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 24th Aug 2010, 10:54
  #6121 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
And the 2010 record shows a large increase, where as the NSIDC appears to show considerably less, although as it's presented in such a way as to minimise the obviousness of the increase by displaying thickness.
green granite is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2010, 12:16
  #6122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Climate-change movement pays homage to false god of global warming
By Kirk Myers

The Church of Global Warming (a.k.a. the Church of CO2 Emissions), which has converted many a true believer over the past few decades, is facing a Reformation of sorts. Its pews are beginning to empty as snow-bound and shivering skeptics increasingly question its once-unchallenged doctrines. Still, many millions of worshipers remain faithful to the religion’s man-is-warming-the-earth theology - a belief system based on demonstrably fraudulent science and false prophecy. In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is now cooling - not warming - why do so many cling to their Greenhouse God while denouncing CO2 as the planetary Satan? Why do they continue to recite chapter and verse from necromancer Al Gore’s Bible of Inconvenient Truth?



Have the good disciples not read or seen the mountain of real-world evidence that belies the pronouncements of the High Priests of Mother Earth? Are they so in thrall to their environmental gospel that they have abandon reason? The answer, regrettably, is yes. As Caroline May of BigGovernment.com notes, Warmist worship is rooted not in facts, but in “blind adherence to an unproven principle”:

“This unquestioned adherence to the theory of Global Warming bears all the markings of what traditionally would be recognized as a religion. Complete with sin (the emitting of carbon dioxide), scriptures (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports), commandments (drive a Prius, use Compact Florescent Light bulbs, do not eat meat etc.), indulgences (carbon offsets), proselytism, prophets (Al Gore), priests (scientists), prophecy and apocalypse (floods, hurricanes, dead polar bears), infidels (Warming skeptics), and salvation (the halting of carbon emitting industrial progress) . . . .”

Those who argue that the sun is largely responsible for climate change are branded as heretics, just as Galileo was condemned by church authorities for claiming the earth revolves around the sun. The sun’s impact on earth’s climate is huge compared to that of human beings - a fact well understood by most climate scientists and solar physicists. But green theologians and their flock of well-meaning, but misguided, believers ignore or downplay the sun’s dominant role. Instead, they blame humans in the most apocalyptic language.

As columnist Don Feder notes, the new Church of Mother Earth, is rooted in the secular doctrines of Marxism. It is a quasi-religion that promises to take adherents to the Promised Land of “rigid control, central planning, rationing, pre-industrial living standards and flagellation to purge us of our sins.”

The late Michael Crichton, a celebrated author who penned Jurassic Park and several other best-selling novels, condemned the religious-like aspects of environmentalism as far back as 2003 in a speech to San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club:

“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism,” Crichton observed. “Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists . . . a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”

“There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability.”

Some of the biggest critics of the church of eco-theology are scientific experts, many of whom are ostracized and treated by fellow researchers as apostates - “unbelievers” and “deniers.”

According to Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigor from its adherents. It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or ‘climate change deniers’, to use green parlance.
And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a light bulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey. Even Czech President Vaclav Klaus has taken a verbal swipe at the new eco-creed, calling the global warming movement a “new religion.”

“I’m convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature . . . This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished,” Klaus said. “They [global warmists] will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave.”

The rigid strictures of eco-worship don’t leave much room for fun. Virtually everything one does is sinful - traveling during holidays (especially if it involves plane travel), driving your car, having a comfortable temperature in your home, using incandescent light bulbs, leaving the phone charger plugged in, idling in the school parking lot, driving instead of walking or bicycling to the corner store, using the fireplace, and on and on. The new eco-doctrine demands that everyone - believers and unbelievers - must endure a living Purgatory on earth so Polar Bears can procreate in greater numbers and Greenlanders can remain comfortably frozen.
As John Brignell writes, “The eleventh commandment for the killjoys is ‘Thou shalt not have fun,’ and global warming provides a delightful playground for them."`But don’t dare complain about or challenge the anti-carbon creed. Those who defy the religious order are branded apostates and eternally damned - or worse.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada received five death threats after publicly challenging the man-causes-global-warming doctrine.`"I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

In recent years, the green religion has filtered into the ecclesiastical realm where it has found a sympathetic ear. Britain’s Archbishop of Canterbury is one of several godly potentates to cloak himself in the vestments of green and preach eco-sermons to his flock. According to a story in London’s Daily Mail, the archbishop “urged people to recycle their rubbish and cut down on air travel . . . He also called for people to ‘go out of doors in the wet from time to time’ and take chances to watch the changing of the seasons in order to ‘restore a sense of association with the material place and time and climate we inhabit and are part of.’”

And in a Twilight Zone moment, a British judge recently ruled in favor of a worker who claimed he was unfairly dismissed from his job at a property management firm for expressing his concerns about man-made global warming to his fellow employees. As Chuck Colson of Breakpoint.org reported, “The judge’s ruling opens the door to the possibility of employees suing their employers ‘for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.’”

Tragically, the environmental movement has become the gathering place for a growing assemblage of Gaia worshipers, neo-pagans, animists, wiccans and eco-magic believers - most of them neither interested in nor possessing an understanding of the complex scientific principles that drive climate change. The true mystics among them have turned from saving the polar bears to embracing a belief in fairies, pixies, gnomes, elves and other spirits of nature.

The groups pushing the global warming religion the hardest are those who stand to profit most from the evolving carbon-trading market. They are religious only in their worship of Almighty Wealth, and they plan to make a killing from the global warming scare through carbon trading. Carbon-trading offsets are similar to the medieval indulgences of old - pardons granted by the church for sinful behavior. As Alexander Cockburn writes:

“The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary, and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in ‘carbon credits’ is in formation. Those whose ‘carbon footprint’ is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.”

This carbon-trading scheme - and lots of investment money - is the driving force behind the global warming hysteria. Dirty, polluting humans must be convinced that global-government control of CO2 emissions is their salvation - even if destroys industry and reduces the world to peasantry. A great effort is underway to avoid blaming climate change on the sun - and for good reason: It is impossible to enact an international treaty to control the sun’s magnetic activity. If the sun, not human-generated atmospheric CO2, is responsible for global warming (and cooling), carbon taxes and a world carbon-trading exchange are pointless. Ergo, there would be no carbon fortunes to made by the CO2 warriors at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citi, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America-Merrill Lynch.
As Cockburn explains, the relentless demonizing of CO2 by the high priests of global warming is a sham - a deliberate deception. “There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend,” he says.

“The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism, and greed, just like the old indulgences . . . .”

“The truth is there is no man-made global warming,” says Capitalism Magazine’s Tom DeWeese. “There’s only the scam of an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the feeble minded into worldwide human misery.”
rvv500 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2010, 12:23
  #6123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Garbage in, Money out.

A good article on the unreliability of the economic models and climate models.

Garbage In, Money Out Page 2 of 2 - Forbes.com
rvv500 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 01:41
  #6124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
Natural climate variability, anyone? Although one can`t help but wonder what additional spin there would have been in the news article extract below had the average temp been 1C warmer than usual...

FOLLOWING a cool and wet August, the weather bureau is now forecasting a cold and wet spring for Adelaide.
August has been the coldest and wettest winter month in the city, with the mercury hovering around 14C - a full 2C below the monthly average - and 79mm of rainfall, compared to a monthly average of 66mm.
Adelaide's maximum temperature has averaged about 15C across the three winter months - 1C cooler than usual.
The bureau's senior climate meteorologist Darren Ray said the La Nina effect over the Pacific Ocean was the main cause of the wintry conditions.
"La Nina has caused rapid changes over the Pacific over recent months," he said.
"That, combined with warmer than average conditions over the Indian Ocean, we haven't seen that for a few years."
The bureau's three-month forecast, released yesterday, predicts a high possibility of above-average rainfall and below-average temperatures across the state from September through to November.

konstantin is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 05:35
  #6125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
More carbon market scandals.

Corruption for dinner anyone? The Carbon Market Scandal « JoNova

This is what happens when you create a fraudulent carbon credits system based upon a lie. Other frauds take advantage of it and skim the system for millions.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 06:02
  #6126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 160
Scientist weighs in with some real worked out figures about ''green'' energy


Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap ? The Register
Tyres O'Flaherty is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 07:53
  #6127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Very good article, Tyres, explains things clearly and gives a hell of a lot of credence to the very things some of us have been saying re: wind/solar power.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 07:58
  #6128 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
The world would be a much better place if we shot all the greens/environmentalists.
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 08:02
  #6129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 411
Better to burn them to keep warm when the glaciers arrive.
Cardinal Puff is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 08:27
  #6130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Have a far bettter solution that makes good use of the tree-huggers, generates revenue AND actually helps them achieve one of their aims.

We put "London Eye" type ferris wheels in every major city, but instead of being powered by lecky we turn them into bloody great hamster wheels. The tree-huggers are then forced to run inside them, spinning the wheels and that motion is converted into electricity by having generators installed where the motors would be.

So, all the tree-huggers get rounded up and put to good use so we don't hear them whining. Carbon free electricity is generated, which keeps them happy. We charge tourists to watch this AND to ride on the hamster wheel and make a profit from that as that money pays for the tofu, lentils, sprouts, etc, and the gaseous by-products from the tofu, etc, get extracted and used as biofuel!

So there you go, cheap renewable power from a source that will not suddenly "die" like wind power and without the local environmental issues on flora and fauna associated with putting wind turbines and solar cells over the whole damn country.


Oh, and if we run out of tree-huggers to power the hamster wheel generators then we can always turn to other fuel sources like illegal immigrants, pikeys and criminals, therefore easing the energy burden on the country as they'll be in the wheel, which will also help to cut down expenses on such groups as well as discouraging them from carrying out such acts so therefore cutting crime as well.

A complete win-win situation.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 08:39
  #6131 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 08:57
  #6132 (permalink)  
S78
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not entirely sure.....
Posts: 188
But it won't be carbon free - even the ecomentals have to breath out at some stage....
S78 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 09:13
  #6133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
It will be carbon neutral though, since all the gaseous byproducts are extracted it wouldn't be hard to separate the CO², etc, and use that for useful purposes like refilling fire extinguishers and gassing lawyers.

See, a total win-win situation.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 11:38
  #6134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 607
To prove that 'global warming' is melting the Arctic ice, Bear Grylls is currently attempting the Northwest Passage in a RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat). Did anyone tell him that Roald Amundsen did it in 1905?

His progress can be monitored here;

RIB Tracker | Future Capital Partners and Bear Grylls - Northwest Passage

Should be interesting!

Dave
Airclues is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 11:42
  #6135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Not quite the same thing though, is it?

He did it when the ice was thinnest, it's now possible to do the same thing when the ice is at it's yearly maximum.
Also, he did it with very little depth under his boat, whereas it's now possible (in summer) to sail a cruise ship through the passage.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 13:38
  #6136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 607
Simonpro

In that case, how will completing the journey in summer, with an inflatable boat

bring attention to the effect of global warming on the Arctic Ocean, and the knock-on effect that this will have on much of the world today
(from the Bear Grylls website)?

Edit;

I'm sure that he'll be able to find a way through;

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpre...8/cmmbctca.gif

It will be interesting to see how the BBC report it?

Dave

Last edited by Airclues; 25th Aug 2010 at 16:55. Reason: To add map
Airclues is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 14:21
  #6137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
The northern passage through artic was open during WW and ships sailed through it. It was first traversed by the Swedish explorer Nils A.E. Nordenskjöld in 1878 to 1880.

So where was Global Warming then? What a stupid endeavour.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 18:32
  #6138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 118
NW NE



If we are to have a debate about who sailed where and when and what if any conclusions can be drawn, at least let's distinguish between the North East Passage and the North West Passage.

Northeast Passage: Definition from Answers.com

The Northeast Passage was not, however, traversed by anyone until Nils A. E. Nordenskjöld of Sweden accomplished the feat in 1878-79.

Last edited by 911slf; 25th Aug 2010 at 18:34. Reason: inserted quote from reference already given
911slf is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 04:50
  #6139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 40
Posts: 95
GCM's and what not:

Climate Models: Learning From History Rather Than Repeating It:

Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.
Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.
So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century
Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?


Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


Al Gore got it wrong
"An Inconvenient Truth was criticised by a high court judge who highlighted 'nine scientific errors'. For example, Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed 'an exact fit'. The judge said 'the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts'. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established." (The Guardian)

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium.
The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film.
One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. The error was in the claim that climate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


Antarctica is gaining ice
"The amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level since satellites began to monitor it almost 30 years ago. It’s simply too cold for rain in Antarctica and it'll stay that way for a very long time. The bottom line is there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica." (Patrick Michaels).


What the science says...

While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.

It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
  • Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
  • Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since 2002 the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites have been able to comprehensively survey the entire ice sheet. The satellites measure changes in gravity to determine mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet. Initial observations found that that most of Antarctic mass loss comes from Western Antarctica (Velicogna 2007). Meanwhile, from 2002 to 2005, East Antarctica was in approximate mass balance. The ice gained in the interior is roughly balanced by the ice loss at the edges. This is illustrated in Figure 1 which contrasts the ice mass changes in West Antarctica (red) compared to East Antarctica (green
jcbmack is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 04:54
  #6140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 40
Posts: 95
Thus we see:

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing

Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend
Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since 2002 the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites have been able to comprehensively survey the entire ice sheet. The satellites measure changes in gravity to determine mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet. Initial observations found that that most of Antarctic mass loss comes from Western Antarctica (Velicogna 2007). Meanwhile, from 2002 to 2005, East Antarctica was in approximate mass balance. The ice gained in the interior is roughly balanced by the ice loss at the edges. This is illustrated in Figure 1 which contrasts the ice mass changes in West Antarctica (red) compared to East Antarctica (green):
we see that in reality there are ice melting trends and ice building trends in the same vicinity, however, the overall pace of melting is not in equilibrium or outpacing ice loss.

However, in portions there is approximate equilibrium or balancing as stated above. If warming both natural and anthropogenic warming were all directly involved in melting then there would be a lot of underwater land masses. Yet, it is a complex process and there are regions of greater warming NOT leading to ice mass loss. In other regions warming IS leading to ice loss. Overall we have lots of ice left, but it is not in total a minor issue, this one of melting.


Arctic sea ice... take 2:

Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.
Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it comprises most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.
jcbmack 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.