Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
How is one scientist's opinion "damning"?
As you keep saying, this is going to take at least 20 years to prove either one way or the other - one opinion isn't going to do it!!!
A really good question Lucibee - and I glad you asked it. As in any organisation, it takes just one brave whistle-blower to draw attention to any possible corruption. Now, it may well be just "one scientists opinion" (as you point out), but it could turn out to be an opinion very many people share outside of the organisation when they begin to gain a greater understanding of what is taking place within it. As in all classic whistle-blowing situations, it take one individual to unsettle a whole house of cards - and it may take much less time than 20 years to prove either one way or the other... 20 days more like. IF there is anything to blow a whistle on, that is - let's wait and see. quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
The triumphalism shown here is interesting based on, as Lucibee points out, one or two scientists opinion. It says everything about the denialist approach. Only Suricat on this forum comes up with serious arguments against.
You're very observant Seskinreay. I think any tone of triumphalism (and I hope I haven't shown any) comes from a sense that something which appears to be impenetrable have been found to have a dent in it. That may say a lot about denialism... but it would be well worth you thinking about where the denial is coming from and how much value you should place in it. This might be especially important in relation to the responses on this thread. From all our exchanges, it sounds odd to hear you using words like this as you're clearly someone who likes - and demands - to work things out and arrive at your own, independent, conclusions... or to try keeping an open mind when you find no satisfactory conclusions to answer your enquiries. And yes I agree, Suricat always has interesting and fresh angles on the subject. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver: Why are you asking me that? I thought it was a simple question. Christie said I often mention that early in my career I served as a missionary in Africa. I lived upcountry with people who did not have access to useful energy. Put simply, access to energy means life, it means a longer and better life. I watched as women walked in the early morning to the forest edge, often several miles away, to chop wet green wood for fuel. They became beasts of burden as they carried the wood on their backs on the return trip home. Wood and dung are terrible sources of energy, with low useful output while creating high pollution levels. Burning wood and dung inside the homes for cooking and heat created a dangerously polluted indoor atmosphere for the family. I always thought that if each home could be fitted with an electric light bulb and a microwave oven electrified by a coal-fired power plant, several good things would happen. The women would be freed to work on other more productive pursuits, the indoor air would be much cleaner so health would improve, food could be prepared more safely, there would be light for reading and advancement, information through television or radio would be received, and the forest with its beautiful ecosystem could be saved. Access to inexpensive, efficient energy would enhance the lives of the Africans while at the same time enhance the environment. Why did he say that, and why did you quote it? What is the relevance to the topic? EOQ that's a quote from a different link to the one I was quoting..... LINK
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver: that's a quote from a different link to the one I was quoting..... LINK
You are correct but isn't one just a more complete version of the other? My question is equally valid for both. I ask again, what is the relevance? BTW the std "end quote" here is [/q u o t e] (without the spaces). Increases clarity IMO. |
| |
|
|
[Do any of you lot actually follow the links posted or is it a case of jotting down the name and looking it up on source watch?] Got a point there mufcdiver – for sceptics the quickest slapdown link I could find usually suffices so perhaps a bit of laziness on my part. As for Christy’s missionary position. Aye mufcdiver – it’s right at the end of the full WSJ article. Not being a subscriber to the WSJ I couldn’t see it until this morning then the full article popped up! Funny peculiar. [TrueSceptic “They never admit error and never apologise when they make accusations that are shown to be false. It's part of the mindset.”] I may indeed be wrong! Again! Realclimate state:- “The first part of the Christy and Spencer letter simply admits the error that Mears et al. found back in August.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/more-satellite-stuff/ |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
The triumphalism shown here is interesting based on, as Lucibee points out, one or two scientists opinion. It says everything about the denialist approach. Only Suricat on this forum comes up with serious arguments against.
You're very observant Seskinreay. I think any tone of triumphalism (and I hope I haven't shown any) comes from a sense that something which appears to be impenetrable have been found to have a dent in it. That may say a lot about denialism... but it would be well worth you thinking about where the denial is coming from and how much value you should place in it. This might be especially important in relation to the responses on this thread. From all our exchanges, it sounds odd to hear you using words like this as you're clearly someone who likes - and demands - to work things out and arrive at your own, independent, conclusions... or to try keeping an open mind when you find no satisfactory conclusions to answer your enquiries. And yes I agree, Suricat always has interesting and fresh angles on the subject.
Rog, are you being nice to me? In order to help me arrive at my consclusions perhaps you could answer my demands for a defence of your previous statements re population growth and the raising of certain substance levels within a living body beyond a safe threshold. These arguments are fundemental to the dangers posed to a sustainable future for everybody. Re denialism, the thing about Steve_M, TrueSkectic, RealPrimate et al is they understand true scepticism in stark contrast to the others who simply see conspiracy or sinister political agendas when the evidence for anybody who cares to open their eyes is that the climate is changing for the worst. For example, in the past few days it is reported that the state of Tabasco, Mexico, in an unprecednted disaster is 80% covered in flood water. A massive hailstorm has hit Bogata, Columbia, burying cars in a sheet of ice (reminiscent of "The Day After Tomorrow" !?). During the summer, Flood water covered a collosal area of Central Africa streching from East to West coasts. And of course, the UK, was hit by massive flooding TWICE during the summer months. Are you really so sure I don't need to be concerned? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate: [TrueSceptic “They never admit error and never apologise when they make accusations that are shown to be false. It's part of the mindset.”] I may indeed be wrong! Again! Realclimate state:- “The first part of the Christy and Spencer letter simply admits the error that Mears et al. found back in August.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/more-satellite-stuff/
That is good, and I think that Steve_M did say that Christy is an ethical scientist. My observation was on climate "sceptics" in general. There will always be honourable exceptions. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by realprimate: [TrueSceptic “They never admit error and never apologise when they make accusations that are shown to be false. It's part of the mindset.”] I may indeed be wrong! Again! Realclimate state:- “The first part of the Christy and Spencer letter simply admits the error that Mears et al. found back in August.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/more-satellite-stuff/
That is good, and I think that Steve_M did say that Christy is an ethical scientist. My observation was on climate "sceptics" in general. There will always be honourable exceptions.
Ethical up to a point I think TS. I studied that realclimate article and the error was in 1998, Christy used it in a submission to the US senate and the error was apparently cleared up in 2005. Nice of him to be so quick and eager to right a wrong! Also Christy's WSJ article has some of the usual contrarian arguments that have been answered time and time before. |
| |
|
|
Honourable exceptions? I think Christy was on The Great Global Warming Swindle. He made a few remarks that George Monbiot didn't like.
The more I look at this Christy chappie the less I like about him.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Honourable exceptions? I think Christy was on The Great Global Warming Swindle. He made a few remarks that George Monbiot didn't like.
The more I look at this Christy chappie the less I like about him.
I try to be generous. After all, they can't all be dishonest, can they? I'll have to do some more checking... |
| |
|
|
quote: You are correct but isn't one just a more complete version of the other? My question is equally valid for both. I ask again, what is the relevance?
Sorry TS, the relevance is, is the pain worth the gain, I thought you might have seen that and answers yes! He, having seen how hard life is without the things (electricity) that we take for granted obviously has!The western world is just being hypocritical. Sorry for the delay in answering,I ran out of time last night  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver: Sorry TS, the relevance is, is the pain worth the gain, I thought you might have seen that and answers yes! He, having seen how hard life is without the things (electricity) that we take for granted obviously has!The western world is just being hypocritical. Sorry for the delay in answering,I ran out of time last night
So is Christy saying that by taking action about global warming we are somehow stopping the poorest of the world improving their lot? That is how I read it. |
| |
|
|
Yep - that seemed to be the general theme in GGWS. However, by doing nothing, I don't think the poorest of the world are going to get a particularly good deal either.
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
Yep - that seemed to be the general theme in GGWS. However, by doing nothing, I don't think the poorest of the world are going to get a particularly good deal either.
One of the many lies told in TGGWS is that anyone who thinks that GW requires action wants to prevent the world's poorest from the raising their standard of living. We have also seen "sceptics" claim here that the Kyoto agreement contains the same requirement. This is easily shown to be false: Kyoto excludes the developing world from the CO2 (and other) restrictions. I'd like to know in what way assistance for the developing world is affected either way by the developed world taking action against GW. |
| |
|
|
I think it's all these "well-meaning" carbon-offsetting "charities" who are going around rural India and Africa setting up solar panels for house-holders to run a light bulb to enable them to work into the night. Not sure whether it helps the developing world or not. Maybe it says more about our mothering instincts... <whoops!>
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
Too much psychobable on other thread, so re-post here.
Can someone confirm that the IPCC climate model(s) do or do not take into account the heat flow out from the Earth? This has been measured and is around 44 trillion watts, with over half of the heat flow through the oceanic lithosphere. Most of the oceanic heat flow is concentrated along the plate spreading centres. I have had a brief look at the IPCC physical science summary and could not find any reference to this particular heat flow into the environment.
Suricat
Thanks for your response(4 Nov) to my posting. No time to investigate yet. What I am getting at is that it appears to me the accuracy of the measurements needed to compute a mean global temperature are questionable. Just one particular point as an example, are the thermometers ALL calibrated against one standard and agreed reference to ensure compatibilty?
|
| |
|
|
I thought Steve_M answered you on the other thread...
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Can someone confirm that the IPCC climate model(s) do or do not take into account the heat flow out from the Earth?
I did link to a plot in the IPCC report (Chapter 5 figure 5.4) that examined the heat changes in various parts of the earth and showed that ocean heat content change amounted to 90% of the total change and so dominated by far other effects. In the text, the reference to the heat content of the lithosphere was Beltrami et al 2002. My gut feeling: As far as I am aware, models do not explicitly include the heat flow from the lithosphere. This would be an incorrect assumption to make if the heat flow changed significantly from time to time because it would falsify the assumptions used to build the models. But for comparison, the total forcing of all anthropogenic changes is estimated to be 1.6W/m^2 which amounts to 800 trillion watts increase in heating. So the change in anthropogenic forcing is about 20 times the total lithosphere heat flow. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
I did link to a plot in the IPCC report (Chapter 5 figure 5.4) that examined the heat changes in various parts of the earth and showed that ocean heat content change amounted to 90% of the total change and so dominated by far other effects. In the text, the reference to the heat content of the lithosphere was Beltrami et al 2002.
My gut feeling:
As far as I am aware, models do not explicitly include the heat flow from the lithosphere. This would be an incorrect assumption to make if the heat flow changed significantly from time to time because it would falsify the assumptions used to build the models.
But for comparison, the total forcing of all anthropogenic changes is estimated to be 1.6W/m^2 which amounts to 800 trillion watts increase in heating. So the change in anthropogenic forcing is about 20 times the total lithosphere heat flow.
Steve, Could you tell me where that is in the IPCC report? The main report is split into sections. TIA. |
| |
|
|
quote: Could you tell me where that is in the IPCC report? The main report is split into sections. TIA.
I'm referring to Chapter 5 "Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level" page 393 at: ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
I'm referring to Chapter 5 "Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level" page 393 at:
ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Thanks. This is something that needs to be more widely known IMO. |
| |
|
|
quote: So is Christy saying that by taking action about global warming we are somehow stopping the poorest of the world improving their lot? That is how I read it.
I've been doing some rummaging around since we started this TS(in the BBC greenroom) and I'm so sure that what Christy is saying here is sustainable, it looks like there maybe testing times in the near future for mankind even without thinking about GW. The future looks bleak!!! |
| |
|
|
quote: and I'm so sure that
should be a 'not in there somewhere 
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver: quote: So is Christy saying that by taking action about global warming we are somehow stopping the poorest of the world improving their lot? That is how I read it.
I've been doing some rummaging around since we started this TS(in the BBC greenroom) and I'm so sure that what Christy is saying here is sustainable, it looks like there maybe testing tim
| |
