One thing I did a few years ago as part of a job was to inspect Met Office rainfall and climatological stations.
Are/were you by any chance involved in the MET new year predicitons?
Quote:
Many factories, etc. have meteorological instruments outside for various purposes. I would not expect any of those to be used in a serious climatological network in any country that is part of the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation). Even very junior Met. staff would probably be horrified to know these sites on page 7 might be regarded as cilmatological stations.
You mean something like this?
Quote:
You and others are quoting material that suits your argument but was not worked on by you. If I want an electrician to put a plug on for me - I will not regard him - or a 767 pilot - as an expert on "climate change". I will, though, respect them as experts in their field.
Al Gore also knows which way the wind blows. And with which hand to accept money from a Buddhist. And which way the oval office turns. He is not a non=expert. in many things.
He IS however a non-expert in what he preaches... that's not his personal problem (yet) I grant, but he does make it a bigger problem for his followers. His (distant and former and grossly overrated) reputation may finally be in precession. History will judge him as an obese opportunist that got fat on speaking sh!t. Politics was the right job for him, that's for sure.
It is quite interesting to note that no-one has actually addressed the issue of Jo's website, i.e. the proof that what we do has anything to do with Earth's climate.
She points out that everything else discussed and argued about is superfluous. Where is the PROOF that we are altering the climate? As far as can be seen, we (as a race) are rushing into a million eco-motivated taxes and costs to us all without any tangible proof that the effect (such that there might be) is our fault. Where is the computer model that predicted a ten-year reversal in warming?
There is a very strong argument that this money could be better-spent elsewhere (cancer, malaria, clean drinking water anyone) where we KNOW people are dying now.
So, I would very much appreciate it if a pro-AGW volunteer could tell me/us why we must listen to them. The cry "we might be right, and the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic" DOES NOT count. as the website tells us, it is up to the AGW believers to prove their case, not us to disprove it.
Another of my favourite question to AGW believers is "Just what temperature should the earth be then?" I can (I hope) safely assume that everyone accepts that the Earth has been both much colder and much warmer than it is today (long before the advent of the Industrial Revolution) So, who made the present incumbents of Earth the ones to decide that right now, today, it is at just the right temperature? Or is it too warm/cold now? Seriously, pro AGW guys, give me an answer to that.
Everywhere on planet earth would be ideal at about 24 deg C. Preferably just as the sun is setting beyond the reef and there's some action afoot in the beach-bar...
If there's a need for global temp variation for some form of climatic model equilibrium type bollocks then I suggest Peterhead should be at about 10C and Riyadh at about 60C (Reykjavik can go f&ck themselves - that's what screwing with the global economy gets you). Everyone happy with that?
Or.....
Ersatz religion? (Elmer Gantry). The pitchman who hugs one to be in closer proximity to one's wallet or pocketbook?
My feeling entirely.
Look at the full-page adverts of companies like Shell in the newspapers, and draw your own conclusions.
And, to answer SET 18....
What's even more vicious about this 'ersatz religion' is that it takes efforts and resources away from the real issues, such as clean drinking water, to take just a single one.
No point in having a serious debate on here. This is Jetblast and a turkey shoot, open, really, to only those who are uninformed and others who cannot contemplate having a balanced view on this subject.
On balance, I therefore think you may be over-selling your own contribution.
Ah what a lovely holiday break down under! Time to glance back at this thread to see if the pseudoscience is still getting peddled. Oh what a surprise!
I also looked at the Jo Nova 'guide' and, to be honest, it's just embarrassing. All of it.
SET 18:
You want 'proof', yet science does not amass 'proof'. It amasses 'evidence' (the two are not the same thing), and this one has plenty so far. There is no 'proof' that your hepatitis B vaccine will prevent you contracting a serious disease in a 3rd world country, but there is plenty of evidence that it is quite likely to. Please yourself if you ignore it, but don't say the scientists didn't tell you so while waiting for your liver transplant.
Your question "Just what temperature should the earth be then?" is meaningless and it would get a blank stare (and a roll of the eyes and possibly even a shake of the head ) from me in much the same way as I do when someone says "Gee it's a cold winter. Just goes to show global warming is a myth, eh?". The argument is not about static temperatures or what happens in a season or a month or a week. It is about long term temperature trends, what they are caused by, and whether they will ever return to an equilibrium.
Chimbu:
Just how many times do we have to explain why scientists consider CO2 more important than water vapour in this argument? Homework: 1. What are the differences between the H2O cycle and the CO2 cycle? 2. How long does H2O last in the atmosphere, on average, compared to CO2? 3. What effects does changing concentration of CO2 have on H2O vapour versus the other way round and why? 4. Which sources - artificial (man made) or natural are the primary producers of these respective gases? If you can answer these, there is no reason for you ever to ask that well-worn sceptic question again!
It would have more credibility as a hypothesis if they hadn't had to change the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" to save embarrassment.......
The most "stand-out" part of your entry is whether "temperatures will ever return to equilibrium"...sorry mate, I must have missed that. When were the Earth's temperatures EVER in a state of equilibrium? I am sure you can accept that the Earth has been both MUCH hotter and MUCH colder than today (a straight question: do you accept that?) Do you accept that these temperature changes took place ENTIRELY without our input? (in terms of man-made carbon emissions certainly)
If you do accept these things, can you also see why people like myself are a little reticent (!) about spending an incalculable amount of money, wilfully reducing our (and only our) economy's effectiveness and inconveniencing millions of people. This course of action is all based on a premise about which we KNOW has happened before, but we now are being told (by a politically-driven elite) is ONLY happening because of our miniscule (relatively) CO2 output.
Sorry mate; I am not having it. As long as the perceived "solution" is to pick you and I's pocket then I remain extremely sceptical and even cynical about it.
Get out of the Kool-Aid. Given the state of the debate, data wise, a wait and see is called for, no? Or are you still clutched to Warming instead of changing? Mankind isn't evil or brilliant, just mankind; just tell me when I can sell my Carbon Debits and repurchase the credits, right?
Our house is on about 1000m2 (11000ft2) land.
Eighteen mature trees, not counting hedges, ivy, a large patch of bamboo, and suchlike.
Nice "carbon sink", no?
Homework: 1. What are the differences between the H2O cycle and the CO2 cycle? 2. How long does H2O last in the atmosphere, on average, compared to CO2? 3. What effects does changing concentration of CO2 have on H2O vapour versus the other way round and why? 4. Which sources - artificial (man made) or natural are the primary producers of these respective gases?
Hey, I can play the BS baffles brains game too You're homework describe what the constituent parts of the forcing formula are and to describe which of those the IPCC states as have high level to very low level of knowledge, as well as the impact of those constituents on the radiative forcing index.
PKPF68-77,
Quote:
Not relentlessly FB - get your facts right, man....You antis need to sharpen up with some sound science.
Ho. Ho. You didn't spot Chimbu Chuckles deliberate error then. CO2 is 0.038%, not 0.5% of the atmosphere. Either you don't read the posts or you don't know the facts
Last edited by Sciolistes : 16th January 2009 at 03:25.
and possibly even a shake of the head 
) from me in much the same way as I do when someone says "Gee it's a cold winter. Just goes to show global warming is a myth, eh?". The argument is not about static temperatures or what happens in a season or a month or a week. It is about long term temperature trends, what they are caused by, and whether they will ever return to an equilibrium.
Linear Mode
