Has anybody here seen Lord Christopher Monckton's debunking of IPCC's science on climate change? I found it very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

 

Thank you for publicising this.

 

An hour and a half! Boy, I guess he REALLY gets into it!

I'll listen to it at home tonight. THanks for posting it - hope it's good.

(My dad laughed at me in 1974 when I came home from 6th grade and told him that we were entering an ice age due to how pollution was "shading" us from the sun. Within 15 years, they were telling us that we were actually not cooling, but warming...)

 

Go to the PowerPoint presentation. You can get most of it, I think, from the slides. Slide #52 caught my eye. I also didn't have 90 minutes to watch my monitor.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf

John

 

Climate change is one thing, but global warming is another. In fact, I am dubious when it comes to global warming, I believe that the Earth goes through a series of climate changes. Originally it was the Ice Age, then it thawed off and got warmer. Also, the Anasazi Indians who lived in the Cliff Dwellings went through a series of droughts and abundant rainfall. I think it was suspected that a 50 year drought ocurred and then they had rain. Global warming has gotten too political.

Austin

 

I also didn't have 90 minutes to watch my monitor.

-Exactly my issue. I'm not too worried that I miss it. I didn't waste 90 minutes watching Gore's movie, so now I don't need to waste 90 minutes on a video that tries to debunk it. If I'm going to devote 90 minutes to this subject, I'd rather go directly to the published scientific literature and make my own conclusions.

Anyway, it seems that the gist of it is that some politicians and administrators have lied/exaggerated. Do we really need 90 minutes to convince us of that? Just tell us their profession is "Politician" and we're done.

Anyway, politicians, the media and the masses have never understood science. Just read through some of the comments that are posted after that video. It's 99% nonsense. The collective ignorance and shortsightedness of humans is not likely to change for a long long time. Indeed, before that happens, we will directly see the effects of CO2 buildup, whether they turn out to be benign, or catastrophic for human interests.

 

I agree, and maybe you have time for a parochial story. There was a joint session of the American Congress recently, and one of the Representatives shouted "liar" as the President was speaking. He was accused of insulting the President. Maybe so, but others pointed out that with over 600 politicians in the room, how could anyone know for sure to whom he was referring.

Science and politics really don't mix well, particularly when there is so much money at stake. BTW, I am not willing to consider CO2 (and water vapor) build-up in a one-tailed manner. It maybe helpful too.

John

 

Taking a longer view, the last set of ice ages and the subsequent thaws did not happen because of human activity. We might not have a firm handle on climatic change as yet.

 

Indeed, before that happens, we will directly see the effects of CO2 buildup

If you bothered to watch all the way through, (worth it for the wizecracks alone), you would find out that he was presenting actual measurements on the planet to test this. These were recently released by your own government agencies.

 

If you bothered to watch all the way through, (worth it for the wizecracks alone), you would find out that he was presenting actual measurements on the planet to test this. These were recently released by your own government agencies.

I have to say that I was really turned off by the wisecracks. I listened to the first 15 minutes and scanned the entire presentation. The ridicule should be unnecessary if the facts speak for themselves. It made me question the motivations of the speaker. It strikes me as a political counterattack disguised as an effort to present factual data. It makes no difference whether this is true or not. Once I don't trust the speaker's motivations, I see no reason to hear more. A skillful liar will use 99 % of the truth, and decieve you with the hidden 1 %. For this reason, in complicated situations, I usually go to the scientific literature directly and rely on my own reasoning to get an answer I can trust.

Speaking of trust, do you really think I trust the data released by my government agencies? No way! I ignore it completely.

 

do you really think I trust the data released by my government agencies? No way! I ignore it completely.

Do you not generally work to ANSI standards and is that organisation respected worldwide as is NOAA, Scrips Hole Institute, John Hopkins Medical Centre etc etc?

I think your statement rather sweeping Sir.

But yes you have a famous phrase

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

Whilst there is much to condemn in the American way there is also much to admire.

 

Do you not generally work to ANSI standards and is that organisation respected worldwide as is NOAA, Scrips Hole Institute, John Hopkins Medical Centre etc etc?

I think your statement rather sweeping Sir.

Of course, any statement like that is overly sweeping, but it's not too far from the truth for me in general. I don't have many issues with standards, because, whether or not I agree with them, there are times when they must be followed. It's the same thing with laws. I follow them even when they bother me in principle. But these don't relate to questions of truth. - They are just rules. Still, it's known that laws and standards are often enacted for political or financial gains, and any scientific data that is used to justify rules, should be questioned and verified.

However, my statement was really about realeased data relating to issues that have poltical consequences. Or, more accurately, lies and propaganda released to achieve a goal. I needn't mention "weapons of mass-destruction", but it's a good example of how serious I am in my doubts. Perhaps you won't believe me, but when I heard that statement years ago, I identified it as what it was, and told my friends not to believe it. Not one person I know saw through the deception. The spin we hear now is that it was just an honest mistake. "Everyone was fooled." Well, I wasn't fooled then, and I'm not fooled now.

Whilst there is much to condemn in the American way there is also much to admire.

I agree with that completely. Most things are so good here, but ignorance, stupidity and corruption exist everywhere. My statement is not an attack on my country, but on my species.

 

Taking a longer view, the last set of ice ages and the subsequent thaws did not happen because of human activity. We might not have a firm handle on climatic change as yet.

That's my point, that humans couldn't have possibly affected climate change; and I don't think that CO2 build-up is contributing to the climate change. Besides, humans couldn't really prevent a climate change at the moment.

Austin

 

From a problem in my book:

CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.

Is this wrong?

 

From a problem in my book:

CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.

Is this wrong?

That number sounds a little too high. Does the problem include water vapor as a greenhouse gas? Based on your wording, it should. Basic physics considering absorption spectra and gas concentrations put the effect of CO2 well below that of water vapor, and CO2 is ranked second and estimated to contribute between 10% and 30 % of the greenhouse effect.

 

Wikipedia gives the percentage contributions as:

water vapor = 36-72%
CO2 = 9-26%
methane = 4-9%

US governmental sources that I saw don't give a % contribution (how ever that is defined and calculated), but by simple relative proportion water far exceeds CO2.

See:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg

The latter link has this interesting quote:

Did You Know?

If it were not for naturally occurring greenhouse gases, the Earth would be too cold to support life as we know it. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be about -2°F rather than the 57°F we currently experience.

Without greenhouse gases, it would be snowball Earth. We are just outside the so-called habitable zone for the solar system.

Natural processes tend to sequester CO2 as carbonates and other solids. Some have argued, perhaps tongue in cheek, that it is mankind's responsibility as caretakers of our planet to replenish that CO2 . Just look what happened to Mars which lacked such efforts by intelligent life.

John

 

How can photo's of snow covered peaks going back decades
that has been documented very well. These mountains peak are melting
at a alarming rate. We have to relie on real information,if the
mountains were stable for a 100 years that has to be considered in
opinions today. These beautiful peaks were photoed a lot from
all angles so there is much history to look at and evaluate.

 

From a problem in my book:

CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.

Is this wrong?

Sounds wrong to me. See if, thru your reading, you can understand how they arrived at that.

Now, if they are REALLY saying that "half of all INCREASE that we have seen is due to more CO2" then that is one thing.

But if they are saying that 1/2 of all of the total greenhouse effect as described in jpanhalt's post, then I dont' see how that could be.

 

I find discussion, pro or con, dedunant, and much along the lines of, what would you do if you won the lottery.

data shows some repeatability in that there is a period of prolonged change, followed by a period of rapid change. There is much arrgument to maintian our environment in perpetual stagnation, but we also know that such an environment will eventually become exhausted.

As we perform our primary task, that of being agents of entropy, we are powerless in dictating the rate at which change takes place.

 

As a species we can control some things, though not as much as the green movement thinks. Where we can reasonably change we need to. It is stupid to do things the way they were done yesterday because that is how it has always been done. We don't dump our sewage in the streets anymore because we discovered it was bad for us, we need to take the same approach with CO2. To those who don't think humans make that much difference, the 50% or so of the species we've rendered extinct already might disagree.

By being we will change things, but we need to choose what we change where we can.