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

The Climate Change debate

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

The Climate Change debate

Old 27th Jan 2010, 12:25
  #4341 (permalink)  
Just another number
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 1,078
Simonpro

it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the climate is currently warming
Reading the report in the link given by rvv500,

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...rface_temp.pdf

it would seem that there is considerable doubt as to whether the world is actually warming.

Dave
Captain Airclues is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 12:35
  #4342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
I'm really not that smart but doesn't this say it all?

it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the climate is currently warming
I thought we were talking science, and numbers, millions of numbers. 'Reasonable doubt' tells me that guesses are being made. No?
forget is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 12:52
  #4343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,483
Anyway, picked up a good bit of info from the thread on the Morning Glory. One of the sites linked to another site of an astronomer who can accurately predict to the day when these phenomena appear.

Aerology.com
Lunar Declinational Tides

This guy uses a simple method of showing a pattern in the weather that repeats every 18 and a bit years. The method he uses to predict the Morning Glory is to predict the presences of a Lunar Declinational Tide in the atmosphere. Basic description is when the Moon crosses the Equator from south to north in our spring. Interaction with the solar wind and causes all sorts of weather issues. The cycle takes 6558 days and allows a pattern in the weather to appear in an 18.6 year cycle with better predictability than the current models.

When reading how the atmosphere interacts with the solar wind a lunar cycles and how the Decadal Pacific Oscillation appears to flop every 40 years thereabouts and this guy has a cycle that matches pretty closely. Every second cycle could well cause the North Pacific to flop into a cooling or warming cycle. Interesting when you look at the warming and cooling trends of the climate over the last century.

Created today will check on the Sunday of the Tyabb Airshow and see how the US faired with the weather predictions
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 13:14
  #4344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cloud9
Posts: 104
YouTube - Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura - Global Warming - Part 1/6 [EPISODE 3]
evyjet is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 14:34
  #4345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Sorry Capt.KAOS, should've just posted the link.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 15:44
  #4346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: God's Country
Posts: 37
rvv500

Not at all, I read your post, I probably would not have clicked on a link. Capt Kaos doesn't have to read your post if it is too long.


Gentleman Jim
Gentleman Jim is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 18:39
  #4347 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Please do not miss the statement on the previous page by our friend.

"It is certain CO2 is a driver of climate..."

NO. It is not. Historically whether varve, ice core, or Dendro, CO2 is a DRIVEN.

Don't let the data hit you in the ass, now.

bear
 
Old 27th Jan 2010, 20:31
  #4348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Following this from John Beddington, his Chief Scientific Advisor, is it now time that Gordon Brown makes a public apology to all AGW sceptics for describing us as "anti- science and flat earthists"?
Dont Bet on it..

Andrew Brown, our beloved leader, Gordon Brown's brother is 'Corporate Communications Director' for EDF energy, which is cashing in on Gordon's obsession with nuclear power.

EDF's "Green Britain Day" last year was bit of a disaster and EDF stole the green-themed union flag logo from Ecotricity.

While EDF trys to cash in on 'green energy' it is also the 'sustainability' parter on the London 2012 Olympics...

Meanwhile Gordon Brown in Copenhagen cited

"the need for low-carbon energy production and infrastructure"

and

"will require up to $33 trillion of investment by 2030"

and

"A strong deal that establishes legally binding commitments to reduce emissions will provide the confidence and certainty needed to underpin low-carbon investment."

and

"The U.N. talks are therefore not only about safeguarding the environment but also about stimulating economic demand and investment."
Bruce Wayne is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 21:21
  #4349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
To my knowledge no climatologist has ever said that CO2=AGW.
Sounds like an attempt (you failed) to get an excuse in early no doubt as you are beginning to appreciate the 'consensus' tea leaves are making different signs lately.

One could just as legitimately say that no skeptic has ever said they believe the Earth is flat and then equally imply that their scientific competence is therefore above reproach.

Let me remind and demonstrate to you Simenpro, of your naivety with regard your 'beliefs' :

The Hadley center is one of the most respected organisations in the world, they take all possible precautions when examining data or making predictions based upon their models, if anything they should be used as a model for scientific research in the field.
Followed closely by your rock-solid defence of that sentiment...

Some of the emails released are sickening - the ones where scientists are discussing how best to 'spin' the BBC into line are, frankly, a disgrace and an embarrassment to all professional scientists. The rest of the emails, discussing peer reviews, data, models and the freedom of information act, are not exactly revelations and I can't see any problem with the way they acted.
Now your stance is :

All I believe is that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the climate is currently warming and it is beyond all reasonable doubt that we are having at least some effect upon this.
Why is this merely another example of your muddled thinking?

1) You assume the pro-AGW 'scientific' community understand 'the climate' or at least a timeframe to which it adheres - if not, how therefore could you/they...

2) ...assert the climate is warming - but where there is reasonable doubt whether this is noise or trend. Nevertheless, you further assert...

3) ...that man is the cause - where there is reasonable doubt whether his CO2 contribution is even meaningful let alone significant. Nevertheless...

4) ...you seem to rely on 'reasonable doubt' (AKA public opinion) as a sufficent test of an independently untestable hypothesis to establish it's scientific accuracy. Nevertheless...

5) ...you claim a scientific approach but your position is subjective.

Your lack of consistency can be reduced to your chronic blind-spot of the simple fact that AGW 'science' is fundamentally unscientific (it is actually that simple).

The AGW premise is pretty much that man is causing the world's climate to get warmer at a significant and therefore problematic rate. Even ignoring the lack of rigour in quantifying 'significant' or 'rate' or even whether it's even man causing it (even if 'it' is actually happening), the premise is UNTESTABLE in the lifetime of anyone.

Therefore, for a supposed 'scientific community' to take a position on untestable AGW other than skeptical indicates that the premise and it's mainstream anlysis is not fundamentally based on science but on opinion.

The relatively recently re-job-titled 'scientific community' have seen themselves promoted (by virtue of lefty Govts globally) from amateur nonentities into the marketing dept for a political cause.

AGW is therefore merely politics. (and the political temperature is changing colour almost as fast as the weather - or is that just spurious correlation?)
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 21:31
  #4350 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Sorry Capt.KAOS, should've just posted the link.
Cheers mate. I didn't realise that this website censors bl0gspot websites.

Capt Kaos doesn't have to read your post if it is too long.
I did read the message already and clicking the link gives the same result.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 22:23
  #4351 (permalink)  
PT6
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bus Class
Posts: 28
Unhappy IPCC and Climategate I and II

As an ex science teacher I personally don't believe all the material put forward by the IPCC is correct. Now it seems that Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairperson is part of TERI (part of TATA a huge Indian enterprise with close Govt. ties) whose environmental division stands to make millions out of carbon trading schemes and other climat change initiatives. He is now being discredited by many scientists worldwide.

Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our (US) government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.

If you are interested in some truth check out: ICECAP

It seems it IS really the sun and cloud cover that control our temperature down here! Nothing to do with "carbon pollution". PS. Carbon and CO2 are not pollutants!

Another item of interest in this debate: Global Warming: The Other Side | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new projects, and guess where the money goes?

Information from the EU’s HighNoon website, shows how the EU set up a project to research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the bogus IPCC report. Some of the EU taxpayers' money put into this project has gone to TERI, which is run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Surely this is a clear conflict of interest?

Last edited by PT6; 27th Jan 2010 at 22:37.
PT6 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2010, 23:14
  #4352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Meanwhile Gordon Brown in Copenhagen cited

"the need for low-carbon energy production and infrastructure"
Eh? That is surely complete bollocks as our resident climate sage (Simenpro) unequivocally just stated that climatologistas have NEVER EVER EVER said that CO2=AGW, therefore why on earth would any politician ever think they have the credibility to promote policy around carbon. They're not just making this stuff up simply to suit their agenda you know
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 01:53
  #4353 (permalink)  
Silly Old Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: saiba spes
Posts: 3,727
Hee hee

tinpis is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 03:14
  #4354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
And let's not forget that our resident climate sage stated in these very boards that AGW theory has as wide an acceptance and credibility as Einstein's theories.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 03:22
  #4355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
The Information Commissioner's Office has stated that the scientists in the UEA Climategate row broke the law in not revealing their data under FOI requests but states that it could not prosecute them because of the 6 months limitation under the law. Now the ICO is seeking to have the law amended to avoid this problem in future.

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data - Times Online

And it this very same act of illegally refusing to follow FOI act, that Simonpro found no problem with and gave a clean chit to the scientists saying that they did nothing wrong.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 04:17
  #4356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Report in Today's China Daily

Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC?
By Li Xing (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-01-28 07:07

”While covering the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, I took a morning away from the main venue to attend a forum of “climate skeptics”.

The speakers presented political, economic, and scientific analyses to counter the series of assessments by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A few of the skeptics went so far as to suggest that the current international drive to tackle global warming would eventually lead the world into some kind of “energy tyranny”. One even showed a video clip of how “energy police” would invade private homes in the American suburbs, unplugging and removing the owners’ microwave ovens, television sets, and other appliances.
I left the forum before the morning session ended. I felt that most of the speakers were too emotional and politically charged to be considered objective.
But I was impressed by the presentation of Dr Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, who challenged the IPCC findings with his research data.

In the next few days, I talked with several scientists, including Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, and asked them about Singer’s data. All of these scientists brushed aside Singer’s arguments, saying that the IPCC’s primary finding is indisputable: “Warming in the climate system is unequivocal”.
I believed the IPCC reports, which summarize the research of some 4,000 scientists, but I had some serious reservations. For one thing, the IPCC reports contained very little data from Chinese researchers. I was told the IPCC refused to consider Chinese data because the Chinese research was not peer-reviewed.
China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC’s findings.

Several Chinese scientists who have gone over the IPCC report believe that the IPCC may have overstated the link between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

In a paper published in the December issue of the Chinese language Earth Science magazine, Ding Zhongli, an established environmental scientist, stated that the current temperatures on earth look normal if global climate changes over the past 10,000 years are considered.

Ding’s paper highlighted the fact that in its policy suggestions, the IPCC offered solutions that would give people in rich countries the right to emit a much higher level of greenhouse gas per capita than people in developing countries. It in effect set limits on the economic growth of developing countries, which will result in furthering the gap between rich and poor countries.”

A series of “climategate” scandals now add more reason to give the IPCC research closer scrutiny.

Last November, hackers revealed that some scientists had favored data which supports the case for “global warming” in order to enhance their grant proposals.

Just last week, the IPCC announced that it “regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures” in a claim that glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by 2035. Instead of coming from a peer-reviewed scientific paper, the statement was sheer speculation, the IPCC conceded.
Then over the weekend, the media revealed that the IPCC had misrepresented an unpublished report, which it said linked climate change with an increase in natural disasters. However, the author of the report, Dr Robert Muir-Wood, clearly stated the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe loss.” Muir-Wood is not a climatologist, but a researcher in risk management.
I am particularly troubled by the fact that top IPCC officials do not seem to take these revelations seriously. Interviewed by the BBC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, dismissed the matter as a “human mistake”.

Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three “human” errors, isn’t it time scientists gave its work a serious review?”

(China Daily 01/28/2010 page9
rvv500 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 04:19
  #4357 (permalink)  
PT6
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bus Class
Posts: 28
Talking Glaciergate

Love it! It is about time we laughed at some of this global warming garbage.
PT6 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 04:21
  #4358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 49
Posts: 278
Thought you might be interested in this link. Lord Monckton | Climategate | Climate Sceptics

It is a Miranda Devine column from the SMH and it contains a video of a 20 minute interview with Lord Monkton. Quite interesting really.

It has taken a bit of time but I can finally out myself now as a confirmed Climate Change sceptic. Old dogs do learn new tricks.
notmyC150v2 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 08:11
  #4359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 16
Thought you might be interested in this link. Lord Monckton | Climategate | Climate Sceptics

It is a Miranda Devine column from the SMH and it contains a video of a 20 minute interview with Lord Monkton. Quite interesting really.

It has taken a bit of time but I can finally out myself now as a confirmed Climate Change sceptic. Old dogs do learn new tricks.
Watched the movie and I think Lord Monckton got a pretty raw deal from the Ben Cubby. Especially at the end when Ben said "we'll agree to disagree", If that doesn't show media bias then I don't know what does? He's supposed to be a reporter and report on the facts. I know its all well and good to choose a line of questioning but he gave away his own opinions in the interview with that statement.

Oh well.. Zealots in the media aren't exactly a new thing but it is a pain when you can't find bi-partisan reporting.
Wranga is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2010, 09:23
  #4360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
To my knowledge no climatologist has ever said that CO2=AGW.

Implications of Proposed CO2 Emissions Limitations



IPCC Technical Paper IV - October 1997

JT Houghton, LG Meira Filho, DJ Griggs and M Noguer (Eds).
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 41.
Available from IPCC Secretariat



So, if no climatologist has ever said that CO2 is not a principle driver of climate change, IE CO2=AGW, then the technical paper above, issued by the IPCC, "The Implications of Proposed CO2 Emissions Limitiations" is in fact a misnomer and proposed CO2 emissions limitations presented by the IPCC is therefore, by your argument, is not based on climatology.

We can therefore deduce by your assertion that the IPCC is driving policy forward that is not based on scientific research in climatology.
Bruce Wayne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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