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 15th Jun 2011, 08:39
  #8181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Here are the statements from the Chairman of IPCC regarding " peer reviewed " literature being the only accepted standard in IPCC

The 2007 IPCC report falls well short of its advertising

Hes does not specify WG I or II or III. He talks about the whole report.

This is from the horse's mouth.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 09:28
  #8182 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Why do I not find surprising the total absence, on the BBC's website of any mention of the "Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity" announcement? They do however give great predominance to Phil Jones' statement that there has been significant warming since 1995
green granite is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 11:24
  #8183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
End of the day, nature rules and the sun drives the climate. Puny " experts " who have an inflated opinion of themselves may think that they know it all about climate with their phony CAGW nonsense, but nature always puts them in place.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 12:44
  #8184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
End of the day, nature rules and the sun drives the climate.
Are you sure about that?

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).
Re-entry is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 13:00
  #8185 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Re-entry

It would appear that paper might be flawed in some way

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003
green granite is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 13:13
  #8186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Re-entry, very sure, watch this space.

You may want to read this

Sun's Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity | Sunspots, Solar Weather & Solar Storms | Solar Cycle | Space.com
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 14:09
  #8187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
More "denier" science here

Temperature Projections for the 21st Century

I particularly like Syun Akasofu`s scenario - one could actually call that a "projection"?

And if Mons Sol decides to have an extra long nap...
konstantin is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 15:47
  #8188 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 75
Posts: 723
I see the BBC's Science News pages are still saying global warming will be more than expected (or more than predicted, or more than something or other - the main thing is, MORE).

Does the BBC have some special interest in promoting the global warming fallacy ?
OFSO is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 16:11
  #8189 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Does the BBC have some special interest in promoting the global warming fallacy
YES

The BBC Pension Trust is worth about £8 billion while its mainstream operations are struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit as reported on last weekend by that fine journalist and writer, James Delingpole of the ‘Telegraph.’

The BBC’s handsome pension pot is invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) alongside another 50 plus member funds. The total assets of this consortium is around €4trillion (Euros) that, in turn is invested in a larger consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ worth about $15 trillions (US).

The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said:

“The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
green granite is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 17:41
  #8190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 119
A modest proposal

Since this is a mainly a pilots' website.
(I freely admit the only thing I have ever flown is a hang glider, and contrary to GreenGranite's suspicions I have never worked for the MetOffice or in any climate science related job.)

Pilots have jobs with public safety implications. Not all pilots are to be trusted. Therefore everything said in a cockpit should be public record, I should be allowed to demand to hear all of it, and read all emails sent by pilots. Why not? They have nothing to fear do they? Or are they engaged in a global conspiracy to put God knows what into the atmosphere? When they are not dowsing their back yards maybe they are spreading chemtrails. And before anyone else suggests it - yes I am going to go and have a lie down. Au revoir.
911slf is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 18:22
  #8191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Pilots have jobs with public safety implications. Not all pilots are to be trusted. Therefore everything said in a cockpit should be public record, I should be allowed to demand to hear all of it, and read all emails sent by pilots. Why not? They have nothing to fear do they? Or are they engaged in a global conspiracy to put God knows what into the atmosphere? When they are not dowsing their back yards maybe they are spreading chemtrails. And before anyone else suggests it - yes I am going to go and have a lie down. Au revoir.
Man, I want some of what you're smoking if that is your "argument".

To clarify, what a pilot says in the cockpit or sends in an email will NOT have a direct effect on the lives and livelihoods of MILLIONS (nay, BILLIONS) of people. What these "climate scientists" say and do in the course of their "work" CAN and WILL have such an effect as their "recommendations" (aka hysteria) will be used to shape the policies of governments around the world in regard to taxation, etc.


To try and compare that with a private email from a pilot is scraping the bottom of Chuks' and Cacophonix' barrels (or even the barrels of their bottoms, whatever one takes your fancy) as far as non-arguments go.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 19:24
  #8192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Cheeky bugger!

scraping the bottom of Chuks' and Cacophonix' barrels
Years since I had my barrel scraped mate, but I am a nine mill man, all the way!

What next? Ballistics and climate change?
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 20:34
  #8193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
What next? Ballistics and climate change?
There's a joke in there somewhere, gimme a few and I'll think of it.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 21:03
  #8194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
There's a joke in there somewhere, gimme a few and I'll think of it.
The message is too short, bit like my joke.

Cacophonix is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 00:05
  #8195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
Oh, I think I get it - hellsbrink, there were three clues there...

A fourth would be that there is a poster on PPRuNe who uses the moniker "parabellum"

But maybe back to thread topic before the mods open fire? (that was a woeful #5!)
konstantin is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 03:35
  #8196 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,962
What next? Ballistics and climate change?
That's a very elliptical remark.....
ORAC is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 04:20
  #8197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Oh, I think I get it - hellsbrink, there were three clues there...

A fourth would be that there is a poster on PPRuNe who uses the moniker "parabellum"

But maybe back to thread topic before the mods open fire? (that was a woeful #5!)

Naah, I was thinking more about the definition of "ballistics".....



Ballistics - The use of falsified figures in an attempt to justify a pseudo-science such as Climate Change Theory. (Source: Statistics - the collection, organisation and interpretation of numerical data. Balls - What the pro-AGW people talk a lot of)
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 07:14
  #8198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
To clarify, what a pilot says in the cockpit or sends in an email will NOT have a direct effect on the lives and livelihoods of MILLIONS (nay, BILLIONS) of people. What these "climate scientists" say and do in the course of their "work" CAN and WILL have such an effect as their "recommendations" (aka hysteria) will be used to shape the policies of governments around the world in regard to taxation, etc.
The scientist recommendations (Part 3 of the IPCC report) aren't "hysteria", that comes from clowns like Gore and Greenpeace. If you actually sit down and read the WGIII recommendations you'll see that they aren't hysterical and are (fairly) reasonable.
As I have said time and time again, the problem comes when politics gets involved, then we have lobby groups on either side twisting the data and text beyond all recognition so that it suits their point of view.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 07:20
  #8199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
And I guess I 'd better respond to rvv500 before he complains again.
Yeah, you don't read " pointless " blogs, but can comment about them without reading, great.
I used to read one or two (including some linked to from here) but I gave that up long ago. As I said: Pointless.

Go back and see your own posts about AGW theory being the most very well accepted blah, blah.
Saying that a theory is widely accepted by the scientific community is not the same as "praising it to the sky". Try again.

WGI or II or III are all IPCC reports and all the action is being taken based upon the SPM's. So if WGII and III are crap and come out with lousy suggestions and " findings " it's still crap.
I disagree. WGII is, for the most part, written by pseudo-scientists. It's written by geographers and anthropologists. That bunch of jokers are to science what masturbation is to sex: They follow the right procedure and can reach a conclusion, but ultimately it's unsatisfying.
WGI and WGIII were composed more of proper scientists, so I'd be a bit more willing to listen to their conclusions than I would WGII. Hence why I asked if you found anything in the WGI report; As far as I know all the problems have been contained in the sections of WGII.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 07:28
  #8200 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Simonpro
What do you make of the announcement about that says that it appears our Sun is heading for a rest period? If it's true then it could have a much more devastating effect than a small amount of global warming.
green granite 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.