Re: More evidence of global warming contributed to by your filthy car exhausts.
- From: Doug <jagmad@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
On 2 Sep, 19:10, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageBut it does give opinions.
news:9ada6fe7-45bd-4659-b09f-65829620ce41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 1 Sep, 20:42, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:166c4e7a-4b1c-4fef-970b-7fdc76fae01b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
Hmm, yes, quote Hadley Centre: "...A brief look at the graph depicting
January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our
climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term
almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases..."
"...In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to
remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this
kind."
Next time it would help if you actually read your source and also gave
the relevant URL.
I am well aware of the views, presented as fact by a government body.
However, I was looking at the data they produced, not the speculation.
The
Hadley Centre data also suffers from the same problem that the NASA data
does; it is based on surface temperature measurements, which means fixed
point measurements, more likely to be near centres of population than in
remote areas, which makes it all the more surprising that they do not
show
any increase in global temperatures since 1998 - note the use of standard
government fudge terms like 'underlying rise over the longer term' and
'is
predicted to remain upwards' to avoid drawing attention to that by
discusing
actual figures.
So now you are saying the source you gave was not much use after all
or even wrong?
I am pointing out that the data has restrictions, that need to be understood
when interpeting it. I am also saying, as a separate point, that the
conclusions presented by the organisation that collected the figures reflect
official government opinion but fall short of providing a wholehearted
endorsement of that opinion.
I would give you URLs, but I'm not sure you would know what to do with
the
information. Here is one example:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
I don't see what you consider so special about the University of
Alabama, compared with, say, the specialist Met Office and IPCC.
The IPCC does not take measurements, but takes its figures from the several
sources I gave.
But not a continuing upward trend all things being equal.
The advantage of the UAH and RSS (both just as much
specialists as the Met Office) figures over any other is that they are taken
across the whole globe, irrespective of whether that is jungle, ocean,
desert or settled land, while the NASA and Met Office figures are taken from
a relatively limited number of fixed points, many of which are near centres
of population, which can affect the figures.
And the ice cores?
The satellites also measure the
bottom 8km of the atmosphere, not just the bit near the surface. The surface
figures require a lot of extrapolation to give global averages and, as the
article I referenced shows, that means hsitorical measurements do not remain
the same, but change as the way the estimates are done change. The upshot is
that the satellite figures are very much more relaible than the surface
measurements. However, both systems must continue in parallel until there is
enough overlapping data to allow better mathemtical modelling of the surface
data, which will allow for improvements in the understanding of the
historical data.
The significant upward trend is only over the last 100 years,
Also,
like all the other GW/CC motorist deniers on this newsgroup you make
the same odd mistake of confusing timescales as well as global/local.
1978-2008 is a mere fluctuation blip in GW, which has shown a
significant rise since the onset of the industrial revolution as all
records show.
The start of the industrial revolution coincided with a relatively cold
period in recent earth history (I assume a few thousand years is an
acceptable timescale?),
corresponding with a rapid rise in CO2 levels, the start of which was
not significantly cold. See the 1850-2007 graph in:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
No the rise is much greater than would be otherwise expected.
so a subsequent warming is to be expected. The
debate is entirely about whether that is only due to natural forces, whether
there was any human element in it and, if so, how much.
But the point I keep on making is that even if there is still some
Translated, globally, June 2008 is provisionally 0.11C below the average
for
the past 20 years, while May is 0.18C below. This is based upon satellite
data, which measures the whole globe from the surface to about 8km above
sea
level and is considered much more reliable than surface temperature
measurements.
Again, 20 years is a mere blip.
What makes you seriously imagine that the Met Office, with all their
considerable experience and resources, is wrong with its
interpretation of data while you alone are correct?
I make no such claim. The data is not mine, nor is the interpretation. They
both belong to Dr John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer of UAH, equally respected
experts in the field.
disagreement as to predictions and mechanisms that is no good reason
to ignore the precautionary principle and keep on taking carbon from
the earth and releasing it into the atmosphere in vast quantities,
with the possibility of killing many millions of people in the future,
just so that the present populations can maintain their extravagant
and wasteful lifestyles. Methane from farm animals is another factor
too.
Deep ice cores are up to 400,000 years old.
"..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans have been ice-free at the same time...
That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has
happened
since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking for
the
passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records
from
before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow
the
facts to get in the way.
What about ice cores?
What about them? We know the passages were open no later than the early
20th
century, so the ice covering them cannot be older than that.
Ice cores are a very ancient record.
Do you have trouble with the concept that the record can only be as old as
the ice and that the ice in passages that have opened in recent years must,
of necessity, also be recent?
Which is the whole point.
Check this out then:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html
"...The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are
linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as
those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This
caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse
effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and
CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in
CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent
warming."
That is, indeed, the official government line. I do not believe in the
infallibility of governments, even if they do.
And I don't believe in the infallibility of individual motorist
polluters like you who have a vested interest in denying GW.
I accept that global warming has happened and I have do not have any
interest, vested or otherwise, in denying it. I merely question the
mechanism that caused it.
But the continued release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases carries
In any case, I believe that the money being spent
on CO2 reduction, whether it is justified or not, would be much better spent
on preparing the world for future climate change, whichever way it goes.
the danger of uncontrollable positive feedback and is therefore best
avoided. I agree that we should prepare for climate change, which will
mean moving many millions of people away from low lying areas, such as
Central London for example, and modifications to farming and disease
control, to mention a few. A massive undertaking. Alternatively, we
could just try not bunging so much CO2 and methane into the atmosphere
and wait for that predicted cooling, starting in 2012 was it?
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Energy saving better than alternative energy.
- Next by Date: Re: Energy saving better than alternative energy.
- Previous by thread: Re: More evidence of global warming contributed to by your filthy car exhausts.
- Next by thread: Re: More evidence of global warming contributed to by your filthy car exhausts.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
