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 25th Apr 2011, 06:46
  #7741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
I trust the Ferrari is converted to run on Palm Oil ? We wouldn't want hypocrisy from the warmistas now would we !
I'm not a warmist, but I have made my car 'green'. It runs on the energy generated by all the anti-warmistas whenever they get all hot under the collar.
As that happens quite frequently I can get pretty good mileage.

perhaps, as how you're one of those evil scientists, you would comment on the theory that it was the Ozone Hole that has caused climate change.
Well, I'm not looking at that website as I think Watt is a hypocritical (bad word) who is every bit as bad as those he complains against. I'm also not a climate scientist - so take my opinions with a big pinch of salt.

It's only localised climate change that is theorised to have been caused. I've just taken a quick look through the paper and the results they present do make sense. We've known for a long time that Ozone can substantially affect high altitude temperatures and also affect the polar circulation. I'm a little surprised by how wide an area is affected, I would have expected it to be an area much more localised to the hole - this seems to be quite a broad regional effect. Still, they know more than me about it and like I say it does make sense. They list several things they're unsure of, so it'll be interesting to see the results from any future studies they do on this subject.

Another interesting point is that this study uses climate models - so it will be interesting to see if the anti-warming people use this study as an example of how things other than CO2 can affect climate. If they do then they'll have to accept that the GCMs are suitable for use, something they've been complaining about for a long time...
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 07:21
  #7742 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 65
Posts: 9,638
Something screwed up on this thread. If I click last page it takes me to a page about 4 from the end (24th April) and won't show anything later.

The only way I get to see the last few posts is to click "reply", which lets me see the last few posts in "Topic Review" below the text box.
ORAC is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 07:56
  #7743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Dark forces at work

Something screwed up on this thread.
You are right. I note 388 pages when the last post occurs on page 384!

Seems kind of apt somehow... what with cooked data and all!
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 07:59
  #7744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 56
Posts: 80
Goes some way to explain the bias reporting by the BBC.

Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC - Telegraph

'A shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat is being funded by the taxpayer and assisted by the BBC'.
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 08:14
  #7745 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 76
Posts: 3,511
Thanks for your thoughts on that paper Simonpro, as you say it will be interesting to watch developments arising from further research in the area.

Nice to hear your car runs on cheap fuel mate.
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 08:19
  #7746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
My mom let me loose

It's wonderful isn't it? People take the trouble of coming to the thread and then asking how to ignore it, giving a load of sanctimonius BS about the thread. Hey, you know what, nobody forced you to come here and read. And if you don't know that and don't know that you can avoid seeing a thread by not clicking on it, who let you loose?
I leave the BS to proponents on both sides of the argument on this subject, not only here on this thread, but generally, in the press, other media and, unfortunately, in certain parts of academia. That was my original point and I am sorry that people with wafer thin egos can't stomach that point.

This thread doesn't generally add any scientitic analysis to what is a very important debate but then (here you are right) I shouldn't expect the same on an aviation forum called Jet Blast.

Now I will leave true believers (of whatever stripe) to congregate in the halls of their certainty and to summon hellfire down on those they perceive to be heretics!

However science, where it is practised openly, with method and without blinkers will continue to seek out the answers, whatever they are.

Sanctimonious enough for you?

Last edited by Cacophonix; 25th Apr 2011 at 08:54. Reason: n
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 12:08
  #7747 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 76
Posts: 3,511
Cacophonix you should know by now that it's impossible to have any meaningful discussion with a devout warmist, they just say "the science is settled, there is nothing to discuss." When you ask them their reaction to a paper that dares to contradict them, they just ridicule it and eventually say "Anyway it's been disproved". But when you press them for the citation that disproves it, they ignore you which as far as I'm concerned means there probably isn't one and they just expect you to accept what they say as gospel.

However it's a different matter with the "lukewarmers" like Simonpro who believe in AGW but who are open minded enough to look at both sides of the argument and discuss it.

The main purposes of this thread isn't in fact to have long erudite scientific discussions on subjects although, just occasionally, it does happen, as much as bringing articles and papers to people's attention so that they may go off and read them.
I know Simonpro doesn't like WUWT and I can understand why, but it is a useful site in that it supplies summaries of papers (from both sides) and where possible a link to the paper it's self so it does tend to get referred to frequently.
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 12:53
  #7748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
I know Simonpro doesn't like WUWT and I can understand why, but it is a useful site in that it supplies summaries of papers (from both sides) and where possible a link to the paper it's self so it does tend to get referred to frequently.
Green Granite

I agree entirely with every point in your last thoughtful post and do regret that I appeared to belittle the many interesting posts and points of view that have been posted here. I have always foresworn from posting previously in the light of the fact, so well pointed out by you that:

The main purposes of this thread isn't in fact to have long erudite scientific discussions on subjects
I do admit that I have been a lurker and read pretty much everything (including the links) so my slightly tongue in cheek comment about finding a mechanism to hide the thread talks clearly to my own inability to avoid sneaking a look at the current state of the debate.

I do also believe that the state of the debate here has become slightly dogmatic of late, so it is a breath of fresh air to read Simonpro's gentle comment and your very fair rebuttal of my purposely provocative post.

Caco (by name and nature)
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 14:54
  #7749 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 76
Posts: 3,511
Cacophonix, does your last post mean we have a consensus then?

I do also believe that the state of the debate here has become slightly dogmatic of late,
I must agree with you there as well Cacophonix, this thread is not what it was before the merging I'm afraid.
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 15:22
  #7750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
I have managed to locate this fine piece of work that surely will silence even the most rabid warmista commie conspirators. I'm surprised Anthony Watts didn't beat me to this one.

Re-entry is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 15:28
  #7751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
will silence even the most rabid warmista commie conspirators
This commie liberal agitator is too busy choking on his tea in laughter to respond.

We have a consensus then
Heaven forfend Green Granite we'd have to go to Stockholm for our respective Nobel prizes then and this thread would end!
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 17:37
  #7752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 56
Posts: 80
A bit more science :-

"The ozone hole is not even mentioned in the summary for policymakers issued with the last IPCC report," noted Lorenzo M. Polvani, Professor of Applied Mathematics and of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and co-author of the paper. "We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system!"

Ozone hole linked to climate change all the way to the equator
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 18:25
  #7753 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 76
Posts: 3,511
That's the paper that I asked Simonpro to comment on a few posts back beaufort1
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 19:03
  #7754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 56
Posts: 80
Apologies green granite that will teach me to post in a rush.
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 19:59
  #7755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
pulse1

Beaufort highlighted this paper some days ago. If Professor Nasi Nahle is correct, this blows the whole carbon based global warming apart.
Of course it does, but you see, these people are ambitious individuals who are doing this as part of a scheme to advance global governance. This is not about science, this is about power and control.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2011, 07:34
  #7756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
This is an excellent article that clearly states what's wrong with the science behind the AGW theory.

Quadrant Online - Science without method
rvv500 is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2011, 08:42
  #7757 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 76
Posts: 3,511
Yes indeed, shame about the bits that are just plain wrong such as:
" The one modern, definitive experiment, the search for the signature of the green house effect has failed totally."

The signature of the Earth’s greenhouse effect is well known and is shown up from the infrared measurements taken by satellites. It is the enhanced greenhouse effect and the associated feedbacks are the issue.
green granite is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2011, 08:59
  #7758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Yes, Green Granite, Judith Curry also commented about it in her blog saying that the authors possibly meant to say " enhanced greenhouse effect " in the article.

But the whole issue is that the enhanced greenhouse effects should've been seen in the tropical upper troposphere warming. It has not been seen so far. Neither have the oceans warmed. And you have people in the AGW fraternity refusing to accept the evidence and running around searching for the " missing heat ". It was never there in the first place, to be missed.

And another poster called Girma in Judith Curry's blog posted as below

QUOTE

There was five-times increase in human fossil fuel use from about 30 to 170M-ton of carbon in the recent warming phase from 1970 to 2000 compared to the previous one from 1910 to 1940. However, their global warming rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade is nearly identical as shown in the following graph.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs


In the intermediate period between the two global warming phases from 1940 to 1970, there was global cooling with increase fossil fuel use of about 70M-ton as shown in the following graph.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs


And since about 2000, there was little increase in the global temperature with further increase in fossil fuel use of about 70M-ton as shown in the following chart.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs


UNQUOTE

So basically the observed data simply do not support the AGW theory. But the proponents seem to think that the data is wrong. Huh!!
rvv500 is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2011, 09:21
  #7759 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 76
Posts: 3,511
Please note that all these sudden rises only occur after the temperature measurements started to go digital and seem to cease after the programme was completed.
green granite is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2011, 00:20
  #7760 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
This EPA piece is very well written. I think this may be one of the AG's indicting Mann. This is by Ken Cuccinelli, AG of Virginia.

The U.N. report was misleading, and that “it is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data” that would work against the theory of rapid global warming in the last century.

Pursuant to this, in February 2010, my office petitioned the EPA to reopen its hearings on greenhouse gases and review new evidence. Instead it ignored our request—in fact, it ignored the law. So we filed a federal lawsuit to force the hearings to be reopened, and we are still awaiting our day in court.

If the EPA is allowed to move forward with its regulation of carbon dioxide, costs to every American household are projected to increase by $3,000 a year due to higher prices for energy, food, clothing, and any other goods that require energy to manufacture or transport. Talk about taxing the poor!

In a document the EPA published on regulating greenhouse gas emissions in cars and light trucks, it admits that its new rules would add about $950 to the price of each new vehicle. And buried deep in the report, the EPA’s own models show that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperature increases by less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit. Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, in testimony before Congress, called this amount of temperature difference “immeasurable.” But that has not stopped the agency from trying to move the new auto regulations forward.

Greenhouse gas regulations will also cost businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in increased energy costs, and could price several industries out of business or force them overseas, resulting in permanent job losses.

These are serious consequences of decisions made by unelected bureaucrats. All we are asking the EPA to do is to look at all the data, not just the data that supports the pre-conceived views of the people in charge.

For my challenges to these rules and to the federal government, I am accused of being a flat-earther and an enemy of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not only an attorney; I was also an engineer. As a former engineer, I have a certain trust in science: the math, the scientific method, the certainties of the laws of physics, and the objective quest for new answers. But when science gets tainted by politics and money, and facts are set aside in the name of advancing a political agenda, it is no longer science.
 

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.