PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 4th Jul 2011, 10:06   #8561 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
...it has been ice-free in the past...
err, chuks. You do understand that the world has been going through climate changes for millions of years now..

The earth is currently warming up from the last little cold period it had. Been warming for 150 years now. It would be expected that the sea ice area extent would be reducing from the 'highs' of the last mini ice age...



Our ever changing Climate through the Ages...

(My comments in brackets)
"...Traffic across the Alpine passes, as shown by the transmission of culture, became important about 1800 B.C. when (due to global warming) the Brenner Pass first became traversable, and reached a maximum at the end of the Bronze Age and in the early Hallstatt period, or about 1200-900 B.C. The valley settlements of the late Hallstatt period developed independently apparently in complete isolation, and traffic across the passes was at a minimum ( due to global cooling ) There was a slight revival at the end of the La Tene period and in the early Roman Empire (200 B.C. to A.D. 0 ) but it was not until between A.D. 700 and 1000 that this traffic again developed on a considerable scale (due to global warming) There was a re-advance of the glaciers in the western Alps about A.D. 1300, followed by a retreat to a minimum extent in the fifteenth century ( due to global cooling ) Near the end of the sixteenth century the glaciers advanced rapidly and about 1605 they overran settlements which had been occupied since the beginning of history. About the same time the glaciers advanced in the Eastern Alps, Iceland, where they almost reached the moraines of the late glacial stages, and probably in other parts of the world and the period from 1600 to 1850 has been termed the “little ice age.” There were minor maxima of glaciations about 1820 and 1850 since then the glaciers and ice sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world..."

via Climate through the Ages, C. E. P. Brooks. First published 1926



.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 11:39   #8562 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,631
I think I have read a few books about this sort of thing, yes, but thanks for pointing it out.

Lord Monckton was writing about the Northwest Passage to say that it had been traversed around 1903 by Amundsen who sailed it or used a sail boat or something like that. I think that any reasonable person who knows the full facts of how Amundsen did this feat can understand that the Northwest Passage was anything but largely free of ice at that time.

In the same way, to baldly state that the S.S. Manhattan went through in the recent past is BS if it is not made clear that this ship was specially reinforced against ice damage, plus it was accompanied by a Canadian ice-breaker. Otherwise you are again giving the totally false impression that this was a normal ship using an ice-free Northwest Passage. No, it was a ship that plowed its way through heavy ice, after which it was judged impractical to do that on a commercial basis.

Here we are speaking of the recent past! You would be a bit peed off if I told you that you could walk from the shores of the Mediterranean all the way to Timbuktu just because Ibn Batuta did that, leaving out the fact of a bit of climate change in the meantime.
chuks is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 11:55   #8563 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
...plowed its way through...
Heh, methinks somebody got a Monckton fixation..


Repeating another of my favorite references...

Medieval warm period “…near Cape Farewell (Greenland) The most important evidence is derived from the excavation of the churchyard, in soil which is now frozen solid throughout the year, but which, when the bodies were buried, must have thawed for a time in summer, because the coffins, shrouds, and even the bodies were penetrated by roots of plants. At first the ground thawed to a considerable depth, for the early coffins were buried comparatively deeply. After a time these early remains were permantly frozen in, and later burials lie nearer and nearer to the surface …. Finally, at least 500 years ago, the ground became permantly frozen, and has remained in that condition ever since, thus preserving the bodies…”
Quote via Hovgaard, Climate through the Ages, C. E. P. Brooks, First published 1926.

Hmmm, so Greenland once were a lot warmer then today.... aint that somewhere near the North West passage ?..



.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 12:03   #8564 (permalink)
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 72
Posts: 3,519
Flying Binghi. you should know by now that warmists don't allow you to use empirical data because they don't have any and have to rely on models.
green granite is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 12:34   #8565 (permalink)
Sprucegoose
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 50
Posts: 3,514
Quote:
you should know by now that warmists don't allow you to use empirical data because they don't have any and have to rely on models.
It's OK to use data from 1979-2000...
Howard Hughes is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 14:01   #8566 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,631
Thanks so much for telling me stuff I had absolutely no idea about...

You can go back even further than that if you want, Mr Binghi. The history of the Viking settlements on Greenland is a very well known story, how the climate there was mild at first but gradually became colder, so that the Norsemen went down unwilling to adapt, the way their Inuit neighbors did to survive.

You know, I bet there was Kristof Rolling-eyes Munkten there in the mead hall, giving a talk about how Climate Change was just a hoax put about on the part of those who wanted to see people reduced to eating fish instead of beef, that there was no cause for concern over wild allegations that it was getting too cold to farm in the old way. After concluding to rapturous applause he excused himself, saying that he had to go chip the ice off his cow...

The big palaver now, I believe, is this wild allegation that the latest change is much more extreme than those we have seen in the past, made that way by high levels of carbon dioxide, what we loosely call AGW. I am quite sure this was just something all those scientists cooked up, along with Al Gore and the University of East Anglia. There soon will be a special bus along to tell us more about this, I believe.
chuks is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 14:29   #8567 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 62
Posts: 155
Quote:
what we loosely call AGW.
No, chuks, we don't. The strident proponents may, but rational people are prepared to accept that while there is evidence of GW, there is no evidence of A.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 19:40   #8568 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,631
You could look it up...

'We' in the sense of people nowadays, when you don't have to believe in it, you just have to know what the acronym 'AGW' stands for.

I don't believe in 'laying on of hands' but I know what the term refers to. Just take that for being educated, knowing how 'we' refer to this or that with belief set aside, and then go have a lie-down, why don't you?
chuks is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 21:54   #8569 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 188
Chuks: Educated people also know how to parse a sentence.
When you write
Quote:
what we loosely call AGW
coupled to
Quote:
made that way by high levels of carbon dioxide
educated people will call it BS because you have no evidence to back that assertion. It has very little to do with knowing what the term 'AGW' means.
Desert Dingo is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 21:57   #8570 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 94
Quote:
you just have to know what the acronym 'AGW' stands for
Advanced Gas-cooled Weactor ?????

Keep cool folks - mini ice age coming !!!!!!

New Little Ice Age in store? - Telegraph

Lid
flying lid is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 22:04   #8571 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 46
Posts: 766
Blame the Chinese, Lid.....
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 22:10   #8572 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuks View Post
I don't believe in 'laying on of hands' but I know what the term refers to.
I don't 'believe' in it either, but, yes, I've experienced it, and I have no explanation for the very evident result.
So maybe we can keep that sort of issues (similar to the earlier 'dowsing' discussion) out of our arguments? It does not constitute 'proof' for somebody's scientific competence.

CJ

PS I don't 'believe' in UFOs being visiting aliens, either, both that doesn't make "UFOs" any less interesting as a subject.

Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 4th Jul 2011 at 22:16. Reason: typo
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 12:58   #8573 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,631
The 'A' in AGW stands for Anthropogenic, when that is taken to have to do, among other things, with the burning of fossil fuels by humans which creates carbon dioxide. It has quite a bit to do with knowing what the term AGW stands for.

You don't have to agree with this hypothesis but if you don't know that it couples the activities of mankind ('A') with Global Warming ('GW') to create the term AGW then there is obviously some gap in your education.

There are all sorts of competing notions about what is driving climate change; AGW is just one of them, but if you want to understand what you are arguing against then you have to understand what it is stated to be, its basis in logic.

All I have to do here is to read and understand exactly what Christopher Monckton has written about Amundsen and the Northwest Passage, for instance, to argue against that. He has the fact of the voyage in 1903 to underpin his claim that the Northwest Passage has been ice-free for many years. I have the facts of how the voyage was made to refute that. I cannot say, 'No, Amundsen did not make the voyage,' can I? I can say, 'Amundsen did not make the voyage through an ice-free Northwest Passage as Christopher Monckton implies, and here is why."

A lot of what I read here is just illogical. Someone lets loose with a load of 'This is total BS!' when three others just write, 'Yeah!' and that is taken as 'point proven.' For instance, 'Al Gore said the snow cover is diminishing but, looky here, the paper says they had the heaviest snowfall ever!' when it seems no one on the anti-AGW side seemed to understand that snowfall and snow cover are two different things. Why not? Well, 'stupidity' really does come to mind, but let us hope it is simply that knowing this simple fact would spoil the fun! Many of you seem to enjoy hooting at those scientists who seem to think, just because they have graduate degrees and all, that they are better-educated.

What can I tell you except that 'Life is unfair,' really? The guy with the Ph.D. is generally taken to know more than the guy without. Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize and you didn't. You don't need to get over these things but that might help. Meanwhile, back to the search for 'data,' meaning 'posts from whomever we can find who will tell us what we want to hear, preferably using lots of multi-color graphs and intemperate language.'
chuks is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 14:06   #8574 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 62
Posts: 155
Quote:
You don't have to agree with this hypothesis but if you don't know that it couples the activities of mankind ('A') with Global Warming ('GW') to create the term AGW then there is obviously some gap in your education.
My education is just fine and dandy, thank you, with a number of peer-reviewed scientific papers to my name. However, we don't all refer to AGW because we don't all accept that there is an "A" component. Remember "the science is settled"? Nope; it most assuredly is not.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 16:38   #8575 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 52
Posts: 25
As everyone here may recall, the issue of " Climate Sensitivity " was the key cornerstone in IPCC's determination of CO2 forcings as the villian for AGW.

Here's an analysis from Nic Lewis a mathematician and statistician, who has shown that IPCC altered the only empirically measured evidence of this climate sensitivity and tampered with it in the IPCC WG1 report of AR4, to fit their CO2 is the villian story

The IPCC’s alteration of Forster & Gregory’s model-independent climate sensitivity results | Climate Etc.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 18:02   #8576 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,631
AGW has a general meaning, no? The 'A' has to do with various man-made drivers of climate change, which may or may not exist in reality but do exist as part of the hypothesis that is named as AGW!

If you want to have a debate, a discussion or even a mindless dispute, you still need to define your terms. I am sure that in your peer-reviewed papers you used the standard definitions of the various terms, otherwise they wouldn't have passed peer review.

If you refer to AGW, when you may choose not to, then you have to stick to the general meaning of the term. Use GW, by all means, if your scientific knowledge has caused you to reject AGW, but you may still need to refer to the meaning of what you reject, AGW.

You know, I once asked my wife, 'How does a someone who cannot understand how to orient a map get a Doktortitel?' when she just looked at me and said, 'They have to write a dissertation! That is all.' (We were in San Francisco, facing south, when she asked me where Lombard Street was. I turned the map upside down, oriented us, and pointed over my shoulder to its location. She grabbed the map, turned it north-up again and said, 'Where? I can't find it!' I turned it to the correct orientation, pointed out the street location, she grabbed it, turned it 'rightside-up,' complained... when I asked my question. From that datum I concluded that one may well hold an advanced degree yet have as close to no God-damned common sense as makes no difference. This exchange has not caused me to modify that opinion in any way!)
chuks is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 18:21   #8577 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,304
rvv500,
My thanks for the link.
Looks as if I will have to polish up my statistics to fully get the point, but nice to see the statisticians agree as little as the other "climate scientists" about the way the IPCC reports have been cobbled together..


PS to all:
Does the basic scientific argument that doubling the total CO2 in the atmosphere would only cause another 2°C rise in the so-called "global temperature" (because the 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 is already saturated), ring any bells here?

So far, the ACO2 (Anthropogenic CO2) is still only a small fraction of the total CO2 (which is about 400 ppm). Pumping in a bit more of this "polluting" (according to the EPA) gas might actually be beneficial to the ecology.

My point of view.
CC, sure, happens all the time.
GW, seems to be happening at the moment.
AGW, sure, must be happening if dumping additional CO2 in the atmosphere has any effect on the "global temperature" (which is still in doubt).
But to actually extract an "AGW" signature from all the current noise... I cannot see any signs of it having been done.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 19:30   #8578 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 46
Posts: 766
Ok, let's cut through the malebovinefaeces, "noise" and downright lies to see if our resident warmista can answer this one.


IF, and it's a big IF, CO˛ is the driving cause behind "AGW", why are the so-called scientists now saying that the emissions from Chinese coal powered stations (namely only the sulphur part of these emissions sulphur dioxide or SO˛) somehow causing the present global cooling when the other emissions like CO˛, NOx, CO (all "greenhouse gases") are seemingly having no effect because of the SO˛ emissions? And why are all the Chinese power stations now "cooling" the entire planet when, not so long ago, they were to blame for increases in greenhouse gas emissions and were helping to accelerate AGW?

And, obviously, how has the SO˛ emissions from these power stations also manage to mask the effect of the rise in automobile use in China, India, etc, when that has also been declared as an influence in AGW?


Sorry, they cannot have it both ways.....
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 21:34   #8579 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,631
4 (four) for hellsbrink...

Well, it might be your handwriting but I do not recognize these two compounds you are referring to. Did you mean to write the formulae for carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide?

Also, what is meant by 'malebovinefaeces'? I have to ask because I could not find that in my OED. Is this a word of your own making, perhaps? If so, in what language? It looks like some sort of dialect word from northern Italy.
chuks is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 22:01   #8580 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 46
Posts: 766
Going to actually try and answer something with something relevant, chuks, or do we just expect your usual garbage because you're nothing more than a <deleted so nobody can run to mods complaining of a "personal attack">?
hellsbrink is offline  
Closed Thread
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network