Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

foreign holidays will have to become a thing of the past for the vast number of people, I can't believe they can bang on about co2 rubbish and give the go ahead to another terminal at heathrow utter hypocrisy.

CO2 went up 1940-1970 after wwII yet temps went down 1940-1974 go figure.
 
Bear said:
I would say most peoples dependancy on their car is based on people actually being mobile to go to work and going to the shops is virtually irrelevant compared to the mileage most people do going to work. Not being mobile for employment would certainly impact on most peoples standard of living.

Luckily I have done my part to save the the planet as I only go on two long haul holidays a year and not three. ;)
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing my point. The majority of people could, right now, use local shops and get public transport or cycle /walk to work. Most just choose not to because they have the choice. I appreciate some jobs do not permit that. But that's when long term comes in.

We have become so reliant on car travel and cradle to grave, out of town businesses such as Tesco, that if major changes to our travel options do happen, and the choice is no longer there, many will suffer.

People are funny with lifestyle choices and risks. If it is by their choosing, it's not perceived to be so bad. But if it's enforced, it's all the governments fault and the world is over. So why not try and introduce slowly the changes, so it's not such a shock to bear? Why not live a bit closer to your work? Why not support local businesses instead of the out of town parks? Because one day, you may not have the choice of "I like living in the middle of nowhere, but also want it easy to get to work and the shops". I see the congestion charges a a start of this kind of thinking. Of course it needs to be a 2-way thing from the government, and that's not always forthcoming :)

These are just my views, I don't think we realise how lucky, but at the same time wasteful we are. I also don't think the majority accept that we can't keep it forever. Anyways, enough thread derailment :)
 
LabR@t said:
CO2 went up 1940-1970 after wwII yet temps went down 1940-1974 go figure.
Click to expand...
I've just stolen this off the BBC website because it looks accurate, ie aligned with Met Office data I've seen at university. You should see a drop right after the war then a steady rise:

_46880316_glob_ave_temp2_466gr.gif


Not sure what caused the drop but the atmosphere was full of soot around then which blocks out a lot of heat and the world was in economic dire straights after WW2. Global CO2 emissions are almost proportional to economic activity so there would have been a drop after WW2.
 
Jonny69 said:
Not sure what caused the drop but the atmosphere was full of soot around then which blocks out a lot of heat and the world was in economic dire straights after WW2. Global CO2 emissions are almost proportional to economic activity so there would have been a drop after WW2.
Click to expand...

If I had to hazard a guess (I'm sure there are papers on the very issue, so it'd be best to hunt those than take my word for it) it's either down to it being an El Nino/La Nina year or some varient, or something to do with lag-effect or global dimming.

This is exactly the problem which scientists face when sceptics latch on to such issues. Usually the sceptics simply haven't comprehended what complex system we're dealing with. We 'know' through true empiricism a fair amount of scientific 'fact' - thus where certain conclusions are derrived - but we do not know everything. We can't. But that certainly isn't leeway for the deniers to bully their way to the supposed moral high-ground.
 
HeadlessChicken said:
You seem to be missing my point. The majority of people could, right now, use local shops and get public transport or cycle /walk to work. Most just choose not to because they have the choice. I appreciate some jobs do not permit that. But that's when long term comes in.

We have become so reliant on car travel and cradle to grave, out of town businesses such as Tesco, that if major changes to our travel options do happen, and the choice is no longer there, many will suffer.

People are funny with lifestyle choices and risks. If it is by their choosing, it's not perceived to be so bad. But if it's enforced, it's all the governments fault and the world is over. So why not try and introduce slowly the changes, so it's not such a shock to bear? Why not live a bit closer to your work? Why not support local businesses instead of the out of town parks? Because one day, you may not have the choice of "I like living in the middle of nowhere, but also want it easy to get to work and the shops". I see the congestion charges a a start of this kind of thinking. Of course it needs to be a 2-way thing from the government, and that's not always forthcoming :)

These are just my views, I don't think we realise how lucky, but at the same time wasteful we are. I also don't think the majority accept that we can't keep it forever. Anyways, enough thread derailment :)
Click to expand...

I do get your point although I disagree with your conclusion. Yes people could shop locally but local shops will generally charge more for the produce/goods you buy. People want to save money where they can and also justify money they have had to pay out, after all you still have to pay for road tax and insurance no matter how much you use your car.

If I take my place of work, I would say about 90% of the people that work there have to travel 20+ miles each way and thats about 110 people.

Seeing as more and more people are being made redundant or are unemployed, people have to be more mobile and perhaps have to travel further to get those jobs that suit them and pay the wages they want.

Living closer to work also sometimes isnt realistic due to house prices. Ever notice places that have high levels of employment also have high house prices ?? So people live in cheaper areas and commute in and get a decent wage and therefore have a better standard of living instead of blowing it all on a mortgage you can barely afford.

As to why people blame the government, people blame the government because they know its all a bunch of bull. If it was so important to the government then all the councils and government institutions would be leading the way in energy savings/travelling/recycling etc but they dont.
 
Nix said:
If I had to hazard a guess (I'm sure there are papers on the very issue, so it'd be best to hunt those than take my word for it) it's either down to it being an El Nino/La Nina year or some varient, or something to do with lag-effect or global dimming.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure weather events wouldn't have shown a decline for a whole decade though, they spike up or down for a year or two and are absorbed in the mean temperature over the decade.
 
Jonny69 said:
I'm pretty sure weather events wouldn't have shown a decline for a whole decade though, they spike up or down for a year or two and are absorbed in the mean temperature over the decade.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's only a guess. I'm not an expect on the topic. ;)

I'd have to delve into history and take note of recorded events to give a more truthful answer. I'm sure someone has already done the leg work somewhere already.

It could very well be something to do with lag-effect though.
 
Last edited:
Bear said:
I do get your point although I disagree with your conclusion. Yes people could shop locally but local shops will generally charge more for the produce/goods you buy. People want to save money where they can and also justify money they have had to pay out, after all you still have to pay for road tax and insurance no matter how much you use your car.

If I take my place of work, I would say about 90% of the people that work there have to travel 20+ miles each way and thats about 110 people.

Seeing as more and more people are being made redundant or are unemployed, people have to be more mobile and perhaps have to travel further to get those jobs that suit them and pay the wages they want.

Living closer to work also sometimes isnt realistic due to house prices. Ever notice places that have high levels of employment also have high house prices ?? So people live in cheaper areas and commute in and get a decent wage and therefore have a better standard of living instead of blowing it all on a mortgage you can barely afford.

As to why people blame the government, people blame the government because they know its all a bunch of bull. If it was so important to the government then all the councils and government institutions would be leading the way in energy savings/travelling/recycling etc but they dont.
Click to expand...

Heheh, I'm not going to go on, but you still haven't grasped short term / long term and choice / no choice in my post. Lifestyle choices are different for everyone, and as such difficult to debate about. :)
 
Nix: The profs in my department explained it in a masters module I did but I can't remember what it was. Pretty sure it was lack of technological development post WW2 due to the economic climate.
 
Jonny69 said:
I'm pretty sure weather events wouldn't have shown a decline for a whole decade though, they spike up or down for a year or two and are absorbed in the mean temperature over the decade.
Click to expand...

Almost certain there are papers that accredit the drop to change in solar cycles and / or a change in the way that measurements above sea were taken. Revising some work so don't have time to check right now :)
 
Jonny69 said:
What's your background HC?
Click to expand...

Currently studying Env at the UEA (not the best thing to promote currently :p But I have nothing to do with CRU / palaeoclimatology, so I'm ok :D).

If I'm honest I am more interested in fossil fuels, low carbon tech, energy management, but have a good enough background start in most fields of Env to at least have a half intelligent discussion......sometimes :p
 
Another question. I thought this decade hadn't actually warmed, infact had cooled a little. I have seen an IPCC scientist (on the BBC) admit the last decade had cooled and they didn't predict it last decade. Now the MET Office are saying this past decade has been the warmest by far.
 
dbappa said:
Another question. I thought this decade hadn't actually warmed, infact had cooled a little. I have seen an IPCC scientist (on the BBC) admit the last decade had cooled and they didn't predict it last decade. Now the MET Office are saying this past decade has been the warmest by far.
Click to expand...

There was a La Nina that made a few of the years (2008 especially IIRC) cooler, and thus a cooling trend. but overall I guess it was warmer (news to me too).

It just goes to show that year on year temp records mean **** all, and that there are more temp drivers than just CO2 :)
 
HeadlessChicken said:
But that's assuming that CO2 is the only temperature driver, which it certainly isn't. It's nothing compared to solar cycles or ENSO. So that little "snippit" alone is completely irrelevant, for anything.
Click to expand...

I know c02 dosen't cause temps, duh your preaching to the converted.

solar sun spots most likely they increased 2003-2006 and stopped in 2008 hence last year was coldest winter in a long time and why we will have a cold winter this year as there still has been no sunspots which is worrying.
 
LabR@t said:
I know c02 dosen't cause temps, duh your preaching to the converted.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. What HC is saying is what many of us have been trying to tell you all along in that CO2 is not the only temperature driver. It's just one factor in a big complex system, but it's not one we can really ignore.

There is far more empirical evidence in terms of CO2 driving temperature change than there is with sun-spots. CO2 does cause temperature shifts.
 
LabR@t said:
I know c02 dosen't cause temps, duh your preaching to the converted.

solar sun spots most likely they increased 2003-2006 and stopped in 2008 hence last year was coldest winter in a long time and why we will have a cold winter this year as there still has been no sunspots which is worrying.
Click to expand...

Yes but you have to remember that it works both ways.

It proves nothing. It doesn't prove CO2 causes temp rise (for sure), but it also doesn't prove that it doesn't.

(Dear lord, that has to be one of the most terribly worded sentences ever :p)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom