News Global Warming fraud uncovered?

[rynnor]

lol rynnor - thats such a shit reason to compare the two in this discussion.

How? Expand on your thoughts - show me how the stock exchange is easily predicted and not a chaotic system like the climate - possibly by becoming a billionaire playing the market

 

[Bugz]

I never said the two were alike or not alike.

But using weather to link the two is a fail. The stock market can be affected by anything & everything that happens in the world. Climate change is the world heating up through supposed co2 emissions etc.

Linking the two together through weather is just stupid. I could link the two via. bloudy candy bars if I wanted (company raising money via. stock market to sell candy bars; candy bars create emissions if they're trucked across europe) but that doesn't make it a suitable link.

 

[Zenith.UK]

I'm a climate change skeptic. It isn't because I don't believe the reports, studies and simulations, but because of the politicisation of the results.

I do agree that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been increasing year on year. The cause is open to speculation, but the actual effect itself isn't open to dispute. Many different sources all around the world have seen the atmospheric CO2 concentration rise from about 280ppm at the turn of the 19th century to about 380ppm right now. Consider this the baseline from which all other research is built upon.

Everything else after this *ASSUMES* that humanity is the cause of the CO2 increase. The evidence from a number of sources may support the theory to a greater or lesser degree, but in the end there is no 100% conclusive answer that says "Yes, humanity is increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere". There are only percentages of certainty, as there is with all statistical analyses.

Now this is where the politicians start jumping on studies that support their point of view. The words "Anthropogenic climate change" have been a boon to politics because it can be used to justify a number of tax generating systems. Use of energy underpins many aspects of government policy and it gets on my nerves when some Govt dept wheels out some study justifying why they're going to charge you MORE for doing LESS. I'm looking at you BERR/DTI. It's a problem throughout all levels of Govt though. Politicians are just as guilty of cherry-picking as anyone else. The problem is that their decisions have concequences for all of us, so their decisions *MUST* be based upon solid evidence. They will however pick the scientific studies that support their point of view or agenda.

I also have a problem with the new "orthodoxy" of environmentalism. If you're not doing your bit, you're killing the planet and all that stuff. The polarisation of opinion is almost at religious levels now and that also bothers me.

 

[ramathorn]

I never said the two were alike or not alike.

But using weather to link the two is a fail. The stock market can be affected by anything & everything that happens in the world. Climate change is the world heating up through supposed co2 emissions etc.

Linking the two together through weather is just stupid. I could link the two via. bloudy candy bars if I wanted (company raising money via. stock market to sell candy bars; candy bars create emissions if they're trucked across europe) but that doesn't make it a suitable link.

he is not linking the two through weather, he is using weather as an example of one of the many variables that effect the stock market, just as there are many variables that are present with climate change. i think you're getting the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Bugz]

Yes but everything affects the stock market & a lot will cross over into climate change; some will not.

You'd be better off analyzing the statistical techniques used in each system and how the variables are analyzed rather than to pick a specific variable that applies to both and then say there is some form of comparison between them.

 

[Tom]

The point is that they're both governed by extremely complicated mechanisms that are essentially unpredictable.

 

[rynnor]

The point is that they're both governed by extremely complicated mechanisms that are essentially unpredictable.

Exactly my point - thanks!

The funny bit is where the predictions fail to match the reality but they still cling to the theory and try to defend it - surely defending a theory against the facts is the definition of faith?

Equally amusing is the way they dismiss a few % difference in Solar Energy output whilst simultaneously defending change caused by a CO2 increase 3 orders of magnitude less - faith makes people look ludicrous in this kind of situation.

Edit - clarity.

 

[noblok]

Here's why the solar activity hypothesis is dismissed:

Also: the figures for the Great Global Warming Swindle stop in 1980. Solar activity has decreased since then.

 

[noblok]

On another note: I find it somewhat unfair that people accuse the man-made global warming theory of being untrustworthy because it's too politicised. Have you taken a look at the anti-movement? They're sponsored my Exxonmobile and the like, you can hardly call them neutral. Add to this that the IPCC was a panel of the UN, which are practically dominated by the US which at the time of the report were led by G.W. Bush, who is not impartial when it comes to the oil industry.

Obviously the whole thing is politicised, but it's just silly to think that the man-made global warming lobby is any worse when it comes to that than the other side. The oil industry is probably one of the most powerful lobbies and yet they can only get a very limited number of reports produced to support the theory that global warming isn't man-made. This should tell you something.

Also: there are plenty of other reasons to go for a greener economy: deforestation, massive loss of biodiversity, water shortage, e.a. are pretty bad regardless of whether man-made global warming is a fact.

 

[Bugz]

What makes you think the stock exchange is 'essentially unpredictable' Tom & Rynnor? Please don't use the crashes as your only legitimate evidence.

 

[rynnor]

Also: the figures for the Great Global Warming Swindle stop in 1980. Solar activity has decreased since then.

How do you figure that then? Solarcycle 21 (the 1980 one) was equalled by Solarcycle 22 in terms of Sunspots (which make a pretty good proxy for overall solar activity)?

Cycle 23 was a bit lower but these cycles were still unusually high based on the records we have going back hundreds of years.

The current SolarCycle 24 has pretty much stalled which makes a nice match to the stalling temperatures - obviously there are other factors like el/la nina and Volcanic eruption but it makes a far better match to the data than CO2.

 

[rynnor]

Please don't use the crashes as your only legitimate evidence.

Why not? Prediction is only good till its wrong but the other big clue is the performance of unit trusts - if it was predictable you'd expect the same unit trusts to be the best performers for years on end and the returns should also be much higher

Anyone who thinks they have a 'system' to predict the stock market should be treated with caution

Madoff had a 'system'...

 

[Zenith.UK]

Just to pick apart that image you posted noblok.

It's fundamentally flawed from the start.
The CO2 and CH4 sections are completely within the Anthrogenic section. That isn't the case.
There is probably a certain amount of both that could be anthropogenic, but there is a baseline level that would be completely natural (vulcanism, geological erosion, dissolved in the oceans, ruminant digestion etc).

Now look at the error bars on the Total Net Anthropogenic. They reach from 0.6-2.4. If you take the natural CO2 and CH4 out of that, those error bars will likely reach zero or below.

In other words, you can't categorically say that there is an anthropogenic contribution if you keep strictly to the data as presented in the chart. There is likely to be some, but you can't say in certain terms that there is. That's the problem though. People want black or white, 'yes' or 'no'... they don't like grey or 'maybe'.

I'm happy to have my point of view challenged if the data stacks up and I accept good results when presented with the associated statistics. I do have a problem when assumptions are made without explaining why those assumptions have been made. Lumping all CO2 production together under the heading of "anthropogenic" is one of them because there's no explanation why, when there are also natural sources.

 

[rynnor]

Also: there are plenty of other reasons to go for a greener economy: deforestation, massive loss of biodiversity, water shortage, e.a. are pretty bad regardless of whether man-made global warming is a fact.

Hmm - the AGW lobby have actually increased de-forestation and hit biodiversity by the switch to pushing 'biofuels' - there are lots of nasty un-intended effects by declaring CO2 public enemy number 1.

I would like to see action on bio-diversity before its too late but the climate change sideshow makes this unlikely.

 

[Bugz]

The crashes were from massive exogenous shocks to the stock exchange.

Each crash (not sure about the recent one as I haven't read up too closely on the aftermath) has provided a learning curve to be able to predict/respond better to future situations of the same type that arise.

It's very much like a mathematical mode, you input so and so over so and so years and suddenly something new gets inputted. Your model gets taken down, refined & put back up again.

Anyway, I think I'll exit the argument as a) I know fuck all about global warming and b) I'll end up taking too much of an economical/mathematical stance here, which makes me very bias.

I think we need to agree to disagree and instead try and steer the convo back onto global warming, as it is a topic I am very much interested in!

 

[rynnor]

The crashes were from massive exogenous shocks to the stock exchange.

On a sidenote if your really interested in this can I direct you to this book - The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable: Amazon.co.uk: Nassim Nicholas Taleb: Books

A good read and very thought provoking

 

[Bugz]

It looks like an interesting read (individual ideas in economics are always welcome) but the amazon reviews look very negative and seem to dismiss much of what he claims.

Then again, most economic books are like that :d

 

[rynnor]

It looks like an interesting read (individual ideas in economics are always welcome) but the amazon reviews look very negative and seem to dismiss much of what he claims.

Then again, most economic books are like that :d

Yeah - I wouldnt buy it a full value - maybe buy the prior book - it has the same idea but the second book expands it from the financial markets to wider application.

Some people really dont like his style

 

[noblok]

How do you figure that then? Solarcycle 21 (the 1980 one) was equalled by Solarcycle 22 in terms of Sunspots (which make a pretty good proxy for overall solar activity)?

Cycle 23 was a bit lower but these cycles were still unusually high based on the records we have going back hundreds of years.

The current SolarCycle 24 has pretty much stalled which makes a nice match to the stalling temperatures - obviously there are other factors like el/la nina and Volcanic eruption but it makes a far better match to the data than CO2.

According to the figures I have (taken from Lockwood & Fröhlich, Proc. R. Soc. A, 2007) the number of sunspots goes from nearly 80 in 1980 to around 60 in 2000. Also there's a slight decrease in temperature starting around 1940, while the solar activity kept increasing till around 1960.

The CO2 and CH4 sections are completely within the Anthrogenic section. That isn't the case.
There is probably a certain amount of both that could be anthropogenic, but there is a baseline level that would be completely natural (vulcanism, geological erosion, dissolved in the oceans, ruminant digestion etc).

Fair enough, I don't know where those numbers are from. I assume the numbers presented are the actual CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activity, not CO2 and CH4 in general, but I must admit I'm not entirely sure if they are. Although in that case you could ask the question as to why they're not included in the non-anthropogenic part, so maybe you're right... Have you got anything more reliable?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Global warming a tool to sell crap to people? Noooooo. If someone is surprised of it, then they deserve it.

This whole go green, global warming etc crap is due to one thing and one thing alone;

The hippies are in power now, flowerpower, earth mother, woodstock hippies.

Just have to ride out the 20 odd years and wait for our generation to get in power

 

[rynnor]

According to the figures I have (taken from Lockwood & Fröhlich, Proc. R. Soc. A, 2007) the number of sunspots goes from nearly 80 in 1980 to around 60 in 2000. Also there's a slight decrease in temperature starting around 1940, while the solar activity kept increasing till around 1960.

I'm afraid that graphs a tad dis-ingenuous - the last 60 years have been the most active in the last 2 thousand years - the peak was in 1960 but the following 2 solar cycles were both way above the long term average.

This 400 year one gives a more realistic impression - File:Sunspot Numbers.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the one that goes back thousands of years is also interesting.

Cosmic radiation is also an odd one to track since it has an inverse relationship with solar activity - when the suns active its magnetic field is stronger and less cosmic radiation reaches the earth.

Alas the Global Temperature values cannot actually be trusted these days - I'll dig out a study later of the statistical tricks they used to lower all pre 2000 temperatures to give a recent warming trend - got to get to lakeside now though

 

[noblok]

I'm afraid that graphs a tad dis-ingenuous - the last 60 years have been the most active in the last 2 thousand years - the peak was in 1960 but the following 2 solar cycles were both way above the long term average.

This 400 year one gives a more realistic impression - File:Sunspot Numbers.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the one that goes back thousands of years is also interesting.

That may be true, but if you claim that the current stalling in temperature can be explained by a stalling of solar activity (meaning there's an instant effect), it seems strange that there wasn't a drop in temperature noticed when solar activity decreased after 1980 or that the temperatures didn't keep rising up till 1960. How come we didn't notice an instant effect then?

edit: But I probably shouldn't get too involved in this as I've got no academic-scientific background. I just go with what the majority of the scientists say. Again: this is probably influenced by non-scientific motives as well, I'm not denying that, but the same thing can be said for the anti-lobby. The fact that a significant majority of the scientists defend man-made (or at least influenced by man) global warming says to me that it's the more likely hypothesis. And even if it's not true, it's probably better to err on the side of caution.

 

[rynnor]

That may be true, but if you claim that the current stalling in temperature can be explained by a stalling of solar activity (meaning there's an instant effect), it seems strange that there wasn't a drop in temperature noticed when solar activity decreased after 1980 or that the temperatures didn't keep rising up till 1960. How come we didn't notice an instant effect then?

After 1980 the solar activity was still high so you would expect temperature to still be increasing.

I dont make the mistake of the AGW crew by saying its the only influence on global temperature though - a lot of residual heat builds up in the Oceans that causes things to lag and you have to factor in the cooling effect of volcanoes - the heating effect of el nino and the cooling effect of la nina so you'll never get a perfect match.

I'm trying to find some graphs I saw a month or so ago that compared different factors to the global temperature - wish I'd bookmarked it

 

[noblok]

After 1980 the solar activity was still high so you would expect temperature to still be increasing.

But then I still can't make sense of the drop in temperature at around 1940 with solar activity increasing till 1960.

 

[rynnor]

But then I still can't make sense of the drop in temperature at around 1940 with solar activity increasing till 1960.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation apparently - interesting thing is that it was in cold mode from 1945-77 then in warm mode till 2008 and is now back in cold mode so according to that one we should be looking at 30 years of cooling now.

Dont ask me how that one works as I have no idea!

 

[noblok]

Dont ask me how that one works as I have no idea!

Yeah, that's my problem with the whole thing. I can follow some arguments, but then it always gets to a level where it goes over my head, so in the end I just go with mainstream scientific opinion which in this case also has the advantage of being less risky than the other movement. (Although there are people who claim that the IPCC is too conservative in it's predictions as well...) Anyway, I just think we can't do much wrong by e.g. cutting carbon and methane emissions, whereas the risk we take by continuing business as usual is rather large if global warming is indeed influenced by man.

I have no illusions on the politicization of the whole thing, but on the other hand: politicians are not doing nearly enough compared to what is recommended by reports such as that of the IPCC. Copenhagen will probably end up with no binding agreements whatsoever and very few countries are on target for the Kyoto-protocol, so the whole point about the global warming theory just being developped in order to raise taxes is a bit moot imo. It's probably being used to raise some taxes, but to claim that's the driving force behind the whole theory... It doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[Tom]

It seems perfectly obvious to me that its a loose collection of theories that is being exploited by politicians and by 'green' parties (who are actually old socialites).

Face it. Co2 emissions are not going to drop. Not in this country, not in any country. It doesn't matter what you do, the expansion of a country's economy is more important than the setting of an arbitrary Co2 limit.

If we must spend money combating 'climate change', for Christ's sake spend it negating the effects, not trying to stop it.

 

[noblok]

Face it. Co2 emissions are not going to drop. Not in this country, not in any country. It doesn't matter what you do, the expansion of a country's economy is more important than the setting of an arbitrary Co2 limit.

Dropping CO2 emissions isn't necessarily bad for the economy though, e.g. if you raise the tax on environmental impact (taxing kerosene instead of leaving it tax-free would be a good start), you can lower the taxes on work. This means that employers have to pay less for their employees, but more for the environmental impact their economic activities have. This makes sense, because most economists will tell you that a free market only works if internalize external costs and evironmental pollution is an external cost. This would also be very good news for local biological farmers: they'd have a fairer chance of competing with foreign farmers who's stuff gets flown over in planes. It's also good news for the bio-industry working e.g. on cradle-to-cradle technology, an industry which mainly relies on manpower.

Sustainable develepment should be our goal, unsustainable development is irresponsible. It's irresponsible tot jeopardise the future of future generations just because we want to keep our economy growing. Which, by the way doesn't necessarily result in more life-satisfaction: in the UK between 1973 and 2002 the BNP has risen 83%, whereas the life-satisfaction has remained more or less the same.

Also: better isolation for housing doesn't hurt anyone and a properly thought-out and built-out public transport network seems like a good idea as well (although I am aware that private cars will remain necessary, they could be used less if there was a proper public transport network). More room for nature also seems like nice idea: more forests to go for a walk/bike ride, more rivers you could wim in because they're less polluted, etc.

I am not advocating for us to shut down all power plants and go back to living in clay huts. I do think change is needed, but we need to go forward, not backward. This progress has to be sustainable, though, if it isn't we will eventually come to a point where business as usual simply is no longer an option: it's better to anticipate and change now, rather than being forced to change in a couple of decades.

 

[Tom]

The argument about farming is often used but often false. The energy costs associated with flying a plane load of tomatos from Spain can be very much less than growing and distributing them in the UK.

Better insulation for houses isn't a bad idea, but there's only so much you can do with an old house. Double glazed units take about 10 years to repay the outlay, and they often don't last 10 years anyway. Then they don't rot once on the tip, either.

Public transport, yes, fantastic, but why have a bus with only 3 passengers. Better to have decent roads and those 3 people in cars. In a city or town, fine. Outside that conurbation - it doesn't work. So lets make it easier for people to move closer to their place of work, except no, you have to pay Stamp Duty. Will the government give Stamp Duty up? Will they fuck. So people stay where they are, and travel further.

The rivers in this country are some of the cleanest in the world, whereas they used to be the most polluted (The Irwell for instance).

Focusing on sustainability is all very well, but its a complicated argument and there simply isn't, nor will there ever be, the impetus to push it through. Not while the government can tax what we earn.

 

[noblok]

The argument about farming is often used but often false. The energy costs associated with flying a plane load of tomatos from Spain can be very much less than growing and distributing them in the UK.

Oh, it can indeed be. My apologies if I came across as saying it's impossible. I was just saying that the actual environmental impact should be included in the cost of the product. If the tomatos from Spain cost less energy, in my imaginary tax system they'll still cost less than the ones grown in the UK. I just think the price of a product should also reflect the environmental impact. I'm not dogmatically focused on short-chain economy. I just think that local farmers will stand a better chance to compete than they stand now, not that their products will always be cheaper.

Better insulation for houses isn't a bad idea, but there's only so much you can do with an old house. Double glazed units take about 10 years to repay the outlay, and they often don't last 10 years anyway. Then they don't rot once on the tip, either.

Public transport, yes, fantastic, but why have a bus with only 3 passengers. Better to have decent roads and those 3 people in cars. In a city or town, fine. Outside that conurbation - it doesn't work. So lets make it easier for people to move closer to their place of work, except no, you have to pay Stamp Duty. Will the government give Stamp Duty up? Will they fuck. So people stay where they are, and travel further.

The rivers in this country are some of the cleanest in the world, whereas they used to be the most polluted (The Irwell for instance)..

Yes, there's indeed a bit of a problem with housing in that you often have to work with old houses. Housing isn't the main of my worries, though, as it's actually one of the things where economic and environmental gains go hand-in-hand and as such one of the sectors where the offer of sustainable options is the greatest.

Obviously I won't advocate empty buses. That's just more unnecessary pollution . Carpooling is indeed a viable alternative, which could be (financially) encouraged. I also think that it might be a good idea to (financially) encourage people moving closer to where they work. Currently governments aren't doing any of this, but you won't hear me saying that current governments are doing great with their 'green taxes'. They're not radical and not consequent enough. It seems like it's just a way for them to fill a gap in the budget, instead of an actual concern for the environment.

And I know rivers are becoming cleaner. I think that's a great thing. It was just an example to show that being mindful of nature has advantages for human quality of life as well. We don't necessarily lose out by taking care of nature.

Focusing on sustainability is all very well, but its a complicated argument and there simply isn't, nor will there ever be, the impetus to push it through. Not while the government can tax what we earn.

Yeah, that's a shame . I'm still young and activist enough to hope that someday there will be enough impetus to push it through though .