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 3rd Sep 2011, 10:37
  #9101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
Dunno where you read that Sise
Saw it in either the West Australian or the Australian. Nearest I could find on the net without spending hours and hours is....

In conclusion, (1) sodium restriction in hypertensive patients reduces blood pressure, and (2) the long-term impact of reduced salt intake on blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity remains to be defined.
Dietary sodium intake and arterial blood pressure. [J Ren Nutr. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

The effect of salt consumption on long term health outcomes is controversial.[39] Salt reduction appears to have little or no effect on mortality[40] and its effect on morbidity is unknown.[39]
Some have asserted that while the risks of consuming too much salt are real, the risks have been exaggerated for most people, or that the studies done on the consumption of salt can be interpreted in many different ways
Salt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sisemen is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 11:53
  #9102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Bit like CAGW then.
Well there's a few more than just a handful of scientists who think that AGW is a good theory
But the media problem is exactly the same - they go spouting all kinds of bullshit all over the place. It gives people a very skewed perception of what's actually going on.

Sisemen:
Salt is bad for you. Causes high blood pressure and all sorts of things that could kill you. We use too much.

Salt is not the bogey man that has previously been believed. An increased intake makes no difference.

Yet if we examine your wikipedia quote (which is dubious, wiki is a terrible source) then the two citations that it gives both state, contrary to your above quote, that salt decreases BP:
Reduced dietary salt for the prevention of ca... [Am J Hypertens. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Dietary sodium intake and arterial blood pressure. [J Ren Nutr. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Salt reduction was associated with reductions in urinary salt excretion of between 27 and 39 mmol/24 h and reductions in systolic BP between 1 and 4 mm Hg.
and
(1) sodium restriction in hypertensive patients reduces blood pressure
You've managed to defeat your own argument there.

There's some jumped up little twerp seeking to make use of their BSc and wants to get their name in lights.
Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder there. Anyway, within research a BSc is worthless. The people doing the actual medical research into salt intake - just like those doing the actual climate research - will likely have either MDs or PhDs to their name, so it's not a bunch of early-twenties fresh faced grads thinking that they know it all.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 12:38
  #9103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
We're getting into a diversionary argument here. Salt is not the issue. I was making the point about the contrary media reports on ice ages or global frying and the way that "scientists" (or PHds or MDs or whatever) seek to make a name for themselves by producing some 'research' which, later down track, some equal worthy seeks to rubbish by presenting the opposite view once a bit more research is in.

The net result is that it leaves the layman totally confused and, with enough scare stories, eventually loses faith in any message.

And that's the problem with 'climate change'. The scientists with the active help of a willing media have bigged this thing up too much, common sense then intruded, governments wanted to slug everyone with another tax and - BINGO - your pet theories get consigned to the dustbin along with the newspapers that brought you the news. And that's why the Australian government is on the nose with 70% of the population not giving a fat rat's clacker about carbon taxes.

So, nothing to see here. Move along please.
sisemen is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 21:58
  #9104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 74
Posts: 247
Just a couple of points.

The sun comes up in the morning, goes down at night, comes up in the morning, well, you get the general idea.

Ice ages come and go, come and go ......... When something is clearly cyclic, it makes sense to expect it.

One of the posts referred to an increased rate of salt excretion when more salt was ingested. Strangely enough, I excrete more urine when l drink a lot. When I eat more, I also but no, I think you get the picture.

Is that something worthy of a new study or just another example of the body working as expected?

Anyway, forget science and lets get back to name calling and generally obnoxious behaviour, which is much more interesting!
A A Gruntpuddock is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 22:04
  #9105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Strangely enough, I excrete more urine when l drink a lot. When I eat more, I also but no, I think you get the picture.

Is that something worthy of a new study or just another example of the body working as expected?

No, that's weather!

stuckgear is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 22:12
  #9106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
No, it's AGW.

The extra salt in the food makes him eat more, producing more waste which means more methane and other compounds.

The extra salt makes him drink more, meaning more piddling which means more fluids are added to the atmosphere due to not only the evaporation of said liquids once they hit the drains but there is also an "aerosol" effect as the stream hits the porcelain as well as more water vapour being exhaled.

The above means that the increase in gases as well as the fluid in the atmosphere will increase the "greenhouse effect" and therefore increase planetary temperatures.

So, in other words, to "cure" the problem called AGW all we have to do is cut our salt intake drastically.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 02:18
  #9107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Hmmmm.

"Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4′s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation – though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea"

Kevin Trenberth : Master Of IPCC Junk Science | Real Science
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 03:48
  #9108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Always stick to the core point

- AGW is just a lie to justify carbon-taxing
- Claims of a global ice age is a lie to justify a planetary regime
- This is all for power and global governance
- Some people are for depopulating massive portions of the population, and support eugenics.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 05:48
  #9109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Always stick to the core point

- AGW is just a lie to justify carbon-taxing
- Claims of a global ice age is a lie to justify a planetary regime
- This is all for power and global governance
- Some people are for depopulating massive portions of the population, and support eugenics.
I don't know about others, but I am sick to the back teeth of you polluting every thread you post in with your "New World Order" bullshit in an attempt to get people talking about it or to have people agree with your paranoia.

You are claiming "justification of a planetary regime".... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE

"Power and Global Governance"..... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE

"Supporting Eugenics" ....... WHERE IS THERE EVIDENCE OF ONE OFFICIAL POLICY OF EUGENICS (or of depopulation) FROM A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

In other words, put up or shut up, and I mean OFFICIAL documentation and not some more of your spaced cadet links which are as close to reality as the visions seen by someone taking LSD. I know you cannot, so do us all a favour and go back to haunting the US Politics thread.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 07:04
  #9110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
The COP 15 treaty was publicised as hinting at global governance as an aim of the accord. Article such as this one talked about it:
The Copenhagen Agreement and a Scary U.N. Power Grab. - WSJ.com

The treaty is here: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009.../eng/inf02.pdf

The use of the phrase "government" is open to paranoia. But if you read the offending section, I am sure you will agree that such scary interpretations are a tad...wrong. It merely pertains to the need to a centralised administrative and financial agency, which would be a pretty obvious requirement:
37. The new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing
countries in the following areas: (a) preparation, implementation and follow-up through monitoring,
reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries.
These activities could include options to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
(REDD); (b) preparation, implementation and follow-up of national adaptation programmes of action
(NAPAs) or national communications in developing countries; (c) technology needs assessments (TNAs)
for adaptation and mitigation under the NAMAs and the NAPAs or national communications of
developing countries; (d) capacity-building and enabling environments for adaptation and mitigation in
developing countries; (e) education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth,
women and indigenous peoples; (f) design and implementation of adaptation programmes and projects;
(g) support for all technological cycle phases: research and development (R&D), diffusion and transfer,
including acquisition of technologies for adaptation and mitigation, including the purchase or flexibility
of patents.
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization
of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on
adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds
and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will
operate as such, as appropriate.
However, clearly investing 100bn USD in developing countries would require commitment on their part, clearly divest some of their decision making to this agency. The impact of the commitments required by these countries would affect their current programme of industrialisation and probably to some degree stimy there manufacturing capacity (such that it even exists).

The aims of technology transfer agreements in the treaty are probably intended to offset such difficulties and give these countries a cleaner and hopefully more stable future within this new climate regime. But technology transfer is a massive meaningless platitude and the reality is usually utterly underwhelming.

So, all this stuff seems like a pretty good idea, ecologically. No changes to the climate because we suspect there is nothing wrong with it anyway. But if such efforts preserve forests, reduce real pollution, etc then that is a plus, so long as those people in those counties have a future too.

But it is pretty obvious which way power is heading. Basically away from the individual, away from democracy and towards the elite. It doesn't matter which way you cut it. They know it and they want it.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 07:25
  #9111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
We're getting into a diversionary argument here. Salt is not the issue. I was making the point about the contrary media reports on ice ages or global frying and the way that "scientists" (or PHds or MDs or whatever) seek to make a name for themselves by producing some 'research' which, later down track, some equal worthy seeks to rubbish by presenting the opposite view once a bit more research is in.
But that's how science works! You come up with a theory that you think best fits a given set of events/variables/results and then that theory is tested.
Most scientists would choose to do a bit of sanity testing themselves before they release something new 'into the wild', but not always (just look at the MMR debate for an example). Unfortunately if the media gets hold of a theory before it can be confirmed or refuted then all hell can break loose (again, MMR).
Just think, if there weren't people around to "rubbish" theories then we'd all still believe that the world is flat, that the sun orbits around us and that the luminiferous aether exists.

The net result is that it leaves the layman totally confused and, with enough scare stories, eventually loses faith in any message.
Which is why, IMO, the media should show a bit more restraint when dealing with controversial theories.

And that's the problem with 'climate change'. The scientists with the active help of a willing media have bigged this thing up too much
I think that the vast majority of scientists have no interest in talking to the media about it. Their research lives would be much easier if they were just left alone to work on things without constant questioning from the media. It must make climate research a rather stressful field to work in, which is rather unexpected.

One of the posts referred to an increased rate of salt excretion when more salt was ingested. Strangely enough, I excrete more urine when l drink a lot. When I eat more, I also but no, I think you get the picture.
It's not quite that simple, a lot of things that people ingest don't come out again - some of the compounds get trapped in the body, so although it sounds obvious it is very useful to be able to state "salt excretion follows salt intake".

Yamagata ken, a quick search shows that Dr Landsea seems to be the only one to have problems with Dr Trenberth. It sounds more like a personal dispute than anything scientific. It's also worth noting that Dr Landsea agrees that anthropogenic emissions are likely to be increasing global atmospheric temperatures.

hellsbrink, be careful what you say to Jane-DoH, the illuminati might be round to pick you up for some reeducation.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 07:31
  #9112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Yamagata ken, a quick search shows that Dr Landsea seems to be the only one to have problems with Dr Trenberth. It sounds more like a personal dispute than anything scientific. It's also worth noting that Dr Landsea agrees that anthropogenic emissions are likely to be increasing global atmospheric temperatures.
He clearly stated that he had issues with the way the science was being ignored /subverted. It clearly was not a personal issue.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 09:14
  #9113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 64
Posts: 215
BBC News - Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

No comment.
handsfree is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 09:22
  #9114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 1,202
Trying to fight 'global warming' through utterly useless measures dreamt up by politicians (60w incandescant anyone) is pointless, futile and what is worse makes cynics of us all. If they shut up I might start to listen (work that one out). In the meantime get ready to adapt if needs be.

Go into a bookshop and look at the shelves of new novels. Of these most are dross. Science is the same. Think cold fusion. However those with an agenda (and usually no scientific knowledge, with often not too much intelligence lurking behind an articulate persona) can rummage the shelves and find something that suits.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 09:34
  #9115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Sciolistes

Only the true paranoid would turn that document into something proposing a "Global Government" since it deals with only AGW and managing the effects of it, and your "quote" is only a partial one, highlighting certain words and ignoring others, it is only an "option", and the document is not a policy document from any government or legislative organisation, and, finally, was not ratified by any countries at the Copenhagen summit (a non-legally binding "accord" was announced instead).

In other words, the draft document you are quoting from is absolutely nothing, it does not propose a "global government" or a "planetary regime" or anything like that and only the truly paranoid would look at a dead-end draft claim there was any such proposals in it.


Simonpro

hellsbrink, be careful what you say to Jane-DoH, the illuminati might be round to pick you up for some reeducation.
I doubt it, sales of tinfoil are still stable in Belgium and we don't have the same nutjobs as certain other countries I could name. And, of course, all these nutjobs are in Brussels or Limburg so I'm safe.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 11:10
  #9116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Hellsbink, I suspect you misread my opinion on the doument. I agree with you. I was just trying to provide the seed text to that global goverance notion, but also say that reading between the lines it is empire building.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 11:23
  #9117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
No, I didn't. I don't class you as one of the "true paranoid" or a tinfoil helmet wearer, so I know you wouldn't go all Jane-Doh on us over that document.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 11:23
  #9118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
It's also worth noting that Dr Landsea agrees that anthropogenic emissions are likely to be increasing global atmospheric temperatures.
Atmospheric physics is well outside my area, so I'm perfectly happy to accept that a doubling of CO2 concentration will lead to an approximate 1 degree C of global warming. What geology (my area) shows, is that changes in atmospheric CO2 never have led to runaway CGW (e.g Scotese 2002, Ruddiman 2001). Where the jury is well and truly still out, is scale and sign of the feedbacks. My opinion (FWIW) is that these will turn out to be (net) negative.

Last edited by Yamagata ken; 4th Sep 2011 at 11:34.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 11:44
  #9119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 53
Posts: 854
Trust a bunch of scientists to spoil a perfectly good cash harvesting excuse.....
unstable load is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 12:14
  #9120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Buy some of my shed full of carbon credits and help defeat it. On sale NOW!
Avitor 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.