Rules: Read Me!
Admin: sue943
Legal / Conditions of Use

Page 3 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 >
Topic Options
#563557 - Sat Nov 06 2010 11:29 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
So while the US begin their climate investigations, the UN announce a plan to 'tackle climate change' by raising $100 billion a year from a world energy tax.
here it is

This alone should wake up a few (billion) people, but the additional issue is this requires a new law, as it is currently not possible to institute without another tier of government, ie at a world international level. While many people believe larger scale government isn't a bad thing in itself and not a problem, you must remember the UN are not elected so would be handing over national law to an unelected body. Secondly it's not possible to just make the law to apply to one single issue. Once this is in place the UN will gain the status of a world government, unelected and able to legislate on all areas. Something to think about.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#564025 - Mon Nov 08 2010 04:51 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
A short wander round the world of philosophy to preface this link. In Star Trek each group of crew works independently to solve their predicament, as if no other was there to help, and in the end with one succeeding first it became clear if they'd done nothing they would still have been saved, but as none knew which group would succeed, or even the existence of other groups, the rule is to act as if working alone until otherwise indicated.

This is relevant as having just summarised what became seven separate sets of flat data made into hockey sticks, two being made by the same scientist. Of course one has to ask 'if the data is clear then why would anyone need to adjust it?'- all you need (I did a little statistics at school and college) is the figures, the averages and the deviation, ie variation from the norm. Those three, which all show as well, tell you the raw data, how it changes over time and how it compares to earlier measurments. Changing the average to one end or another is not standard procedure but has become so in the hockey sticks, as that is how they are made. Any random data, as demonstrated by Steven McIntyre and others since, will rise at one end if run through the equation to make it do so, it is impossible to create anything else.

Until today only a few internet bloggers including myself were concerned by this, but the Science and Public Policy Institute have just collated much of the same graphs and many more and come to a similar conclusion. They are simply making it up as it goes along. I am well aware how many managed to avoid peer review- it's summarised on many climategate sites and much was simply reviewed by their own team, in some cases by the writers themselves! I would be very interested to know how these claims can be denied as you simply can't present data which doesn't add up. I doubt the media will touch this for the usual reasons, but that's what the internet's for.

Report summary

Now when you've spent years finding similar data, and been blanked by literally every person you've presented it to who hadn't already worked it out you begin to wonder if there is no mouthpiece available to share this material. I decided to collate my own and see who was prepared to pass it on, and in best Star Trek fashion Worf and Data have just provided the work for me. Spock out.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#565425 - Fri Nov 12 2010 11:24 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Wow, this is a big one! If anyone has an idea how falling temperatures can be made to rise ten times faster than the world average I'd like to know. I'd say with so many of these a pattern has now definitely emerged, and the big question is why isn't anyone investigating it? I found them without any trouble, surely once this has been seen to happen worldwide it has to be checked?

Australian graph

Edited to add-

Wow, two in one day- this here is evidence wise the best yet as the GISS (US government agency) took an old graph (in black) showing established US temperatures till 1970 and accepted as such, and wrote a new version (in red). This goes a level above all previous graphs as they didn't just alter raw data, they completely twisted an official one as if no one would ever find it and see the difference. Now we have found it unless someone in an official status looks at it we are no further along the road to stopping more and more.

Naughty naughty!


Edited by satguru (Fri Nov 12 2010 06:52 PM)
Edit Reason: More data found since!
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#568140 - Thu Nov 18 2010 07:19 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
One less responsibility has passed from my hands, as if anyone was unable to accept governments worldwide would set up anything which was not entirely what it claimed to be about then it's now official:

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

This was not from a commentator or blogger as you'd have thought, it was from an IPCC official. They made the rules, they apply the rules and now we finally are certain about the rules.

As I'm sure the world's media will be entirely uninterested in reporting anything as boring as one of the most important admissions made possibly in my lifetime so I doubt anyone will find this out elsewhere but at least you now know. It's about the money. And you know what, those who currently didn't believe it will still say there's nothing wrong with that and it's fine. He wouldn't have dared to say it otherwise.

Report here
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#570007 - Thu Nov 25 2010 01:34 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I think this year is the beginning of the true data coming out, less than a week later an obscure Slovenian study for the IPCC confirms the majority of CO2 comes from warming oceans releasing it over a 700 year cycle as confirmed directly by ice cores. I can't see how with so many foundations being removed this concept can last a lot longer.

Lucka Kajfez-Bogotaj article
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#576189 - Mon Dec 13 2010 01:17 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Absolute classic, four different 2010 graphs, as if measured in different years or even different planets. Which is right? The media have chosen the rising one as it suits the IPCC, but sadly it was possible to see how it was created, and unfortunately the hot bits were added later. Oops...

What on earth is this?

Considering Cancun is planning rationing based on the odd graph of the four despite clearly being a figment of imagination, it makes me very worried few people challenge this sort of information despite being freely available online if nowhere else.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#584878 - Sun Jan 09 2011 04:47 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Tizzabelle, the graft involved is so far and wide such reports will stay out of the public field indefinitely so only by people like us finding them and spreading them wherever we can the chances of someone important taking them and running with them grow. We have a journalist on one of my Facebook pages who does this and although I don't think he's ever taken up any of my suggestions at least he's available in case. Christopher Booker however is the only journalist I know anywhere who dared to publish James Hansen's 'unusual' temperature figures for 2010. In fact the freezing December made certain 2010 wasn't the hottest year ever (in fact this means since 1979 which is when current satellite records began). He somehow remains a free man though, and in his job, which considering how any other director of a company is judged would have put him on the street at least anywhere else.

For today's presentation, it's interesting how much animals are involved in cliches. If it looks like a duck etc., and the elephant in the room. Well this is both a duck and the size of both an elephant and what it produces. Carbon trading sounded so much like Enron to me that I told everyone that our world governments are behaving like convicted criminals (that's just one example of many, protection rackets and spraying noxious substances in the air are illegal as well but that's straying off the point). So it came as no surprise when I discovered this was indeed a duck and not a cat or monkey in a duck mask. Enron did indeed help Al Gore create carbon trading, and as such means he has created his plan taken up by most of the world as part of a criminal conspiracy. Add to that his own company which he pays his own credits to, which is both insider trading and market manipulation, makes you wonder how and why this is part of government policies now or in the future without any significant opposition. I'm all for giving to charity but not to people with more money than me, and choose to pay it when I can afford it rather than be taken at source.

Here it is


Edited by satguru (Sun Jan 09 2011 04:49 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#587185 - Mon Jan 17 2011 09:58 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
Tizzabelle Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Sun Jan 17 2010
Posts: 2145
Loc: Sydney NSW Australia         
Hi satguru, I can't say I'm surprised by that info tho I'd not seen it before. Some of our largest mineral companies here in Oz who were frantically lobbying to NOT have a carbon tax are now in favour of it. Something dodgy happening there.. follow the money as they say in the classics. The truly galling thing is that it is the average person who will pay for it in increased energy prices, food prices (it has to be transported somehow), increased prices for everything really. The mineral and energy companies won't end up paying a cent in extra tax as they will forward on the price hike to the consumer. *sigh*
_________________________
Editor Animals, Brain Teasers and Geography.
The cat sat on the mat, because sofa doesn't rhyme.

Top
#587324 - Mon Jan 17 2011 09:22 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Tizzabelle]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The carbon tax, like all, simply redistributes wealth. Guess who gets them now, yep, energy companies. They have been given credits here free, and sold the unused ones after a year for millions. If that is how they are run I presume the same applies elsewhere. Carbon offsets are unregulated so currently it's legal for the companies to pocket the lot, if they chose to, also not to keep records of how they are used. Not very environmentally friendly once you find that out somehow. And yes, of course the companies make sure all added tax is simply absorbed by the consumer. Here the UK is leading as all energy companies pass theirs on annually and we have the highest fuel and energy prices ever. Meanwhile the wind farms which just opened did about 4-8% of their usual 25% or so capacity during last month's ice, which I fully expected and is pretty well guaranteed as when the cold front comes the wind drops to leave it in place for a week or two. That's how it always worked and when we need it the most.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#590457 - Sun Jan 30 2011 07:22 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
So far I've been posting errors in the official data which have been discovered at a later date. Although not claiming to understand more than the tip of this iceberg, here is what appears to be a comprehensive (only 5 pages including large diagrams) explanation of how CO2 works in the atmosphere. Whichever way you look at the figures, doubling, tripling or even more does not appear to contribute to anything besides slightly changing the makeup of the atmosphere. I'd be interested if anyone can disagree with this rather than confirm it as if correct means we have all been had.

CO2 heat absorption spectrum
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#590505 - Mon Jan 31 2011 05:22 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
Tizzabelle Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Sun Jan 17 2010
Posts: 2145
Loc: Sydney NSW Australia         
Oh boy, that report is well above my ability to comprehend it but I'll give you my understanding on the ability of CO2 to add to the greenhouse effect. From the extensive reading that I've done, the Earth is about at maximum levels of CO2 for it to have any effect. Adding more CO2 won't do diddly squat (gosh I can be polite when I have to be...) to the temperature and we're not going to burn up in a fire ball! CO2's effect on the atmosphere goes up in a logarithmic fashion rather than a linear one.

If you put a piece of black cotton fabric over a window it will block out (let's say) 90% of the light. If you put another piece of fabric over the same window it will block out another 1% of the light. Another piece of the same fabric will block out another 0.35% etc etc etc. Adding more CO2 is like adding another another piece of black fabric. It won't do much at all. There is a huge rise in the effect of CO2 from about 200ppm (don't quote me on this) to about 320ppm(?) but after that there is very little effect.

If CO2 had a linear effect on temperatures and the greenhouse effect, for every ppm we put into the atmosphere there would be a corresponding rise in greenhouse effect. There isn't. As far as I know that is universally accepted even by the alarmist side of the argument but it's not that well known in the general community or at least the people I talk with.

What I don't understand is why the graphs displaying CO2 and temperatures over the ages aren't explained to all and sundry. Since time immemorial CO2 has risen in the ice cores AFTER the temperature. On average this occurs about 800 years after the temperature rise. CO2 then falls about 800 years AFTER the temperature falls. Part of the CO2 rise we're experiencing now is the release of CO2 from the oceans 800 years (roughly) after the Medieval Warming Period. Somehow that is never explained properly, the graphs are separated and it appears that the CO2 rise comes before the temp. rise.. but it doesn't. 90% or more (depending which source you read) of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from totally natural sources in and on the Earth. Let's not forget that the greatest greenhouse gas of all is water vapour which contributes (depending on the material you read) anywhere from 85-93% of the greenhouse effect. I don't see anyone screaming that we need to remove water from the planet wink

Here's a nice blog in which a geology professor emeritus has graphs of the temps the Earth has lived through over the last 10,000 years. We have a long way to go before we reach the heights of the various warming periods. I think we'll be ok.. smile

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/


Edited by Tizzabelle (Mon Jan 31 2011 05:23 AM)
Edit Reason: Took out a sentence that would have been taken the wrong way... :)
_________________________
Editor Animals, Brain Teasers and Geography.
The cat sat on the mat, because sofa doesn't rhyme.

Top
#590692 - Mon Jan 31 2011 09:32 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Tizzabelle]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Lovely job there, it filled in quite a lot of the gaps and although the missionary site (created to convert skeptics believe it or not) says it's rubbish then again I think quite a few older studies made before the climate became a political issue say the same thing, meaning it was probably established science that had to be set aside for the bigger picture (see my quote for evidence).

I also read for the second time this week that glaciers are so hard to melt it needs centuries above zero before they do, and then a few degrees above it as the threshold to do so is higher than simple melting point due to the latent heat. That would mean (also pretty established old science) that expecting glaciers to melt from a rise which frankly hasn't happened yet within the century is taking us all for fools. It is more likely glaciers are melting since we left the little ice age and if they are doing so now it is because of a warming which took place hundreds of years ago.

As for the CO2 the paper (ie linear) equation has a doubling from 260ppm to 560ppm (currently 390 or so) to 1C. The rest would be due to positive feedback from cloud and water vapour. Except as CO2 hasn't risen rapidly for most of measurable history (although when it did it reached the thousands, but that's another story entirely) the mechanisms are simply unknown as totally outside our experience to consider. The best computer models can't factor in future effects yet to happen if they can't tell how CO2 molecules will displace water and clouds and at what levels. Many scenarios would have CO2 replacing water vapour right now, as measured by NASA's own AQUA satellite, where it counts, replacing a powerful greenhouse gas with a much weaker one.

And although I am not quite up to measuring the actual rise since 1860 or so when they started measuring 260ppm, the rough 0.7C from 260-390 would point to around 1.4C if linear, slightly above but well within the paper formula. Except that doesn't take into account natural changes such as the powerful Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the much less known effects of solar changes. When I saw the argument in the latest BBC anti-skeptic programme tonight that regardless of the skeptics there isn't a single piece of evidence the simple formula of adding CO2 causing probably dangerous global warming means they don't come here at least. The people I am beginning to work with online include two geologists and just this week a climate scientist who makes a living through his own forecasts rather than being paid whatever the outcome as universities are. They won't be sacked if in 10 or 20 years their projections prove as phoney as pools tipsters, as besides everyone forgetting about them long beforehand (most predictions are forgotten within days if set further ahead) the margins for error are so wide they are not meant to be predictions but simply the best they can do at the moment, which quite frankly has little if any value.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#596100 - Wed Feb 16 2011 08:41 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mountaingoat Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Fri Jun 22 2007
Posts: 388
Loc: Blue Mountains NSW Australia
It is interesting to me that a lot of the people who doubt the scientists on climate change are fully supportive of the science to do with GM foods.

Top
#596145 - Wed Feb 16 2011 11:00 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mountaingoat]
Tizzabelle Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Sun Jan 17 2010
Posts: 2145
Loc: Sydney NSW Australia         
It's interesting to me that global warming alarmists sometimes use ad hom attacks to play the man, not the science. Calling someone who disagrees with you a Holocaust denier or GM food advocate isn't a valid viewpoint in my opinion. I don't deny the holocaust and I dislike GM foods for more than one reason. When it comes to the CAGW debate I look for the truth. I don't like being lied to. So many of the things that are espoused as proof of CAGW are misnomers or in some cases, lies. I find that distressing. Science should be about the truth not fudging the truth in order to manipulate opinions for one reason or other.
_________________________
Editor Animals, Brain Teasers and Geography.
The cat sat on the mat, because sofa doesn't rhyme.

Top
#596316 - Wed Feb 16 2011 09:33 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mountaingoat]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Originally Posted By: mountaingoat
It is interesting to me that a lot of the people who doubt the scientists on climate change are fully supportive of the science to do with GM foods.


As the enthusiasts on the site I regularly visit ask me the whole time, has that been peer reviewed?
Seriously, each person has views on individual issues. Outside actual political views which are purely someone's opinion and not really right or wrong, scientific issues can be controversial as unlike something like law which is man made and hard to get wrong as a result (my own original field) science is a constant learning process, and over the centuries many pet theories were proved very wrong when better ways of measurement came along. Logic is king though, and when the case for man made warming is presented to anyone with a basic grasp of science, logic and evidence it doesn't add up for me at least. As for GM, smoking, peak oil etc they have absolutely no place in discussing a single issue which is totally unconnected.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#596325 - Wed Feb 16 2011 11:22 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mountaingoat Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Fri Jun 22 2007
Posts: 388
Loc: Blue Mountains NSW Australia
I guess the point I was trying to make was that people pick the science they believe and that decision is often coloured by their beliefs and politics etc. I am a bit wary of GM because it is promoted by a corporation trying to make billions of dollars and most of the research has been done by those companies. IMHO the evidence for climate change being caused by human actions is overwhelming. I have seen the many thousands of scientists in the relevant field who agree and among the hundreds of peer reviewed studies done, not one is in disagreement. With tens of thousands of pages written by scientists, of course there are going to be some mistakes and over enthusiastic people who do the wrong thing. But it is a big stretch to use this to deny the massive amount of evidence. I have seen interviews and speeches by these scientist and they very easily answer the complaints from the deniers. To claim that these scientists didn't take into account solar flares is just insulting. There is also the conspiracy that they are all just using it to get funding. It would have to be the most successful conspiracy in history without a single whistleblower. If you want to follow the money look who is to lose trillions if coal and oil are wound back. These companies also own the media companies and continually talk down climate change whereas scientists believe the science was accepted 20 years ago.

Top
#596739 - Thu Feb 17 2011 09:49 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mountaingoat]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The big problem is everyone besides the climatologists is an outsider. The small cabal who you claim is the majority of scientists is simply the trust they have in their colleagues who can supply the figures on paper and then imply certain events are a result of them does not make them insiders, they are just more informed outsiders than everyone else.

Conspiracies have a standard format and in the end nearly all are blown, normally after those who benefit are long gone along with our money. Size is not important as human nature is such that however many people realise they either can make a positive profit through leading, or far worse and accounting for the vast majority avoid a loss by following will make many apparently ethical and balanced professionals simply keep a low profile as their own profession including them would end up looking very bad if they decided to speak out. Except many do speak out when no longer or never employed by universities or governments. Whatever the latest studies that claim yet more weather is my fault and yours once you delve deeply into them they are not what they seem, but mere supposition, mainly as our temperatures are little or no higher now than they should have been (although I'm really not sure it's possible to know in advance the way a world temperature graph would go naturally as the cycles are far too general to be predicted that closely) following the recovery from the last small ice age.

Add to that the finance and politics involved, separately, the finance being covered in great detail already and something which had already made Enron (ie a very large conspiracy quite officially blown apart over time) go down for fraud and reinvented as carbon trading. The politics is more the followers than leaders, accounting for the lion's share of supporters. These are the vocal left, the anti globalists/capitalists active since the middle of the 20th century in one form or another, always on the fringes of western democracy who now find the most plausible scenario to create a true collectivist society by withdrawing individual rights and freedoms to the world problem. Car driving has long been a symbol of the radical left's beef with freedom and individuality, and now they can loudly shout to the world to get out of their cars and onto public transport and bikes to save the planet. What a passport to power that is for them, after half a century marching through the streets being beaten up by police to finally be on the side of the conventional political side at last. I still haven't a clue why anyone would want to be against individual freedom, maybe if they lost theirs then they wouldn't any longer, but it is a popular view now and one which has finally got a world issue to begin to put their idea of paradise into action, and my own and most others of the other place downstairs. I may not understand why they want such a ghastly fate to uncivilise the western world but I don't understand vandals or bombers much but there is no shortage of them either.

Bottom line global warming appeals to those unscrupulous enough at the top (compare the tip of the iceberg UK politicians done for fiddling their expenses this year) to milk any opportunity for what it's worth, the silent majority squeezed in the middle who don't agree but are too scared to speak out, and the rebels who want to dismantle capitalism who for the first time see the seeds being planted by governments around the world. If that's not a formula for maintaining it then nothing is.


Edited by satguru (Thu Feb 17 2011 10:05 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#596755 - Fri Feb 18 2011 12:20 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mountaingoat Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Fri Jun 22 2007
Posts: 388
Loc: Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Thanks satguru for a very well reasoned and articulate argument. I am on the opposite side to most of what you say - as I am a radical left greenie. However it is good to understand the thinking behind those who think differently and it helps me to think a bit more about my own beliefs. I do believe in more public transport and I think high speed trains are the future even to the extent of bridging the Bering Strait (this is being seriously looked at)and having the world connected by it as air travel is going to become very expensive and difficult with oil running short. I also believe in individual freedom and hope electric cars remain an option for those who want more of it. I don' believe our future is a choice between capitalism and communism but a capitalism with a heart. I would rather have government voted in by us making decisions for me than a market controlled by CEO 's who's only goal is profit and do not take into account any of their effects on society.

As for climate change, the main thing that convinces me is the short time scale of the change and the radical weather events already happened and predicted by the scientists. I do not think people are capable of making sacrifices needed to have any effect. I think we are going to either spend money to fix these disasters and help those who are starving or dying of thirst...OR we spend it on armies to steal the resources including water and food that are left. Looking beyond the next election cycle let alone to 50 years is beyond us, especially in this "gotta have it now" generation.

I can also understand your suspicion of closed shop thinking where anyone who challenges the status quo is an outsider. I guess the world as the centre of the universe type thing in the old days and more recently 2 Australian scientists proved Ulcers were caused by a bacteria in the gut and could be fixed with anti biotics. They were ridiculed for years. I would say though, that with scientific studies being more rigid in the last hundred years and peer reviewed studies etc. this kind of thing is becoming rarer. With all of the discoveries in those years it is hard to find many that have been later blown apart. I do understand your suspicion but in this case I disagree and with the more information I gleen the more convinced I am that human caused climate change is happening.

All the best mate

Glenn


Edited by mountaingoat (Fri Feb 18 2011 12:26 AM)

Top
#596867 - Fri Feb 18 2011 11:39 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mountaingoat]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Thanks Glenn, and just shows people can disagree on something fundamental but be nice about it and accept the other's point of view whether or not they agree as well. As far as the evidence is concerned, looking for trouble is guaranteed to find it. My equation for the climate is that had there been no rise in CO2 firstly there would have been no additional recording and searching for extreme weather events, and secondly if there had been a reason they would gradually have got closer to finding it slowly and carefully instead of rashly jumping to conclusions (I've heard it said on the radio by one who admitted it from the inside as 'They couldn't think of any other reason...') as they were worried there may be a danger to the earth, but simply said we don't know what's causing it and can settle down and look at every single possible cause (solar and lunar effects, delayed ocean release etc) until clues arise and we start to put a picture together. But once it was CO2> man all other avenues were closed, locked and bolted and anyone with equal qualifications to themselves who suggested them were rejected out of hand.

It has sadly also showed up some dirty dealings at a very high level. Mistakes are normal, covering them up is dishonesty and the ones I referred to by the IPCC and NASA had been brought to their attention years earlier and they simply carried on hoping no one would mention it publicly, but in fact both did become known and it was only then they did anything about it. If it was trial and error we could all accept it but this was the same as finding someone else's property by chance and not giving it back till someone found you had it. That is as much theft (UK Theft Act) as having taken it yourself. And like a partner who cheats, once your lords and masters let you down it's very hard to have trust in them in any area, and would suggest a divorce by kicking them all out worldwide and starting again with new ones where appropriate. I no longer trust our lot anyhow.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#596885 - Fri Feb 18 2011 12:51 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
Mugaboo Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Fri Aug 13 2004
Posts: 987
Loc: Scotland UK
Someone is locked in a room for a few weeks. During this time it is noticed the temperature rises and falls a bit, especially falling at night time. One night this person lights a candle, and leaves it burning overnight. On waking up the temperature is noticeably hotter than usual.

Government (official) conclusion: The candle has warmed the room.
Room warming sceptics conclusion : A warm weather front has arrived outside.


In my view global warming is the same on a more complicated scale.

Top
#596903 - Fri Feb 18 2011 02:42 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Mugaboo]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5196
Loc: Florida USA
Here's a bit of the data at the core of some basic suppositions which I have never seen the proof of: Ice core data that indicates a level of atmospheric acidity through the ages. None have proven that ice sitting under a ton of pressure, at -5C for 25,000 years doesn't change its ph level under those conditions (wouldn't a lightning strike in the vicinity alter the noted ph levels of the ice? In 10,000 years there must have been strikes). There is no book in the world that has proven that ph levels can be relied on for any period of time longer than 100 yrs.
My sense is that ph (acidity) is a function of electrical and ion potential in a material. We do know that electron availability is effected by outside pressures and temperatures, So why has no one linked that to long term effects on ice samples?

Not to mention that most of these cores are taken at the ice caps of the planet which have the Earth's magnetosphere dumping wave after wave of aurora particles into those very samples. No, I do not think any measure of electrical record in ice samples is reliable in the long term by the very nature and environment of the beast.


Edited by mehaul (Fri Feb 18 2011 02:51 PM)
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.

Top
#597064 - Fri Feb 18 2011 09:19 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Good stuff mehaul, it's way out of my field so can't judge it at all but does tell me how hard these sort of measurements are to make both past and present, and dare I say impossible and dangerous for the future. Dangerous as policies are made (eg diverting cash from flood defences in Australia and salt for snow in the UK just before floods and two record winters) based purely on some maven who's able to map current weather conditions reasonably well by setting up programs so is trusted to project them into the future. Bear in mind no equipment was ever made for more than a 60 day forecast until this became an issue, and the IPCC say even models a decade ago were woefully inadequate. This after Kyoto had been set up based on what was freely admitted years later to be primitive compared to the present day, yet at the time it was 'cutting edge' and committed countries across the planet to divert funds as a result.

Mugaboo, your candle in the room simplifies the reality as well as the governments try to. Of course in a lab double CO2 and the temperature rises by a degree. Light a candle in a room (ie a closed system just like a greenhouse), and the calculations can be measured after the event by microdegrees. Except the candle generates heat directly while CO2 retains it, and not evenly but at 8% of all wavelengths at a reducing rate until saturated. Therefore the insulating falls with concentration while heating effects are constant with energy released by any constant source.

Do the equivalent on a planetary level and you're literally playing with fire (in the form of the sun) and every other major and minor influence such as the ocean currents and oscillations, jet streams, atmospheric saturation levels, solar and lunar effects, volcanoes, not to mention the natural forces which produce a sharp rise before an ice age every so many thousand years, eight are recorded on an almost identical pattern of a few small waves followed by a big one around about a million year period (or more? I haven't got it with me but the pattern is what counts).

Trying to compare a simple lab experiment with the atmosphere is what got the world embroiled in this possible delusion in the first place. It is not reasonable to try and simplify such a complex system, one of the most complex we know of, which gave rise to chaos theory, as if it can be compared. That's what's got coal power stations banned in the EU and will hold us to ransom to sharks worldwide trying to flog us far worse alternatives just as one example. That includes solar and wind which cost around 8 times more per kilowatt and forced upon us by legal fiat. Meanwhile CO2 has gone up over 40% since 1850 and the temperature is up 0.7', which tells us there has been no feedback as if there had the rise would have been well over that and that is all we really know.


Edited by satguru (Fri Feb 18 2011 09:28 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#606657 - Sat Mar 19 2011 09:07 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
After finding and adding isolated examples here one by one I have just discovered someone has done all the work for me. What is now clear is that as climate figures were obscure and irrelevant prior to now then no one actually knew or cared (as they quite rightly didn't need to) so whatever has been presented to them since has been assumed to be genuine. Lord Monckton has both proved beyond any doubt that the current release of records has deliberately wiped out the medieval warm period, akin to pretending there was no Battle of Hastings or Great Fire of London, and provided so many accredited studies showing basically every single plank of Al Gore's argument is pure bunkum, that if the media gave this equal attention to the official view the whole issue would be gone in a few months.

Monckton report

Lord Monckton has been criticised for not being a scientist, but he has a postgraduate qualification in journalism, and quite capable of gathering data from scientists and allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions. That's called investigative journalism and requires no more science qualifications than being a detective. Even if you're convinced the other side is right then the main point here is there is another side and it won't ever go away and must be taken into account.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#607415 - Mon Mar 21 2011 04:11 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
To save a lengthy download which still makes my computer jam when complete I'll copy some of the best stuff here now.

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton

“We have to offer up scary scenarios” Dr Stephen Schneider

“A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’” David Deming, 2005

“Global climate change” papers: 539
Evidence for “catastrophe”: 0
Schulte (2008)

“No supercomputer,however powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming... The models are tuned to assume a high climate sensitivity, so a high climate sensitivity is what they find.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu 2008

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC (2001)

"Solar changes cause most climate change. The Sun caused today’s global warming. Today’s warming is normal, not unusual. Today’s global warming will end soon."
IAU (2004)

“Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.”

IPCC

The graphs I can't copy are even better.


Edited by satguru (Tue Mar 22 2011 08:25 AM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#620513 - Sat Apr 30 2011 11:03 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6470
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Wow, up till now UN and similar predictions have all been placed beyond our lifespans so impossible to confirm or deny, ie worthless. But this one is a clanger of such proportions, based on the same underlying figures, they have truly outdone themselves. They predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010, mainly from the Caribbean, and as of 2011 there is not a single report of one person moving for reasons of the climate. The sea level remains rising around 9 inches a century as it has for as long as I remember records showing on average, and if they insist on extrapolating computer models into greater and greater tangents then sooner or later their junk science will finally catch up with them Article and analysis

Now this whopper was based on the same hockey stick forward projection and associated computer generated results (drought, floods, fire, brimstone, you know) and can safely say not a single other prediction made from about 1980 since has even come close to beginning let alone completing. The positive feedback, meant to increase the official 1C increase in temperature by doubling CO2 never manifested either as the state at around a 50% increase is consistent with the 1C total. Unless feedback kicks in later on (there isn't much time to go now) one can logically assume using the principle of intertia (things continuing as they are) and extrapolation it was only in the same computer generated imagination as the refugees, rising sea levels and basically every single other thing they scared the children with. But governments worldwide still carry on as if CO2 is the devil and they do everything they can to charge people more for producing the same amount (as we have no choice the increase is constant despite massive taxation) and using machinery to try and generate electricity you'd expect to see Robinson Crusoe trying to build on a desert island as he wanted to charge his mobile phone. I'd think rubbing two sticks together would have to be better than a windmill or solar panel, the cost to power ratio is many times greater than conventional and much of the time they don't work at all and need the generators to kick in. Big fail all round I think.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
Page 3 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 >

Moderator:  bloomsby