satguru 
|
Just because someone was trying to be funny doesn't make the case any stronger though. And the IPCC did say Britain would be snow free by 2010, and we had the two worst winters in over 50 years. There's a briefing around (I didn't save it, it wasn't exactly valuable) which tells the media not to bother mentioning global warming in the winter as people are less likely to believe it. They are well versed in such tactics as they also know you can't sell a bad message in the wrong context.
I'd pay far more attention to the disagreement which has surrounded every single figure here and elsewhere. Temperature, sea level, ice coverage, CO2 absorption, etc etc. Find a study that says one thing and someone else can find one that says the other. Every single time. All equally qualified, an absolute plethora of measurement methods, which they then go into incredible detail analysing the differences and why some are reliable and others not. If they're not that reliable why use them? And time scales- some say you need hundreds or more years to see a genuine trend, others say a peak year is all you need. Not even on opposing sides. All a prosecution neeeds is reasonable doubt to fail. Are you all happy with these as a sufficient basis to change the structure of the whole world's industry and economy?
Reply #421. Aug 01 11, 11:18 AM
|
daver852
|
If there was any truth in global warming we wouldn't be having winters anymore - is exactly right. The proponents of this ridiculous theory have made innumerable predictions, none of which have come to pass. The Maldives and Miami are still above water; the arctic and antarctic ice caps are still there; polar bears are not extinct, and (most importantly) global temperatures are NOT rising.
Reply #423. Aug 01 11, 1:10 PM
|
daymare
|
daver - are there ideas/concepts you believe in which are disagreed with by others?
satguru is keeping us aprised. While we choose to go with it or not, I appreciate him taking the time to keep up with the data.
I would love to be informed of the reason our summers are now in the 90s and 100s if not for global warming. Indian Summer was the only time it used to occur.
Reply #424. Aug 01 11, 1:21 PM
|
satguru
|
I'd need pages of information but the seasons are not important as the winters are basically cancelling out the summers, as is dry and wet weather. The climate tends to balance itself out annually or so, and it's always the big picture that has to be used and not any variations within it.
The next major problem is the data collection. Land measurement since 1850-1989, then satellite and before them all can only use proxy, which has a greatly different error margin. The current figure we are talking about is 0.5c in a century. To any meteorologists like Joe Bastardi, Piers Corbyn or the like that is not news or significant, and also part of a further error margin which is able to smooth those figures almost to zero if was near the edge of it. Far too little to count.
Reply #425. Aug 01 11, 2:33 PM
|
fontenilles
|
"If there was any truth in global warming we wouldn't be having winters anymore - is exactly right."
No No a thousand times no!
It's just not how the whole thing works
Check out some respectable links - NASA is quite good.
David Many of the links you post look like spoof websites to me - They have graphics/ colours etc that I've seen before from dubious sources!
Reply #426. Aug 01 11, 4:02 PM
|
daymare
|
NASA punched the first hole in the ozone. Why believe what they write.
Reply #427. Aug 01 11, 4:30 PM
|
daver852
|
If you only visit websites you agree with, you'll never learn anything.
Reply #429. Aug 01 11, 7:22 PM
|
satguru
|
I was curious about the sea level after the earlier confusion, and have just checked about ten different diagrams across the board, and although the local ones vary greatly (again, it's like temperature, and different all over the world, plus measured in a good few different ways) the general trends do not, and even the IPCC concluded in 2001 there was no unusual rise in the 20th century, and it has slowed since then. This was the clearest diagram I could find, and varations with detail or local versions abound which all agree, and the huge peak was 22,000 years ago, and whatever man has emitted since 1850 can clearly be seen not to have affected the slowing rise.  http://integrallife.com/member/barbi-hammond/blog/role-external-planetary-conditions-interior-development?show=all
As I keep being accused of cherry picking and worse picking spoof sites I have added some corroboration.
The NOAA focus on US states individually, and each has a mind of its own despite only a few hundred miles apart, but this is the current spread and the trends pretty much speak for themselves.
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0S0zuyRUjdOzW4A1r5NBQx.?p=sea+level+noaa&fr=&ei=utf-8&x=wrt&y=Search
I'd personally call much of the NOAA material on climate spoof but as they supply the US government with their figures I'd hope no one else would agree with me. The main diagrams all appear to represent the last 120 years and are no different in general from the UK and Australian ones I think I posted a while back in the forums. They again were from the coastguard service so no fakery going on there.
Reply #430. Aug 01 11, 7:33 PM
|
daymare
|
'visit website you agree with, you'll never learn anything"...
How in the world would you know if you found a website you agree with unless you explore the internet as a whole?
Reply #431. Aug 01 11, 7:38 PM
|
satguru
|
"if the Western Antarctic and Greenland sheets rise the sea level would rise about 24 feet." should be 'melt' not rise the first time. You guessed that, right?
Reply #433. Aug 01 11, 8:43 PM
|
daymare
|
I bet it satisfied the coldists.
Reply #435. Aug 02 11, 7:41 AM
|
| Trademarc
|
No, the ice caps do not disappear during an interglacial period. Easily proven as we are in an interglacial right now and we have ice caps. There have been a couple of periods since polar bears evolved (about 150,000 years ago) that may have been warm enough to melt the ice caps during the summer season, but even these periods are borderline whether they were warm enough and it is quite possible that polar bears have never had to deal with an ice free polar cap since they first evolved. You would have to go back about a million years to find a period warm enough to say with good certainty that the poles were ice free.
Re reply #428 satguru.
It is clear from the graphs in that link that solar irradiance has been in decline for a good 30 years. So why is it that the temperatures have been increasing during that time? Could it be that it’s not the sun but something like, oh I don’t know, greenhouse gases perhaps? In fact this is much the same claim that I already debunked back in reply #357.
Re reply #430 satguru
Perhaps it’s the fact that as you already admitted you find graphs “hard to follow”, but I don’t see any slowing of the rise here but quite the opposite. The first graph in your link spans 140,000 years and you can see the sea rise is pretty flat for about the last 8,000 years. Obviously with a graph spanning 140,000 years a period of 100 years is lost, but they have given us a second graph underneath, which spans 3,000 years and clearly shows a steep acceleration (in red) of sea level rise in the last 150 years. The complete opposite of what you are claiming!
Quote from your link “Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.”
Re reply #419 satguru
Well I think as far as sources go this is a new low even for you satguru. I am well aware of the ridiculous conspiracy theory known as “chemtrails”, where people think that the contrails (condensed water vapour) left by aircraft are in fact chemicals being used to drug the populace. Why you would use such a website as a source for geo-engineering information beggars belief?
Reply #437. Aug 03 11, 8:42 AM
|
boxjaw
|
Glad to see you back on the thread Trademarc. Keep 'em on their toes.
Reply #438. Aug 03 11, 8:53 AM
|
satguru
|
If I have the time tomorrow I'll go through at least some of those trademarc, suffice to say half or so of the links corroborated at least one other and the interpretations I gave were from the studies, I wouldn't dream or dare to make my own conclusions as that is what I rely on the scientists for before I make my own conclusions.
Now I'll repeat what I did before. Although I'll check when I have more time these graphs can be extremely open to interpretation. Why not simply take the big picture. Sea level for example is rising at a foot a century at present. Not an issue. Temperature is rising at 0.5C a century at present. Not an issue. I'll now have to check about the ice as from my past research it has been mentioned the earth has been free of ice longer than with ice caps. That's such an easy one I hope someone beats me to it as I'm going to bed now so have 10 hours or so before I'm back on the keyboard.
But for everyone as well, picking little holes in details as if it makes the big picture different is not scientific as it uses induction. From the particular (like hot weeks, storms, tornados etc) to the general, or worse still minor fluctuations within a much wider picture to the general as I've just been accused of. But I attach all my findings to the big picture of those two major figures, and sadly the only data which contradicts them is in the graphs made by the IPCC which haven't happened yet. Again, that's not really science, sorry. They get extremely well paid and have qualifications that get you half a page of letters after your name, but that really isn't what they spent all those years studying to do and is such a waste of resources I think it should all be paid back.
Reply #439. Aug 03 11, 9:13 PM
|
satguru
|
One thing that blows apart the futurist emphasis of warmism is history. The medieval warm period is in texts going back for decades, yet vanishes around 1990. But you can't burn every single old book and it's there as it was accepted as real before it interfered with Michael Mann's pet theory. But please check before making claims based on history. I would not dare to quote facts which have happened (as opposed to in dispute which are uncertain by definition) as should no one else. If I say there have been no ice caps throughout history then it's a bit of a liberty to try and revise history. http://www.seaonscreen.org/vleet/content/eng/glacial-ages-etc.htm
The next points. The sea level is one graph it's easy to follow overall, the only complexities are it is an average and not either constant in place or time (like temperature) and again like temperature it uses tide gauges and satellites and they don't always agree either. But those are within the graphs I find so irrelevant as every one says the same thing, the rate of rise is declining. That, like the history, is a constant. There's no point rearranging the figures, bringing in projections or any other minutiae, as I said about induction those sea levels are slowing, end of.
The chemtrails are not a secret. The word itself. 'geoengineering' is a reality, made solely for the purpose of 'neutralising the atmospheric CO2'. That, if anything ever could be described so, is pure denial as it's a fact and something the UN are extremely proud of. If you haven't ever come across it that's not my fault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering
The solar activity is another matter and one I'd need hours just to present, but the current state of play is that sunspots and solar rays are greatly obscure as drivers of climate, as until recently no one needed to know as the climate was a theoretical discipline and not a proactive one making policies and plans. So they basically learned from simple scientific curiosity, much like astronomy. A few meteorologists like Piers Corbyn had found links which they use to make accurate forecasts, but this was a private enterprise and not reported for business reasons as everyone else could do it otherwise. The data itself is complicated by possible time lags as well, but the correlations between solar minimums and temperatures have been documented in the same way as many others, but as yet the proof between them or CO2 and causation are still uncertain whatever others may claim. This is an infant area of science and as such should be considered as a distinct possibility and now the chips are down the smart researchers are doing their best to fill a research gap with the minimum of funding as the UN dismissed solar changes from day one, thus virtually guaranteeing all further research would be suppressed as there would be no funding. That's not science either. But if you are a scientist here's a paper on it which only a scientist could follow http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
So, in conclusion,
1) Sea levels can clearly be seen to be flattening off whichever way you use to look at it, I've already posted the links.
2) Geoengineering is a new branch of science which sprays metal salts and other pollutants into the air to attempt to remove CO2. If you dismiss that then unfortunately I can't rely on anything else you say.
3) Ditto for ice caps, there has been more time without ice than with it, and again you can't simply wipe away history when it disagrees with your beliefs.
4) The new research is finding gradually more solar effects on temperature as you'd expect as only the sun creates the heat in the first place. Due to lack of funding and dismissal by the IPCC this research is lagging way behind the others but history has various solar minimums which appear to coincide with dips in temperature. It is totally dismissed by the IPCC so they have ignored it although it may end up being the actual cause of most temperature cycles, along with the far better known distance and dip of the earth to the sun which also has long term cycles like seasons of many years of warmer and colder periods as the earth's dip and distance from the sun do also vary in cycles. Like the annual seasons where a small change in angle can add many degrees a much smaller one will be proportionately significant. But just because solar rays and sunspots are not physically connected to our climate directly doesn't mean they don't affect it, we just need to learn how.
I have always said as I'm not a scientist I can't review studies, although some are clearly worthless on both sides so don't make the cut, but nowadays when something is discovered it's not just the one study so eliminates the rogues. I've seen a mathematically complex paper that said there was no greenhouse effect, the maths was maths so beyond me by definition, but felt wrong and I never touched it. But those are the extremes. In the middle we have a vast collection of conflict, and with such conflict it implies the situation is not certain. Had political policies not been a creation of these findings then it would make not a jot of difference to me or anyone else, they could do what every other area of science has always done, learn by trying to disprove their latest findings, and keep trying to repeat their results. If it then leads to new inventions and benefits our society grows and improves. Till now that was how science works, now they have a situation where a theory which is not based on conventional observations but mainly selected data, adjustments, elimination (a climatologist on the radio admitted when there had been an anomalous warming they eliminated all known causes and CO2 was the only new factor so they simply blamed that) and worst of them all computer predictions. And to remind everyone CO2 is 3% of greenhouse gas, and we make 3% of that. Yet major solar variations are ignored to focus on that. Just wondering how that can become the most influential theory since the earth was found to rotate around the sun?
Reply #440. Aug 04 11, 9:44 AM
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: