Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 27 September 2013, 14:05:47
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2434628/IPCC-climate-change-report-Humans-causing-global-warming-STILL-explain-Earths-barely-got-hotter-15-years.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2434628/IPCC-climate-change-report-Humans-causing-global-warming-STILL-explain-Earths-barely-got-hotter-15-years.html)
-
Daily Fail: "UN scientists reveal the world's barely got any hotter in the last 15 years"
By barely hotter they mean 0.6C since 1950. 0.6C on the average is actually a lot meaning a big rise in severe weather events:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Global_temperature_1ka.png/800px-Global_temperature_1ka.png)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_temperature_1ka.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_temperature_1ka.png)
-
Daily Fail: "UN scientists reveal the world's barely got any hotter in the last 15 years"
By barely hotter they mean 0.6C since 1950. 0.6C on the average is actually a lot meaning a big rise in severe weather events:
I wouldn't trust Wiki on climate matters.
Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.Google William Connelley
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/)
There is no evidence that severe weather is on the increase. This is one of many research papers that have arrived at the conclusion:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/25/comprehensive-alps-study-clearly-refutes-humans-are-causing-more-weather-variability-and-extremes/ (http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/25/comprehensive-alps-study-clearly-refutes-humans-are-causing-more-weather-variability-and-extremes/)
As far as today's stories are concerned, i find it hard to get this quote out of my mind:
“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
..and who said that? Why, it was Otto Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, in an interview with Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010.
:o :o >:( >:(
http://iceagenow.info/2013/09/listening-ipcc-itself/ (http://iceagenow.info/2013/09/listening-ipcc-itself/)
-
I have the answer:
As the climate warms we will use less fossil fuels to heat our homes thus cutting down on emissions.
Next problem.
-
I have the answer:
As the climate warms we will use less fossil fuels to heat our homes thus cutting down on emissions.
Next problem.
That can't be the right answer. It doesn't make a fortune for all the politicians who "just happen" to have non-executive directorships in companies building wind farms, solar panels, etc. ::)
-
It's a simple process Kev, stop complicating matters. :)
-
We have been here so often!
Fact: Global Warming is taking place.
Fact: It is a very complicated process to monitor across a planet the size of the Earth.
Fact: No one can reasonably prove yet exactly how much man is contributing to this warming.
Fact: Weather patterns have been changing
Fact: People can discuss what is happening and reach various conclusions; the politicians can make Politics out of all this if they feel like it, as much as the rest of us can, although most will not as we are all human.
Fact: We can just talk about all this, do nothing, and watch the effects continue, or as a species at least try and understand the situation, with progressive action being taken, and just maybe stop the warming getting worse and causing millions/billions of human causalities.
For the sake of future generations let the scientific community help us to understand Global Warming, and propose an answer to it. What is wrong with that?
-
What's wrong with that, Lizzie, is that the scientific community are sponsored by a lot of different, self-interested parties and, therefore, cannot be trusted to be impartial.
-
What's wrong with that, Lizzie, is that the scientific community are sponsored by a lot of different, self-interested parties and, therefore, cannot be trusted to be impartial.
Very few will come into that category as the majority of scientists do not want to know about politics and such like; they just want to study and learn from what they research. Anyway, even if some are biased, they are not all that way inclined by any stretch of the imagination and love to operate beyond "establishment" control. That is why if the vast majority state there is Global Warming taking place, then there is Global Warming taking place.
Are you and me anywhere near qualified enough to be credible critics of that community?
We only have opinions, gut feelings, with no empirical evidence and are in fact biased ourselves being ignorant of the true facts. ;) ;)
-
What's wrong with that, Lizzie, is that the scientific community are sponsored by a lot of different, self-interested parties and, therefore, cannot be trusted to be impartial.
Very few will come into that category as the majority of scientists do not want to know about politics and such like; they just want to study and learn from what they research. Anyway, even if some are biased, they are not all that way inclined by any stretch of the imagination and love to operate beyond "establishment" control. That is why if the vast majority state there is Global Warming taking place, then there is Global Warming taking place.
Are you and me anywhere near qualified enough to be credible critics of that community?
We only have opinions, gut feelings, with no empirical evidence and are in fact biased ourselves being ignorant of the true facts. ;) ;)
That's true. But, I'm afraid, the fact that they present are far from convincing. And there are plenty of equally honourable scientists who present an opposing view.
-
Has anyone included the Icelandic volcano in the 'Carbon fuelled Man is evil' maths :-\
Call me cynical, but I doubt it ::)
-
What's wrong with that, Lizzie, is that the scientific community are sponsored by a lot of different, self-interested parties and, therefore, cannot be trusted to be impartial.
Very few will come into that category as the majority of scientists do not want to know about politics and such like; they just want to study and learn from what they research.....
It's game over for them if they upset their paymasters, though. ;)
-
What's wrong with that, Lizzie, is that the scientific community are sponsored by a lot of different, self-interested parties and, therefore, cannot be trusted to be impartial.
Very few will come into that category as the majority of scientists do not want to know about politics and such like; they just want to study and learn from what they research. Anyway, even if some are biased, they are not all that way inclined by any stretch of the imagination and love to operate beyond "establishment" control. That is why if the vast majority state there is Global Warming taking place, then there is Global Warming taking place.
Are you and me anywhere near qualified enough to be credible critics of that community?
We only have opinions, gut feelings, with no empirical evidence and are in fact biased ourselves being ignorant of the true facts. ;) ;)
Sorry, Lizzie you are using the same arguments as these pseudo scientists to try justify what is clearly not working or it would have predicted that last 15 years of static temperature rises. They cannot model future climate and even struggle to model the past and even then their modeling only works for part of less than the blink of an eye compared to the age of the earth where it covers 1880 (the end of the last mini cold period) to 1998. There sample length has no more meaning than an alien being beamed into London for 1 second and then Sydney for 1 second and coming to the conclusion that London always has sunlight and the river must form a crucial part in cooling to keep it habitable and the reverse in Sydney where it is always in darkness, this is the resolution they are running at.
It is impossible to model future climate change for the very simple reason that it is a chaotic dynamic system. We don't know and can't know what the unknown, unknowns are, so any long term modelling is a nonsense. On top of that many of the fundamental influences of our climate are not well understood and that includes the major ones like sun activity and cycles, solar wind changes, the variances in our distance from the sun, earth axis wobbling and changes in magnetic poles etc, etc. Add to this volcanic activity and earthquakes which are random events along with many other unknown factors.
Another dynamic system that has certainly shown the failings of such systems since 2007 has been economic modelling, where the IMF, OBR and BOE economic models for predicting economic growth have been appalling where their models can't and don't work in chaotic times only in near steady state ones, as in the growth this year will be a bit more or a bit less than last year. The flap of the butterfly's wing was the point when banks collectively realised the AAA debts they had been sold was actually sub-prime. Now I have no doubt that a rough model of what has happened in the past could be created, because unknown, unknowns are now known unknowns, but modelling the past is no prediction on what will happen in the future, where we are back to unknown, unknowns again.
Do humans affect the climate, yes along with polar bears, coral reefs, volcanos, earthquakes, the sun and all other objects that form the dynamic systems in our solar system and on earth, can we model all of this to measure such small changes, no chance.
Long term analysis of ice core shows that the current variance of our climate is well within normal fluctuations in this current 1.6 million year old ice age.
Unfortunately, where the pro-climate change scientist are not prepared to allow their models to be judged by a broad range scientific peers (I wonder why ::) ) they instead just fall back to the argument that we are right so believe us, a bit like a local priest when talking about god. That is the problem when something becomes a religion, it is all based on hearsay not proven and provable facts.
Sorry, but as a scientist I was always taught to question and question again and never believe until it can be proven with certainty and this pseudo climate science falls woefully short of this threshold.
-
"... What is clear is that climate change is already costing us dearly, and that when combined with growing population and urbanisation, is projected to disrupt regional and global energy, food, water and health security.
(...)
Prof Julia Slingo
UK Met Office Chief Scientist "
Is that really science she's talking about...or just propaganda?
Incidentally, if you type "Senna the Soothsayer" into Google, guess whose name pops up first? ;) ;D ;D
(H/T to a commenter on the Bishop Hill blog)
-
Daily Fail: "UN scientists reveal the world's barely got any hotter in the last 15 years"
By barely hotter they mean 0.6C since 1950. 0.6C on the average is actually a lot meaning a big rise in severe weather events:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Global_temperature_1ka.png/800px-Global_temperature_1ka.png)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_temperature_1ka.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_temperature_1ka.png)
Try looking at this data, where they have discovered bias in climate scientist datasets. Now there's a surprise, why let the facts get in the way of a good scare story and a good draw on hard earned, by us, taxpayers money.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/)
-
"... What is clear is that climate change is already costing us dearly, and that when combined with growing population and urbanisation, is projected to disrupt regional and global energy, food, water and health security.
(...)
Prof Julia Slingo
UK Met Office Chief Scientist "
Is that really science she's talking about...or just propaganda?
Incidentally, if you type "Senna the Soothsayer" into Google, guess whose name pops up first? ;) ;D ;D
(H/T to a commenter on the Bishop Hill blog)
Perhaps I should explain further:
Do you remember the Frankie Howard comedy called " Up Pompeii"? In that comedy, Senna the Soothsayer's favourite expression was "Woe, woe and thrice woe!" - constantly seeing doom in Lurcio's future, except that she was usually wrong ...
Now, go and type in "Senna the Soothsayer" into the Google search and see whose name comes up first!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Daily Fail: "UN scientists reveal the world's barely got any hotter in the last 15 years"
By barely hotter they mean 0.6C since 1950. 0.6C on the average is actually a lot meaning a big rise in severe weather events:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Global_temperature_1ka.png/800px-Global_temperature_1ka.png)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_temperature_1ka.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_temperature_1ka.png)
Try looking at this data, where they have discovered bias in climate scientist datasets. Now there's a surprise, why let the facts get in the way of a good scare story and a good draw on hard earned, by us, taxpayers money.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/)
The data for the graphs in your link are for northern Sweden, not global. Hence the much lower C figures.They don't seem to make that very clear.
Generally people are biased when money is involved. This especially applies to intelligent people such as most scientists tend to be. Guess where the money is? Of course some people are just biased because they are ignorant and/or read papers favouring big money like the Daily Fail.
-
The data for the graphs in your link are for northern Sweden, not global. Hence the much lower C figures.They don't seem to make that very clear.
Generally people are biased when money is involved. This especially applies to intelligent people such as most scientists tend to be. Guess where the money is? Of course some people are just biased because they are ignorant and/or read papers favouring big money like the Daily Fail.
Huh? ??? ??? ???
Most of the dendrochronology samples come from Scandinavia/Russia as they have been preserved by the conditions. Not much use trying to get tree ring samples going back a thousand years from wood that has deteriorated. Whilst many question the usefulness of dendrochronological data, it has been used by some of the main proponents of AGW (like Mann).
-
According to that UN report, us humans are 95% responsible for climate change.
Does that mean there is a 5% chance it's actually being caused by angry alien ants with a big magnifying glass?
-
Peter Wolf The IPCC tries to move the goalposts again, where before they said it would be significant if there was no warming for 15 years and it is now 17 years, so now they say it has to be 30 years before it is significant. Still I guess at least another 13 years of big fat salaries and pension pots at our expense means they will try and play this game for as long as possible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html)
-
According to that UN report, us humans are 95% responsible for climate change.
Does that mean there is a 5% chance it's actually being caused by angry alien ants with a big magnifying glass?
;D
Nah, it's that Marvin the Martian and his big oops off laser pistol. ;D