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 21st Jun 2011, 09:44
  #8281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
The president of the Maldives is also clearly also an alarmist...
Profiteer is the correct term..



edit - dang!, green granite beat me to it..





.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 09:59
  #8282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Yeah, IPCC quoting an incorrect non-existent figure and you say it's OK. Honestly there'ss no point in discussing anything rational or ethical with you Simonpro. You have a stellar record in supporting bad practices and bad science.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 10:03
  #8283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
GG if the man was using GW as a means of raking in the lucre then I would recommend the technique to those denizens of other low lying areas. At least they would have good models and data upon which to base their schemes (or scams).

Clearly sea level rises (and falls) are complex phenomena with many influences e.g. gravitational, tectonic, barometric, seismic, astronomical, tidal etc. factors influencing the results, but organisations like NASA and the NOAA take the possibility of AGW related sea level rises seriously so I guess the president wasn't completely out on a mercenary limb. He is quite a character whatever he may really think of GW or AGW (as you probably know).

Interesting stuff on measurement without using trees and other whimsies.

Caco

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/pubs/p...ney_Encycl.pdf
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 10:04
  #8284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
And for people criticising Morner as not capable, let's see what the Chairman of IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri's character is about.

Pachauri has a record of not discharging his duties truthfully or responsibly:

Judgement of Delhi High Court Judge K. Ramamoorthy


“Old World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs India Habitat Centre” – 23/8/1996
In the light of these facts I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that these three Officers Mr. Bhatnagar, Mr. [sic] Pachauri and Mr. Dinesh Mehta have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits.
And I am afraid, that the affairs and the efficient management of the Centre are not safe in the hands of officers like Mr. K. K. Bhatnagar, Dr. R.K. Pachauri arid [sic] Mr. Dinesh Mehta and they had ignored that the officers have to function as a public functionaries within the parameters of the Constitution."


Stellar behaviour, suppress evidence, sworn false affidavits etc, etc., a good qualification to be Chairman of IPCC, the love child of certain fact blind posters here.

rvv500 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 10:08
  #8285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
As to conflict of interest, heres a link about Senate Sub-committee on Ivestigations and Oversight writing to the UN regarding addressing conflict of interest

Broun Once Again Calls on the IPCC to Address Conflicts of Interest | Committee on Science - U.S. House of Representatives

The issue is all over the press and everyone on both sides of the issue have unequivocally condemned the IPCC's behaviour on conflict of interest, except for some experts here who can't see the trees in the wood.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 10:12
  #8286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,624
rvv500,

I usually look forward to your posts because they are quite informative. I must say though that I find your criticism of Simonpro and the IPCC for rounding up the 77% to 80% for the headline figure to be rather puzzling.

If that is the best you can do to discredit Simonpro, whose posts I also look forward to, then I think that you are diminishing yourself and your position, at least in the eyes of those of us who are trying to work out where the truth really lies.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 11:12
  #8287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
...organisations like NASA and the NOAA take the possibility of AGW related sea level rises seriously...
Do tell Cacophonix, what makes you think NASA and NOAA take sea levels seriously... is there a lot of funding available to 'prove' something or other about sea levels ?..





.

Last edited by Flying Binghi; 21st Jun 2011 at 11:24. Reason: their there
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 11:33
  #8288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Do tell Cacophonix, what makes you think NASA and NOAA take sea levels seriously... is their a lot of funding available to 'prove' something or other about sea levels ?..
Are you seriously trying to claim that both NASA and the NOAA have decided to pervert science to climb aboard some gravy train?

Do you believe they are part of "the conspiracy"?

I would suggest that any attempt to subvert data and science would rebound rather grieviously on these two organisations that have set their store by other activities that require their commitment to accuracy and ethical standards in order to win funding for their core competencies (e.g. space flight/exploration/research and global weather analysis).

Are you suggesting that the US government under Bush (for example) was keen to fund an organisation that was supporting a message that was inimical to his position? Surely some of the seminal research done by both these organisation would have been "changed" under these political conditions in order to continue winning those funds you so cynically allude to?

This simply didn't happen because these people (for the most part) are doing good science and are not part of any global conspiracy!

I really am beginning to worry about some of the folks who subscribe to this paranoaic world view.

Last edited by Cacophonix; 21st Jun 2011 at 11:51.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 11:42
  #8289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
via Simonpro #8202:

The IPCC are in a catch-22 situation with stuff like that. They want the leading scientists to be authors on the working group reports, but at the same time they don't want the reports to indulge in self-citation by the authors. However, if the authors are the leading scientists in that field (which may or may not be true in this case) then of course they'll have to self-cite, there's nothing else they can do: the authors are the ones doing the research!
via Simonpro #8224:
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.

via Simonpro #8228: ...published in a reputable scientific journal and was peer reviewer prior to publication
Hmmm... self cite their own research. Simonpro, who does the 'peer' reveiw of the work of these singular 'leading scientists' ?..




via Simonpro #8202:
I was under the impression that 2010 was the joint-warmest year on record
Simonpro, what about the warmer then today medieval warm period and the warmer then today Roman warm period.... thats those 'inconvieniant' warm periods that the so-called top climate scientists tried to remove from the historical record with the "hocky stick graph"..










.

Last edited by Flying Binghi; 21st Jun 2011 at 12:01. Reason: tist tits
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 11:52
  #8290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Science is a funny thing...

If you have read that New Yorker article about how scientific results seem to fade with time then you might have come away with the idea that a serious scientist pursues the truth, wherever that truth might lead him. There were numerous examples cited in the article of studies with a lot of financial impact which were later contradicted. That in itself contradicts the image being pushed here by the anti-science faction of scientists being inherently dishonest. Well, except for a small group exemplified by the tree-loving Dr Mörner who swim against the tide. Yes, I suppose there must be a few lemmings who turn around and back off from that cliff edge.

There is a lot of funding to study sea levels, sure. That is part of what NOAA is all about, I guess, hence the name, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is just a guess on my part, but if a NOAA team were able to come up with some contrary evidence that showed a drop or else a failure to rise in sea levels, that might be better for them than just reporting on the boring old consensus, rising sea levels. Somehow I think that would lead to fame and fortune for them, yet this just has not happened.

You always get back to a sort of 'Which is more likely? question, I think. Is it more likely that the general scientific community is colluding in a deception, hiding the truth that sea levels are not rising, or is it more likely that sea levels are rising and that this is being truthfully reported? Is science a fraud or is it a search for the truth?

Here we seem to have people pulling out little scraps of evidence that support something unlikely, that science often is a fraud and scientists are crooked, most of them. Is that fair?

For instance, there is a math operation called 'rounding' that is commonly accepted. You might have a fleet of buses, when you want to express their occupancy to the nearest tenth in order to show how useful they are in transporting people with 'special needs.' You find that you had 770 riders last week on your four buses with 25 seats each which made a total of ten trips, making 77% occupancy (770 riders divided by 1000 available seats [4 times 25 times 10] times 100). Using standard math you then round that up to 80% and present that figure to the local council. Along comes one of the passengers to claim that you are committing a fraud, that you never had that claimed 80% occupancy rate. Well, I suppose it would be so that while that passenger from the special bus was perfectly sincere in asseverating that this was fraud, most people would reject that either because of what they know about basic math or else a reasoned belief in the inherent honesty of someone who has chosen to operate buses for the common good, albeit on a for-profit basis. Rather than a problem with the person reporting the 80%, most people would see a problem with the person unable to understand that 77% can have the same meaning as 80%, that 770 people is approximately the same number as 800 people, using rounding.

Last edited by chuks; 21st Jun 2011 at 12:03.
chuks is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 12:00
  #8291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
via Cacophonix:
Are you seriously trying to claim that both NASA and the NOAA have decided to pervert science to climb aboard some gravy train?

Do you believe they are part of "the conspiracy"?

I would suggest that any attempt to subvert data and science would rebound rather grieviously on these two organisations that have set their store by other activities that require their commitment to accuracy and ethical standards in order to win funding for their core competencies (e.g. space flight/exploration/research and global weather analysis).

Are you suggesting that the US government under Bush (for example) was keen to fund an organisation that was supporting a message that was inimical to his position. Surely some of the seminal research done by both these organisation would have been "changed" under these political conditions in order to continue winning those funds you so cynically allude to.

This simply didn't happen because these people (for the most part) are doing good science and are not part of any global conspiracy!

I really am beginning to worry about some of the folks who subscribe to this paranoaic world view.

Cacophonix, thats quiet the run around the paddock there..








---------------------------------------
The increasing shrillness of the message about global warming has about it a certain messianic flavour usually associated with religious faith rather than empirical or scientific knowledge”
via The Climate Caper, Garth Paltridge. Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 12:09
  #8292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Binghi

You are certainly running around, implying things, posting in red and then ignoring a couple of simple questions!

Oh well, never expect a straight answer when a torrid evasion will do.


Caco
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 12:21
  #8293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
How do you do that 'red' thing? Man, is that ever persuasive! I wish I knew how!

Oh well, at least I do know how to do 'rounding,' there is that.... The Evil Doctor Yang, visiting math fellow, taught me that; his Chinese brain must be the size of a planet but there he was, one student (me) making up the entirety of his class in Topics in Algebra, Trigonometry and Pre-calculus, having to teach me basic stuff such as that.
chuks is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 12:28
  #8294 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
but if a NOAA team were able to come up with some contrary evidence that showed a drop or else a failure to rise in sea levels, that might be better for them than just reporting on the boring old consensus
Sea levels are currently diminishing.


green granite is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 12:39
  #8295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Sea levels are currently diminishing.
Incorrect, I'm afraid - the plot you post is three years old, and therefore not current.

The actual current version of the plot shows that in the past few years we are back on the trendline. But, if I'm honest, I don't trust the new measurements that well - the satellite used to derive them is mor enoisy than its predecessors.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 13:57
  #8296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,336
Oer the past twenty years, based on some stuff I read in Scientific American and a few TV shows on science stuff, I've been interested in a particular feature of the world's oceans and climates, namely the Gulf Stream. Depending upon the year, the various reports and shows make mention of serious perturbations in the Gulf Stream having non-linear effects, to include a possible reintroduction into Northern Europe of a mini ice age, or worse. (Tipping points a la Gladwell seem to apply to this potential for dramatic climage change, at the cold end). This is predicated on some temperature changes in the feeders to the Gulf Stream. The melting ice cap in Greenland/North Pole seem to have the potential to influence the North Atlantic Curl and thus have profound effects on Europ's climate.

Trouble ahead in River City. Global energy usage is only going up, so the poles cannot help but melt. (So the story goes). In the Northern Hemisphere this amounts to a looming change in the dynamics of the Northern Extension/Curl of the Gulf Stream. Your weather and climate in Europe are likely to be influenced. If we take the idea of a tipping point as reasonably valid, when the change comes, it won't be in a smoothe curve, it will be pretty sudden. (Over a decade or so, IIRC). (I am not clear on how this influences thee Japan Current, which makes coastal Alaska more habitable than it would otherwise. )

The question is, do people in India or China care about your climate in the UK, or in Finland, and its potential negative effect on your environment?

I seriously doubt it. They have troubles of their own.

To see where I am going with this ... if an appeal is to be made to a global audience, "rising seas" is the alarm bell to ring in re climate change. That gets the attention of everyone, not just those who will be influenced by polar melts. Yet at the same time, Green Peace is still on their idiotic "get rid of nuclear energy" bandwagon. Sometimes, the environmental causes work against one another. Safe nuclear energy is a reality, see the French, though one cannot be complacent (see Japan, and recently some news in the US that oversight in some states is not up to scratch).

Gulf Stream mechanics. (Take with grain of salt, short summary from a wikipedia entry) It won't stop moving, thanks to winds, but what scientists ponder on is whether or not its historic patterns will vary sufficiently change that providential benefit Europe has received for a few millenia.
The trade winds blow westward in the tropics, and the westerlies blow eastward at mid-latitudes. This wind pattern applies a stress to the subtropical ocean surface with negative curl across the north Atlantic Ocean. The resulting movement (large scale) is equatorward.

Because of conservation of potential vorticity caused by the northward-moving winds on the subtropical ridge's western periphery and the increased relative vorticity of northward moving water, movement is balanced by a narrow, accelerating poleward current, which flows along the western boundary of the ocean basin, outweighing the effects of friction with the western boundary current known as the Labrador Current.
From there, it mixes with cold water around Europe.

Whose ox will be gored, and when?

The AGW and other Climate Change issue have embedded in them that social and political question, which isn't scientific in the meteorological sense ... it's social "sciences."

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 21st Jun 2011 at 14:08.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 14:14
  #8297 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Incorrect, I'm afraid - the plot you post is three years old, and therefore not current.
I just posted the first graph I came to. I understood there was a hold up in updating Colorado's website so I didn't explore further.


The actual current version of the plot shows that in the past few years we are back on the trendline. But, if I'm honest, I don't trust the new measurements that well - the satellite used to derive them is mor enoisy than its predecessors.
I actually find it quite bizarre that we can measure to a mm from outer space, there must be so many variables to potentially distort the measurement.
green granite is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 14:31
  #8298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Oh, yeah...

If that 'heat pump' shuts down it will be good news for polar bears but for the rest of northern Europe it might mean very hard times indeed.

One scenario is that the Greenland ice cap melts and dumps a load of cold, fresh water into the ocean which then interferes with the Gulf Stream and its load of free heat for the UK, 'turning off the heat' as it were. It's a very scary scenario.

As here, many people like to pooh-pooh Global Warming, arguing from the point of view of 'We were just shoveling out from under a foot of snow so what is this GW nonsense?' and such-like specious logic, when the real issue might be climate change and the rate at which that is occurring. This one could be a real joker, the climate warming enough to melt the ice cap, which then results in the heat pump shutting off and making us freeze!

Many people in the world are basically stuck with living wherever they happen to be, simply because they are poor, when 'poor' is the normal, default setting for humanity. If their climate becomes uninhabitable then they are essentially screwed, famine relief aside.

Meanwhile, some of the survivors will make their way into the backyards of the wealthy, 'us,' enough to be a burden as it is and perhaps too many to cope with if our own troubles multiply. It might not be 'rivers of blood,' but I bet it will be trouble. This one can be thought of as climate science holding hands with social science, when 'most people' will not like the answers those bring.

For now we send them Angelina Jolie to witter on a bit about their sad plight. All too soon it could be a merciless throwing up of barriers to flight into the wealthy lands we inhabit, once we decide that our own, privileged way of life is under threat. The other night, for instance, I was watching a documentary about Kolkata/Calcutta, tin shacks everywhere, each one crammed to bursting with people, lapping about the remnants of what must have been a reasonably pleasant place to live. Is that the future of London, say?

This all brings to mind that Chinese curse, 'May you live in interesting times.'
chuks is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 17:11
  #8299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
As here, many people like to pooh-pooh Global Warming, arguing from the point of view of 'We were just shoveling out from under a foot of snow so what is this GW nonsense?' and such-like specious logic, when the real issue might be climate change and the rate at which that is occurring. This one could be a real joker, the climate warming enough to melt the ice cap, which then results in the heat pump shutting off and making us freeze!
Chuks

If "Global Warming" exists, why did they change the name to "Climate Change"? There's your starter for ten.

For extra points, do point out where people have said that that the climate is NOT changing (for the global "climate" changes constantly, that is a known happening) instead of agreeing that there is "change" but dispute the small matter of MANKIND being to blame for said change. That is the issue, the dispute, the assertion that MANKIND is to blame for an unnatural "change".

Oh, for a bonus point, do point out what you witnessed in Africa that makes you believe in AGW. You are the one that said your experiences make you "believe", but you've never explained what they are despite being asked at least twice.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 18:43
  #8300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
It seems that politics and internal strife are alive and well amongst those who deny climate change...

Climate change sceptic think tank shuts down - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent
Linda Whetstone and her brother Michael, the trustees present at the private meeting, are the children of Sir Anthony Fisher who was an ideological disciple and former student of the father of neoliberalism, Friedrich Hayek. Fisher senior masterminded the global network of neoliberal think tanks, including setting up more than 150 organisations himself.

The launch of the International Policy Network’s first publication Adapt or Die was reported in November 2004. The charity claimed climate change was a myth, that sea levels were not rising and that global warming would benefit humans by increasing fish stocks.

At that time Dr Roger Bate was also a director of the IPN. Morris and Bate were both named in a letter asking the tobacco company RJ Reynolds for £50,000 in funding for a book about the “myth of scientific risk assessment” which would deny the effects of passive smoking.

Morris denied involvement, but a book titled What Risk? edited by Bate was later produced in which Bate acknowledged Morris for his support.

The IPN name soon became associated with ExxonMobil after the American oil giant revealed in its own publications that it granted almost £250,000 ($400,000) to the IPN in the US between 2003 and 2006. An examination of IPN UK accounts registered at Companies House revealed that from 2003 to 2005 the US think tank in turn granted £204,379 to the IPN in London.

Exxon stopped funding the IPN following a letter in 2006 from Bob Ward who was then at the Royal Society calling on the world’ s largest seller of fossil fuel to stop funding organisations that were actively spreading misinformation about the science of human forced climate change. Ward is now at the Grantham Institute at the LSE in London.
The charity claimed climate change was a myth, that sea levels were not rising and that global warming would benefit humans by increasing fish stocks.
Oh yeah!

Ah but enough of them!

This is well worth a read...

Oxford Scholarship Online: Conservation Biology for All

Free here...

Downloads | International and Regional Documents

Caco

Last edited by Cacophonix; 21st Jun 2011 at 18:57.
Cacophonix 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.