Global Warming - Moved

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: The good

Message 93243 in response to message 93045

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The good thing is that this group are shrinking faster then the polar ice;)

Err, which pole is that? ;-)

Cheers, Mike.

It stars with an 'N' ;)

So we are now talking only about northern hemisphere warming?

Can't say I am surprised. The first time we look at ozone over the south pole there is a hole that just started in the wrong hemisphere so it has to be CFCs.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,027
Credit: 104,472,919
RAC: 71,466

RE: So we are now talking

Message 93244 in response to message 93243

Quote:
So we are now talking only about northern hemisphere warming?


Haven't you heard? That's hemi-global warming at work. Happens every year apparently. We await hemi-demi-semi-partly-sometimes ...... :-) :-) :-)

[ .... that was a joke. It's Xmas!! ]

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: ... edit again:-) If

Message 93245 in response to message 93049

Quote:
...
edit again:-) If every citizen on the planet who wants find a life style of the average US citizen It would require three planets of resources. Thats the Crux of the problem climate change is just the side show

Sounds amusing when hippies say that but not true at all.

It is all based upon energy. With breeder reactors we have a nearly unlimited number of planets worth of fossil fuel energy that is IF oil is really has an organic origin rather than a natural abiotic product. Just last year I was reading about China cornering the market on neodymium by not exporting it as ore/ingot whatever. A couple weeks ago I read of an US mine reopening because of the increased demand. I assume the US is not the only country that has such mines.

If energy were free we could likely get every element we need out of sea water -- assuming there is likely an element or three that is not present in sea water. The only issue in mining is concentration, economically recoverable based upon the market price.

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: RE: ... The main

Message 93246 in response to message 93187

Quote:
Quote:
...
The main reason why the ETS failed DownUnda was not the idea, or even the amount ( when we were finally told the amount ), but was the total failure of proponents to identify the ultimate use to which the money would be put. So it could well be fine if you shave ~ $18B AUD / year out of the economy ( around $1200 per household annually, consumption based ) but if it truly was for the sake of a carbon dependence problem then why was it that none what-so-ever was allocated/devoted to alternatives? The lack of that clarity allowed cynicism to rule ( no shortage of that in the Aussie electorate ), on the suspicion that proceeds would go to the usual frippery and wastage.
...

I remember a discussion I had some fifteen years ago with some flaming European pardon the characterization but the issue was gasoline -- It needed a higher tax because of the "threat!!!"

I asked, very innocently, what taxes would be reduced so that the issue was revenue neutral rather than nothing more than an excuse to raise taxes.

Needless to say there was no response.

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

I have been at this for some

I have been at this for some time as http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml will show with correct copyright years.

This is the first forum I have found in literally decades where there has been a healthy skepticism of the melting claims and at the same time an identification of the idiocy of letting journalism majors rule the discussion.

For the record journalists have agreed and publicly announced that "responsible" journalism requires them to be advocates of global melting.

Please never tell me there are no conspiracies as journalists have announced they are members of a melting conspiracy.

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Global Warming in

Message 93248 in response to message 93188

Quote:
Quote:

Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits

So, they've been... Uh, Lying to us. What a surprise.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews


I still believe in the NASA data.And I am crunching climate models from the UK Meteorological Office and Oxford U. I've seen with my eyes my beloved alpine glaciers retreating and disappearing. If there is no global warming, why do they melt? Try to explain this.
Tullio

What exactly do you want explained? I will not ask why you love glaciers covering arable land that could be put to good use. I merely want to know why you assume the conclusion that the only possible explanation is human CO2. Can you explain why you assume the conclusion?

The simplest is that glaciers are a ratio of snowfall in winter to melt in summer. They can retreat by either increased melt or decreased snow. The colder the winter the less snow. You tell me why you are not talking global freezing instead of melting.

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Global Warming in

Message 93249 in response to message 93248

Quote:
Quote:

Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits

So, they've been... Uh, Lying to us. What a surprise.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews


I still believe in the NASA data.And I am crunching climate models from the UK Meteorological Office and Oxford U. I've seen with my eyes my beloved alpine glaciers retreating and disappearing. If there is no global warming, why do they melt? Try to explain this.
Tullio

Speaking of crunching numbers for the Met I just learned its number crunching for the last two years and for this year have predicted extremely mild winters. Note this winter is so far the worst of the last two years and the previous two were unusually severe.

Yes I am familiar with all the methods of statistical handwaving which can be invoked to explain it away so we are really, really and truly warming.

Yet here is my problem. The last three winters in North America have been unusually severe. And where the English language sources happen to be British it has been the same severe winters for all of Europe. They have been so bad even Muscovites have complained about the cold.

So my question is where in the hell are they getting the data to say the average annual temperature is still increasing?

Again, I know the statistical games. What I want to know are the geographic locations which are so warm that they balance out the colder winters over the largest temperate land masses in the world. Wherever they might be the news does not report areas suffering from such increased temperatures.

ML1
ML1
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 334
Credit: 54,875,234
RAC: 34,538

RE: ... so bad even

Message 93250 in response to message 93249

Quote:

... so bad even Muscovites have complained about the cold.

So my question is where in the hell are they getting the data to say the average annual temperature is still increasing?

Again, I know the statistical games. ...

I know that you play silly word games just to goad and troll and to deliberately confuse... So I'll just keep it simple enough for you:

The significant effect of Global Warming is that it is changing the weather patterns for the world.

To spell it out even more clearly for you:

That means a particular area on the planet is likely to get different weather to what is considered 'normal' for that area.

There's lots of well understood physics to explain how our weather patterns can be expected to get more extreme and more erratic until a new (and very different) stability is reached. Unless that is we can all agree and act to stop dumping GIGA-TONS of fossil CO2 into our very finite atmosphere.

The recent weather seen in various parts of the world is certainly different to what we've seen 'recently'. Even the Muscovites will tell you that.

And your next goal-post shifting retort into FUD will be?

Meanwhile, it's still our only one planet.
Martin

Powered by: Mageia5
See & try out your OS Freedom! Linux Voice
The Future is what We all make IT [url=http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html](GPLv3

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1,994
Credit: 31,672,167
RAC: 4,261

Accord to NASA 2010 will be

Accord to NASA 2010 will be the warmest year on record, surpassing the record of 2005. There was an article on the NYTimes about the rising CO2 percentage recorded at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii by Charles David Keeling starting in the Fifties and now continued by his son.Incidentally, Dr. Keeling was a registered Republican, according to the NYTimes. Whether the two facts are related depends on what you think. Using Ockham's Razor I think they are.
Tullio

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,027
Credit: 104,472,919
RAC: 71,466

RE: Accord to NASA 2010

Message 93252 in response to message 93251

Quote:
Accord to NASA 2010 will be the warmest year on record, surpassing the record of 2005. There was an article on the NYTimes about the rising CO2 percentage recorded at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii by Charles David Keeling starting in the Fifties and now continued by his son.Incidentally, Dr. Keeling was a registered Republican, according to the NYTimes. Whether the two facts are related depends on what you think. Using Ockham's Razor I think they are.
Tullio


I assume you are talking of this paper, from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which I hope you will all read. The closer the better. This is why one needs to go to source, rather than swallow some press line than suits individual comforts. [ BTW Occams razor doesn't relate facts but deems the choice b/w agreeing hypotheses to the simplest. It doesn't say the simplest explanation must be true. So which two hypotheses that predict the same outcome are you comparing here? ] Or do we just accept what we like the sound of, switch analysis off, and strongly assert what we haven't actually examined or quote an authority without reading what they actually wrote?

Of especial interest is their analysis of the weakness and errors in their methods ( section 9 ), that their data is publicly available, and also the computer program code. Section 2 describes their method in detail and is quite revealing in what it throws out as well as retains. This is the sort of transparency I like.

But beware of some deeply embedded disclaimers ( speaking against the validity of their main conclusions ) like :

- ( paragraph 6 ) 'One consequence of working only with temperature change is that our analysis does not produce estimates of absolute temperature. For the sake of users who require an absolute global mean temperature, we have estimated the 1951–1980 global mean surface air temperature as 14°C with uncertainty several tenths of a degree Celsius' [ note their use of 'estimates'/'estimated' rather than measured, and in terms of their later conclusions ( of 0.8 degree in the last century ) this is a huge problem with their baseline period ]

- ( paragraph 75 ) 'As for calendar year 2010, the first half of the year is warm enough that the 2010 global surface temperature in the GISS analysis likely will be a record for the period of instrumental data, or at least so close to the prior warmest year (2005) that it must be declared in a statistical dead heat. It is still conceivable that record global temperature for the calendar year will not occur, if tropical SSTs deteriorate rapidly into a very deep La Niña in the latter half of 2010.' [NB as declared on the title page, their last amendment was August - and yes, guess what happened since. Also 'statistical dead heat' means 'surpassing' for you Tullio? And do please read paragraph 89 as to why the flatness of the data ( all within 0.03 degrees ) yields 6 candidates since 1996 for the second warmest year ... ]

- ( paragraph 80 ) 'The GISS analysis assigns a temperature anomaly to many grid boxes that do not contain measurement data, specifically all grid boxes located within 1200 km of one or more stations that do have defined temperature anomalies.' [ ie. when data is absent then assume an anomaly ]

- ( paragraph 85 ) 'We agree with Chylek et al. (manuscript in preparation, 2010) that the Arctic temperature change is uncertain and must be regarded with caution' [ yet knowing this problem, they none-the-less estimate the data points ( because they haven't the temperature readings ) into that region within their modelling ]

- ( paragraph 88 ) 'the total uncertainty in global mean temperature anomaly with land and ocean data included is similar to the error estimate in the first row of Table 1, i.e., the error due to limited spatial coverage when only meteorological stations are available.' [ the error is of same magnitude as the quoted trend ]

Why anyone here is emphatically thumping the table with these sorts of qualifications on data and conclusions as openly disclosed by the specific researchers themselves is beyond me. Please read section 10 for some great insights into the public disjunctions that have occurred too ....

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.