|
U-Know! Forum » climate change ain't happening in northern ireland |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PMM 2947 posts |
Edited Dec 30, 2009, 19:05
Dec 28, 2009, 22:55
|
||
|
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf This one's actually from a proper academic site, rather than any kind of op-ed piece. It's also the place where weather measurements have been made continuously for longer than anywhere else in the world. Yet the graphs show no sign of the "hockey stick". Interesting, huh?
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Jan 15, 2010, 21:52
|
||
|
It's also not happening in the US... again respectable people confirming suspicions. http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html Of course, nobody wants to hear this. Channel 4 showed a certain film a year early! How long before Dispatches or Panorama cover this I wonder. Not holding my breath!
|
|||
ron 614 posts |
Jan 16, 2010, 01:48
|
||
|
i love you do death i do mr. makes music until the day u die paul... but... it be very hard for me to ingnore the local rocket scientists with their satalites and hard data... you really should play with the satilites it is tre mon cool... if someone feels compelled to cherry pick aborations and grade school science fair projects... i loved figure 3 location of the thermostats amd and figure 4 an actual picture of a thermostat the way.... me... I'm planting fruit trees, vegetable gardens, and setting up my bee hives... love on ya... x x x
|
|||
|
PMM 2947 posts |
Jan 16, 2010, 01:58
|
||
|
I just wonder why this site produces results that are so different to the rest of the data. They've set out their methodology pretty clearly, and explanations about urban heat islands don't seem to apply here. I've seen a few people that choose to ignore the thousands of correlated studies of everything from ice cores to lake bed pollen samples because this one set of results reinforces their prejudices. Wouldn't catch me doing that though, Sir Ron.
|
|||
|
jshell 264 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2010, 14:08
Jan 21, 2010, 14:06
|
||
|
......strangely enough: http://jamesdelingpole.com/2010/01/15/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/ The graph there shows the longest dataset available in the Northern Hemisphere, and doesn't support AGW. In fact the biggest jumps are in the 18th C...not C for CO2 mind! NASA's in the shit coz they've been found fiddling their model figures. The IPCC have been accused of bias as they, and New Scientist promoted that pack of lies about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, when the date was actually stated as 2350 in some obscure phone call - rather than so-called 'peer-reviewed' science. (which they don't know the meaning of) MMGW became AGW became CC, and now the blame is going to be put on Methane. I've always sat on the fence, but I'm buggered if I will now. The 'science' is in tatters, people are waking up and whereas I believe in 'climate change', I firmly don't believe it's anything to do with man... 96% of Greenhouse gasses are water vapour 4% of GHC's are CO2 4% of CO2 is man-made Soo, 4% of 4% = 0.0016% of GHC's are man made! At least the delegates at Copenhagen had a small 'carbon footprint', oh wait, they all went by air or personal jet and limo. Hypocritical cnuts! 15,000 of them, wasn't it? And now they're planning the same fucking long-haul shindig somewhere more exotic next year. Not in my name. And, recent curvey suggests 90% of the carbon trading through Denmark has been fraudulent. Just for a laugh, 'Google' this: "carousel fraud" ! We've been sold a pup. You can quote all of the IPCC stuff you like, but the IPCC saying that there's no AGW is like Turkeys voting for Christmas, they'd soon be out of a job if they did. Say: 'vested interest'! Check the comments section on this for dissenting voices: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/bbc_news_coverage_of_copenhage.html Anyways, I'm bored with this stuff now, just been through a difficult job-hunting process and have to move back to the chilly Northern UK. Doesn't matter what I think of climate change, the only certainty is that I'll be paying a lot more fcuking tax. L&P
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2010, 21:33
Jan 21, 2010, 21:26
|
||
|
jshell wrote: The graph there shows the longest dataset available in the Northern Hemisphere, and doesn't support AGW. er, it doesn't say anything about it. If you want to talk about 'AEW' you might have a point, but as it's a global phenomenon we're talking about, we should look at average global temperatures. Refuting them with particular places is akin to people who say the current English cold snap disproves it (or the current Israeli heatwave proves it). jshell wrote: The IPCC have been accused of bias as they, and New Scientist promoted that pack of lies about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, when the date was actually stated as 2350 in some obscure phone call Your gift for overstatement's not departed yet, I see. The 'pack of lies' is one figure, a projected date for total glacier loss in the Himalayas. Where did you get your 2350 thing from? as I understand it, the figure seems to have been misconstrued by WWF and the source for the IPCC didn't check the original paper being cited. That is indeed a serious error, regarding Himalayan glacier melt. It certainly doesn't undermine the fact that the vast majority of glaciers on earth are in retreat. It certainly does not refute the rest of the hundreds of thousands of facts cited in the IPCC reports. jshell wrote: MMGW became AGW became CC, and now the blame is going to be put on Methane. Er, right. Your first three are terminology, the last one is actually a substance. See the difference? And 'AGW' tends to be a term used by deniers, so it's scarcely fair to include that in some part of this conspiracy. Methane's always been a significant portion of climate change, which is why we use the term 'greenhouse gases' and 'CO2 equivalent'. jshell wrote: whereas I believe in 'climate change', I firmly don't believe it's anything to do with man... If I were you I'd get to grips with a little basic physics first. Knowing what you're talking about can really do a lot to validate your opinion. There is no explanation for the rapid warming of the last century except natural processes combined with the effects of human carbon emissions as described by the IPCC.This may have something to do with why over 99% of climatologists have the temerity to disagree with you. Mind you, you've told us before it's 'unproven' whether CO2 has an effect on global temperatures, even though it can be demonstrated with stuff you find in a kitchen in a way that's understandable to primary school children. Here's one we made earlier http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm And talking of things you've told us before... jshell wrote: 96% of Greenhouse gasses are water vapour 4% of GHC's are CO2 4% of CO2 is man-made You were patiently walked through this one earlier. You're embarrassing yourself now. jshell wrote: At least the delegates at Copenhagen had a small 'carbon footprint', oh wait, they all went by air or personal jet and limo. Hypocritical cnuts! 15,000 of them, wasn't it? And now they're planning the same fucking long-haul shindig somewhere more exotic next year. Not in my name. And, recent curvey suggests 90% of the carbon trading through Denmark has been fraudulent. I understand it was actually about 30,000 people initially accredited for the talks (the centre held 15,000). Many of these were from carbon-conscious organisations who did travel by land. But yes, a great many who could have chose not to and I totally agree with you that they're hypocritical scumpigs. And as for carbon trading, I don't know the details of the Danish thing, but the whole industry's a fucking scam, a device for permitting high-emitters to carry on, make loads of money and keep the poor of the world impoverished. Bullshit from start to finish. And neither of those things in any way undoes the science of climate change. jshell wrote: the IPCC saying that there's no AGW is like Turkeys voting for Christmas, they'd soon be out of a job if they did. You misunderstand the way the IPCC works and indeed what it is. It compiles and collates the work of many thousands of scientists from around the world. They would still be working in their respective fields, climate change or no. There would still be climatologists, forest ecologists, oceanographers, etc. For evidence of this being a vast conspiracy involving the pre-eminent scientific bodies of dozens of nations and hundreds of thousands of scientists, you're going to have to find better sources than the Speak Your Brains of comments on the BBC news site.
|
|||
|
jshell 264 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2010, 10:50
Jan 22, 2010, 10:43
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: The graph there shows the longest dataset available in the Northern Hemisphere, and doesn't support AGW. er, it doesn't say anything about it. If you want to talk about 'AEW' you might have a point, but as it's a global phenomenon we're talking about, we should look at average global temperatures. Refuting them with particular places is akin to people who say the current English cold snap disproves it (or the current Israeli heatwave proves it). No, I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways. The IPCC utilised data implies that they use 'global' datasets, whereas they use a scattering and cherry-picked set of data from measurement stations. There are many, many reports coming out now of the 'cherry-picking' approach. They also have only access to mostly Northern Hemisphere data due to most of the Southern Hemisphere being water. They have not had access to the many of the so-called 'cold station' data for a long time which does skew the figures upwards. In fact, according to the Russians, The Moscow based Institute of Economic Aalysis: "The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory." Read the full story, last paragraph: http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html/ Russia accounts for 12.5% of the planets land-mass, as mentioned in that report. --------------------------------------------------- Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: The IPCC have been accused of bias as they, and New Scientist promoted that pack of lies about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, when the date was actually stated as 2350 in some obscure phone call Your gift for overstatement's not departed yet, I see. The 'pack of lies' is one figure, a projected date for total glacier loss in the Himalayas. Where did you get your 2350 thing from? as I understand it, the figure seems to have been misconstrued by WWF and the source for the IPCC didn't check the original paper being cited. That is indeed a serious error, regarding Himalayan glacier melt. It certainly doesn't undermine the fact that the vast majority of glaciers on earth are in retreat. The 2350 date is mentioned in many news reports. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hv2NwFkM8rIdj6z931p20UW8Bbmg is one of them. Glaciers are in retreat, you seem to think that's a point of argument, it's not. What is in question is man's effect. Climate changes, it is changing, it will always change. That's the point, more and more people are refuting that it's man's effect. -------------------------------------------------------- Merrick wrote: It certainly does not refute the rest of the hundreds of thousands of facts cited in the IPCC reports. The IPCC has been shown to 'cherry pick' reports, refute dissenting reports and is a 'politicised' organisation with no real impartiality. The IPCC was designed to deal with AGW as 'Accepted Science', therefore it has one focus and direction and will continue that way until enough contrary evidence is avaiable, and even then, perhaps not. Citing IPCC reprots is like taking the Tory Manifesto, if there is one these days, together with all other Tory printed 'matter' and basing your views of British Politics on that one political party. It's hugely biased. You have to consider both sides, or you can't see past the trenches - that's where we are now. You do know that of the 3,000 'scientists' appointed to the IPCC, many are not. Many others refuse to put their names to IPCC reports and other have actually raised legal action to have their names removed? Couple this with the 32,000 scientists, 9,000 who have Ph D's who have signed a petition against AGW. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Still think it's just a few 'deniers and dissenters?? That's only the US.
|
|||
|
jshell 264 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2010, 11:01
Jan 22, 2010, 10:44
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: MMGW became AGW became CC, and now the blame is going to be put on Methane. Er, right. Your first three are terminology, the last one is actually a substance. See the difference? And 'AGW' tends to be a term used by deniers, so it's scarcely fair to include that in some part of this conspiracy. Methane's always been a significant portion of climate change, which is why we use the term 'greenhouse gases' and 'CO2 equivalent'. My point is that the changing terminology is utilised to alter perspective, influence the 'hearts and minds' - hate that phrase. I believe that there has been a deliberate softening of approach and terminology..perhaps I do have a tinfoil hat afterall. :-) --------------------------------------------- Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: whereas I believe in 'climate change', I firmly don't believe it's anything to do with man... If I were you I'd get to grips with a little basic physics first. Knowing what you're talking about can really do a lot to validate your opinion. There is no explanation for the rapid warming of the last century except natural processes combined with the effects of human carbon emissions as described by the IPCC.This may have something to do with why over 99% of climatologists have the temerity to disagree with you. Mind you, you've told us before it's 'unproven' whether CO2 has an effect on global temperatures, even though it can be demonstrated with stuff you find in a kitchen in a way that's understandable to primary school children. Here's one we made earlier http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm And talking of things you've told us before... jshell wrote: 96% of Greenhouse gasses are water vapour 4% of GHC's are CO2 4% of CO2 is man-made You were patiently walked through this one earlier. You're embarrassing yourself now. Really? How do you explain the MWP, because even the CRU saw it as a real problem to deal with and tried to down-play it. There's a searchable facility for all of the e-mails at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ The Mediaeval Warming Period has always been a problem for AGW, as it shows long periods that were warmer than today, but where's the man made greenhouse gases? And, as for 99% of climatologists disagreeing, I don't think that's a real number - though you've cited it before - and others have remained quiet, let's be honest they're not going to get much funding if the break from the pack, are they? The emails linked to show how dissenting voices have been crushed, peer-review circumvented etc, etc. 'Peer Review' has no validity here now, the CRU emails show how they've fucked Peer Review out of the park! What about this guy, he's a leading climatologist: Dr Wallace Broecker. Here's his site and it's amazing how his 'science on CO2 effects differs from the 'pack: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Perhaps you'll just dismiss him as a crank, but there are others and their voices are beginning to be heard... The embarrassment is waning...just a little, but all the same. Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: At least the delegates at Copenhagen had a small 'carbon footprint', oh wait, they all went by air or personal jet and limo. Hypocritical cnuts! 15,000 of them, wasn't it? And now they're planning the same fucking long-haul shindig somewhere more exotic next year. Not in my name. And, recent curvey suggests 90% of the carbon trading through Denmark has been fraudulent. I understand it was actually about 30,000 people initially accredited for the talks (the centre held 15,000). Many of these were from carbon-conscious organisations who did travel by land. But yes, a great many who could have chose not to and I totally agree with you that they're hypocritical scumpigs. And as for carbon trading, I don't know the details of the Danish thing, but the whole industry's a fucking scam, a device for permitting high-emitters to carry on, make loads of money and keep the poor of the world impoverished. Bullshit from start to finish. And neither of those things in any way undoes the science of climate change. Many other things do though, not least of all the 'Harry Readme.txt' files. Have you seen them? http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html This shows Harry (a CRU programmer, no less) trying to replicate the data sets, and failing badly. One wee quote from Harry on his odyssey: "The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0) ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts? OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found." This is most telling, but you have to read the whole site, and if you've got time search out the whole script. Basically Harry says that it's all a pile of shite, he can't make it work, much of it is 'fabricated' and doesn't tie-in with anything else. The Science is settled then?? Merrick wrote: jshell"]the IPCC saying that there's no AGW is like Turkeys voting for Christmas, they'd soon be out of a job if they did.[/quote]You misunderstand the way the IPCC works and indeed what it is. It compiles and collates the work of many thousands of scientists from around the world. They would still be working in their respective fields, climate change or no. There would still be climatologists, forest ecologists, oceanographers, etc. [/quote] Au contraire, I think I'm starting to see JUST how the IPCC works. I think that many others are too! See my thoughts on the IPCC above. Merrick wrote: For evidence of this being a vast conspiracy involving the pre-eminent scientific bodies of dozens of nations and hundreds of thousands of scientists, you're going to have to find better sources than the Speak Your Brains of comments on the BBC news site. There are many sources out there now and they're growing. At last count, 'climategate' registered 11,400,000 hits on Google. It's no longer the fringe, loony and conspiracy sites that were trying to break out, it's now the mainsream media with more reports than ever. Not the BBC, of course, but they are directly implicated through Richard Black who's name is even mentioned as a sort of 'co-conspirator' in the CRU e-mails: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt Here and other places they talk of using Richard Black to prevent any anti-MMGW articles appearing on the BBC. Doesn't that break the BBC's charter of impartiality? I think it does, and so does the flood of complaints now heading the BBC's way... Even the 'Mail' is printing dissenting articles, that bastion of MMGW... Oh, and as for the temperature rising, even the BBC have to admit that it hasn't for the last 11 years: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/ Thee'll be an excuse somewhere, no doubt... :-)
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jan 25, 2010, 18:13
Jan 25, 2010, 18:04
|
||
|
jshell wrote: No, I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Says the person who wants to say that temperatures in one spot can measure the whole world! Are you really saying that global average temperatures can't be measured until we have a thermometer on every street corner? It is possible to measure temeeratures in the southern hemisphere thanks to the existence of islands. Also, there is measurable oceanic warming. Using dispersed stations - even thousands of them - is not the same as 'cherry-picking' as long as you use all the data that's reliable. Cherry picking is when you discount reliable evidence that doesn't fit your desired outcome. jshell wrote: The IPCC was designed to deal with AGW as 'Accepted Science' No, it was designed to assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, and provide an authoritative source for those who want information. jshell wrote: The IPCC has been shown to 'cherry pick' reports Where and to what extent? jshell wrote: Citing IPCC reprots is like taking the Tory Manifesto The tories have a stated political agenda. The IPCC is compiles the work of vast numbers of scientists, then puts it out to critical review, then formulates a complete report. Do you see the difference? jshell wrote: according to the Russians, The Moscow based Institute of Economic Aalysis: Ah, a great unconscious irony there in decrying the alleged bias of the IPCC but citing the Institute of Economic Analysis as if they're neutral. The words 'thinktank' should make anybody pause (why do they always get presented on the news as if they're impartial?). The IEA was set up and is run by Andrei Illarionov, senior fellow of the Exxon-funded Cato Institute. That's a commitment to science-denying partiality. jshell wrote: Glaciers are in retreat, you seem to think that's a point of argument, it's not. What is in question is man's effect. Climate changes, it is changing, it will always change. That's the point, more and more people are refuting that it's man's effect. So, I wonder again, what is there that explains it other than natural processes exacerbated by human emissions? More to the point, if you now accept now that CO2's effect on temperatures is a fact, why do you think that doubling it doesn't alter temperatures? The IPCC made an error in citing that 2035 date. The difference between scientists like them and climate deniers is that they admit and correct mistakes, instead of simply ignoring the rebuttal and repeating the same discredited argument next time round. jshell wrote: The Mediaeval Warming Period has always been a problem for AGW, as it shows long periods that were warmer than today, but where's the man made greenhouse gases? Let me say it simply: not I, nor anyone else, is saying climate change is entirely due to human activity. It is an established fact that many things alter climate and thereby global temperatures. There have been times in the past when it's been substantially warmer and colder than now. Solar activity, orbital wavering, all manner of stuff can affect it. However, the global average temperature today is markedly high and has risen very quickly. Exactly in line with carbon emissions, which we know act as greenhouse gases. jshell wrote: others have remained quiet, let's be honest they're not going to get much funding if the break from the pack, are they? Are you kidding me? The attention dissenting scientists get (especially when you can find one who's actually qualified as opposed to an astrophysicist or whatever) is huge. The money that rolls in (thankyou Exxon) is even larger. jshell wrote: 'Peer Review' has no validity here now Yes it does. It is still a robust system that allows others to examine how findings were reached and to put forward conflicting or supporting data before anything's considered established. jshell wrote: What about this guy, he's a leading climatologist: Dr Wallace Broecker. Here's his site Er, no, that's not Wally Broecker's site. As a tip for future research, respected scientists tend not to use geocraft.com for their web hosting. It's actually a page that quotes Broecker done by someone called Monte Hieb. It also quotes Fred Singer, which is enough to make anyone interested in truth suspicious. But that quote of Broecker's about water vapour being 'the only element capable of making these fast changes'. Is he talking about now, or is he about his field of expertise, paleoclimatology, the study of the climate in the past? Can you find me anywhere where he actually casts doubt on human-induced climate change? (clue: it may take you a very very long time....). Again, you're just wrong.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jan 25, 2010, 18:15
Jan 25, 2010, 18:13
|
||
|
jshell wrote: The Science is settled then?? Were the science not dependent on peer-review that weeds out fabrications, and/or were it dependednt on the work of that one person at UEA then you'd have a point. However, as PMM has said on this thread already, to extrapolate that from the UEA emails is to 'choose to ignore the thousands of correlated studies of everything from ice cores to lake bed pollen samples because this one set of results reinforces their prejudices'. jshell wrote: I think I'm starting to see JUST how the IPCC works. I think that many others are too! See my thoughts on the IPCC above. I have, and I'm still not seeing how a lack of anthropogenic climate change would render dozens of entire scientific fields including climatology, meteorology, oceanography, forest ecology, redundant. jshell wrote: Merrick wrote: For evidence of this being a vast conspiracy involving the pre-eminent scientific bodies of dozens of nations and hundreds of thousands of scientists, you're going to have to find better sources than the Speak Your Brains of comments on the BBC news site. There are many sources out there now and they're growing. At last count, 'climategate' registered 11,400,000 hits on Google. Which does not in any way give evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. Try googling about Jesus and Satan and see how many hits you get. Does that show the existence of a real living Satan? I'm asking for hard facts that this is a conspiracy, because it would take in so many thousands of people, including the Royal Society and equivalent bodies all across the world. The UEA datasets about treerings aren't really enough. jshell wrote: Doesn't that break the BBC's charter of impartiality? About as much as their ignoring of other perspectives only held by a tiny fraction of people with relevant knowledge, such as creationism or HIV not causing Aids. Should they have an hour's creationist twaddle after every Attenborough programme about evolution? jshell wrote: Even the 'Mail' is printing dissenting articles Heh, 'even' the Mail, the grand outpost of truth on scientific matters, whose Science Editor was the last one on a national newspaper to maintain a climate denier position. You've got such a gift for presenting evidence that undermines your position. Do go on.... jshell wrote: as for the temperature rising, even the BBC have to admit that it hasn't for the last 11 years Yet another point that you've already had explained to you. "The evidence is clear – the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler. "You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Nino. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Nina. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded." 1998 was a year exacerbated by other factors because - please read it this time - everybody agrees that there are many factors that affect climate and global temperature. 1998 was the hottest on record, calling it 'cooling' since then implies a process of, well, cooling. Yet if we 2000 as our start point, every year since has been hotter. The thing is to be scientific, rather than to cherry pick. We need to look at all factors and overall trends. Fifteen of the top 20 hottest years on record have been since 1990. Do we see a pattern emerging on the graph? I say again, what could be the cause other than natural process exacerbated by carbon emissions? And why do you admit that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas yet reckon that doubling it in the atmosphere doesn't increase the greenhouse effect?
|
| Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page