Global Warming

thebigshot

So now we have an about turn by the big boys.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

We clearly know that the earth is not warming, it has not warmed since 1998.

We know that people are not the cause of earth temperature changes. The big boys predict the changes and then blame the people in order to restrict freedoms and rip them off.

Back in the 1970's it was global cooling, then global warming and now global cooling. What a joke.

bonkey

thebigshot wrote: »

So now we have an about turn by the big boys.

No, we don't. We have a refinement of existing models, which may be correct. if it is correct, it will cause a short-term divergence, which will correct itself. So any cooling we experience will be short-term, and then offset immediately afterweards, so that within 20 years we'll have the same conditions as currently predicted for 20 years from now.

We clearly know that the earth is not warming, it has not warmed since 1998.

We clearly know no such thing, and yes, the earth has warmed since 1998. Look at the chart in the article you linked to. See the red line...the one of measured temperatures? See how it rises steadily up to about 2005?

We know that people are not the cause of earth temperature changes.

We know theat people are not the only cause, yes. We also know that they are a cause.

Back in the 1970's it was global cooling,

No, it wasn't.

now global cooling.

No, it isn't.

You need to re-read what was written in the article you linked to. Here...I'll make it easy and give you the bits to look at:

"it does suggest a plateauing of temperatures, and then a continued rise,"
...
"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."
...
he emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.

What a joke.

The only joke I see is that I can't find a single sentence in your post that is factually correct.

sarahirl

eh big boys, who would they be? this is one experiment published in one journal. "temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020"

thebigshot

bonkey wrote: »

No, we don't. We have a refinement of existing models, which may be correct. if it is correct, it will cause a short-term divergence, which will correct itself. So any cooling we experience will be short-term, and then offset immediately afterweards, so that within 20 years we'll have the same conditions as currently predicted for 20 years from now..

I could design a model predicting the direct opposite. This is how testing and models work in reality.

http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/drug-giant-merck-caught-in-massive-fraud

bonkey wrote: »

We clearly know no such thing, and yes, the earth has warmed since 1998. Look at the chart in the article you linked to. See the red line...the one of measured temperatures? See how it rises steadily up to about 2005? ..

I could show you ten different studies with ten different results. The point I was making is that the big boys have told the scientists to change their story, because the dogs on the street can see that no warming is taking place.

bonkey wrote: »

We know theat people are not the only cause, yes. We also know that they are a cause...

Based on what, the reports of a load of government paid scientists.

bonkey wrote: »

You need to re-read what was written in the article you linked to. Here...I'll make it easy and give you the bits to look at:...

I did not even read the report in full, or look at the graphs. You see it is irrelevant, mere propaganda. The overall context is the important part not the made up "facts"

bonkey wrote: »

The only joke I see is that I can't find a single sentence in your post that is factually correct.

My statements are "facts" in just the same way as any scientists.

People are starting to see through the rubbish to the heart of the issue.

The big boys can see this and they are taking action, trying to rush through more enslaving laws such as the "carbon tax".

SCAM

AngryHippie

Its all just a campaign to distract you from the real global problem of massive overpopulation of humans on this planet. Jeez, We've been able to count for thousands of years now, Its kinda obvious, But instead they have everyone convinced that their car or lightbulb or "footprint" is gonna be the cause for the apocalpyse.... Every democracy is 3 meals from a revolution.....Someday soon, in the future for this generation, or the next, There isn't gonna be enough, which is gonna bring down what we know as society, the wheels will come flying off and the whole job will fold up, country by country. Then we're all gonna be sorry we screwed the farmers and gave all our money to tesco and walmart.

Climate change will only affect the survivors of that.:eek:

I jest of course

AngryHippie

oh yeah, and Hi casey btw.

Skadi

AngryHippie wrote: »

Its all just a campaign to distract you from the real global problem of massive overpopulation of humans on this planet. Jeez, We've been able to count for thousands of years now, Its kinda obvious, But instead they have everyone convinced that their car or lightbulb or "footprint" is gonna be the cause for the apocalpyse.... Every democracy is 3 meals from a revolution.....Someday soon, in the future for this generation, or the next, There isn't gonna be enough, which is gonna bring down what we know as society, the wheels will come flying off and the whole job will fold up, country by country. Then we're all gonna be sorry we screwed the farmers and gave all our money to tesco and walmart.

Climate change will only affect the survivors of that.:eek:

I jest of course

There is much sense in what you say. I care deeply about nature, but i don't think modern society or even humanity is what I want to save. Our society slowly becomes a big brother society more each day, and the threat of global warming seems to be a way to bring in more laws or rules, or simply to tell others how to live their lives.

There is a lot of money going into green campaigns and you have to ask yourself why? Is it that the company truly cares or do they see a new way of marketing their products?

Why don't campaigns come out to tell us of the vast needless carbon emissions generated by the school run? Or run campaigns to tell us that when a new child is born how much extra pressure we are putting on our world? Why should i save water when it is plentiful, and the water I save will not be shipped to the places suffering from drought. And surely buying food from third world countries while helping the people there will increase carbon emissions and also be detrimental to the local farmers where I live. If the farms in Ireland disappear will forests and nature parks go up in their place. No, it is more likely that houses and high rise apartments will appear.

That original report showed how nature herself tries to combat the changes, and no scientist can stand up (or even would stand up) and claim that they knew all the answers or understood how the future will be. Predictions are only based on current data, and they will change as the scientist understands more.

thebigshot

AngryHippie wrote: »

Its all just a campaign to distract you from the real global problem of massive overpopulation of humans on this planet. .:eek:

The populations of western europe would be dropping rapidly were it not for massive immigration.

Now around 12% of the Irish population are foreigners.

Of course immigration was planned to cause huge problems and social issues.

sarahirl

Based on what, the reports of a load of government paid scientists.

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

note that the ipcc doesn't actually conduct research, it takes reseach from around the world. doesn't say whether this government funded research, industry research, philanthropic research...

so you're also anti-immigration too? wouldn't the world be sorted if we all just stayed where we were? how much american tv or films do you watch? if european, asian and african people just stayed where they were (voluntarily or by force or threat of persecution or lure of jobs) american tv probably wouldn't exist in the form we all questionably love today.

so you admitted to not reading the report you yourself linked and you said proved global warming/cooling/climate change was bull. you don't know what the ipcc do, yet you're trying to use them in an argument for your own cause. are you actually contributing anything to this forum other than irritation at your random baseless arguments?

lostinsuperfunk

I did not even read the report in full, or look at the graphs.

Think this might undermine your analysis slightly.

thebigshot

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

Think this might undermine your analysis slightly.

What are you on about. I explained the reasons for not reading such reports in detail.

They are baseless propaganda.

As for that bird commenting on the IPCC. Catch yourself on, look into the origins of the United Nations.

derry

I would like to state that essentially I would agree to most green activities where I can reasonably see they will impact the enviorement and tackle the most important issues first and try to keep neo religios pessimists believes out of factual calculations

For Ireland I want to tackle issues like why we cant drink the water in Galway anymore
Thats factual it give you the trots or something nasty like that and not so pie in the sky like global warming

Or issues of save the Salmon fish from overfishing whatever

But really and truly I cant find a single gram ( onze ) of proof for this global warming issue
I have to conclude that there is a fashion trend that runs through science a bit like mini skirts and long dresses that swings between global cooling and global warming depending on where the research funds are going in the fashion that exists at that time

When I was a kid in the 1970 era we were every day told gospel truth from the media and school books of the day that the ice age was coming
Also the ice sheet 5 miles thick would be over Dublin before we were granpa's maybe even sooner and best to high tail it to Africa or somewhere else to get away from the impending doom

Well somewhere between 1970 and 1995 they changed the plot

Now the boogie man is global warming and its going to cook my goose before I am a grandpa

The reality is the planet is huge and humanity is tiny tiny tiny and a bunch of talking monkeys who would like to believe they can with a few candle power of fossil fuel burning affect a humongously large atmosphere

Simple maths shows the 600 MTOE (metric ton oil equivalence ) that humanity burns every second (or approx 10 South Tower of the World Tower Centre 911 crashes per second ) although big for talking monkeys on that scale is when you divide the CO2 it makes into the atmosphere's total tonnage is so infinitely small to be irrelevant.
Try convincing me a fly farting every second inside a sealed empty jumbo jet will eventually cause climate change inside the jumbo jet and then you see we talking monkeys are zip nada nothing compared to the size of the planet
Even if you run this 600 MTOE (metric ton oil equivalence ) for thousands of years the amount of the oxygen converted to CO2 is minuscule

The CO2 280 PPM (parts per million ) at the start of measuring CO2 in the ~1800 era and todays 380 PPM (parts per million ) should drop a hint of the irrelevance of the issue
Example try finding a few red red balls in a million white balls not worth talking about
Or can one kiddy piddling in the swimming pool turn all the water yellow

Then AAAGGGHHH BBBUUUTTT the green house affect of CO2 argument GOT YOU
Prove it the simple response
Most global warming which we absolutely need to keep us warm on the planet is created in the first 30 feet of the planet from water vapor H20 and then C02 aids that affect slightly

However after 100 PPM there is no massive extra warming from 120PPM or 280PPM or 380PPM or 900PPM or 1500PPM as its a bit like the plastic sheet issue coving the plants to make a local green house event

If you cover the crops with a thin sheet of plastic you get green house warming which you want
Even if you double or triple or quadruple the plastic sheets you might get incremently a minuscule gain in green house temperature over one sheet but extra sheets wont amplify or even add anything extra worthwhile to use extra plastic sheets as its the first sheet suppling the majority of the green house affect that does the useful work
( In fact there is even a risk to get cooling affects from thicker plastic sheet)


The planets history of climate change is it always changed dramaticaly long before humans arrived and is predominantly 98% ice age with times of extra heat like the Viking era when Viking grew wheat in ice free Greenland and ice free Iceland (ice = fish in Irish) and the Viking watched the the polar bears in that time starve to extinction from the global warming event the Viking brought about with big village fires and beer brewing which creates lots of CO2

Now there might be global warming or for that matter global cooling but the noise in measuring and the total lack of ability of lots scientists to unlock them selfs from the science fashions mean you cant trust most of them one tiny tiny weenee bit .

Also the more than the half of them probably have $100 internet fake degrees from Arizona University at cactus corner left of the dried up creek and getting a whack of money creating hot air in the UN in the form of the IPCC (International panel for climate change) at the UN

It makes interesting reading all the scientists who object to the IPCC (International panel for climate change) who often told outright porkies and said such and such scientist agrees with IPCC and contributed and the scientists comes back and says no way
In fact they did not agree with the IPCC and told them that they didn't and where the hell did IPCC get of including their names in the first place as contributers to the IPCC global warming myth

So when you look into the global warming issue the most info shows the nuclear power outlets with the help of Maggie Thatcher the bitch combined in the 1980 era to take on the global cooling fashion and fashion the global warming fashion so as to sell the idea that nuclear would save our goose from being cooked
The neo cons (Neo Conservative forces in the USA) are also trying to put Three mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents behind are also on the band wagon to sell us more nuclear mayhem

The good scientists who do try to stick up and say the global warming stuff or even the global cooling stuff is unlikely and it would take thousands of years for talking monkeys to change the temperature of a huge planet even if they tried real hard are often getting their research cut off when they speak out of turn
So needless to say they learn to keep their mouths shut while the NAZI IPCC bunch and similar suedo scientist run rampaging over science to sell something and its probably not good for us like nuclear power or similar tripe


As for overpopulation that is the greatest load of tripe ever invented by white skinned ( I AM WHITE TOO ) run university professors who sit in small apartments in congested cities and figure because they cant afford the beach front houses that the world is overpopulated and if there was less people they too could have a nice pad in Dalkey or Killiney whatever

You only have to figure that most the world is actually empty like most middle USA most country regions in France Germany Spain and that before totally empty Siberia most Australia and most of Africa is empty just for starters and then check the rest and irs really super empty

Then when I young in the 1975 era I read a book one half written with pessimistic scientists food would run out overpopulation doom and gloom yad yada
The other half of the book was the opposite where the world would be bountiful and better on all fronts and things would only get mostly better and better

Well so far the optimists 30 years later were 99.99999999% correct

The world prices for raw materials would drop a lot for the next thirty years
Logical as all mining companies only find thirty years stuff in advance and we would never run out of raw materials
We would just go through the odd rise and fall in prices but essentially exceed demand so prices generally most the time drop including for oil
Food production would follow a similar theme and more than keep up with the odd blip imposed from seasonal changes and that technology would cause prices mostly to keep costs lower which up to now has been the case
(The most of the present oil price hikes and food price hike are from speculative future buying which has created a oil and food price investment bubble spike which will if it doesn't burst will reduce in prices as reality and supply figures show the lack of evidence for the high prices )

The optimists were in 1975 able to say not only would or could we support a larger population double what was then in 75 but easily ten times more without missing a heart beat even without any major technological solutions like genetic engineering at that time a science fiction concept

They even for the time were gob smacking saying 100 times the population could be catered for and we would only risk to have issues when we started to exceed 1000 time the 1975 population

I tried to swing that past the geography secondary school teacher but he wasn't having any of that the school books had graphs of doom and gloom and 2005 we were all set to be starving to death from lack of food and repeat that crap in the exam and get 100% but dare to say the doom and gloom merchants were wrong and get 0%

So based on who is ahead on predictions I would say to the all the white universities of the world who spread semi religions messages of doom and gloom to go commit hari kari if they cant hack it and leave the rest of the world alone to do what they seem to want do which is populate it so as to be able to gain the full benefit of this extremely bountiful planet

We in Ireland are going to suffer the problems of lack of reproduction to avail of all the benefits ( THE UK has 4 times our population density ) that are possible and the immigration will ease some issue but if it wasn't for the famine a economic genocide from the depopulates regime Brits we would probably today be ~20 million population Ireland and probably a whole lot more rich per head of population with a lot more grumpy professors stuck in non beach side apartments spouting CRAP

Yes its good to try to be green but best to keep it more local
Its more important to make Galway water drinkable
Its more important to protect water tables and stop litter lots and fly tipping
Roughly its like similar to save the pennies and the pounds look after them selfs
So we can say if we all look for the smaller components to be greener like less polluting cars drinkable water etc. then we get cleaner cities and healthier kids and all the green benefits
But us talking monkeys shouldn't fool our selfs that we can easily screw up a entire planet of this magnitude unless we start throwing nuclear missiles or something crazy on that scale

Most of all be wary of grumpy prophets of doom they been predicting oil would run out from 1900 when they drilled the first oil wells
They also been predicting human starvation for all the world was to occur even before 1930 and lots of doom and gloom stuff ever since Adam and Eve

RUN THEM



Derry (mostly self edumacted )

gerky

@derry I don't have the time to try and change your beliefs but the argument that earth is so big we're so small doesn't work as we only live in a tiny percentage of it.
To give you an idea of the actual small amount of water and atmosphere there is on earth here's a picture showing if all the atmosphere and water water was gathered in to spheres.

AngryHippie

Yeah, I appreciate the skeptical approach, But it doesn't take much for a seemingly minor ecological disaster to turn into a social cataclysm. For minor ecological disasters look to the caspian sea and a book called cadillac desert, The salton sea, parts of the Iran Iraq border, Cambodia, There are lessons in the histories of these areas that should have been learned and were't. The environment is a delicate system due to its complexity, and its only a matter of time before we upset the applecart in an area upon which a large population depends on for food or water suppy. Its not going to be this generation that suffers, It'll be the victims in countries that were plundered in the name of free market global economics, and the bitterness and resentment that arises as a result. We are repeating the mistakes of generations gone by, and we are wasting our time and resources at the peak of a wave of sophistication and intellect never previously achieved in the history of our species, we are depriving future generations of resources and opportunities that they will need to survive and prevent a repeat of the dark ages. Even if we do manage to support them nutritionally, they will no longer have the resources that we squandered on desert casino resorts, global tourism, the transport and packaging of exotic foodstuffs, while those with the resources and knowledge to provide the essentials locally are priced out of production...and while this goes on, the next generation drinks and dances...

Celticfire

gerky wrote: »

@derry I don't have the time to try and change your beliefs but the argument that earth is so big we're so small doesn't work as we only live in a tiny percentage of it.
To give you an idea of the actual small amount of water and atmosphere there is on earth here's a picture showing if all the atmosphere and water water was gathered in to spheres.

You wouldn't by any chance have similar images depicting the population of the earth and co2 ?It would be interesting to compare them.

bonkey

thebigshot wrote: »

What are you on about. I explained the reasons for not reading such reports in detail.

Apparently your reasons boil down to not believing in doing research, but rather believing what you like.

Catch yourself on, look into the origins of the United Nations.

Surely that would be baseless propaganda? Or are historical accounts reliable once they say something you agree with, Casey?

gerky

Celticfire wrote: »

You wouldn't by any chance have similar images depicting the population of the earth and co2 ?It would be interesting to compare them.

Sorry I haven't come across any but if I do I'll post them up.

McSandwich

derry wrote: »

The planets history of climate change is it always changed dramaticaly long before humans arrived and is predominantly 98% ice age with times of extra heat like the Viking era when Viking grew wheat in ice free Greenland and ice free Iceland (ice = fish in Irish) and the Viking watched the the polar bears in that time starve to extinction from the global warming event the Viking brought about with big village fires and beer brewing which creates lots of CO2

The Greenland ice sheets are at least 100,000 years old. However, the lands referred to as green by the Vikings extended further than the current Greenland (Newfoundland, etc). Apparently the Vikings told a few porkies in order to encourage migration to their new lands!

As for overpopulation that is the greatest load of tripe ever invented by white skinned ( I AM WHITE TOO ) run university professors who sit in small apartments in congested cities and figure because they cant afford the beach front houses that the world is overpopulated and if there was less people they too could have a nice pad in Dalkey or Killiney whatever


We in Ireland are going to suffer the problems of lack of reproduction to avail of all the benefits ( THE UK has 4 times our population density ) that are possible and the immigration will ease some issue but if it wasn't for the famine a economic genocide from the depopulates regime Brits we would probably today be ~20 million population Ireland and probably a whole lot more rich per head of population with a lot more grumpy professors stuck in non beach side apartments spouting CRAP

The world's population growth was made possible by an agricultural revolution made possible by oil which fueled machinery and provided the raw material for artificial fertiliser.

The Irish famine which decimated our population resulted from over reliance on a single crop. Now we are reliant on a single energy source for fuel, electricity, food production, medicine, plastics, water purification, money markets, war, etc. Unless we find alternative ways to produce all these things, i.e. before all the easy to get oil runs out, then the world's population will decline long before the worst effects global warming are felt.

Skadi

McSandwich wrote: »

The Irish famine which decimated our population resulted from over reliance on a single crop. Now we are reliant on a single energy source for fuel, electricity, food production, medicine, plastics, water purification, money markets, war, etc. Unless we find alternative ways to produce all these things, i.e. before all the easy to get oil runs out, then the world's population will decline long before the worst effects global warming are felt.

This shows how things should work, although the irish famine could have been avoided. Look to nature, in a bad year of crop growing the wild life suffer greatly, fewer rabbits survive leading to few foxes. The irish rabbits do not get a nice supply of food shipped in from england. Yet man lives outside his means, in a world far away from any realistic environment. Constantly we send food to other countries, so that people there and survive and thus their population keeps growing. If ireland and other countries can support greater populations then surely it makes more sense to bring the people in drought countries here rather than shipping food to them.

There are ways for ireland to create its own fuel supplies, but although we are preached about a greener way, these same people will stand up and protest at realistic ways to create green energy. There seems to be a barrier with those who want us to revert back to some pre-technology age, and those that have faith that science can provide the answers to a cleaner future.

cp251

Isn't it lucky that we have man made global warming. If it wasn't for that. Think how cold it would become with this suddenly revealed naturally occurring cooling phase. Which nobody bothered to mentioned before, not Al Gore, not the Green party or any climate scientist? Not even Bonkey.

If I wasn't a skeptic before I would have become one now.

How do we know their computer model is right this time? The previous one was clearly wrong if this one is to be believed.

I do believe that the bubble is about to burst on the whole global warming/climate change farce. How long can expect people to accept the scaremongering when faced with the reality of no apparent change in the climate?

lostinsuperfunk

Did you read the article? The prediction is for the temperature increase to halt, then resume. There is no net cooling predicted between now and 2020.

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

Isn't it lucky that we have man made global warming. If it wasn't for that. Think how cold it would become with this suddenly revealed naturally occurring cooling phase.

Going by the chart, there's a maximum divergence of 1/4 of a degree from previous prediction. So, in the absence of global warming, there'd be a 1/4 degree "dip"...which wouldn't be exceptional.

After all, we've had more than a 1/4 degree climb since the 70s which has been sustained, but which you describe as "no apparent change".

Which nobody bothered to mentioned before, not Al Gore, not the Green party or any climate scientist? Not even Bonkey.

And if you read the article the OP linked to, you'll know why.

If I wasn't a skeptic before I would have become one now.

I think you misunderstand what skepticism is. Refining your model in light of new data is a reason to have more faith in it, not less.

How do we know their computer model is right this time?

We don't. We do know that - if correct - this model is more accurate than the previous one, in that it caters for a previously-unmodelled short-term effect.

The previous one was clearly wrong if this one is to be believed.

The previous one was less accurate over a specific short-term, due to its not catering for a specific short-term effect. Over the long term, the new refinement makes no difference whatsoever.

How long can expect people to accept the scaremongering ...

I guess about as long as people argue that making a model better is a reason to trust it less. Or was that not the scaremongering that you were referring to?

cp251

Yes I did read the article and indeed that is what it says.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However if there was no 'greenhouse warming' then it would get a lot colder. Logical yes?

We have to take into account that there are uncertainties in our model; but it does suggest a plateauing of temperatures, and then a continued rise," said Dr Keenlyside.

Keywords being uncertainties and suggest.

The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.

It surely is a surprise to the public because only last month we were being told that the rapid temperature rises would continue. Now we are expected to believe it will stop for ten years and start again later. This wasn't mentioned in the 'An inconvenient truth'.

We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.

Of course it does. It's just that lately we are being told that we have caused the climate to vary. Now apparently Mother nature has taken a hand.

Dr Wood cautions that this kind of modelling is in its infancy; and once data can be brought directly from the Atlantic depths, that may change the view of how the AMO works and what it means for the global climate.

Keyword here is 'infancy'. They really don't know yet.

As with the unusually cold weather seen recently in much of the northern hemisphere - linked to La Nina conditions - he emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.

No, but it surely casts suspicion on them.

What essentially has happened here is that we are now being told the the recent warm phase is about to be cancelled out by a naturally occurring climatic cycle. But ten years from now the game kicks off again and it's business as usual. Global warming is deferred without any intervention from us?

You really don't have to be skeptic for a doubt to cross your mind.

cp251

Ah Bonkey there you are again with your quote/rebuttal Just state your case.

Look the reality is that we are now presented with a new 'more accurate' model. This suggests the previous models were less accurate. Indeed less accurate to the point where they failed to address natural climatic cycles.

Apparently according to the article this is 'no surprise' to scientists. But somehow they neglected to tell us, the public . Or maybe it really was a surprise to scientists.

We have been told by everyone that AGW was real and temperatures would continue to rise. Except that temperatures haven't actually risen since 1998 and now we are told that due to a natural climatic cycle, temperatures would 'plateau' for another ten years.

Computer models are great except that they are computer models not reality. Merely a simulation.

RedPlanet

so cp251, do you believe this latest report that there will be a short term cooling phase?
If so, why do you believe that?

thebigshot

What are you lot debating models for.

Anybody can create a model, it is just pure speculation. A means of frighteneing the gullable into handing over whatever few rights remaining.

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

Ah Bonkey there you are again with your quote/rebuttal Just state your case.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that I had to use this system the way you decide is appropriate....

Look the reality is that we are now presented with a new 'more accurate' model. This suggests the previous models were less accurate. Indeed less accurate to the point where they failed to address natural climatic cycles.

They failued to address a natural cycle, which was only recently clearly identified as existing in the first place...which was pointed out in the article that the OP linked to.

Apparently according to the article this is 'no surprise' to scientists. But somehow they neglected to tell us, the public . Or maybe it really was a surprise to scientists.

What was no surprise? That the model wasn't 100% accurate? That it didn't cover every single possibility? That the scientists were aware that there were almost-certainly natural cycles that hadn't been taken into account?

I dunno what you've been reading about global warming, or indeed science in general, but it certainly comes as no surprise to me. No-one has ever argued that the models are complete. For a start...thats why there's more than one model and why there's a spread of predicted outcomes. Its also (gasp!, shock!) why they're still working on the models.

Did you honestly think that all research into these models had stopped, and that no more research was being done on the whole area?

We have been told by everyone that AGW was real and temperatures would continue to rise. Except that temperatures haven't actually risen since 1998 and now we are told that due to a natural climatic cycle, temperatures would 'plateau' for another ten years.

What science are you basing your claim on that temps haven't risen since 1998? Is it science you trust? Care to tell us what it is, and I'll then tell you why you're wrong? Or will you just insist that its true, refusing to give a reason?

Ultimately, I think you make the "no increase since 1998" because you choose to believe that set of measurements, not because you can explain why its meaningfully more accurate then the models which say there has been an increase. I, on the other hand, am pretty sure I know which measurements such claims stem from and can explain why they are less reliable than those which say the temperatures have risen.

Computer models are great except that they are computer models not reality. Merely a simulation.

Science in general is great, except that it is just a set of models and not reality. Its merely a simulation. Of course....you trust your life to those models literally every moment of every day without thinking about it.

Its just when people don't like the models that all of a sudden they start arguing that "its just a model".

And if we're going to go down the road of soundbite non-argument cliches.....why not trot out the "just a theory" line as well, or the one about how we can't predict the weather next week. They'd show an equal level of understanding of what science is as your comment about models.

thebigshot

bonkey wrote: »

Science in general is great, quote]

Yes I agree, it is great for enslaving the masses.

bonkey

thebigshot wrote: »

bonkey wrote: »

Science in general is great,

Yes I agree, it is great for enslaving the masses.

Yes. I mean, it enslaved us with electricity, computers, the internet....y'know....all those things that you used to write that post.

AlanD

derry wrote: »

But really and truly I cant find a single gram ( onze ) of proof for this global warming issue
I have to conclude that there is a fashion trend that runs through science a bit like mini skirts and long dresses that swings between global cooling and global warming depending on where the research funds are going in the fashion that exists at that time

I agree wholeheartedly. Global warming because of humans is nonsense. The earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. The earth has seasons lasting 100s and 1000s of years. Although I agree that pumping bad stuff in to the air to pollute isn't good, I don't think it's going to kill the earth. The earth is very resilient and will manage. We need to clean up, but not with global warming bull as a marketing tool!

But then we wouldn't clean up without this nonsense would we? The gullible need something to blindly believe in.

bonkey

AlanD wrote: »

IThe gullible need something to blindly believe in.

They have something to blindly believe in....

- the notion that man cannot effect the climate
- the notion that what we are experiencing is comparable to previous climactic shifts
- the notion that the threat from AGW is not to human society but to the planet...

...actually...pretty-much everything you said in the rest of your post.

djpbarry

bonkey, I don't know where you get your patience; perhaps you could bottle some and sell it on eBay?

gerky

@bonkey I don't know how you have the patience to deal with this argument over and over again.
I just wouldn't have the patience, this argument comes up at least 1-2 times a month.
Anyway kudos on your endurance.

gerky

Great minds

thebigshot

djpbarry wrote: »

bonkey, I don't know where you get your patience; perhaps you could bottle some and sell it on eBay?

I'll give you a clue, he is paid to refute anti government opinions on various forums.;)

thebigshot

AlanD wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly. Global warming because of humans is nonsense. The earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. The earth has seasons lasting 100s and 1000s of years. Although I agree that pumping bad stuff in to the air to pollute isn't good, I don't think it's going to kill the earth. The earth is very resilient and will manage. We need to clean up, but not with global warming bull as a marketing tool!

But then we wouldn't clean up without this nonsense would we? The gullible need something to blindly believe in.

You are right about the science of global warming (sorry, cooling for the next 12 years, then a resumption of the upward trend.) It is pure rubbish.

However, the reasons behind the scam are much greater than you suspect. The sheep will be totally enslaved with carbon charges, environment charges, transport restrictions, increased fuel costs. Basically a destruction of the middle classes. A ruling minority and a majority of plebs, who judging by what I have seen lately, they will be happy "guys".

As Stanley Milgrim has shown, people love being told what to do.

gerky

Out of curiosity how many times are you gonna get banned and sign up again spouting the same stuff.

oscarBravo

Bugger off, casey.

sarahirl

thebigshot wrote: »

What are you on about. I explained the reasons for not reading such reports in detail.

They are baseless propaganda.

As for that bird commenting on the IPCC. Catch yourself on, look into the origins of the United Nations.

eh bird? so sexist, anti-immigration, angry little man... mods?

oscarBravo

He's banned, as have his last eight or ten trolling incarnations. I live in hope that he'll get a life, but it's a faint hope...

sarahirl

thanks! have no issues with people who have a different opinion, the world would be a boring place if everyone totally agreed on everything, but just shouting out random 'no no i'm not listening la la la la la' arguments isn't helpful

cp251

so cp251, do you believe this latest report that there will be a short term cooling phase?
If so, why do you believe that?

I don't neccessarily believe the new model, Redplanet. At least in part because it's instigators still believe in continued global warming after this newly discovered cooling phase. I am more inclined to believe in the plateauing of temperatures because in fact it's characterised as naturally occurring rather than a man made occurrence.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that I had to use this system the way you decide is appropriate....

Of course you don't Bonkey, do what you like. I just find it irritating in the extreme that you take quotes of of context and then attack them instead of simply stating your case. You have a tendency to use 'straw man' type arguments.

That is in fact what you continue to do with your defence of climate models. You say for example 'Did you honestly think that all research into these models had stopped, and that no more research was being done on the whole area?' Clearly I do not think that. Why would I think that?

Again here 'Science in general is great, except that it is just a set of models and not reality. Its merely a simulation. Of course....you trust your life to those models literally every moment of every day without thinking about it' Sarcasm, tsk! I'm a pilot, science explains why I leave the ground and stay there until I decide to return. The model is good, although arguments still occur as to details. Climate models on the other hand a bit like studying form for horse racing and feeding all the results into a computer. The computer picks a winner, sometimes it's right sometimes it's wrong. The computer cannot allow for all the random factors because they are unpredictable. The chaos theory. So the 'wrong' horse wins. Thus it is with climate models. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

As for trotting out lines like, 'They can't predict the weather next week never mind in the future.'. Based on practical experience as a pilot. I find that they can't even predict the weather on the day. I can't tell you how many times I have stood there with a forecast in hands which bore only the most cursory resemblence to the reality outside the window or featured on the satellite photos. I've flown into weather several times that no met station predicted. I've seen Met Eireann forecasts change completely in the afternoon from the one they were touting in the morning.

Interestingly they tend to use computer models too as often captioned on the TV weather spot.

Practical reality makes you a skeptic.

djpbarry

cp251 wrote: »

I am more inclined to believe in the plateauing of temperatures because in fact it's characterised as naturally occurring rather than a man made occurrence.

Characterised by whom? You? Even if something occurs "naturally", there still has to be some sort of underlying physical explanation. What's your explanation for your "natural plateauing of temperatures"?

cp251 wrote: »

Climate models on the other hand a bit like studying form for horse racing and feeding all the results into a computer.

Absolute nonsense. If this were the case, then the IPCC are an incredibly lucky bunch and should probably spend less time worrying about global warming and more of their time at the track:

Nature 445, 578-579 (8 February 2007) wrote:

Some of that confidence comes from the accuracy of previous IPCC predictions, such as estimates made from 1990 onwards, that global temperatures would rise by between 0.15 °C and 0.3 °C per decade. Temperatures have climbed steadily since: the ten hottest years on record all postdate 1990, and the rate of warming, 0.2 °C per decade, fits the initial prediction.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445578a.html

cp251 wrote: »

Based on practical experience as a pilot. I find that they can't even predict the weather on the day.

Big difference between predicting trends in climate, and predicting the weather on any given day.

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

That is in fact what you continue to do with your defence of climate models. You say for example 'Did you honestly think that all research into these models had stopped, and that no more research was being done on the whole area?' Clearly I do not think that. Why would I think that?

Well, you evidence some sort of cynicism to do with the fact that the models are being updated in line with further evidence and that such updates were not considered surprising.

You say that they neglected to tell the public, and imply that their lack of telling you suggests that maybe they were surprised. My argument is that as long as intensive research is being continued, on models that are admittedly incomplete, there is the implicit signalling that further change should be expected, as factors not preeviously handled were added.

I'm a pilot, science explains why I leave the ground and stay there until I decide to return.

As a pilot, then, you'll be fully aware that modern plane designs are first tested in computer simulations in order to minimise the risk of killing test-pilots when the first real-nuts-and-bolts plane takes off with someone behind the stick.

Indeed, some modern planes (Eurofighter being one) can only be flown via a computer system which uses a model to figure out what it needs to do to keep the plane in the air from moment to moment.

I would go so far as to say that I would not have expected a pilot to be knocking something as "merely a simulation" and "not reality" when aircraft are some of the best examples around how how mere simulations can mimic reality accurately enough to be trusted to keep people alive.

The model is good, although arguments still occur as to details.

Indeed...as with climate change. THe model is good, and arguments still occur as to the details....which is aditionally a reason why no-one (public or scientist) should be surprised when the models are refined in light of new information which clarifies some of the details.

Climate models on the other hand a bit like studying form for horse racing and feeding all the results into a computer. The computer picks a winner, sometimes it's right sometimes it's wrong. The computer cannot allow for all the random factors because they are unpredictable. The chaos theory. So the 'wrong' horse wins. Thus it is with climate models. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

You seem to be saying that the climatological predictions are sometimes-winning, sometimes losing, and yet the overall set of models which the IPCC has used to base its range of predictions on remains winning all the time. Sure, the pattern has diverged from what was predicted as the most likely course , but it has remained firmly within the predicted range.Because it has diverged from the most likely course, a reason has been sought, and the model referred to in the OP believes they have found out why it happened. They may be right...they may be wrong....but either which way, their model also predicts that things will remain inside the current IPCC forecast range....just that its exact path within that range will be slightly different from what was previously favoured.

Like you said yourself...its an argument over details, not over the overall model nor its validity

As for trotting out lines like, 'They can't predict the weather next week never mind in the future.'. Based on practical experience as a pilot. I find that they can't even predict the weather on the day. I can't tell you how many times I have stood there with a forecast in hands which bore only the most cursory resemblence to the reality outside the window or featured on the satellite photos. I've flown into weather several times that no met station predicted. I've seen Met Eireann forecasts change completely in the afternoon from the one they were touting in the morning.

Now who's attacking straw men? I was making the point that such comments are not challenges to climate theory. Agreeing that such comments are accurate in and of themselves has still nothing to do with climate theory.

Its as if I said that the inability to accurately figure out what number will come up next on a roulette wheel has nothing to do with our ability to predict long-term trends of number-frequency on the wheel.....and you then respond that we can't figure out what the next number will be, let alone the number 5 spins from now. It still has nothing to do with the long-term predictions of the number frequencies.

Sam Kade

bonkey wrote: »

They have something to blindly believe in....

- the notion that man cannot effect the climate
- the notion that what we are experiencing is comparable to previous climactic shifts
- the notion that the threat from AGW is not to human society but to the planet...

...actually...pretty-much everything you said in the rest of your post.

Bonkey for a believer in man made climate change you spend a lot of time on your computer preaching about this new found religion. Why don't you pratice what you preach and do something to reduce your carbon footprint by halving your preaching time.;)

derry

Celticfire wrote: »

You wouldn't by any chance have similar images depicting the population of the earth and co2 ?It would be interesting to compare them.

The size of the ball shere for the whole human race would be very small
You can place all the human race side buy side on the Isle of white in the UK.People take up a small part of the planet maybe less than 1/10,000,000, of the surface area

It takes a lot to suggest something like a Moskito landing on a large ship railing is going to over turn the craft.
Not impossible if the balance is that critical but that would take a lot to prove to me the case was that strong


Derry

AngryHippie

Comparing the earth to a capsizing ship is a bit retorded IMO. Of course the behavior of humans can affect the environment, We've screwed up vast tracts of delicate ecological systems for profit, destroyed watercourses, caused untold desertification and a multitude of extinctions (with far reaching consequences). This on its own could never be inflicted by any other species (unless there are some monkeys with internal combustion engines somewhere)
We could carry on with the SQ for a while, but to be fair the next generation is slowly catching on to the implications of ecology.
Our biggest problem is still going to be food production, and cultivatable land. Read a bloody good article about soil in National Geographic (Septmber 08) about the disasterous dustbowls in the states, and the weathering of fertile loess terraces in China etc. But there are some solutions being offered, like the Keita project in Niger, and the discovery of the Terra Preta in the Amazon, These may offer some solutions to the problems we face, but its going to take a vast turnaround in attitude towards food producers and the challenges and expenses they face in undoing the damage of the previous generations before the scale of our problems are fully appreciated.

Sam Kade

oscarBravo

I'm not sure what you were trying to tell us with that graph.

As a matter of interest, I've (unscientifically) eyeballed a trend line onto that graph - see the attached. I think the result is informative.

Sam Kade

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what you were trying to tell us with that graph.

As a matter of interest, I've (unscientifically) eyeballed a trend line onto that graph - see the attached. I think the result is informative.

Your trend goes from -0.1 to +.20. If you make a trend from month 300 to month 350 last peak the trend is downward which I thought would be obvious.

oscarBravo

If you make a trend from month 220 to month 233 or so, the trend is dramatically upward. What's your point?

Edit: you've also misread the end of my trend line; it's greater than +0.2.