1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Global Warming - The New Fear?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by mauron, 10 Apr 2007.

  1. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,145

  2. marin

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 707

    Location: Reykjavík - Iceland

    Corrected just for you - long day at work yesterday.

    I have read that many climate scientists do not regard glaciers as reliable indicators - for example Kilimanjaro shrinking glacier due to climate change, wrong it has now been proved to be done to de-forestation by local people, therefore reducing rainfall on the mountain.

    I think that many climate scientists have their own axe to grind and are looking out for their own interests. I also do not like it when data is requested from the IPCC or climate scientists it is not forthcoming - something to hide or just dodgy data ?
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  3. marin

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 707

    Location: Reykjavík - Iceland

    I thought that the media was on your side - they seem to think that everything related to weather, is an indicator of climate change, which it is not.

    I'm very interested in Science and always have been, what I'm not interested in is scientists jumping on a bandwagon with little or no evidence which as I and Von have pointed has happened for many years now and the world did not come to an end.

    Some examples I can think of are Eugenics, Acid Rain and the hole in the ozone layer.
     
  4. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,145

    On kilimanjaro

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157

    So many tropical glaciers are in retreat that singling out kilimanjaro and using deforestation as the latest denialists attempt to refute climate change is very silly in the extreme.

    Whilst we await a definitive outcome on kilimanjaro there is not doubt that tropical glaciers globally are retreating and only climate change can explain that.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  5. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Propagandist in this case is someone who spreads propaganda following theory atropological climate change. Denialist, according to your usage is someone who denies human involvment. I can't be one and the other in the same time, now, can I?

    You might have read enough but your memory is very, very short - the hockey stick is hockey stick because the way data is presented (convenient chunk of it) and filtered. Remember page 4 of this very thread? Different compilations of the same IPCC data:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    And for good measure I'll throw National Academy of Sciencies global cooling graph as used in 70ies to prove their theory (and no, it wasn't media thing - you would know that if you read anything about it - I'm actually quite sure our paranoid friend Hansen was involved in some of those researches at the time as well)
    [​IMG]
     
  6. marin

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 707

    Location: Reykjavík - Iceland

    Actually it is you who is incorrect.
     
  7. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,145

    Post me your proof Marin please as I have posted one for you to read.

    The hockey stick is proxy data from certain sources analysed in a certain way (but not only this way produced a hockey stick) montaged to form a graph that just so happenned to look like a hockey stick and the name stuck.

    if you are wrong but continue to argue that you are right even when the evidence is overwhelming (if not convincing in your mind) then that makes you denier picking up every littel possible quirk in the climate debate and trying to amplify it to mean something which it does and cannot. Sorry but there you are.

    There has been many attempts at reconstruction and the overall verdict was it was a viable graph scientifically. Climate scientists acknowledge that.

    That top graph is nonsense and you know it.

    On global cooling in the 1970's, show me your proof of it being an mass scientific consenus at the time please ? There was a time from 1940 to 1960 where rapid growth of economies post war released a lot of sulphur and NOx into the atmosphere and hence coold the atmosphere. That is well established in climate science and well referenced to in the scientific literature. The fact that some scientists may have shouted global cooling at the time did not make it a consensus and I believe that there error was corrected, as that is how science works.
     
  8. marin

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 707

    Location: Reykjavík - Iceland

    Please - you post a report from RealClimate the Biggest Axe Grinders of all, regarding Climate Change and who are raking it in by keeping this sham going for as long as possible, I'm no more likely to believe anything they post - than you are of anything Von and I post or link to.

    I can not find the link to the report at the moment - I will try and post it later.

    But here is the following two articles:-

    http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82933

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003745061_moteed13.html
     
  9. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Kid, do you have memory lapses or something? I schooled you on that graph for like 3 pages, now you are trying to explain to me what hockey stick graph is? WTF? I'm getting tired of your "back to square one" antics to be honest. How can anyone discuss anything with you if your attention span is limited to about 2 hours and then you just start your propaganda tape from scratch.


    But I'm not - reasonable doubt about the whole thing exists, there is no scientific consensus and hockey stick and MHB98 was doubted and blown out of water almost every single time it was reviewed by independent panel, we discussed it too, remember? The fact Mann had to be told by Congress to stop screwing around and make data available for review didn't help it either.

    You can think "evidence is overwhelming" only if you are stuck reading the same website. Seriously. It's not even funny.

    And what do you do? Look at your posts over last 8 pages - it's the biggest collection of neat picking nospoondamentalizm in action I have ever seen in my life.
    Reasonable doubt. It is all that's needed. One proper scientific proof that says the earth is not flat, in fact, the sun doesn't even revolve around us. Achieved. Done. Dusted. There should be no more scaremonging and tax kicking everyone in the butt on the basis of wrongly compiled graph.

    Clearly not. Otherwise where did all the graphs above come from?

    Not all of them. We discussed it as well.

    Only to propagandists and fundamentalists. Really. It's IPCCs own data at the end of the day, just compiled by statisticians instead of meteorologists.

    Look up Damon and Kunen and read how they prove consensus (you should see Hansen's work thrown into it somewhere as well).
     
  10. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,145

    You just jump on any reasonable doubt as proof of it not happenning but explain away everything else that is hapenning then ? All the contrarians just keep on bring up the same old tired arguments and graphs and cannot explain all of the warming taking place. I guess you reckon it is the Sun I suppose ?

    Every indepdendent panel that analysed the hockey stick vindicated it more than they villified it, thats a fact I am sorry to say. Prove otherwise please.

    Lets leave it now. It takes up to much time to argue with you indepth. If you want to real argue with people in the know argue with real climate who I will know contact regarding Global Cooling once I have analysed the stuff you want me to look at. Betcha any money they refure what I already know to be nonsense from you.

    Looking at the articles for kunen etc I see no major issues here. AS for JAmes Hansen, http://www.audubonmagazine.org/global.html Seem like he was right all along.

    Realclimate take a stab at explaining it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

    We know more now and data sets were primitive then by all accounts.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  11. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    (Sigh....) We've been through that already. The whole point is always that it's cyclical. This is not the warmest period in the last few thousand years, at least not for us, humans, on land. Whatever we do in terms of reducing antropogenic CO2 is statistically insignificant in global emissions. Movement towards greener energy and less dependance on natural sources and fuels is always good, but not if it's at cost of extreme underdevelopment and poverty across the globe, and that's what we do at the moment, we offset our emissions by keeping emerging nations with a solar panel over their hut when they need to move up in food chain now, before there is not enough natural resources for them to develop ever.
    We are sold to hyper consumptionism, mainly under false pretentions of curing climate change. Companies and private people are forced to change fleets of cars every year to keep up with changing tax brackets but in the same time just pumping waste and emissions through another insustry. We are told it's good to change our house equipment, chase "A" labels, spend incredible money through revolving electronics, changing boilers, fitting meters, throwing resources right, left and centre. None of this is good for the planet. Do not kid yourself that filling up few barges with your junk, two year old washing machines and diposable 5 minute toys you are any greener than your parents who drove 20 year old Austin Maestro and washed their old clothes in 15 year old Bosch. "Switch off your standby" or "Unplug your charger" as green campaign is just border line laughable. This is leading nowhere. The whole CO2 targets, made up enforcements on households and pensioners sitting by the fluorescent bulb when entire cities stay lit up 24/7 is just bull***t. It's not helping anyone and anything.
    This green fascism is bad for us, bad for economy, bad for the world. We are barely 50 years into basic, and I mean, basic scientific understanding of what's happening around us and yet we pretend to have answers to all questions and pull made up data out of our ears with gun ready and pointed to shoot ourselves in feet. The whole movement of forcing human race into submission of technologies and economical advances on the back of guestimation and interpretation of some temperature graph is just another scare. And whoever started it, whoever benefits from tossing that poop into our faces plays around with 6 billion people, our money, our well being, our future based on nothing but hunch and theoretical speculations. You don't get to speculate on that scale. You either have proof and plan to fix it, or you stop screwing around. This shouldn't be a school prank with bunch of eggheads ganging up on someone in university cafeteria. You don't get to say "we have 10 years unless you stop 2/3rd of the worlds population living in China from entering 21st century in any shape and form" and be wrong about it. There simply can not be a shadow of a doubt to your prognosis.


    Of course you do. /Slap/
    You know, it doesn't even matter if you are teenager going through difficult period of perceiving everyone as inferior or just really angry person in general - weight this - I am one of the very, very few people who even bothers replying anymore to your two, sometimes three lines of what you serve to the world as posts - you should at least have respect for that, even if you don't respect my line of thinking.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  12. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,145

    that was a tongue in cheak joke m8.

    Well my interpretation of climate science and AGW differs from yours. Personally I would suggest that your deduction of it being cyclical is not proven and has no basis in current graphs or trends.

    Climate change aside you cant deny peak oil and gas are looming and hence doing something about clean alternative energy can't be a bad thing.

    I will ignore the rest of the ramblings as you come over very political and hence not to be trsuted.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  13. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    You do just that. Don't trust anyone, ignore everyone. I'm officially tired of trying to talk with you and you in reply talking at me. And on that bomb shell, allow me to leave you alone, to your righteous, always correct, hear no evil, see no evil, thereisnospooning self. Keep it up and who knows, you might become professional Global Warming spindoctor one day.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  14. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,145

    I am just looking at the science and taking an interest in what is being widely reported yes I use realclimate a lot because those guys are scientists and are not banging on about climate science for the good of their own health. but becuase the science warrants it.

    Thats enough for me. What we decide to do about it, what the green lobby want to do is not of that great an interest. Peak Oil and Gas are though as they appear to also be very real and very worrying.

    Here is one example of the skeptics nastyness when it comes to obfuscating the truth about climate science: Patrick Michaels literally lied about James hansens predcitions he made in 1988:

    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-before.html

    Anyone who has read around the the denialists knows who they are and what rubbish they have spouted. These denialists are all seemingly linked to the fossil fuel brigrade and have a knack to argue against major scientific idea that would derail the economy of the western world and free market economics.

    They lie, a lot.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  15. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Many, many, many of people who reckon global warming has nothing to do with man made emissions, but, for example, with solar activity are very switched on people too. You will find people at IPCC that are absolutely top league scientists and don't agree with Hansen and Mann. There are bright people behind each theory. As much as there are spindoctors and nasty career swingers.

    They do. But so do propagandist side as well. They truelly, fully, entirely, deserve each other most of the time.
    Which is why it should never, ever touch our lives unless there is true consensus. It's not the kind of game one should be playing with real people involved.
     
  16. Chris1983

    Gangster

    Joined: 17 Jan 2003

    Posts: 171

    Double-post
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  17. Chris1983

    Gangster

    Joined: 17 Jan 2003

    Posts: 171

    V0n I totally agree with you.

    Global warming caused by carbon dioxide is a scam, so that the powers that be can create a global tax.

    I'm not saying pollution is good either.

    Solar activity is directly linked to planetary temperature changes.

    The Fraud Effect

    If the public only knew:
    1. that 97% of the heat in the atmosphere gets there through conduction, convection, evaporation, etc., not radiation picked up by "greenhouse gasses,"
    2. that CO2 does most of its absorbing in 10 meters, and more can only shorten the distance,
    3. that past climate change has been immensely greater than anything recent (such as five times as much CO2 in the air during dinosaur years),
    4. that water vapor does a hundred times as much of what CO2 does, and in a much more varied way,
    they would know what a fraud is being perpetrated.

    Not telling them is a social fraud, not a dispute over science.


    Chris
     
  18. WIBSBOT

    Hitman

    Joined: 26 Sep 2003

    Posts: 834

    Location: essex

    It's interesting but unfortunately only gives one temperature per year. I'm assuming that these are averaged out temperatures for the year based on proxy data. In other words the actual temperature measurements are not present here, only figures behind the graphs. What I actually want is the raw data of all the temperature measurements taken, how they were taken (or estimated) and where they were taken.

    As I'm sure you are aware, there are many ways of taking proxy data, and many different ways of taking averages of sets of data (most of which are estimates) and especially when the measurements taken probably amount to a few sparse areas of our massive globe. They probably don't take into account deep sea temperatures, temperatures on an island in the middle of nowhere, temperatures taken during a particularly bad storm, temperatures on mountains, in valleys, in jungles, in deserts etc etc..

    Most of it is probably just guess work taken from tree rings, and ice core samples which are essentially meaningless :eek: :eek:

    Notice all the probablys - it just as Von says - there are too many uncertainties spouted as absolute facts, and I for one am not buying it.
     
  19. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,632

    Until they change from emissions to ppm in the atmosphere, then it's nothing more than scaremongering. It's the ppm that is critical not the emissions, cutting emissions even by 60% wont stop are start to reverse the ppm. It's just stupid, economic restraint that serves no purpose other than to increase taxs while achieving nothing..
     
  20. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,145

    Von is incorrect, if he can name one scientist who opposses the IPCC (and is a fully peer reviewed climate scientist) then let me know please. When some climate scientists say they are concerned they mean about the media hype and scaremongering about the planet burning and not about the science itself per se.

    The IPCC is a conservative body who downplay (due to politics) the seriousness of AGW.

    Vons assertions about global cooling in this thread are incorrect from what I have read, there was a well known period between 1940 and 1970 when sulphates were known to be cooling the planet and that is acknowledged by climate scientists the world over. So maybe there was a period of a few scientists talking about cooling because sulphates do have that effect. However James Hansen was not one of them as far as I can tell as von asserted.

    WIBSOT, you are just being unreasonable and quite frankly disingenuous to climate science. If you want the full raw data then write to the Hadley centre of GISS and ask them for it. Fortunately our politicians take less covincing and they matter more. Your whole edifice of proof and being convinced in unrealisitic.

    Chris1983, past cooling and warming is just an indicator as to what may happen but warming is relative to the lives we lead now, so if we all live around the coast and sea levels rise by a meter or so that is bad news.

    All your points and assertions have been answered many times by climate scientists but you do not want to hear it, water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing, scientists are only interested in forcings. It is denialists who try to make water vapour matter, the 10 meter assertion is incorrect on Co2 absorbption.

    It just amazes me that none of you have read the science correctly and are far easier to sway to the its now happenning camp even when they have been totally defeated with their stupid and incompetent views and opinions.

    There are no serious contrarions left to argue with scientifically, so now we have to work on the general population but with such a lot of vested interests and mcuh to lose such as progress etc, its a hopeless quest really I guess.