Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

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

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:58
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by boogie-nicey View Post
Like I mentioned previously this isn't so much to do with GW, whether it's happening, slowing down, accelerating, etc but more regarding the absence of informed opinion and consequently debate. It appears that the green brigade are like most lefties very jealous people inside and want to ensure that we all dance to their tune, Not me.
Boogie, I get quite the opposite impression. It appears to me anyone trying to deny global warming on here cannot put together a coherent argument when presented the most basic evidence.

I am more than happy that they are willing to challenge the evidence (as did SET 18 when presented with a chart of only 150 years), but even these challenges show a lack of knowledge of the greater picture that has gone in to forming the global warming hypothesis.

Your post smacks of paranoia, that global warming theory = your car being confiscated, left-wingers taking control of politics, forced conformity. What you don't answer is how we can justify our environmental footprint and our carbon emission levels if this is shown to contribute to potential global chaos.

Try looking to Sweden for a good example of a country attempting to curb its carbon emissions and doing so in a market oriented way that isn't going to cost people their jobs. What global warming really requires is that we pay more for luxuries that we currently consider necessities.

Last edited by Sunray Minor; 27th Oct 2006 at 11:11.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 11:07
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nepal
Age: 41
Posts: 1
Global warming will never stop, no one is goin to stop it. They cant, they all are business people..........
oh my earth
ultranet is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 11:58
  #83 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Poppycock?

Absolute poppycock! The hockeystick is just one element of the case, not the sole part. You really need to spend some time looking at the scientific literature.
Really Dr.Dave? Did you spend the time looking at the NAS literature yourself?

Then surely you would have seen this quote from Dr.Gerald North, chairman of the National Academies, in the NAS June 22nd report:

"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. However, the substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."

I call that "debunked". You see Dr.Dave, Mann et al for convenience's sake "forgot" to include the Mideval Warm Period in their graph. It's not a Hockeystick, it's a Boomerang.


Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 12:36
  #84 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Capt.KAOS View Post
You see Dr.Dave, Mann et al for convenience's sake "forgot" to include the Mideval Warm Period in their graph. It's not a Hockeystick, it's a Boomerang.
The trouble is Capt. Kaos, there is now considerable doubt about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period at all, for the simple reason that the climate data does not support it. See for example the explanation on this NOAA website, with accompanying graphs:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html

There is a reason why the top graph that you produced has no scale!

The issue is reviewed properly in the following comprehensive, independent study which has been published after the NAS report:

"ROBUSTNESS OF THE MANN, BRADLEY, HUGHES RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE SURFACE TEMPERATURES: EXAMINATION OF CRITICISMS BASED ON THE NATURE AND PROCESSING OF PROXY CLIMATE EVIDENCE. EUGENE R. WAHL and CASPAR M. AMMANN 2006.
Published in: Climatic Change.

They concluded "The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400-1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400-1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed...Also, recent "corrections" to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (~ +0.05°), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years.

This is, as far as I am aware, the latest and most reliable analysis of the hockey stick to date. This is most definitely not debunked as you claim, although I accept that the debate will continue.

Again, when you examine the data, rather than the rhetoric, the picture becomes much clearer, and the evidence supporting the anthropogenic climate change model remains strong.

If you wish to maintain that the hockey stick graph has been debunked, perhaps you could highlight the errors in the above analysis? (The paper is available online, or I can send the file to you if you wish)
 
Old 27th Oct 2006, 12:42
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Could someone please explain how 'they' are able to determine temperature variations of a fraction of a degree thousands of years ago?
forget is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 13:04
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
Easy

They can't.
brain fade is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 13:39
  #87 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Brain Fade, great reply, very helpful!

There are a range of techniques for measuring past temperatures. In most cases, a number are used simultaneously to allow cross checking. Techniques include examining the widths of tree rings (which are correlated with temperature), the ratio of oxygen isotopes in glacial ice, variations in species of microscopic animals trapped in sediment (different kinds thrive at different temperatures), variations in snowline height, thicknesses of ice accumulation recorded in glaciers, the thickness of lake sediments, and many others. Correlations are made between these indicators and the instrument temperature record, allowing them to be used as temperature proxies. Again, there is a huge literature on this. Inevitably, the accuracy declines as the age increases.

Interesting, in their original paper proposing the Hockey Stick that Capt. Kaos displikes so much, Mann et al stated: "We focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats... expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400...more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached".

You can't say that they didn't highlight the potential weaknesses, as some have asserted. However, their results have stood the test of time, and some pretty intense examinations.
 
Old 27th Oct 2006, 13:52
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Correlations are made between these indicators and the instrument temperature record, allowing them to be used as temperature proxies.
How does that work then. What 'instrument temperature' record?

Inevitably, the accuracy declines as the age increases.
Quite.
forget is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 14:12
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Forget,

I'm impressed that you are willing to challenge all aspects of science in order to deny climate change. Are you willing to also challenge, say, that the moon landings happened or that some free-mason conspiracy was not behind 9/11 or the killing of JFK?

At what point will you decide to accept the volumes of academic study that have gone in to this, the ability through geological science to infer characteristics of the earth's previous states? The ability to predict previous temperatures are not in question here, nor are they in serious academic opposition to climate change theory.

You really are clutching at straws if you wish to go down that line and again this smacks desperately of a head stuck in the sand.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 14:25
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Oh dear All I asked was that someone please explain how 'they' are able to determine temperature variations of a fraction of a degree thousands of years ago? Well? The very mention of tree rings raises an eyebrow.
forget is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 14:53
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Few scientists would claim the methods are perfect, but they are solid, used in countless other areas of scientific research and do all point in one direction. The fact that measurements come from numerous sources is welcome as is the incorporation of such different methods. Most of the science that surrounds you every day, be that meteorology or metallurgy is far from proven, yet is quite clearly accurate enough.

You on the other hand are refuting this wealth of knowledge on the grounds of....well, no science at all. Again, much like a refusal to accept that the Earth was in fact a globe and not flat.

This is what I find entertaining: complete denial, refusal to accept and looking for the smallest possible doubt or hole to undermine an entire area of peer-reviewed research that must account to millions of man hours.

Again, what is it exactly you don't like about the claims of climate change? Do you believe your knowledge on the subject is better than those academics (who after all can't even tie their shoe laces)? Do you feel threatened? Is it the politics of the proponents that offends you? The changes in your life style that are being called for? Apathy?

Or perhaps being safe in the knowledge that you will be 6 feet under by the time the chooks come home to roost? Is the potential disaster too much to handle and rather than making the painful steps necessary to change this, go in to denial, simply look after number one, sod the rest and enjoy what's left of our pleasant carbon emitting lifestyle?
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 15:09
  #92 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
I have no problems with climate change as such. The problem I have is the total lack of hard evidence that it is CO2 thats causing it but having it ramed down ones throat, every 5 mins, that it is CO2 that's the culprit
green granite is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 15:13
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,198
Or perhaps being safe in the knowledge that you will be 6 feet under by the time the chooks come home to roost? Is the potential disaster too much to handle and rather than making the painful steps necessary to change this, go in to denial, simply look after number one, sod the rest and enjoy what's left of our pleasant carbon emitting lifestyle?
I guess I'll just have to hold my breath then....... otherwise the sky is going to fall in!

Personally I think we should be more worried about the earths magnetic field collapsing....and getting fried by shortwave cosmic radiation C02 emmissions are probably resposible for that as well
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 15:14
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Dr. Dave don't get sucked in on a useless forum like PPRuNe.
Continue the real science. It's obviously an open Q for science. So much conflicting data and hypotheses. Go back home in durham and analyse what data you have. Go back to real science.
Re-entry is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 15:15
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
Dave

Simply reply for a simple truth.

They can't- and that's it!

Tree ring counting etc. All well and good for a rough guide but NOT good til .1 of a degree and even if it was- how would you extrapolate that to give GLOBAL temp?

For fecks sake- I'd like to see them 'take the temp' of the Earth today to 0.1 degree.

It's comfortable to trust the scientists and easy to go with the flow.

The scientist's are wrong sometimes.
brain fade is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 16:32
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Brain Fade,

Pushing the climate change hypothesis is hardly going with the flow. The ramifications are massive: a complete change in our lifestyle, potential for suppression of economies and a direct claim against some of the largest industries and most powerful countries on the planet. If you think this is some partisan attack on business and the wealthy, the changes required also directly conflict with traditional development theory as it relates to the third world.

Far from going with the flow, the solution to climate change goes utterly against the flow and will have a direct and negative impact on all our lives.

Scientists can most certainly be wrong. I'd like you to give me an idea of when the majority of scientific knowledge, backed up on sound and tried method, putting forward an idea as more than just a theory, has been as wrong as you claim it is now and again, I'd like you to at least provide an explanation why they are currently wrong and provide evidence to support that. If you don't wish to trust tree rings, fine. It seems though that this distrust by your reasoning also invalidates the findings from the Vostok ice samples.

In this instance, where the available evidence points to an increase in temperatures correlating to our CO2 emissions you wish to use NO EVIDENCE to argue the complete opposite. That is worse science than the science you are criticising.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 16:54
  #97 (permalink)  

Untitled
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 87
If you acknowledge that we have or are likely to be having an impact, with our millions of tonnes of gases and our deforestation, and that something can be done to mitigate that impact (although I accept the diehards here don't accept either point) then “hockey stick” or “boomerang” have little relevance to the question of how we choose to shape our own futures.

It's merely the latest in a string of diversionary arguments that have matured from complete denial of change, through complete denial of human contribution to said change, and now to (in most cases) grudging acceptance of a human component, but a focus on past times, when things were worse.

Quite why I should give a stuff what climate my ancestors enjoyed, whether medieval peasants or ape-men in trees, I’m not sure. I’m more concerned about my descendents.

If it can be proven we're on a natural cyclical upswing (which is entirely possible, although most cyclicity evident in the geologic record is of a much longer period, e.g. Milankovitch) it's still no reason to shrug before merrily making it worse!
Polikarpov is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 17:03
  #98 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
The 'science' espoused by the deniers on this thread really is going into the realm of flat earth theory.

It's been confidently asserted that there is a 'massive debate' on whether CO2 emissions contribute to global warming, or that we 'don't really know what's happening', or that most hoary of old chestnuts 'I marvel at the idea that we as mere mortals could really make such a difference'. Oh, and one poster claiming that 'the pacific ocean is massive, so what damage could we possibly do?'

So where is this 'massive debate' going on? Not in the scientific community; possibly among Dubya's ill-informed oil friends. Where's the scientific evidence from the deniers that it's not happening? We've heard a lot of bluster here but not one jot of evidence. We've been reminded what a great coup for any scientist it would be to debunk the 'myth', and not one has been able to do it.

From my perspective, the case for a significant human effect on global warming and the increasingly erratic climate is proved and proved beyond reasonable doubt, m'lud. If it was on trial in the criminal courts 'anthropogenic climate change' would be going down for a stretch.

The hysteria is due to the fact that a great many people have their heads stuck in the sand and refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to reverse the warming trend.

I totally agree with most of that, the deniers are merely taking the position simply so they can have a clear conscience about the way they live their lives.

Where I disagree is that lifestyle sacrifices could reverse the trend. They couldn't. The damage has already been done and would not be reversed even if we went back to the pre-industrial revolution way of life tomorrow. We can mitigate against the impact but we can't reverse it, and it will undoubtedly signal the end of this civilisation in global climactic catastrophe. I give this civilisation 100 years at best. The human race will survive, and so will the planet, but the way of life won't. And we all contribute to it, 24/7 we are all using the earth's resources at a far greater rate than the planet can sustain. We can also all do our bit to use less.

The reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus by now has been convinced of the huge impact the massive human CO2 emissions are having on the environment. Just a shame there are so many unreasonable men here who are unwilling to face the truth. As General Melchett said : "When all else fails, a total pig-headed unwillingness to stare bare facts in the face will see us through "
Wedge is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 17:10
  #99 (permalink)  
Wurzel's Brother
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: midlands, uk
Posts: 47
Okay, Okay - 103 replies and lots of arguing/shouting/denial/guilt.

No solutions (apart from 'tax them more').

Assuming (yes, I know....) that irrespective of global warming or not it would be wise to reduce pollution (I cannot imagine that anyone thinks that polution is good ) what should we - THE WORLD - do to actually reduce pollution? Stuff like carbon trading doesn't reduce the problem, what are acceptable levels of pollution (given that transport is needed to get things from a to b - even those involved in the construction of green projects) and so on. Any answers? Is sackcloth and ashes the only way?

Not trying to hijack the thread but to get something constructive out of it (apologies boogey-nicey).
Navajo8686 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 18:36
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,198
I give this civilisation 100 years at best
Gimmie a break, next thing your gonna say is that there is a giant comet headed towards earth..we are all DOOMED!!
haughtney1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.