The Hottest Hoax In The World

[steveandersen]

Sorry, I overlooked that. Do you agree climate change is nothing new?MWP, LIA, warming after LIA,

well of course climate change is nothing new

who said otherwise

that of course doesn’t preclude a human contribution

 

[John21652]

prime hop-growing land in Kent is now (unfortunately) being used for viticulture
because it is warmer now

after completely dieing out viticulture is back in the UK

It didn’t completely die out at all.

From the link you provided -

The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales. Doubtless, during that time, there were some vines being grown on a garden scale by amateur growers, but for more than 25 years there was a total cessation of viticulture and winemaking on a commercial basis.

At the end of the second Millennium it may reasonably be said that England has at least a small indigenous wine growing industry. The realities of climate and latitude probably dictate that it will never grow into the massive industries of France, Italy, Germany or Australia. However, and it may fairly be said to be one of the best kept secrets of these islands, the fact is that though the grapevine is most productive in sunnier, hotter climes, it produces wine of the very highest quality where it is at the very margin of its existence. That is, in England and Wales.

In England, it is only in about 2 years in every 10 that grape production will be really good, 4 years will be average and 4 years poor or terrible - largely due to weather and/or disease exacerbated by weather

Punch magazine published an article some years ago that said English wine takes four people to drink. One victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

 

[qui_est_ce]

well of course climate change is nothing new

who said otherwise

that of course doesn’t preclude a human contribution

Climate has been changing since before the first hominid.

Exactly what have humans done to change the climate? When and how did human activity begin to impact climate? IOW, when did climate change become anthropomorphic?

 

[John21652]

Climate has been changing since before the first hominid.

Exactly what have humans done to change the climate? When and how did human activity begin to impact climate? IOW, when did climate change become anthropomorphic?

When Al Gore said so.

 

[qui_est_ce]

When Al Gore said so.

Bingo! There was never consensus until An Inconvenient Truth came out.

According to Steveanderson:

“global cooling” hype of the 70-s had no scientific consensus and was just popular media hype

 

[steveandersen]

Climate has been changing since before the first hominid.

of course, even before the first life.

Exactly what have humans done to change the climate?

to paraphrase Svante Arrhenius one of the first Nobel prize winners for chemistry and one of the first to examine the green house effect , We have evaporated our coal beds

see my previous post about CO2 being opaque to IR in certain bands

many of the bands it affects are already blocked by water vapor so there is really no additional effect there
but it makes a large contribution in one of the few ranges of IR not affected by water vapor

we also clear and pave large swathes of the planet
& we breed large herds of ruminants (but methane is opaque almost entirely in bands already at least partially blocked by water vapor so it adds to that but i forget the percent off the top of my head)
you haven’t heard any of this before?

Arrhenius, a Swede, was generally all in favor of warming things up a bit. It does get cold in Sweden. but at his time less was known about some other possible interactions

When and how did human activity begin to impact climate?

obviously as long as there have been people we have affected our environment. that is no big mystery.
when did that become something that wasn’t lost in the background noise of natural variations? Some say the neolithic age with the development of agriculture most push it forward to the industrial age.

there are some skeptics who say never… but we don’t pay attention to them

IOW, when did climate change become anthropomorphic?

“become” Anthropomorphic? what do you mean become anthropomorphic? as in the human contribution is the main variable?
never
who do you think is claiming that?

but that doesn’t preclude human activity form being a contribution. and in an energy balance, every little bit counts

 

[steveandersen]

Bingo! There was never consensus until An Inconvenient Truth came out.

According to Steveanderson:

err
Arrhenius first published on the topic of the greenhouse effect in 1896
the World Meteorological Organization released its waring on warming in 1976 (right in the middle of everyone’s favorite straw man the global cooling of the 1970s BTW)

first IPCC report was 1990
an Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006

so does old AL have a time machine too

(James Burke’s “After the Warming” was in 1989 but there was less data then (which was the point of his piece actually)

 

[Ender]

but it makes a large contribution in one of the few ranges of IR not affected by water vapor

Since the contribution diminishes logarithmically with concentration, the more CO2 is added, the less affect it has.

when did that become something that wasn’t lost in the background noise of natural variations? Some say the neolithic age with the development of agriculture most push it forward to the industrial age.

If by “lost in the background noise” you mean not measurable by instrumentation, it’s not clear that it isn’t still background noise. Do you believe we have the ability to measure the “global temperature” to the nearest hundredth of a degree - let alone determine what fraction of the increase is due solely to increased CO2?

but that doesn’t preclude human activity form being a contribution. and in an energy balance, every little bit counts

Bailing an ocean liner with a teaspoon also makes a contribution but it is rightly considered inconsequential. Keep a little perspective here.

Ender

 

[Calliso]

Since the contribution diminishes logarithmically with concentration, the more CO2 is added, the less affect it has.

If by “lost in the background noise” you mean not measurable by instrumentation, it’s not clear that it isn’t still background noise. Do you believe we have the ability to measure the “global temperature” to the nearest hundredth of a degree - let alone determine what fraction of the increase is due solely to increased CO2?

Bailing an ocean liner with a teaspoon also makes a contribution but it is rightly considered inconsequential. Keep a little perspective here.

Ender

I would not call the fact that we have raised the level of co2 over 100 ppm in the past century or so inconsequential

 

[Ender]

I would not call the fact that we have raised the level of co2 over 100 ppm in the past century or so inconsequential

Regardless of what you call it no one can identify what part of the warming we have experienced has been due to the increase in CO2. Part of the reason we don’t know is that there isn’t a good way to measure the global temperature. Since we can’t speak with precision about how much the earth has warmed we certainly can’t speak with any precision about the contribution CO2 has made. One thing the CRU emails made clear was just how much fudging goes into calculating the “adjusted” global temperature. Besides, I didn’t say the CO2 contribution was inconsequential, what I said was that we couldn’t measure its contribution with any degree of precision. Hysterical claims notwithstanding, we simply don’t know what affect - if any - has been caused by increased CO2.

Ender

 

[peary]

No where in the Bible does it mention “global warming.” That is why I reject the notion. The Bible, however, is very specific about action and consequence: if we do such-and-such, there is a consequence associated with it, whether good or bad. That goes for humanity too.

However, God is the God of Creation and He is in charge of it all. The Bible is also explicit about the “signs of the times” in the sun, moon, and stars, but it says nothing about global warming.

 

[John21652]

France ditches carbon tax

So much for the great moral imperative of our time.

France is relling under strikes and civil unrest as unemployment rises and government debt increases. President Sarkozy’s ruling party got a flogging at recent polls, so he’s now pulled the plug on saving the planet.

I wonder what Algore will have to say about all this?

Green goups are “scandalized”…

Chantal Jouanno, the environment secretary, said she was “devastated that eco-scepticism had prevailed”. France’s leading green groups wrote a joint letter to Mr Sarkozy saying they were “scandalised” by his decision, accusing him of tearing up a pledge to put climate change at the centre of his presidency.

 

[John21652]

Dr. James Lovelock, the famous environmentalist who first developed the Gaia hypothesis that the Earth is one giant self regulating system, has spoken out against the accepted certainty of human induced global warming. He says the computer climate models can not be relied on and the climate sceptics have done science a great service."Science has gotten overblown" and he says the public are right to be very sceptical.

“Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science,” he said. “I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”

On carbon trading he says ."…I suspect that it is basically a scam".

The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now?