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 17th Jun 2011, 21:05
  #8241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
more insanity from the IPCC..

IPCC asks scientists to assess geo-engineering climate solutions

Leaked documents ahead of key Lima meeting suggest UN body is looking to slow emissions with technological fixes rather than talks


Lighter-coloured crops, aerosols in the stratosphere and iron filings in the ocean are among the measures being considered by leading scientists for "geo-engineering" the Earth's climate, leaked documents from the UN climate science body show.


In a move that suggests the UN and rich countries are despairing of reaching agreement by consensus at global climate talks, the US, British and other western scientists will outline a series of ideas to manipulate the world's climate to reduce carbon emissions. But they accept that even though the ideas could theoretically work, they might equally have unintended and even irreversible consequences.


The papers, leaked from inside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ahead of a geo-engineering expert group meeting in Lima in Peru next week, show that around 60 scientists will propose or try to assess a range of radical measures, including:


• blasting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight into space;
• depositing massive quantities of iron filings into the oceans;
• bio-engineering crops to be a lighter colour to reflect sunlight; and

• suppressing cirrus clouds.


Other proposals likely to be suggested include spraying sea water into clouds to reflect sunlight away from the Earth, burying charcoal, painting streets and roofs white on a vast scale, adding lime to oceans and finding different ways to suck greenhouse gases out of the air and deposit heat deep into oceans.
source: The Grauniad
stuckgear is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 01:22
  #8242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Simonpro

First learn to cite whom you are quoting.

It's rich you talking about my understanding of science when you're the one studiously blind to any of the misdoings of the " scientific " clique of Climate Change charlatans. You have time to criticise every word of every anonymous poster here but not a peep against the real misdoings in science.

Pull the other one and it has bells.

And oh, the IPCC are mistaken, next time they'll learn is as mealy mouthed and shameless excuse as you could get, especially seeing the facts of what exactly happened in this IPCC report, with a baseless, factless and horrible Greenpeace report earlier written by an author who is also in the renewables industry cited by IPCC with the same author as a lead author of the IPCC report. If you don't see a conflict in it, then it is pointless discussing ethics or morals or science with anybody holding such views and not even reading something about what was the issue.

I did not ay that the anti-AGW crowd are pure white. I'm saying that the leading lights in the scientific and political field of AGW in both Climate Science and IPCC have time and again consistently proved horribly corrupt and downright unethical and you are the one unfailingly supporting them.

Last edited by rvv500; 18th Jun 2011 at 13:19.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 01:24
  #8243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
This is an excellent article about the IPCC - Greenpeace fiasco in WSJ

“Live by the appeal to authority, die by the appeal to authority: Someone explain to us why we should even take “climate change” seriously as a hypothesis when the foremost authority on it engages in this kind of chicanery.

And if there are honest scientists who think global warming is real, why aren’t they the ones blowing the whistle on the malefactors who discredit the theory?”

online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html
rvv500 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 11:19
  #8244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
If you have an idle few minutes, here is a great video debunking that bastion of truth and integrity, Lord Christopher Monckton.

Re-entry is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 12:21
  #8245 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Very much a case of pots and kettles, the debunker cherry picks his quotes just as much as Monckton. does, and is just as inconsistent. And I notice he refers to himself as being skeptical of Monckton's claims rather than a denier.
green granite is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 12:46
  #8246 (permalink)  
Formerly HWD
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 52
Posts: 125
That Monkton debunking video was a good example of how to twist facts in order to coral people to a point of view.

The bit about the planets, Monkton was not heard to say they measure solar irradiance from other planets, just that as they have warmed also, then one may draw a rational conclusion of a common source of heat. Have the planets cited by Monkton warmed or not? Are Mars' ice caps melting or not?

The bit about the steady solar irradiance since 1950 verses climbing temperatures, well you would have to make an assumption that steady irradiance would lead to steady temperatures. It isn't difficult to imagine that naturally that might not be the case. Also you would have to ignore the sharp practice of how those temperatures have been measured, how that particular graph was compiled and the source of the information. Have temperatures stabilised or not?

The stuff about the conclusion of the AGM, well there was a paper that supported his statement. One out of 204 papers is a meaningless statement. Was that one paper wrong or not? He admits he made a mistake in a clearly edited for effect video.

Looks like the usual pro-AGW childish dirty tricks to me. Why don't they just produce verifiable evidence of AGW? Because they can't.
Tony Hirst is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 13:42
  #8247 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Re-entry, I'm suprised you haven't regaled us with this one:
The wit and wisdom of ‘Real’ Climate scientist Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert | Watts Up With That?

Like most devouts he doesn't argue the science, just ridicules the authors.
green granite is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 13:52
  #8248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
rvv500, I can't be bothered replying to you until you actually do something other than fling insults and slogans around. I may not agree with the opinions of some of the others on this thread, but at least they appear to have formed their own opinions and are capable of discussing them in a sensible manner.

more insanity from the IPCC..
Article from The Grauniad
...
Why's that insane? It's a conference about methods to reduce absorption of solar energy - therefore they are discussing methods to reduce absorption.
If you read the abstracts of the conference speakers you will see that there are several speakers cautioning that we shouldn't be trying out such methods.
It's just a 'what if' debate by the looks of it, and in my view it's a good thing: There's never any harm in floating a few ideas, even if it turns out they're unworkable.

So the IPCC are the victims ? they elected to push out fiction and lobby based presentation presented as fact no one else, the only victim the IPCC is, is of its own distortions and manipulations.
I'm not saying that they're victims - I'm saying that I don't know what else they're supposed to do. If they include expert authors then they'll get criticised for self-referencing. If they don't include expert authors then they'll get criticised for being clueless, with no idea of the subject they're writing about.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 13:53
  #8249 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Sorry I forgot to say:

Tony Hirst thanks for doing a slightly more in-depth bit on that video.
green granite is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 14:10
  #8250 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
If they include expert authors then they'll get criticised for self-referencing.
But in this case he was not an expert author but a member of a political organisation, and one that has jumped on the AGW bandwagon to further their own ends. The Chairman should have either removed the article or at least had a piece added identifying the author as a executive member of greenpeace's staff.
green granite is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 14:12
  #8251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Why don't they just produce verifiable evidence of AGW? Because they can't.
Oh, for GOD'S sake.

Climate Change: Evidence
Re-entry is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 14:29
  #8252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
But in this case he was not an expert author but a member of a political organisation, and one that has jumped on the AGW bandwagon to further their own ends. The Chairman should have either removed the article or at least had a piece added identifying the author as a executive member of greenpeace's staff.
I just looked up the author list for SRREN, and Sven Teske is already listed as being employed by Greenpeace, they even give his Greenpeace email address.

It's also worth noting that the paper being complained about (for the ER-2010 scenario) was published in a reputable scientific journal and was peer reviewer prior to publication. Teske also stated within the paper that he was employed by Greenpeace.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 15:21
  #8253 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Sorry Simonpro, I'm having a senior moment and got my references all screwed up.
green granite is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 16:42
  #8254 (permalink)  
Formerly HWD
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 52
Posts: 125
Re-entry,

Your link points to nothing other than statements and platitudes. I am talking about scientific evidence. Temperatures are not unusually high and due to CO2 because somebody says so, they are unusually high because there is no data to suggest otherwise and because all other reasonable causes other than CO2 have been eliminated as probable causes. That is not the current state of the science.
Tony Hirst is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2011, 18:30
  #8255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
they are unusually high because there is no data to suggest otherwise and because all other reasonable causes other than CO2 have been eliminated as probable causes.
So that's why solar activity is ignored? And how CO˛ levels "chase" temperatures (as in, they rise AFTER temperature rises)?
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2011, 07:10
  #8256 (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 19th Jun 2011, 09:25
  #8257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
Why don't they just produce verifiable evidence of AGW? Because they can't.
Oh, for GOD'S sake.

Climate Change: Evidence
Oh, for GOD'S sake.

Asked to produce verifiable evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and you produce evidence of climate change, WHICH NO-ONE HERE DENIES. Evidence of the latter is NOT verifiable proof of the former.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2011, 17:04
  #8258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Well...

No it isn't, as long as you choose to de-couple rising levels of carbon dioxide from rising temperatures. I think you will find that most climate scientists tend to couple those two observed facts, though and take that for a sort of 'proof.'

Would you say it is unreasonable to do that?
chuks is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2011, 17:21
  #8259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
well hang on there chuks, in your son of climate change thread you assert:

You cannot prove or disprove AGW; it is an hypothesis, sort of a working assumption, if you like.
link for you chuks... http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4546...ml#post6523494
stuckgear is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2011, 17:27
  #8260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
No it isn't, as long as you choose to de-couple rising levels of carbon dioxide from rising temperatures. I think you will find that most climate scientists tend to couple those two observed facts, though and take that for a sort of 'proof.'

Would you say it is unreasonable to do that?

It is when temperature rises and THEN co˛ levels rise.

The pro-AGW line is a case of the "tail wagging the dog"....
hellsbrink 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.