|
U-Know! Forum » Record breaking heat |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Aug 19, 2010, 16:37
Aug 19, 2010, 16:36
|
||
|
Interestingly, as a departure from the historical temperature record that is proving so controversial, last Sunday the New York Times dedicated the front page to a story on global warming. Headlined, "In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming", scientists pointed out that the recent (and significant) global increase in extreme weather is itself an indicator of Climate Change (albeit not of the causes of this change). The Climate Progress website has a story about it here. Plenty of caveats of course, such as: "If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with NASA in New York. "If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet." All the same, an interesting piece.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Edited Aug 24, 2010, 18:24
Aug 24, 2010, 18:17
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: You made a number of assertions and I challenged them. Can you respond to these? Been a while as I'm covering 9 projects right now and working in a different city to where I live, so bear with me. I really have little time to myself. Merrick wrote: Firstly: Do you agree that we are warming faster than at any time for many millennia, that the global average temperature is higher than at any point for many millennia, and that this rise is exactly in line with what we'd expect given the consensus about the effect of greenhouse gases and the addition of them to the atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuels. This is a complex one Merrick. I used to think that it was as simple as 'measuring temperature' on a global scale. It's not, it's fecking difficult. You need repeatability - which you don't have as we're trying to measure differences in 0.1 deg C's with very early/old technology. You need global coverage - which you don't have as there are vast, vast areas of the planet not covered throughout history. You need a homogenous atmosphere - which you don't have as weather systems move and the S Pole cools in real terms. We rely on a data-set which has been manipulated to show warming trends worse than they are - there's vast amounts of information out there on this, with huge photgraphic representations of UHI effects together with differing temperature measurements between manual and latterly satellite trends. Do yo know that the Sat data appears to have been corrupted for the last few years? http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/11/satellite-gate-noaa-data-10-15%C2%B0-high/ I'm not suggesting deliberately, but it's happened nontheless. So, we have a short data set of non-homogeneous manual temperature measurements. Have a wee look at this report - there are MAJOR problems with data gathering: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf We have the removal of nearly 4,500 temp measurement stations from the records and the messing about with the data from the rest. So, the truth is, I don't KNOW if we're warming any faster than we should, and neither do you... Merrick wrote: Secondly: Do you agree that there is a vast swathe of reliable science out there - stuff that's been peer-reviewed, subjected to the scrutiny of those whose work reinforces or challenges it - and it all points one way. Thousands of published papers. Show me one that says anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. Just one. FFS, the IPCC has re-written the essence of the now bankrupt 'peer review' process. Do you think that the people who are giving their own time to challenging the IPCC reproduced data are doing it just for fun or because they are making a fortune from 'big oil'? No, they are risking their careers and livelihoods to challenge unsound 'science'. The peer review process only works when you are challenged on your work, but the IPCC only use peer-review within the AGW community thereby redering it bankrupt. If I write a report that I'm a cool-dude and loads of my friends read it and agree, does it really make me cool - aye, but only till someone says: no, actually you're a dickheid! Then I'm somewhere inbetween -probably closer to dickheid. I'm suspicious purely because the IPCC's own charter states AGW as a 'GIVEN', with NO scope for challenge and then completely discounts the views and hard work of many people who would like the chance to openly challenge the findings. They are not given the chance. And, a quote from this paper: http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf ""How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong. In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60 and were they all qualified and credible scientists? Let's take a closer look at the real numbers."" There's enough doubt about the process for me to retain my suspicions!
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Edited Aug 26, 2010, 17:15
Aug 24, 2010, 18:24
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Thirdly: Do you agree that we can readily distinguish CO2, which is why you can buy it in canisters, and why we're able to give readings of its presence down to a single part per million. Of course, it's how we can measure carbon12 and carbopn14 and then work out the residence times as under 20 years for CO2 with massive, possibly up to 20%, transfers between the oceans and atmosphere on an annual basis. Merrick wrote: Fourthly: Do you agree that we're already seeing changes, such as rainfall patterns changing in eastern Africa or flood frequency increasing in Bangladesh, that are exactly in line with what was predicted. No, I do not, it's weather. One of the IPCC contributors QUIT over the use of data to suggest the increasing occurence of storms - which was simply not true. My mum and dad lost their house to a flood last year in the Highlands and they still think AGW is a complete con. My mum's 74, even she sees through it. They also were flooded out in 2002, the bottom picture on here is my mum's dog in a boat against my mum's back being rescued then: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2484635.stm ...and not a WORD about AGW!!! Richard Black and the bbc weren't yet on-message back then! Merrick wrote: fifthly: How do you propose we 'adapt' to crop failures across the globe and drastic falls in food prioduction? Y'know what, the earth warms and cools in cycles. If it gets too warm to grow enough food we'll start to decrease in numbers. We're a simple species with no 'rights' of survival, regardless of our arrogance as a species. If we've speeded it up, we'll die out quicker, if we haven't, it'll happen slower. Intersting report here though as the earth is getting 'greener' just now: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ Merrick wrote: Sixthly: Where have the IPCC tried to cover over and remove from the records the fact of the Medieval Warming period? Any critical review of the 'Hockey Stick' statistical methods shows the MWP either 'smoothed' out, or the start date curtalied to exclude it. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5002 Merrick wrote: Seventhly: Where's the peer-reviewed papers that say MWP was warmer than today? Couple linked in here, but the IPCC won't recognise this type of Peer Review as they can't control it.... http://www.liberalwhoppers.com/2010/02/14/medieval-warming-period-in-china-and-south-america-warmer-than-modern-temperatures/
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Aug 24, 2010, 18:25
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Eighthly: Are you really saying that less polar ice - replacing vast areas of white area with dark - won't affect the earth's reflective ability? It will, of course, affect the earth's reflective ability, but the earth has been here before. You do know that the Arctic ice cover has been recovering steadily since the 2007 minimum? Merrick wrote: Ninthly: Are you really saying that heating permafrost peat bogs won't - as is already being observed - make them melt then dry? And that drying won't make them decay, releasing their carbon? Dunno, quite frankly, it may, but I'm yet to be convinced it will upset the climate given all other factors. Merrick wrote: Tenthly: Do you understand that, of the wide range of temperatures that the earth can survive under, humans can only prosper in a very small part of the spectrum? Are you happy if 'achieving equilibrium' means mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian period? It may be better for the planet in the long run tbh, but having spent long periods in Norway and Gulf of Guinea, I can believe that 'man' can thrive in a range of temperatures outwith the doomsday scenario of the IPCC scaremongering. The constant rising crescendo of doomsday scenarios are pretty funny when the truth is most likely quite different.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Edited Aug 24, 2010, 19:09
Aug 24, 2010, 18:57
|
||
|
Good ramble, and interesting musings. I understand your ecological and political position, fair enough. Strangely I'm not really an A-global warming 'denier', though that sounds strange. I'm just a suspicious person at heart. I was suspicious about 9/11 until I turned an 'engineer-eyed' view at the footage and visited the site. I was suspicious of the moon landings, but saw through that quite easily. I was suspicious of Dr Kelly's death, still bloody am... ;-) I just have problems when a concensus locks out so many expert and professional people who have a lot to say, then labels them as pariahs. Perhaps we are causing warming, and perhaps we may be the implement of our own doom. But we need to hear and consider both sides of the argument - we haven't yet. (Interesting that Otze the iceman was killed 5000 years ago and was covered by glacial ice.) This, to me shows why there's a consensus: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf There is only one real temperature dataset and it's been manipulated shamelsssly. There may be a simple explanation, but my suspicious nature needs more.... On the political side, I don't really care. I know I'm averse to the Tories, but I watched Brown's hand in much of the destruction of the economy which my, and your children's, children will be paying for. I don't have a place anywhere between right or left, I can see the good in policies from all parties including BNP... Oh, shock, horror, but take the racist shite away and there's a little sense there, regardless of them being distasteful cnuts. I came here as I used to like Copey's music - the earlier stuff! Met him a few times, even had a piece I gave him included in the MA. Stayed as I don't like to simply inhabit forums where I agree with everything said, but I do try to add to the debate - where there is some... Wish I got more time to do it, but I'm mega-busy, work away from home and only got weekends to prepare the house for arrival of 1st kid early next year. Now that scares me more than AGW!!!! Anyway, I am going to have to leave the AGW debate for a while. I'm sure the fighting will go on for years, but the co-called 'consensus' will continue methinks. I pay a reasonable amount of tax, but if it increases considerably due to CO2 levies, I'll leave the UK for somewhere else on principle. Until the link between GW and man produced emissions is actually proven and demonstrable in a repeatable fashion... I'm afraid a false 'concensus' isn't enough for me yet! :-)
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Aug 24, 2010, 19:12
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: Interestingly, as a departure from the historical temperature record that is proving so controversial, last Sunday the New York Times dedicated the front page to a story on global warming. Headlined, "In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming", scientists pointed out that the recent (and significant) global increase in extreme weather is itself an indicator of Climate Change (albeit not of the causes of this change). The Climate Progress website has a story about it here. Plenty of caveats of course, such as: "If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with NASA in New York. "If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet." All the same, an interesting piece. But, all is not as it seems: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/more-of-the-moscow-heat-wave-satellite-analysis/#more-23439 Could be selective reporting, could be the usual: report warming, ignore cooling.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Sep 17, 2010, 16:16
Sep 17, 2010, 16:10
|
||
|
jshell wrote: Been a while as I'm covering 9 projects right now and working in a different city to where I live, so bear with me. I really have little time to myself. I hear ya, matey, and am in a similar position. I had stuff come up three weeks ago that has left me unable to respond properly to stuff here. Until a coupla days ago I only left one comment here (about Grufty Jim's disgraceful ownership of Martika and Chris De Burgh CDs, and even that didn't get picked up on). I'm only just getting back into the driving seat and have a squillion things to catch up on. So, sorry to resurrect withering threads, but I've not had chance. jshell wrote: Strangely I'm not really an A-global warming 'denier', though that sounds strange. I'm just a suspicious person at heart. Then why do you raise the same zombie arguments - ones that no matter how many times they're disproven rise from the dead - to be restated? CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. Positive feedback happens. Both of these are observable in the environment and demonstrable in a laboratory. Yet you embarrass yourself by saying that isn't so. Why would someone intelligent do that, unless they had some need to deny it that wasn't based on facts? jshell wrote: I was suspicious about 9/11 until I turned an 'engineer-eyed' view at the footage and visited the site. There are plenty of 9-11ists out there who'll explain that the engineers are in on the secret, or duped by those who are, in order to protect their position. You know, like you and the deniers say about the IPCC. Why don't you apply the same thinking to the connection between HIV and Aids, or between cancer and smoking? These have a similar level of scientific consensus as climate change, with a few noisy people - one or two of them even holding relevant expertise - putting the case for the other side. The 'paper' you cite idea that only 60 scientists contributing to the IPCC support the reports is nonsense. It misunderstands what the IPCC does, and how science works. The idea that the IPCC produces heavily biased work is bizarre, given that it does no primary research. Its job is to review and collate the already established science. That science, and the review, is a collaborative and cumulative job. (As I said, because of the need for consensus it tends to underestimate). So the reviewers and authors produce it together. To say only authors who explicitly state support actually agree is ludicrous; to imply that, of the 2879 individuals cited, 2819 of them disagree with the IPCC findings but keep schtum is absurd. You attacked the IPCC for not sticking to peer-reviewed science, yet when I point out that all the peer-reviewed stuff stacks up one way and the denier stuff doesn't have any peer-reveiwed backing, you decide that it's "the now bankrupt 'peer review' process". You repeatedly use the denier tactic of making any error into a devious deceit, and also claiming any error into a disproving of the science itself. I pointed out, taking one example you'd cited of Amazon dieback, that (quite apart form the denier stance you cite being discredited) the science remains intact with proper science actually predicting worse. You need to differentiate between finding an error and debunking a premise. I note you still ignored the point that some effects of climate change are in line with what the IPCC predicted (here's a comparison published in Science - ie a real paper in the scientific sense, as opposed to something an unqualified person made up that can be printed on paper). Some of the already visible effects are such as rainfall patterns in eat Africa and flood frequency in Bangladesh. These things are taking the subsistence farmland away from the poorest of the world. Is this the 'equilibrium' you were talking about? The drop in population numbers that you blithely accept as our price if indeed climate change is to be severe? The people who've accumulated the most wealth - the ones who've emitted the most carbon - will be most able to buy food from places that still produce. Meanwhile the poor of the world - those who cannot afford to move and have emitted the least carbon - are the ones who get to starve for our profligacy. jshell wrote: Merrick wrote: Are you really saying that less polar ice - replacing vast areas of white area with dark - won't affect the earth's reflective ability? It will, of course, affect the earth's reflective ability So you do accept the positive feedback effect. Yet earlier you said it was a smokescreen theory that couldn't be proven. jshell wrote: You do know that the Arctic ice cover has been recovering steadily since the 2007 minimum? This is rather like the denialist idea that the world has been cooling since 1998. 1998 was the hottest year on record. This is because climate is not only affected by human greenhouse gas emissions but other factors, and in 1998 there was a strong El Nino. However, all the years since are among the 15 hottest of the last 150 years, and the noughties was the hottest decade on record. By the same token, 2007 was the lowest Arctic sea ice since records began. The years since have seen more sea ice, but nothing like normal. The US National Snow and Ice Data Center reported in 2009: "At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record." http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
