frequently presented as being something significant...just as you've done. Christy's own track-record is typically then leveraged, as though this somehow makes it more significant.

At the end of the day, its saying that Christy is amongst some unquantified "many" who disagree with some not-so-well-defined claim that "others" have made.

coletti

bonkey wrote: »

Then you would surely agree that the correct approach would be to test any given statement from the IPCC and/or its members, to see whether or not it is correct, and to accept the best conclusion we have?

How can you test a prediction as to what the climate will be like 50 or 100 years hence?

The really important thing the IPCC has to do is to predict the future. This is largely achieved by telling a computer how to react to information, then inputting the information, and treating the results as serious. It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people will take something seriously if its told something by a computer.

(1)For example, I can programme my computer that CO2 is the most important factor in driving climate change, and can instruct my computer to take CO2 changes and apply those to a graph into the future to show that increases in CO2 will result in increases in global warming.

(2)If , instead, i programme my computer with the information that CO2 follows increases in temperature, then the predictions of the future will be completely different.

Now here is a question:

Which of the above, (1) or (2) , is the way most of the computers on which the IPCC's predictions are based?

Now here is another question:

Do the ice core results being studied around the world, for example in Vostok by Geerts and Linacre show, historically, that CO2 happens before, or after, temperature changes?

Now, you know full well I know the answer to my own question, and I know the answer appears that, far from CO2 causing temperature changes, it appears temperature changes happen first, then the CO2 follows.

Do you think, if the computer models which are programmed to assume that CO2 leads temperature changes, and not that it follows them, that the subsequent predictions may not be accurate?

bonkey wrote: »

At the end of the day, its saying that Christy is amongst some unquantified "many" who disagree with some not-so-well-defined claim that "others" have made.

At the end of the day, I'd prefer to read what he says rather than try to interpret what he says in an effort to try to make it seem he is saying something I prefer.

djpbarry

coletti wrote: »

(1)For example, I can programme my computer that CO2 is the most important factor in driving climate change, and can instruct my computer to take CO2 changes and apply those to a graph into the future to show that increases in CO2 will result in increases in global warming.

(2)If , instead, i programme my computer with the information that CO2 follows increases in temperature, then the predictions of the future will be completely different.

Now here is a question:

Which of the above, (1) or (2) , is the way most of the computers on which the IPCC's predictions are based?

Neither - you're implying that the models are designed in such a way as to produce a result that agrees with a pre-established conclusion, which is nonsense.

If you’re going to persist with your rubbishing of modelling, I suggest you read up on the subject first. As I have already stated (twice), mathematical equations have been successfully used by humans to describe the universe around them for centuries – you seem to be conveniently overlooking that fact.

Friendly Mod Reminder: Repeating an argument ad nauseam while ignoring responses from other posters is called ‘soap-boxing’, a practice that is frowned upon on most boards fora, including this one.

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

How can you test a prediction as to what the climate will be like 50 or 100 years hence?

Your entire objection is based on a statement which you insist was shown to be wrong. Now you're arguing that you have no way of knowing if the statement was right or wrong.

Strange...

The really important thing the IPCC has to do is to predict the future. This is largely achieved by telling a computer how to react to information, then inputting the information, and treating the results as serious. It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people will take something seriously if its told something by a computer.

No more amazing then how many people seem to think that a lack of understanding of mathematical modelling is sufficient grounds to dismiss it.

(1)For example, I can programme my computer that CO2 is the most important factor in driving climate change, and can instruct my computer to take CO2 changes and apply those to a graph into the future to show that increases in CO2 will result in increases in global warming.

(2)If , instead, i programme my computer with the information that CO2 follows increases in temperature, then the predictions of the future will be completely different.

Now here is a question:

Which of the above, (1) or (2) , is the way most of the computers on which the IPCC's predictions are based?

Both and neither, actually.

The people doing the modelling understand that there is a feedback effect....that increases in CO2 through effects other then warming will lead to warming, which in turn leads to its own increases in CO2, which in turn leads to further warming.

Additionally, they understand the general mechanism by which this doesn't result in a runaway effect, and model that too.

Thus, the models show that increases in CO2 regardless of origin lead to warming, which leads to increases in CO2 amongst other factors. This creates a feedback loop, regardless of whether or not the original increases were caused by warming or some other source. This feedback loop is ultimately dampened by other factors.

Do the ice core results being studied around the world, for example in Vostok by Geerts and Linacre show, historically, that CO2 happens before, or after, temperature changes?

Historically, how many civilisations have dumped comparable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? None. So historically we'd expect to see no precedent for current events....so its hardly surprising that we don't.

Now, you know full well I know the answer to my own question, and I know the answer appears that, far from CO2 causing temperature changes, it appears temperature changes happen first, then the CO2 follows.

It appears that you don't know the answer to your own question as well as you think.

Do you think, if the computer models which are programmed to assume that CO2 leads temperature changes, and not that it follows them, that the subsequent predictions may not be accurate?

If someone was dumb enough to program CO2 as purely a forcing agent, then yes...I'd expect their model to underestimate the effects of increased CO2.

coletti

bonkey wrote: »

No more amazing then how many people seem to think that a lack of understanding of mathematical modelling is sufficient grounds to dismiss it.

If one, or more, of the assumptions is incorrect, then so too will be the accuracy of the predictions.

No matter how good the mathematics are, if the assumptions are wrong then the conclusions wil be incorrect also.

For the sake of accuracy, I am not "dismissing" the mathematical model, I am questioning one of the assumptions.

bonkey wrote: »

Thus, the models show that increases in CO2 regardless of origin lead to warming,

Of course they show it because that's one of the assumptions on which the which theory is based, that CO2, as one go the greenhouse gases, causes global warming. Hence that assumption is programmed into every computer model.

bonkey wrote: »

Historically, how many civilisations have dumped comparable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? None.

How many have "dumped" (interesting you choose a pejorative word usually associated with (often) toxic waste) water vapour into the atmosphere?

How many have "dumped" methane?

The point of the ice cores is that, historically, it seems CO2 does not cause warming, but is a product of warming. Even if we produce more CO2 now that we have in the past, thats not to say that the relationship between CO2 and warming is going to be reversed.

How do you account for the findings of Geerts and Linacre, amongst others, who found that in times of cooling the CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

How do you think that fits with the theory, as opposed to the evidence of Geerts and Linacre?

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

If one, or more, of the assumptions is incorrect, then so too will be the accuracy of the predictions.

Yes...that's true, if somewhat simplistic.

The more complex reality is to look at the level of accuracy which is obtainable.

To perhaps give a parallel example. When we build buildings, we use Newtonian physics. If we used the same physics for launching spacecraft to Mars, we'd have a problem...because of what could be described as "incorrect assumptions". We know that Newtonian physics is only accurate to a point. Once we cross that point, we need to use Relativistic physics instead.

So we in the simplistic black-and-white scenario you present, Newtonian physics is incorrect, and so therefore is the accuracy of its predictions.

In the more complex real world, we know quite a lot about the degree of inaccuracy.

In climatology, we know that the models are imperfect, as are the inputs. This is why predictions aren't weather forecasts (in the extreme case) for the future, bur are (more realistically) spreads of likely outcomes, expressed in terms of the confidence we can have in the accuracy of those intervals.

So like I said...its amazing how a lack of understanding of modelling allows people to dismiss it.

For the sake of accuracy, I am not "dismissing" the mathematical model, I am questioning one of the assumptions.

Really? It seems to me like you're trying to point out that there are huge gaping simple and obvious flaws in the models...flaws which aren't actually there if you understand the models at any level beyond what the mass media might be reporting. At the same time, your arguments show a lack of understanding of modelling.

If you're questioning the models, might I respecfully suggest that the first two things you should do is learn more about modelling in general, and the models that you're "questioning" in specific/

Of course they show it because that's one of the assumptions on which the which theory is based, that CO2, as one go the greenhouse gases, causes global warming. Hence that assumption is programmed into every computer model.

Its also an assumption that is supported by evidence, as well as by basic science.

As I've already explained, being both a force and an effect means that the historical evidence you've referred to is entirely consistent with this model.

How many have "dumped" (interesting you choose a pejorative word usually associated with (often) toxic waste) water vapour into the atmosphere?

How many have "dumped" methane?

Look...either you know why water vapour and methane aren't significant issues, or you're again showing further lack of understanding of the basic models that you're questioning.

These are old canards which have been answered again and again.

The point of the ice cores is that, historically, it seems CO2 does not cause warming, but is a product of warming.

I've already responded to this point, and you're simply repeating the same claim and ignoring my response. I see no point in addressing it a second time.

coletti

bonkey wrote: »

So like I said...its amazing how a lack of understanding of modelling allows people to dismiss it.

I’ve already said that I am questioning an assumption built into the model, and not “modelling”. Your reply is not an argument, but a restating of your opinion.


[QUOTE=bonkey;67361120

If you're questioning the models, might I respecfully suggest that the first two things you should do is learn more about modelling in general, and the models that you're "questioning" in specific/


Its also an assumption that is supported by evidence, as well as by basic science.

.[/QUOTE]

That’s not an argument, and to claim that the assumption that CO2 causes warming ignores the scientific evidence of, for example, the Ice core work done by Geerts and Linacre.

bonkey wrote: »

As I've already explained, being both a force and an effect means that the historical evidence you've referred to is entirely consistent with this model.


.

Unfortunately, Geerts and Linacre disagree with your opinion, and expressly say that “…CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect”.

bonkey wrote: »

Look...either you know why water vapour and methane aren't significant issues, or you're again showing further lack of understanding of the basic models that you're questioning.

These are old canards which have been answered again and again.


.

Again, no argument. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas and methane is 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

I never claimed either were significant issues, and merely asked a question.

djpbarry

coletti wrote: »

I’ve already said that I am questioning an assumption built into the model, and not “modelling”.

You have expressed amazement that "otherwise intelligent people will take something seriously if its told something by a computer". This is quite obviously a dismissal of modelling as a concept and also displays a lack of understanding of said concept.

coletti wrote: »

That’s not an argument, and to claim that the assumption that CO2 causes warming ignores the scientific evidence of, for example, the Ice core work done by Geerts and Linacre.

I'm not sure what argument of Geerts and Linacre you are referring to, but given you're track record on this thread, I'm guessing you're (deliberately) misinterpreting them. I'm pretty sure bonkey has already countered whatever argument you're trying to make here anyway.

But let's try and establish some basics, shall we? Do you accept that carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

coletti wrote: »

Unfortunately, Geerts and Linacre disagree with your opinion, and expressly say that “…CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect”.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Geerts and Linacre might have slightly more to say on the matter? What words preceded 'CO2' in the original statement, I wonder?

coletti wrote: »

I never claimed either were significant issues, and merely asked a question.

Actually, I think you dodged a question. Again.

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

I’ve already said that I am questioning an assumption built into the model, and not “modelling”. Your reply is not an argument, but a restating of your opinion.

With respect, my reply has been an explanation that the assumption you speak of is a gross simplification of what has been built into the model...and it is the simplification which causes your argument to fall apart.

That CO2 causes warming is built into the model...because scientifically that is demonstrably true. The evidence supports this.
That warming increases CO2 is also built into the model, because the evidence also supports this....as you yourself have argued.

That’s not an argument, and to claim that the assumption that CO2 causes warming ignores the scientific evidence of, for example, the Ice core work done by Geerts and Linacre.

Unfortunately, Geerts and Linacre disagree with your opinion, and expressly say that “…CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect”.

Lets look, firstly, at their full statement (taken from here)

During deglaciation the two varied simultaneously, but during times of cooling the CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

So, Geerts and Linacre assert, in fact, that during periods of warming the CO2 levels increase in line with temperature. The partial quote you supply refers to effects during a cooling phase. Although they argue this is inconsistent with the enhanced greenhouse effect, they don't explain why.

If their findings disagree with established science, its not in the lag during cooling, but rather in their assertion that CO2 levels rise in line with temperature during warming events.The long-standing explanations and understanding of CO2 concentrations don't actually disagree with the cooling lag at all.

Take this article for example. Even in 2004, it was known that warming started (by whatever means), resulting in CO2 increases, which then created an amplification effect (feedback) leading to further warming. Cooling would work in a similar manner...cooling begins, leading to CO2 decreases, leading to further cooling....again an amplification effect.

Here's another article which goes into more depth. It also explains why the notion of comparing interglcial timescales with historical timescales is flawed to begin with....as well as explaining why the lag you speak of doesn't contradict the current models at all.

Note also that G&L claim on one hand that CO2 lags by up to 1000 years during cooling, and then go on to point to a drop in CO2 levels which coincides almost exactly with the Little Ice Age. Are they making an invalid association, or simply undermining their own claims of lag-time?

I never claimed either were significant issues, and merely asked a question.

And I pointed out that you either know the answer to your question (and are therefore being deliberately disingenuous), or you don't (and therefore show a basic lack of understanding of the models you are questioning).

The answer to your question depends on which of those it is.

coletti

bonkey wrote: »

During deglaciation the two varied simultaneously, but during times of cooling the CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

So, Geerts and Linacre assert, in fact, that during periods of warming the CO2 levels increase in line with temperature. The partial quote you supply refers to effects during a cooling phase. Although they argue this is inconsistent with the enhanced greenhouse effect, they don't explain why.

The argument made by the IPCC is that, if we reduce our CO2 emissions, then the temperature will reduce after reducing our CO2.

The evidence produced by Geerts and Linacre shows that, in the past, the CO2 reduces after the temperatures reduced.

As we are trying to get the world to cool, do you not think it's more important to see what has happened in former cooling phases also, as this is what we are trying to achieve?

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

The argument made by the IPCC is that, if we reduce our CO2 emissions, then the temperature will reduce after reducing our CO2.

Is it? Could you show me where they said that?

My understanding is that the IPCCs position is that the more we reduce our emissions, the more we reduce the knock-on effects...which isn't the same thing.

I'll see if I can dig up the link, but i'm pretty sure that the IPCC have, in fact, said we're already past the point where we could prevent any further warming impact, even if we cut all emissions to 0 tomorrow morning.

The evidence produced by Geerts and Linacre shows that, in the past, the CO2 reduces after the temperatures reduced.

The articles I've already linked to explain why the comparison of glacial-period time with historical time is invalid to begin with, so I don't understand what it is you're trying to say.

Further, the idea that a global cooling event would cause CO2 to fall, which in turn would amplify the global cooling is in no way controversial. It is, in fact, logically consequent from the information presented in the articles I linked to...which date from well before G&L's work, and reference even older material.

In short, there is no issue here.

As we are trying to get the world to cool, do you not think it's more important to see what has happened in former cooling phases also, as this is what we are trying to achieve?

We're not trying to get the world to cool, though, so this argument is null and void.

We're trying to limit the amount of warming we cause.

coletti

bonkey wrote: »

... I don't understand what it is you're trying to say.

What I have said, as opposed to trying to say, is that "The evidence produced by Geerts and Linacre shows that, in the past, the CO2 reduces after the temperatures reduced".

Certainly, when you say

bonkey wrote: »

Further, the idea that a global cooling event would cause CO2 to fall, which in turn would amplify the global cooling is in no way controversial. It is, in fact, logically consequent from the information presented in the articles I linked to...which date from well before G&L's work, and reference even older material.

you seem to understand that that is what I have said, as we seem to agree.

djpbarry

coletti wrote: »

What I have said, as opposed to trying to say, is that "The evidence produced by Geerts and Linacre shows that, in the past, the CO2 reduces after the temperatures reduced".

So what? It's not relevant to our current situation.

coletti

coletti wrote: »

What I have said, as opposed to trying to say, is that "The evidence produced by Geerts and Linacre shows that, in the past, the CO2 reduces after the temperatures reduced".

I would hazard a guess, that that is down to an increase of forestation and a decrease in desertification due to a cooler climate shrinking the subtropical arid zones.

bonkey

coletti wrote: »

What I have said, as opposed to trying to say, is that "The evidence produced by Geerts and Linacre shows that, in the past, the CO2 reduces after the temperatures reduced".


I understand what you've referenced. I don't understand what point you're trying to make....given that I've supplied counterpoints which explain why its not relevant to the discsussion of current climatological change, nor to short-term historical data.

You ignored this, and simply restated the same point...which I don't understand.

you seem to understand that that is what I have said, as we seem to agree.

You agree that its irrelevant and inapplicable to the discussion at hand? Great....then we can both put it aside and move on.

Sandvich

This is ridiculous. Every time one point gets disproven or explained away on the sceptic side, they just come back with another one, often unrelated or even contradicting what they said earlier.

I don't understand how people can be dishonest and why they think they're fighting the good fight. What are they even fighting for?

demonspawn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO8_as7k_0

What ever happened to those leaked emails anyway? The story seemed to have just died after the Copenhagen thing was finished. Did anyone bother to keep track? I didn't, because I know it was just a media smokescreen.

mgmt

Sandvich wrote: »

This is ridiculous. Every time one point gets disproven or explained away on the sceptic side, they just come back with another one, often unrelated or even contradicting what they said earlier.

I don't understand how people can be dishonest and why they think they're fighting the good fight. What are they even fighting for?

What are the "climate change" fascists fighting for?
-"Climate Justice" i.e. socialism
-Carbon Tax on everything
-Carbon trading
-Higher electricity prices to subsidize uneconomical (and unworkable) wind power
-No motorways
-No air travel
-Turn everyone vegan
-Force everyone to use public transport
-Lower economic outputs (punish the west)
-Waste taxpayers money on lowering the "carbon footprint" by building unwanted projects e.g. london-birmingham maglev

mgmt

mgmt wrote: »

What are the "climate change" fascists fighting for?
-"Climate Justice" i.e. socialism
-Carbon Tax on everything
-Carbon trading
-Higher electricity prices to subsidize uneconomical (and unworkable) wind power
-No motorways
-No air travel
-Turn everyone vegan
-Force everyone to use public transport
-Lower economic outputs (punish the west)
-Waste taxpayers money on lowering the "carbon footprint" by building unwanted projects e.g. london-birmingham maglev

Put simply, to reduce wasteful uses of energy (fossil fuel) before it runs out becomes uneconomical to extract and leaves us the rich people in charge in the lurch!

In other words, we are expected to do without while the wealthy continue their wasteful way of life for longer.

mgmt

Deleted User wrote: »

Put simply, to reduce wasteful uses of energy (fossil fuel) before it runs out becomes uneconomical to extract and leaves us the rich people in charge in the lurch!

In other words, we are expected to do without while the wealthy continue their wasteful way of life for longer.

If you want to live in a socialist/fascist society please emigrate to China, North Korea or Venezuela. See how your quality of life improves.

Fossil fuels and nuclear fuel is the most efficient use of energy. Ask Spain on their "wasteful" flirtation with non-fossil fuel energy.

mgmt

mgmt wrote: »

If you want to live in a socialist/fascist society please emigrate to China, North Korea or Venezuela. See how your quality of life improves.

You clearly misunderstood the comment! Those things are happening in the west (here) right now!

But I do agree with energy conservation through intelligent use of energy, otherwise there'll be none left for our children.

The biggest issue we have now is the fact that oil is being stockpiled in places like China* and every barrel saved in the west is going east instead.


*the fact is it's being stockpiled everywhere right now as the economy has stopped growing, but the price is still high/too high to allow growth.

mgmt

Deleted User wrote: »

You clearly misunderstood the comment! Those things are happening in the west (here) right now!

But I do agree with energy conservation through intelligent use of energy, otherwise there'll be none left for our children.

The biggest issue we have now is the fact that oil is being stockpiled in places like China* and every barrel saved in the west is going east instead.


*the fact is it's being stockpiled everywhere right now as the economy has stopped growing, but the price is still high/too high to allow growth.

hmm are you talking about people going "without" their electricity connection (900 a month) because John Gormley raised the ESB prices to allow wind energy to be competitive?

Turtwig

mgmt wrote: »

What are the "climate change" fascists fighting for?

Fascists?

-"Climate Justice" i.e. socialism

Nope.

-Carbon Tax on everything

Nope.

-Carbon trading

Nope.

-Higher electricity prices to subsidize uneconomical (and unworkable) wind power

Higher electricity prices are not solely caused by subsidies for wind power, which is more workable than you think.

-No motorways

If by this you are referring the idea of reducing all national speed limits to 80 km/hr, then you should be aware that regardless of speed limit a motorway is still a motorway.

-No air travel

No flying during night would be a very good idea and we would easily get used to it.

-Turn everyone vegan

This simply would not be workable or even offers us a solution for climate change. That said, everyone going one day without eating meat would be beneficial towards combating climate change.

-Force everyone to use public transport.

Not force, but the use of public transport should definitely be encouraged even if only to reduce traffic congestion.

-Lower economic outputs (punish the west)

The west will be punished a heck of a lot more in the long run.

-Waste taxpayers money on lowering the "carbon footprint" by building unwanted projects e.g. london-birmingham maglev

It's going to be wasted anyways, so why not make the environment that bit better.

mgmt

mgmt wrote: »

hmm are you talking about people going "without" their electricity connection (900 a month) because John Gormley raised the ESB prices to allow wind energy to be competitive?

Going way OT here now, but most of those properties are unoccupied.
As for the other stuff, one of the mods moved a few posts to a new thread.

mgmt

Malty_T wrote: »

Fascists?

Yes "climate change" enthusiasts want to use the AGW scam to implement oppressive policies (see my previous post) that will limit your freedom of choice, freedom of movement and redistribute your wealth.

Malty_T wrote: »

Higher electricity prices are not solely caused by subsidies for wind power, which is more workable than you think.

Your joking right! Take a look at the eirgrid website. Ireland has over 1100MW of Wind Power installed. This is maximum output power though. Most of the time wind only produces about 250MW. A fraction. John Gormley has jacked up the price of electricity to subsidise this wind power. Look at Denmark (wind power capital of europe), it has the highest electricity prices in the eurozone. France has the lowest (nuclear). Indeed Denmark has not closed a single fossil fuel plant(link). Wave power is another scam on the "climate change" horizon.

Malty_T wrote: »

It's going to be wasted anyways, so why not make the environment that bit better.

Thats a great response...I however believe that the individual can decide whats best for their money. Not give it away in taxes to some ecofascist to spend on "climate change" ads.

Malty_T wrote: »

The Karl Marx utopia does not work.

djpbarry

Can I remind everyone that this thread is supposed to be about certain leaked emails and related issues. Discussion of electricity levies (for example) is off-topic.

djpbarry

mgmt wrote: »

What are the "climate change" fascists fighting for?

Who exactly are the "climate change fascists"? Are we referring to a particular group, or is it just a pejorative term used to describe anyone who disagrees with you on the subject?

mgmt

djpbarry wrote: »

Who exactly are the "climate change fascists"? Are we referring to a particular group, or is it just a pejorative term used to describe anyone who disagrees with you on the subject?

This is the kind of thought process these fundamentalists believe in:

djpbarry wrote: »

But Irish people don’t want a ‘low carbon’ lifestyle. They want a semi-detached house with a nice big garden for their decking and at least one car on the driveway (generally speaking). You can criticise the government for fostering an environment in which the above lifestyle was championed (and I’m certainly not saying that they should not be criticised), but it’s not like the general populace were pushing for an alternative. Now that the Greens have come along and intimated that what we’ve been doing is unsustainable and we need to change our ways (and I’m certainly not saying I agree with everything the Greens propose), we’re told that they’re going to go the way of the PD’s at the next election.

They believe that everyday joe soap is stupid, that big government needs to look after them. Afterall, "green is the new red".

djpbarry

mgmt wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Who exactly are the "climate change fascists"? Are we referring to a particular group, or is it just a pejorative term used to describe anyone who disagrees with you on the subject?

This is the kind of thought process these fundamentalists believe in...

So that would be the latter then.

mgmt wrote: »

They believe that everyday joe soap is stupid, that big government needs to look after them. Afterall, "green is the new red".

Ignoring for a moment that you have (deliberately) taken my post out of context in a lame attempt to portray me as some kind of fascist (and the fact that this is again veering off-topic)...

I don’t think people are stupid. I do however believe that people frequently do stupid things and make poor decisions. What’s more, people want regulation (e.g., the financial regulator) to protect them from the consequences of their poor decisions, or to avoid making poor decisions in the first place. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you do so in the relevant thread.

Now, do you actually have anything to contribute to the subject of this thread? Or are you just here to rant about “climate change fascists”?

coletti

mgmt wrote: »

What are the "climate change" fascists fighting for?
-"Climate Justice" i.e. socialism

While it's easy to make that assessment, the more usual judgement is that this is leading to a World government. If you think a World government might be a good thing, then look at out attempts to create an EU "government" which leads to such appalling things as, for example, the european arrest warrant, is designed to limit our democratic freedoms.

djpbarry

coletti wrote: »

...the more usual judgement is that this is leading to a World government.

Conspiracy theories are also off-topic.

Another element of the whole AGW/manmade climate change is the possibility that is was created to scare people into reducing their oil consumption by making them feel guilty for wrecking the planet, as well as making some people very rich by creating costs out of thin(carbon) air!


This is the latest chart from the IEA, which appears to deny the fact that oil production has peaked and is now declining.
To me it appears that both the IPCC and the IEA are being dishonest and have separatly mislead the public into believing that the consequences of excessive consumption of fossil fuels were going to be an overcooked planet rather than being truthful and making public the real reason.
That real reason is the hard fact that there will soon be insufficient oil to maintain the current (American) way of life that is enjoyed by many in the west!
The real reasons for energy conversation should have been made public decades ago (well Carter did start the ball rolling but it was killed by Regan) then Al Gore and others saw a way to exploit the natural variations in the Earth's climate to make a fast buck. Nice to see that that (carbon trading) is now being dismanteled.

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/11/08/al-gores-climate-exchange-utterly-fails-media-ignores-it-all/

Al Gore’s much ballyhooed Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has recently announced that it will no longer be engaging in carbon trading, an activity that was the sole purpose that it was created. This is an utter failure of purpose in global warming hysteria yet the Old Media is almost completely silent on this colossal failure.
Why has the media remained utterly quite on this abject failure after unleashing on the public an avalanche of stories that touted the creation of the CCX back in 2000 — and since for that matter?

The main reason that the CCX has failed, of course, is because the world has cooled for global warming. With the recent election results in the U.S. cap and trade is as much as a dead issue and even other nations are shying away from Kyoto-styled global warming laws that tend to crush economies while offering little by way of global warming fixes.

Worse, with the emergence of the lies and obfuscation by global warming religionists as evinced in the email chain from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the credibility of global warming pseudo science has taken a major hit. It all looks like globaloney at this point.

On top of all that is the worldwide depression that has hit us all. The depression has also helped destroy the starry eyed nonsense that is carbon trading. Rich societies with nothing else to do with their money might have the resources for such silliness, but countries in the grip of depression have more important (and true) things to worry about.