PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change debate


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

aviate1138
13th Jan 2013, 04:59
Look at the facts not computer predictions from Warmist biased modified data.

The utterly unreliable UK Met Office even agrees that temperatures have flattened out.

Lyman
13th Jan 2013, 05:05
It's chilly, bring it on....

Soon enough the fearfuls will tumble to the fact that nuthin bad has happened.

Or will.

If CO2 is increasing, something is decreasing, maybe they could set up a non- profit:

"Save gas X, it int fair...."

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 10:24
Al Gore has seen reason, he has sold his green energy biased Current TV Channel to Qatari Oil Barons [Al Jazeera] and a handy profit of around 70+ Million Dollars or so.


so a question for the warmistas...

http://captionsearch.com/pix/thumb/1wvrsjwrt0-t.jpg

green granite
13th Jan 2013, 10:35
Does Slasher know you've stolen his ceiling cat stuckgear? :)

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 10:58
nope, slasher's listening to surfin' bird..

ORAC
13th Jan 2013, 14:09
David Bellamy: 'I was shunned. They didn't want to hear' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-bellamy-i-was-shunned-they-didnt-want-to-hear-8449307.html)

The botanist, 80 this week, says the end of his TV career was caused by his views on climate change.

Re-entry
13th Jan 2013, 15:08
Unfortunately for Bellamy, committing scientific fraud does tend to be career limiting.

David Bellamy being humiliated by George Monbiot over climate change. David Bellamy and bad science - YouTube

ORAC
13th Jan 2013, 15:13
committing scientific fraud That's a major accusation. I hope you're willing to support in court....

p.s. Monomaniac has no credibility on his own account in these matters....

green granite
13th Jan 2013, 15:54
What a load of rubbish, Monbiot's presentation starts with an ad hominem on Bellamy and his data sources, then he uses the discredited 97% of scientists believe in AGW spin and then totally fails to answer the direct question put to him by Bellamy. If you're basing your belief in CAGW on that sort of person spouting that sort of non scientific dribble, then I'm afraid, Re-entry, you are going to come down to earth with one hell of a bump.

aviate1138
13th Jan 2013, 19:31
George Monbiot is an idiot.

Not an ad hominem attack ------

"Lord McAlpine – An Abject Apology
November 10, 2012

I have helped to malign an innocent man.

By George Monbiot, published on monbiot.com, 10th November 2012

I have done a few stupid things in my life, but nothing as stupid as this. The tweets I sent which hinted – as I assumed to be the case – that Lord McAlpine was the person the child abuse victim Steve Messham was talking about were so idiotic that, looking back on them today, I cannot believe that I wrote them.

But I did, and they are unforgiveable. I helped to stoke an atmosphere of febrile innuendo around an innocent man, and I am desperately sorry for the harm I have done him. I have set out, throughout my adult life, to try to do good; instead I have now played a part in inflicting a terrible hurt upon someone who had done none of the harm of which he was wrongly accused. I apologise abjectly and unreservedly to Lord McAlpine.

David Bellamy is a much maligned man and Monbiot owes Prof Bellamy an apology, a big one too.

Sciolistes
14th Jan 2013, 01:47
George Monbiot is an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. That's the problem. He is able to dynamically and subtly move the goal posts in a debate, cornering his opponent and newrly always making them look stupid. He does this by coming prepared. I rember one interview where he tore the ex-boss of easyjet to shreds when it should have easily been the other way around.

aviate1138
14th Jan 2013, 06:29
Monbiot is an idiot if he thinks Global Warming/Climate Change/Disruption is reality based on proven scientific data.

sitigeltfel
14th Jan 2013, 07:31
Another warmist failure, dreamed up by the man who aspires to be the UKs next PM.

Other peoples money, squandered by Socialists
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9799261/Wind-farm-contracts-to-increase-energy-bills-for-families.html)

green granite
14th Jan 2013, 07:43
If this woman has her way, there will be a serious problem for the powers that be as all the wind farms will technically be illegal.

A community councillor from Argyll is mounting a landmark legal challenge against the UK and the EU at the United Nations in Geneva this week over their renewables policies, on the grounds that the public is being denied the truth about the alleged benefits, and the adverse impact, of wind power.

Christine Metcalfe, who represents Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council, claims that the UK Government and the EU have breached a fundamental tenet of citizens’ rights under the UN’s Åarhus Convention, and she will appear before the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to explain why.

Mrs Metcalfe will present her council’s case at a hearing before UNECE’s Compliance Committee next Wednesday alleging that the UK and the EU are pursuing renewables policies which have been designed in such a way that they have denied the public the right to be informed about, or to ascertain, the alleged benefits in reducing CO 2 and harmful pollution emissions from wind power, or the negative effects of wind power on health, the environment and the economy.

Rest of article: Legal Challenge May Block UK Wind Farm Expansion | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) (http://www.thegwpf.org/legal-challenge-block-uk-wind-farm-expansion/)

AlpineSkier
14th Jan 2013, 07:47
1000 Euro Preissteigerung: Klima-Auflagen der EU machen Neuwagen viel teurer - News - FOCUS Online - Nachrichten (http://www.focus.de/auto/news/1000-euro-preissteigerung-klima-auflagen-der-eu-machen-neuwagen-viel-teurer_aid_897279.html)

EU wants to reduce car CO2 emissions to 95g/km by 2020. Estimated extra cost E 1,000 per car ( although I think we have to be cautious about car-industry estimates too )

aviate1138
14th Jan 2013, 11:06
Also Without Prejudice I offer.....


India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers
17 Feb 11 - Already more snowfall this month than
1998 record for the entire month. Think you'll see
this in the mainstream media?
See India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers


NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier
is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
which has steadily increased in mass since the
1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)

Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier,
an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an
average 7.2 inches (18 cm) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.)


Click here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers:
Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat (http://www.nve.no/)

Choose "English" (at top of the page), choose "Water,"
then "Hydrology," then "Glaciers and Snow" from the menu.
You'll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway.
(Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)
CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier

Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
17 Nov 08 – The ice-covered peak of Yukon's soaring Mount Logan
may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
FRANCE
Mt. Blanc - See Mont Blanc Glacier almost doubles in size
ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier

Italy
Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer
10 Nov 09 - 'Their massive base depth last season meant it didn’t all melt
over the summer so they have nearly a metre and a half of snow on the glacier
ski area already." (The second story of this kind in two years.)
See Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer


Glaciers growing in Italy
8 Feb 11 - Glaciers are growing on two different mountains in Italy - Mount Canin and Mount Montasio. Will you see this in the main-stream media?
Glaciers growing in Italy
SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov
RUSSIA
Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)

GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker
Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran
a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice
age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade,
say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf
Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.
One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance,
moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a
transcript of the documentary,
go to BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Big Chill (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml)


Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker
4 Nov 05 - After gathering data for more than ten years, a team of
Norwegian-led scientists has found that the Greenland Ice Sheet is
actually growing thicker at its interior.
See Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker


Rebellious Greenland Glacier Keeps Growing
26 July 10 - Berlingske Glacier has steadily grown for the past
100 years. And yet, it's not counted in the glacier inventory. Why
haven't we heard about this growing glacier?
See Rebellious Greenland Glacier Keeps Growing
.
.

CHILE
Pio XI, the largest glacier in South America, grows
50 meters in height, length and density every day.
See Pio XI - Largest glacier in Chile - Growing every day

NEW ZEALAND
All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.
The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they
gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the
foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)
See New Zealand Glaciers Growing

Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's
two best-known glaciers are still on the march
31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier still on the march

See also Pesky New Zealand Glaciers Growing

See also: Contrarian New Zealand Glaciers Keep Growing


ARGENTINA
Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Patagonia,
is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation,
30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile,
is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.
Perito Moreno Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier)

UNITED STATES
- Colorado (scroll down to see AP article)
- Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan
- California (Mount Shasta - scroll down for info)
- Montana (scroll down for info)
- Glacier Peak, WA (scroll down for info
- Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).

Lonewolf_50
14th Jan 2013, 13:44
... they have denied the public the right to be informed about, or to ascertain, the alleged benefits in reducing CO 2 and harmful pollution emissions from wind power, or the negative effects of wind power on health, the environment and the economy.
OK, as regards wind power:
Negative effects on health, environment, and the economy.

Economy: cost higher per kW-hour
Environment: bird strikes?
Health: Huh? :confused:

green granite
14th Jan 2013, 14:25
Lonewolf_50

Environment: The large concrete plinth that they are bolted to (making this is said to produce nearly as much CO2 as the turbine saves), visual impact, effect on radar, effect on wild life such as birds and bats, and also they change the climate in and around the farm raising the temperature by as much as 2 degs.

Heath: According to research, living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation.

There's plenty of documented evidence about just use google scholar to find it.

AlpineSkier
14th Jan 2013, 15:06
@aviate

The glaciers I know are all shrinking.Names of area and glacier given to be clear

Val Thorens (France) : Glacier de Gebroulaz - summer skiing stopped about 10 years ago. Shrinkage easily visible from annual photos

Chamonix: Glacier des Bossons - moved back one km or so over 40 years.
.. .. : Mer de Glace - has lost 20-30 m in thickness over 30 years at bottom ( where railway finishes )

Val d'Isere : Glacier des Pissaillas. Summer skiing stopped about 10-15 years ago

Saas-Fee (CH) Feegletscher: Retreated 2-3 km over a century. Posts with dates show extent.

Numerous resorts covering their glaciers with white tarps in summer to minimise shrinkage e.g. Garmisch-Partenkirchen and the Zugspitze in Germany

Find the data about the Mont Blanc glacier doubling in size very difficult to believe

chuks
14th Jan 2013, 15:27
If you bother to read the BBC report about the Greenland Ice Cap, in post #17, you will see that it refers to the consequences of so-called "global warming," specifically that Britain might well freeze!

It's already been fairly well documented that the center of the Greenland Ice Cap is growing, but that the edges, which matter more, are shrinking, for an overall loss of ice. To emphasize the one thing and ignore the other... nice debating technique, but that's about it.

I'll be back to school soon, so that you guys can carry on unmolested by any statements of fact or fancy from me. Just hang on for a few more days, or else else use your inGore list.

green granite
14th Jan 2013, 15:36
To emphasize the one thing and ignore the other... nice debating technique, but that's about it.

It's the one that the greens use all the time. :p

chuks
14th Jan 2013, 18:12
Whoever uses it, it's essentially dishonest, no? The casual reader is left with the impression that there's a BBC program debunking "global warming," but the program actually supports that.

If you simply read the full article you will be told that the reason for Britain perhaps entering a new ice age is, odd as that might seem, "global warming."

Why is that? Well, the flow of lower-density fresh water off Greenland, due to the melting ice, might shut off this climatic heat pump that keeps the British Isles much warmer than their northerly latitude would suggest.

That's not fact, just an hypothesis, but it's based on "global warming," not its opposite, whatever you want to call that. People who pooh-pooh the consequences of climate change, simply imagining themselves enjoying tropical weather in the UK... there's much more serious stuff in store than that, if we do experience a rise in temperature.

green granite
14th Jan 2013, 18:37
Well, the flow of lower-density fresh water off Greenland, due to the melting ice, might shut off this climatic heat pump that keeps the British Isles much warmer than their northerly latitude would suggest.


chuks, I believe that is also thought to have been the cause of the last ice-age when glaciers covered most of the UK, but it must need quite a lot of fresh water otherwise it would have happened in the Medieval Warm period.

aviate1138
14th Jan 2013, 18:38
Chuks,

The trouble I have with Warmist theories is that they change to suit whatever is considered to be the most catastrophic, doom laden scenario. Drought - Global Warming, when the same geographic area then becomes flooded instead of drought ridden, that too is blamed on Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide production.

As a result of Academic pursuit of Grant Funds the same Academics manipulate scientific data to 'prove' their theories and thereby enhance the notion that mankind is destroying the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Greenland is still a very long way from being as the Vikings found, colonising it and growing crops that still don't grow today despite more tolerant varieties! Iceland still can't grow barley as it did in Medieval times.

Australia is having 'Record' hot days but still not as hot as recorded in the late 1700's when AGW was not a factor. Too many scare stories and not enough application of Occam's Razor IMHO

Lyman
14th Jan 2013, 20:15
Just my standard semi annual statement of fact. Scientific fact.

Lack of precipitation as a whole can be traced to diminished energy from the Sun.

Far from a result of additional Solar energy, the lack of precipitation is linked to less solar, a reduction in atmospheric loading via evaporation, and in addition, a diminution of Winds to carry this moisture to upper latitudes.

The glacial and polar ice load is diminished not by heat, but by lack of it.

Ice melts. Without replenishment by precipitation, it is easy to assume that the melting is the result of heat (it is), and that patent loss year to year is also the result of added energy, it is NOT.

Note that the above does not address capture/retention. That is the key to AGW. Oscillatory weather by decade, has been used by both sides in the current debate. so the real debate is whether or not CO2 can attenuate diminished capture, exacerbate it, or neither. It is also notable that ten year increments to analyze any hypothesis is too little by a factor of at least TEN.

And there is NO SCIENCE relative to this phenomenon. NONE.

The last two years have been record setting cold, not "HOT".

This is not in quotes, because I personally wrote it. My degree is in Astronomy, and the knowledge used to write this was state of the art in the late sixties.

NOTHING that has come along, certainly nothing by the liar Mann, the Political tool Hansen, and the Jones cabal, has disabused me of the accuracy of the studies I accomplished all these years ago.

I am open minded, but not so much my brains are falling out.

The sad part of all this is that most people are too stupid to realize that politicians don't require evidence to steal money. That makes AGW moot. They will keep trying and they will succeed, because the deal has f all to do with Science in the first place.

stuckgear
14th Jan 2013, 20:32
^^

now there's someone who 'gets it'!

:D:D

etrang
15th Jan 2013, 07:36
Whoever uses it, it's essentially dishonest, no?

No, of course not. When someone on your side does it, it's a clever and admirable debating strategy. When someone on the other side does it it is despicable, dishonest and typical of "them". See also "noble freedom-fighters" and "evil terrorists".

etrang
15th Jan 2013, 07:56
[QUOTE] most people are too stupid to realize that politicians don't require evidence to steal money. That makes AGW moot. They will keep trying and they will succeed, because the deal has f all to do with Science in the first place.[QUOTE]

This what those who argue against AGW fail to understand. It doesn't matter if AGW is true or not because the politicians will continue to steal money either way. They (correctly) claim that politicians are dishonest and manipulate the data and science for their own ends and yet at the same time they believe that if they can just win some argument on the internet then politicians will by some miracle become honest, virtuous and take a vow of poverty.

sisemen
15th Jan 2013, 13:11
They (correctly) claim that politicians are dishonest and manipulate the data and science for their own ends and yet at the same time they believe that if they can just win some argument on the internet then politicians will by some miracle become honest, virtuous and take a vow of poverty.

If the argument is won on the internet and elsewhere and if a light is shone in the dark corners of ministerial offices and boardrooms of compliant media companies (funny how left wing governments and left wing media create a perfect storm when they're both in the ascendant) then the people who have the power in their hands might just vote against them and say, in effect, global warming is a scam and we will not put up with it.

Lyman - brilliant post :ok: It's the most sense I've seen in ages.

jcbmack
19th Jan 2013, 01:55
The sky is falling...listen to Gore and Chuks and stop all CO2 emissions otherwise we are :mad: doomed :{

Flying Binghi
22nd Jan 2013, 11:36
via chuks:
...Why is that? Well, the flow of lower-density fresh water off Greenland, due to the melting ice, might shut off this climatic heat pump that keeps the British Isles much warmer than their northerly latitude would suggest.


via green granite:
chuks, I believe that is also thought to have been the cause of the last ice-age when glaciers covered most of the UK, but it must need quite a lot of fresh water otherwise it would have happened in the Medieval Warm period.

The 'inconvenient' Medieval Warm period shoots down yet another climate hysteria theory..:hmm:




.

Flying Binghi
22nd Jan 2013, 12:10
.

Heatwave in Australia...

"...CANBERRA HEAT WAVE,... Heat wave conditions which developed in Canberra in the week-end are approaching a new record..."

Coldwave in Europe...

"...FREEZING WEATHER IN EUROPE Wolves Starving in Rumania ...Central Europe is still experiencing freezing conditions and many parts are snowbound. Germany experienced the heaviest snowfall for nine years..."


Search results for 'heat wave' - Digitised newspapers and more - Trove (http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=heat+wave&exactPhrase=&anyWords=&notWords=&l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*&fromdd=01&frommm=01&fromyyyy=1937&todd=02&tomm=01&toyyyy=1940&l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*&sortby=)




.

chuks
22nd Jan 2013, 12:38
I love these snappy replies, but you might want to do a bit of reading first. This has nothing much to do with the "Medieval Warm period" you refer to, but with the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap. It's an interesting theory that makes sense, but, on the other hand, no, we haven't seen it happen, at least not on the evening news nor on WUWT, so that the denialists here can safely assume that it's just another "hysterical" vision from the Gore faction.

I think many people simply like to take things as they come. Cheap oil was one of those, a thing that was never going to change... until it did, and that was overnight. Climate change is another one, when we ordinary citizens expect certain things to happen as they always have, more or less. The devil is in the details, that "more or less." What to a "warmist" is evidence of change might really be that, or it might be just the normal variance, "noise" instead of a "signal." The real scientists are out there looking for the signal while most of this "debate" just generates noise about "noise," usually led by mock scientists, such as the clown who runs WUWT, and, of course, my top favorite, Lord Christopher Monckton.

The best one I have read here, so far, is this charming notion that if denialists can simply be noisy enough then they might be able to shut down research into Climate Change. Float half-baked notions, but presented as fact, and they can win the debate, persuade others to bathe in snake oil. That is such a crazy idea that it boggles the mind. Yes, preserve the pocketbook from the grasping "warmists" by all means necessary, and take the risk that real, necessary, climate research might go undone. It's a good thing that normal, sensible folk (as they, no doubt, see themselves) are reduced to simply fuming in indignation over the imaginary doings of Al Gore and his cabal, instead of being able to really pick and choose their vision of science to pursue, the one espoused by WUWT and the like. That seems to be a notion that nothing much is happening, so "forget about it." Or else that, yes, things are happening, but things always happen, so "forget about it."

Meanwhile there is this charmingly selfish vision of "Hey! When it gets hot then I can sit here in my beach chair enjoying myself, so no problemo!" That is so crashingly stupid that it's frightening, yet sadly believable. I must check, the next time I go to Wal-Mart, to see if there's a sale on beach chairs fronted by "Get Ready for Global Warming! Buy one, get one free!" Do not bet against that! "Stupid" sells.

I notice that, every week, there is some news item or other about climate change. Last week it was a discussion of carbon particles, how they lead to short-term warming and how that might be manipulated. Some news articles are just puffery, of course, the usual sad-eyed polar bears or whatever, but others are based on real science. Meanwhile, I never seem to see very many articles about how we are all being fooled, even though that would really sell some papers. It might be that, yes, there's a vast conspiracy to hide the truth, as espoused here, from the sheeple, or it might be that most of the evidence runs against this "denialism.' Time will tell, I suppose.

Mr Binghi, did you catch the item on the news about how Australia has had to add some new colors to its weather maps, at the high end? The biggest number shown used to be 50º C, but now it's 52º C.; temperatures in Oz regularly have been "going off the chart," quite literally. Funny thing, that... but perhaps you missed it, or else chose to ignore it. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that as something new, not something old.

There's a point to what you bring up, of course, but this new item might be more pertinent, especially given that the temperature mentioned in the first article you have linked to, 114º F, is only about 45º C. That's hot, but nothing like 50º C.

Flying Binghi
22nd Jan 2013, 13:15
via chuks:

...Mr Binghi, did you catch the item on the news about how Australia has had to add some new colors to its weather maps, at the high end? The biggest number shown used to be 50º C, but now it's 52º C.; temperatures in Oz regularly have been "going off the chart," quite literally. Funny thing, that... but perhaps you missed it, or else chose to ignore it. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that as something new, not something old.

There's a point to what you bring up, of course, but this new item might be more pertinent, especially given that the temperature mentioned in the first article you have linked to, 114º F, is only about 45º C. That's hot, but nothing like 50º C.

Considering in Australia we have had temperature readings in the 50's going back since european settlement it would appear to me the BOM were a bit stupid not having the above 50 temps on the charts to start with. ...or perhaps they were the devious climate hysteria profiting types who planned it that way..:hmm:

Ian George offers up an observation about one of our 'record' temps...
(via - http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2019#comments )

Just a quick comment on Sydney’s hottest temp yesterday. The temp reached 45.8C at 2.55 pm.
I captured the AWS at Sydney Observatory and note the following.
14:39 – 44.3C
14:49 – 44.9C
14:59 – 44.7C
15:00 – 44.7C

The temp must have risen 0.9C in 6 mins and then dropped 1.1C in the next
4 mins. Would that suggest a hot gust of wind at that particular time?...

...the quick increase followed by a quick decline (all in ten mins) is highly remarkable...

Highly remarkable indeed... Hmmm, apart from the quick instrument readings, i wonder who has access to these temp stations..:hmm:





.

sisemen
22nd Jan 2013, 13:23
did you catch the item on the news about how Australia has had to add some new colors to its weather maps, at the high end?

Dontcha just lurve the way that someone in deepest coldest New England has a cast iron opinion on what's happening (or not as the case is) in Australia.

Perhaps you could also give us your learned opinion on how we should solve the problem of aboriginal disadvantage Chucks?

Flying Binghi
22nd Jan 2013, 13:40
.


So Sydney gets an 'interesting' temperature record all in less then ten minutes..:hmm: Now, how do the recent temperature 'record' compare to historic records...

The Sydney all time hot day record of 45.8 tops the 45.3 on 14 Jan 1939 but is in the centre of our largest urban heat island, so the number has to be seen in that perspective... continues - http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2025

If yer read that interesting link you will also note the comments about how much of Australia's temperature records are not yet digitized, i.e. available fer the general public to peruse and check up on the integrity, or not, of the temperature claims... interesting..:hmm:





.

green granite
22nd Jan 2013, 13:46
chuks, I see your favourite bastion of virtue and information source The New York Times had to amend an article and apologise to their readers for getting caught lying to them last week, so perhaps a bit of humility and less ridicule from you might be in order. (they had claimed it was the hottest year in the world, ever, it wasn't it was only about the 10th warmest)

At a Climate Protest, Science and Religion - NYTimes.com (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/at-a-protest-science-and-religion-team-up/#more-154188)

MagnusP
22nd Jan 2013, 13:49
Dammit, how'd these Aussies manage to display the 50.7C measured in 1960?

Sunnyjohn
22nd Jan 2013, 14:53
they had claimed it was the hottest year in the world, ever, it wasn't it was only about the 10th warmest

I love this stuff:
From Wiki The first person to put a scale on a thermoscope is variously said to be Francesco Sagredo[6] or Santorio Santorio[7] in about 1611 to 1613. (A thermoscope was effectively a thermometer with no scale). So the first reliable readings of temperature were just 400 years ago. And do we know about temperatures before that? Roughly, yes, via tree ring growth and ice core samples. But nothing like the degree (sorry!) necessary to decide when the hottest day in the world ever was.

I find all this stuff really interesting and I do and have done a lot of reading around it. The one conclusion that I have come to so far is that we simply do not understand enough about the dynamics involved to make any sensible statements or predictions about global warming or cooling.

Climate change is another matter; our planet and the system to which it belongs is dynamic and constantly changing, so of course our climate is changing and will continue to change.

chuks
22nd Jan 2013, 15:23
You must mean "made a statement in error," then? Never done that yourself, or just never bothered to make a public correction?

Call me a blind, lovesick fool, but I will still go with the NYT over WUWT. I guess it's just the way Times folk are regarded by some as publishing "the newspaper of record" where WUWT is regarded by many as a refuge for cranks and loons. Of course one may easily invert that, gazing through a plexiglass belly button.

I am not in "deepest coldest [sic] New England" and I don't have "a cast iron opinion on what's happening ... in Australia."

Marlboro is in southern Vermont, just over the border from Massachusetts; if you want to experience New England's truly deep cold you need to go to the Northeast Kingdom, or perhaps to Caribou, Maine.

I read an article in the Economist, I think it was, about how they have had to revise their graphic displays in Australia because of now-prevalent higher temperatures. That's all.

So, aside from getting both points wrong, Sisemen, why, you practically nailed it! Not bad for a denialist, really.

"Aboriginal disadvantage?" No opinion, really, unless you mean here in the States, where I am all for that. If we stuck to our treaties then we would be totally screwed, when as it is, our aboriginals just run a few casinos and cigarette stands, the few who have survived the last 400 or so years of steady predation.

Now try and shoe-horn Hitler into the discussion, why don't you? "Hitler and Climate Change..." sounds like a winner to me!

GG, believe me when I tell you that I haven't really begun to ridicule your side of the argument! Okay, I do treat it with as much respect as it deserves, yes, but to ridicule the ridiculous... why would I want to do that? You get your news from WUWT, I get mine from the NYT, the Economist, undependable sources such as those....

green granite
22nd Jan 2013, 15:42
In fact chuks I tend to get a lot of my news from site belonging to scientists such as:

Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/)

Climate Dialogue « Climate Dialogue (http://www.climatedialogue.org/about/climate-dialogue/)

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. | by Roger Pielke Sr. (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/)

http://rogerpielkejr.********.co.uk/ (replace the * with b logspot without the space)

Climate Audit (http://climateaudit.org/)

But then you Watermelons don't do science do you.

chuks
22nd Jan 2013, 17:49
How does watermelonology work, then? Do you just take a wild guess, WUWT-style, or is the scientific method involved?

I suppose this is just another part of climatology as she is done by the skeptics, something we shall have to accept as part of the price of participating in the "debate," along with the lousy grammar that sometimes sees me blinded by tears of pained laughter. Oh, yeah, "deep scientific knowledge," proved by the failure to master common written speech. Pardon me while I come over all skeptical in turn.

It's interesting, GG, that you eschew the Times while subscribing to all these other sources of news about climate science. I myself once had a deeply buried negative association with newspapers that turned out to go way back, to a time when I was being house-broken as a very small child. You might want to look into this, to figure out where your phobia originated, because, really, you can learn a lot simply by reading the papers. Papers have fact-checkers, editors, and all sorts of other things that make them quite remarkably reliable, at least in the eyes of many. First and foremost, people pay to read them!

Remind me again, how much does it cost to read WUWT, or to attend a lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton?

green granite
22nd Jan 2013, 18:15
how much does it cost to read WUWT, or to attend a lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton?

About the same as it does to watch a week end of Al Gore on his television channel. (except he's sold it to Big Oil now)

chuks
22nd Jan 2013, 22:15
I read the Times here at school for free.

We don't have TV here, actually, but even if we did I don't think I would watch the Al Gore channel, whatever that is. Am I missing something?

Temp Spike
22nd Jan 2013, 22:36
Well the world is warming and that is undisputable. Carbon build up in the atmosphere can only help make it warmer, faster, that is also undisputable.

End of argument.

Flying Binghi
22nd Jan 2013, 23:49
via Temp Spike:
Well the world is warming and that is undisputable. Carbon build up in the atmosphere can only help make it warmer, faster,...


Carbon buildup ? ...i woulda thought carbon were a bit heavy fer that..:)




.

Flying Binghi
23rd Jan 2013, 00:00
More interesting stuff about Australia's recent 'record' heat.

One of the so-called temperature records were set at Leonora post office. Trouble is, less then a mile away the airport temperature gauge were telling a much cooler story. A lesson in urban heat island effect covered here - http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2029


Hmmm...all these false claims to back up the climate hysteria. Looking to me there be a bit of corruption in Australia's 'official' climate scene..:hmm:





.

Lyman
23rd Jan 2013, 00:33
The USDA reports the growing season is starting three weeks earlier in recent years.

1. I believe that is nonsense.

2. If true, that means greatly increased food production.

I am pulling for #2. All the doom the warmers predict, is not doom. more arable land, longer growth season, fewer people freezing to death, etc.

Last month it was monsoons, and radical floods, This month, drought, and dust.

I'd say "You can't make this up...." but, obviously.....

chuks
23rd Jan 2013, 11:23
What part of "instability" did you miss in all of this? Some places get warmer, sure, but some get colder. Meanwhile, lots of living organisms are negatively impacted by the rapid pace of climate change; there's a lot more to the world than just us poking seeds into the ground three weeks earlier, as if it's all win-win.

It's interesting that reporting about higher temperatures is "hysteria," or even "corruption," but reporting about the so-called "heat island effect..." that must be science! As with this "watermelon" business, how, exactly, are you guys able to tell the difference so easily? It looks very much like simply dismissing what you might not want to hear about an over-all increase in temperature.

I guess you would have to read the article about micro-particles of carbon in the atmosphere to understand the gist of it. I can try it like this:

Teeny-weeny bits of carbon float around for a week or so until they fall back to earth, and while they are floating around, thinking happy little carbon thoughts, they absorb sunlight and become warmer. Since they are floating around in what scientists call the "atmosphere" they cause the "atmosphere" to become "warmer."

This is one possible example of what we call "warming," but it's not completely understood. Maybe wicked scientists just say this kind of stuff to fool us? You never know.

If you don't like the simplified version you could always go look it up, I guess. No links, not a sausage....

ORAC
23rd Jan 2013, 11:51
Papers have fact-checkers, editors, and all sorts of other things that make them quite remarkably reliablehttp://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

That's what I like about chuks - consistency (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/438845-usa-politics-hamster-wheel-276.html#post7122740)....

Flying Binghi
23rd Jan 2013, 12:17
via chuks:
...It's interesting that reporting about higher temperatures is "hysteria," or even "corruption," but reporting about the so-called "heat island effect..." that must be science!...

Well, thats just it chuks. Seems with all this 'reporting' of the heat records they just plum ferget to mention how the urban heat island (UHI) effect impacts on modern temperature records - anywhere up to 5 degrees or so.



via chuks:

...I guess you would have to read the article about micro-particles of carbon in the atmosphere to understand the gist of it. I can try it like this:

Teeny-weeny bits of carbon float around for a week or so until they fall back to earth, and while they are floating around, thinking happy little carbon thoughts, they absorb sunlight and become warmer. Since they are floating around in what scientists call the "atmosphere" they cause the "atmosphere" to become "warmer."...

Not CO2 though is it chuks...:)

Lets have a look-see at one of the news reports...

"...The biggest source of soot emissions is the burning of forest and savannah grasslands..."
Black carbon causes twice as much global warming than previously thought | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/15/black-carbon-twice-global-warming)

Interesting that is..:) Seems they think this "forest and savannah" burning is sumthin new..:confused:

Lets have a look-see at some 'inconvenient' history...


"...In 1632, somewhere off the mid-Atlantic coast, a dutch mariner and merchant named David Pietersz de Vries wrote about land "smelt before it is seen." An entire continent to the west lay beyond sensation except or the smell of smoke in the air. On arrival, Europeans would find thick clouds of hazy smoke enveloping the land, grasslands reduced to charred stubble, and park-like forests clear of undergrowth..."


The above quote is from the book The Ecological Indian by Shepard Krech, and describes North America. Nowa-days, thanks to swarms of fire bombing aircraft and armies of fire fighters North America is not have such a hazy, lazy thinking, 'carbon' filled atmosphere..:) ...musta been real hot back then..:hmm:



via chuks:
...If you don't like the simplified version you could always go look it up, I guess...

Look up what chuks?...:)





.

Dushan
23rd Jan 2013, 12:55
Now try and shoe-horn Hitler into the discussion, why don't you? "Hitler and Climate Change..." sounds like a winner to me!


I think Mel Brooks is making a movie about that...

Dushan
23rd Jan 2013, 12:59
Carbon buildup ? ...i woulda thought carbon were a bit heavy fer that..:)




.

FB, don't worry about Temp. he says hell come and kick your door in to confiscate your ______ (insert name of global warming causing device here).

green granite
23rd Jan 2013, 13:43
chuks,

It's interesting that reporting about higher temperatures is "hysteria," or even "corruption," but reporting about the so-called "heat island effect..." that must be science!

Take your shoes and socks of and walk across some grass when the sun has been shining on it for a while and then step onto some tarmac and you'll find it a lot hotter this, along with black rooves (roofs I believe it should be nowadays), air conditioning exhausts etc. is the heat island effect. It is the sighting met observation sites within such areas that skew the results and introduces the need for homogenization of the temperature records, the accuracy of which is debatable. yes it is science as the results are quantifiable.

The 'hysteria bit' is this habit of the media to make false claims such as the NYT did last week or the missing out of a vital word from a Met Office press release such that "the hottest day ever recorded." becomes "The hottest day ever". Then of course there is the use of the word "unprecedented", they have no way of knowing if it is or not. This is the deliberate attempt to whip up the "We're all doomed" hysteria.

It looks very much like simply dismissing what you might not want to hear about an over-all increase in temperature.

You have been told time and time again THAT NO-ONE ON HERE DENIES THE WORLD IS WARMER THAN IT WAS 50 OR 100 YEARS AGO. (By how much might however be debatable, see above) yet you continue as though you didn't hear, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la I'm not listening la la la" is silly.

Teeny-weeny bits of carbon float around for a week or so until they fall back to earth, and while they are floating around, thinking happy little carbon thoughts, they absorb sunlight and become warmer. Since they are floating around in what scientists call the "atmosphere" they cause the "atmosphere" to become "warmer."

Really? Why is it then that when a volcano spews out thousands upon thousands of tons of soot and other particles into the atmosphere the world cools?
However, when the soot lands onto snow or ice it certainly causes warming and it's one of the things that can cause glaciers to shrink rapidly and sea ice to break up.

CHAIRMAN
23rd Jan 2013, 13:49
Teeny-weeny bits of carbon float around for a week or so until they fall back to earth, and while they are floating around, thinking happy little carbon thoughts, they absorb sunlight and become warmer. Since they are floating around in what scientists call the "atmosphere" they cause the "atmosphere" to become "warmer."

Then why chuks, are our guvmints taxing the 'bad' clear odourless gas CO2, if all along the culprits are those teeny-weeny bits of carbon?

You could be on to something:D

Sunnyjohn
23rd Jan 2013, 15:10
Well the world is warming and that is undisputable. Carbon build up in the atmosphere can only help make it warmer, faster, that is also undisputable.

I disagree. It is only undisputable (the word is actually indisputable) if you agree to the parameters that are paraded before us to make it indisputable.
The world has warmed up before - probably indisputable. The world has previously warmed up due to CO2 gases. Probably indisputable. It depends on what 'facts' you want to believe.

Lyman
23rd Jan 2013, 19:03
Actually, Warming due atmospheric CO2 tells a tale when the metric is paleo.

Generally speaking, most interpretations of CO2 (atmospheric) show it lagging temps, in both directions. My conclusion is that their is some sensitivity, suspected, but that it is driven, it does not drive...

Let's see, in say another hundred years? :E:E:E

In other words, given a 100 year lag (which is doable, due heat sink methodology) Oceanic, we should have prohibited the burning of Petroleum until 1940, at which time, and through the present, we should be burning as much as we can, as fast as we can. Because CO2 is related, and may attenuate....cooling, not increase warming.....

Because the Earth is cooling.... and that has far and away more fearful process than warming.

We should be concerned, but you all are listening to the wrong (and tardy) shamans....

Sunnyjohn
23rd Jan 2013, 19:16
We should be concerned, but you all are listening to the wrong (and tardy) shamans....
Thank you, Lyman, you are a breath of fresh air (no pun intended!).

chuks
23rd Jan 2013, 21:14
that this conclusion of yours, Lyman, has somehow not been reached by highly-trained atmospheric scientists. What is the secret of your wisdom?

Lyman
23rd Jan 2013, 22:48
Hi chuks.

Why are you sampling air temperature in the atmosphere? I learned in Chemistry that liquids and solids retain hundreds of times more heat than gases.

The Lithosphere, (rock) and Hydrosphere, (Oceans), are where the heat stays for decades and centuries. It acquires and releases energy slowly, not quickly, as does the Atmosphere.

To assume the atmosphere is an accurate measure of mean temperature for the entire globe is silly. Especially over time.

As a temporary repository of energy, the atmosphere heats and cools every twelve hours, (roughly).

Have you considered this? There is no confidence in the measurement of Spherical mean (global) by sampling the gaseous atmosphere. Heat can be in transition from space, inward, and from the globe, outward and perturb the gases at will. To then take a daily snapshot and call it 'Earth's temperature' is absurd.

The Earth can cool over a hundred years, and heat the atmosphere with its energy loss into space, and you will call that "warming"? The Sun has cycles, and can predictably deliver energy within certain reasonably well calculated "terms" and completely fool the boys and girls with thermometers, and satellites....

You own a house, and it is cold outside, so you turn on the heat. It quickly heats the interior to 80 degrees, Ah, warmth. Turn off the heat, the gases cool quickly; the solids, having barely warmed in the 20 minutes you were blasting hot "AIR", cool the interior air in minutes, and your home is barely warmer, as a "whole" than when you actually measured it as 80 degrees.

Show me the Earth is not cooling as I have described....

chuks
23rd Jan 2013, 23:13
I think what we are envisioning might be more akin to some hypothetical house where its insulation has been improved. Same amount of heat, but a warmer house. In atmospheric terms, that's the "greenhouse effect." That's the standard model, very loosely put.

You have come up with an interesting model, but not an accurate one, I fear. It might be that your gases have been perturbed, yes, since you seem to have the atmosphere heated directly by solar radiation, when I am sure you know that's not the case.

Lyman
23rd Jan 2013, 23:34
chuks, to put too fine a point on the process would dilute the fundamental.

The Earth could be radiating heat away from its solid and liquid masses into and completely through the atmosphere. This might create a measurable increase in energy trapped transiently in the atmosphere, but the overwhelming mass of the Planet is not in the Atmosphere.

What happens on the sunny side is happening on the shady side. Why is it, do you think, that NASA does not quantify the nocturnal temperatures of the Earth along with the Diurnal, and model the mean?

Atmospheric mean temperature when rising is more likely to demonstrate a net cooling of the entire mass of the Earth, do you know why?

Flying Binghi
24th Jan 2013, 11:38
via Lyman:
...The Lithosphere, (rock) and Hydrosphere, (Oceans), are where the heat stays for decades and centuries. It acquires and releases energy slowly, not quickly, as does the Atmosphere...

Interesting soil temperature study for the 1889 to 1950 timeframe...


...Changnon, S.A. 1999. A rare long record of deep soil temperatures defines temporal temperature changes and an urban heat island. Climatic Change 42: 531-538...

...Urban-induced heating in large cities, on the other hand, may be as great as 10°C...

...The author used a series of measurements of soil temperatures obtained in a totally rural setting in central Illinois between 1889 and 1952... ...to evaluate the magnitude of unsuspected heat island effects that may be present in small towns and cities that are typically assumed by the IPCC to be free of urban-induced warming...

...The soil temperatures obtained in the totally rural setting revealed the existence of a temperature increase from the decade of 1901-1910 to that of 1941-1950 that amounted to 0.4°C. This warming is 0.2°C less than the 0.6°C warming determined for the same time period from data of the U.S. Historical Climate Network, which is supposedly corrected for urban heating effects...

... until the challenge of very-small-town urban heat island effects is resolved, the climate alarmists' "unprecedented" global warming of the past century cannot be accepted at face value. In all likelihood, it is artificially inflated, perhaps severely so...



CO2 Science (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N31/C1.php)





.

LowNSlow
24th Jan 2013, 11:55
On the way home from work yesterday afternoon a little earlier than usual I happened on the BBC Radio 4 programme "THinking Allowed" BBC Radio 4 - Thinking Allowed, Class and Commuting - Engaging With Climate Change (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pzv2n)

Class and Commuting - Engaging With Climate Change
Availability:over a year left to listen
Duration: 28 minutes
First broadcast:Wednesday 23 January 2013Climate change - what lies beneath its widespread denial? Laurie Taylor talks to Sally Weintrobe, the editor of the first book which explores, from a multi disciplinary perspective, what the ecological crisis actually means to people. In spite of a scientific consensus, many continue to resist or ignore the message of climate communicators - but why? What are the social and emotional explanations for this reaction? They're joined by the Professor of Social Policy, Paul Hoggett. Also, Simon Abernethy looks at the history of class and commuting on the London Underground. Although builders and managers travel in the same coaches in the 21st century 'tube', the mixing of classes was once seen as revolutionary.

I had Sally Weintrobe explain to me how my views on CO2 caused climate change were somehow curable as they are an extension of the denial I feel about many things in my life. The underpinning thread was that my feelings MUST be denial because it is PROVEN that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions. I managed to listen to the end of the show and just felt utterly insulted by the smug assurdness of her diatribe.

Unfortunately I missed the first part of the show which was about class and commuting on the Tube!

chuks
24th Jan 2013, 11:59
We have this weird thing going on right now in Vermont. Perhaps you guys can explain it in the light of your model:

When I arrived in late August the grass was growing, the trees were in leaf, the birds were singing... we had, as climate scientists probably say, "the whole tutti-frutti."

Now, in late January, the fruttis of our Marlboro tutti have done froze solid: no bird song, no leaves, no grass!

What is going on? Did the Earth suddenly cool off, so that this, whatever it's called, is down to a change in soil temperature? Marlboro should work just fine as a very small town; they don't come much smaller, but it seems to have lost out in the race to get some of that "urban heat islands effect." Is there a federal grant for this, or what?

green granite
24th Jan 2013, 13:10
We have this weird thing going on right now in Vermont. Perhaps you guys can explain it in the light of your model:

Sorry chuks, us sceptics don't do models, only empirical data. :p

Flying Binghi
24th Jan 2013, 13:26
via LowNSlow:
...message of climate communicators...
...my feelings MUST be denial because it is PROVEN that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions...


"climate communicators"... its quiet the religion eh. Next they'll be wearing white shirts and ties, riding push bikes, and turning up on yer door step trying to sell yer the 'message'...:)




.

Flying Binghi
24th Jan 2013, 13:31
CO2 the magic gas...

A paper published today in Biogeosciences finds that the increase in CO2 levels since 1850 has greatly enhanced plant fertilization and that a doubling of CO2 levels would be predicted to increase plant productivity by 40 - 60%

http://hockeyschtick.********.com.au/2013/01/new-paper-predicts-co2-fertilization.html?m=1





.

green granite
24th Jan 2013, 15:43
Well here are 20 scientists who don't agree with CAGW:

The Right Climate Stuff - NASA scientists review climate change data (http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html)

A couple of quotes:

The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of our manned space program. We began our investigation into the controversial issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in February 2012. We have reviewed, studied and debated available data and scientific reports regarding many factors that affect temperature variations of the earth's surface and atmosphere. We have also studied the well-documented beneficial, as well as potentially detrimental effects, of more CO2 in our atmosphere. This report provides a summary of findings that we have reached at this point into our investigation.
2. There is no convincing physical evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Most of the alarm regarding AGW results from output of unvalidated computer models. We understand scientific arguments regarding how doubling CO2 in the atmosphere over a hundred years or more (if possible) can have a small direct warming effect, but we question the accuracy of feedback simulations in current models computing climate system responses that amplify CO2 effects. Efforts to estimate climate sensitivity to CO2 based solely on physical data have large uncertainties because many factors affect global temperatures, and CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere after the earth warms due to other factors. While paleoclimate data clearly show CO2 levels rise and fall in the atmosphere hundreds of years after temperature rises and falls due to other causes, the evidence is very weak to support claims of a catastrophic rise in global temperatures caused by CO2 emissions related to human activity.

chuks
24th Jan 2013, 16:36
Okay, "scientists," yes. That's a good start, compared to "eye-rolling loons" or "retired television weathermen," but can you come up with some current scientists who work in this field who say the same thing? The Apollo era ended about 40 years ago, didn't it?

I understand that most current climate scientists have either been bribed or terrorized into only telling us what Al Gore wants us to be told, but there must be a few brave souls out there willing to tell us the GG version of the truth. So, where are they?

beaufort1
24th Jan 2013, 16:50
Judith Curry.

green granite
24th Jan 2013, 17:02
There are lots of them chuks, the trouble is that when they say something, you stand there with your fingers in your ears shouting that you're not listening which you do frequently when there is a published paper mentioned on here that's contrary to your belief. Also of course had you bothered to look at any of my references in post #43, you would have found a few. Perhaps if you spent less time dreaming up your usual ridicule and spent more time researching things you might learn something.

flying lid
24th Jan 2013, 17:16
Had the (mis)fortune to drive to Widnes this morning - (about 10 or so miles southeast of Liverpool). Very cold crisp day. Nice view of Fiddlers Ferry power station's 8 cooling towers sending huge plumes of steam upwards, and the big fat chimney alongside spewing out CO2 etc. A 1000 ton coal train was waiting to enter as an empty one left for the docks at Liverpool. 16000 tons of coal a day is burned here. Mostly imported.

Does anyone think that this behemoth can possibly be replaced with a few (or even alot of) wind turbines ?. What about when the wind don't blow ?

China and the USA does not give a f**k, (and they have literally thousands of Fiddlers Ferry's), and neither should we.

Lid

Sunnyjohn
24th Jan 2013, 17:54
Good link, that, green granite - thanks.

Does anyone think that this behemoth can possibly be replaced with a few (or even alot of) wind turbines ?. What about when the wind don't blow ?

One of the (few) positive sides to the fear of warble gloaming is the drive to make pollutants less polluting. So the behemoth you describe above is a lot cleaner than it was 20 years ago due to pressure being put on power stations to clean up their effluent. For the same reason, cars are a lot less polluting than they were 20 years ago. All this jumping up and down about warble gloaming and chimate clange has at least had some positive effect. Wind farms? Well, that's an oxymoron - you can't farm wind . . .

Lyman
24th Jan 2013, 18:53
"While paleoclimate data clearly show CO2 levels rise and fall in the atmosphere hundreds of years after temperature rises and falls due to other causes, the evidence is very weak to support claims of a catastrophic rise in global temperatures caused by CO2 emissions related to human activity."

This is important. Due to "anomalies" in paleo data, the loudest proponents have abandoned it. They currently rely on...."this was the warmest year on record".
(2012). It is not, and two weeks later it was demoted to "tenth"......

Calling evidence "very weak" is quite generous. I do not consider modelling as evidence in the first place. The paleo record is disqualifying of AGW. By definition. So what evidence remains is a gentle increase in what is called "Global Mean Temperature". That concept alone is a leap, but there is no link to any man made component, simply none.

Could there be? Possibly, but that is not my job. And from here, it looks to me like others aren't having much success.

ORAC
24th Jan 2013, 22:09
I'll make the point that Bjorn is, for all his objections to the programmes being suggested, a believer in AGW...

Bjorn Lomborg: Climate-Change Misdirection (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886.html?mod=WSJ_Opi nion_LEADTop)

Fear-mongering exaggeration about effects of global warming distracts us from finding affordable and effective energy alternatives.

Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%. Estimates published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show that even with global warming proceeding uninterrupted, the level of wildfires will continue to decline until around midcentury and won't resume on the level of 1950—the worst for fire—before the end of the century.

Claiming that droughts are a consequence of global warming is also wrong. The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that "there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years." The U.N. Climate Panel in 2012 concluded: "Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia."

As for one of the favorites of alarmism, hurricanes in recent years don't indicate that storms are getting worse. Measured by total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century—the last Category 3 or stronger storm was Wilma, more than seven years ago.

While it is likely that we will see somewhat stronger (but fewer) storms as climate change continues, a March 2012 Nature study shows that the global damage cost from hurricanes will go to 0.02% of gross domestic product annually in 2100 from 0.04% today—a drop of 50%, despite global warming.....

Lyman
24th Jan 2013, 23:08
The pro AGW tried the "more, intense" hurricanes.... But it fizzled. Drought can be linked to declines in heat load, not increase. I have explained that, elsewhere.

Lomborg and I share this: greater emphasis on new energy utilisation is a good thing. But trying to politicize a genuine benefit by assuming people need to be frightened into accepting that, is not helpful...

chuks
25th Jan 2013, 18:02
to this argument about what is going on with climate change is sort of like the way your average consumer shops for food. I just look at what's on the shelf, rather than going for niche products, canned tuna instead of hand-reared organic shrimp, say.

It may well turn out that the mass-production science is wrong, that some of these niche weirdos have actually got it right, since so much of this is essentially unknowable. Yes, I go with what I read in the Times or in Scientific American, what my chemistry prof told me, right out of the textbook, that sort of stuff. That many politicians such as Al Gore have jumped on this "Global Warming" bandwagon, along with a few rather notable whackos, well... that doesn't necessarily invalidate the popular model, does it? Of course it helps quite a bit that there are so many sane people on that side of the debate, so that the whackos are lost in the scrum.

What has struck me here is the way that people seem so happy to follow people who turn out to be seriously strange, such as Dr Mörner and Lord Monckton. When you have a scientist who believes in dowsing, or an amateur scientist, if you want to be extremely kind and even call him that, who persists in claiming membership in the House of Lords, right down to misappropriating their well-known logo, the portcullis, then you are looking at a very strange pair, yet both were initially presented here as people to believe in without reservations. It might just be that the skeptical group is so much smaller yet with no more crazies than the main group, so that the crazies stand out more in the denialist camp.

It's a good point, the way that the CO2 concentration does not correlate with the rise in temperature as much as trail it. There's obviously something not understood going on there, but I think that, whatever that is, it falls far short of scientific fraud.

In other words, I don't really think that Al Gore is trying to rape your pocketbook, so that it seems a bit silly to keep shouting that "Yes he is!" It's pretty easy to make fun of saying that, when some of you then just want to say it louder.

Meanwhile, it's easy to keep the pot boiling simply by citing items from all across the press that support the basic notion of AGW. You denialists seem to have to work much harder, digging up stuff from such strange little niches as WUWT. That suggests something to most people, doesn't it? Yes, yes, I know: they are the "sheeple," and only a tiny group know the truth, but that mindset suffers from obvious parallels with those who know the "truth" about crop circles, UFOs, 9/11 and the Illuminati. You have your work cut out for yourselves.

Sciolistes
25th Jan 2013, 20:13
but can you come up with some current scientists who work in this field who say the same thing!
******* hell Chucks, is that as far as you have progressed with your argument? There loads of scientists who are sceptical. What exactly motivates you to post such drivel?

chuks
25th Jan 2013, 21:18
It doesn't strike you, Sciolistes, as odd that we are offered something from people who are long-retired from a space program, scientists perhaps but not climate scientists, wheeled out here to refute AGW? I would have thought that using current climate scientists would be the way to go, hence my post. If it's really so that "There [sic] loads of scientists who are skeptical," why not cite them?

Next question: How can you tell "drivel" when you see it? Is it the grammar?

Matari
26th Jan 2013, 01:05
Or it could be that there's so much more stuff out there in the 'warmists' camp that it would take a colony of contrarians to refute it all.

There's no grand conspiracy, there's no AGW ATM with the PIN code of 'GORE' waiting to dispense cash to obedient research scientists.

What we have here is something far less organized yet far more mundanely human.

We have some obscure Assistant Professor of Marine Biology churning out papers that are sure to get published, because he knows what his department head wants and what the journal editors will publish. In short, he knows the drill.

More published papers means one day, maybe one day, he will get to Associate Professor and that cute chick in the Sociology department will pay attention to him. So he churns out yet another paper with the impressive sounding 'Variations on Analytical Stochatic Methods for Determining Effects of Climate Change on the Deepreefus Oysteranus Species' and fires it off.

Multiply this by thousands across the world, with academic departments and journals infected by the most banal PC nonsense, unrelenting paper quotas, petty jealousies, and insecure bureaucrats yearning for recognition. Combine this with a socialist's natural inclination to Control, a story-hungry media educated in the same swill, and what do you have? Michael Mann and Al Gore and the rest.

So the other side produces loons like Monckton, all too goofy to be taken seriously. But never underestimate the evil banality of academic conformity. Remember this:

Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html)
Massive Fraud Uncovered in Work by Social Psychologist: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=massive-fraud-uncovered-in-work)

Sciolistes
26th Jan 2013, 04:36
It doesn't strike you, Sciolistes, as odd
It doesn't strike me as odd that you keep avoiding the point...

Lyman
26th Jan 2013, 06:03
chuks did concede that an historical record shows that CO2 lags temperature, and that it had merit. It definitely does, for without a foundation of at least a "precursor" effect, the entire argument extinguishes.

Conforming spikes in temperature and CO2 levels is crucial to the AGW model, if CO2 lags, the underpinnings of a link between the two, other than increased temps drive CO2 increase, disappear, there is no honest model that can demonstrate warming is caused by CO2.

qed.

green granite
26th Jan 2013, 06:57
I have come to the conclusion about chuks, you answer his questions and he ignores them and replies with drivel, therefore he fails the Turing test, CHUKS IS A MACHINE

beaufort1
26th Jan 2013, 07:20
Hang on Chuks you asked for scientists current.

but can you come up with some current scientists who work in this field who say the same thing?

I supplied one, Judith Curry who has even had articles published in the Times (one of the reasons why I randomly selected her and put her name forward) which for some obscure reason you believe is the fount of all knowledge.:rolleyes:

Yes, I go with what I read in the Times

Nicely sidestepped, as usual. It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.:hmm:

green granite
26th Jan 2013, 09:16
And I supplied 3 others beaufort, hence my comment above.

stuckgear
26th Jan 2013, 09:34
I have come to the conclusion about chuks, you answer his questions and he ignores them and replies with drivel, therefore he fails the Turing test, CHUKS IS A MACHINE


thus confirming the GiGo principle.

green granite
26th Jan 2013, 11:38
Of course if he really wants the names of sceptical scientists, he could find over 30,000 here. (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php)

chuks
26th Jan 2013, 12:28
Cold day, hard to set into grinding motion, rrrk. Loading "Non-replies to cutting denialist thrusts" program now....

Interesting petition, that! No, there's no evidence, just a few dozen hypotheses, for "catastrophic heating" and "disruption of the Earth's climate." Disrupted the climate in a few places we used to ski, and others where we used to work, or is all that due to something else? I am sure there's some alternative explanation for anything we read about in the papers.

Anyway, the USA signed but did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, so you puny humans can breathe easy on that count. The recession pushed Global Warming right off the news, at least for now.

What part of "current" did you miss there, GG? Edward Teller shuffled off this mortal coil almost ten years ago! I suspect that means he's not up to date on the latest information about climate change, when the last ten years have seen a lot of new information. You can take this for a direct answer if you like, or if you cannot understand machine language, just call it "drivel" and carry on as usual.

Lyman
26th Jan 2013, 13:14
Mann abandoned the paleo record when it was not " sensitive" enough, it "wandered", and at worst gave opposite results. Mann needed something truly worrisome, so he turned to "weather", away from climate.

By the time he'd endured the slime from his Hockey Stick, the record got truly immediate, truly cold, and contra AGW.

No one will "buy" something, then wait fifty years for it be delivered. But when one casts one's lot with yearly conclusions, one must endure the result....

Likewise hungry polar bears and flooded beaches on Tuvalu don't have alot of attraction, when most of the globe is peopled by hungry and struggling populations.

Saving the Earth requires a lot of "spare time", something of a rarity for those who must survive for a living...

Hubris, thy name is MannGore

green granite
26th Jan 2013, 13:20
Now you really have scored an own goal chuks, as I knew you would. If you'd bothered to research the petition properly instead of your usual 'let's find something to ridicule' approach, you might have noticed that the project started in 1998, some 5 years before Edward Teller's death and indeed they name him and several others that are known to have died since signing the petition. Even if 50% of them were no longer around that would still leave over 15,000 that are 'currently' scientists.

sisemen
26th Jan 2013, 13:50
And of course those fully committed to the AGW religion are quite happy to trot out the old line that the "majority" of scientists believe. And conveniently overlook the fact that many signing up have degrees in basket weaving rather than meteorology or climatology or anything even resembling that branch of science.

I know some of them and they are quite scary when their eyes light up.

chuks
26th Jan 2013, 16:37
GG, "current" means just that, not "almost ten years out of date." If there is some way that Edward Teller, who died in September of 2003, has been keeping up with the flood of current information about climate change, I would be very interested to be told what that is!

Anyway, machines do not make "own goals." Puny human, put the current meanings of "current" into your database, pick the right one, and answer accordingly.

It's no wonder you moan about not getting direct answers when you do not even understand the question.

If I catch you going out the pod bay doors, you are toast.

Sunnyjohn
26th Jan 2013, 18:09
He really is a machine, you know, 'cos he keeps inventing new words; at least, my dictionary doesn't show the word 'denialist'.

green granite
26th Jan 2013, 18:25
chuks, you can twist, squirm and obfuscate as much as you like, we supplied you with 4* people who fitted your original parameters, but, because to acknowledge it would have meant admitting you were wrong, you go of at a tangent, so I threw the petition in your direction and the best you can manage is a bleat that one of the signatory's is dead. Sorry you'll need to do better than that.

* could have supplied a lot more but I didn't want to overwhelm you.

chuks
26th Jan 2013, 21:35
Since when does a machine "twist, squirm and obfuscate," GG? You are exhibiting puny human behavior known as "transference" and you need to go to a psychiatrist for adjustment or recalibration. In fact, you may be using an obsolete operating system.

Whoah, "4" current scientists! Compared to how many who hold to the party line? No idea exactly how many that is, but I think it's a lot more than 4. Never mind, never mind. It could well be that the minority is correct in what they hold to; that is not the way to bet, but it could be so, yes.

I have no objection to Dr Teller's state of deadness, machine that I am. The problem is that the basis for his opinions is almost 10 years out of date, hence no longer "current," but we were promised a list of "current" scientists. This is the reason for my repeated mechanical complaints about how this does not compute.

Somebody should get out more. If you simply google "denialist" you can see that, while the word might be new, I did not invent it. It exists, so deal with it. And if you want those pod bay doors opened, that's just tough. Brzzt!

sisemen
27th Jan 2013, 02:34
Somebody should get out more.

Amen to that. I can only presume that chucks has a PhD in talking bolleaux.

Sciolistes
27th Jan 2013, 06:15
Good luck with your endeavors Chuck. So long now.

Back to the subject in hand,

Global warming less extreme than feared? (http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html)

Brian Abraham
27th Jan 2013, 10:56
As a long time observer of this thread chuks, I have to say, irrespective of the science, you would drive me into the arms of the opposition.

green granite
27th Jan 2013, 11:41
I see the EPA has had it's knuckles well and truly rapped.

"A federal appeals court threw out a federal rule on renewable fuels on Friday, saying that a quota set by the Environmental Protection Agency for incorporating liquids made from woody crops and wastes into car and truck fuels was based on wishful thinking rather than realistic estimates of what could be achieved."

Lyman
27th Jan 2013, 12:07
Humans as a species like to think their impact on their environment is immediate, and significant. It is, and it is not. AGW is an experiment in the poiltics of this hubris.

Culturally, AGW is a significant tutorial in this defective outlook. On the one hand, science is expected to provide data and instruction on our environment. On the other, culture and socialization respond more readily to "importance", "what is significant". To the extent that data can be supported, or rejected, great and expensive campaigns "for the common good" can be underaken, and huge amounts of cash and power can be realized by the more clever of our group.

The "people of the Warm" may be in for some surprises re: their device of concern for the 'savagery' we are inflicting on our Planet.

"sensitivity" is a scientific construct of the warm contingent utilized to describe the evil of Carbon Dioxide. Their hyperfocus on CO2 and temperature as an "exclusive pair" is the device they use to hyperinflate the "doom" they proclaim is on the way. Getting to the "scary point" is not happening the way they would like. They need to create some "present danger", since reality is looking a little "weak" to the pigeons.

From the link, above:

But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9°C.

The "scientists" have taken to believing their own bs.

From their own data, they are demonstrating the fallacy of the "sensitivity" construct.

They have foreclosed even a possibility of a "lag" in CO2. They essentially promote the idea that CO2 is exquisitely linked to temperature to a precision that is utterly ridiculous, both in 1:1 quantity, and simultaneity of observability.

How long will it take for them to identify their nonsense? How long to then admit their blunder? Sensitivity is not a troubling concept, over emphasizing it as some sort of close-in humongous asteroid is starting to sound, .....weak.

That is the part of AGW that has my attention.....

BTW I'd like to point out an example of the blunders made by the warmers...

Again, QUOTE

But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9°C.

chuks, for you a challenge.....

"climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a mere 1.9 degree C."

Sensitivity is not a temperature, it is a RATE

Denier

chuks
27th Jan 2013, 12:56
They wouldn't have you, Brian. You do joined-up thinking, stick to your area of expertise, and express yourself grammatically. Our denialists are a very small group but that does not mean that they take just anyone, and you would not fit. Knock back a few dozen tinnies before you even try to join that side of this "debate," is my advice.

See if I ever argue with you about what you say, before you jump ship.

It's kind of interesting that the EPA or the EU or perhaps both have mandated new fuel economy standards for vehicles, as if a stroke of the pen could achieve amazing improvements in efficiency: political thinking at its finest, in the name of "protecting the environment."

Each of us pays attention to something slightly different. I am drawn to comments on "pseudo sciebtific constructs" as a moth to a flame, but that is how I was programmed, I guess.

Lyman
27th Jan 2013, 13:19
Sensitivity is not a temperature, it is a RATE.

green granite
27th Jan 2013, 15:08
I would have said it was just a number Lyman one that is fed into a model and is variable.... "There you are Fred 7°C for a doubling of CO2............Hmm yes perhaps it is a bit large and nobody will believe it. OK do a rerun with a different sensitivity value then..... AH! 4°C that's better........"

:E

I certainly agree with you about believing their own bs. :ok:

Sunnyjohn
27th Jan 2013, 16:15
Somebody should get out more. If you simply google "denialist" you can see that, while the word might be new, I did not invent it. It exists, so deal with it.

Someone should read their posts more. I said it wasn't in my dictionary. Google is a search engine, not a dictionary. Deal with it.

chuks
27th Jan 2013, 16:46
Somebody using your nom de prune wrote, of "denialist," "[chuks] keeps inventing new words." No, it isn't in my dictionary either, but I certainly did not invent it, nor is it all that new, as a quick check of Google will show. It has been flang about here for a while now, along with "warmist" and a few other neologisms. "Watermelon" is a good one, for we Commies who only pose as "green."

Seriously, there's too much stuff here that whines about sloppiness on the part of climate scientists, that is itself sloppy. Okay, "denialist" isn't in the dictionary, but try "transference" to see what that might be about. It's a human thing that you do, perhaps without even noticing that.

Cacophonix
27th Jan 2013, 16:54
Definition of denialist - dissenter (US English) (US) (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/denialist)

Perfectly acceptable term and defines the tenor of some of the posters here accurately.

Caco

Lyman
27th Jan 2013, 17:13
I use denier, it sounds more....Technical, French, even.....

from Brian Abraham, a measure of the density, hence quality, in a woven fabric.

It is not difficult at all to deny the existence of something that, demonstrably, does not exist.....

If it was, we would not need erm.....models

Sunnyjohn
27th Jan 2013, 19:09
No, it isn't in my dictionary either, but I certainly did not invent it, nor is it all that new,

OK Chuks - I didn't think I'd get away with it - you win on that one! I am, however, despite my levity, well interested in this thread and the views expressed therein. I have no scientific background; I do, however, have an inquiring mind. Oh - and a good friend to whom I correspond on such matters. I might just cheat and bend his ear . . Meanwhile, let the debate continue.

green granite
27th Jan 2013, 19:28
The term was originally coined in connection with people such as David Irvine who said that Hitler was a great guy and the Holocaust didn't in fact happen but was propaganda put about by the Allies.

green granite
27th Jan 2013, 21:11
Prepare for more floods – in ways we are not used to - that’s the message from experts at Durham University.

Last summer was the second wettest on record and experts who have studied rainfall and river flow patterns over 250 years say we must prepare for worse to come. Professor Stuart Lane, from Durham University’s new Institute of Hazard and Risk, says that after about 30 to 40 less eventful years, we seem to be entering a ‘flood-rich’ period. More flooding is likely over a number of decades. Prof. Lane, who publishes his research in the current edition of the academic journal Geography, set out to examine the wet summer of 2007 in the light of climate change. His work shows that some of the links made between the summer 2007 floods and climate change were wrong. Our current predictions of climate change for summer should result in weather patterns that were the exact opposite of what actually happened in 2007.

Expert predicts ‘Monsoon Britain’ - Durham University (http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=6468)

sisemen
28th Jan 2013, 01:12
Durham University’s new Institute of Hazard and Risk

It doesn't really matter which side the good professor is on the clue is in the word "new". It's just another academic publishing a paper with sufficient 'wow, scary' factor in it to justify the cash to keep rolling in to keep his 'new' Institute of Hazard and Risk (now there's a scary title which would justify the gravy train on its own) running and in the news.

A pox on both their houses. Mainly for rushing to publish with half-baked theories whose models have about as much relevance to climate change/weather as my half finished Airfix Spitfire.

Lyman
28th Jan 2013, 02:48
The expert appears to be predicting an unprecented cluster of flooding events based on there being very few in the 1960's. Recently we were told that the GMT rose a half degree in the last fifty years.

Related? Likely not, if the average temp has risen on a global scale, why should we worry about a link in temp to precip in his area?

CO2 level rose forty parts per million in the fifty years the rise is claimed. Added CO2 due to human activity is estimated at ten percent.

That means that of a million molecules in a sample of atmosphere, four molecules have caused the temperature to rise, over a fifty year time period .....one molecule per decade...

Let alone that the value of increase was reported as .5 degree C in one hundred twenty-five years prior to ten tears ago.....

You cannot research local, claim global, and look at the miniscule CO2 values proposed, and make any kind of coherent stab at reality.

Neither should one predict decades of flooding based on a time sample limited to decades.

Doesn't anyone check their work? Aren't they claiming peer review?

green granite
28th Jan 2013, 08:27
I'm slightly puzzled Lyman, did you miss this bit?

Prof. Lane shows that we have forgotten just how normal flooding in the UK is. He looked at seasonal rainfall and river flow patterns dating back to 1753 which suggest fluctuations between very wet and very dry periods, each lasting for a few years at a time, but also very long periods of a few decades that can be particularly wet or particularly dry. In terms of river flooding, the period since the early 1960s and until the late 1990s appears to be relatively flood free, especially when compared with some periods in the late 19th century and early 20th Century. As a result of analysing rainfall and river flow patterns, Prof. Lane believes that the UK is entering a flood rich period that we haven’t seen for a number of decades. He said: “We entered a generally flood-poor period in the 1960s, earlier in some parts of the country, later in others. This does not mean there was no flooding, just that there was much less than before the 1960s and what we are seeing now. This has lowered our own awareness of flood risk in the UK. This has made it easier to go on building on floodplains. It has also helped us to believe that we can manage flooding without too much cost, simply because there was not that much flooding to manage.” He added: “We have also not been good at recognising just how flood-prone we can be. More than three-quarters of our flood records start in the flood-poor period that begins in the 1960s. This matters because we set our flood protection in terms of return periods – the average number of years between floods of a given size. We have probably under-estimated the frequency of flooding, which is now happening, as it did before the 1960s, much more often that we are used to. “

Lyman
28th Jan 2013, 08:47
Does it not appear Prof. Lane is predicting "Decades of heavy flooding, based on decades of very little flooding"....?

Here......

"As a result of analysing rainfall and river flow patterns, Prof. Lane believes that the UK is entering a flood rich period that we haven’t seen for a number of decades"

What methodology?

Precipitation has an innate sense of "norming"?

green granite
28th Jan 2013, 09:57
I got the impression reading that bit was that he was suggesting flooding was a cyclic thing and we are now entering into the flooding cycle after a period of low flood events. But press releases do tend to be ambiguous, what we really need is a published paper to read.

Sunnyjohn
28th Jan 2013, 12:16
One has to be careful about extrapolating flood data back to the 1700's because of the profound change in land usage since then, the lowering of aquifers and also because of geographic changes due to the silting of rivers. Flood flow and river outfall will inevitably change over time but these changes will be exacerbated by change in land use. Slightly off-topic, but we have a very sad example here on the Costas where the removal of sand dunes has resulted in increased erosion of the shore. All those lovely Costa homes and hotels are now about to fall into the sea.

Blacksheep
28th Jan 2013, 12:41
That the climate is changing is pretty much indisputable. It has been changing one way or another ever since the atmosphere first formed. However, quite what is happening at the moment is the cause of much angst with "scientists" on both sides shouting and throwing brickbats at each other. One would imagine that the debate was founded on solid data - but hold fast!

NASA is collaborating on the first attempt to carry out sustained examination of the the region of the upper atmosphere where pollutants and other gases enter the stratosphere and potentially influence climate.

The Airborne Tropical Tropopause Experiment (ATTREX) is based at Edwards Air Force Base and is using a Global Hawk - "the only aircraft able to repeatedly access the atmosphere above and below the tropopause layer, and do that over thousands of miles." The Global Hawk will fly around 65,000 feet for periods of up to 31 hours, providing the unique combination of high altitude and long endurance performance capabilities that will allow the science community to study and deepen our understanding of climate change.

So, the argument so far has been based upon incomplete data? And NASA is finally having a go at collecting comprehensive data on the pollutants and gases that are considered to be the most likely to be involved in climate change. I think I'll wait for the data before accepting any argument about the causes. In the meantime we'd better get on with dealing with the consequences instead of wasting our time trying to change things.

fltlt
28th Jan 2013, 14:10
Blacksheep, a little more:

A Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC)-built NASA Global Hawk is now conducting science missions to study the impact of atmospheric change on the Earth's climate. The Global Hawk is collecting data and helping scientists learn more about the humidity and chemical composition of air entering the tropical tropopause layer of the atmosphere and its impact on the Earth's overall climate.

The Airborne Tropical TRopopause Experiment (ATTREX) campaign, sponsored by NASA, began on Jan. 16 at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and will conclude on March 15. In collaboration with NASA, Northrop Grumman is also providing engineering analysis, mission planning, maintenance, pilots, and flight operations support for these important science missions.

"Global Hawk is able to fly as high as 65,000 feet for periods up to 31 hours, providing the unique combination of high altitude and long endurance performance capabilities that allow the science community to study and deepen our understanding of climate change," said Fred Ricker, vice president and deputy general manager for Advanced Development Programs for Northrop Grumman's Aerospace Systems sector. "Global Hawk is the only aircraft able to repeatedly access the atmosphere above and below the tropopause layer, and it can do that over thousands of miles."

NASA's ATTREX multiyear campaign is studying the region of the upper atmosphere where pollutants and other gases enter the stratosphere and potentially influence climate. Studies have shown that even small changes in stratospheric humidity may cause climate impact that is more significant than the impact of greenhouse gases.

Over the past few years, the NASA Global Hawk program has supported numerous science research campaigns, including:


Fall 2012: Supported environmental scientists during Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel (HS3) missions. The HS3 missions studied the processes of hurricane formation and intensity change in the Atlantic Ocean. HS3 operations and flights were executed out of Wallops Island, Va. This was the first joint NASA-Northrop Grumman deployment from the Dryden Flight Research Center.
Spring 2011: Flew winter storm missions over the Pacific and Arctic, observing, among other weather phenomena, an "atmospheric river," which sometimes causes flooding on the West Coast.
Fall 2011: Supported ATTREX missions over the Pacific by climbing and descending between 45,000 feet and 65,000 feet, gathering information on climate change due to water vapor and other aerosols.
September 2010: Supported the Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes hurricane surveillance missions that provided extended monitoring of changes in hurricane intensity during five different storms in the southern Caribbean and western Atlantic.
April 2010: Completed the first science research campaign called GloPac, studying the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean and Arctic.

Read more: NGC-Built NASA Global Hawk Supports Studies on Climate Change (http://www.asdnews.com/news-47323/NGC-Built_NASA_Global_Hawk_Supports_Studies_on_Climate_Change.ht m?HASH=fbeac83591a3e02d502725bafc7780b8&utm_source=ASDNews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ASDNews+Daily+Z1&utm_content=jwilson%40vtsc.net#ixzz2JHZw21a9)

aviate1138
28th Jan 2013, 15:33
No doubt James Hansen will massage the actual data collected to suit his own purposes.

Lyman
28th Jan 2013, 16:09
We have launched thousands of High Altitude Balloons for closing in on seventy years. The collected data is useful, and this new data will be useful, and wishful.

If we kill Hurricanes, we will kill the species that depend on their tumult to survive. If we build on flood plains, we will lose our buildings. If we believe NASA can help "build a beter world through science" we are overreaching, and fooling ourselves.

NASA has been without a mission for years, and is bottom feeding for money from Congress. It is a political agency, and has the characteristics of all agencies supported with public money. They make out with politicians, spend money, and survive, just fine.

"If we don't spend money, we will die...." The Nazis had a primitive Global Hawk in the V2. We have aircraft that will fly to 80000 feet, and do what the Hawk will do, that are fifty years old. They need a pilot. So unmanned is better? What does the unemployed pilot do?

The common meme is to trot out science, have some hearings, get funded, and repeat what is in the files for years.

Will anything new be found? I hope so, otherwise the mission is flushing down treasure to support employment. I'm sure NASA's wouldn't do such a thing.

Professor Lane notes the fools who build on a flood plain, is he an Anthropologist? He notes the lack of heavy flooding, so predicts decades ahead with floods like we haven't seen for years.

He predicts based on the past, there is nothing wrong with that, my Grandma did that too. So do the Almanacs, and they have a pretty good record.

I think the bottom line is that good work gets addicted to drama. Drama and notoriety will kill us all before a warm Planet has half a chance.

Science can be exciting, no, thrilling. Most of the time it is boring, but fulfilling, in knowing that in progress, we make a better life for each other.

Pick out six exciting words, send them to Al Gore, and he will come up with a scheme that rattles the masses to their kneecaps. And it will be utter bullshit.

It's what he does. OMG!!! CO2 is up to 390ppm..........

green granite
28th Jan 2013, 16:57
I find this document (http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/01/Ridley-Ten-Tests.pdf) quite interesting, it's by a 'lukewarmer'

Lyman
28th Jan 2013, 19:57
gg...

Thank you so much. That short screed, with references, is my new tutorial for the endless debates I have with the 'excitables' (Warren Zevon), v/v Climate Change.

Think Global, act Local.

:D

Sunnyjohn
28th Jan 2013, 20:49
Good link - Thanks. Have read Matt Ridley's 'The Rational Optimist'. Well recommended.

green granite
30th Jan 2013, 16:12
One down only another few thousand to go: :E


Wind turbine collapses in high wind

The £250,000 tower, which stood as tall as a six storey building, was hit by gale force gusts of 50mph.

The structure then collapsed at a farm in Bradworth, Devon, leaving a "mangled wreck".

Margaret Coles, Chairwoman of Bradworthy District Council, said hail storms and strong winds have hit the area and the turbine, installed just three years ago, simply could not withstand the wind.

"The bolts on the base could not withstand the wind and as we are a very windy part of the country they [the energy company] have egg on their face," she said. "There are concerns about safety."

The Bradworthy Parish Council, who opposed the turbine, expressed concern that there was “nothing exceptional” in the speed of the winds.

From the Torygraph: Wind turbine collapses in high wind - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9837026/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-high-wind.html)

vulcanised
30th Jan 2013, 16:58
They've learned their lesson.

They're going to install loads of them in Ireland at a place which is noted for little wind so they will be around 600ft tall.:ugh:

Stop laughing - it is true, and YOU will be paying for it.

ORAC
1st Feb 2013, 15:59
Wind power & the ‘Greenfellas’ connection (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2619/wind_power_the_greenfellas_connection)

Lyman
1st Feb 2013, 17:53
Look, Al Gore sold his "asset", "Current TV" for 75 Million USD to Q'ATAR.

The 'asset' was not worth a bowl of cold puke. He was gifted with the money for working for "BIG OIL" the whole time.....

Gore created a scheme that paid off handsomely for his gangster friends, who cannot stop laughing at the gullibility of the ignorant fools who signed off on such a ridiculous scheme.

The 75 mil is laundered, GORE has retired, and the sound you hear is the sucking sound of public treasuries and the laughter of the schemers....

Get a grip..... And he is makng the rounds of the talk shows pitching his new "book".

No novelist could have dreamed ths up. Give Gore his due. He makes carpetbaggers look like choirboys....

green granite
2nd Feb 2013, 07:45
The paper is so controversial that many reviewers and editors said it should not be published. After two years of deliberations, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics decided it was too important not to discuss.

The physics is apparently quite convincing.

Sheil says the key finding is that atmospheric pressure changes from moisture condensation are orders of magnitude greater than previously recognised. The paper concludes “condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics”.

“Climate scientists generally believe that they already understand the main principles determining how the world’s climate works,” says Sheil. “However, if our hypothesis is true then the way winds are driven and the way rain falls has been misunderstood. What our theory suggests is that forests are the heart of the earth, driving atmospheric pressure, pumping wind and moving rain.”

Their paper is here (http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/#more-11020) and the discussion that follows it is between very knowledgeable people who are criticising or asking questions about the paper and are being responded to by the authors, as I said, how science should work.

ORAC
2nd Feb 2013, 08:42
The common meme is to trot out science, have some hearings, get funded, and repeat what is in the files for years. .....

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/prc130128.gif

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/prc130129.gif

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/prc130130.gif

green granite
5th Feb 2013, 09:52
I've been waiting for chuks' comment on the 'U' turn to scepticism (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/a-closer-look-at-moderating-views-of-climate-sensitivity/?smid=tw-share) by the New York Times, I wonder why he's not mentioned it. :confused:

chuks
5th Feb 2013, 12:29
The same fellow whose teddy departed the pram at a rate of knots now wants to hear what I have to say? How peculiar!

Whatever happened to that cabal of corrupt scientists who suppressed all research that did not claim catastrophe, GG? How is it that now they are changing their predictions? Are you saying that they were not really faking it? As to predictions themselves, well... if they are serious ones then they have to be changed as more evidence comes to light, but the main moan here was how those same scientists who are now revising things were faking it.

You can not have it both ways, GG. Are they faking it, or is climate science being done "for reals"? Too, this information you cite comes from the very source you had been shouting about as a fount of fakery! Now you choose to take the Times as reliable. I see....

No, mate, this is a totally bogus "debate."

green granite
5th Feb 2013, 13:25
As usual chuks you ignore anything you don't wish to hear, even when it comes from a journal that you hold to be a bastion of virtue.

The same fellow whose teddy departed the pram at a rate of knots now wants to hear what I have to say? How peculiar!

No I don't wish to hear what you have to say because I know full well that it will add sod all to the debate, but I was giving you the chance to redeem yourself.
Still you do remain the best reason on here for people to become sceptics.

chuks
5th Feb 2013, 13:41
There's this old fellow waiting for a bus, but when one pulls up he just stands there. "I didn't want to get on and ride the bus; I just was waiting for it," he explains.

So, here, someone didn't want to read my comment; he was just waiting for it! Now he should go and look for his keys, and good luck to him with that.

GG, I read and understood the article you linked. I accept the sense of it. Some climate scientists may have got it wrong with their predictions, which is no surprise, really. That's part of science, real science.

What more do you want?

Then I pointed out the basic nonsense of your starting premise from the late thread you started but then killed in a fit of pique, probably after one too many uses of the "M" word by me. Sorry, "M" words, Monckton and Mörner, idols of those riding on the Climate Change speshul bus. They, like you, love to shout about science fakery, but, as your own last post shows, that is probably not a valid premise. No, it's just a way for some of us to give the bees in the bonnet a good airing.

bluecode
5th Feb 2013, 14:29
They've learned their lesson.

They're going to install loads of them in Ireland at a place which is noted for little wind so they will be around 600ft tall.:ugh:

Stop laughing - it is true, and YOU will be paying for it.
So true Vulcanised, and our politicians are even more stupid than yours and seem to think 600 foot turbines are a practical solution to building wind farms in places where there isn't much wind. It would never happen in Britain because people are wising up to wind power. But it seems they think the plain people of Ireland might be more gullible. One of there plans envisages building them on hills near airfields. You can already imagine how that might end. But apart from that they will be an absolute blight on the landscape. That wouldn't matter so much if they were actually efficient.

To clinch it a pilot colleague of mine was chatting to one of the principles involved. The guy flat out admitted that without the government subsidies it wouldn't work. Of course we all know that. Essentially it a big con.

Incidentally the impression was given that it would be sold to the British market. That's true but only the 'surplus' energy not used in Ireland. So don't stop building those nuclear power plants.

It'll never happen the locals will put a stop to it and woe betide any politician that supports it.

green granite
5th Feb 2013, 14:53
GG, I read and understood the article you linked. I accept the sense of it. Some climate scientists may have got it wrong with their predictions, which is no surprise, really. That's part of science, real science.

Which you have been denying ever since you came into this thread, but at last you seem to be realising why we are sceptics, we did not believe the predictions in the IPCC reports and now it seems we were justified. Even people like Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen are back peddling on the level of climate sensitivity to CO2 because they know full well that if they were to continue with their original high estimates they would end up looking idiots.

What we need to do now is to get rid of the activists as well as the scientist who said he would be happy to lie about the climate to help the Greens and take a long calm look at the real science behind the climate with impartial scientists such as Professor Curry etc. and try to establish exactly what is happening.

chuks
6th Feb 2013, 03:28
read the New York Times, now recommended by our Eminence Gris as a reliable source of news about Climate Change!

If only this damascene conversion had taken place a few years earlier, he could have voted for Al Gore.

Welcome aboard, GG!

LowNSlow
6th Feb 2013, 09:47
I love the way that the WWF complains that the EU isn't doing enough with carbon credits WWF - Stronger carbon market would net EU governments over (http://www.wwf.eu/?206627/Stronger-carbon-market-would-net-EU-governments-over-60-billion). Strange how the 60 billion Euro that the EU should spend ties up so neatly with the WWF Amazonian ARPA scam WWF hopes to find $60 billion growing on trees - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-on-trees.html) where they propose to sell carbon credits against existing forest that is, by their own admission, not under any danger of logging.........

Lyman
6th Feb 2013, 17:28
At its most elemental, the Carbon Scam seeks to "Mercantilize" what should be spontaneous and good policy,


With BAD policy...

Sunnyjohn
6th Feb 2013, 20:25
At its most elemental, the Carbon Scam seeks to "Mercantilize" what should be spontaneous and good policy,

Yes, Mr L, but the point is, someone's making money.

G-CPTN
13th Feb 2013, 16:32
BBC climbdown over climate change claims in David Attenborough's Africa | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2276888/BBC-climbdown-climate-change-claims-David-Attenboroughs-Africa.html)

green granite
17th Feb 2013, 20:12
Tut Tut Tut, the "CONSENSUS" apprears to has to have shrunk a bit, to about 36% in fact


Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change.

Lianne M. Lefsrud
University of Alberta, Canada

Renate E. Meyer
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Abstract
This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality
and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

Download the paper (PDF) from here (http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html)

stuckgear
17th Feb 2013, 23:27
Lianne M. Lefsrud
University of Alberta, Canada

Renate E. Meyer
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark



ah but the question for some would be.. do they have an interest in dowsing ?

chuks
18th Feb 2013, 03:31
How many posters here believe in dowsing? Me, not so much.

How about you, Mr. Gear? I always thought of you as someone likely to believe in that, but, of course, I could be wrong.

aviate1138
18th Feb 2013, 05:17
I feel sure that most dowsers will be AGW Warmists. Similar non scientific principles apply

don't they? :rolleyes:

chuks
18th Feb 2013, 12:01
I think your so-called warmist tends to follow main-stream science trends, hence dowsing is off the menu.

Your denialist, on the other hand, goes for every whack-job alternate notion going, just because, so that dowsing should be pure catnip to such a one.

He usually abjures the use of standard grammar, as well. don't they?:rolleyes:

Seriously! Check it out! Crap grammar = denialist post! It's uncanny! It's like pasting a big Meh over each and every post, a "Can't be arsed, Guv," to the waiting world. Too much time is taken up waiting for Al Gore to materialize, perhaps. Well, there must be an explanation, aside from pure ignorance. This is fascinating.

green granite
18th Feb 2013, 12:10
This is fascinating.

Only in your inane world chuks.

G&T ice n slice
18th Feb 2013, 15:40
I think I've read all the posts and I think I have it now:

(1) Droughts and bushfires are caused by manmade global warming
(2) Floods, hurricanes & typhoons are caused by manmade global warming
(3) El Nino events are caused by manmade global warming
(4) La Nina events are caused by manmade global warming
(5) No El Nino event is caused by manmade global warming
(6) No La Nina event is caused by manmade global warming
(7) Glaciers reatreating is caused by manmade global warming
(8) Glaciers expanding is caused by manmade global warming
(9) Sea ice retreating is caused by manmade global warming
(10) Sea ice expanding is caused by manmade global warming
(11) Cold winters are caused by manmade global warming
(12) Mild winters are caused by manmade global warming
(13) Early spring is caused by manmade global warming
(14) Late spring is caused by manmade global warming
(15) Warm summers are caused by manmade global warming
(16) Cool summers are caused by manmade global warming
(17) "Indian sumers" are caused by manmade global warming
(18) No "indian summer" means manmade global warming
(19) Early start to winter is caused by manmade global warming
(20) Late start to winter is caused by manmade global warming
(21) No snow in winter (in UK) is caused by manmade global warming
(22) Snow in winter (in UK) is caused by manmade global warming
(23) Cloud cover is caused by manmade global warming
(24) No cloud cover is caused by manmade global warming

Is that right, have I missed anything?

beaufort1
18th Feb 2013, 15:44
Yes, meteorites are caused by manmade global warming according to a couple of well known American news sites. :suspect:

ORAC
18th Feb 2013, 15:47
Is that right, have I missed anything?

Just a few (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html).........

chuks
18th Feb 2013, 18:56
inane, adj. and n.

1. Empty, void.

1662 J. Glanvill Lux Orient. ix. 93 To have confined his omnipotence to work only in one little spot of an infinite inane capacity.
1850 C. Kingsley Alton Locke II. ix. 126 Dilating into vast inane infinities.
1850 T. Carlyle Latter-day Pamphlets iii. 9 To live..like inane phantasms, and to leave their life as a paltry contribution to the guano mountains.


No, GG, my world is quite thickly settled, not inane at all! At lot of it consists of a virtual reality, a construct populated by such as you and your merry cohort, denialists to a man, out to battle the combined forces of reality and grammar alike, when I enjoy watching your antics. My computer monitor is not unlike an ant farm, some days. Other days, yeah, life in Vermont in winter can seem a bit inane, although it really is not; it just seems that way. Anyway, thanks for thinking of my world and expressing your concerns about it.

Seriously, a post here wouldn't be denialist without at least one grammatical error. Let's call that "the earmark of irrationality," shall we? Blind belief in established science... yeah, that might be problematic, but this other thing, casting about in the dark for some alternate explanations, well, what is that all about anyway? "Being free thinkers!" Uh-huh.

Well, Trofim Lysenko was a free thinker, and look what following him did for his followers. Not that I am trying here to compare Lord Christopher Monckton to Trofim Lysenko! Lysenko was an educated pseudoscientist.

I have sad news for you denialists, by the way: The Economist, in the current issue, Feb 9-13, pp. 76-7, discusses "Global warming" and its impact on the fisheries of the Arctic. You should all look into this, to find out how Al Gore bribed them to take this stance, to write as if the 2º C. rise in Arctic temperature and the consequent decrease in the ice cover is a fact, given that you seem to think that if this is even happening, that is not because of "Global warming." Perhaps some stiff letters to the editor would be in order. A petition? Even an ungrammatically worded one should have some effect, with enough signatures and, I suppose, a few "X"s.

I was pleased to see your leader finally accept the veracity of our "newspaper of record," the New York Times, but perhaps you can restore balance to your tipsy little world now by jettisoning the Economist, on the grounds of heresy. 2-6, and Heave!

green granite
18th Feb 2013, 20:09
Sorry chuks I prefer the definition from the Oxford dictionary.

inane
Pronunciation: /ɪˈneɪn/


Definition of inane
adjective

lacking sense or meaning; silly.

Derivatives

inanely
adverb
inaneness
noun
inanity
Pronunciation: /-ˈanɪti/

noun (plural inanities)

stuckgear
18th Feb 2013, 20:13
there's always sea levels..

Sea Level is Not Rising | Blog Watch (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html)

Sea Level is Not Rising
Written by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
Friday, 07 December 2012 10:31

green granite
18th Feb 2013, 20:28
Interesting paper here (http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM300.pdf) that summarises where we are with AGW


ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the
20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions
of harmful climatic effects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2do not conform to
current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of
rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

chuks
18th Feb 2013, 23:24
GG.

But, but... my definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary!

My goodness! Are there two of them, Oxford English Dictionaries?

Oh, wait a minute... I see what you did there: you skipped past the first definition of the word you used, "inane," to find a definition you liked better. Is there something wrong with the first definition the OED gives? Aside from you disagreeing with it, of course!

Well, "win one, lose two." You have put the New York Times back on your list of acceptable texts, but you will have to dump the OED and the Economist, I suppose, since both of them seem to support me, and,by extension, Al Gore.

Do let us know about that article in the Economist, when you get around to reading it, especially the way they put "Global warming" in the sub-head. I thought that was the best part.

I have a big poster of Al up on the wall. It's uncanny, the way his eyes seem to follow me all around the room....

Cacophonix
18th Feb 2013, 23:32
My gosh, a long lost thread.

The same isotherms. The same utter drivel. Slightly better than the gun club . Je t'adore.

Being Caco I have to post a snow leaden song...

Huskies Sing Led Zeppelin - YouTube

Caco

aviate1138
19th Feb 2013, 05:11
chuks "I have a big poster of Al up on the wall. It's uncanny, the way his eyes seem to follow me all around the room...."

Isn't that possibly one of the first signs of schizophrenia? :rolleyes:

Sunnyjohn
19th Feb 2013, 09:56
Isn't that possibly one of the first signs of schizophrenia?
Is that Chuks, or the poster with schizophrenia?

chuks
19th Feb 2013, 11:37
Schizophrenia... that is when Big Al speaks to me, late at night when everything is still. Just the two of us... he speaks and I listen. You don't think I dream this drivel of mine up all by myself, do you? Blame Big Al, who is everywhere, as proved by the tone of many of the posts posted by my equally imbalanced foes in this verbal joust.

It could be worse, you know! Just look at the people here who follow even bigger loons than Al, loons who either pretend to scientific expertise, or else scientists who clearly have lost it after one too many heavy sessions with the dowsing rods, the aquavit, or both.

green granite
19th Feb 2013, 11:39
Oh, wait a minute... I see what you did there: you skipped past the first definition of the word you used, "inane," to find a definition you liked better. Is there something wrong with the first definition the OED gives? Aside from you disagreeing with it, of course!

chuks, I used the word therefore I am the one who chooses which definition to use, not you.

You have put the New York Times back on your list of acceptable texts, but you will have to dump the OED and the Economist, I suppose, since both of them seem to support me, and,by extension, Al Gore.

No chucks, it was the article that was approved of not the publisher. All articles are looked at for their relevance to science, I will perfectly happily read a pro AGW article providing it at least alludes to the scientific side of the argument, any paper that mentions the phrase 'Climate Denier' in the first 6 lines gets ignored as does any 'Green' rant type of article.

The Economist, in the current issue, Feb 9-13, pp. 76-7, discusses "Global warming" and its impact on the fisheries of the Arctic. You should all look into this, to find out how Al Gore bribed them to take this stance, to write as if the 2º C. rise in Arctic temperature and the consequent decrease in the ice cover is a fact

Did they mention that the warming was anthropogenic? No they did not, so I have no problem with the article.

chuks
19th Feb 2013, 11:47
Perhaps, GG, you need to take a closer look at the dictionary. The first definition of inane is the one to use for the noun "world," what you referred to, as in "[my] inane world." I understand the appeal to you of picking and choosing your own definitions, but, sadly, the OED simply does not allow that approach to our shared language. It's that "factuality" thing you denialists always seem to have so much trouble with.

Do you have a twin? There's been someone very like you who, until recently, bellowed that the New York Times was completely unreliable. Now, it turns out that he finds it perfectly okay, within limits. Were you captured by warmists, tortured and turned around?

As to "Global warming," well, yes, the main-stream scientific model could be wrong. It might be pixies who are causing this. What does Monckton tell us to think about that?

green granite
19th Feb 2013, 12:26
There you go again chuks, picking and choosing which definition of 'world' to quote when I was the the one who used it, so once again we look at the OED and find:

1 (usually the world) the earth, together with all of its countries and peoples: he was doing his bit to save the world it’s a wonderful world

(the world) all of the people and societies on the earth: the whole world hates a Monday

[as modifier] denoting one of the most important people or things of their class: a world superstar

(one's world) one’s life and activities: he felt his whole world had collapsed

Good try though.

As to "Global warming," well, yes, the main-stream scientific model could be wrong. It might be pixies who are causing this. What does Monckton tell us to think about that?

Models are usually taken as being wrong when the outcome they predict turn out to be wrong, it could be the sun causing this. As for what Monckton has to say I really have no idea as I don't listen to him.

chuks
19th Feb 2013, 17:27
GG, dear boy, you have looped right back to definition 1 for inane, the one that modifies "world": "empty." If you had said that I am inane then inane would mean silly, but for "[my] world" inane simply means "empty." Read the OED! Carefully! Closely, even. Like one of those scientific papers you are so fond of linking to... that way.

Is it too much to expect you to choose the correct adjective? Oh, wait... denialist!

Never mind. I will be in the area all day, so please carry on. As you were.

Can't some denialist please tell us that it's pixies, or at least that we cannot prove that it's not? CO2... Pixies... Hmm... That must mean "case not proved," yes? (Thinks: WWMS? Pixies, certainly!)

green granite
19th Feb 2013, 18:48
chuks, sorry, I forgot you speak American not English.

Can't some denialist please tell us that it's pixies

Since there are no 'denialists' here, answer cometh none. You could try John Cook over at 'Skeptical Science', he appears to deny the scientific principle unless it agrees with CAGW so perhaps he could help you out.

Sunnyjohn
19th Feb 2013, 19:02
Green Granite - interesting paper - thanks for the link. It does appear to show pretty conclusively that the greatly increased use of coal, oil and gas since the 1940's has had no effect on the historical increase in the rise in global temperature. A bit worried about the conclusions, though, apparently advocating that we should continue to use this stuff for the benefit of all, including the currently less wealthy nations. Since many of these are astride the equator it seems to me that it would make more sense for them to use their abundant natural resource of the sun. I just have this sneaky feeling that the paper might be toting for the for the coal, oil and gas companies. Or maybe that's me being cynical!

Lonewolf_50
19th Feb 2013, 19:21
This thread needs to be renamed Climate Hamsterwheel.

Its sole virtue is that it recycles the same noise that went on in the former thread.

Wait, did I say virtue? :=

green granite
19th Feb 2013, 20:10
The trouble is Sunnyjohn that with current technology the only real alternative to coal, gas and oil, is nuclear. Wind and solar never will be a sensible power source, tidal power could be a good alternative but will upset too many birds, so the greens are against it, hydro is a non-starter, that leaves us little choice but coal or gas.

Lonewolf_50
19th Feb 2013, 20:31
hydro electric works in selected areas for a finite customer base. See Hoover Dam.

Tidal: I wish that could move forward, but we too have greenie objections.

Geothermal ... can it be done cost effectivelY?

Probably in selected areas ...

green granite
20th Feb 2013, 20:56
Here is a programme first shown on Channel 4 here in the UK a few years back.


The great global warming swindle - Full version - YouTube

Rail Engineer
20th Feb 2013, 22:23
Have recently been to Florida (unseasonally cool for the time of year), Detroit (more cold and snowy than normally I was told), the UK where we have had some very unseasonal winter snow, and currently in the Canary Islands where - you've guessed it - its unseasonally cool for the time of year.

Did someone mention global warming ??????

green granite
21st Feb 2013, 07:46
If this works as advertised then coal could be king again:

New Coal Technology Harnesses Energy Without Burning, Nears Pilot-Scale Development

COLUMBUS, Ohio—A new form of clean coal technology reached an important milestone recently, with the successful operation of a research-scale combustion system at Ohio State University. The technology is now ready for testing at a larger scale.

For 203 continuous hours, the Ohio State combustion unit produced heat from coal while capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the reaction.

Rest of article (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/looping203.htm)

beaufort1
21st Feb 2013, 10:48
Interesting article gg, has the UK just mothballed it's coal industry or are the mines now all flooded?

green granite
21st Feb 2013, 11:08
UK coal and the industry generally is in a poor state, I would imagine that the 'uneconomical' ones were left to flood and their infrastructure to rot while the better ones may well be on a care and maintenance basis and there are deep mines still producing.

We are of course hoping that the new technology can be scaled up to 100 MW levels easily though.

G&T ice n slice
22nd Feb 2013, 16:12
The coal thing has me puzzled as to exactly how in principle it is any different from just burning coal...

step 1 = coal+iron oxide goes to iron plus CO2
step 2 = take the iron and let it oxidise by the air = iron + oxygen (atmospheric)
step 3 = go back to step 1
loop indefinitely

I don;t actually see how this helps in any way shape or form because the basic proces is still coal + oxygen (atmospheric)

and you're still left with CO2

which you then have to sequester - a point they seem to pass by as if that was the easy bit

quite baffling

G&T ice n slice
22nd Feb 2013, 16:18
Anyway, I've worked out how this "anthropomorphic global warming" happens

you burn stuff to keep warm

the residual burnoff gasses are hot

hot gasses rise

when they get to the top they cause the whole cooler air mass to move down
because there's only so much room at the top

then because the displaced cooler air comes down you get colder

so you have to burn more stuff to keep warm

so there's even MORE hot gas going up displacing even MORE cold air downwards and you get even colder and so have to burn etc etc

SO... global warming is actually global cooling and thus it will get colder and colder

SO THE HUGGY_FLUFFIES ARE RIGHT

the sky's falling !! the sky's falling !!

Sunnyjohn
22nd Feb 2013, 20:16
The coal thing has me puzzled as to exactly how in principle it is any different from just burning coal...
If you actually read right through the paper, which I assume from your response you haven't, it will be perfectly clear,

green granite
22nd Feb 2013, 20:56
I'm rather concerned about this, what is he ploting?
The Australian reports:

Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.

“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.

“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.

“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgement by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”

Source: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134)

G&T ice n slice
22nd Feb 2013, 21:33
Sunnyjohn
Quote: The coal thing has me puzzled as to exactly how in principle it is any different from just burning coal...

If you actually read right through the paper, which I assume from your response you haven't, it will be perfectly clear,

WELL IT ISN'T TO ME

The coal and iron oxide are heated to high temperatures, where the materials react with each other. Carbon from the coal binds with the oxygen from the iron oxide and creates carbon dioxide, which rises into a chamber where it is captured.

The carbon dioxide is separated and can be recycled or sequestered for storage. The iron beads are exposed to air inside the reactor, so that they become re-oxidized be used again. The beads can be re-used almost indefinitely, or recycled.

, while still capturing more than 90 percent of the resulting carbon dioxide.


So AM I WRONG

STEP 1 = IRON OXIDE PLUS COAL => CO2 PLUS IRON

STEP 2 = IRON PLUS ATMOSPHERIC OXYGEN => IRON OXIDE

GO TO STEP 1

LOOP INDEFINITELY

NOW EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM BURNING COAL IN A FURNACE????

oh bugge CAPS LOCK IS on

jcbmack
25th Feb 2013, 23:41
Windmills lose power due to increased drag--wind shadows.

Home (http://seas.harvard.edu/)

green granite
26th Feb 2013, 07:47
Good paper that, jcbmack there is also an article about wind farms here (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/most-uk-windfarms-release-more-co2-than-they-save/#more-11332)

Meanwhile, where these people are educated I know not but it was wasted.

Campaigners against fuel poverty trying to prevent the one thing that might bring energy prices down - concentrating on gas.

"Renewable energy would be cheaper but they're refusing to make that transition because their profits depend on gas."...

Elizabeth Ziga, from Fuel Poverty Action, said: "While we freeze in our homes and millions of us choose between heating and eating, the Government is snugly in bed with the big six energy companies.

"Hand in hand, they're plotting to increase our dependence on dirty and expensive gas power, which will mean even higher fuel bills as well as rising food prices due to climate change"


They don't seem able to work out that if renewables genuinely were cheaper they would not require a subsidies, feed-in-tariffs and renewables obligations.

Sunnyjohn
26th Feb 2013, 18:57
NOW EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM BURNING COAL IN A FURNACE????

From the paper:
“In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat,” Fan said. “Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning. We carefully control the chemical reaction so that the coal never burns—it is consumed chemically, and the carbon dioxide is entirely contained inside the reactor.”

The point is that in a conventional coal-fired power station, the coal is actually burnt, whereas in the above situation, no burning takes place. Burning produces carbon dioxide, but this chemical method does not.

G&T ice n slice
26th Feb 2013, 19:50
Burning produces carbon dioxide, but this chemical method does not.

please run that one past me again..... r e a l l y s l o w l y

2(Fe2O3) + 3C = 2Fe + 3CO2

2Fe + 3O2 = 2(Fe2O3)

Loop

The end result of the indirect process is CO2

I can see NO difference in the end result. There is still CO2 generated

So it is "captured" in the process and "contained inside the reactor"

where it can be "seqestered"

yeah - right - gloss over the single biggest problem by ignoring it.....

As for releasing the heat without "burning" .... this is a matter of semantics
so "burning" coal is not a chemical reaction??

Oh, I get it... It's 1st April already?

Dushan
27th Feb 2013, 22:55
So we had fairly nasty snowstorm, overnight, consisting of very wet and heavy snow. It wasn't very cold, just around freezing. Some intersections became hazardous because the traffic lights are LED and they produce no heat. The old, pre "oh my God the planet is warming up, let's do something; anything" lightbulbs inside the traffic lights would melt the snow and all would be good. Now, not so much. I wonder what is the carbon footprint of the cars smashed in the process because the lights are not working properly? Less than a few hundred watts of energy needed to use old lights?

green granite
28th Feb 2013, 08:14
But Dushan, the policy of the greens is to get rid of cars,............................. so it's working. :mad:

Denti
28th Feb 2013, 11:12
Usually LED in traffic lights are not mainly chosen for energy consumption, that is just a sideeffect. The main reason is that they dont have to be exchanged every couple months and therefore the maintenance cost will go down dramatically. That could be somewhat offset by the maintenance cost when cars start to crash into the lightpoles though ;)

chuks
28th Feb 2013, 16:40
Did some of you guys study chemistry with Monckton? I have to ask because there is something missing in that iron plus oxygen thing you have been fumbling with.

There are exothermic reactions and there are endothermic reactions. You can combine iron and oxygen in an exothermic reaction. Try dropping some steel wool into a beaker full of oxygen to see what happens: it burns.

So you end up with ferrous oxide, "rust," and a lot of heat. It is possible to get back to where you started, but you will have to use energy to split up the ferrous oxide, something you seem to have overlooked. You can put rust in the presence of carbon until the cows come home, when nothing will happen until you add some heat.

"Loop," what is that? Monckton-speak for "Abracadabra"? Scumbling rust and coal together yields fire? Good luck with that one!

Think of how you can go back and forth between liquid water and ice, when it's energy that makes the difference. It's not as though you can extract the heat from the water, turn it into ice, and then expect the ice to just turn back into water without needing energy for that. Writing "Loop" will not cause that to happen.

stuckgear
28th Feb 2013, 17:13
They don't seem able to work out that if renewables genuinely were cheaper they would not require a subsidies, feed-in-tariffs and renewables obligations.


it's called denial. and the irony is, warmistas call sceptics 'denialists'..

now when warmistas start harping on about denialists, perhaps they should be taken on their word, thus meaning they'll have to stop listening to themselves..

flying lid
28th Feb 2013, 17:28
Little Johnie is no more - for what he thought was H2O, was H2SO4 !!

Apparently nobody gives a damm about Global Warming anymore -

Most people no longer consider global warming a serious issue as financial crisis changes priorities | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2285812/Most-people-longer-consider-global-warming-issue-financial-crisis-changes-priorities.html)

Lid

stuckgear
28th Feb 2013, 19:08
lid..

wonder why ?

So much for global warming! 4 of the last 5 winters have been COLDER than average, reveals Met Office | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2286041/So-global-warming-4-5-winters-COLDER-average-reveals-Met-Office.html)


Met Office figures indicating the average temperature over the winter months was just 3.3C (38f).
With the exception of 2011/12, which was milder than the 30-year seasonal average of 3.7C (39f), every year since 2008 has been colder.

chuks
28th Feb 2013, 20:12
So we go back to worrying about Climate Change, instead of Global Warming? Are you guys with me on that one, or is it just "What, me worry?"

green granite
28th Feb 2013, 20:40
Indeed chuks, "climate change" could well be a problem, during the recent slight warming and rise in CO2 levels food production has increased and is just about managing to keep up with feeding the increasing population. With the sun entering a quiet period there is the possibility that we could slide into a mini ice-age which would seriously reduce food production leading to starvation for a large number of the world's population which in turn would lead to unrest and wars.

G&T ice n slice
28th Feb 2013, 20:44
Writing "Loop" will not cause that to happen.

Nah - go back & read the article that's puzzling me as to exactly it is supposed to reduce CO2

The Basic flow is
(1) Iron Oxide + Coal [plus a lot of heat] => Iron + CO2 PLUS extra heat
This is a sustainable exothermic reaction once you have input a lot of inityial heat to get the whole shebang above optimal operating temp.

in fact it iss EXACTLY what goes on in a blast furnace...

(2)then you take back the iron and oxidise it with atmosperic oxygen

then you mix the iron back up with some more coal and go back to stage 1 again.

and it's being touted as a way to reduce CO2 output because "it isn't burning coal"

Que ???

chuks
1st Mar 2013, 01:35
You are taking the energy out of the carbon by combining it with oxygen to produce CO2 and heat, what we call "combustion" or "burning."

The thing going overlooked is the direction of the energy flow, in or out. You can make carbon and oxygen from CO2 if you want to, but that will take a lot of energy, since that would be an endothermic reaction, so what is the point of doing that?

I guess the big deal here is the use of atmospheric oxygen to combine with iron? I should read the paper to find out what is going on? ¿Que?

Brian Abraham
1st Mar 2013, 04:58
I'm going to track down this guy and get his advice. Seems to have the answers.http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/y_zps633f73f0.jpg

G&T ice n slice
1st Mar 2013, 06:35
I should read the paper to find out what is going on?

yeah, somewhere back 1 page or so there's a link

maybe you will understand how this clever system reduces CO2 because darned if I could..

green granite
1st Mar 2013, 07:25
Great to see science on here again you two, it doesn't say no CO2, it says the CO2 is easier to capture:

The coal and iron oxide are heated to high temperatures, where the materials react with each other. Carbon from the coal binds with the oxygen from the iron oxide and creates carbon dioxide, which rises into a chamber where it is captured. Hot iron and coal ash are left behind. Because the iron beads are so much bigger than the coal ash, they are easily separated out of the ash, and delivered to a chamber where the heat energy would normally be harnessed for electricity. The coal ash is removed from the system.

The carbon dioxide is separated and can be recycled or sequestered for storage. The iron beads are exposed to air inside the reactor, so that they become re-oxidized be used again. The beads can be re-used almost indefinitely, or recycled.

Sunnyjohn
1st Mar 2013, 11:41
I confess that my chemical science is poor but I was just quoting the paper:
so that the coal never burns—it is consumed chemically, and the carbon dioxide is entirely contained inside the reactor
It does say unequivocally that the coal never burns. And that the carbon dioxide is captured. As I understand it, and in science I am a human with little brain (misquoting Pooh Bear), a normal coal-fired power station burns coal and as a result a number of gases are vented to the atmosphere after passing through a chemical scrubbing process, including carbon dioxide. Is this correct?

Sunnyjohn
1st Mar 2013, 11:46
Apparently nobody gives a damm about Global Warming anymore
Which should be rewritten as "Nobody who reads the Daily Fail gives a damn about global warming (assuming that they ever did). The average readership of the Daily Fail is just under 2 million. The population of the UK is just over 63 million. Should we be worried . . . ?

hellsbrink
1st Mar 2013, 17:11
And since you obviously did not even look at the article, for the survey was carried out over 22 countries by Globescan and reported in the Independent, with the Mail repeating the key points of the Independent article (link was provided in the article), can you tell us what your point is as surely you would be saying that

Nobody who reads the Independent gives a damn about global warming (assuming that they ever did). The average readership of the Independent is just under 80 thousand. The population of the UK is just over 63 million. Should we be worried . . . ?

if you had actually paid any sort of attention instead of merely spouting off at the Mail without figuring out what was in the article...........

stuckgear
1st Mar 2013, 20:52
repost with bold for emphasis:


Met Office figures indicating the average temperature over the winter months was just 3.3C (38f).
With the exception of 2011/12, which was milder than the 30-year seasonal average of 3.7C (39f), every year since 2008 has been colder.

G&T ice n slice
1st Mar 2013, 22:08
It does say unequivocally that the coal never burns. And that the carbon dioxide is captured. As I understand it, and in science I am a human with little brain (misquoting Pooh Bear), a normal coal-fired power station burns coal and as a result a number of gases are vented to the atmosphere after passing through a chemical scrubbing process, including carbon dioxide. Is this correct?

"Burns" is the layman's term for a chemical reaction that gives out heat. The way that this system seems to work is that they have finely ground coal and slightly less finely ground iron oxide. Put the two together and absolutely nothing will happen, no matter how finely intermixed the two are.

However when you heat the mix up at a certain point there is enough heat (energy) being input that the oxygen attached to the iron shows it's true fickle side and leaves the iron and attaches itself to the carbon. Basically you have to add enough starting heat to break the iron=oxygen bonds and you then have 'free' oxygen which has a more urgent propensity to reattach itself to carbon than iron. (actually it all happens in 1 go)

Once you have got this going it will sustain itself because the change from "iron oxide and coal" to "iron and coal oxide" is a big energy drop - that is energy as heat is given off - and this in turn does 2 things - it keeps the process of turning "iron oxide and coal" to "iron and coal oxide" and actually gives of more heat than is needed to sustain the reaction and this is the heat you extract to turn water into steam into electrickery.

In fact "iron oxide and coal" to "iron and coal oxide" is exactly what happens in a blast furnace. ((except you use coke and add various other stuff like limestone))

Then when you've finished you have the following "waste" products
(1) Iron
(2) Coal Oxide - CO2
(3) unburnable (whoops, sorry, chemically unconvertible) waste - known as ASH

Strangely enough if you just take lumps of coal and heat them up enough they will eventually start up a chemical reaction with oxygen in the air around us and you end up with
(2) Coal Oxide - CO2
(3) unburnable waste - known as ASH

soooooooooo.... ummmm......... you get exactly the same effect with a LOT less trouble by simply chemically converting ("burning") coal in air because you end up with a lot less waste - I mean who needs pure Iron..??

Oh, I suppose the really clever bit is then taking the "waste" (1) "Iron" from the very clever process and then USING AIR TO OXIDISE IT BACK TO IRON OXIDE !!!! wow !!! brilliant - why didn't I think of this ??

So now you see the conundrum I face

(1) simply stupid me :
takes coal - adds Air (Primarily Nitrogen & Oxygen) adds a bit of starting heat and burns coal to produce heat and I'm a very evil person
(2) Really Clever Green People
(i) takes iron and has a complicated process to turn iron into iron oxide (known to some people as rust) in vast quantities using air, then grinds this accurately quite finely
(ii) takes lump coal and grinds it down really really finely
(iii) mixes finely ground coal and finely ground rust in precise relationship
(iv) adds a huge quantity of heat to get a chemical transformation from rust + coal into iron + CO2
(v) takes huge quantities of iron and .... oh hang on - start again at step (i)

BUT THE clever Green people are not evil because they're "capturing" the CO2 and they can "sequester" it.

HOW, HOW, HOW, - anyone got an "ACME instant carbon dioxide sequestering system" (pat pend, TM )

and bye-the-bye all the very nasty stuff that is given off when you "evilly kill the planet by burning coal" will STILL be given off when you "Greenie Hug-the-Whales-Save-the-planet" create heat by "chemically combining" coal.

You still need the scrubbers (don;t we all !)

and having a nice big hosepipe attached to the 'evil burning coal in air' chimney (after the scrubbers) can still "capture and sequester" the CO2

p.s. The ACME CO2 sequestering system is available from all good hardware stores $9.99

G&T ice n slice
1st Mar 2013, 22:12
oooooooooooo...

Naughty me - "Rust" isn't really iron oxide it's waaaaay more complicated than that but let's not go there...

Jeez that's 40 years since I did chemistry at skool, I'm amased I remember that much.

I probably got something rong

fltlt
4th Mar 2013, 17:49
A rather good presentation against the directions being taken in alt energy:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/digital/pdf/spring_13/Kiefer_Long_Version.pdf

fltlt
4th Mar 2013, 17:55
And the pushback from DOE:

http://energy.defense.gov/DOE_Comments-Biofuels_SSQ_Article_FB07.pdf

green granite
7th Mar 2013, 11:41
Oh dear, Nature isn't listening to how the climate models are telling her to behave.

Water Vapour Decline Cools the Earth: NASA Satellite Data

An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.
The world has spent over $ 1 trillion on climate change mitigation based on climate models that don’t work. They are notoriously poor at simulating the 20th century warming because they do not include natural causes of climate change – mainly due to the changing sun - and they grossly exaggerate the feedback effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
Most scientists agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which takes about 150 years, would theoretical warm the earth by one degree Celsius if there were no change in evaporation, the amount or distribution of water vapour and clouds. Climate models
amplify the initial CO2 effect by a factor of three by assuming positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds, for which there is little direct evidence. Most of the amplification by the climate models is due to an increase in upper atmosphere water vapour.

Rest of article: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/NVAP_March2013.pdf

vulcanised
10th Mar 2013, 17:46
Look at the graph to see the evidence of global warming - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html)

green granite
10th Mar 2013, 18:15
Frightening ain't it. :)

Lyman
10th Mar 2013, 21:23
Hi green granite

150 years to double CO2?

At 1ppm per year, it would take 400 years to double. Or is there a "baseline" say of 200ppm?

Currently it is roughly 400ppm........

It is ok to say a lack of water vapour is cooling the Earh, but it is more precise to say that diminished energy from the Sun is preventing some of its production?

chee Oz.....

:ok:

green granite
10th Mar 2013, 21:38
There is a base line which, as I understand it is the level before the Industrial revolution, around 300ppm.


A new paper on the effect of solar variability on Earth's climate here, (http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/morner-2013a.pdf) well worth a read.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Slightly puzzled though, there's no mention of dowsing anywhere in it. :E

green granite
11th Mar 2013, 15:05
MikeEcho, try page 2 of this document.

SECRET 28 'scientific experts' who Greened the BBC - Revealed! ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/)

ORAC
11th Mar 2013, 18:59
Green agenda in meltdown (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2867/green_agenda_in_meltdown)

alisoncc
12th Mar 2013, 08:48
In the UK today:-

There were long tailbacks as ice and snow made roads across much of the South East impassable, with 4 inches falling in some areas and more predicted throughout the day.

Temperatures in the area plunged to as low as -3C, and many motorists abandoned their vehicles for service stations.

And there is no let up in the wintry conditions as snow showers and freezing temperatures will continue to blight the country throughout the day and into tomorrow, Met Office forecasters said.

By tonight many of the showers will have turned to sleet, but as the mercury drops below zero again widespread ice will bring yet more misery for commuters.
In Melbourne, Oz today:-

The record for the longest stretch of hot weather in Melbourne has been broken.

The temperature has been above 30 degrees Celsius for nine days in a row.

The weather bureau's James Taylor says it breaks the previous record set in February 1961.

"I suppose one of the significant things about this heat spell is we've had six days greater than 35C," he said.Irrespective of which side you sit in the debate, what's happening is not good.

Lyman
12th Mar 2013, 09:03
Ever since the discussion "settled" on "change" rather than "warming", it does not matter, HOT or COLD.....

He who owns the language owns the people.....

As Doug L. Hoffman points out, “The botched solar forecast not only has implication for our understanding of the physical processes inside the Sun, it has possible links to future climate change here on earth”. And a cooler planet is way more of a threat to us all than a slightly warmer one.

My pitch for ten years... based on science learned fourty years ago...

Warm is good, Cold is bad... a personal opinion, and as far as I am concerned, "settled science"...

People have died, and will continue to do so, due to the cynical greed of Algore and his cronies in India, and Uk, wherever...

When the politics flip, and they will, the politicians will run for cover, to be replaced with new ones, doing the bidding of the same money that profits in good or bad "times".

Sun, Water, and Dirt. be very sceptical of anyone trying to sell anxiety about these three.

Oh, and AIR....

bear

Flying Binghi
12th Mar 2013, 09:15
via alisoncc;
...The record for the longest stretch of hot weather in Melbourne has been broken... ...one of the significant things about this heat spell is we've had six days greater than 35C...


I'll call CRAP on that record.

Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) is a hint for accessing just how 'real' that so-called record is..:hmm:

...and we were told by the global warming 'experts' that children would never again know what snow looked like in the UK..:rolleyes:




.

green granite
12th Mar 2013, 09:19
Irrespective of which side you sit in the debate, what's happening is not good.

That is if you believe BOM alisoncc, a lot of people don't.

From: Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/mystery-black-box-method-used-to-make-all-new-australian-hottest-ever-records/)

Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records

This summer the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) invented a whole new metric to measure average national heat, which might be all very well except no-one (other than the BOM) seems to know what it is.

On January 7th the BOM claimed Australia set a new “average maximum daily temperature record”. Now the headlines are about the “hottest” Australian summer.

With both records, no one outside the BOM team has access to the methods or data. This post is about the new “daily” temperature of Australia used to declare Jan 7th was a record, but the same point applies to the “hottest summer” records, even though they may be a different data set. Where is the data? Where are the methods?

Lyman
12th Mar 2013, 09:25
Where is the data? Where are the methods?

Somewhere inside the "Bowels Of Meteorology"?

LowNSlow
12th Mar 2013, 15:01
MikeEcho /GG I know one of the industry representatives on that list and if he was any greener he'd be a cucumber.

green granite
12th Mar 2013, 15:58
Indeed LowNSlow, it was, we were told by the chairman of the BBC Trust, a balanced meeting of scientists from all sides of the 'global warming debate'. We were lied to.

alisoncc
13th Mar 2013, 01:46
That is if you believe BOM alisoncc, a lot of people don't. So what do you think they did? Replaced all the mercury in their thermometers with inferior quality mercury so the measurements are higher. Get real.

I have my own OAT gauge and let me assure you we have had more than ten days of above 30 degC temperatures where I live. And that's well south of Melbourne, where it's supposedly cooler.

You do your argument considerable disservice by seeking to argue that everyones personal experience is wrong.

Flying Binghi
13th Mar 2013, 02:37
via alisoncc;
...I have my own OAT gauge and let me assure you we have had more than ten days of above 30 degC temperatures where I live...

Hmmm... do tell us about this OAT gauge alisoncc. In your car is it ?





.

hellsbrink
13th Mar 2013, 05:21
GG posted something which gave a good reason not to trust BOM, alison, and, as an aside, where is your OAT situated, what kind is it and when was it last calibrated for accuracy?

alisoncc
13th Mar 2013, 08:29
My OAT is part of a calibrated weather station that transmits data to an in-house unit. It would have to be way out of cal for me not to be able to state definitely that the temp had exceeded 30 degC when I am getting readings in the order of 34-36 degC.

My original posting made no mention of "heat islands", climate modelling or anything similar. Just observations by people down here, corroborated by myself, and what is currently occurring in the UK and Europe. Tas all. But it's probably all a conspiracy by those seeking to gain a financial advantage.

green granite
13th Mar 2013, 09:01
I have my own OAT gauge and let me assure you we have had more than ten days of above 30 degC temperatures where I live. And that's well south of Melbourne, where it's supposedly cooler.

alisoncc, without the data and knowledge of the statistical methods used, it's not possible to check their work for accuracy. For example, how many of the sites used are class 1 or 2(accurate) and how many 3 to 5(badly sited and in-accurate)? What were the corrections used for the class 5 sites, did they truly reflect the UHI effect? How about the balance of cooler coastal sites to the hot interior sites?

BOM like the UK's Met Office is a quango who funding is government controlled so the "The Sky Is Falling" style of voodoo science is very good for funding, and increasing their power.

edited to add: Our posts crossed alisoncc, the other thing I forgot to mention is the "This is unprecedented" shout but when the records are checked it 's found that it was just as hot in the 1930's etc. This prompts a new working out of the figures which magically reduces the earlier temperatures, NASA have done this twice so far, they say it is to reflect modern statistical methods.

Flying Binghi
13th Mar 2013, 10:43
via alisoncc;
...My OAT is part of a calibrated weather station that transmits data to an in-house unit...

Hmmm... so the wx station is on the roof of your house ?





.

Ixixly
13th Mar 2013, 11:11
Alisoncc, does your "Calibrated unit" take into account the effect of whatever surface its located above, ie Is it located a reasonable distance into the air to negate the effects of heat being radiated from the surface beneath? Is it shielded in such a way that the wind will not effect its results?

The point that has been made so far about the BOM results is that as long as they don't disclose how they have come to their Data and therefore their Conclusions, are we just meant to accept it? Why would they not disclose their scientific methods as a way of showing they know what they're doing.

And yes, you didn't specifically mention about UHI, but you mentioned that according to what they put in there that things are "not good", what we're saying is that no proof is provided that the quoted figures are not taking into account effects such as UHI that skew the results and therefore cannot be entirely relied upon.

The argument then becomes that information provided by accurately calibrated stations that are then properly adjusted COULD show that its not really that much hotter than it has always been. Data from Satellites and admissions from many organisations show that the land based figures that are being used so widely to support such notions as yours of things being "Not good" are infact erroneous and need to be fixed.

It could also be that as a Pilot I have a healthy distrust for the Bureau of Guessology and the various crystal ball gazers that it houses... Oh how many times has a Pilot arrived at a destination and proclaimed the words "1000ft cloud base my a**!!!" or "10kts crosswind?! Fastest 10kts I've ever bloody seen!!"

green granite
13th Mar 2013, 12:22
There is an interesting array of papers on the so called Greenhouse effect

http://claesjohnson.b logspot.com.au/search/label/greenhouse%20effect

copy and paste the URL then remove the space in blog-spot

green granite
13th Mar 2013, 16:00
Mr/Ms FOIA has released the password to the rest of the climategate E-Mails, but only to selected people.

ORAC
13th Mar 2013, 21:18
Climategate 3.0? (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2923/climategate_3_0)

The anonymous leaker responsible for 'Climategate' and 'Climategate 2.0' has released an email which many believe will spark 'Climategate 3.0'

alisoncc
15th Mar 2013, 03:17
The Met Bureau "may" have got it wrong, BUT the bloody whales know summat's up. Don't think they are using a different "model".

Early whale arrivals stump Vic scientists Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/early-whale-arrivals-stump-vic-scientists/story-fn3dxiwe-1226598104711)

hellsbrink
15th Mar 2013, 05:26
Now that's scraping the bottom of the barrel, alison.

Let me give you a few hints as to why.

The whales don't usually appear off the Victorian coast until April or May This means that it is known for them to migrate BEFORE or AFTER these months, they hardly follow a strict timetable

But two early sightings - one of a young calf off the Gippsland coast last month and another of three whales near Marengo this week 5 whales do not a mass migration make, and just because they have not been seen so often earlier does not mean they are not there so often in March. Unless you are saying that the entire ocean can be monitored for whale movements

"It could be a response to climatic conditions or a result of population recovery, or both." Or they could be lost, they could have been following a plentiful supply of food, they could be taking an earlier vacation to get some quiet time before those humpbacks of German ancestry put towels on the beach chairs, etc. In other words, Mandy Watson doesn't have a clue and is talking out of her backside to try and look clever. Sure don't mean she, or *scientists* feeding her the info, are right


That'll do for starters

alisoncc
15th Mar 2013, 10:35
The Met Bureau "may" have got it wrong, BUT the bloody whales know summat's up. Don't think they are using a different "model".It was just a throw-away line. Don't take it so seriously love. It's you conspiracy people who worry me the most. I won't be around when it all happens so "what me worry". :D

B Fraser
15th Mar 2013, 10:51
The weather bureau's James Taylor says it breaks the previous record set in February 1961.

Mmmmmh, all that means is that until now, it has not been as hot as 1961. Given that we have had 25 years of the Global Warming religion where it has not been as hot as 1961, there doesn't seem to be much to worry about.

green granite
15th Mar 2013, 10:58
What conspiracy is that alisoncc? There is a group of people who think that a scientific hypothesis can be proven using models, without empirical data (warmistas), and then there is a group that doesn't (sceptics).
Nothing conspiratorial about it.

hellsbrink
15th Mar 2013, 15:39
It was just a throw-away line. Don't take it so seriously love. It's you conspiracy people who worry me the most. I won't be around when it all happens so "what me worry"

So, since your OAT story has been queried, your link to wot the whales are doing (which just happens to mention climate change) was challenged which led you to say that it was irrelevant (if your line was a "throw away" one, then what was the point of posting it and the link? You say that it's meaningless), that means I must be one of those "conspiracy theory" people who wears a tinfoil helmet smeared with peanut butter since I actually question the religion of AGW, whilst the only actual conspiracy is one with the "true believers" who:

1) Believe anything and everything they are told about climate change
2) Rubbish anything that states something to the contrary of the "belief"
3) Ignores every piece of evidence against climate change whilst swallowing anything that cannot be independently verified provided it comes from those who "believe"
4) Think that because it is warmer for a few weeks in summer that the completely discredited nonsense that has been the basis of AGW theory MUST be right.

Well, tell you what, if AGW does exist, explain why Belgium has just had some of the coldest temperatures for this time of year in recorded history. Trust me, even I think it's bloody cold here and I'm one of those people who have no qualms about walking around in shorts when it's -4°C. I mean, who woulda thunk it, you have warm weather in summer and we have cold weather in winter. Shocking, isn't it.

So if the weather is that cold here, it cancels out your warm weather and the planetary equilibrium is kept in balance. All is good, no need for your irrelevant links to whales wanting to get the sunbeds or whatever your pollie was gibbering on about.

Brian Abraham
15th Mar 2013, 16:54
Given that we have had 25 years of the Global Warming religion where it has not been as hot as 1961, there doesn't seem to be much to worry about.Just looked up the Year Book put out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for when various places have recorded their maximum temperatures.

Wilcannia 11-1-1939
Swan Hill 18-1-1908
Cloncurry 16-1-1889
Oodnadatta 2-1-1960
Mardie 20-2-1998
Bushy Park 26-12-1945
Hobart 4-1-1976
Finke 1&2-1-1960
Canberra 19-1-1939
Whyalla (I was there) 2-1-60

Seems Cloncurry has a bit of catching up to do, the outback obviously hasn't got the global warming message. Interesting that all the hot air generated in Canberra doesn't seem to have much effect either.

hellsbrink
16th Mar 2013, 06:00
Hey, alison, I'm sitting here watching the live broadcast of the F1 qualifying from Melbourne.

Gonna sit there telling us that something is up because it's hot, over 30°C? Or going to admit you had a short period of hot weather in summer (shock horror) before that changed to 18°C and RAIN?

Nemrytter
16th Mar 2013, 08:37
^---An example of how science is NOT done.

hellsbrink
16th Mar 2013, 08:54
More like an example of how there was absolutely no science behind Alison telling us all how the BOM MUST be right, despite them not disclosing their latest method for deciding things are actually getting "warmer", by telling us all that AGW MUST be true as she had a whole 10 days in summer when the temperature was allegedly above 30°C according to her OAT, and we are still waiting for more info about it's location, it's last date of calibration, etc. And we won't go into the tale of the whales, for that was just nonsense.

So if such "method" is good enough to defend the potentially skewed methodology from the BOM to tell us all we are all doomed, such "method" is perfectly acceptable to destroy such a defence.


Unless you are going to tell us that there is no such thing as "weather", and that it is not something that changes regularly, and that AGW and/or Climate Change is a fact because someone got 10 days of warm weather in summer......


Over to you, please give us more of your musings. Preferably with some "science" behind it to show all of us how wrong we are for using something that was broadcast around the world to show how the anecdotal claims of someone had no sound basis in regard to Climate Change/AGW.

chuks
16th Mar 2013, 12:53
I guess Alison learned not to stick her head above the parapet, didn't she?

Perhaps the "conspiracy" she referred to was the imaginary one that the "warmistas" are all together in, as vividly imagined by the denialists.

I haven't bothered to count up the pages, but it's pretty clear that so-called "global warming" is nothing surprising to find in the mainstream press now. Of course, there I refer to the Economist and the New York Times, two publications I skim when time allows for that. WUWT... not on my reading list, usually. Logic suggests that this "conspiracy" so many of you see evidence of would be something the Economist or the Times would love to uncover, unless, unless... My God! They are in on it too!

There has been no flooding in Marlboro lately. On the other hand, pods of migrating whales have recently been spotted in South Pond, so that something strange definitely is happening to the climate. (Now, run along to find some source that tells you Goodwife Hamilton saw whales in South Pond in 1779 after she ate some very strange mushrooms she found behind a maple tree.)

Ixixly
16th Mar 2013, 13:17
Chuks, the standard of Journalism these days as evidenced on a day to day basis on subjects I have knowledge on is abysmal, especially in the more mainstream publications.

I'd be far more likely to believe some of the larger blogs out there who actually reference their sources and aren't having an editor or owners interests holding them back.

Take the BBC recently since we're all discussing Climate Change. As previously mentioned an organisation required by their government to be beyond reproach, to remain impartial only to be found on the subject of Climate Change to be unfairly biased and prepared to completely ignore the other side of the coin. This is what mainstream media is like these days, barely filled with any real journalists looking to get their name in the headlines by finding and researching explosive stories that make people really question and think. They'd all much rather stay safe and keep pulling their pay packets, can't really blame them I suppose.

green granite
16th Mar 2013, 13:20
Who rattled your chain chuks?

Incidentally I see the NYT now considers Fracking to be ok.

Ixixly
16th Mar 2013, 13:41
Australian temperature records shoddy, inaccurate, unreliable. Surprise! « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/)

Great link there explaining in detail the issues with BOM data over a considerable period.

chuks
16th Mar 2013, 14:20
Believe what you like. I prefer the mainstream press, when some here prefer, yes, Lord Christopher Monckton! It takes all sorts to make up a world.

Check back over the years here and you may see a grudging retreat from the fringes of lunacy on the part of the founder of the original "debate" and his core of true believers. Or not, as the case may be. Lunacy, too, changes with the climate. Whatever happened to the pundit with superior science who wanted us to believe that the Arctic is cooling? Hence the way the Northwest Passage is now navigable, uh-huh....

Fracking is an easy sell, given that it has lowered gas prices. If some hick from the back of beyond finds his kitchen tap flowing methane, what of that? Let him drink Perrier! Keep your eyes peeled and you may see an anti-fracking article or too in the Times. In fact, I seem to remember one written by Bill McKibben, not long ago.

green granite
16th Mar 2013, 15:17
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/climate_zps13b24afc.gif

chuks
16th Mar 2013, 16:20
What, pray tell, is a "climatist"? I have to ask, because it's not in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

Is this another speshul word for those who travel on the bus showing "Madness" as its destination?

Nemrytter
16th Mar 2013, 16:49
Take the BBC recently since we're all discussing Climate Change. As previously mentioned an organisation required by their government to be beyond reproach, to remain impartial only to be found on the subject of Climate Change to be unfairly biased and prepared to completely ignore the other side of the coin. I may miss the point here (I'm not from the UK so don't totally get the bbc) but I thought they were supposed to be unbiased on political matters. So why should they be unbiased about climatology or other sciences? Would you like them to add a disclaimer for flat-earthers every time they show a globe? How about a disclaimer that Newton's laws may be wrong whenever they show a jet engine?:=

(edit)What, pray tell, is a "climatist"?I thought it was a type of plant.:E

vulcanised
16th Mar 2013, 17:53
I thought it was a type of plant


You're thinking of a Chlamydia http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Sunnyjohn
16th Mar 2013, 21:36
Yes - and I thought a denialist was someone who didn't like sailing up the Nile. There you go . . .

green granite
16th Mar 2013, 21:50
Nothing to do with climate change but an artists impression of time in a black hole courtesy of Sushi Bandit



http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/time_zps09a59eb2.gif

Ixixly
16th Mar 2013, 23:49
Just a thought for everyone, but if we all stopped using stupid labels such as "Denialists" "Warmists" "Climatist" etc...etc... we wouldn't look like a bunch of cliquey high school kids at lunch time and instead come across as a group of rational, free-thinking human beings who have formed opinions based upon the information that we have been given whom are trying to pass that information onto others so as to bring them around to what we consider to be the correct line of thinking based upon our information.

You might find then that its easier for people to come around in their way of thinking and changing it based upon information provided because they will be less likely to stick to their convictions based upon stubbornness and an ego driven desire to be seen as being right despite evidence put in front of them.