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 26th May 2010, 07:17
  #5461 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,495
Where is the dustbowl drought of the depression years?

Dust Bowl years - 1934-1936. Many daily/all-time maximum temperature records still stand. Highest temperature ever recorded in Wisconsin - 114 degrees on July 13, 1936 at the Wisconsin Dells.

Record Cold - January 31- February 4, 1996. High temperatures ranged from the teens to twenties below zero; lows dropped to the 30s to 50s below zero. State's record coldest temperature -55 F set in Courderay on February 2nd and 4th. -18.3 degree state average temperature is the second coldest 4-day stretch in history. (Coldest was -18.6 avg from February 8-11, 1899). Many all time, monthly, and daily low temperature records set across the state.

Heat Wave - Summer 1995. - June 17-27,1995. 9 direct and indirect deaths due to the excessive heat. High temperatures well into the 90s, with heat index values of 98 to 104. Temperatures were 15 to 20 degrees above normal. The high temperature in Milwaukee of 96 degrees on June 18, 1995, tied the record high for the date. The record was first set on June 18, 1987

Granted, this is for Milwaukee, but you get the drift. Everywhere across the US had similar values for similar decades...yet NOAA still produces a graph that shows annomalies from the 30s do not even come close to the last decade...you have to ask yourself why?

Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 26th May 2010 at 07:34.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 08:34
  #5462 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,372
FOCX Did you look at the video's that CC posted? I dont think that the charts and graphs being used to demonstrate the point were actually produced by the presenter, yet the arguments seem fairly convincing to me. Look at the vid's with an open mind and then come back and tell me where he is wrong. Look at ALL the video's posted, it wont take you all that long. Can hardly wait to hear back.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 12:02
  #5463 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855

If you are going to pick a fight you need to do far better than that. So lets address each of your points one by one, and in doing so I expect some respect in return like I am giving you, so you can waste some of your highly valuable time by responding properly to some of my questions of you. That is at least fair wouldn't you say?

You have finally admitted it and at the same time given me an out form having to waste my time delving into 1000's of web pages just to have you and the rest just respond....."lies, nothing but lies!"
I assume you are responding to my partially tongue in cheek take of the radical rent a crowd type.....and while it is partially true its actually a long list of comical description for all those hairy legged bra burning greenie types.....but you clearly did not get that, so no, you are not off the hook. You really do need to waste a few hours, because we have....mostly debating your drivel and non answers.

"Lowdown, I am sure they do. however I do not want science on my side....I am not really interested in taking sides as such.

I do like to see hard facts not dodgey manipulated data."

You obviously don't know what science is them!
I am not sure what you are on about here, but lets start with....I do not as you keep putting it science on my side....I never joined a side, I started out thinking the Gore movie was highlighting real and serious problems. Until I started to dig a bit for REAL HARD FACTS, not a hyped up scare campaign. Do you still believe in the Y2K bug, the world was out of oil in the late 70's and all that? Of course you do not. But I bet you did at the time.

SCIENCE IS ABOUT TESTING HYPOTHESIS. not consensus, Swans are white, the scientits had consensus.....until they found just one black one, hiding in Australia

"So when I started to research with an open mind, and a maths science background, you learn to determine wheat from chaff, you start to quickly see what is very well executed spin, and what is most likely the truth."

Please do tell what your maths science background is, I hope it's more than just high school!
Well how about you tell us a bit about you too.....and apart from my highschool which included Maths 1&2, Physics, Chemistry GD&P......and your hopes have come true, I did do a bit more of it at Uni too, and have been specialised in my field ever since. but I would say that even someone like a Journolist who is an Arts / English type of person can self educate if they have the will. Do you?

In one of your posts (1247) you stated your 14 yr old son discovered an embarrassing mistake in a graph, now your 10 yr has found another. So that's a yr 9 and yr 5? You also seem to know a largish number of leading scientists, you're not telling porkies are you??
Porkies.....No I don't think so, a few others here will vaildate any of the above if you really would like it. I think you will find unless its a typo I was referring to my 14 yr old son who is in Year 10 in any previous posts.....if through some sloppy sentence structure I confussed you I sincerely apologise. I do know some seriously intelligent people, some are ppruners in fact, and not all on this thread, but I do have the privilege of knowing one of this countries more leading scientists, and one of the very few who are qualified to comment on this topic at world level. Right now he is touring the US and Europe, and does so not for pay or anything other than the love of science as he is retired, from paid acamdeic work, but not retired if that makes sense.

discovered an embarrassing mistake in a graph
I strongly object to your attempt to trivialising this point. It was not an embarrassing mistake, it was a world wide exercise in published fraud. If you actually bother to take up the small task I asked you to research, you will find out for yourself exactly what I am talking about.

The reason I wanted you to do this is so you can discover it for yourself. then you will believe your own research rather than saying we shoved it down your throat.

Maybe do some research into the temperature sampling stations used now compared to the last 100 years.....

By the way, how about you try rainfall records for the last 100 or so years and tell me what you find.

Science is about testing hypothesis. Even you can participate if you try. The majority of the population just accept spin in the media.



If ZEEBEE wishes to add something like explain how the CSIRO study one thing more than anything else......and he knows from the inside, maybe you will believe him.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 15:44
  #5464 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 49
Posts: 93

It was my mistake on the age, you did write yr 10, not 10 yr old!

My apologies! That hurt!
FOCX is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 22:15
  #5465 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 46
Posts: 1,121
When I did my BSc in Chemistry Maths and Physics back in the 90's, there was only one "climate scientist" and he ate his lunch all by himself...now hes got his own department, impressive offices, extremely well funded and all the young physics post grads are lining up to do their Masters with him!

He sounded odd back then and I'm still not convinced! We went to learn about modern physics and relativity/special relativity etc and got AGW rammed down our throats.
mattyj is offline  
Old 27th May 2010, 00:29
  #5466 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,177
Super Flip Flop Man flys to the rescue


The environmentalist Tim Flannery has withdrawn his support for carbon capture and storage as an answer to combating climate change, saying he now believes it would be economically unachievable.

FLIP FLOP FLAN | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

Flannery: I've changed my mind on carbon capture

“The increasing shrillness of the message about global warming has about it a certain messianic flavour usually associated with religious faith rather than empirical or scientific knowledge”

Quote via the book, “The Climate Caper” by Garth Paltridge. Atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 27th May 2010, 04:27
  #5467 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
FB, reading between the lines are these companies starting to realise that CO2 is not the cause of climate change and this is the first stage in repositioning their strategy so they don't get caught with their pants down, ie., big hole in the ground, carbon storage redundant and therefore no profits? I'd like to know what he means by, "economically unachievable". Is that just a PC way of saying "WOFTAM"?

Last edited by Lodown; 27th May 2010 at 04:37.
Lodown is offline  
Old 31st May 2010, 01:18
  #5468 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Lodown View Post
I'm sceptical of AGW. In my view the AGW argument hasn't got too many legs left to stand on and I think it's only a matter of time before evidence is presented that undermines the last vestiges of support for AGW.
Sounds a little prejudiced Lodown.

If I considered myself a climate (AGW) sceptic I wouldn't talk anything like this for fear of being labelled a denier and ignored. Some interesting reading in this article Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.

Though the distinction between scepticism and denial is clear enough in principle, keeping them apart in the real world can be tricky. It has, for example, become fashionable in some circles for anyone who dares to challenge the climate science "consensus" to be tarred as a denier and heaved into a vat of feathers. Do you believe in global warming? Answer with anything but an unequivocal yes and you risk being written off as a climate denier, in the same bag as Holocaust and evolution naysayers.

Thus, one practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response to new information. Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep on denying.
This thread started just over 3 years ago with a group of conspiracy theorists with closed minds peddling lies and just continues helping nobody. A lot of well-meaning regular Joes have come along since and some really good scientific debate finds an occasional airing here from both sides, it's just a shame so much crap clouds it out.
Duff Man is offline  
Old 31st May 2010, 02:06
  #5469 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,495
Duff Mann..oh sorry, man...it's the mood I'm in at the moment.

Say you are neither sceptic/denyer or AGW zealot for the moment. Politicians are selling you a position on how they want to tax you on consumption, now and into the future.

Would you believe ANY argument that they put up to justify this extra tax? If you are a typical tax payer you would be resentful of any extra burden without some commensurate benefit. A reduction in ancilliary taxes or a decrease in your income tax burden or somesuch. OK!

The ETS is a TAX on consumption, more pervasive than any GST! A TAX that does not replace or remove any other taxes. A TAX that does not have to be redistributed to the states. It is a tax based on a BELIEF! A politician is trying to sell you on the belief that your consumption is individually causing the destruction of the world. They are selling a GUILT TRIP, the exact same way as the church sold indulgences in the medievil days...no one stopped sinning, they paid for their conscience to be clean...and the church got filthy rich!

Anyway what's the guilt trip. We must cut down our carbon dioxide emmissions by between 5 and 20% of 2000 levels..(it was 1990 and more than likely will be 2020 by the time it ever comes around) In Australia, that amounts to 140 days of the combined exhaling of the Chinese state...what are we going to do..kill off our industry or ask China to hold their breath for half a year...that is the scale of the problem. Even if we shut down Hazelwood there will be a coal fired power station opening in China as big as our entire generative capacity every week for the next ten years! So we shut down Hazelwood and cut out 25% of Victoria's cheap brown coal resource...what replaces it? Hairy shirts and self flagulation doesn't keep the lights on. We have ALP MPs dismayed that most of our renewable electricity comes from Snowy Hydro! Idiology demands them to pursue wind and solar.

Reality says which ever way this goes, it will hurt our economy. Pragmatism says to reduce emmissions as a matter of course...but that is exactly what we have been doing in the search for economy and efficiency since the dawn of the industrial age.

Forget the science for a minute. To drasticly reduce emmissions in this current level of technology means shutting down that very technology, shutting down a level of affluence, shutting down a way of life, shutting down what we have become. Shutting down development. There is no means of technology currently available that can take over, wholesale, to reduce our emmission footprint. This is on the scale of evolution, incrimental changes amounting to a major shift over time.

However...The tax is still there, even if there is not one molecule of CO2 reduced. The TAX increases with growth. Even if there is a reduction in percapita emmissions, the economy still grows and the take still increases.

Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 31st May 2010 at 02:39. Reason: Hazelwood!
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 31st May 2010, 03:03
  #5470 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 409
Ozbusdriver is on the money. It is a phoney tax that will never deliver what is promised. It will not save the planet. The ongoing volcano in Iceland has produced more Co2 todate than Europe produces in motor vehicles in ten years according to a recent article. Who pays the tax on Volcanic Co2 emissions there??? The Icelandic's [whoops they're broke from the GFC!]..

Basically mother nature is in charge not us...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 31st May 2010, 03:35
  #5471 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855

From what I understand the CO2 output of the volcano in Iceland itself is not quite as huge as some would imagine, however, your last comment is quite true.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 31st May 2010, 05:35
  #5472 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,495
Yeh, the pundits say the eruption is carbon saving at best and carbon neutral at worst. 150,000tonnes to 300,000tonnes a day as opposed to about 370,00tonnes a day for the European aviation fleet if it remains grounded.

By the look of the IBUKI satellite, the plume isn't very vast. Is this some sort of probability curve situation that is grounding the fleet rather than actual measurments?
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 31st May 2010, 07:58
  #5473 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855
even if the aircraft kept flying....its still not a massive CO2 event.........and its ummmm not man made so it doesn't count
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 05:50
  #5474 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855
Now this will throw a cat amongst the pidgeons.....

Future cooling should be our concern
A prominent American geologist declares that global warming has ended and “even more harmful” global cooling has already begun.
Dr. Don Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, delivered that warning in a scientific paper he presented to the 4th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago on May 16.
Dr. Easterbrook said the earth has consistently shifted between periods of warming and cooling over the course of thousands of years.
There were cooling periods between 1880 and 1915, and between 1945 and 1977, and warming periods from 1915 to 1945 and from 1977 to 1998, according to Dr. Easterbrook, and temperatures have been cooling since 1998.
Easterbrook is the author of eight books and 150 journal publications. He serves as associate editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, and was U.S. representative to the UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] International Geological Correlation Project.
He writes in his paper:
“That global warming is over, at least for a few decades, might seem to be a relief. However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming and a cause for even greater concern.”
According to Easterbrook, a recent study showed that twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat.
Global cooling will have an adverse effect on food production because of shorter growing seasons, cooler growing seasons, and bad weather during harvest seasons, he said.
“This is already happening in the Midwestern U.S., China, India, and other places in the world. Hardest hit will be third world countries where millions are already near starvation levels.”
Cooling will also lead to an increase in per capita energy demands, especially for heating.
“World population is projected to reach more than 9 billion by 2050, an increase of 50 percent,” Easterbrook pointed out. “This means a substantial increase in demand for food and energy at a time when both are decreasing because of the cooling climate.”
Among Dr. Easterbrook’s conclusions:
“Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.
“Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30-year period for the past 500 years . . .
“Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.”
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 06:03
  #5475 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,048
Cooling will also lead to an increase in per capita energy demands, especially for heating.
so like all systems on earth, its self balancing!
Ultralights is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 08:42
  #5476 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,495
As much as I like snow, I do not think I could handle it all year round...would be enough to make me migrate back to warmer climes. Hey Jaba, ya reckon you could show me how to bang some rivets?...the ol saying "Change in Latitude = change in attitude"

Regardless of warming or cooling, the world's politicians will still try to heavily tax energy use.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 09:00
  #5477 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855
well here is the plain language even FOCX can understand, of course if you want the heavy scientific details watch the other sessions by Richard Lindzen et al.

PJTV - Lord Monckton: Hockey Sticks, Shabby Science & The Great Climate Scare - Mpg

Jabawocky is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 09:41
  #5478 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: House
Posts: 55
Apologies if this has been posted before... couldn't find it. From Bert Rutan.

sagan is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 11:11
  #5479 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 45
Posts: 1,134
Now this will throw a cat amongst the pidgeons.....
Sigh! Well As a sceptic you are pretty pathetic if you cannot even spell a common bird name! lol!

Don Easterbrook is a renegade scientist that no one with credibility actually thinks is relevant, anyone can quote some stupid internet article mate
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 11:38
  #5480 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 53
Posts: 2,583
This is the typical tactic of the AGW zealots. Attack their opponents on a personal level rather that debate them.
404 Titan 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.