Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
I would welcome a more civilised exchange of views.
At last! Someone gets the idea! |
| |
|
|
Does anyone have any comments to make regarding the very succinctly put 'New Scientist' article by David Whitehouse linked to in my originating post? Or even upon the very interesting thread it inspired? It's well worth a read.
Could this be remembered as the first step in breaking through the pro-AGW media bias and veil of silence?
|
| |
|
|
Sorry, meant to say 'New Statesman'.
|
| |
|
|
OK I'll restate my previous answer: quote: The more detailed answer to the question is that many of the models show similiar patterns in the surface temperature record (and these models were developed and run a number of years ago - so weren't "tweaked" to match the reality). You can see this in the graphs in the IPCC assessment reports.
Such variability can be is due to natural variability in the various "oscillations" of ocean currents such as ENSO (El Nino, La Nina), PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), etc. which are hard to predict, as well as the solar cycle.
The prediction that 2007 would be warmer than 1998 was on the expectation that the El Nino would continue whereas in fact it died away and was replaced by La Nina (which result in cooler global surface temperatures). We still have La Nina which is why this year will probably not beat the record. The Hadley decadal forecast suggested that next year would also be cooler...but we'll see. Decadal forecasting is in very early days - the scientific paper that presented the forecast discussed all the uncertainties.
Further the writer is being a little partial in his reading of the figures. "Statistically the same" means that there is a reasonable chance that they are the same. However, it also means that there is a reasonable chance that they are all different and that warming has continued. The expected warming is an average of 0.01-0.02C per year. So the expected difference between 2001 and 2008 would be 0.07C which is 1/3 the size of the error bars. So if you look at the data in absence of anything else you could say that the climate has warmed significantly and may have stopped warming. If you look at the data and consider the other information available, a more reasonable explanation is that CO2 is a cause of much of the warming, and the fact that it appears to have paused for is merely down to statistical sampling error and natural variability. Given that the physical understanding of the radiative properties of CO2 are well known, most scientists are banking on the latter. Virtually no sceptic scientists have put money on cooling over the next decade. I don't think anyone has published a paper putting it down to more aerosols. |
| |
|
|
It seems the "gods" have deleted some posts so I've come back to this one. quote: Originally posted by Leo Nithic:
Yeah, I've heard how the dinosaurs wiped themselves out when their civilisation began to industrialise.
Funny (maybe) the first time you hear this one but irrelevent. quote:
Well, let's see. We've suffered twenty years of:
Ferocious campaigning;
Suffered? Ferocious? Really? Who's been doing this, and where? quote:
Ever increasing doom-mongering TV and newspaper stories, which in many cases has morphed into propaganda;
There is some of that, but it is all down to journalists knowing that scare stories sell. There have also been journalists writing denialist propaganda, which also sells, especially in 'The Telegraph'. quote:
Governments jumping on the bandwagon and actually taxing the process of emitting co2;
Maybe, or are they just taking action to reduce CO2 in the most (only?) effective way because they recognise the problem? They can get the same revenue in many other ways if they want. quote:
Research and climate conferences, junkets and jobs for the boys, that have cost £BILLIONS;
So it's all a conspiracy and all scientists are in on it? Has it really cost BILLIONS, and even if it has, how does it compare with all the other conferences, junkets, and jobs for the boys enjoyed by other scientists, economists, business people, etc.? quote:
Western nations going out of their way to stop African nations from developing.
Evidence please. quote:
All this to stop levels of co2 from increasing. And what has it achieved?
Well co2 levels are still increasing, so...
And why was so much effort and money spent and so much hardship endured?
What hardship? Yes, levels are still going up but things would be worse in the future if we do nothing about it at all and they went up at a faster rate. quote:
Because global temperatures were rising, and scientists theorised that if we stopped levels of co2 from increasing, we could make global temperatures fall again.
No, that was never believed. The best that we can hope for is to limit the rise. quote:
But then a funny thing happened - whilst co2 levels continued to rise, global temperature stopped rising.
Just as it has many times before. It rose again afterwards. It will rise again after this pause. quote:
Did scientists (and environmental journalists come to that):
(a) Make an announcement about it and add, "Perhaps the theory is wrong, or has to be modified in some way", i.e. put their well paid job and nice lifestyle in jeopardy.
No, the theory still holds. Do you imagine that academics are paid film-star salaries, and do you also imagine they get paid for working on climate only if they believe in the CO2 effect to the exclusion of everything else? They are climate scientists, not "CO2 scientists". quote:
(b) Keep quiet and hope nobody noticed.
That would be futile, wouldn't it, given all the noise made by the denialists? quote:
It's okay, it's a rhetorical question.
Face it - enough of humanity's time, effort and resources have been wasted on this - it's time to grow up and move on and pull the rug out from under the leeches that have cynically and inhumanly played this up for their own benefit.
You seem to have no problem with insulting a large number of scientists, don't you? The problem is real and efforts to reduce the effects are not a waste. Will you apologise to all the "leeches" in 10, 20, or 50 years time if you are wrong? |
| |
|
|
Leo Nithic. quote:
Guess what - global temperature HAS always varied, and WILL always vary!
Yes, such is the nature of the 'beast'. quote:
Do I detect a hint in the above quote that if global temperatures nosedive, you'll pop up and say, "See - I told you so - we are in the midst of a global temperature variation scenario, (so please don't stop paying all those climate scientists those research grants)!"
Nothing of the sort. What you've detected is my scepticism on CO2 being the main driver of temperature increase. My disciplines are from the engineering sector (universal millwright), so whether the climate scientists get their grants doesn't really interest me. I just wish they'd not be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that's just a 'tad' OTT. quote:
Take a look at the variations noted by scientists and reported in the press in just the tiny amount of time that was the 20th century:
Press reports are the last place to look for scientific material. The press like to sensationalise to sell 'press'. That's why governments and 'internationals' use them for 'spin'. quote:
Is that what it says in your crystal ball? (Is that a patterned head-scarf you're wearing?)
There's no need to get personal. These are message boards and I don't cross-dress. quote:
Or are you relying on something rather less reliable than a crystal ball, like computer climate models?
Well I don't like computer climate models because I don't see the 'basic' detail put into them that I think should be there. Other than climate modelling, computer models do a good job though (especially in industry). I prefer to look at 'observations' and assess their validity and inter-operability with other observations within a system. You seem to have an 'axe to grind'? Best regards, suricat. PS. I tried to post this before now, but problems with the servers on the site made it impossible. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by Leo Nithic:
Yeah, I've heard how the dinosaurs wiped themselves out when their civilisation began to industrialise.
Funny (maybe) the first time you hear this one but irrelevant.
Well, can you list the organisms on this planet that have been responsible for climate changes over Earth's long history that have either been advantageous or have led to massive extinctions, as your mate, (I say mate since you are taking the trouble to answer for him/her), Lucibee asserts? quote:
Well, let's see. We've suffered twenty years of:
Ferocious campaigning;
quote:
Suffered? Ferocious? Really? Who's been doing this, and where?
Well, here on planet Earth we have Environmental Campaigners, sometimes known as Greens, the Eco-lobby, etc. Are there no such people on your planet? quote:
Ever increasing doom-mongering TV and newspaper stories, which in many cases has morphed into propaganda;
quote:
There is some of that, but it is all down to journalists knowing that scare stories sell. There have also been journalists writing denialist propaganda, which also sells, especially in 'The Telegraph'.
'Some'? Did you type that with a straight face? I'd estimate 99.5% pro AGW, 0.5% the other way. And who is content to live with the scare stories? Yes, the scientists. If you believe there is more than 0.5% the other way, give us the evidence. quote:
Governments jumping on the bandwagon and actually taxing the process of emitting co2;
quote:
Maybe, or are they just taking action to reduce CO2 in the most (only?) effective way because they recognise the problem? They can get the same revenue in many other ways if they want.
Politicians do not recognise the problem - they are 'advised' of the problem by the IPCC. As the IPCC will only continue to exist if there IS a problem, they are hardly likely to turn around and say otherwise! quote:
Research and climate conferences, junkets and jobs for the boys, that have cost £BILLIONS;
quote:
So it's all a conspiracy and all scientists are in on it? Has it really cost BILLIONS, and even if it has, how does it compare with all the other conferences, junkets, and jobs for the boys enjoyed by other scientists, economists, business people, etc.?
Yes, shockingly it HAS cost £Billions, yet co2 levels continue to rise. Unlike climate scientists, the others you mention are more than likely judged by their achievements. quote:
Western nations going out of their way to stop African nations from developing.
quote:
Evidence please.
They are told that any development must be 'sustainable'. When requiring electricity they are left instead with feeble solar panels. They want and need to industrialise - they need power stations - fast. quote:
All this to stop levels of co2 from increasing. And what has it achieved?
Well co2 levels are still increasing, so...
And why was so much effort and money spent and so much hardship endured?
quote:
What hardship? Yes, levels are still going up but things would be worse in the future if we do nothing about it at all and they went up at a faster rate.
I was talking of the Africans when I mentioned hardship. It's easy to say it would be 'worse in the future if we do nothing about it at all and they went up at a faster rate'. It would also be worse in the future if cows grew wings and suicidal tendencies and started dropping themselves on people. It would also be worse in the future if the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted - something of which it can be truthfully said that it WILL actually happen, unlike co2 levels increasing at a faster rate. quote:
Because global temperatures were rising, and scientists theorised that if we stopped levels of co2 from increasing, we could make global temperatures fall again.
quote:
No, that was never believed. The best that we can hope for is to limit the rise.
So from now until the end of eternity levels of co2 in the atmosphere will never be lower than they are now? quote:
But then a funny thing happened - whilst co2 levels continued to rise, global temperature stopped rising.
quote:
Just as it has many times before. It rose again afterwards. It will rise again after this pause.
Ten years is rather a long pause! Many times before? Do you mean in the history of the planet, or just this most recent warming scare, which is only about 20 - 30 years old? Without a time machine you cannot possibly know if global temperature 'will rise again after this pause'. quote:
Did scientists (and environmental journalists come to that):
(a) Make an announcement about it and add, "Perhaps the theory is wrong, or has to be modified in some way", i.e. put their well paid job and nice lifestyle in jeopardy.
quote:
No, the theory still holds. Do you imagine that academics are paid film-star salaries, and do you also imagine they get paid for working on climate only if they believe in the CO2 effect to the exclusion of everything else? They are climate scientists, not "CO2 scientists".
You can have a well paid job and nice lifestyle without a film-star salary. I did not assert what you say above - I felt sure anyone with intelligence would realise that I was actually pointing out that the fact that temperature has stopped increasing for ten years is NEWS! Why was it not announced by climate scientists? Why was it not on the NEWS? quote:
(b) Keep quiet and hope nobody noticed.
quote:
That would be futile, wouldn't it, given all the noise made by the denialists?
Really? So, you have no environmental lobby on your world, and now you say you have a band of people called 'denialists', (odd name to choose for themselves), who appear to be as vocal on your world as the environmental lobby is here on Earth. As noted above - no announcement and the story kept out of the news, so very few people HAVE noticed! quote:
It's okay, it's a rhetorical question.
Face it - enough of humanity's time, effort and resources have been wasted on this - it's time to grow up and move on and pull the rug out from under the leeches that have cynically and inhumanly played this up for their own benefit.
quote:
You seem to have no problem with insulting a large number of scientists, don't you? The problem is real and efforts to reduce the effects are not a waste. Will you apologise to all the "leeches" in 10, 20, or 50 years time if you are wrong?
No, I don't - their behaviour is reprehensible. The key to their attitude is how they fail to react in any way to the outrageous media scare stories. If they were serious, responsible scientists they would feel duty bound to set the record straight, despite the effect it might have on their career. Instead they are content to let the general public believe that the problem and the dangers posed by it are outrageously worse than they actually are, thereby ensuring that those research grants keep coming in. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by suricat:
Press reports are the last place to look for scientific material. The press like to sensationalise to sell 'press'. That's why governments and 'internationals' use them for 'spin'.
Sorry, I never imagined for one second that anyone who clicked on the link and read the article would assume that I was attempting to say that press reports are a good place to look for scientific material. I was in fact trying to show that the press were advised by scientists at various points during the 20th century that the global climate was either going to get very much colder or very much warmer. quote:
Is that what it says in your crystal ball? (Is that a patterned head-scarf you're wearing?)
quote:
There's no need to get personal. These are message boards and I don't cross-dress.
Sorry you took it as an attempt to 'get personal' - it was not meant as such. Nor did I in any way intend to imply that you cross-dress, (although patterned head-scarves are worn by both sexes these days). It was in fact an attempt at humour, based around crystal balls, fortune-tellers, etc., given that you somehow knew that: global temperatures shall continue their climb 'soon'. Since a crystal ball has now been ruled out, perhaps you could let me know how you came by this knowledge of the future. |
| |
|
|
Leo Nithic. Touché. Neither of us recognised the other's humour. No probs. quote:
global temperatures shall continue their climb 'soon'.
quote:
Since a crystal ball has now been ruled out, perhaps you could let me know how you came by this knowledge of the future.
As I said, my disciplines are in the engineering field and my diagnostic sense always tells me to look at recent history to discover the reasons for any recent changes. I don't have knowledge of the future and I don't have scientific proofs, but I do have my diagnostic outcome from previous systemic behaviour. Your alleged 'crystal ball' (and this is not a computer model, unless I am a computer and that isn't up for debate)! If you've followed the posts on this site you'll know that I have a 'complementary' subject for 'global warming'. You are free to research this on the site if you wish, but although CO2 is associated with these reasons it is - to my belief - by no means the main proponent for the recent warming. This is basically due to oxygen sequestration and the generation of ozone in the upper troposphere (instead of the 'ozone layer' region). So, if you don't want to respond to this post I'll understand why. I've seen predictions that state the next 'sunspot maximum' is due in 2011, so the effects of this may be registered as noticeable during this year. By 2010 the extra solar activity should be easily recognisable on the temperature scale. I say this because since 1940 the 'near surface temperature' has always shown an elevated forcing during 'sun spot maxima'. This has become habitual to the 'system'! Best regards, suricat. |
| |
|
|
quote: No, I don't - their behaviour is reprehensible. The key to their attitude is how they fail to react in any way to the outrageous media scare stories. If they were serious, responsible scientists they would feel duty bound to set the record straight, despite the effect it might have on their career.
They do it all the time, so apologise to them. In doing so they have to be careful because they are always at risk of being adopted by the deniers and having their words twisted. For example, the nuanced contribution by Carl Wunsch to Martin Durkin was twisted by editing in GGWS to make him sound like a complete sceptic. Scientists would be happiest if people downloaded the various reports of the IPCC and learnt what scientists say rather than what the media say that scientists say and ignored both the media and the denier nonsense: http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/1530024059Whether or not media stories are true, man made climate change is a fact and will have a huge impact on human society possibly within 20-30 years, probably before the end of the century and certainly in the longer term. |
| |
|
|
quote: Get out your pocket calculator and say Oops!
4 billion tonnes equates to 67 tonnes per person. Probably too much to drink, but my home usage is 40 tonnes (1 cubic metre is 1 tonne) per person per year and I'm a careful user. So he's probably correct in that it is drinking water despite the fact that most of it goes straight down the loo or plughole. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M: quote: Get out your pocket calculator and say Oops!
4 billion tonnes equates to 67 tonnes per person. Probably too much to drink, but my home usage is 40 tonnes (1 cubic metre is 1 tonne) per person per year and I'm a careful user. So he's probably correct in that it is drinking water despite the fact that most of it goes straight down the loo or plughole.
Point taken Steve. My pedantry knows no bounds! |
| |
|
|
Blasted dieties!!! I'll just post it again then! You can find your own way to the clip (hint: it's on the "Earth" homepage...) Did anyone see the Earth: Power of the Planet episode 2 on the atmosphere? Loved the bit where Iain Stewart gets a bit singed while setting fire to the methane beneath the permafrost! But maybe a little concerned about the potential consequences of any further warming... If you missed it, you can watch it again on iplayer - (utterly fabulous, btw!!!).
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
Looking at the Hadley data I see no real difference in trends compared to the NASA-GISS data. If you look at the trends since 2000 the trend appears to be on the order of 0.1-0.15oC per decade, which isn't too far out of line with predictions. I see no real point in focusing on a 4 year trend because natural variability will tend to bias the outcome one way or another. Comparing the last decade to the previous decade i.e. present-late 90s vs. late 80s and 90s highlights a huge constrast. The rate of warming during the 90s was on the order of 0.3oC per decade. So even on a decadal scale there is considerable vaibility in trends. My point is really one that focusing in even on decadal trends is liable to bias from natural variability, solar variations and the action of volcanoes.
|
| |
|
|
That was to Son of Mulder BTW.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Scientists would be happiest if people downloaded the various reports of the IPCC and learnt what scientists say rather than what the media say that scientists say and ignored both the media and the denier nonsense:
I think most people are too busy getting on with their lives to spend time ploughing through IPCC reports Steve, and even if they did you've still got to understand what you're reading. Maybe the IPCC should publish an abridged version for dummys with a nice yellow homepage |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M: quote: No, I don't - their behaviour is reprehensible. The key to their attitude is how they fail to react in any way to the outrageous media scare stories. If they were serious, responsible scientists they would feel duty bound to set the record straight, despite the effect it might have on their career.
They do it all the time, so apologise to them.
Really? In what arena? Do they contact the media outlet and threaten them with legal action if they do not apologise and advise their readers/viewers of their gross exaggeration/perversion of the original information that the scientists issued? That would be the right and proper way of going about it, and I have never read such an apology in a newspaper, or seen one on television. |
| |
|
|
quote: Maybe the IPCC should publish an abridged version
| |
