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 Aug 2010, 15:59
  #6161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Surely the average span of a human's life is not really long enough to spot a trend in climate?

Weather variations maybe but then even during the really cold 16/17/18th century there were seriously hot periods/floods/hurricanes. Todays Media/James Cameron etc would have blamed mankind for the excesses, hot or cold.

Medieval Warm period had cold spells too......

Chaos never was predictable was it?
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 18:06
  #6162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
chuks a lack of snow/ice etc does not prove AGW, it might over a reasonable period of time prove GW though.
And that, my friends, sums things up in a nutshell.

The climate on the planet may be changing, but to say that it is somehow "man-made" is a load of malebovinefaeces as, in the eyes of those of those who have not fallen for the Gospels of St. Gore and St. Mann, it is a natural occurrence we have no influence or control over.

After all, we cannot, realistically, say that historical temperature figures are accurate (we cannot even say that today since figures are manipulated to account for the readings being taken from sites totally unsuitable for the purpose intended, like those in bloody car parks or on a bloody airport!!) so how can we say, for certain, that the historical records can be used as a proper base for current figures? Also, the small matter of these records only accounting for a terribly short period of time, in the context of the lifetime of the planet, means they cannot seriously be taken as any sort of base figure. Other so-called studies and reports, which have been claimed as "fact", have been totally debunked and the methods used in other factors is also open to question as, in a hell of a lot of cases, the results of "research" is up to the INTERPRETATION of the researchers and if they are already biased then the results will be too.

I could go on, but I don't think I have to. After all, the cloud of secrecy around the all the research into AGW, the fact that getting the source code for the computer models, being able to get ALL the data collected, etc, means that getting to the truth is harder than finding rocking horse s**t. That, alone, speaks volumes, as why is such data, etc, being concealed when a real scientist would open his "research" up to full, proper and independent auditing so it can be verified? But that does not generally happen, which is why we have had the lies about the Himalayan glaciers, the lies about Lake Chad, the lies about the Amazonian rainforest in danger, etc, etc, etc. If the "research" was valid then none of these claims would have appeared, none of the lies from St. Gore would have made it into the public domain and there would be none of the shenanigans we have had uncovered now.

Food for thought, ladies and gentlemen, food for thought. You just have to ask yourself what the motives of some who constantly preach the "doomsday" scenario actually are, since the lies, and even the name of the so-called phenomenon they claim is happening, changes whenever they are proven to be wrong. After all, we are looking at preaching from some to the level of radical imams or evangelical ministers, with exactly the same amount of hard evidence as whenever someone says "but" the reply is always "I say it is true so it must be", no matter what the actual facts are.


And, personally, I ain't going to listen to the preching of the Billy Graham's of any cult, for that is all the AGW belief is.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 18:21
  #6163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
the lies about Lake Chad
Which lies would those be, then?
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 18:34
  #6164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Amazing, Simon, out of the whole post you pick only one point to dispute!


How about the alarmists claiming Lake Chad was shrinking due to AGW when the reality is that it is shrinking due to the rivers feeding it being diverted for irrigation and drinking water. Less water goes in, lake shrinks!!

It's the same as how "rising sea levels" mean that Tuvalu is going to be underwater, whilst the small matter of it sinking naturally, because it is coral on top of a volcano which is "sinking" due to subsidence, which has been known since Darwin!

But these small matters mean nothing when you can use them for alarmist headlines......
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 18:36
  #6165 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
I would presume these Simpnpro

Gore says “global warming” dried up Lake Chad in Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor, Ms. Kreider says, “There are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad.”

However, the scientific consensus is that at present those “stresses” do not include “global warming.”
green granite is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 19:45
  #6166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
when it gets hotter in one place it gets colder in another...perhaps 'warming' is a bad term better replaced with refrigeration


Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 20:48
  #6167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 64
Posts: 215
"Nearly" doesn't count!
Quite right Chuks, it doesn't, but had they been lucky and hit an unprecedented hot year then they may have made it. Obviously for the ship to get to Greenland the ice must have melted at some time in those 13 years..
All you needed is the holes in the cheese to line up and history would have changed. Would that then be quoted as evidence in the GW argument ? Whichever way you look at it a single event is pretty meaningless.
handsfree is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 23:24
  #6168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 41
Posts: 95
Almost:

when it gets hotter in one place it gets colder in another...perhaps 'warming' is a bad term better replaced with refrigeration
Except, the net global change is warming and not cooling with increased CO2 emissions
jcbmack is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 23:28
  #6169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 41
Posts: 95
That is why

Quite right Chuks, it doesn't, but had they been lucky and hit an unprecedented hot year then they may have made it. Obviously for the ship to get to Greenland the ice must have melted at some time in those 13 years..
All you needed is the holes in the cheese to line up and history would have changed. Would that then be quoted as evidence in the GW argument ? Whichever way you look at it a single event is pretty meaningless.
look at trends and not single events, years or decades. Now what is interesting is that the IPCC predictions and projections are coming true in terms of wetter regions, dryer ones and the magnitude in short periods of time as spelled out in the reports. Of course if one were to actually read the reports from the various groups of the IPCC, they would find far more specific predictions and projections coming to pass. Coincidence, well, in terms of probability that is nearly impossible.
jcbmack is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 23:31
  #6170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 41
Posts: 95
coughs

Water Vapor Slowed Recent Global Warming Trend - US News and World Report


Anthropogenic Global Cooling | Open Mind

Now show us this refrigerator and global cooling... sulfates are already well known in past decades and their exerted effects.

Greenland Ice:
http://rabett run

I consider Eli the authority as do most in the fields. Even those of the physics-chem variety are quite impressed.

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
The burning of fossil fuels results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere
Very true except if San Andeas Fault were hit with a powerful enough volcanoes or of a super volcano erupted dwarfing Mt. Saint Helens.


Hansen getting it right:

Hansen etal hit a Climate Home Run -- in 1981

Personally I am very conservative with reading into Hansen's views and interpretations but here he clearly got it right in terms of climate sensitvity and a rising forced warming trend.


Station drop-off: How many thermometers do you need to take a temperature?

An oft-cited skeptic argument is that the decrease in available temperature measuring stations during the 1990s introduces an increased bias towards warming. The argument is based upon the premise put forward by some climate change skeptics that stations which show more warming were kept and ones that show less warming were dropped. The reason this assumption is made is because during the 1990s there was a large reduction in the number of meteorological stations being used for global temperature analyses.

In order to test this theory, several independent researchers (Tamino, Ron Broberg, Zeke Hausfather, Joseph at Residual Analysis and others at the Clear Climate Code Project) and have calculated whether the stations dropped showed less warming than the ones kept. The results? Several find no difference and several find that dropped stations show more warming.

Furthermore, it is also important to note that the methods used in global temperature analyses make them robust to the loss of stations because they use techniques which incorporate multiple nearby stations into analysis of any individual region.

So to conclude: Independent researchers have shown that there is no truth to the claim that cooling stations were removed, in fact evidence suggests that if these stations were included, warming would be shown to be slightly greater
Station drop-off: How many thermometers do you need to take a temperature?

Last edited by jcbmack; 27th Aug 2010 at 02:29.
jcbmack is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 09:19
  #6171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
jcbmack, it is still not proof that the warming, by the way I like the scales on the temperature graphs in the Hansen Home Run clip that show 0 10 20 30 with alongside them the units (0.01 C), is caused by human emissions of CO2. The miniscule temperature increases against the huge uncertainty of the accuracy of temeperature measurement a decade ago far less a century ago makes the whole thing a farce.

Damn, I got that bag of troll food out again.........
LowNSlow is online now  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 10:16
  #6172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Well, LowNSlow, what gets me about these graphs is that they have these "scales" on them. After all, it's a very clear error or attempt to confuse things by saying "0.01deg C" and then have the scale marked in 10's when a simple "0.1, 0.2, etc" would suffice.

Of course, it could be that us sceptics are too stupid to understand graphs, despite many of us learning about things like that at junior school, and only the true believers can understand it. After all, climate alarmists never lie about things, or use devious methods to confuse the masses, we have seen that in all of the reports published by these people............
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 12:10
  #6173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Rhetoric, no?

Both sides have their partisans who try to persuade by presenting data in certain ways. This was lampooned by linking the rise in global temperatures to the decline in piracy, with one tracking the other rather neatly, hence "Talk Like a Pirate Day," as one way to combat Global Warming.

Very often we can enjoy a newspaper headline about eating something or doing something that doubles the risk of this or that. Turns out that the risk goes from one case per ten thousand people to two cases, as close to something of no significance as makes no difference! Well, except if you need something for a headline on a slow news day!

I was reading a Swiss paper, as one sometimes does in Switzerland, when I found a rather interesting article in the business section about how the ski areas in the eastern part of the country were being forced to adapt to the lack of dependable snow cover by switching their emphasis to other activities. Of course no one but an idiot would build a ski area anywhere that did not have good snow cover in the first place so that this was pretty persuasive evidence of climate change but not necessarily Global Warming, no. It might be that more snow was falling somewhere else but there certainly was too little now falling in a region that used to have plenty of the stuff.

In the same way, we can read of flooding in Pakistan yet drought is an increasing problem in the region. On the face of it, this makes no sense but only if you don't stop to think about it. Changing weather patterns can cause flooding in one place but less rain where it used to fall.

People can move, to a certain extent. Vegetation, not so much. So when the weather changes this can cause loss of vegetation and degradation of habitat for people and everything else we should be sharing the planet with.

You guys arguing so vehemently about just how much ice and snow there is, exactly how much warmer it is today compared to 500 years ago and all that sort of stuff seem to me to be missing the point because change is the problem, not whether this or that spot is hotter, cooler, wetter or drier, whether Al Gore is telling the occasional porkie or even showing himself to be a bit of a hypocrite (when he is, obviously, a politician in the first place).

Back in northern Germany we just had an exceptionally cold and snowy winter followed by an exceptionally hot and dry summer, so something for everyone who wants to "prove" either that Global Warming is a fact or a fraud.

Here I enjoy seeing my feeble attempts at trying to have a balanced discussion refuted by citing such oddities as one ship that did manage to make the Northwest Passage a long time ago, sort of, and the fact that lots of snow is falling on one area in Switzerland. Never mind that it is indisputable that the Northwest Passage is now exceptionally ice-free compared to how it has been for the last 500 years or that hard-headed Swiss business men are bowing to the fact that they have just flat run out of snow in certain regions of that cow-ridden little place.

I am not going to try to defend Al Gore, except to say that he has never made a pass at me so that the question of whether he is a sex pest or not remains open in my mind. On the other hand, I really doubt that very many scientists are as dishonest as many of you want to show the most of them.

As to Global Warming, if we simply say that we are in a period of rapid climate change can we agree on that, or do you all want to say that the global climate is pretty much as it was 100 years ago?
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 12:29
  #6174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
As to Global Warming, if we simply say that we are in a period of rapid climate change can we agree on that, or do you all want to say that the global climate is pretty much as it was 100 years ago?
Well, Chuks, the question should be more along the lines of "The climate is changing but is it a natural phenomenon or is it caused by mankind?". Bearing in mind the level of skullduggery that has been going on from the alarmist side of the argument to "prove" their point, I am inclined to believe the former.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 13:00
  #6175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
See, here's the trouble... jcbmack likes to tell us that if these people can predict something, then surely it is anthropogenic. Causation and correlation aren't the same thing, but a very large percentage of the population has only the most tenuous grasp on the difference between the two. There are very rich currency traders out there... they very seldom confuse these two things.

If it's the stock market we're talking about, I'd tend to go along with the notion that it's anthropogenic, after all, it was developed by human beings in the first place, and anything that occurs in the market is to some degree caused or influenced by humans.
However, if it's predicting that the next time Kohoutek is going to swing by (in about 75,000 years), well, I ain't quite going for that.
GW probably lies somewhere between those two extremes, with the warmists seeing it like the market, and the non-warmists seeing it like Kohoutek.

Tales abound of clever chaps with monocles showing up to astonish the natives with predictions of eclipses, soon running the place like a fine watch with crop rotation, proper drainage, and close-order drill. That doesn't mean those tales actually occurred, or that our monocled friend didn't end up between the fish course and the brandy. After all, a monocle might make a fine talisman for the village headman, and the locals tend to already know when there's going to be an eclipse.

Carry on, then.
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 13:34
  #6176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
Causation and correlation

The analogy I use is the number of drownings at Coney Island beach in Brooklyn. This fatality rate is directly proportional (i.e. well correlated) to the number of hot dogs sold.

But both are caused by OAT.
barit1 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 18:28
  #6177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
so the boundary/iniital conditions have conditions have changed and why is this NOT refrigeration
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 18:57
  #6178 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
Well, to mess figures up even more, I submit this;

There is a small town in Northern Oklahoma called Freedom. Last Monday the high temperature was 109 degrees F, 43c, Wednesday the low was 45 degrees F, 7c, both set all time record for hottest and coldest for those dates.

And I'll ask this question again; has the sea level world wide average increased? Has the sea level risen anywhere?

I thought according to Al Gore Miami, Florida was supposed to be under water by now.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 19:28
  #6179 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 75
Posts: 723
do you all want to say that the global climate is pretty much as it was 100 years ago?

I don't know anyone of that age, nor anyone of that age who lived globally. Mine's a small world and as usual, getting smaller the older I get.

However, whenever we have weather such as torrential rain, fearsome wind, hailstorms, great heat, great cold etc. there is always some aged but still mentally-active person who tells me it was wetter/windier/bigger hailstorms/hotter/ or colder when he/she was young and can usually tell me (as old people often can) the exact date when the disaster happened, where it happened, who was in school with them, who the Mayor was and so in ad inf. until I cry "enough !"

My impression talking to these ancients-but-actives (Mediterranian Diet !) is that nothing has changed here in, say, the past 50 - 60 years.

The only event not fitting into this pattern was the catastrophic March 8th snowfall this year, 2010, which NOBODY could remember happening in previous years.
OFSO is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 21:12
  #6180 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
soon running the place like a fine watch with crop rotation, proper drainage, and close-order drill.
....well that sounds like a fine managerial system to me backed up of course with alcohol, syphilis, and Christianity. That'll keep the fuzzy-wuzzies in line, eh, what?


The only event not fitting into this pattern was the catastrophic March 8th snowfall this year, 2010, which NOBODY could remember happening in previous years.
Now now, OFSO, you should know better, extreme cold is just WEATHER. Mild warmth is CATASTROPHIC MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE. Please learn the difference.
BlueWolf 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.