What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by Rick Willoughby

On the same topic he has commented that the motor car is quite an effective tool for natural selection for the human race in modern times. Those who drink and drive tend to have a short life. Often do not make it to breeding stage.

Yes, but other than this (my take exactly) we are busily working at destroying the evolution of humans by circumventing natural selection. One wonders where this path leads and how you deal with such questions, should you choose too, given our beliefs and morals. Tricky territory.... we are never going to let nature take her course, so where does this course we are following lead?

[Guillermo]

Don't worry Gorilla, you're bound for extinction in the coming Ice Age! Natural selection working.....

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Perry,
Could it be that nobody cared a damn thing about the 'Culex pipiens', because it only bit birds, but now that it bites humans in the Underground, it just suffered a name switch to 'molestus'...?

Cheers.

[Pierre R]

Thanks for that last line Guillermo. That is just the kind of link that sumarizes where I have come to in the debate.

[Pericles]

MB,

Humans culling themselves is natural selection, for humans.! It's what we do!

Paradox? NO!

Perry

[Guillermo]

Something interesting from the proposal of the 9.1 M euros CLOUD experiment to the CERN.
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/docum...d_proposal.pdf

"The observation that warm weather seems to coincide with high sunspot counts and cool weather with low sunspot counts was made as long ago as two hundred years by the astronomer William Herschel who noticed that the price of wheat in England was lower when there were many sunspots, and higher when there were few."

What's the CLOUD experiment? Here the Abstract from a Jasper Kirkby's paper (CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. 2002)
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/docum...irkby_iaci.pdf

"Palaeoclimatic data provide extensive evidence for solar forcing of the climate during the Holocene1 and the last ice age, but the underlying mechanism remains a mystery. However recent observations suggest that cosmic rays may play a key role. Satellite data have revealed a surprising correlation between cosmic ray intensity and the fraction of the Earth covered by low clouds [1, 2]. Since the cosmic ray intensity is modulated by the solar wind, this may be an important clue to the long-sought mechanism for solar-climate variability. In order to test whether cosmic rays and clouds are causally linked and, if so, to understand the microphysical mechanisms, a novel experiment known as CLOUD has been proposed [3]–[5]. CLOUD proposes to investigate ion-aerosol-cloud microphysics under controlled laboratory conditions using a beam from a particle accelerator, which provides a precisely adjustable and measurable artificial source of cosmic rays. The heart of the experiment is a precision cloud chamber that recreates cloud conditions throughout the atmosphere."


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Pierre R

Thanks for that last line Guillermo. That is just the kind of link that sumarizes where I have come to in the debate.

The one about the Culex pipians?

Cheers.

[Pericles]

Worrying weather prediction for UK.

http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/f...tion_Nov08.pdf

Let's see what happens Wednesday to Friday.

Perry

[Guillermo]

Don't worry. A minor nuisance.

Your friends at the Met Office do not believe in global cooling: Global Warming goes on.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...ng_goes_on.pdf

Cheers.

[Pericles]

The Met Office! I spit on the Met Office.

Perry

[Pericles]

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpei...iser-Nov08.pdf

Hat tip to http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_...nglishmen.html

[Guillermo]

You have posted twice!
I answered about the first link at the other thread. I tried to answer here on the 'Mad Englishmen and Dogs' thing , but was unable to open it.

Cheers

[Pericles]

Guillermo,

I went for a broad brush scenario for maximum spread. The links would not have opened a second time, if they were still open on your desktop.

Perry

[Guillermo]

Something on Benny Peiser:
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser)

Peiser examined an essay by Naomi Oreskes published in the academic journal Science which showed the lack of dissenting opinions in a sample of 928 peer reviewed articles on global climate change.

Peiser tried to repeat the study, but failed to reconstruct the article set with the specified search key words 'climate change'. Oreskes sent in a correction to Science explaining that the keywords used in the ISI database search were in fact 'global climate change' and not 'climate change' as originally stated.

Peiser then performed a similar survey with the keywords 'climate change' and searched for 'all document types' (which would include non-scientific, non-peer reviewed publications) rather than limiting the search to 'articles' (i.e., peer-reviewed publications) as in Oreskes' study.

In a letter to Science, Peiser claimed that only 29% of such papers agreed with the consensus viewpoint, while 3% explicitly disagreed. Science choose not to publish Peiser's letter for a variety of reasons and indicated that the information had already been "widely dispersed on the internet". Peiser felt that Science had made the wrong decision and published the correspondence on his webpage. This led some to question whether Science were censoring the debate on global warming.

One of his main points of criticism is his claim that the vast majority of the abstracts referred to in the study do not mention anthropogenic climate change, and only 13 of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorse what Oreskes called the "consensus view".


(bolded is mine)
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

"There have been reports from many parts of the world that October 2008 was unusually cold. But, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), announced that last month “was the hottest on record”. GISS is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the October, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So who should we believe….the warmers or, the coolers?

Science is all about validating hypotheses by data analysis,,,but, what if the data is wrong? Independent analysis of the GISS data showed that temperature records from Russia were not based on October readings at all. Since October data was unavailable in time, GISS used data from September in place of October data.

This is not the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called into question. In 2007 he was forced by Watts and McIntyre (Watts Up With That and Climate Audit) to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Beware politically motivated scientists (& all politicians) who don’t check their data!"


For the NOAA data audit, see: http://www.climateaudit.org/

Cheers.