Reliable source for climate change info.

Hello,
Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.
Thanks in advance.
Reply to
David Paste
There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched. Any publication is likely to be biased.
Bill
Reply to
Bill Wright
Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my question without asking outright because of that risk! I recently asked a question about a particular brand of powertool in a woodworking group, and it turned into a 'friendly discussion' about the physics of hi-fi speaker wires. I'd like to avoid such situations as much as possible!
Reply to
David Paste
The truth about man made Global Warming seems to be, as yet, "We don't know". The precautionary principle says we should stop adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, as although we don't have cast iron proof that there is an effect, doing this can't do any harm, and may minimise any problems we are going to have in the future in any case.
Some people claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence, others that the records we have show that AGW is happening and accelerating, while others point to the same data and deny that there is anything other than a random fluctuation happening.
Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air is an e-book which is free to download, and addresses the subject and ways of reducing the effects, but acknowledges that it may be too late.
formatting link
all publications, though, you should be aware that the writer is only presenting his point of view.
Reply to
John Williamson
I don't think there is a reliable source anywhere.
Climate changes, it always has and it always will.
That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.
As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.
I've done more research than most, and my final conclusion is that no one has a reliable handle on any of it.
Despite the huge amounts of crap spouted about it.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
I think that is very unfair. David is not presenting his VIEW - he is presenting the results of some very painstaking research based on actual FACTS for the most part, like 'how much power do we use' and 'how efficient is a steam turbine' and so on.
Nowhere does he say anything about climate change beyond noting that if it is down to CO2, the purpose of the book is to look rationally at how we might address the problem.
It is a book about human uses of energy and sources of it.
Not about climate change.
The problem with AGW - as opposed to 'climate change' is that it leaps from a FACT :"CO2 is a greenhouse gas", adds another FACT: "CO2 is increasing due to human activity" calculates what effect this would have IF EVERYTHING ELSE WAS EQUAL and arrives at a figure which is so pathetically small you wouldn't sell a single wind turbine on the strength of it. And that's where the fudging and the leaps of faith come in. Because the last part of the 20th century saw massive increase in global temperature, the logical leap of faith of the IPCC was that this was all DRIVEN by CO2 and AMPLIFIED (to make the numbers fit ) by some *unkown* feedback system.
Despite there being no real evidence of such a system, and despite the problem that in the historical past we have had similar changes in temperature that can't be explained, with no CO2 variation, and often massively bigger ones that CAUSED CO2 variation - not the other way round.
And as we learn more, it seems that climate and weather come in irregular chaotic cycles, that may be related to instabilities in air masses and sea currents, passage through spiral arms of the galaxy, and what the sun is doing at the time as well.
Over my lifetimes a new ice age was predicted..but it just got steadily warmer, then massive global warming was predicted, and its STOPPED getting warmer....
Do you REALLY think anyone has more than a biassed guess to offer?
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Before the question can be answered adequately you need to give us some idea of your level of scientific knowledge. The main IPCC reports are actually a pretty good summary and well indexed to primary literature, but they are hard going unless you are a science graduate or researcher.
sci.geo.meteorology would be a better place to ask this question.
Although it is much easier to make a list of *UNRELIABLE* sources which would include Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, Screaming Lord Monckton et Al. Basically look back to see if they were involved in denier for hire work on seatbelts, tobacco or the ozone layer and then draw your own conclusions about how trustworthy they are on AGW.
Of the recent studies I reckon the independent analysis funded by the Koch brothers (and so expected to refute climate change) Berkley Earth study of global temperature is about the most accessible:
formatting link
Climate changes, it always has and it always will.
True enough, but until recently we were not able to affect the planets energy balance significantly. That has changed in the past few decades - even the genuinely sceptical scientists concede this point. GHG forcing has to be included after about 1970 to balance the books and you cannot just handwave the sun brighter since there is satellite monitoring of the total solar irradiance in the relevant period.
Only if you demand absolute certainty as a way of avoiding accepting that we have evidence that greenhouse gas forcing is now a significant factor in climate change and that it will become more important as time progresses. Exxon has paid a lot of money to PR men to spread doubt and uncertainty about AGW and it has worked astonishingly well (exactly the same techniques are used to keep the suckers smoking tobacco and even some of the same practitioners).
These tactics annoyed the Royal Society so much that they wrote an open letter to Exxon asking them to stop wilfully misrepresenting the science. It didn't work to any noticeable extent.
Shame. You are otherwise quite rational about other things.
Reply to
Martin Brown
There's no shortage of information. The problem is that it isn't understandable without advanced knowledge of meteorology and the ability to process the data on a supercomputer.
So I understand what you want (as opposed to what you asked for) but can state with reasonable certainty that it doesn't exist.
What you will find is lots of opinions and analyses of the data. You need to decide whose analyses are most credible.
Reply to
Bernard Peek
We can't affect the energy balance significantly now. There is heat energy from radioactivity in the core, heat from tidal effects, heat from the Sun and an miniscule amount from burning fuel and nuclear reactors. *All* of which radiates away into space.

Reply to
dennis
...
In the past 15 years, despite rising CO2 levels, the climate has not warmed in the way that models based upon that assumption predicted. OTOH, Soviet scientists, who think that the driving factor is sun spot activity, predicted that by 2012 we would start to see signs of a cooling cycle and that is not contradicted by what has been happening.
Colin Bignell
Reply to
Nightjar
No we don't.
Thats the point.
What we have is direct laboratory evidence that CO2 is a green house gas and completely contradictory evidence that is way *not* enough to account for last centuries temperature rises.
The slight of hand of the IPPC is to create a circular argument that fools most scientists.
1/. Assume all the increase is due to CO2 2/. adjust value of a suitable constant - lamda - to make the temperature rises fit the theory. 3/. Announce that the facts now 'prove' the theory. That all the increase is due to CO2.
You appear to have swallowed this.
Its false on two counts: first of all facts don't prove theories. Absence of facts that contradict theories alllw them to survive, that's all.
Secondly, the logic is circular.
formatting link
how this technique can be used to 'prove' a completely different theory.
and that it will become more important as time
I think you will found that the global spend on promoting AGW is about 200 times higher...one wonders why its necessary to do that.
Well you have fallen for the scientific con hook line and sinker.
I don't say AGW is wrong, but it is certainly VERY bad science. In fact its not science at all. Its first year garduate curve fitting crapola. . Just because you can fit a polynomial to set of data points doesn't mean that the underlying cause of those data points is anything to do with the polynomial function.
And when you have to massage the data hugely to get anywhere NEAR a fit its becomes a very very poor example of even that.
CO2 by itself will account for 0.2C or 0.4C over the next century,. That's what the maths says. The 1,2,3,4C rises are pure conjceture based on randomly adjusting the lamda constant in the AGW equations to fit last centuries data.
But of course, we had lots of WEATHER. El Ninos, la Ninas, PDOs NAOs..at some point they can all sum, at other points they cancel.
NONE of that is ever taken into account EXCEPT when trying to explain why the weather *doesn't* fit the climate models of the IPCC. ALL of it is ignored in the making of that model.
It remains a very poor and very incomplete model, and normally no one would give a damn except its being used as a vehicle for racketeering by 'green' companies - and forget Exxon. They cont care any more. They KNOW renewable energy doesn't work and they will still be pumping shale come what may. And Germany will be burning coal....
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Yeah,. I think fossil fuel and nuclear fuel is less than 1% of total incoming solra radiation, and tahst about it.
It does raise the amusing sums done by one person who calculated that if population kept on growing and everyone had a western lifestyle, within 50 years the required energy budget would exceed all the sunlight falling on the earth, thus proving that sustainable growth and renewable energy together made about as much sense as wheels on a balloon.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
OK, so I know I've probably disappointed everyone by opening up this debate, so I'll state my position and what my 2 questions are. I have a working knowledge of physics, a bit of biology and next-to-nothing of chemistry.
1. Carbon Dioxide is often portrayed as the bad man responsible for the greenhouse effect. I am not sure that this is plausible. Remember, I have no knowledge of chemistry. Why I think this is that CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, whilst Nitrogen makes up 78.084% (source:
formatting link
. This works out (I think... maths ain't a strong point of mine either, sadly) that in one cubic metre of air, CO2 comprises roughly the volume of a can of coke, whilst Nitrogen occupies a wee bit more.
I once read that Nitrogen is more insulative than CO2, rendering the idea that an increase in CO2 would cause warming on it's own null. Of course, I cannot find this reference any more, and the only reason it stuck in my mind is because of its oddity. I am happy to accept it as cobblers if it is so. I have no idea how the insulative properties of gasses work, and again, I have no real chemistry knowledge.
My question then: By what mechanism is CO2 supposed to cause warming?
2. This is just an idle thought, and if I could be bothered, I'd try to work it out myself, but being close to death at the minute (I have a horrendous condition where I feel weak and woozy and my nose keeps leaking):
If all energy we use generally ends up as heat in one way or another, then if we turned off all machines for a week, would we see any cooling effect of the atmosphere?
So there you go. I am not trying to stir anything, I am just trying to understand something about CO2 which has been at the back of my mind for a while. I tried to ask it at a Skeptic's Club meeting once and got pilloried as a ney-sayer. Great.
I am not trying to argue that anything is wrong. I am pro-nuclear and pro-parsimonious-for-prudence'-sake (but doesn't mean I'm an ascetic!). I am just genuinely curious.
Reply to
David Paste
Also, I'd like to add, as I understand it now, the slight increase in temp & CO2 would be a benefit to land - crop will like it, etc, but damaging to oceans - acidification, etc.
Reply to
David Paste
Let through UV, reflects IR.. sunlight is high value in high freq, Radiated heat is high value in IR.
Same as aircraft contrails, helps keep you warm at night..
Himan energy is less than 1% of total insolatin. .
Aren't we all? But we get spoon fed the on message guff, never the actual facts.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
yes. No one really knows but conceivably huge algal blooms take surface CO2 and turn it into..er - probably oceanic sludge that will become oil one day..
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
On Feb 24, 5:51=A0pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Except that it hasn't.
There has been a small but statistically significant warming trend in atmospheric temperatures over the period that most people say warming has stopped, despite La Nina effects that would tend to cause cooling.
The recent BEST report by people who started out on the sceptical side confirmed the atmospheric warming trend.
There has been a much more significant warming of the oceans however over this period. I fail to see how that can be ignored.
And speaking of the ocean, we should be worried about increased acidification from increasing CO2 concentration even if the warming does not happen to concern us.
Reply to
Bob

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.