PDA

View Full Version : Scientists go cold on Global Warming


toffeez
21st May 2013, 05:20
All together now .. We Told You So ..

BBC News - Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023)

sitigeltfel
21st May 2013, 05:41
Quelle surprise!

peterc005
21st May 2013, 05:45
Climate Change sceptics rank as crazies alongside the Chemtrail and UFO nutters.

The science behind Climate change is solid, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed science.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024#.UZW5ChCVuhg.facebook)

B Fraser
21st May 2013, 05:56
Then why was it necessary to change the name of the bogeyman from "Global Warming" ?

No doubt the tornado that hit the Midwest US will be held up as evidence. After all, it's not like it has happened before, eh ?

green granite
21st May 2013, 06:55
Climate Change sceptics rank as crazies alongside the Chemtrail and UFO nutters.


That's exactly the position taken by Proffessor Lewandowsky whose paper on the subject was deemed to be fraudulent, or at least very suspect and was hastily withdrawn.

The science behind Climate change is solid, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed science.

Oh dear! More 'junk science' from John Cook,

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

That plainly says that only 32.6% of the scientists who wrote those papers endorsed AGW, nor, without the list of all the papers used, we cannot find out how many of the 32.6% were written by the same authors.

peterc005, try reading some proper climate blogs such as Professor Judith Crurry's. (http://judithcurry.com/)

Flap 5
21st May 2013, 07:00
Scientists are meant to deal in facts. They are not meant to be interested in opinion or argument. They see the facts and process those facts to come up with a result. There are too many 'scientists' that are skewed by opinion.

The current opinion in politics (Al Gore, etc.) is that global warming is happening regardless of any facts that may say otherwise.

Indeed there may well be warming from the facts that the incoming heat from the Sun is getting trapped by a build up of CO2 and Methane but this warming is going into the oceans and contributing to instability in the atmosphere, and not just 'warming the Earth'.

Lord Spandex Masher
21st May 2013, 07:00
Goes to show all those Toyota Pious, sorry Priuseses have done the job.

aviate1138
21st May 2013, 07:14
Tornado records show.......long before so called AGW/Climate Change/Global Disruption "Theories" ......

24 April 1908 143 deaths in Amite, Louisiana and Purvis Mississippi
23 March 1913 103 deaths in Omaha, Nebraska
18 March 1925 695 deaths in Missouri, Illinois and Indiana
5 April 1936 216 deaths in Tupelo, Mississippi
6 April 1936 203 deaths in Gainesville, Georgia

Doppler Radar wasn't even invented then either......

MagnusP
21st May 2013, 07:59
Climate Change sceptics rank as crazies

Indeed. Just imagine denying that the climate has always changed, and trying to put it down to anthropogenic influence. Some people, eh?

uffington sb
21st May 2013, 08:07
Flap 5
Scientists see the facts they want to see and discard the facts they don't want to see, then tweak the facts to achieve the result that fits nicely with their theory.

Obviously they haven't a clue so they need billions more cash so they can try and find out:ugh:

PTT
21st May 2013, 08:30
@ peterc005The science behind Climate change is solid, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed science.Er, no. In real science there are only theories which have yet to be disproved, ones which cause us to discard the null hypothesis. This encompasses everything from the basics of gravity to black holes.
Gravitational theory is tested every day in classrooms throughout the world. We accept it because it is yet to be shown to be incorrect, and every test we do of it (certainly every one I have done) allow us to discard the null.
Furthermore, a theory is only as useful as its predictive effect. Have there been any effective predictive effects of any theory of global warming? By which I mean those which can be discerned from the noise, allowing us to discard the null.

@ B FraserThen why was it necessary to change the name of the bogeyman from "Global Warming" ?Really? Changing the name is your beef with it?
A: Oh no, Godzilla is smashing up Tokyo!
B: Hey, yesterday you were calling that giant fire-breathing lizard over there Gojira! You've changed the name, so I don't believe it exists.

@ uffington sbScientists see the facts they want to see and discard the facts they don't want to see, then tweak the facts to achieve the result that fits nicely with their theory.You must have been subjected to some really bad science at some point. Shame, because a good scientist does none of that.

green granite
21st May 2013, 09:12
You must have been subjected to some really bad science at some point. Shame, because a good scientist does none of that.

A lot of climate science is, I'm afraid, bad science and it's on both sides of the debate.
The classic one was from a paper from Hansen that said in it's summary that the empirical data when analysed, gave an improbable result and was modified so that it's result matched the result of the model!

The problem arise when scientists become activists for a particular cause, they tend to put blinkers on and refuse to see any counter argument.

OFSO
21st May 2013, 09:19
Scientists go cold

Damn the scientists, I'm cold !

Sun's out as usual, well sort of, but has no warmth to it. Have I suddenly moved to Scotland ?

PTT
21st May 2013, 09:19
That's what happens when you mix politics and money with science, sadly.

Alloa Akbar
21st May 2013, 09:49
It's 11 degrees outside and we are nearly in June? Global warming? load of old hot air if you ask me :ok:

bluecode
21st May 2013, 09:53
What amuses me is that despite the Earth refusing to cooperate and warm up in a way that matches their models. They still persist in the ongoing belief that we humans are causing it all.

I suppose it will take another ten years of cooling and carbon taxes for them to finally admit it isn't happening.

The fact is, they got it wrong despite the '30 years of peer reviewed science' mantra.

Incidentally Peter when you have to resort to this: Climate Change sceptics rank as crazies alongside the Chemtrail and UFO nutters.You know you're losing the argument. There is no comparison as you well know.

What I don't understand about the AGW believers is why so many are completely without scepticism. Despite this admission that the scientists got it wrong.

I always said it, time will tell. A few years from now everyone will wonder how this theory ever took hold, probably as we shiver in our fur coats at the approach of the new ice age!:ugh:

vulcanised
21st May 2013, 11:51
Perhaps there's some cunning in this GW thing.

Temp here was 13c all day, but it rose to 16c at midnight.

G&T ice n slice
21st May 2013, 12:20
perhaps what we need to do is get all the "global warming" scientists together and put them in teams.

then we give them all the equipment they say they need

then we put them all up against a wall

and then explain that it's "prove it or lose it" time

and see if the last team still standing actually manage to prove something.

we could televise it all on primetime Sunday evening

we could call it "Whoops, there goes another one"

PTT
21st May 2013, 12:36
it's "prove it or lose it" timeI realise this was tongue-in-cheek, but it belies a basic misunderstanding. Science doesn't "prove" things, it merely offers analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter, these tools being theories.

Sunnyjohn
21st May 2013, 12:55
Green Granite recommended this site. Have a look at it. Here's yesterday's post:

New post on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT


NOAA Global Temperatures Out– 2nd Coldest April This Century
by Paul Homewood

NOAA’s global temperature numbers are out for April. At 0.52C above the 20thC average, they are the second coldest April this century.

Only April last year was colder, and four of the last five years are below the 20thC average, of 0.61C. Worse still, the trend since 2001 is sharply down.

Perhaps of even greater significance is the fact that ENSO conditions for the last few months have been neutral. This is in contrast to April last year, when La Nina conditions were just beginning fizzle out.

Current temperatures are also lower than least year’s average of 0.58C.

Warmists in a Tizzy

This worrying news about the planet getting colder is understandably getting warmists into a frenzy.

Checkboard
21st May 2013, 13:40
Politicians faced with regulating polluters were the ones in the greatest denial ...


... until someone told them they could TAX it. :rolleyes:

B Fraser
21st May 2013, 15:12
Really? Changing the name is your beef with it?

No, to use your example, a bloody great lizard is a bloody great lizard whether you call it a newt with behavioural difficulties or a goanna with an attitude problem. The scientists (and I use the term in the loosest of senses) were faced with a problem when the planet stopped warming in 1998. The predictions of malaria in Surrey, snow being something our kids would never see and people dying of heatstroke in St Albans suddenly were not going to happen. We have had every excuse from "the planet is still warming but it is hidden in the deep ocean currents" to all manner of other bullshot. See also the post from SunnyJohn.

We needed a new bogeyman to keep the research grants flowing so enter climate change. The same old pony dressed in new clothes.

Andy_S
21st May 2013, 16:09
We needed a new bogeyman to keep the research grants flowing........

Nail....head....on.....

This is what it's REALLY about. 'Climate Change' has become an industry. And like any other industry there is power and influence to be accrued, and money to be made. Having talked global warning up, those who have established their reputations and built lucrative careers on the back of it are hardly going to hold their hands up and admit "actually, we don't really know what's going on and we may even be wrong....."

OFSO
21st May 2013, 16:34
I heard some kind of lady "scientist" today on some TV channel or other and faced with a suggestion that our planet was getting colder and not hotter, she replied "ah yes" (I waited with bated breath for some kind of remark such as 'we didn't anticipate that' or even possibly 'and we got it wrong', but no) "however once this cold spell is over" (gleam in eye and hint of triumph in her voice) "it's going to get very very hot."

So there, you sceptical chaps take that ! IRREFUTABLE PROOF - A LADY SCIENTIST HAS SAID IT ON TELEVISION !

B Fraser
21st May 2013, 16:45
NOAA Global Temperatures Out– 2nd Coldest April This Century
by Paul Homewood

No ! No ! No !

It's actually the 11th warmest which is proof that we are all causing climate change. We must therefore have more taxes to save us from our fate.

pigboat
21st May 2013, 17:01
Gentlemen, I present y'all with this postulation. From Forbes Magazine no less. :uhoh:

Will Angelina Jolie help climate change denial... (http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2013/05/19/will-angelina-jolie-help-end-climate-change-denial-and-help-the-republican-party/)

Flypro
21st May 2013, 17:06
Climate change has been taking place since the first 'climate' and will continue forever.
No argument.

However, if you want to jump on a potentially profitable bandwagon, then call it Global Warming. That way you can screw whole countries with ridiculous stuff like Carbon Trading etc etc

Musy go now, I think I've just seen a cow fart.............Yikes:ooh

Where's the tinfoil when you need it??

green granite
21st May 2013, 17:35
Looks like the bit of junk science produced by Cook to prove the consensus has started to unravel (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/) now there's a surprise.

Shropshire Lad
21st May 2013, 21:19
Hang on- I've just read the article and it says that warming is still happening but it has slowed a bit. So instead of temperatures rocketing away they are creeping up a little more slowly at the moment. I'm just trying to work out why some people think this has all of a sudden disproved climate change???:confused:

bluecode
21st May 2013, 21:31
Think about it Shropshire lad, think about it. Remember this couldn't be happening according to all the models and alarmist predictions we've been subjected to in recent years.

Try and remember that according to the 'consensus' the debate is over. AGW is proven.

Unfortunately the Earth itself proved to be sceptic and refused to play ball. Now they are resorting to saying that while it's slowed down, anytime now it going to get hotter again eventually because of course the models and the peer reviewed science must be accurate even though they completely failed to predict this.

It reminds me of people who predict the end of the world every now and then. When it refuses to end, the simply modify the prediction and move it out a few years. At least in the case of apocalypse predictors, they'll get it right eventually. The global warmers are little better.

handsfree
22nd May 2013, 09:15
Does it really have to be spelled out.

1. CO2 levels are rising
2. Global temperatures are going down.

Therefore rising CO2 is causing the planet to enter a catastrophic new Ice Age.

Answer : Raise CO2 taxes and build more wind generators.

:rolleyes:

MagnusP
22nd May 2013, 09:18
Shropshire Lad, who on here has ever claimed proof that climate change was wrong? It has been the consistent view of those disparagingly labelled "sceptics" here that climate has ALWAYS changed, and that in the past it has changed more extremely and more rapidly than in recent years.

arcniz
22nd May 2013, 11:38
Does it really have to be spelled out.

1. CO2 levels are rising
2. Global temperatures are going down.

Therefore rising CO2 is causing the planet to enter a catastrophic new Ice Age.

Answer : Raise CO2 taxes and build more wind generators.


Another answer to that exact argument is to create a new industry specifically for sequestering atmospheric CO2 and parking it semi-permanently in places where the sun don't shine.

Creating a global array of carbon-sequestration stations at convenient spots around the earth seems to be both economically feasible and technically possible to do on short notice: beginning next week, for example. My understanding is that a process for extracting atmospheric CO2 can be implemented immediately, without any technical or theoretical breakthroughs required -- using sodium hydroxide as agent for capturing the atmospheric CO2 and a scrubbing process for translating the captured gas into highly pressurized CO2 stored in underground chambers left over from oil and gas extraction. Evidently very large quantities of geologic CO2 already exist, without any help from us, so the storage method is neither new nor untested.

Advantages to the Active Carbon Sequestration approach are numerous --especially because implementation can be nearly immediate, tested and well-understood technology is readily available for implementation, scale can be adjusted over future eons to track perceived & measured need for CO2 control, and the determinate cost of continuous operation for the entire globe purportedly lies in the range of $20bn to $200bn per annum -- for the whole blue marble planet, which works out to be less than the cost of most other proposed conservation solutions that depend on untested and likely unprovable theories advanced by people with agendas that seem more political than environmental in nature.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Electron_shell_006_Carbon_-_no_label.svg/230px-Electron_shell_006_Carbon_-_no_label.svg.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Carbon_dioxide_3D_ball.png/182px-Carbon_dioxide_3D_ball.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Carbon-dioxide-crystal-3D-vdW.png/330px-Carbon-dioxide-crystal-3D-vdW.png

:D

CHAIRMAN
22nd May 2013, 11:52
using sodium hydroxide as agent for capturing the atmospheric CO2
Sounds like a really great idea:D
Now just how much caustic soda will we need to produce and transport around to achieve the desired outcome:ugh:

hellsbrink
22nd May 2013, 16:01
Now just how much caustic soda will we need to produce and transport around to achieve the desired outcome

Don't forget that you would have to add quite a bit to what arcniz may THINK is needed to cover the extra carbon emissions from the mining of the sodium, the transportation of the raw materials, the increase in production of caustic soda needed, etc, as well as the small matter of power plants having to run harder to provide the energy needed for the new CO˛ sequestration scam, and new power plants built in places around the globe where there isn't any power supply or not enough energy generation, as well as some sort of network of pipelines to transfer the "waste" to the storage locations and/or transporting these "mobile" scrubbers, the test bores, etc, needed to find suitable locations, and so on, leading to more CO˛ going into the atmosphere to cover all of that leading to more caustic soda scrubbers and "storage" leading to an increase in CO˛ emissions leading to more scrubbers leading to...........

You get the idea.

BenThere
22nd May 2013, 16:08
It may be warming dangerously. It may be cooling dangerously. We've got to do something! Something expensive!

sisemen
22nd May 2013, 16:11
Nah. Yer all talking bolleaux. The stream in Chuks back yard overflowed a while ago and that's definite proof of man made climate change/global warming.

gileraguy
22nd May 2013, 20:31
It's all about money. AGW theory has allowed governments to put a tax on air (as I recall my parents referring to in the seventies: "By the time you've grown up, there will be a tax on air!").

It's the A in AGW that's the arrogant sticking point for me.

arcniz
23rd May 2013, 11:14
CHAIRMAN said:

Quote:
using sodium hydroxide as agent for capturing the atmospheric CO2
Sounds like a really great idea
Now just how much caustic soda will we need to produce and transport around to achieve the desired outcome

and hellsbrink averred:

Quote:
Now just how much caustic soda will we need to produce and transport around to achieve the desired outcome
Don't forget that you would have to add quite a bit to what arcniz may THINK is needed to cover the extra carbon emissions from the mining of the sodium, the transportation of the raw materials, the increase in production of caustic soda needed, etc, as well as the small matter of power plants having to run harder to provide the energy needed for the new CO˛ sequestration scam, and new power plants built in places around the globe where there isn't any power supply or not enough energy generation, as well as some sort of network of pipelines to transfer the "waste" to the storage locations and/or transporting these "mobile" scrubbers, the test bores, etc, needed to find suitable locations, and so on, leading to more CO˛ going into the atmosphere to cover all of that leading to more caustic soda scrubbers and "storage" leading to an increase in CO˛ emissions leading to more scrubbers leading to...........

You get the idea.

WRONG & WRONG.

The use of sodium hydroxide to scrub flue gasses of CO2 is well established. Many process variations are possible, but the one that makes sense works like a conveyor belt -- captured CO2 is stripped off from the reacted hydroxide by a second process, delivering it as a pure gas or (more likely liquid -- stored at room temps at a modest 71+ atmospheres.

General process is simple, safe, and done every day in many spots. ALL of the input ingredients for the sodium hydroxide process can easily be derived safely and nicely from seawater by well-known aux processes, so no transport of materials into the facility is required, if it is located on a shoreline or Island somewhere. The only REAL input is energy, which ideally will be derived from sunlight and wave action and wind available on the same islands and shores. Location is not critical, can have process facilities on coasts scattered about the world. Power goes out because wind stops or sun goes down... no bother, just wait till the energy comes back and resume without skipping a beat. The process method is stop & start-able, at convenience; there's always air with some CO2 therein to whittle on, and storage of the end product is simple safe and cheap. OLD single-hull LPG tankers might shuttle around the shores of the world, picking up liquid CO2 as cargo for delivery to deep well injection points or, more likely, onshore factories somewhere that will do some chemical magic and turn the soon-to-be infinitely available and very cheap liquid
CO2 into French beer, or tennis rackets or diamonds.

My original information about this approach came from a business proposal presentation -- not available for sharing, so I dug around for a few link-thingies that might help any CO2 Neanderthals in reach climb up the curve a bit.



Sodium hydroxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide)


Sodium hydroxide is used in many industries, mostly as a strong chemical base in the manufacture of pulp and paper, textiles, drinking water, soaps and detergents and as a drain cleaner. Worldwide production in 2004 was approximately 60 million tonnes, while demand was 51 million tonnes.[4
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reaction with acids

Sodium hydroxide reacts with protic acids to produce water and the corresponding salts. For example, when sodium hydroxide reacts with hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride is formed:

NaOH(aq) + HCl(aq) -> NaCl(aq) + H2O(l)

In general, such neutralization reactions are represented by one simple net ionic equation:

OH-(aq) + H+(aq) -> H2O(l)

This type of reaction with a strong acid releases heat, and hence is exothermic. Such acid-base reactions can also be used for titrations. However, sodium hydroxide is not used as a primary standard because it is hygroscopic and absorbs carbon dioxide from air.

Reaction with acidic oxides

Sodium hydroxide also reacts with acidic oxides, such as sulfur dioxide. Such reactions are often used to "scrub" harmful acidic gases (like SO2 and H2S) produced in the burning of coal and thus prevent their release into the atmosphere. For example,

2 NaOH + CO2 -> Na2CO3 + H2O
======

see also: Carbon dioxide scrubber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber)

see also: Carbon dioxide removal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal)


:D

bluecode
23rd May 2013, 11:42
No Arcniz, you are completely and utterly missing the point. No matter how successful and elegant that solution might be. It will never happen because at a stroke it would remove funding and end the careers for all those climate scientists, end carbon trading and completely derail the green agenda to change the way we live our lives. It would kill off the wave, solar and wind energy industries. Governments would lose billions in carbon taxes.

Removing the 'excess' Co2 would mean we could go on living our profligate lives and reduce all the pressure to change to fantasy alternative energy sources.

If I were you. I'd keep quiet about it or you might find yourself on the receiving end of a visit from the men in green. :suspect:

peterc005
23rd May 2013, 12:03
Climate Change sceptics rank as crazies alongside the Chemtrail and UFO nutters.

The science behind Climate change is solid, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed science.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024#.UZW5ChCVuhg.facebook)

arcniz
23rd May 2013, 12:06
bluecode says
It will never happen because at a stroke it would remove funding and end the careers for all those climate scientists, end carbon trading and completely derail the green agenda to change the way we live our lives. It would kill off the wave, solar and wind energy industries.

Point taken, bluecode, Keeping the phasers on mostly now, anyway. Rather like the multicolor glow.

I don't think the greener-grass energy-gen industries will suffer, one way or another. Theyre working ever better to rescue us from thrall of the oligopolistic petro-Radicals - those to the far right of energy economic sanity, while the Warmists are full to the stops on the LLeft, and trying for further.

It's politics where most of the energy is being wasted, eh?

:)

Andy_S
23rd May 2013, 12:40
Climate Change sceptics rank as crazies.......

You've simply repeated your original message of a few days ago, word for word, ignoring everything that's been discussed since.

I guess you've learned a few tricks from the climate change lobby...........

green granite
23rd May 2013, 12:48
Andy_S, such is the ignorance of people like peterc005 that they believe everything they are told by the left, indeed the left rely on them to create noise which is all they are useful for.

Andy_S
23rd May 2013, 13:17
Climate Change Skeptics = nutters

Well that’s an extremely well thought out and presented argument. I’m really impressed by the way you’ve considered all the scientific research, complex evidence and differing viewpoints and managed to concisely distill these into such an insightful analysis of the climate change issue.

MagnusP
23rd May 2013, 13:31
Climate Change Skeptics = nutters

Yes, yes, we get the drift. Run along, look through the various threads on the topic and let us know who is sceptical about climate change. Is it those who insist that the climate changes and that it has done since the planet had enough of an atmosphere, or is it those who, with their fingers in their ears and singing "la-la-la" insist that it didn't change until the start of the industrial revolution and we're all doomed.

We await your response with interest but, given the unlikelihood of any answer let alone a sensible one, not with bated breath. :ugh:

3holelover
23rd May 2013, 14:31
Isn't it the height of naiveté to believe that all our years of pumping filth into our thin, fragile atmosphere, have not had an effect on natural processes? Especially since, in the same time frame, we've also been very busy with seriously depleting the Earth's own natural filters - forests.

Personally, I can't work out how intelligent people could come to such a conclusion? :confused: And among written contributions from all deniers that I've read, I've not yet seen a single attempt to explain how that could even possibly be so?

Is it a form of denial?... A defence mechanism fallen upon to deflect guilt for personal contributions?

B Fraser
23rd May 2013, 14:43
Climate Change Skeptics = nutters

Oh look, an equation so it must be true. :rolleyes:

We have had the coldest spring since 1979 which means one thing and one thing only. Wait for it.......


It was colder in 1979 so stop panicking.

MagnusP
23rd May 2013, 14:43
Well, we've continued to "pump filth" since 1998, but the climate doesn't appear to have noticed in the way the ever-more-discredited models predicted.

Isn't it the height of arrogance to believe that economy-destroying decisions should be made based on flawed models?

green granite
23rd May 2013, 15:38
More silliness, Isn't it the height of naiveté to believe that all our years of pumping filth into our thin, fragile atmosphere, have not had an effect on natural processes? Nothing we spewed out brought aviation to a grinding halt, yet a few days of Mother Nature having a go closed down aviation across Europe. Every time there is an eruption, global temperatures plummet by around 0.4° for 2 or 3 years, if we have a strong El Nino event they shoot up around 0.7°C for a while, the effect we have is tiny in comparison.

Agree with you on the trees though.

Andy_S
23rd May 2013, 16:13
Isn't it the height of naiveté to believe that all our years of pumping filth into our thin, fragile atmosphere, have not had an effect on natural processes? Especially since, in the same time frame, we've also been very busy with seriously depleting the Earth's own natural filters - forests.

Absolutely! No problem with that bit at all.

The problem I have is that no-one really understands what is going on. What contribution does industrialisation make to carbon emissions relative to natural factors? If man-made issues are causing climate change, then how much and over what timescale? What capacity does the planet have to simply absorb or break down emissions? How much do we need to do to counter the effects of industrialisation, and how long will it take for any such measures to become effective?

You see, global warming / climate change has been presented to us as irrefutable fact, with dire predictions as to how it will affect humanity unless we take action. Vast tracts of the planet will become uninhabitable, migration will take place on an unprecedented scale, we won’t be able to grow enough crops to feed everyone, and drinkable water will become an increasingly scarce commodity. And yet this existential threat to our existence isn’t exactly going to plan…… The ‘evidence’ is often contradictory, mean temperatures appear to have stabilised, and weather patterns haven’t changed in the ways predicted by the climate change models and simulations.

What we need is good healthy dose of objectivity, but what we’re actually getting is an increasingly shrill environmental lobby and a ‘scientific’ movement who seem to have reached their conclusions early on and subsequently cherry picked whatever evidence supported their hypotheses, and simply moved the goalposts when those hypotheses don’t hold water.

I’m certainly not a climate change denier, and I think we should take any sensible and practical steps we can to mitigate our impact on the planet, but I am deeply sceptical about the contribution the environmental lobby are making to the debate.

hellsbrink
23rd May 2013, 17:09
WRONG & WRONG.

What? So there will be absolutely no extra CO˛ or pollution of any kind under your Sequestration Scam? There will be no extra production of caustic soda, there will be no need to increase mining, there will be no need for any sort of extra power generation to pump/transport the CO˛, in whatever form it is in, into the hole where you will, effectively, bury it, everything will be powered by technology that DOES NOT WORK as

1) Wind is not constant
2) Sunlight is not constant, and what do you do at night
3) The tides are not constant.

so for every one of your madcap idealistic power generation scams you will need a secondary, polluting, power station running at well under maximum efficiency as a backup for when the wind stops blowing, the tide is too high and the sun don't shine. You also forget about what will be needed to make these "clean" power generating plants, what will be needed for the construction, the maintenance, etc.

So you WILL be pumping more CO˛ into the air, you will need more scrubbers to compensate for that, that will lead to an increase in CO˛ emissions leading to more scrubbers being necessary leading to.......


Think of the entire chain needed, not just what some numpty came out with as a "business proposal" which obviously fell flat on it's arse as said proposal clearly ignored the obvious.

Oh, btw, when you quote Wiki you could at least include the bit that tells us all how a study showed that adding a CO˛ scrubber to a power station saps out up to 40% of the efficiency of the power station, so think what your network of scrubbers will need to ensure that they run 24/7** and if your concept was as workable as you like to claim then explain why even Greenpeace say that CCS (your Carbon Capture and Storage "solution") will not work.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2008/5/false-hope.pdf









** Since he was talking about using wave power, there was a very strong temptation to say "a scrubber in every port". But I resisted.

Polikarpov
23rd May 2013, 17:35
Isn't it the height of naiveté to believe that all our years of pumping filth into our thin, fragile atmosphere, have not had an effect on natural processes?


But CO2 is not filth. It's also at the very low end of its atmospheric range over the span of life on earth (indeed any CO2 "liberated" from fossil fuels is merely returning to whence it once sat before being sequestered by plants: it is not, despite what Al Gore would have you believe, an entirely new entity mined from the depths of hell by cackling orcs)

The oft envisioned "suffocating blanket" of CO2 measured in parts per million needs some context.

This is the Rose Bowl.

http://photopilot.smugmug.com/Sports/Football/2011-Rose-Bowl/MG2023/1145755079_TKj8e-M.jpg

If the Earth's atmosphere were the attendees, the entire increase in CO2 since industrialization (some of it related to man, some of it not) equates to nine persons in this stadium.

Some of whom you probably can't see, as they're in the washroom, or queueing for beer.

Sunnyjohn
23rd May 2013, 21:17
These arguments (nay, disputes) over warble gloaming, chimate clange, farbon cootprints, pollution, and all the rest remind me somewhat of what happens when you get a bunch of people arguing about religion. There is, of course, no right or wrong in a religious argument because it is a matter of faith - nobody really knows the answer until it's too late, the grim reaper has carried you off and he (or she) is not about to let you return and tell the rest of the world what the real answer is. In my view, very much the same applies to all this warble gloaming stuff. Nobody really knows the answer. Still, it does make for entertaining posts and threads on Pprune. Now then, who's that bloke with the black cloak and scythe peeping around the door . . .

bluecode
23rd May 2013, 22:03
Personally, I can't work out how intelligent people could come to such a conclusion? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif And among written contributions from all deniers that I've read, I've not yet seen a single attempt to explain how that could even possibly be so?

Is it a form of denial?... A defence mechanism fallen upon to deflect guilt for personal contributions? Clearly you haven't read much on the subject just swallowed whole what you've been told by the media. First off Co2 isn't filth, of course it's invariably referred to as carbon which we associate with dirt and filth. Co2 as I'm sure you know is vital for life on this planet. It isn't pollution, it isn't smoke or exhaust fumes. It's Co2 just like in your beer.

I notice you use the term 'denier'. That is of course a pejorative term designed to associate skeptics with holocaust denial etc. Of course we also have Peter who thinks skeptics also believe in chemtrails, UFOs and little green men.

You don't understand how intelligent people could come to such a conclusion? I don't understand how an intelligent person can simply accept everything they've been told about this theory. Why aren't you a little bit sceptical? Are you so accepting of this theory that you cannot allow yourself to doubt any aspect of it?

As for it been a self defence mechanism to deflect my guilty feelings. Why would you think that? Is it perhaps because it's you who feels guilty? Aren't we all supposed to feel guilty because of the part we all supposedly played in warming the planet? That's why we have carbon taxes, so we can assuage our guilt. What is carbon trading after all but a way of deflecting our guilt on an industrial scale.

I'm surprised you haven't resorted to the old stand by of accusing skeptics of being mentally ill or in the pay of big oil!

You really need to open your mind a bit and take a cold hard serious look at the whole so called science of AGW. The very story that sparked this thread is an example of how wrong they got it wrong. They never saw this coming, none of the theories, none of the models. Not only that it's only now they finally admit that since 1998 "there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere." In fact skeptics have been pointing this out for years but it was ignored until after fifteen years they could ignore it no longer. They can't explain it, they don't know why it's happening but they're quite sure that its only temporary because they cannot believe all the 'peer reviewed science' could be wrong.

Everyone should be a skeptic.

green granite
24th May 2013, 07:09
Ignorance abounds even in the realms of PhD's:
Who would guess that a credentialed scientist who is lecturing a national audience on climate change issues could misunderstand the greenhouse effect so badly.
Thiis taken from a radio interview.

She says:

When you get in your car in summer, your car is hot because it has greenhouse gases in it. That’s why its hot.

Lars Larson, because after the obligatory “hold on a second…."proceeded to explain how the greenhouse effect works in an automobile, though he mispoke and said “shortwave” instead of “longwave”, but he had the physical premise right.

After explaining that, he asks:

Are you telling me my car heats up because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Unfazed, she insists:

I’m telling you your car heats up because there are greenhouse gases in your car.

And, she goes on to say, after Lars uses the example of sunlight streaming through the open windows of his home, making it hotter, and asks:

Is my house filled with greenhouse gas as well?

She says:

Yes! It has carbon dioxide in it!

Lars retorts:

Are you telling me my house now gets hotter than it it would 20 years ago because there’s now more carbon dioxide in it?

Dr. Johnson responds with:

I don’t know the exact temperature of your house, what I’m going to say is that the scientists…


With people like that championing the CAGW cause you don't need sceptics to point out that the propaganda is a total load of utter rubbish.

LowNSlow
24th May 2013, 08:09
Even BP is giving up on wind power, following rivals Shell in selling off their US generating capacity. BP puts US wind power units up for sale - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41d4f8ca-9bdd-11e2-8485-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2UCAqYrnC)

Yes, you read it right, Big Oil is, US Wind Farms (http://www.bp.com/managedlistingsection.do?categoryId=9037207&contentId=7068537) err soon to be was, one of the major players in renewables. However, as they are required to make a profit to fund future investment and give their shareholders a dividend now and again they are divesting themselves of the millstones........

Romulus
24th May 2013, 09:13
Climate Change sceptics rank as crazies alongside the Chemtrail and UFO nutters.

The science behind Climate change is solid, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed science.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

Well now PeterC, here's the rebuttal to that paper. The alarmists are now getting desperate and are resorting to what is essentially fraudulent presentation in order to support the fundamentally flawed theory they have spouted for so long.

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html)

G&T ice n slice
25th May 2013, 14:01
no clouds, blue sky, sun beating down here in West Cumberland apparently 11 deg C at St Bee's Head

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!!!

loweskid
25th May 2013, 14:35
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!!!

Well, that's certainly true...... :)

3holelover
25th May 2013, 14:42
D'ya think maybe all those who confuse local, current weather, with global climate.... could please educate yourselves? Please? Pretty please? :O

Too much to ask?..... Maybe it'd be easier to ask those who don't suffer from that confusion to post in blue text or something? ...y'know; just so we can readily recognize what might be worth attention? :suspect:

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 14:59
Good idea, 3hole, maybe all of those who are saying that the "global climate" is changing due to man's emissions should do as you say.

The rest of us know the difference, that's why we are sceptical of the claims of the doom&gloom merchants....


BTW. Can anyone actually define what "Global Climate" actually is? After all, the IPCC define "climate" as the average weather over a period of time, usually 30 years, and since said weather is always in a state of flux how can they tell, with any sort of accuracy, what the actual climate across the entire planet is given that there are absolutely no accurate records of "weather" in many parts of the world (middle of the Amazon Rain Forest, most of the Arctic, most of Africa, much of Russia, as examples), and they certainly do not have accurate data going back over the sort of period of time they claim with their "since records began" scaremongering.

In other words, "Global Climate" is as much a myth as "Man Made Climate Change", for they simply do not have the data to accurately assess what the "Global Climate" actually is, has been, or will be in the future.

So, 3hole, please stop using terms that are just fantasy when you try to rebuke others for there is not one person on this planet who can hold their hand up and honestly say that they KNOW what the actual "Global Climate" is.

PTT
25th May 2013, 15:05
You're wrong there, hellsbrink. There absolutely is enough data. What you appear to have a quibble with is how complete and accurate that data should be compared to how complete it is. Absolute completeness and accuracy are not necessary in order to be able to use the data for comparative analysis, the comparison being over time periods.

3holelover
25th May 2013, 15:30
So then, Hellsbrink, ...Would you count yourself among those who believe the last hundred years or so of our industrial actions have not affected our atmosphere?

Or do you presume our effect could only be so small that nothing would change because of it?

I'd sure like to hear some reasoning behind either of those two notions?

Polikarpov
25th May 2013, 15:35
Here you go, I'll use "the blue".

New officially-sanctioned definitions of Climate and Weather, as of 2013.

Climate: Any measurement or event that may be used to support IPCC/warmist assertions (any geographic scale, timescale, down to individual weather events)

Weather: Any measurement or event that may be contradictory to IPCC/warmist assertions (any geographic scale, timescale, up to regional, hemispheric multi-decadal trends)

The recent ambulance-chasing in the wake of the most recent Oklahoma tornado by Senators Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse (at least followed by a retraction in the case of the latter), despite no support whatsoever from the data, is a typical case in point (thus far, 2013 is very low against average).

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ef3-ef5.gif?w=578&h=396&h=396

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 15:37
Wrong, PTT, as the claims being are comparing with a "global climate record" covering well over 150 years.

Those records from the 1800's are not accurate, records from the 1920's are not accurate and did not cover the entire planet, records from the 1950's are still as bad. Even 30 years ago the same could be said. Look through the weather stations being used for the "historical" data and you see huge gaps in the data sets, look at how many of these "historical" stations fell out of use over 100 years ago and were replaced by others elsewhere. Look at how few and far between some "monitoring" stations are, look how many there are in Greenland which are not on the coastline (answer, ZERO), look at how many there are in uninhabited areas of the planet, look at how many are most definitely affected by things like the Urban Heat Island effect.

The only way they can say they have any sort of knowledge is by joining up the dots with pure guesswork, saying that it is "X" in one place and "Y" in somewhere over 200 miles away, so therefore the bit in between must be something, well, in between. That's not "accuracy", that's extrapolation and, by definition, extrapolation is merely estimation. Now, if you cannot comprehend what is meant by "estimation" it can be summed up simply:-

"I drank around a case of beer last night" vs "I drank 21 bottles of beer last night".

The first one is an estimate, the second one is accurate. The first one is simply a "guess", it has no claim to accuracy. When it comes to telling us all about the "Global Climate" and how it has changed "since records began", they do not have the required data to state they can ACCURATELY tell us what the average of all weather across the entire planet was "when records began", they cannot state the same accurately for the 1920's, for the 1950's, for the 1970's and I very much doubt they could tell us what the weather actually is in the heart of Mongolia today so, by definition, they cannot accurately define what the "climate" is as they cannot accurately tell us what the weather was, is, or will be across the entire planet at any point in history, on this very day or in the foreseeable future.

What's that I hear you say? Ah yes, all them nice satellites they have up there. Guess what, they can't tell you everything, they certainly cannot tell you what the precipitation in the Amazon Basin is, they cannot tell you what the wind at ground level in the Kalahari is, and any temperatures they measure are only valid for that exact moment they were recorded and not any other time. So, since there is not enough geostationary satellites up there to cover the entire planet and record anything and everything 24/7 then that data set has gaps which are then filled by "guesstrapolation".

And if you are analysing data, in any way, then the accuracy and completeness of the dataset IS the most necessary factor. Otherwise you are just guessing, you don't actually know, and any fool can fiddle the figures to suit his own agenda. As we have seen repeatedly in the Great Global Warming Swindle, with everything from temperatures to melting ice caps to "think of the polar bears". After all, a computer can only "model" what is put into it, and if you put in garbage because your dataset is neither complete or accurate you will only get one thing out.

And it ain't an accurate description of what the model should show, you'll only have more garbage.




Now, since this has been said repeatedly on the Climate Change thread, go over there and read what has been said on the subject. And, to the mods, can we have this thread merged with the Climate Change one?

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 15:39
So then, Hellsbrink, ...Would you count yourself among those who believe the last hundred years or so of our industrial actions have not affected our atmosphere?

Or do you presume our effect could only be so small that nothing would change because of it?

I'd sure like to hear some reasoning behind either of those two notions?


I'll do this simply and just repeat something.


Since this has been said repeatedly on the Climate Change thread, go over there and read what has been said on the subject.

radeng
25th May 2013, 15:45
Could someone explain the cyclical climate changes that have occurred in the past? Such as oranges being grown in the south of England and grapes in the south of Sweden in the early 1500s? The world wide climatic effects during the Maunder Minimum? (Known because of tree ring analysis). The fact that Greenland was so called because it WAS green? Can solar activity be totally discounted as it appears to have been?

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 15:50
Been through that in the other thread too, radeng

stuckgear
25th May 2013, 15:50
So then, Hellsbrink, ...Would you count yourself among those who believe the last hundred years or so of our industrial actions have not affected our atmosphere?



here's a little something to get your head around. all the oil, gas, coal in the earths crust will be burnt up through tectonic movement. as plates move and subduct everything contained within will be burned. the gasses will exhaust through natural outlets.

see this happens around the planet all the time, with the earth venting gasses of the stuff in the crust being burned up.

so in effect all mankind is doing in using oil, gas, coal and smelting of metals in the crust is acting as the 'middle man' anyway.

If mankind disappeared overnight, oil, gas and coal would still be burned up by natural processes and the gasses emitted into the atmosphere anyway.

now here's another thing.

Can you provide *any* evidence at all that CO2 causes increase in temperature.. I'll give you the answer... there is NO evidence that CO2 causes global warming, but if *you* think there is evidence, go ahead, knock yourself out on finding it.

3holelover
25th May 2013, 15:58
Nicely ducked, hellsbrink. :rolleyes:

Apparently some of you would rather argue with what Al Gore has said, instead of answering honest questions from someone actually here to listen. That other thread just has more of the same.

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 15:58
I'll give you the answer... there is NO evidence that CO2 causes global warming,

I can do better than that

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0921818112001658-gr5.jpg

Gee, now how do the "models" show CO˛ "driving" temperature when the actual data shows CO˛ "lagging behind" temperature?

It's simple enough to understand, CO˛ levels peak AFTER temperature peaks, so even using flawed, inaccurate and incomplete datasets their own "guesstrapolation" does not actually back up their claims as temperature rise is actually driving CO˛ rise and when the CO˛ levels rise enough then the temperatures drop leading to a drop in CO˛, then the cycle repeats. This has been seen in all the ice core samples going back 400,000 years, so either the datasets are REALLY screwed up or those making all sorts of claims about how we are killing ourselves by not driving a Pious are just making it up as they go along. I suspect it's the latter.........

So, 3hole, come back when you can explain that. Reading the other thread would be a start, plenty more in there.

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 15:59
Nicely ducked, hellsbrink.

Apparently some of you would rather argue with what Al Gore has said, instead of answering honest questions from someone actually here to listen. That other thread just has more of the same.

See above post. Enjoy. Come back when you understand.

And read the other thread instead of trying to bring the same, flawed, arguments into another one.

Loki
25th May 2013, 16:12
I wonder where Prof Maslowski is now.......he made some anxiety inducing predictions just a few years ago.

Gentlemen, Start Your Melters | Real Science (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/gentlemen-start-your-melters/)


As R Feynman said "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

PTT
25th May 2013, 17:03
@ hellsbrinkWrong, PTT, as the claims being are comparing with a "global climate record" covering well over 150 years.

Those records from the 1800's are not accurate, records from the 1920's are not accurate and did not cover the entire planet, records from the 1950's are still as bad. Even 30 years ago the same could be said. Look through the weather stations being used for the "historical" data and you see huge gaps in the data sets, look at how many of these "historical" stations fell out of use over 100 years ago and were replaced by others elsewhere. Look at how few and far between some "monitoring" stations are, look how many there are in Greenland which are not on the coastline (answer, ZERO), look at how many there are in uninhabited areas of the planet, look at how many are most definitely affected by things like the Urban Heat Island effect.

The only way they can say they have any sort of knowledge is by joining up the dots with pure guesswork, saying that it is "X" in one place and "Y" in somewhere over 200 miles away, so therefore the bit in between must be something, well, in between. That's not "accuracy", that's extrapolation and, by definition, extrapolation is merely estimation. Now, if you cannot comprehend what is meant by "estimation" it can be summed up simply:-

"I drank around a case of beer last night" vs "I drank 21 bottles of beer last night".
Just because you don't know how it can be done doesn't mean it can't be done.

First, with reference to accuracy. Since all measurements are comparative any instrument need only be accurate with regards to itself, i.e. consistent, since it is not measuring against a separate scale but only against the reading from the same instrument last time a reading was taken. As I said on the Global Warming thread, it is perfectly possible to make a very accurate comparative temperature measurement device with little more than a bottle, a glass tube or straw, and some water. As measuring devices are replaced then you make a comparative linear scale between devices and calibrate accordingly. In such a way a very accurate temperature change measurement can be made over very long periods with extremely simple technology.
It's not looking at how many bottles of beer you drank, but how many you drank compared to yesterday: "I drank a case of beer last week but drank almost a case of beer last night as I was left with 2 bottles". That is a very accurate comparison.

Second, with reference to coverage, of course there is interpolation (not extrapolation, as you said). There will always be interpolation unless you plan on taking measurements every Planck-length distance over the globe, which is clearly a physical impossibility. Interpolation is what you are calling "guesswork" here, and the basic rule of interpolation is that the null hypothesis is that it will not be wildly different to the measurements you do have. There is clearly error possible here: if you are only taking measurements at the poles then you will not be taking the temperatures at the equator into account, and your model will be incorrect.
Since scientists aren't actually dullards, though, they've come up with ways to deal with inaccuracies. If, for example, there are areas where someone hypothesises that there will be a difference from the measurements you do have then you take measurements there. From my previous example, taking measurements at the equator might be hypothesised. When you do that you can then adjust your old models with data from the new models. This isn't fudging facts, it's simply accounting for new data in a mathematically consistent manner. If you really want I can give you a very simple example of how this can be done, and can explain how that method can be extrapolated to the rest of the data.

Before reply, bear in mind that I've not stated a position on AGW or climate change at all. I'm merely pointing out that what you say can't be done, can.

3holelover
25th May 2013, 17:09
Hellsbrink;
I have read the other thread. Like I said, just more of the same.

Now, would you be so kind as to answer my questions? (btw, there's no need for nastiness, just because we disagree)

green granite
25th May 2013, 17:14
Could someone explain the cyclical climate changes that have occurred in the past? Such as oranges being grown in the south of England and grapes in the south of Sweden in the early 1500s? The world wide climatic effects during the Maunder Minimum? (Known because of tree ring analysis).


radeng, have a read of this Paleoclimate Page (http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/paleoclimate/), it will give you a good idea of what happened in the past, with links to the relevant papers.

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 19:31
Hellsbrink;
I have read the other thread. Like I said, just more of the same.

Now, would you be so kind as to answer my questions? (btw, there's no need for nastiness, just because we disagree)

What nastiness? What are you talking about now?

And if you had read the other thread you would see that you are, in fact, merely coming out with "more of the same" yourself as you are loading your query in a way that shows that you are not looking for any sort of "reason" or "rationale" and refuse to contemplate the possibility that the "proof of Climate Change" is no more a reality than mermaids riding unicorns across the sky, and refuse to acknowledge the fact that the very answer you are looking for is in that thread, has been posted there repeatedly, and that means there is absolutely no need to repeat the same here just to satisfy your "needs".

It's time this thread died, take your "questions" to the existing place for them, where they have already been answered multiple times.

hellsbrink
25th May 2013, 19:41
First, with reference to accuracy. Since all measurements are comparative any instrument need only be accurate with regards to itself, i.e. consistent, since it is not measuring against a separate scale but only against the reading from the same instrument last time a reading was taken. As I said on the Global Warming thread, it is perfectly possible to make a very accurate comparative temperature measurement device with little more than a bottle, a glass tube or straw, and some water. As measuring devices are replaced then you make a comparative linear scale between devices and calibrate accordingly. In such a way a very accurate temperature change measurement can be made over very long periods with extremely simple technology.
It's not looking at how many bottles of beer you drank, but how many you drank compared to yesterday: "I drank a case of beer last week but drank almost a case of beer last night as I was left with 2 bottles". That is a very accurate comparison.

And how do you calibrate something accurately when the calibration "device" over 100 years ago was not capable of being accurate to several degrees, never mind the tenths of degrees that is being spouted out as "evidence" of CO˛ induced climate change. Hell, you couldn't even guarantee the accuracy, over a year, of electronics based sensors nowadays, and I do know about that through my own work in various locations, so how can you say any "record" from as little as 50 years ago, never mind 150, is actually accurate when there is absolutely no records of proper calibration (certificates, etc) or whether these sensors were actually placed in the right location, with the right orientation, etc. You cannot, therefore, no matter what you like to think, the "record" is neither accurate nor complete as calibration, long term recording, location, orientation, etc, are all called into question.

Second, with reference to coverage, of course there is interpolation (not extrapolation, as you said). There will always be interpolation unless you plan on taking measurements every Planck-length distance over the globe, which is clearly a physical impossibility. Interpolation is what you are calling "guesswork" here, and the basic rule of interpolation is that the null hypothesis is that it will not be wildly different to the measurements you do have. There is clearly error possible here: if you are only taking measurements at the poles then you will not be taking the temperatures at the equator into account, and your model will be incorrect.
Since scientists aren't actually dullards, though, they've come up with ways to deal with inaccuracies. If, for example, there are areas where someone hypothesises that there will be a difference from the measurements you do have then you take measurements there. From my previous example, taking measurements at the equator might be hypothesised. When you do that you can then adjust your old models with data from the new models. This isn't fudging facts, it's simply accounting for new data in a mathematically consistent manner. If you really want I can give you a very simple example of how this can be done, and can explain how that method can be extrapolated to the rest of the data.


And interpolation is still only estimation. It's still only guesswork. Prove it's accuracy, especially as it has been shown that the data has been "adjusted" to allow for what someone THINKS it should be allowed. Therefore, again, the dataset is neither accurate nor complete by any stretch of the imagination and that's before we start on the huge swathes of the planet which have never had any proper, accurate, continuous, long term data collected. The same applies to "hypothesis", it is only a guess, it is not a fact, it is not accuracy. And if your models are flawed, as is seen by all the predictions which have not come true as well as the omission of methane in the models, the omission of solar activity in the model, etc, then how can you even contemplate the notion that any data from said model will be remotely accurate? You can't, because, again, by definition the "model" is only as good as the data fed into it and when that data is actually "fudged" with guesstimates, guesstrapolation and just plain old lies you don't get anything accurate, you get nothing that can be claimed to be "realistic", you just have garbage.

The dataset is full of nothing but guesses, omissions and downright lies. And the worst thing is that sheeple still fall for the bull even when the lies of the IPCC, the lies of Mann, etc, are exposed.

green granite
25th May 2013, 19:54
This shows how gullible the people are and how the greens exploit them:

Carbon — demonized by climate propaganda

… 37% of people are so convinced carbon is pollution that they think it would be a worthwhile aim to reduce the carbon content of their body. (The ultimate diet, you might say).
About a quarter of the population… would rather not eat food with carbon in it.
Nearly half the population think food would be safer without carbon.

PTT
25th May 2013, 20:05
And how do you calibrate something accurately when the calibration "device" over 100 years ago was not capable of being accurate to several degrees, never mind the tenths of degrees that is being spouted out as "evidence" of CO˛ induced climate change.It's not accurate to "degrees", it's accurate to itself. You can do this yourself (http://www.drdianateachertraining.com/2010/04/18/exploring-physical-science-concepts-with-elementary-teachers/img_1168/) if you can stand proving yourself wrong.
I remind you, again, that it's temperature change which is being measured, not absolute temperature. Accuracy to a specific scale is irrelevant when measuring change so long as the basic concepts are being measured. You can compare speed change in m/s, ft/min, km/hr or light years per hour for all I care, and it doesn't matter if the instrument measuring the change is able to measure, say, 25mph so long as it can measure the difference between xmph and ymph. The bottle I linked can do just that.

And interpolation is still only estimation. It's still only guesswork.No, it's not. It's interpolation and a perfectly valid measure. Like I said, you will always be interpolating. By your logic it is absolutely impossible to measure global temperature change. By your logic it's impossible to know, even closely, what the temperature of your beer is.
the dataset is neither accurate nor completeNo dataset is ever absolutely accurate or complete. It's all down to how accurate and complete do you need it to be. There is an entire branch of mathematics dedicated to this.
The same applies to "hypothesis", it is only a guess, it is not a fact, it is not accuracy.You're showing your ignorance. Here's an exercise for you: tell me something scientific which is a fact, which is "accurate".
"fudged" with guesstimates, guesstrapolation and just plain old lies you don't get anything accurate, you get nothing that can be claimed to be "realistic", you just have garbage.Only if you don't understand the methods. All you're saying is you don't understand it so it isn't true. "Away with your heathen numbers, college boy!" is your refrain.
If you actually understood the methods then you'd be able to actually critique them rather than arguing from ignorance. Or maybe I'm wrong and you can tell me why you think it is wrong to use a regression to adjust a mathematical model when the model is based on historical data which did not contain said data, and what the limitations on the use of such a regression might be? I doubt it though. Do you want me to demonstrate to you why it is a legitimate technique, and perhaps bring up some other examples where such techniques are used all the time? Chances are you've seen plenty when looking at pictures on the internet (NSFW or otherwise ;) ), you probably just didn't know it.
You're throwing away the baby with the bathwater simply because you don't like the bath it comes in.

The dataset is full of nothing but guesses, omissions and downright lies.Your comprehension of it is full of holes, is closer to the truth.

3holelover
25th May 2013, 22:13
Hellsbrink,
I think you've made some assumptions without understanding. You're now claiming to know about my intentions and beliefs?

...and I still haven't found anywhere (including the climate change thread) where YOU answered my questions, which, for clarity, I'll now repeat for you:

Would you count yourself among those who believe the last hundred years or so of our industrial actions have not affected our atmosphere?

Or do you presume our effect could only be so small that nothing would change because of it?

Please notice I said nothing about CO2, Unicorns, Angels dancing on the heads of pins, Al Gore, David Suzuki, or Mermaids.

Flying Binghi
26th May 2013, 01:50
via 3holelover:
Would you count yourself among those who believe the last hundred years or so of our industrial actions have not affected our atmosphere?

Or do you presume our effect could only be so small that nothing would change because of it?


I'll have a look-see...

What do you mean by "affected our atmosphere" there 3holelover ?

If yer asking has there been a change in the percentages of atmospheric gas composition then yes, we do have a change. More CO2 and various other trace gases. Soot would also get a mention.

The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect that has been extensivly covered in the various pprune climate hysteria threads could come under yer "industrial actions" comment there 3holelover.

Breaking down UHI - Micro climates have got a mention in regard temperature readings... if yer place an official temperature gauge in a paddock then build a Mcdonalds car park next to it you get a temperature change thus you could say we have an atmospheric change. Yer could also say that the vegetation that were in the car park before the bituman surface woulda given out different gases to the bitumen... allthough, the annual bushfires that burnt the grass that grew where the Mcdonalds car park now is woulda had a different atmospheric gas effect..... then lets not ferget the cows that grazed the grass that used to grow in the Mcdonalds car park. Them cows gave off methane which is known to cause hysteria in certain people. Admittedly, the termite mounds that were in the grass paddock that is now a Mcdonalds car park actually gave off more methane then the cows did though climate hysterics dont want to know about that...

Nuff fer now..:)







.

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 04:45
Would you count yourself among those who believe the last hundred years or so of our industrial actions have not affected our atmosphere?

Or do you presume our effect could only be so small that nothing would change because of it?

And you have been told repeatedly that the answer is in the other thread.

And your intentions and beliefs are clear because, no matter what, you are saying that man's "industrial actions" ARE having an effect.

So, for the last time, read the other thread

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 05:04
No, it's not. It's interpolation and a perfectly valid measure. Like I said, you will always be interpolating.

Utter nonsense.


in·ter·po·late
(n-tűrp-lt)
v. in·ter·po·lat·ed, in·ter·po·lat·ing, in·ter·po·lates
v.tr.
1. To insert or introduce between other elements or parts.
2.
a. To insert (material) into a text.
b. To insert into a conversation. See Synonyms at introduce.
3. To change or falsify (a text) by introducing new or incorrect material.
4. Mathematics To estimate a value of (a function or series) between two known values.


You're showing your ignorance. Here's an exercise for you: tell me something scientific which is a fact, which is "accurate".

Stop trying to change things, for I am not "ignorant". You made the comment over guesswork being a valid tool to make a claim that is allegedly happening, a claim that has led to this global scam, a claim that has been shown to be nothing but a falsehood as NOTHING in the claim has actually happened. That means the guesswork is fundamentally wrong, they know it, they fiddle more figures to try and make it look as if they are right, they refuse to admit the truth even though it's staring in the face. That sure don't mean that I am the "ignorant" one.

The rest of the dribble is not worth responding to as you are saying that it, the dataset, is not complete and/or accurate whilst also saying that said accuracy and completeness is not relevant as the guesswork to fill in the gaps is sufficient. Which means precisely what I have said all along, that the claims over knowledge of the "Global Climate" are nothing more than a myth as they do not have the knowledge to prove that their hypothesis is the cause of the events they claim are actually happening, has happened and will happen despite every single "doom&gloom" claim over sea levels, arctic ice, etc, not actually happening.

Now, as I have said, take it to the thread where this has already been discussed instead of coming out with the same dribble which has already been discussed elsewhere as you are not going to get a different answer no matter how many times the same questions are rephrased and reposted everywhere.

PTT
26th May 2013, 06:51
hellsbrink, this may come as a shock to you, but all measurements are estimates. The degree of accuracy required is determined by the use of the measurement.
Now stop being an idiot and asking for "accuracy" when you have no idea what degree of accuracy you actually need.

And stop telling people what thread to post in. That's not your job.

green granite
26th May 2013, 06:58
Even more green lies and stupidity.............. Carbon Free Sugar (http://www.dominosugar.com/carbonfree/) ...... presumably you get a bag of water. :rolleyes:

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 07:12
We already have a discussion on the "science" of global warming, so why are you not using that one?

And you tell me to "stop being an idiot" because I "have no idea what degree of accuracy you actually need"? Gee, that was spelled out earlier when I said

And how do you calibrate something accurately when the calibration "device" over 100 years ago was not capable of being accurate to several degrees, never mind the tenths of degrees that is being spouted out as "evidence" of CO˛ induced climate change.

After all, the people who claim that AGW/ACC/ACD/whatevertheycallitthisweek are the ones claiming that temperatures were EXACTLY "X" degrees 20, 30, 50, 70, 100, 150, etc, years ago and therefore the "rise" is "Y" degrees in whatever period they choose. If the accuracy of the data from the year they choose as a "base", or "when records began", is questionable as there is no guarantee of it being within 3 degrees of what is claimed then the very "rise" you are talking about, the very "change" you are talking about, is questionable as you cannot guarantee that any "change" is outwith the margin of error shown by the inaccuracy of the data used as a "base" measurement and damn near every measurement since. The only way that the data can be compared is by using "like for like" measuring using the same equipment calibrated to the same degree. An 18-oatcake alcohol thermometer nailed to a wall or tree is hardly similar to a modern day electronic device, calibrated regularly, which is situated and orientated in a way where it is not affected by extraneous effects such as wind and the surface it is mounted upon. Therefore, the accuracy of the dataset is flawed, the collation of the data is flawed, the inter- AND extrapolation of the data to "fill in the gaps" is flawed and all we have is a guess from which a model is created to satisfy a hypothesis instead of being used to prove or disprove the hypothesis. And since that is being presented as "fact", it is being presented as reality, it is nothing but lies.


Now try discussing things instead of insulting, for that is twice you have done so when confronted by someone who does not agree with you. It does not show you in a good light.

PTT
26th May 2013, 07:21
I came here because you started talking rubbish about how it is "impossible" to measure. Why aren't you using the other thread? If you had, I'd be posting there.

And I said to you the the thing 100 years ago does not need to be calibrated to degrees C for accuracy, only to itself. I even linked you how to make such a device. That very simple device is extremely accurate at measuring temperature change as opposed to absolute temperature, and the technology to make one was perfected several hundreds of years ago, let alone 150.

the people who claim that AGW/ACC/ACD/whatevertheycallitthisweek are the ones claiming that temperatures were EXACTLY "X" degrees 20, 30, 50, 70, 100, 150, etc, years ago and therefore the "rise" is "Y" degrees in whatever period they chooseYou've got that backwards. Changes are measured and absolute temperatures are therefore calculated.
The only way that the data can be compared is by using "like for like" measuring using the same equipment calibrated to the same degree. An 18-oatcake alcohol thermometer nailed to a wall or tree is hardly similar to a modern day electronic device, calibrated regularly, which is situated and orientated in a way where it is not affected by extraneous effects such as wind and the surface it is mounted upon.Calibration is not required, as I said. Any device measuring change need only be consistent. Your alcohol thermometer is consistent, and therefore good enough to measure change, and probably very accurately (depending on the bore size).
Do you really need me to explain this with an example?

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 07:36
I replied to a load of condescending crap posted by 3hole, YOU then jumped in and started this nonsense. YOU have continued it. And you show how you have no actual interest in what is said by

Calibration is not required, as I said. Any device measuring change need only be consistent. Your alcohol thermometer is consistent, and therefore good enough to measure change, and probably very accurately (depending on the bore size).
Do you really need me to explain this with an example?

You do not have a "consistent" measuring device, they have changed "since records began". The accuracy has changed, the method of recording has changed, the situation and orientation has changed, the locations have changed, the external effects have been varied, there is absolutely no "constant" whatsoever. Therefore you cannot make any claim of any "rise", "fall" or "constant" with any reasonable degree of accuracy, never mind the tenths or even hundredths of degrees claimed by those who subscribe to the flawed "science", as there is no guarantee that you have a realistic and accurate "base" to guess everything from. That means you can only measure any change using "like for like" and since that means only using the devices we have now, and using the raw data and not the "adjusted" data as the method to "adjust" is also nothing more than guesswork based upon what someone THINKS it is leading to data being adjusted to suit the theory (as has been shown in the other thread), anything else is not suitable to be used as a reasonable analysis to make the claims as if a so-called "rise" falls within the obvious margin of error that should be allowed in the historical dataset it cannot be called a "rise" in any way.

Changes are measured and absolute temperatures are therefore calculated.

Again, prove the accuracy of said change, given that we are talking about tenths of degrees and the accuracy of the measurements, as well as the accuracy of how they were recorded, is clearly questionable.

Therefore you cannot say, with any confidence, that you have an accurate or absolute temperature record.

PTT
26th May 2013, 08:05
Again, you are wrong. Allow me to use an example:

Old thermometer #1 is taken several hundred years ago and used to measure temperature change. On data A of year X the position of the fluid on the tube is noted and marked. On date A of X+1 the change is noted, probably in inches. This continues such that the following dataset is seen:

Day A Year X---| 0
Day A Year X+1| +2.5in
Day A Year X+2| -1.3in
Day A Year X+3| +4.0in
etc...

Old thermometer #1 is being replaced in year Y. Old thermometer #2 replaces it and is callibrated for comparison. This can be done fairly quickly as you can compare the two every day - it is not the same day each year you are comparing but the changes to the levels in each tube. The following dataset is seen:

---------------OT#1| OT#2
Day A+0 Year Y| +2.5| +0.0
Day A+1 Year Y| -1.3| -4.5
Day A+2 Year Y| +1.2| -1.6
Day A+3 Year Y| -1.0| -4.2
Day A+n Year Y| +3.0| +0.6

A comparison can be easily plotted. Over two years there will be over 700 points plotted, which is easily enough to get a consistent conversion. When the comparison is plotted the graph will be a line of some sort, and lines have equations which can be used. In this case it's OT2 = (OT1-2.5)*1.2. It may not be strictly linear: if different liquids are used then the expansion and contraction will not necessarily be at the same rate, making the formula more complex. That doesn't really matter: what matters is that you get a consistent conversion formula, and any line can be converted to a formula.
This can be done time and time again, and at no point so far have we actually measured temperature!

Once we do have a device which does measure accurately against the temperature scale it is easy enough to run use the formulae to convert between each of the old thermometers and your calibrated thermometer to enable us to convert all the previous measurements to the required scale.

That means you can only measure any change using "like for like"Clearly nonsense. I can measure temperature change in °C, °F, K, or whatever. So long as my conversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Conversion) from one to the other is consistent then there is no reason why I can't use whatever scale I like, and that includes "inches of expansion" in any particular instrument.

Therefore you cannot say, with any confidence, that you have an accurate or absolute temperature record.Like I asked, how accurate do you need it to be?

G&T ice n slice
26th May 2013, 08:28
I see, I'm convinced, and perhaps you could furnish us with details of all the hundreds, or even thousands, of "old" and "new" equipment being co-calibrated over a long enough period to make the co-calibrations meaningful, for example 5 complete cycles of annual weather conditions?

Do you actually believe that this was done, with "old" and "new" equipment being positioned in such proximity that they experience exactly the same conditions over that whole period?

Or is it more likely that "oh here we have a set of numbers from the courtyard of the Viceroy of India's residence in Delhi between 1860 and 1900" and "here's another set from the Docks of Bombay between 1890 and 1920"

PAH!

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 08:31
And can you actually prove that the calibration was accurate when said measuring devices were replaced? No, you cannot.

When you "calibrate" the new one to correspond with the old one, can you guarantee that it is measuring accurately and not with a large margin of error? No you cannot. Nailing a new thermostat to a tree means that you do not make sure it reads EXACTLY the same as the old one.

When you add monitoring stations worldwide, since there is not one organisation doing so, can you "prove" that they are "calibrated" accurately? No you cannot.

Can you guarantee that the recording of these inaccurate measurements is accurate? No you cannot as "about 42°F" is hardly "41.5°F", yet when Olaf goes out in the snow to read said thermometer in deep midwinter he will not be able to record or be interested in whether the alcohol in the tube is sitting at 28.4°F or precisely 28°F.

Can you guarantee that there is no external influences such as sunlight (heat) and wind (cold) on the readings given as the "historical" record? No you cannot because, well, none of us were around 150 years ago.

And how do you vouch for the reliability of historical data when a "civilised" country in Europe such as Belgium has an 80-year gap in it's historical temperature and climate record? You cannot.

Therefore, no matter what your pet theories over measuring say, the fact of the matter is that there is no way that anyone can sit there and honestly say that the "Global Climate" over a period of even 50 years can be determined to any reasonable accuracy. That is the issue, not whether you "can" do this or "could" do that or "maybe" do both. What you say "in theory" will not and does not match up to the reality of what was done, therefore the "record" is as fundamentally flawed as the theory, as fundamentally flawed as the records, as fundamentally flawed as the guesstimates used to "fill in the gaps" and is as fundamentally flawed as the use of "adjustments" applied to the raw data to allow for influences such as the UHI as well as the deletion of certain records from the dataset which would show that the theory was, ultimately, as realistic as the sight of a mermaid flying across the sky above Atlantis on the back of a unicorn.

PTT
26th May 2013, 08:32
I didn't say it was done. Hellsbrink was saying it couldn't be done, whereas I was saying it could.I have no idea if it was actually done.

Hellsbrink, all measurements are inaccurate.

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 08:54
So you finally agree that your argument is null and void, there is no way of measuring "Global Climate" even to this day as you have to guess what would "fill in the gaps" and guess what the "measurements" taken over the last 150 years actually were, the historical record is fundamentally flawed meaning that the data used and manipulated to suit the theory is fundamentally flawed and, therefore, the theory and all results and claims associated with it are fundamentally flawed and cannot be used and should not be used by anyone to make such claims as man's "carbon emissions" are slowly and irreversibly changing something that is not actually understood by any of these so-called "scientists" who are doing nothing more than jumping on a bandwagon for their own personal and financial gain.

Glad we finally cleared that up.

PTT
26th May 2013, 09:07
Not at all. I'm just off to the in-laws for a barbeque. The next installment of "What Numerate People do with Numbers" will be on Monday or Tuesday :ok:

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 09:10
Lucky barsteward, weather says that no burning of meat is advisable here today.

Skippy will have to wait another week before he gets to feel the heat.

sisemen
26th May 2013, 09:22
All it needs now is for chucks to turn up and tell us all about the biblical flood in his part of the world.

3holelover
26th May 2013, 10:33
I must apologize for what it was you saw as "condescending crap" Hellsbrink.

I presume you're referring to my jab about folks not understanding the difference between current weather and climate.... That's a frustration coming out. It seems to me whenever the temperature (somewhere?) is below normal, there's always someone who'll shout out, "See! The greenies are wrong!"
Yet I don't see them acknowledging anything when, for instance, NASA posts data to show a warming trend over a period in the Arctic. (as they did just yesterday - Arctic Amplification : Image of the Day (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=81214) )

I'm also quite surprised (no condescension intended here) to see so many, otherwise fairly bright people, who evidently believe they know better than the folks at NASA or NOAA (for instance)... and who, apparently, are of the opinion that our atmosphere is a constant, regardless of our activities.

It's as though people are assuming that since the planet is billions of years old, the atmosphere must have been the same all the time.... Which I'm sure you know is incorrect.

Yes, the composition of our atmosphere is changing. And, we have contributed to those changes. Changes contribute to instability.... Instability is bloody hard to predict and our wisest minds in the relevant fields are doing their best to understand the processes and trying to make predictions. While they're doing so, when they see their amber caution light flashing, they let us know.

Hell, even the best aircraft can't always tell you exactly what went wrong that brought your amber lights on.... Their computers can only tell you what's not working. So then it's up to the boffins to try to work things out. Shall we let the spotters and MS Flight Sim flyers tell us what's wrong? Or would it be better to leave it in the hands of engineers and experts? (maybe I carried that analogy too far? ...I dunno)

Anyway.... I'll leave you alone now. I am sorry I got you miffed. I meant no disrespect. .... It's just that at times I feel that if all the flawed arguments and nonsense I read in these anti-GW threads are not countered by someone, other folks might start to believe it all. ....when in truth, I think, folks who know better have been intimidated into silence by all the noise.

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 11:00
It's just that at times I feel that if all the flawed arguments and nonsense I read in these anti-GW threads are not countered by someone, other folks might start to believe it all. ....when in truth, I think, folks who know better have been intimidated into silence by all the noise.

I see, so we are all supposed to be intimidated into believing that the pro-GW dribble is absolute truth when it breaks damn near every description of "science" by using such fundamentally flawed reasoning and arguments? Anything else apart from pro-GW reasoning is "noise" even though, by far, most of the "noise" is coming from the pro- side of the argument as it is they who use "hottest <whichever month> for X years", "coldest spring for 30 years", wettest winter for 50 years" and try to say that said weather is actual proof of AGW/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption/whatevertheycallitthisweek?

Nice to see I was right about your intentions and beliefs though.

3holelover
26th May 2013, 11:54
Now you see Hellsbrink, that's the sort of nastiness I was talking about coming through again... Would you talk to me like that in person?

by far, most of the "noise" is coming from the pro- side of the argument
Oh? Funny..... I could swear by the "noise" in this thread, the other thread here, and almost everywhere the discussion exists among laymen on message boards, that vocal anti-GW folks outnumber those pro by about 20 to 1.
(a guesstimate)

As I said, I'll leave you alone now (that is, unless you respond with something nasty again).

TTFN

green granite
26th May 2013, 12:01
Yet I don't see them acknowledging anything when, for instance, NASA posts data to show a warming trend over a period in the Arctic.

3holelover, what is there to acknowledge? With the possible exception of hellsbrink, all of us on here are perfectly happy that the climate warmed at the end of the last century, but there again it does that on a regular basis.

http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/Subatlantic_Had.png

GISS stuff is currently suspect because of the influence Hanson had on the way corrections are used so the temperatures may not be quite as high as they suggest, but even if they are it in no way proves that CO2 and therefore man is the cause.

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 12:07
I would be likely to say something far worse "in person" if you came out with something like that to my face.

Oh? Funny..... I could swear by the "noise" in this thread, the other thread here, and almost everywhere the discussion exists among laymen on message boards, that vocal anti-GW folks outnumber those pro by about 20 to 1.

And if you had actually read the other thread you would have found more than enough references to research, more than enough details disproving AGW, more than enough material debunking the "method" used to prove AGW.

Strangely, nobody on the "pro-" side actually comes out with anything to show that said references, details, studies, etc, are actually wrong in any way, they just do what you have been doing and try to patronise the person posting as well as attacking the person who has actually provided the details in the reports/studies, etc. In other words, all that the pro- camp seems to do is shout, scream, belittle and tell the world that everyone is wrong except them. Yet you say that is "discussion" and anything that disproves the evidence is just "noise".

By that standard we should never see you posting in this or the main climate change thread as you have not posted anything that has not been discussed previously, you have not proved anything that has not already been debunked, you have not done anything apart from add "noise" to this thread.

So do have a nice day, and think about what you are whining about before doing exactly what you whine about.

3holelover
26th May 2013, 13:09
Yes Hellsbrink, but I'm not a climate scientist, and I'll wager you're not either, so what can you and I "prove"?

You want to have a link fest? Surely you know I could find a contrary match to almost anything you find? I'm not interested. (and in fact I've been through that elsewhere) Have you not bothered to see for yourself all the genuine science that does indeed show how flawed the anti-side is? That's your prerogative. You choose to believe nothing has advanced beyond the scandal of "climate gate" a couple years back... that there is no real science behind the GW theories... NASA has it wrong. NOAA has it wrong. Virtually all reputable science organizations on Earth have it wrong.
What could I possibly do to change your mind?
Again, I'm not here for that.
I'm simply challenging the myopic vision that we can do as we please with this (essentially) closed environmental system we live within.
That anyone thinks we can really surprises me.

I don't know what the truth is, as far as how much effect we've had, or what the next 50, 500, or 5000 years will bring, and neither do you, but I'd rather put stock in what the experts are saying, than take anything to heart from lay people who just talk louder and know nothing.

And your continued rudeness is exactly what I mean about people being intimidated into silence. Who want's to confront that?

Flying Binghi
26th May 2013, 13:14
via 3holelover:
...Yes, the composition of our atmosphere is changing. And, we have contributed to those changes. Changes contribute to instability.... Instability is bloody hard to predict and our wisest minds in the relevant fields are doing their best to understand the processes and trying to make predictions. While they're doing so, when they see their amber caution light flashing, they let us know...

"Changes contribute to instability" - How did yer work that out 3holelover ?








.

Flying Binghi
26th May 2013, 13:24
via 3holelover:
I'd rather put stock in what the experts are saying...

And round we go again... hopefully there is something new and exciting to hear, i'm gettin a bit jaded with the hysteria mungers..:hmm:


Well 3holelover give us a look-see at one of ya experts - who is it and what do s/he say about it ?..:)






.

green granite
26th May 2013, 14:46
Yes, the composition of our atmosphere is changing. And, we have contributed to those changes. Changes contribute to instability.... Instability is bloody hard to predict

3holelover, you really do not understand the nature of the atmosphere do you, By it's very nature it's chaotic, no chaotic system is, or ever can be called stable therefore we cannot make it less stable.

Have a think about this: back in the 70's man cleaned up his emissions of particulates from the chimneys of factories, power stations and vehicle exhausts, so how about a hypothesis that says man is responsible for the recent increase in temperatures because he stopped spewing out the things that kept the planet from being heated up too much by the sun.


and our wisest minds in the relevant fields are doing their best to understand the processes and trying to make predictions.

Unfortunately the noisiest aren't necessarily the wisest, take the recent head of GISS for example, Hanson is an activist he has been arrested 3 times during global warming demonstrations in Washington, he doesn't bother to get his papers peer reviewed he just published them on the NASA website, in one paper he actually stated that when he plotted the empirical data the result seemed unlikely so the data was modified to fit the output of his models. This guy set the way AGW was pushed by NASA, the way temperature corrections were applied to make the early part of the 20th century cooler to exaggerate the recent warming and to remove the embarrassing fact that temperatures in the 1930's were in fact warmer than now. Unfortunately his successor is nearly as bad.

3holelover
26th May 2013, 14:50
Hello Flying Binghi.... try these folks on for starters: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (http://climate.nasa.gov)

AtomKraft
26th May 2013, 14:51
I've only been here for 52 years- and I know that isn't long.
During that time the climate/ wx ain't changed a jot.

It was shit when I rocked up, it's shit today and I'll bet a pound it'll be shit when I check out.

Why, FFS, don't we worry about the things we can change easily and quickly, like hunger, disease, war-mongering, inequality, social mobility (lack of), human rights, banking wankers, dishonest politicians, over population, killing off of female children, genetic mutilation of girls and so on.

It's a long list.

Maybe someone else can add to it?

Come on. What could be we doing with all the worry and money going into the AGW scam?

3holelover
26th May 2013, 15:09
Hello Mr. Granite....
A couple of points, if I may....
-That purple line in the top graph you posted on this page looks a little worrisome to me.
-I do actually understand something of the nature of our atmosphere, and there can be relative stability, even in a chaotic system, that you seem to be forgetting. Any changes we make to it's content do indeed "contribute to instability" ....sometimes, a very small change can push something that has been relatively stable, over a sort of tipping point. Some think we've already gone that far with atmospheric concentrations of CO2. I don't know.
-I didn't say noisiest, did I? I said wisest.

Please understand that I am well aware I'm no expert. I don't purport to be.

....and I'm not here to bite on bait for the amusement of all the fishermen in the crowd, so I think I'll sit back for a while.

Polikarpov
26th May 2013, 15:10
I'm also quite surprised (no condescension intended here) to see so many, otherwise fairly bright people, who evidently believe they know better than the folks at NASA or NOAA (for instance)... and who, apparently, are of the opinion that our atmosphere is a constant, regardless of our activities.

It's as though people are assuming that since the planet is billions of years old, the atmosphere must have been the same all the time.... Which I'm sure you know is incorrect.

This is pretty much the polar opposite to what us "deniers" are saying, by and large.

In fact, I doubt anyone is actually a "climate change" denier except, perhaps, for the tax-sinks that are Mann and co., who seem to believe we would remain in some nirvanic climatic stasis were it not for the meddling of man (despite billions of years of geologic evidence to the contrary).

It's the "catastrophic anthropogenic" bit that is generally contentious in this open, chaotic system, along with numerous correlation = causation errors, the belief that taxation can prevent tornadoes, etc.

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 15:14
You want to have a link fest? Surely you know I could find a contrary match to almost anything you find? I'm not interested. (and in fact I've been through that elsewhere) Have you not bothered to see for yourself all the genuine science that does indeed show how flawed the anti-side is? That's your prerogative. You choose to believe nothing has advanced beyond the scandal of "climate gate" a couple years back... that there is no real science behind the GW theories... NASA has it wrong. NOAA has it wrong. Virtually all reputable science organizations on Earth have it wrong.
What could I possibly do to change your mind?
Again, I'm not here for that.
I'm simply challenging the myopic vision that we can do as we please with this (essentially) closed environmental system we live within.
That anyone thinks we can really surprises me.

I don't know what the truth is, as far as how much effect we've had, or what the next 50, 500, or 5000 years will bring, and neither do you, but I'd rather put stock in what the experts are saying, than take anything to heart from lay people who just talk louder and know nothing.

And your continued rudeness is exactly what I mean about people being intimidated into silence. Who want's to confront that?

Again, if you had actually read the other thread you would see I never claimed to be a scientist but have questioned their method as even a blind man can see that there is something wrong with the method used. For that, we rely on the contrary opinion of EXPERTS, of which many of those claiming to know about "Climate Change" are most definitely not.

You want to start posting links, that's your prerogative. I certainly haven't been doing so, so why do you talk about a "links fest"? Are you trying to show you are able to copy and paste from Google, for that is all you will be able to prove.

See the genuine science that shows flaws in the anti- argument? Sonny, we can see how flawed the "science" of climate change is. All your links will show is that there is no real attempt to prove that the research, etc, carried out by the anti's, the research referred to by people like myself, is flawed but merely offers excuses and attempted ridicule. After all, it wasn't the anti camp who ignored the effects of solar activity and methane in their attempts to prove that "warming" was caused by CO˛, and it wasn't the anti side which used opinion pieces and non-peer reviewed work to try and justify a stance that they could not actually prove outside a flawed computer model. It certainly was not the anti side who manipulated data to make the model produce what they wanted either. So how is that "genuine science"?

Climategate was merely the tip of the iceberg. The same manipulation, the same flawed models, the same flawed "science" is still being used today despite the evidence out there that shows that they have gotten everything wrong. You choose to ignore that, that's up to you. Some of us did have open minds when the whole thing kicked off, same as some of us remember how the very same emissions were meant to cause an ice age when the first scre stories emerged over 35 years ago. So how does one gas cause cooling that becomes warming when it's clear that the cooling is not happening? Never thought of that or do you just ignore that too?

And I have never had the view that we can do what we wish to this planet, far from it. Again, if you had actually read the other thread like you claimed you had you would know that. But that does not mean that man's emissions are somehow tipping the equilibrium of the planet, especially as damn near every claim made over the impending doom from rising temperatures has been comprehensively destroyed. Of course, you will also be ignoring how one of your own, a certain Professor Myles Allen, a man with infinitely more knowledge over climate matters than you have, has openly called for an end to the waste of billions currently being thrown at what many of us believe is a problem that does not exist. This is after he, and others of his ilk, published a paper that showed how the extreme claims of the "pro" lobby are shown to be fantasy, nothing above the level of those in another thread on this forum who are ranting about the wrongs of gay marriage, and saying "we got it wrong". I guess you'll be ignoring that too, even although it is someone from the "pro" camp telling the world that the outlandish claims based on false science are actually what those who do not believe in AGW or ACC have been saying all along. That they are falsehoods, fantasies and nothing more than barefaced lies perpetrated by those who's only wish is to further themselves and fill their wallets. And that ain't "science".

And finally, to go back to

And your continued rudeness is exactly what I mean about people being intimidated into silence. Who want's to confront that?

How many times did you try to badger me into answering a question you would have known the answer to if you had actually read the other thread on the subject of Climate Change? How many times did you try to INTIMIDATE me into answering something that had already been answered elsewhere? You think that behaviour is neither "rude" nor "intimidatory", it was not actually meant to provoke a response? In other words, I hear Mrs. Kettle calling you, Mr. Pot........

stuckgear
26th May 2013, 15:18
Some think we've already gone that far with atmospheric concentrations of CO2

Still unanswered...


Can you provide *any* empirical evidence at all that CO2 causes increase in temperature..

And again; I'll give you the answer...

there is NO evidence that CO2 causes global warming, but if *you* think there is evidence, go ahead, knock yourself out on finding it.

hellsbrink
26th May 2013, 15:31
there is NO evidence that CO2 causes global warming

The graph posted earlier shows exactly the opposite. And I didn't see anything from anyone denying that either.

Strange......

stuckgear
26th May 2013, 16:35
as far as i am aware, there is no empiracal evidence that shows CO2 causes increase in temperature.

Carbon follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists,

The 800 year lag ? graphed « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/)


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg?w=640&h=373 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg) Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2 (NOOA; green), monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2; blue stippled) and monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3; red), since January 1980. Last month shown is December 2011.

Reposted from the Hockey Schtick (http://hockeyschtick.********.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html), as I’m out of time and on the road.- Anthony

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans (http://hockeyschtick.********.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html), only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/)

green granite
26th May 2013, 17:38
and I'm not here to bite on bait for the amusement of all the fishermen in the crowd,

I wasn't trying to 'bait you' I was hoping there might actually be a discussion on the science, hence the graph of the last 2500 years for central Greenland, showing, as it does, that it was hotter in the past than it is now.

sisemen
28th May 2013, 16:40
This does it for me:

June 26, 1997 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL SESSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

"First, I am convinced that the science is solid, saying the that climate is warming at a more rapid rate, that this is due in large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and that nobody knows exactly what the consequences are going to be or when they're going to be manifest, but, on balance, it won't be all that long and they won't be good."

U.S. Vice President Al Gore at same event, in response to question "And the administration accepts that fact that that debate [about effect by humans] is over.": "Yes, sir. Yes, sir. On that one point, yes, sir."

OK. The debate is over. "The science is settled" (exact quote not attributable but the meaning of Gore's statement is incontrovertible).

Fast forward to now:

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

So, not really that cut and dried eh? Maybe those that call us deniers might accept the fact that what we have been saying since square one might actually be proven correct.

And to deny that statement really does put the "science" of "global warming caused by humans" firmly into the quasi religious basket.

The climate is changing - fact. It is caused by human activity - not proven. The absolute truth as portrayed in 1997 by all the 'experts' has been proven to be incorrect - fact. The behaviour of the planet is not conforming to the 'models' and appears to be cooling rather than warming - fact.

Flying Binghi
29th May 2013, 02:03
Try again...

via 3holelover

...Yes, the composition of our atmosphere is changing. And, we have contributed to those changes. Changes contribute to instability.... Instability is bloody hard to predict and our wisest minds in the relevant fields are doing their best to understand the processes and trying to make predictions. While they're doing so, when they see their amber caution light flashing, they let us know...




"Changes contribute to instability" - How did yer work that out 3holelover ?







.

G-CPTN
30th May 2013, 16:49
This spring is on track to be the UK coldest for more than 50 years, provisional Met Office figures suggest.
If conditions stay the same in the last days of May, it will be the coldest spring since 1962, and the fifth coldest since records began in 1910.
From (and more at):- BBC News - Spring will be coldest in 50 years, Met Office says (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22718944)

green granite
30th May 2013, 16:58
Yep, and there are some strange noises about listening to what the sceptics have to say, coming from government ministers, I sense a shift of position about to happen.

ORAC
30th May 2013, 17:09
Delingpole taking no prisoners.......

'Trougher' Yeo recants on global warming (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100219218/trougher-yeo-recants-on-global-warming/)

green granite
30th May 2013, 17:39
This of course is one reason they changed the name to 'climate change', it gives them an 'out'.

As in Yeo's statement: “Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”

OFSO
30th May 2013, 19:53
Damn it, I am cold on global warming ! It's been raining all day and on TV tonight yet another warning to carry chains if you are driving up to Andorra as there will be 'significant' falls of snow, 20cms - 40cms tonight, with winds in excess of 100 kph tomorrow bringing drifting on top of that.

wiggy
31st May 2013, 03:44
OFSO - it's cold and wet this side of "the hills" as well...in fact it's so cold that French ski station to re-open slopes, in June! - The Local (http://www.thelocal.fr/20130529/as-summer-arrives-french-ski-station-opens-slopes)