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 1st Jun 2010, 13:20
  #5481 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,495
anyone can quote some stupid internet article mate
What? Like something authored by Al Gore or Mann or Jones or...
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 18:42
  #5482 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Duff Man,

From your link:

Either the Earth is getting warmer or it is not, regardless of how many believe it is or is not.
Ooops, I guess that proves it. Cooling since 1998.

From Nonskeptical Skeptic Michael Shermer (Unwittingly) Disproves AGW – Plus Bonus From Scientific American The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

...climate models are incomplete, still not functioning and not reasonably realistic and most likely pretty much useless for serious climate projections at the moment and for ever.

Wouldn’t it make sense to leave the climate computation problem unsolved until another day? Isn’t it arrogant to think we now know enough to know what we cannot know?
Lodown is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 02:05
  #5483 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855

Good pick up. Not sure why I put a 'd' in there......no excuse, just my mistake. I am pathetic.

As a sceptic I was "throwing that one out there" as it was in my mind jujst another example of how you can hype up a story no matter which way its pointed. No matter wheteher this guy is a looney or not.

The facts are suggesting however that we are in a cooling period so he may well be proven right.

I think Titan and Ozbus have summed it up well though..........
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 08:39
  #5484 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
I must say that I am very alarmed by the failure of all parties to this discussion to accept the developing climate change crisis and to consider the profound and disasterous consequences it will have for the population of the planet.

There are two types of contributers here; sceptics who either do not accept or do not care about the reality of significant, profound climate change, and the equally deluded posters who believe that the long term climate trend is towards warming.

It is unfortunate that in this case of climate analysis, as in so many others cases such as geopolitical trends, humans tend to appreciate reality only insofar as it can be related to a time-span that can be appreciated relative to their own life-cycle.

Clearly, the long term climate trend is moving towards a significant cooling period, a mini ice-age that will have a devastating effect on much of the planet; significantly worse for the population than any mild impact of short-term cyclic warming.

The greatest disaster is not the sceptics who are questioning the warming, but those who are genuinely concerned with the health of the planet who have been blind-sided away from the real issue by the myopia of their own mortality.

For the AGW sceptics who recognise that the danger is the inevitible cooling cycle; convert your awareness to action. For the environmentalists; if you really care about what is happening to the planet, look away from the trees and see the forest.

Last edited by Barry Bernoulli; 2nd Jun 2010 at 08:49.
Barry Bernoulli is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 13:54
  #5485 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855

Well said.

I am sure I have said this before, and I have, maybe not on PPRuNe, but anyway, its not about climate change....because climate means change, but more about how we adapt and deal with the natural changes that have been going on for thousands of years.

Fo those of you who have not ever attened a lecture by Prof. Bob Carter, you should, because this is one of his key points. We waste millions on BS of AGW.... yet natural climate events like floods and bushfires get very little attention at all.

Why is it the AGW and greenine mobs miss this very important point I do not know!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 16:10
  #5486 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Clearly, the long term climate trend is moving towards a significant cooling period...
And your supporting evidence is...?

One thing is clear: we don't have sufficient data to trend anything yet. Whether that be warming or cooling. Even the ice core data does not provide sufficient information to derive what may be considered suitable trend analysis yet.

So, what's left? The earth's climate oscillates from periods of cooling to periods of warming and back to periods of cooling. It looks like we're entering a period of cooling again after a period of warming. Is it:
...a significant cooling period, a mini ice-age...
Maybe...maybe not. Until we have sufficient evidence we won't know for sure? We might go back into a warming period next year.

Just don't fall into the Chicken Little role that the AGWer's have so comfortably occupied. Humans are adaptable.
Lodown is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 23:23
  #5487 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855

Plenty of data to show that we have been cooling, using the accepted methods not faking it. The raw data does not lie, what can lie is how you present it on a graph and draw lines of best fit on it. The IPCC folks best trick. Trouble is its fraudulent manipulation.

So if you go searching for it you will find it, or simply watch the video I posted the link to above, this contains plenty of examples.

PJTV - Lord Monckton: Hockey Sticks, Shabby Science & The Great Climate Scare - Mpg
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 23:45
  #5488 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hobbit
Posts: 37
ABC News:

Pacific islands growing, not sinking

By Philippa McDonald in Auckland
Updated 39 minutes ago
Kiribati is one of the Pacific islands thought to be at risk from rising sea levels. (AAP, file photo)Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment.
The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.
Auckland University's Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.
"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.
"Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.
"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years."
Dr Kench says the growth of the islands can keep pace with rising sea levels.
"The reason for this is these islands are so low lying that in extreme events waves crash straight over the top of them," he said.
"In doing that they transport sediment from the beach or adjacent reef platform and they throw it onto the top of the island."
But Dr Kench says this does not mean climate change does not pose dangers.
"The land may still be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he asked.
Adelaide University climate scientist Professor Barry Brook says he is surprised by the findings.
"Sea levels are obviously rising - I think in the short term [the study] suggests that there's maybe more time to do something about the problem than we'd first anticipated," he said.
"But the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate much beyond what we've seen in the 20th century."
Naomi Thirobaux, from Kiribati, has studied the shape of Pacific islands for her PhD and says no-one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation is not taking its toll and displacing people from their land.
"In a populated area what would happen was that if it's eroding, a few metres would actually displace people," she said.
"In a populated place people can't move back or inland because there's hardly any place to move into, so that's quite dramatic."
Both Dr Kench and Dr Brook and scientists agree further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kirabati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Warm Ballast is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2010, 07:45
  #5489 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,495
Bugga...I was listening to this and hardly waiting to get home and post it...and it's already here...I just love the term..."The islands are adapting to rising sea levels" Is this a new version of Island Effect?
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2010, 12:05
  #5490 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hobbit
Posts: 37
I posted without comment... no need.... those learned persons say it all....
Warm Ballast is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 02:14
  #5491 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248

So it's all about your concern for an anti-growth tax. Fair enough.

Most environmentalists do fail to see the forest for the trees.

Reading through the threads sees an odd mixture of arguments from "skeptics"

- The climate is heating (but it's not us)
- The climate is cooling (some scientists are wrong and we're heading for an ice age)
- The tax is bad (the climate is irrelevant, this is simply a conspiracy)
- Climate change isn't going to be that bad and life will adapt with ease
- etc (growing islands vs flooding islands!). It is especially disturbing to see some people draw parallels in this discussion with Y2K (which it is incorrectly described as a hoax).

The planet will look after itself I agree, regardless of the direction of climate change. In all likelihood (imho), the climate is heating and nothing we do is going to stop it. The consequences are profound and we should be focusing on adaptation to a hotter planet, with a secondary attempt at pragmatic mitigation. A major part of the latter, at some early stage, is going to have to be nuclear power (wind, wave and solar pv are bullshit; geothermal and solar/thermal should be in the mix with nuclear) - and in a country where no party is strong enough to push the argument I despair.
Duff Man is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 06:53
  #5492 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,165
So are the low lying Pacific Islands going to disappear under rising sea levels?.

A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking. ........."That rather gloomy prognosis for these nations is incorrect," he said

From the BBC
ZH875 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 10:42
  #5493 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 58
Posts: 25
A legal demolition of the AGW theory by University of Pennsylvania

Read the full report here


The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”
Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”
rvv500 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 12:08
  #5494 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,177
Why Aren't We Saving The Planet? A Psychologist's Perspective

"There are many "green fakers" who only pretend to be eco-friendly, claims a psychologist who has been studying what is revealed by body language.
Geoff Beattie, based at the University of Manchester, has published research showing how people's green opinions can be contradicted by their gestures..."... BBC News - Gestures reveal 'green fakers', says psychologist

“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 9th Jun 2010, 13:06
  #5495 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
From syndicated journalist, Cal Thomas, in the US:

Three modern myths have been sold to the American people: the promise of a transparent administration (President Obama); the promise of a more ethical Congress (Speaker Pelosi); and the myth of "global warming," or climate change.
Entire article at: Cal Thomas
Lodown is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 17:30
  #5496 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Duff Man please show convincing proof that the world is still warming.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 20:55
  #5497 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
For the first time in 39 years, our State Capitol, Sacramento, has gone without a single daytime temperature of over 90 degrees (F) in the Month of May.

just sayin

Old 9th Jun 2010, 21:53
  #5498 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,395
I'll save the true believers the effort.

For the first time in 39 years, our State Capitol, Sacramento, has gone without a single daytime temperature of over 90 degrees (F) in the Month of May.

just sayin

(Indignant sounding) Well!

That is weather, not climate.

con-pilot is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 22:46
  #5499 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,316
For your info, it's still p!ss-cold here in the South of France, and this is nearly mid-June.
And so far, spring here was about a month late, and the winter was about the worst for the last fifteen years.

Weather, sure. But add it to the averages, and at some point it becomes climate, or at least a 'change' in the weather pattern!

ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 22:57
  #5500 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,288
there's a major difference between 'pollution' and 'energy saving' they are only connected by one thing----what conditions are required of Earth to sustain life?!...that's the question...I think it is global taxing mainly most "greenies" have no idea what they are talking about---at all ---none whatsoever...they are good at misquoting all sortss of science---thereby turning it to psuedo-science making their cause absolutely worthless

One sun shiny day
Pugilistic Animus 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.