Pages

Thursday, 13 September 2012

Is global warming manmade?

If you have half an hour, get yourself a pot of tea and some crumpets and take a look at these videos. They certainly made me think again about global warming.

***

31 comments:

  1. Ooo! Now I know what David gets up to in his spare time!! ;-D

    Sorry.
    I'll behave now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That explains those long evenings hunched over his computer...

      Delete
  2. Not only was I unable to source crumpet at short notice, I was unable to play your video thingies
    Auld age disnae come itsel, obviously

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh. Sorry about that. Not sure what to suggest. Try these links:
      http://youtu.be/plr-hTRQ2_c
      http://youtu.be/PSNW0LC32wU
      http://youtu.be/3NZuh4_A5kw



      Delete
  3. Its hard to take this guy seriously. He has a PhD in electrical engineering, but he's not a professional scientist and has no background in climate research.

    More info on his background:
    - http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
    - http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228

    Links to commentary on his theories:
    - http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=David_Evans

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Andrew The desmoblog is a well-know smear site, well know for denigration of any AGW opposing views. It specialises in ad hominem attacks and never counters with a scientific argument.




      Delete
    2. Hi Alan. Where can I find out more about David Evans? In particular, his scientific background.

      Delete
    3. David Evans: Credentials

      Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
      M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
      M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
      M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
      B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
      B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney.

      He helped build the carbon accounting model for the Australian Government that tracks carbon in plants, debris, soils, and agricultural and forest products.

      Delete
    4. Isn't that the one they have just admitted is rubbish becasue the baseline data was incorrect. Climate "scientists" in NZ and Aus just had a bit of a tiff on that which means all the southern hemisphere data is inaccurate(otherwise know as bullsh*t). I put Scientists in brackets after Climate as no scientist worth his salt would ever agree with consensus. That is a politicians word.

      Delete
  4. Thanks Alan. Hooked on Part 1 before the tea was made. So refreshements later.

    I was going to point you in the direction of James Dellingpole http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100180766/i-dont-heart-renewableuk/
    but I see you've read and commented on it already.

    I'm keeping a hopeful eye on Owen Paterson MP, our new (anti wind farm) Secretary of State DEFRA.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Young Mr Delingpole argues with wit and determination - a powerful combination.
      :-)
      I think Owen Paterson & Ed Davey will have some colourful discussions.

      Will you be applying for the TGO Challenge this month, Brian? You know you want to... Give it a bash!

      Delete
  5. I have noticed that the Beeb has been putting a more positive spin on global warming recently - banging on about 3 harvests per year, more varied selection of juicy fruit, a climate like Madeira etc.
    Its all bllx, obviously, the real problem/challenge is that there's far too many people.
    Homo sapiens is shagging itself into oblivion.
    Actually, that sounds like fun now I read it back....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Mike.
      The way to reduce rapidly rising populations is through education and contraception. Both take surprisingly small amounts of money, when compared to the billions governments the world over are squandering on energy subsidies.
      :-)

      Delete
    2. Sadly, the economies snd countries least able to support escalating population, and often social groups who likewise are not really capable of supporting multiple offspring, are the ones who breed like rabbits.

      Having said that I personally think that global warming is fundamentally a naturally occurring cycle. I have no scientific proof of that, nor scientific skill to research it.

      Just my opinion.

      Delete
    3. The thing is, when you improve health care, agriculture, education, and provide clean drinking water, birth rates drop as there isn't the high child mortality rate to fight against.

      Delete
    4. If the last ice age had not melted then I for one would not be here.
      I might have been in the middle of Africa, being chased by lions as opposed to midgies, but would not be living here in Scotland.
      Blaming mankind for causing it; who would be the most culpable, somebody heating water or cooking his tea? Try telling some poor sod he can't have anything hot and by the way, turn that candle off. A likely reply would be "on your bike pal"
      If mankind has caused global warming how could it have been prevented
      In my opinion, global warming is part of the natural cycle of climate change.
      Mankind will have to wait to see what happens next and it's anyones guess how long we have got before we all disappear.
      Would thae last one left turn the light out.

      Delete
    5. There's a huge amount of fuss at the moment from the green brigade about the Arctic ice being at it's lowest recorded volume.
      I wonder if anyone else is worried by the fact that the Antarctic ice volume is at an all-time high right now? This doesn't get shouted about much does it?
      There's a massive glut of environmentalists out there, all clinging on to their jobs by their fingernails. This includes all the greenies in the press. It's a self- perpetuating industry.

      Delete
    6. The last time we went into an Ice Age it arrived in six month, So bugger all we could do about it anyway. Might as well enjoy life now. Climate will change. It has done through millenia. When early man went for his hols to France, he walked! And he didn't get wet either. On population the problem is that in third world countries the quantity of children you have reflects whether you live or starve in old age. No National Pension schemes there. Mind you the way our pensions are going perhaps we should start breeding!

      Delete
  6. Alan, I could rant at length on this topic but will restrain myself. Just to emphasise your point to Andrew Johnson that DeSmogBlog is a scurrilous, lying, venomous website and no place to gather reliable information from. Neither is the mis-named SkepticalScience, an 'alarmist' website run by Australian John Cook. Andrew Johnson may find it hard to take David Evans "seriously" on account of Evans only having a PhD in electrical engineering (a total buffoon then). How seriously should we take SkepticalScience administrator John Cook ? He is a cartoonist (and not a very good one, either).

    One encounters this attitude all the time with the warmists. If Professors Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Paul Reiter(just to give three examples - Google them) are critical of the science behind manmade global warming they are dismissed as not being specialists in the field. But if some know-nothing like the Prince of Wails waffles on about dead polar bears we are expected to sit up and take notice. It's pants (to use the technical jargon).

    Cheers, Pete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on, Peter.

      It amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people with enquiring minds just take at face value the "findings" of the IPCC.

      Just looking at the raw data (available from sites like WUWT) raises so many questions that the "warmists" fail even to acknowledge; They simply ridicule the site, the authors, their qualifications, their political views... It just goes on. They only make themselves look narrow-minded simpletons.

      There is now a growing band of scientists who have had enough of this opprobrium and are speaking out. Of course the IPCC closes ranks and then tries to discredit them.

      Eventually they will have to admit that they are wrong. I'm looking forward to that day. But by then we will have spent billions and billions on wasted measures to "combat this dreadful threat."

      Delete
  7. "Eventually they will have to admit that they are wrong."

    Sorry Alan, I haven't time to watch the videos so might be missing something, but how do you know that they are wrong? Like the rest of us you don't know, all we have is theories which like all theories are waiting to be disproved.

    In the meantime what do we do? It's gambling really isn't it? Spend "billions and billions" on what might be wasted measures - with a world GDP of $70 trillion a few billion isn't really that big a stake is it? Or do nothing and save billions but risk losing trillions?

    There's also the fact that a lot of what is being done in the name of climate change has other benefits - national energy security, a replacement for oil (peak oil and all that) etc.

    Do I think climate change is man made? How should I know? John just pawn in game of life. And risk averse.

    John

    (Been working all evening on TGO account).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we want energy security, then building wind farms is a strange way of going about it. When the wind doesn't blow we will be relying on the inter-connectors with Europe.

      More and more of the IPCC's pronouncements are being shown to be based on adjusted data - data adjusted in one direction only - to prove warming.

      However, if the climate is warming we should be spending the money on adapting to climate change, not building wind turbines that make sod-all difference to carbon emissions. Then the money *will* be well spent.

      Good to hear the TGO account is on its way :-) I'm looking forward to hearing what happened.

      Delete
    2. This blog post is a good assessment of current alarmist propaganda.

      Delete
  8. Woah! Where did all this wind turbine stuff come from? I thought we were talking about climate change. I can see I'll have to watch the videos.

    "When the wind doesn't blow we will be relying on the inter-connectors with Europe."

    Well that's *relatively* good. The alternative is pipelines to Russia and tankers to the Middle East.

    "However, if the climate is warming we should be spending the money on adapting to climate change"

    I think this is another discussion again, and I think mixing all these separate problems together makes it very hard to come to any sensible conclusion. How much do prevention and adaptation cost? The Stern Report a few years back suggested 2% of GDP for prevention and 5% (possibly 20%) for adaptation.

    John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I only mentioned wind farms as you said "what is being done in the name of climate change has other benefits - national energy security, a replacement for oil (peak oil and all that) etc."

      Actually our gas come from either our own fields or those of Norway. As you correctly point out we also import Liquefied Natural Gas from Qatar.

      Regardless of what Stern (hotly disputed subsequently) stated, when toy actually look at global CO2 emissions you'll see that they are increasing, despite the huge investments in renewables. We have to deal with reality. This piece from the Guardian shows what's happening to emissions: LINK

      Delete
  9. You are Delingpole. I claim my £5.

    John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      You might like to think about your figures based on the Stern review after reading this review of Stern.

      Delete
  10. I don't profess to know enough to comment scientifically on this subject. But I do know (in my own mind) that I don't fully trust the arguments of either side - the pro and the anti factions are playing to their own vested interests.

    However, I have just spent a bit of time in Zermatt. Many of the walks have theme boards, and these chronicle the history of the village since Roman times. Back then, and in the middle ages, the valleys and passes were far LESS glaciated than today, when ancient routes are now not passable because of glacial ice and ice/snow covered areas today were once cultivable fields.

    I forget the stat exactly, but it's something like CURRENTLY, the area is in the upper 50% of glaciated conditions.

    Now I know this is not "proof", and only refects the conditions in a small area at one moment in time. But it is based on recorded history.

    Also, the "iceman" - Otzi - trapped in ice 5,000 years ago, was found to be quite scantily-clad at very high altitude, suggesting more forgiving conditions than are found in that area now.

    So, anecdotal evidence, I know, but still relevant. We can gather information, present "facts" and interpret them in all sorts of different ways to tell the story we want. So I prefer to trust the evidence I can see with my own eyes, and to me that means "INCONCLUSIVE".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite so.
      The "science is definitely NOT settled!"!
      :-)

      Delete

Hi.
Because of spammers, I moderate all comments, so don't worry if your comment seems to have disappeared; It has been sent to me for approval. As soon as I see it, I'll deal with it straight away.
Thank you!