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

Page 8 of 11 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Topic Options
#804388 - Mon Jun 25 2012 08:48 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I checked the Antarctic figures and didn't find anything conclusive till just now, it seems previous estimates were actually based more on models than actual measurements, meanwhile after two year's worth of measurements they are indeed stable after all. I doubt any of the warming lot will take any notice though, it would ruin their whole game.

Antarctic is not actually melting


"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."


Well fancy that. Now what was I saying about scientists before?
_________________________
"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
#805791 - Sun Jul 01 2012 06:55 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
It's been a quiet day, and often means I do my research to see whatever turns up. Considering this utter bombshell is almost two years old and I only just found it, despite having tens of newsfeeds during my waking hours, shows what a great job the media and lobbyists did covering it up, till now.

Previously unknown to me interested parties have indeed taken a government temperature record to court as (like all the ones posted here and many more) it varied from the original, with all having the same 30' or so tilt to make the right side higher than the left.

This went to trial in 2010 and the judge forced the government to abandon the new graph and replace it with what was clearly the genuine data (bear in mind unlike government policy courts are legally bound to have experts on both sides) which showed absolutely no warming whatsoever from start to finish.

Hitherto unknown court case

Now if they can do it in New Zealand, they can do it in America, as they've done exactly the same thing. After an NOAA report in the late 80s saying the US had broken the world trend as showed no warming at all, and it meant nothing as it only comprised 1.5% of the planet anyhow, in 2000 it joined the rest with the upslope. Until Steven Goddard got hold of the actual graph before it sloped. It followed the utterly featureless trend of the previous one up to the present once the picture had been straightened from the angle they added. I don't think those capable (if I knew who they were I'd let them know) of bringing a case there (anyone help me here?) are aware this is possible and has been already successful, as legal precedent tends to be the same in all similar systems both simple error posing as reality and most importantly the legal authority to try and then reverse the action are both present. They just need the right people to bring a case and if a similar precedent exists only in another country using their system it is admissible as a guide. That was why the Privy Council heard final appeals for the whole Commonwealth and the principle has applied across British law in both directions where no home precedent exists.

Same scenario, different location

These are not two isolated cases either, just the best documented. If you check for yourselves you will see it is actually standard practice, therefore as world temperature is created by adding the countries together, and NZ and now US have been found to be false, what does that do to the total they make up (rhetorical question)?
_________________________
"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
#807750 - Mon Jul 09 2012 02:26 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
These pesky scientists just can't agree when it comes to climate:

Temperature rise analysis

In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Giaever found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case:

“What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled.


The way temperatures are measured, once known, are basically filling in the spaces and comparing apples with oranges before finally calculating three different figures: Raw data, adjusted data and anomalies. No set is more or less accurate than the others, while the adjustments are supposed to weed poor measurements and urban heat islands out they tend to increase temperatures rather than the expected reduction consistently.

The whole climate issue can only be one of perception. No one has even a fraction of the whole picture- it was only this year before the Himalayan glacier range and sub-Antarctic sea could be measured directly, and both proved the guesses totally wrong. Temperature diagrams vary between studies and mix proxy, land and satellite temperatures as if identical before reaching the final figures. But the bottom line is what Gevaier says, how can a figure within the error margin be significant whether accurate or not? And if it is accurate why is it related to CO2 when the sort of variation which would never once have been focused on it without a rise of CO2.

If the input is small then the output can never be any larger. Just imagine a 1C variation above what you had today or yesterday, what difference do you think that would make? That is all they mean, everyone's overall temperature is 0.8C higher than it was 160 years ago, if they have even managed to measure it properly. And for that governments are winding us back to the dark ages?
_________________________
"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
#808019 - Tue Jul 10 2012 09:27 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I'm guessing this one's peer reviewed so take any objections up directly and not with me. More evidence existing temperature records are wrong,

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."


If nothing else, those who return time and again accusing me of being anti science must be reminded: This IS science.

Roman and medieval warm periods
_________________________
"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
#808073 - Wed Jul 11 2012 08:06 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5254
Loc: Florida USA
The Weather Channel: Sound bit: "Global Warming", proof: Glacier and Ice Cap exhibited glacier calving and shrinking iceburgs.

Speaking to the contrary:
1) Glaciers 'calve' because they are growing; and,
2) Iceburgs (fresh H2O) melt in salt water because salt water has a lower freezing temp, meaning 30^oF sea water will melt an iceburg.

They also said Antarctica set a record for highest temp ever recorded of 9^o! Wow. all twenty years of extensively covered geophysically measured temps (meaning they are only now measuring the entire continent) produced a high side result. Though they say that was the high, it was actually an average reading of many measurements and not a single one. Some places may have seen 10^o!. In a population of twenty average high temps a new bell curve tail end was set! Statisticians love that, NOT. It's insignificant statistically. What place on Earth might you say would be removed from man's influence and tell us the story of what is going on naturally climate-wise? Why, the Antarctic of course!

Let's look at this calving thing. As glaciers grow, usually down a valley they have carved, they stay together because the ice, though brittle, is supported underneath by solid land. When they grow out over a place where the land drops away or a shore line sinks the sea floor from under them, the physical pull of gravity is enough to fracture off the unsupported sections (a sort of example of why cantilevers work, but in this case, it's how lacking a cantilever causes failure). Another way they calve is that glaciers are strong in a straight direction, slightly downward in the heading of their growth. Once they reach open water, there is Archimede's Principle brought into play. A buoyant force upward is exerted on them by the surrounding water. Being brittle, the ice fractures and chunks fall away. How do these things move toward the water? They are pushed from behind by new glacial material. Ice is considered a solid form of water. But it is NOT a solid! it is a flowable material like glass. The flow rate is extremely slow so it seems not to be occurring but it is. If you don't push it, it stops flowing (or flows at an even slower rate). So, if there was melting and no new growth going on, there would be no physical force to be pushing the mass to it's calving points.

Looking at this the other way, what would you expect to see if the glaciers were melting away? The depth on average would be lower (they disappear from top down not front to back) and the flow of melted water underneath the ice (run-off) would be increased. They would appear to shrink away from the points where they traditionally did calving. Calving would cease to occur. I see no depth numbers and no run-off numbers being reported as having decreased and increased respectively.


Edited by mehaul (Wed Jul 11 2012 09:45 AM)
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.
Dreams allow escape from the passage of Time.

Top
#808883 - Sun Jul 15 2012 02:40 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
An Aesop's fable here.

Observation of primary data makes all secondary data dependent on it, where the media and politicians treat it all as equal, so for instance are happy to report hot weather when it's getting colder overall. But the single primary figure which became clear some time ago is the official temperature rise relative to CO2.

CO2 rise: 50%
Temperature rise o.8C (half attributed to CO2).

Expected bare rise with no feedback 0.5C

Therefore with a 50% rise in CO2 temperatures have risen no more than 0.8C, implying a slight negative feedback.

NASA have just caught up.

NASA reduce doubling of CO2 to 1.64C rise

It took them a few years but they have finally agreed that is pretty well the sole possible conclusion. They are second in command to the IPCC so still uncertain whether this will be taken up by the masters.
_________________________
"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
#809330 - Tue Jul 17 2012 11:52 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Finally what I noticed years ago has been proved in a paper. The adjustments systematically made to data are literally warmed up. It's the same as banks, when they make genuine mistakes they even out to near zero (or 50% between positive and negative) and these were meant to as do all honest errors. These were found to be positive in 67% of all data.

“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”

The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

---------------------

This means the biased data adjustments increased the probable actual temperatures by around 75%, meaning they were no higher than they were meant to be, so the 'unprecedented warming' claimed only possible to be from man made CO2 may not actually have ever existed.

Here it is

I'd say if nothing else don't those claiming I'm running a campaign against science accept this raises reasonable doubts?


Edited by satguru (Tue Jul 17 2012 11:59 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
#809407 - Tue Jul 17 2012 07:30 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
This material is speeding up, but one topic per box.

IPCC mainly not peer reviewed and many political appointments

Following a long investigation by the IAC, an official independent body, the findings of the IPCC were:

"The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians."

They are actually following the recommendations and claim to have completed the process on June the 27th this year. I haven't seen any results yet, and certainly no reports elsewhere, but they have been pretty much busted officially.
_________________________
"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
#810084 - Sat Jul 21 2012 05:30 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I may have posted part of this before but new people read every day and I've been reading more and can now include the quote in its context. I also read some older material from the 20s and 30s and very little had been altered besides the names and places. Fascinating.

“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor…Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…

Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy [of the elites and their minions] then is humanity itself.”

- “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome.
_________________________
"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
#810582 - Tue Jul 24 2012 08:35 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
In order to understand science you really need to know politics, economics and history. In science a pattern has regularly formed where an individual or small group come up with a totally opposite view to the 'consensus', like the earth revolving round the sun or stomach ulcers being caused by a bacteria, and then after decades of ridicule or more someone equipped to do so suddenly finds they were right all along.

Like this time:

CO2 is a result of warming

Apparently some years after first discovered by a handful of independent experts working alone Copenhagen University have now discovered the CO2 in a warm phase is released hundreds of years ahead of the warming. Just as the others said already, why didn't anyone listen to them before?

Of course if this goes viral and people discover CO2 is rising from events hundreds of years ago the whole mechanism to prevent it being released now would become redundant. And when it doesn't why not?
_________________________
"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
#810677 - Wed Jul 25 2012 11:22 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5254
Loc: Florida USA
You gotta love Stephen Colbert and his "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central. Last night he cited a report by scientists that claimed watching late night talk shows (which his show is) causes people to become despondent. So he checked the science of the claim! Turns out the scientists dimmed the ambient lighting for an hour before completely turning out the lights on ... get this ... hamsters! The lab people had measured changed brainwave activity in the animals after the exposure to that regimen. That's fine but the scientists made the leap on their own, without previous proof, that the symptoms they saw in the hamsters equated to despondancy in humans. They leapt from dimming the lights on rodents to despondent humans in one jump.
I say they failed to control the stimulation some light dimming can cause in humans who watch late night talk shows and are intrigued by what they see. All the hamsters got was dim lights. Wouldn't that depress you too? If the lab people had released different types of pheremones during the lighting changes, then just maybe and only maybe, there might have been a connection to be made. (I wonder how the scientists, I hate to call them that, introduced the commercial advertisement aspect to a dimmed light?)
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.
Dreams allow escape from the passage of Time.

Top
#810786 - Wed Jul 25 2012 07:06 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
Jakeroo Offline
Prolific

Registered: Sat Aug 30 2008
Posts: 1932
Loc: Alberta Canada
I'm a skeptic about most things that "make the news", particularly when politicians get involved in areas they really know NOTHING about. And, it would seem, try to bully scientists to provide data that suits their agenda (which seems to be making money while they can). I don't argue with the data ITSELF (glacial melting etc are very REAL events), but rather HOW that data is applied. All "stats" students know that any numbers can be "manipulated". In business, it's called "creative accounting" lol.

There is little doubt that previous politicians who owned xbazillions of shares in the oil industry sought to protect that vested interest by kyboshing (by LAW, in many cases around the world) numerous patents/practical usage for alternate energy sources. I see the global warming "issue" in a similar way. Scare tactics followed by people who are rich enough to buy out all the patents that were previously squashed (thereby assuring them and their heirs additional multimillions if/when the oil craze falls through). I would LIKE to think the general populace wouldn't fall for 75% of the hype, but I've been wrong before lol.

There is NO denying that the planet is in a warming phase currently. Whether that is solely caused by humans is an ENTIRELY different matter. A polar shift could result in the same thing (and the Earth is moving towards one either this year or in the next few).

There is NO denying that humans ARE destroying the planet's resources and wildlife in hundreds of ways. These selfish actions could well bring an end to life (as humans know it currently), but whether those actions will bring an end to the planet itself is QUITE doubtful.

NASA itself, has reported that ALL of the planets have been experiencing a warming trend over the last 20 years. Unless you can verify that there are greedy life-forms on planets other than ours, the most likely reason for this trend is increased solar activity (which "we", as "important" as we like to think we are in "the grand scheme of things" have absolutely no control over).


Edited by Jakeroo (Wed Jul 25 2012 09:36 PM)
_________________________
I cannot even imagine where I would be today were it not for that handful of friends who have given me a heart full of joy. Let's face it, friends make life a lot more fun.
Charles R. Swindoll



Top
#810792 - Wed Jul 25 2012 08:23 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Jakeroo]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5254
Loc: Florida USA
CNN picked up on the hamster study today and reported in more detail. It was a study done by the University of Ohio. The scientists actually went beyond the simple despondent reaction Colbert reported. The grant spenders actually used the term depression in their paper as the reaction of the hamsters. Since depression is a psychological term, seems they also jumped the shark going the other way and attributed human emotions to hamsters.

Jakerroo, our solar system is not a closed system. There could be extra-solar influences causing the general temperature of system objects to rise. We could be travelling through a galactic dust cloud (light fog) that is raising atmosphere temps by nano-collision, the increased solar output you cited or a combination of the two if the noted increases are real because there is the chance also that the measurements are wrong.
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.
Dreams allow escape from the passage of Time.

Top
#810798 - Wed Jul 25 2012 09:18 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
A quick recap of climate controversy history. For years now isolated scientists have said three things (at least) which in total claimed the IPCC had got their models wrong. The climate was not very sensitive to CO2, CO2 rose gradually after the temperature had throughout history and the major cause of temperature changes are solar activity and the tilt of the earth and distance from the sun.

This month studies have come back showing the likely amount of rise from a doubling of CO2 would be 1.64C, CO2 has always risen after temperature at a standard rate of delay from millions of years of deep ice cores which preserved the atmosphere going back that far, and now the full set of three, the climate is far more sensitive to small changes in solar activity than they originally thought- the IPCC don't even factor it in to their own equations as they say it is infinitesimal.

Until today that is:

Here it is

"Paper finds climate is 'highly sensitive to extremely weak' changes in solar activity
A paper published in Science by the esteemed geologist Dr. Gerard Bond and colleagues finds that "Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output, not just on the decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on the centennial to millennial time scales."

-----------------------------

Now having been a lecturer in the past I am very happy to lecture, and for the last however many years when my claims here have been attacked time and time again, as if the IPCC say it then it has to be right, have gradually and patiently all been supported by the top sources, NASA, the Nils Bohr Institute and now a top geologist. Science does not decide, it evolves. If you simply make a decision that shuts the door to all new data, actually having the effect of rejecting any new material which can't be right as it contradicts the existing theory. Science till now had never done that besides isolated examples where personal interests were involved, or the mainstream simply couldn't believe the new findings were possible, as with quasi crystals, which won the finder a Nobel Prize for beating the system.

The vast majority of the reason the IPCC and related agencies got it all so wrong and others at the time called them on it was nearly all their material was not climate based at all, but based on computer simulations of injecting CO2 into the climate at various levels. Now a few experts such as Steve McIntyre ran these projections back before the present and found the simulations didn't get the past right, so were all impossible to rely on as they were incapable of fitting with known reality. One by one melting Himalayan glaciers (200 million tons of ice a year I think) were found to have lost none, and then claims turned down in unison are now becoming found to be real simply because someone has taken the time to check and find out.

Therefore when the money can be found to fund such studies in the field one by one with absolutely no prior expectations these genuine scientists are simply doing what they always have done, being asked a question and looking for the answer with the best existing equipment. So how many new studies discovering that CO2 is not actually capable of doing anything more than a slight increase within the normal range will it take combined before anyone starts to notice?
_________________________
"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
#810799 - Wed Jul 25 2012 09:30 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
Jakeroo Offline
Prolific

Registered: Sat Aug 30 2008
Posts: 1932
Loc: Alberta Canada
mehaul: I have no desire to debate the "nuances" of the universe as a whole. I simply don't know enough about it. And neither do most people. But I'm quite certain humans don't have any influence on it regardless of closed systems, dust clouds or any other intergalactic detritus that may or may not result in what we are experiencing at present. I believe that was the MAIN point I was trying to express LOL


Edited by Jakeroo (Wed Jul 25 2012 09:32 PM)
_________________________
I cannot even imagine where I would be today were it not for that handful of friends who have given me a heart full of joy. Let's face it, friends make life a lot more fun.
Charles R. Swindoll



Top
#810807 - Wed Jul 25 2012 09:52 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Jakeroo]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5254
Loc: Florida USA
So you don't believe in, or can I convince you of, the interstellar sub-atomic heat hamster theory of global warming? Would five bucks swing the deal?
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.
Dreams allow escape from the passage of Time.

Top
#810813 - Wed Jul 25 2012 10:16 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
Jakeroo Offline
Prolific

Registered: Sat Aug 30 2008
Posts: 1932
Loc: Alberta Canada
Sorry, I can't be "bought". But I quite adore hamsters LOL!
_________________________
I cannot even imagine where I would be today were it not for that handful of friends who have given me a heart full of joy. Let's face it, friends make life a lot more fun.
Charles R. Swindoll



Top
#810924 - Thu Jul 26 2012 09:04 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Jakeroo]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Jakeroo, I have learnt a huge amount about logic and academic process on my decade plus long investigation into global warming. The simple conclusions are there is a level above science and every other academic field, simply called logic. That means everyone able to use it is capable of judging other fields given understandable data. Otherwise we wouldn't use juries trying cases in every other field but using expert witnesses, and even the lawyers wouldn't be able to present cases in specialised areas such as medical negligence and building regulations etc, but they do and always have.

The models I was shown online this week of a climate system were clearly beyond anyone outside the field to understand as the equivalent of looking at the code behind the forum here. Someone else read it and pulled out about five major errors, meaning the model had doubled some parameters and multiplied others into monsters from mice. The scientists here are able to look at a plan or model and see how it performs, as they were trained to do so. So if an engineer looks at an engine blueprint they can easily assess the performance and any errors in it, but anyone can use it and experience it directly. Therefore although the scientist is able to judge data at the level of creation, everyone else can at the level of production, and both will experience the same engine performance whether in their heads or in their cars.

Therefore with the climate we are not talking about anything beyond logic and involving complex maths. In fact in an interview once a climatologist said the same thing, stating that as CO2 had gone up so much and the temperature was going up as well everything else was irrelevant as the two facts alone were enough to prove the theory. Now two things applied there, firstly the absolutely correct statement that this can be simplified for all to understand, and secondly they didn't use logic as correlation alone is not causation and the actual figures he referred to were in their models as there simply hasn't been enough time to run the experiment in the real world. But he knew everyone could follow these areas, had he been accurate in his description of them.

That was a few years ago and the new data constantly arriving now has refined and twisted the scenario greatly- for a start the powers that be have now finally started talking about why the temperature hasn't risen for 15 years, after spending the last 5 or so denying they hadn't risen. The explanations are so varied it would take Inspector Morse a whole episode to work his way through them, and fail to address the single nub of the argument that man made global warming needs an unusually high rise in temperature to exist, which hasn't happened. The models had it even with no rise in CO2, and it didn't happen. So gradually logic is overriding the silly imaginary exercises in their hard drives, and my personal statement to climate modellers is can a computer model a human mind, and if not when will it be able to? Of course the unanimous consensus is no, and I reply then how is the world climate any less complex and able to model either? I haven't had an answer to that yet.
_________________________
"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
#811755 - Mon Jul 30 2012 07:49 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The hockey stick diagram, at least the US figures, have now been proved mathematically (through discovering the original data and comparing it with what we were shown) to follow the adjustments for the exact period of the hockey stick part, take them away and the temperature has fallen in the same period. I don't know if either the press has picked this one up or anyone will be questioned over it (as if anyone would try), but the current estimate is that this most likely applies to the whole diagram, but the original figures are injuncted so currently impossible to prove. Secondly, how many other vital pieces of scientific data required for our own wellbeing have been legally made secret?

Moving diagram before and after

It also applies to Alice Springs and Reykjavik, so clearly not an 'isolated' incident, as far as a continent can be described as such.

I am wondering if and when someone's up for an interrogation over this- if any other authority (in this case a national organisation) was found to be doing anything like this then it would be immediately suspended pending a major enquiry, except in climate cases. Like the secret data, again that doesn't sound right.
_________________________
"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
#813230 - Mon Aug 06 2012 11:33 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I will hand this one over to the scientists, I am only reporting exactly what has been compiled as what appears to be a mathematical certainty. These are based on physical properties rather than climate models, and mean everything in the climate models is completely impossible.

CO2 cannot add warming when increased

I am quite open to analysis not being more than a messenger. How can the IPCC expect huge amounts of warming from two gases apparently incapable of trapping much more already? These are the reasons I post all this, none of our politicians mention it when making new laws raising energy prices to reduce the usage (it doesn't as people just spend less on other things they don't need). The war against CO2 must be phony if these figures are true, and they're not the first time I've seen them mentioned.
_________________________
"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
#815980 - Fri Aug 17 2012 08:43 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Here's some real old fashioned science. Simple observation and statistical analysis. The earth always wobbles on its axis, and as a result the ocean has a few different currents over the short and medium (60 years in this case) terms, which repeat reliably and have now been demonstrated to correlate at 85% whereas CO2 and temperatures over the same period work out at 44%. Without the need to go all complicated and bring in forcing, back radiation etc, you can clearly see just from the graphs and correlations that of the two, CO2 does not particularly match the temperature line where the oscillations follow it faithfully.

On a happier note anyone still concerned about global warming will also see the temperature has not risen for 15 years so far, and however long people need to infer a trend none of the models showed it slowing down at any point as it has. The CO2 does not slow down, it is rising steadily but now getting further and further from the temperature each year. There is absolutely no need to be a scientist to get this, it's no different from doing your accounts.

Temperature follows ocean current cycles

Anyone not financially involved with the climate industry ought to see this (as I do) as extremely good news as it implies if nothing else the variations in temperature are very unlikely to be CO2 related.

I've added in the latest graph from 1997-2012. You can clearly see it's almost flat, and take away the 1998 El Nino spike and the tiny slope would be gone.

1997-2012 world temperature variation

Here's the latest one in even more detail. It contains a complete hockey stick, but it's the adjustments. Take them away and it's all gone. I'd call that busted in any other context where the perpetrators don't make the rules and enforce them as well.

Dear oh dear oh dear, where's the hockey stick gone?


Edited by satguru (Mon Aug 20 2012 06:51 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
#816614 - Mon Aug 20 2012 04:38 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
In an Oct. 12, 2009, email to Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, fellow warming alarmist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., asked, “Where the heck is global warming?”

"Then Trenberth dropped a bombshell: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

He ended by admitting the global warming “data are surely wrong.”

“Our observing system is inadequate,” he wrote."

"They blamed their miscalculation on sulfate emission trajectories and revised their forecast to show a cooling trend lasting until 2020." (the dog ate my homework, big book of excuses p 32)

If nothing else, no one can call me a denier now until at least 2020 so I can safely say, on the authority of the top man himself,

There is currently no global warming.

Here it is
_________________________
"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
#817820 - Thu Aug 23 2012 06:23 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
We were told the second set of climate emails was massive and would be released gradually. This is the next set released today. It seems many of the community are quite rattled about how hard they need to work both to keep the public onside and to make sure the wrong data doesn't get into the general media. I've never seen another scientist behave like this, and if you work your way through these properly anyone without shares in the industry will start to realise that's not how normal business is carried out. You simply don't need to make such efforts to get your message across if you're in science, that's reserved for politics and PR, and at its lowest gutter level at that. I must say after being fascinated by science all my life these guys have wrecked its credibility almost totally for me, as hardly any of their non-climate but qualified peers have dared to pick them up on what is clearly not scientific method.

Even more dirt

As this is still the tip of the iceberg as thousands are waiting in the wings, how much of their own private conversations do people need to see before it's obvious to everyone not related to them they are cooking the books?

eg:

Trenberth see’s Ben Santer’s paper published in Science as having “substantial problems”, due to spurious artifacts introduced by radiosonde equipment changes over time making the ERA-15 data “corrupted” in Trenberth’s words. Two words sum the problem up: temporal inhomogeneity.

Therefore one of the top men in the business, Kevin Trenberth, has seen a huge error reach the world's science community and kept it to himself. That's mafia tactics, not scientific method.


Edited by satguru (Thu Aug 23 2012 06:27 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
#818248 - Fri Aug 24 2012 09:53 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
As expected the new material is flooding out now, and latest emails reveal pretty much explanations both how the hockey stick was made (pretty much the sole reason CO2 rises were associated with its rise in temperature many others hadn't found for the same period) and better still open admissions they had found many areas open to simple alterations. Phil Jones, who just claimed in an interview (on the BBC of course) that as 90% of scientists have agreed in man made warming there should be no more opposition allowed in the media, was actually the one who revealed it was made using “value added homogenized data.”

How and why anyone can still try and defend the hockey stick, and as a result the whole man made theory based almost totally upon it is a mystery except for my knowledge of psychology telling me fear beats intellect and peer pressure makes most people follow the pack and ostracise outsiders until they are found to be correct when the tide turns and goes the other way.

These growing revelations must make neutral readers at least somewhat concerned that it is not possible to have so many instances of bad practice clearly exposed without devaluing the whole area. And if not, then what will it take for people to realise something's not right before they question the status quo (and each day is costing us more in higher taxes, solely on the basis that cheap fuel is bad for the planet, my bottom).

This is how they did it, including some direct confessions

Someone has gone to the trouble to work out what it looked like before adjustment, quite fascinating. Seems our current record temperatures are gone, and when it was known by everyone except Michael Mann and his vast band of followers it was hotter in the 1400s (plenty of documented and physical evidence worldwide, people wrote then as well) it was both very good for the planet, and not man made. If this graph is accurate (and I suspect it is) we have had the mother of all cons imposed on us for the last 30 years and nearly everyone still believes it. Maybe if more people checked the stories they read in the papers as I chose to out of personal interest they wouldn't have let it continue unabated.

Really?

Surely not?

Yes, really!

How do they get so many different results but only use one officially? How would you like your accountant to do that?


Edited by satguru (Fri Aug 24 2012 10:11 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
#819943 - Thu Aug 30 2012 04:44 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6504
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
There is an absolutely fixed formula for commonly held beliefs. First a few intuitive people start to notice there may be other explanations, then they are ridiculed, insulted and possibly even prosecuted or killed. Then new evidence appears gradually showing what they claimed was actually the case well in advance, until there is enough evidence for the weight to become overwhelming, a belief becomes converted to a known, and then people tend to forget it was ever any other way, from the sun revolving round the earth to stomach ulcers being caused by stress.

So after over a decade of small isolated voices reading the graphs (far easier than equations) and noticing CO2 always rose some time after the temperature as it was released by the ocean gradually, not before. A new paper now has tracked the cycle from the ocean to the atmosphere, meaning the heat is being created in the exact opposite way as claimed before, and impossible to be from the small amounts we emit here as all been shown to be natural. Of course in climatology every new study has an old one which disagrees, another reason I simply don't believe it's safe to be relied on to make world policies, and until the equipment and methods are good enough to overall agree nothing should be relied upon to that level:

The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The combined efforts of three Norwegian universities

I will add we only produce around 3% of CO2, which always concerned me how that could then be blamed on us. That's common sense to me but not many people seem to share this with me.


Edited by satguru (Thu Aug 30 2012 06:45 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
Page 8 of 11 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Moderator:  bloomsby