What Do We Think About Climate Change

Not all scientists work for the government. Most don't and even if they do, then only indirectly. Climate Science is build up by various fields in various countries. You are telling me that the IPCC (a non-elected body), which is a collection of the world's scientists are collectively wrong? I agree their science can be sold to us by a politician in many ways - as is happening just now by the position of the US Government, it doesn't stop the scientific position.

I never said statistics is a pseudo-science. However we all know the comment on statistics ("lies, damned lies etc"). The use of statistics is as important as the science of the method.

Example - you own a clothes shop in Beijing. A basketball team walks in for shoes. Good day for business. The next day a gymanastic team walks in. Good day for business. Now, would you predict the next day midgets would walk in on this basis? You couldn't predict what shoe size you'd need the next day. What and how you sample in statistics is important. You need to understand the area you are investigating (my criticism of McKitrick)

The increase in CO2 related to burning of fossil fuels is determined by radiotopic analysis (you'll no doubt have heard of carbon dating). Comparison can be made with air today with air frozen in ice-core samples. It is a fact.

Feel free to argue the risk of this climate change, feel free to hope that the earth or man is resilient enough. To deny the science as I say is to deny reality.

Yes, of course the earths climate does vary over time due to other factors such as orbits in space and amount of dust in atmosphere but these are out of our control. Adding something to atmosphere that changes it isn't a smart idea. I wouldn't like you polluting my garden, why pollute the air above it?


ps the 'little ice age" and 'medievel warm period" were not global phenonema. Basically it was local weather in certain areas - most probably caused by volcanic eruptions in certain regions. Also the short term and low temperature changes seen then are nothing like we are seeing even now.

ps cited papers in journals not peer reviewed are worthless. I can buy a book that says man walked the earth with dinosaurs - it isn't a fact. I can buy a bible or a koran - what it states isn't fact historically. Information of a scientific value can be only be accepted AFTER peer review and further proof through revalidation.

Hope the sun is shining on you Jim, I'm off to France next week to start topcoating 60m with black hull and metallic superstructure.

 

We need 60m rise before I am a beachside resident - not likely to happen in my lifetime - damn.

Mind you Westfield would need to build a new shopping centre and the council new roads as all roads leading from the house are presently lower than the house. Need to make the road over the hill through the park. Maybe easier just to use a boat to get to the shops. Now boats; that is what this forum is all about. So this thread does have something to do with boats. And here I was just thinking it was the drivel thread in drag.

Thinking about Australia will need more boats because we will have lots more water. Maybe a huge canal up the middle. We might end up with lots more water frontages but in different hands. The poor blighters with beach properties now are going to have trouble selling them. Clearly lots of implications. Maybe we will see more house boats here.

Rick W.

 

HeHe Rick, I'll need only 15 m, have the pullers for the boat ready for fitting on the side of the porch (correct word? Veranda)...

Ok, as stated above. (by Mastcolin, Boston and others...)... Level of CO2 has risen significantly. It's not rocket science to be a bit suspicious to the fact that some of our activities may help to generate some part of the change in the climate.

The age of the ice cores are pretty accurate, also the recent measures, since 1950's

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

So, that put togeter with the average temp rise the last 50 years or so....

CO2 isn't bad for plants. But CO2 has the physical property, that its pretty good as an insulating gas. Far better than regular air, that is.

We're living on a rock, floating in cold space, bombarded by sun rays, protected by a layer of gases, air, water, o2, co2, n2 and few others...

How Much CO2 Are You Producing? http://edro.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/how-much-co2/

ohhh, ****.....

The HP15C is your true friend, it'll show us the right ways.....

Ok; this will be a bit jumpy, so the short minded fellas can skip reading....
This rock is approx 12700 km across...
Area of a sphere is: A= pi x d x d that'll be 5,0671 e14 M2. Lots of sq mtrs. Pleeenty.
1 M3 of CO2 weight approx 2 kg (a little less actually).
This internet page states that there is today a
3008879,4 MMT thats 300887940000000 kgs... That should be something like 1,5044 e15 M3 of CO2, spread this evenly over this rock, divide this on the area of this rock, we'll find out the thickness of todays' CO2 layer. That should equal to approx 2,97 m of CO2, Can simplify and say that 1000 GMT equal one meter of CO2, not much, think of all the altitude this gas is spread upon...

But then.... They also state that since 1750, there's been an increase in CO2 equal to 1271800 MMT (1271,8 GMT). Ice core samples show that pretty accurate. I've found some pretty similar values for this other places.

So, it seem in the area of 1-1,3 m thickness of CO2 has been added, over the last couple of centuries, all over this place.... That's one helluva blanket, with almost twice the insulating capasity at the air it replaces.... My sleepeing bag is only about 10 cm at top, but it'll keep me warm to -15° C (tested... ).

So, if we did like the average temperatures we've enjoyed in the period 1000 -1800 screw the "little ice age" that was for ******* and whimps, what we may enjoy here will be much more interesting.

I'll keep the pullerts ready for my porch/ veranda (Veranda - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verandah). The moorings will have to be placed on my neighbors doorstep, but I can wait with that until he moves, He'll probably be a bit grumpy if he stumbles upon those going out of his door to get the newspaper....

But I'd rather that more people wake up and realise that I'll need the exersice down to the harbour, and back. If you don't want to change your ways to reduce our impact on the climate, do it to piss me off, making my planned pullers and moorings a lost dream....

 

For those who appreciate information from a "higher source", perhaps this brief interview from Benny Hinn talking to Samuel Doctorian will give some different perspectives.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkbWyUApPEU

and here are some words from Samuel Doctorian http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/The.5.Angels.of.Continents.html

 

Boston,
I'm glad that you brought in the graphs from the latest IPCC report (the 2nd graph), because they illustrate my point perfectly WRT scientific bias morphing into propaganda. You stated that the graph represented the work of "about 20 different people". Actually this is not accurate, though you or any other casual observer could easily be forgiven for thinking that this is so. The graph shows lines of different color, presumably from different independent authors and studies, arriving at the same conclusion. Hundreds of independent reconstructions of the historical temperature record have indeed been accomplished by numerous authors and it certainly would have been very easy to compile a bunch of them for this composite graph. Doing so would help eliminate bias or errors; different independent scientists reaching the same conclusion independently gives that conclusion much more weight. This is the essence of peer review.

Unfortunately, that is NOT the case with this graph. Instead it reperesents the studies of only ONE scientist, Biffra, who replaced Mann as lead author after the 'hockey stick' debacle. Now he certainly could have selected reconstructions from many different authors. But instead he chose only one; himself. The graph has been carefully packaged to intentionally give the appearance of peer review with its different color lines, because the idea that the conclusions of the IPCC are the result of strict adherence to the peer review process is what is being sold.

Ok, so the IPCC compilers are clearly trying to sell the credibility of this graph, but that does not in itself mean the graph is wrong. But what if that one scientist (Biffra) was biased? If he truncated 20-30 years of data from the certain traces because they trended downward, which is less scary, would that not prove bias? I mean if he wanted to establish a mean, he should have truncated data from both the lowest trending AND highest trending traces, no? But instead, he truncated the traces which trended lower in an obvious attempt to make his graph look more scary. That is scientific bias, which makes his work so much propaganda. So much for peer review.


On the whole issue of whether or not the IPCC is biased, it stretches credulity that one even needs to ask the question. The UN is a political body. Politics is the struggle for power. The IPCC is an arm of the UN and is therefore part of its agenda. The IPCC regularly suppresses or ignores opinions from its own authors contrary to its preconceived conclusion that AGW is a reality for which we must take decisive action RIGHT NOW. Action of the kind they call for requires that the UN take on unprecedented powers. This would be a big win for any political organization.

But according to their most recent report we can expect the earth to warm about the same amount in this new century as it did in the last. Ditto for sea level increases. Nothing too scary.

Meanwhile, the AGW alarmist crowd continues to make a mockery of scientific peer review.

Jimbo

 

First there was the theory that CO2 was a greenhouse gas -- in researching the theory using ice core samples, it was found there is a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and earth temperature.

Any first year student of logic understands that correlation is not causation -- so the research continues to determine which came first, CO2 or increased temperature? All studies I've seen show increased temperature came first, CO2 second.

If this is correct, CO2 is the result of increased temperature, increased temperature is not the result of increased CO2.

Think about all of the ice ages in the past -- not just the "little ice age". The little ice age is simply unique because it was a long term temperature fluctuation we were able to measure and record after the invention of the thermometer -- but these fluctuations have been happening since the beginning of time -- long before any man-made influences.

Consider the question -- CO2 is the result of increased temperature, or increased temperature is the result of increased CO2. Which is the case?

We all know we've had ice ages in the past -- why did they end? Could it be the sun? -- Yes. Would the sun heating the earth raise CO2 levels? -- Yes, because it would cause plankton blooms.

We all know we've had ice ages in the past -- why did they end? Could it be the CO2? -- No evidence. What would raise the CO2 levels (in the absence of man) to cause temperature increases that end the ice ages? -- There's either no answer, or the answer is "natural sources".

All of the evidence points to the sun as the source of climate change. The fact that the polar ice caps on Mars have had the same waxing and waning as the polar ice caps on Earth is seen by some as compelling evidence.

 

Knut, Masalai and others,
Have you read my last post (#838)? What do you think on Spencer's statements?

Cheers.

 

Gimme' a gov't contract to study penguin turds

Money and war (often synonymous) drive science. In the interest of Mother Earth (puke), the US Government needs to give me a contract for at least 100 boats to further research this fascinating religion, oops, I mean scientific phenomena of global warming.

The earth cooled a record .7 degrees C in 2007.
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/surprise-the-earth-cooled-down-in-2007/

This terrifying fact means the next ice age could be upon us as well...and so much "faster than we orginally thought!" We're going to be freezing and boiling at the same time. The only living things to survive will be Florida snowbirds (OH in summer and FL in winter) and Al Gore in his mansion insulated by a foot of solid gold stucco.

So, hey Feds, get your top government scientists on this right away...in my boats! I'll give a substantial, two or three percent discount for an order of 100 or more. I'll even engineer a hybrid power situation so you can "save us money too!" <now that's funny!>

p.s. Sheetwise has the smoking gun in my humble opinion. More warmth, more growing area, more plants and, then, more CO2. The record is quite clear. Doh!

 

Since 1998, there has been no ‘global warming’, despite the fact that, during this same period, atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise, from c. 368 ppm by volume in 1998 to c. 384 ppmv in November, 2007. Moreover, another ‘greenhouse gas’, methane, has also been rising, following a period of relative stability, by about 0.5% between 2006 and 2007.

Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, comments: “Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.”

Dr. Velasco Herrera predicts a soon coming new Little Ice Age:
http://banderasnews.com/0808/eden-littleiceage.htm
Cheers.

 

depends a bit on whose data you c&p eh?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

""Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

 

depends a bit on whose data you c&p eh? ...

Yes.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-...e_in_total_disagareement_with_nasa_satellite/

Cheers.

 

From Spencer's presentation:

"...we have stumbled upon clear and convincing observational evidence of particularly strong negative feedback (low climate sensitivity) from our latest and best satellite instruments. That evidence includes our development of two new methods for extracting the feedback signal from either observational or climate model data, a goal which has been called the “holy grail” of climate research.
The first method separates the true signature of feedback, wherein radiative flux variations are highly correlated to the temperature changes which cause them, from internally-generated radiative forcings, which are uncorrelated to the temperature variations which result from them. It is the latter signal which has been ignored in all previous studies, the neglect of which biases feedback diagnoses in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity).
Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100."

Cheers.

 

I guess you could argue it has something to do with a solar boat. But otherwise not much boating in this post.

The Australian BOM has some great data available in weather. Here is one example:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cli_var/area_timeseries.pl

The value of this site is its lets people play around with recorded weather data over the continent themselves without having to rely on individual "scientific" manipulation of the data. You are simply relying on the voracity of a collection of half trained offsprings of cow cockies or some such and the accuracy of their instruments. Remembering their existence depends on the vagaries of the weather so they are keen observers.

The unique thing about Australia is that there is not much in the middle apart from maybe one or two cattle per square kilometre and the occasional kangaroo. These are not likely to have changed the country side much in the past 50 years. (Keep clear of the western side of Mt Isa because no doubt it has impacted the landscape for a good distance.) Also not much on either side apart from vast expanses of ocean. I have attached an example of annual average temperate for a spot in the middle of NSW. I guess near Cobar.

The data on the particular page linked goes back to 1950. Some of the individual locations go back to late 1800.

So without going into all the peer review nonsense that has become such a feature of this nonsense thread (notice I did not say crap) you can just do your own analysis and make up your own mind based on unbiased data.

I have also used similar data available for South Africa and less so with the USA data. I know SA is trending drier like Oz.

I should point out that my main interest in this topic is if I will have beach side at the house frontage in my lifetime.

Rick W

 

Congratulations-
You have managed to find a real champion of "science".

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[

Who in all fairness also says this:

"Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately."

 

Good post, Rick.

bntii,
So, what do you find in Spencer's words that make you doubt about him being a good scientist? Look at his background: the guy doesn't seem to be an stupid or ignorant. I agree with what he says on evolutionism and creationism, which just is we can consider nothing as an absolute truth and we should have an open mind and consider all possibilities. Even on evolutionism.

And anyhow we are only discussing here climate change, and is not fair to try to scorn other opinions by using his/hers thoughts on other subjects. That's fundamentalism, in my opinion.

The very root of scientific development lies on what the ancient greeks called 'epojé' or the 'permanent doubtness condition'. That's what makes us advance.

There is a nice saying: a conclusion is when we get tired of thinking.

Cheers.