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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Paste wrote:

There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched. Any publication is likely to be biased.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Paste wrote:

<Dons flameproof suit> 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.
http://www.withouthotair.com /
Like all publications, though, you should be aware that the writer is only presenting his point of view.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Williamson wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, which is the reason for the flameproof suit.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob wrote:

But its entirely within 'normal limits' - not statistically significant.

That is a far more rational position to take.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Liquorice wrote:

I think you're mixing up reality with the "kindergarten" approach that politicians seem hellbent on.
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Downie wrote:

+1.
The greatest risk is we ruin ourselves on a ecotard inspired cul de sac, global warming happens anyway and we don't have the power stations or the economic strength to deal with it.
which is probably exactly where the politicians are, in fact, taking us with the total support of the grünatics.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:18:03 -0000, Tim Downie wrote:

No, it's very broad and very simplistic, note how TNP has misinterpreted it. It may even even be simple enough for politicians to understand.
--
Cheers
Dave.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Liquorice wrote:

I dint misinterpret it.
I pointed out the choices are not the real choices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For every difficult problem there is a solution that is elegant, simple, and wrong.
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Paste wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

+1.
Nigel Lawson's book isn't a bad place to start, IMHO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What would he know about it? (and anyway, his book shows the answer is "nothing")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That just about sums it up nicely.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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:
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis /

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.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.