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 27th Jun 2011, 11:48
  #8401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
And here's a new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, showing that global hurricane activity is at historical lows

Global hurricane activity at historical record lows: new paper | Watts Up With That?

So much for AGW crowd's prediction about cyclones and hurricanes increasing due to AGW.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 12:04
  #8402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Sigh...

Did you bother to read the article? I guess not, because it refers to 'permanent ice and snow,' not the transitory stuff the second article refers to. Once that melts off, what you are left with is supposedly less than what previously was there, so that the latter article doesn't actually contradict what Saint Al referred to.

Not that that bothers me in the least! I believe in Al Gore, clearly a creation of the FSM, Arr... as are you all, in fact. Al is undeniably there, he exists; he takes up quite a bit of space, in fact, as does Tipper, although she is merely peripheral to my faith, a sort of Virgin Mary if you will. It would take more than some manky old contradictory fact or two to shake my faith. These things are simply sent to try us. Just ask Dr Spencer about that, whether his belief in Intelligent Design is fact-based or faith-based. We know what we know and positing facts has nothing to do with that.

I assume that you are all familiar with the well-proven link between GW and the decline in piracy? Not least, Somalia, the land with the most pirates per capita, 87% more than the second-place land, also has the lowest carbon emissions of anyplace on the planet. QED.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 12:43
  #8403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Chuks. Try reading what I wrote. I wrote that there are divergence problems between satellites and tide gauges, and divergence problems between satellites. You don't know which data I think are "good" or "best". I ventured no opinion because I don't know. What I do know is there are enough uncertainties to be certain that we don't know. The science is anything but settled.

The best staff all left, you say? Where did they go? Is it all AGW nowadays at the UEA?
I answered your first two questions. Here is the answer to the third.

BSc Environmental Sciences - University of East Anglia (UEA)

What is the geological evidence for climate change?
How has the Earth changed over the last 2.5 million years?
How does pollution affect human health and well-being?
Can we predict the outcome of pollution many years in the future
What is biodiversity?
What is the philosophy behind the conservation of biodiversity?
How are international environmental treaties formed?
What are the political issues preventing a world wide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?
Can we predict future climate change and its effects?
How would a volcanic eruption affect the global climate?
What drives the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans?
What is El Nino?
How can we reduce our energy consumption in the western world?
What are the environmental impacts of non-fossil fuels?
How are the risks of flooding reduced?
Can farmed land be managed to promote biodiversity and sustainability?
How can the environment be accounted for within an economic system?
What happens inside an erupting volcano?
Does ozone depletion have any implications for human health?
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 14:41
  #8404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
I read it!

I take your point. My point sort of comes from practical experience as a pilot: if two gauges read the same and one reads off, believe the two over the one. There, one set of data was off compared to the rest which were sort of close. It might be that the envisat really is the one giving correct values so that I am wrong to try to go with what I think I 'know,' looking at how many satellites are giving similar values and going with those.

I did some reading on the UEA website, and I take your point there too! When I got to the 'Ten best reasons to go there' and Al Gore's name popped up, I just laughed. I guess that one must have made you a not-so-happy bunny, then?

I have a similar problem with my once and future alma mater. It used to have forestry and now it has gender studies as part of the core curriculum, when some students now seem to spend four happy years trying to decide which of five possible categories (LGBT plus straight) they best fit into instead of just getting on with things in the old-fashioned way my generation did to learn something of more practical value, even if that was underwater basket-weaving. 'O tempera, o mores!'

I hope that we can agree that the scientific method can be applied to other things besides science, that ordered inquiry and an open mind are useful things to use to enhance one's life.

Here it seems to be a case of 'He who shouts the loudest or has the most cheerleaders wins,' which I find a bit tedious, and good base material for a wind-up.

In reality, of course I can see that AGW has been a bit over-sold but I think there is still a case to be made for the risks of pumping out lots and lots of carbon dioxide, raising it to unprecedented atmospheric levels without a care in the world, plus it seems to drive so many of these fellows mad when one points out some obvious holes in their anti-AGW case, as with Dr Mörner and his wonderful in its way LaRouche interview.

Last edited by chuks; 27th Jun 2011 at 15:18.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 14:45
  #8405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Here's a leading German Meterologist showing that Kemp & Mann's sea level rise paper is a quack and 7 available datasts contradict the paper.

Leading German Meteorologist: Michael Mann’s Sea Level Story Is “A Quack”
rvv500 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 14:58
  #8406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Thank you sincerely Chuks, for your gracious response.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 15:27
  #8407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Where are my pills?

Oh, God, the data are contradicting my precious notion of rising sea levels everywhere! What to do?

Somebody better tell the Dutch the good news. Last time I checked they were spending lots of money preparing for rising sea levels. Do they know something the Germans don't? A Dutchman usually doesn't spend his money unless he needs to, is why I ask.

Last edited by chuks; 27th Jun 2011 at 18:06.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 16:22
  #8408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
chuks,
As said earlier, the Dutch are more concerned about the country slowly subsiding into the North Sea... and the effects of high spring tides and Northwester storms, as in 1953.

And another, unrelated, anecdote.
I now live in the South of France, near the Mediterranean.
2000 years ago, the area was a Roman province, producing and exporting a lot of wine (even then !).
A few years ago, they excavated a large pottery factory very close to the coast, which had its own harbour.
One of the "finds" was the small difference between the sea level at the time and the current level....
I don't have the exact figures (my source is a recent lecture at the local museum and I didn't take notes) but we're talking about considerably less than 1 metre.
Now, the Med is an 'inland sea', maybe, but it 'leaks' (Gibraltar) so sea level change should be noticeable in the Med as well. Not so?

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 16:45
  #8409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Chuks. Sorry but you are windbagging (again) unhampered by any knowledge whatsoever. I would be truly ashamed to publicly demonstrate the level of ignorance you are proud to show, but I'm a geologist, not a pilot. There must be a difference in professional standards.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 17:01
  #8410 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Yamagata ken, that's why I have him on my ignore list. Got fed up with wading through pages of inane drivel.
green granite is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 17:02
  #8411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Somebody better tell the Dutch the good news. Last time I checked they were spending lots of money preparing for rising sea levels. Do they know something the Germans don't? A Dutchman usually doesn't spend his money unless he needs to, is why I ask.
Give me strength, are you just trying to wind people up or do you believe the stuff you have posted?

A short summary of the situation in the Netherlands for you:-

The area where you seem convinced is being "prepared for rising sea levels" isn't. When they drained that area, which was originally swampland, to turn it into habitable land, the peat in the ground dried and compacted which meant the ground level went down. To compensate for that, they lowered the water level in the ground which made the peat in the ground compact more so they get more water out which makes the peat compact more, etc ad nauseum. This is an issue they have no "cure" for, and has been happening for centuries. So when they are upgrading flood defences it is not anything to do with some freaky rise in sea levels which is not actually happening but is purely to compensate for the fact that their flood defences are actually sinking along with the ground they are built on. It's a constant battle, and even with 1.5mm/yr rise in sea levels they are still winning.

The other issue is, of course, protection against storm surges. Again, the work is never ending as they "test" (by computer simulations) the defences against a "once in every 4000 - 10,000 years" freak surge. This is done every 5 years and in 2010 800km of dikes "failed" so have to be upgraded.

That is the "planning" they are doing, and it's got sod all to do with the lies about sea level change that the warmistas like to scream out. A few minutes of "research" into things would have told you this, if you had actually looked.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 17:16
  #8412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Yamagata ken, that's why I have him on my ignore list. Got fed up with wading through pages of inane drivel.
likewise.

A potential major source of hot air and CO2, perhaps chuks will be part of the ETS.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 18:05
  #8413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
I think you will find that the Dutch are concerned, firstly, with the effects of climate change, which can cause flooding, when this change is assumed to come from, yes, AGW. One major factor in this, for a variety of reasons, really is rising sea levels, when we get back to those annoying projections again, the ones that some scientists simply insist on making in, yes, peer-reviewed papers. Have it your way, they are all either really, really stupid or else taking money from Al Gore to do this but still....

It is not simply, as some of you insist on believing, that the terrain in the Netherlands is sinking, although that is indeed part of the problem.

You know, all this shouty stuff about 'do you believe what you are posting,' and so on just comes across as terminally lame. You guys get so busy shouting, sometimes, that it damages your comprehension of very basic points in what is billed as a debate.

For instance, 'Al Gore posts about diminishing snow cover blah-blah-blah, when looky here, this article says the snow is heavier than ever! What a numpty! Hur-hur!' Well, St Al was talking about one sort of snow and ice, the persistent sort that stays year-round, but the article was talking about a heavy snowfall that will melt and go away, so two different sorts of snow there. I guess you would need to read both articles and think for a moment to understand that simple point. Never mind, though; when you get caught out in this way you just clam up about that point and go off shouting about something else! Two types of snow and ice, who would have guessed....

Same thing for the Netherlands, actually, when rising sea levels do come into their planning for some curious reason. You really think the Dutch are wasting the money they are spending on that, master hydrologists that they are? I guess I will go dig around a bit and see what I can come up with, just to wind you guys up.

I wouldn't dream of putting any of you on my ignore list. You fascinate me.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 18:20
  #8414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Prove that the climate is changing because of the effect of man, then.

You cannot because it is not. The data "proving" it has been shown to be flawed and, in many cases, falsified. Fiddling the figures to suit a theory instead of matching the theory to suit the data means that anything on "AGW" is as legitimate as Enron saying they were in profit.

Again, the Dutch have a constant, rolling, programme of repairs and upgrades to their defences. Since sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, of course that will be taken into consideration.

Does that mean they are doing it solely because of AGW, like you inferred? NO! Does that mean that the sea level rise is because of AGW? NO! Does the AGW "theory" and scaremongering match the ACTUAL sea level rise? NO! That's three massive "fails" for you there.


Oh, you sound like the British railway people in your bit about St. Gore. They talk about the "wrong kind of snow" too, as well as the "wrong kind of sun", the "wrong kind of rain", etc. We know they're talking bolleux as well, just like St. Gore's fantasy documentary (how many things were shown to be out and out lies in that, the biggest piece of fiction since the Bible, in the British High Court, again? Or is that another detail that you missed?).
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 18:56
  #8415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Scientists Predict Extreme Heat Will be the Norm in 20 Years

These guys ain't giving up are they? Of course I think all of us can point out why this article is completely wrong.

Additionally, being that there is a section to leave comments on the bottom -- wouldn't that be interesting if all of us posted replies (once that were truly scientific) all at once?
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 19:50
  #8416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Hello?

Why don't you stop SHOUTING and just read the two articles, hmm?

The first one refers to the permanent, year-round snow and ice cover, which is diminishing.

The second article refers to one exceptionally heavy snowfall. This is not the same thing as the amount of snow and ice which remains in place throughout the year.

Try this if you cannot wrap your mind around what I just wrote:

You find that your income, averaged over the year, is less than the previous year's. Say you earned 10 thousand razoodocks this year, when last year you earned 11 thousand.

On the other hand, this year you earned 5 thousand razoodocks in one month. Last year your highest monthly income was only 4 thousand.

You moan about how your income is down this year, when one of your friends tells you that you have nothing to complain about because you earned 5 instead of 4 thousand in your best month. Is your friend missing the point there, confusing your best month with the fact that, overall, your yearly income is down? Well, same thing with comparing one heavy snowfall with less persistent snow and ice cover!

You really do not understand the difference between one snowfall and the year-round amount of snow and ice, do you? And Al Gore is the one who is getting this wrong. I see....

As to that other thing, I seem to recall some graphs some fellow named Ken just posted, not so long ago, that showed rising sea levels. Let's see now...

Try post #8362. The point Ken was making was that the rate of rise is slowing instead of accelerating but it still shows a rise, when he seems to be happy to accept that rise as a fact shown by reliable satellite data. He questions the rate, not the rise.

Now we are being told (post #8382), by some German who doesn't even know what 'quack' means but never mind that now, that there is no such rise. Well, both Ken and this other fellow cannot be right, so which one is it going to be? Over to you, my shouty little friends. Please decide which one you wish to throw overboard and get back to us with that news.

Last edited by chuks; 27th Jun 2011 at 20:04.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 20:47
  #8417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Again Chuks, sea levels have been rising at a near constant rate for 6000 years, and rose at a far higher rate in the 8000 years before that. Is that AGW too or a natural change?

Sea levels were over 3m higher than now before the last ice age. Was that also AGW or was it a natural occurence?

The planet's climate is constantly changing, and always has done. It's known that things were hotter in the time of the Roman Empire. Was that AGW too, or was it a natural occurrence like we are experiencing now?

Temperatures, globally, have been dropping in recent years with a drop of 0.653°C between March 2010 and March 2011 alone. That is almost the same amount as the warmistas say the planet warmed over the entire 20th century. So is that AGW or is it a natural cooling in a La Nina period like the warming in 1997-1999 was during an El Nino period?

Why won't your beloved papers address the magic of solar activity and it's effect on the climate here?

And why won't you explain why your "experiences in Africa" show how AGW "exists", or is it because you know perfectly well that what you claim either did not happen or can be easily explained as being caused by man but has nothing to do with AGW?

Come on, put up or shut up.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 21:02
  #8418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
hellsbrink, expect more, as ken put it, windbagging.

i have to say you've been pretty patient and ken despite his self effacing claims of often becoming irritable, has been a model of restraint.

good luck guys.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 21:08
  #8419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
hellsbrink, expect more, as ken put it, windbagging.
I have another term for it. Something along the lines of why they have to clip the hair of the Clarksons on Clarkson Island twice a year.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 21:21
  #8420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 129
Having been out and about around this big rock we live on for the past little while a couple of questions came to mind.

What effect does one think all the garbage dumped into the oceans, the ships that float on and in them, the ones sunk in them etc., etc. have on sea levels?

Same with the effects of dams, their building, filling, controlled releases and removal?

I would expect the answer to be minimal considering the mass of the oceans.

However the question of the effects of undersea quakes which raise or lower the seabed by unknown amounts or volcanoes/vents/crust movements of which I have heard little to nothing about.

I would think tectonic plate shifts/bulges would have some place in the conversation?
fltlt 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.