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 30th Jun 2011, 18:24
  #8501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Originally Posted by beaufort1 View Post
Error 19 refers to 'Greenland Ice Sheet - "unstable".
Looked pretty stable when I was standing on it in 2008. Not far from where I took this photograph it was over 2 Km's thick.
AFAIK, the "stable" refers to the base being "flat", i.e., the ice is not 'flowing', like glaciers do.
Just bits falling off the edge.
Great photo, actually.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2011, 18:38
  #8502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Originally Posted by beaufort1 View Post
On our West coast I can see the old beach level from 125,000 years ago at 20 metres higher than the current high tide mark, two miles along the same coast I can see at low water spring tides the remains of petrified tree stumps and peat from about 10,000 years ago. Sea levels have been up and down since they were first formed. How can anybody differentiate between natural cycles and AGW?
The answer to your post is simple.
Sniff.....
If the CO2 in the air smells like 'fossil fuel' or, even more likely, like 'money', it's anthropogenic

CJ.
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2011, 19:50
  #8503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,515
Just bits falling off the edge.
of chuks' argument? oh you mean the glacier... carrry on!
stuckgear is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2011, 22:43
  #8504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 1,561
8464 and 8449...

Are your lucky numbers if you really are looking for my answer(s) to your question, Mr Beaufort!

I am so fickle that it would be shameful if I could feel shame (or embarrassment either) but, face it, I am a burn-out case.

Yes, Doctor M and his tree have gone overboard, replaced by Christopher Monckton, far more wonderful in his way, another total loon brought to my grateful attention by those of you seeking to expose Al Gore as a total fraud and liar.

All you have to do, my data-hungry, truth-seeking little friends, is to go to (sorry) Wikipedia, input 'Christopher Monckton' read down a bit and then follow the links to an American academic, Professor John P. Abraham, who does a rather comprehensive demolition job on the peerless Peer of the Realm.

All I would like to add is that when Monckton tells you that Roald Amundsen navigated the Northwest Passage in a sailboat, when in context he writes that to show it was free of ice around 1903, that is a gross distortion of the truth amounting to deliberate deceit. Amundsen did this in spite of the pack ice, but to read Monckton's account you would assume that Amundsen just sailed an ice-free Northwest Passage, otherwise why mention it?

Last edited by chuks; 1st Jul 2011 at 11:30.
chuks is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 08:03
  #8505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 59
Posts: 80
Now I'm expected to use time travel as this is the only way I'm going to be able to read post #8849.
You still haven't explained how we can differentiate between AGW and natural cycles in regards to sea levels.
Going back to Amundson, there must have been clear leads at times for him to progress. Travelling from the East to the West is against the prevailing winds and so if locked in ice no progress would have been made. Other ships have travelled the NW passage,(despite Al Gore's claim to the contrary) HMS Illustrious travelled through although it was abandoned in 1853 after being caught in ice but not before travelling through. This just after the end of the little ice age. The wreck of this ship was discovered last Summer. There is also tenuous evidence that the vikings managed to find a route through as archaelogical evidence has been found although it is not conclusive at present.
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 08:21
  #8506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 1,561
One of my best, in fact...

8849 establishes the indisputable truth of AGW for all time and results in the award to me of the first of my Nobel Prizes, but you will have to wait for it. Try the two numbers above, with my apologies.

If you have any interest in this at all, why not go forth to read for yourself about just how Amundsen managed his voyage? It's a very interesting tale. Not least, his little ship used a small engine in addition to sail for propulsion. No, I am not going to provide you with any links to find this sort of stuff; go look it up yourself, when I would suggest your local library. Amundsen, Roald, The Northwest Passage is the book you want.

If you don't want to go to the library then just go on-line and follow the links to view plenty of material about this famous explorer.

If Lord Monckton had done that then he would have known not to put such an obvious howler (or else downright lie) in what he meant as a comprehensive debunking of Al Gore's movie. I would suggest viewing the demolition job Professor Abraham does on Lord Monckton for a full reckoning, one that called forth what one commentator for the Grauniad called 'a magnificently bonkers' response from Lord Monckton. He puts Dr Mörner into second place in my estimation; Dr M is merely a crank where Lord Monckton is at least one order of magnitude past that, in the long and proud British tradition of eccentricity.

If you really do want to cite a ship that was caught in pack ice and squashed like a bug before being carried with the drifting ice, as evidence that the Northwest Passage was ice-free year-round in 1853 or so, please be my guest. That doesn't make any sense but neither does a lot of the other stuff posted here; you will fit right in with that one and, 'Welcome aboard!'

Last edited by chuks; 1st Jul 2011 at 11:03.
chuks is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 08:43
  #8507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 59
Posts: 80
No, you still haven't answered my question, but waffled on about CO2 levels which I rebutted by showing how CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than the present day. How can we differentiate? As you are so keen to exhort others to go and look up things, if you don't know the meaning of the word, google is your friend.
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 09:02
  #8508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
From the profile .....

chuks has not made any friends yet
sisemen is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 09:02
  #8509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 1,561
Unhappy What?

I thought you were asking that question about how we can find marine fossils 20 feet up nowadays! (We can find them a hell of a lot higher than that, actually.) What were you doing during those lessons in geology, anyway, to ask such a question?

You seriously expect me to answer your question about carbon dioxide levels?

The science of greenhouse gases is taken by many for a given and I do not expect to wade through all of that to explain it to you. I just had to sit through that in Chemistry II and that was enough for now. You think you know the answer and I am happy for you. (Or it could be that I am bluffing and that I know absolutely nothing about the science of the upper atmosphere. Choose whichever one makes you happier here because I don't care.)

Right now I am madly in love with Christopher Monckton, the latest fellow at the wheel of the Anti-AGW Special Bus and I have no time for other matters so go look it up yourself, as if you had any questions.

P.S. 'No friends,' moi? I think I have a few, actually. They are real ones, out in the world, not imaginary ones on some forum or other. (Isn't it funny how some people don't seem to know the difference?) For certain though, no emoticons, ever. Mwah!

Last edited by chuks; 1st Jul 2011 at 11:07.
chuks is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 12:34
  #8510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Amundsens little ship used a small engine
Thanks chuks for your irrefutable proof that Amundsen wouldn't have made it otherwise
Cheers
CHAIRMAN is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 14:18
  #8511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 135
Nuts!

You are all mad and I am going to ignore you all. I shall write to you from time to time to remind you that I am still ignoring you.
911slf is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 14:41
  #8512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 1,561
Until now I did not know you exist...

Now that you are ignoring me I must strive to consciously ignore you!

(5 minutes later...) I was just stood in the corner, not thinking about you. I just had to tell you that in case you got the feeling that I really wasn't ignoring you.

Right now, well, yes, I am not ignoring you, but I am paying attention to you only for the strict purpose of ignoring you, which is pretty darn close to ignoring you so that I think it still counts. Don't even bother to tell me it doesn't count because I will ignore whatever you have to say about that. So there!

That bit about the engine is one of the whackier ripostes on a site that is whackier than a Professor of Whackiness at the University of East Anglia. (I was going to say 'Cambridge University,' but 'Cambridge is a dump!')

Amundsen was famous for meticulous preparation. He went for a sail in his little ship and found that it was not exactly America's Cup material, so that he fitted it with an 11-h.p. engine in order to get places in a reasonable amount of time, something like 'before we run out of sled dogs to eat.'

I cannot prove anything about whether or not he would have succeeded without the engine but I think I can prove that he succeeded with it, given that the historical record shows that it was fitted and that Amundsen did reach his destination. I hope that will do.

Oh, drat! I thought about that 911slf guy again!
chuks is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2011, 16:40
  #8513 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 79
Posts: 3,513
I see the ECO Nazis are at it again, vilifying the Polish EU budget commissioner after he claimed climate change was exaggerated and argued that overambitious EU CO2 emissions targets would hurt his country's economy.

Green campaign groups and an alliance of MEPs described the commissioner's comments as "terrifying" because, it was claimed he was seeking to "deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change".
green granite is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2011, 05:44
  #8514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 59
Posts: 211
Christopher Monckton, climate expert, with an MA in classics.

With those credentials he is a shoe in as a scientific analyst on this benighted (or in his case beknighted or should that be viscounted) thread.

Clearly a "modest man"...!

Interview: Christopher Monckton | Environment | The Observer



As we walk, Monckton, 55, talks with irrepressible good humour and impervious authority on this and any other subject I raise, from the Forestry Commission (spectacularly incompetent) to the Guardian (ditto). He laughs without restraint at his own anecdotes. He is not a man, you might say, who seems plagued by self-doubt.

This confidence is never more apparent than in Monckton's analysis of the subject on which his mind is now engaged pretty much constantly, the science and politics of climate change. Back in the house, we sit in his library, mist rolling on to the loch outside, Juliet serves mid-morning champagne and he launches into the polemic with which he would like to assault Al Gore if he could get him into the debating ring. 'Rope-a-dope' seems to be the best tactic against this diatribe, so I sit and listen.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2011, 06:08
  #8515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 59
Posts: 211
Monckton redux (or being eviscerated at least)!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monc...ss_Release.pdf

You should read his views on AIDS. The man is clearly a wealthy loon!




Professor Abraham speaks...

Abraham presentation

Last edited by Cacophonix; 2nd Jul 2011 at 07:33. Reason: Added link to Abraham
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2011, 11:20
  #8516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 1,561
Ooh! Character assassination!

My favorite thing, next to whiskers on kittens and ignoring 911slf...

Yes, but... Even though some of what the man puts out was described by one of his countrymen as 'magnificently bonkers,' might it not be so that he is perfectly correct in what he says? Well, except for trying to get us to believe that Roald Amundsen simply sailed an ice-free Northwest Passage, not bothering to get into the picky details about his contending with rather more ice than one needs to prepare a Martini cocktail, either shaken or stirred.

I just throw this thought up in a spirit of fairness to my learned opponents here. They do not seem to be able to cite one major authority out of the last two, Mörner and Monckton, who does not have some trouble keeping his cheese from sliding off his cracker. Why is that? Well, who knows, but can it be said that it matters not if someone is somewhat 'bonkers' as long as they can break a lance against the folly that is AGW?

If you think about it, the fact that most of science is lined up behind AGW clearly shows that it is a monstrous conspiracy. The only other explanation would be that it makes sense, somehow, when that cannot be it!

Note: No data were harmed in the fabrication of this post. Readers who suffer from allergies should note that it may contain traces of irony.

Last edited by chuks; 2nd Jul 2011 at 20:28.
chuks is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2011, 11:51
  #8517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 59
Posts: 80
Amundson sailed through the NW Passage, fact. Gore made the claim that this hadn't happened in recorded history prior to 2007. After reading back I see it was also open to shipping in 1945 and 1903.He was incorrect.

Try debunking this then. I must admit, I think there is a lot more to the solar influence than is currently being given credit for at all sorts of levels.
Has anybody managed to create a model that comes even close to emulating past climate?
If the UK Met. Office have given up their long range forecasts because in their own words they are unable to do so and that was for looking ahead only three months into the future how come we are expected to believe climate scientists claims that they know where climate is going to be in a hundred years time?

Chinese Scientists Discover What IPCC Has Purposefully Avoided: Identify Solar As Primary Cause of Global Warming


"In an attempt to gain that understanding, Qian and Lu began with the reconstructed global-mean temperature anomaly history of Mann et al. (2008), combined with HadCRUT3 data for 1000-2008, relative to 1961-1990...they used a wavelet transform procedure to identify four oscillations in the millennial temperature time series...Next, they similarly examined a reconstructed 400-year solar radiation series based on 10Be data...determined that "the ~21-year, ~115-year and ~200-year periodic oscillations in global-mean temperature are forced by and lag behind solar radiation variability," and they report that the "relative warm spells in the 1940s and the beginning of the 21st century resulted from overlapping of warm phases in the ~21-year and other oscillations," noting that "between 1994 and 2002 all four periodic oscillations reached their peaks and resulted in a uniquely warm decadal period during the last 1000 years,"...As for the future, they predict that "global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s."" [WeiHong Qian, Bo Lu 2010: Chinese Science Bulletin]

Full article can be found here :-

C3: Chinese Scientists Discover What IPCC Has Purposefully Avoided: Identify Solar As Primary Cause of Global Warming
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2011, 12:51
  #8518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,704
I see that professor of Physics, Jonathan Jones of Oxford University, has won the right to view previously secret data form the University of East Anglia. This may resurrect "climategate". (Daily Telegraph Sat July 2)
pulse1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2011, 14:48
  #8519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 1,561
Err, you might want to check your facts!

Amundsen made his way through the Northwest Passage, starting his epic voyage in 1903. At that time, though, it was anything but 'open to shipping.'

Why not go read up on what the man did before you go into limpet mode, clinging to whatever Monckton said?
chuks is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2011, 15:40
  #8520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 59
Posts: 80
I have checked my facts, Amundsen started the journey in 1903, completed the transit of the NW passage in 1905 and reached Nome in 1906. In his film, Gore is making a big play that the NW passage wasn't transited before 2007, it simply isn't true.
Here are some more facts, a list of some other vessels that have transited the NW passage prior to 2007 :-

RCMP-"St.Roch" 1940
USCG "Storis","Bramble" and "Spar"-1957.
SS "Manhattan"-1969
Yacht "Williwaw"-1977 (an excellent book of this account is available)
Cruiseship "Explorer"-1984
Catamaran "Perception"-1986
RCMP " Nadon"-2000

There are often open leads of water in the Arctic Circle, synoptics play a huge part in ice coverage. There are some very interesting bits of data coming from this new satellite that is able to measure ice thickness, and hopefully will provide more clues as to the way Arctic ice behaves. I couldn't resist posting this image.

beaufort1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.