Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

global warming,.....shut it

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    I'm not the first scientist to invoke Godwin's law on this issue by the way.
    A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade

    The Hadley centre are trying to mould the facts to fit the consensus. I only deal with facts about climate not predictions and the latest figures show us that there is nothing to be alarmed about.

    With all this data you can make up any story you want. Thats why global warming is such bull****. Yes its warming, but its also cooling as well depending on the time scale you are using.


  • Options
    #33
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    I only deal with facts about climate not predictions and the latest figures show us that there is nothing to be alarmed about.
    Really? What figures are these?
    Climate Expert wrote: »
    Yes its warming, but its also cooling as well depending on the time scale you are using.
    Not exactly; one could argue, as you have done, that the global average temperature was lower at one particular point in time than another, which means very little. On the other hand, if long-term trends are considered, over the course of years, or even decades, there can be absolutely no argument that the average global temperature is increasing.


  • Options
    #34
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    A short while ago the Hadley crowd were 'well respected in measuring global temperature'. At this point you assumed they agreed with you, due to getting your data secondhand, and picking a trough point for a comparison.

    Now that they explicitly disagree with the position you were trying to push, and provide reasoned arguments for their position, such as Nina effects, solar minima, and so forth, they are 'trying to mould the facts' with their pernicious rationality.
    With all this data you can make up any story you want.

    Yes you can, but for that 'story' or 'theory' to be believable and coherent to others it has to bear some relationship to the facts, aka data.

    Please provide some to support your argument.
    Yes its warming, but its also cooling as well depending on the time scale you are using.

    But as you can see from the data you provided, the trend in the last 20 years, as requested by spank_inferno, is clearly upward. If you would prefer a more longitudinal treatment, a reference from paleoclimatology was provided earlier by a constructive contributor.


    Keynes once said something relevant to this discussion, and life in general:

    'when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?'


  • Options
    #35
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    Kama wrote: »
    A short while ago the Hadley crowd were 'well respected in measuring global temperature'.
    I've said nothing that changes in that respect. They are well respected.
    the trend in the last 20 years, as requested by spank_inferno, is clearly upward

    Go back 100,000 years then and you can find many more trends where the earth is warming or cooling. The earth has been warmer than it is now in the past.

    What matters is the now. And now global temperatures are perfectly normal and within the standard deviation of what could be considered mean earth temperature. The only problem is that the temperature of the earth is non-staionary so there is no mean.

    I look forward to the next 20 years when the facts go against the theory and the green lobby comes up with all sorts of excuses for it. Just like the hadley centre referring to variablity. Nobody was mentioning variablility 2 years ago except the 'skeptics'.

    FACT
    Since 1880 the Earth has not had any warming.

    Argument over.
    Really? What figures are these?
    Recorded temperatures obviously. No other data required.


  • Options
    #36
    Dara Robinson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,055 ✭✭✭Dara Robinson


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    Recorded temperatures obviously. No other data required.
    Even as I am suggesting this I know how unbelievably lame this sound but.... here it goes anyways

    Go, watch an Inconvenient Truth. Then go off, do research and try and find "Recorded temperatures" that say other than the claims that are made in the DVD


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    And now global temperatures are perfectly normal and within the standard deviation of what could be considered mean earth temperature.

    Well if you take the Pleistocene as cold, and the Jurassic as hot, well of course we are within 'normal variation' of 'mean earth temperature'. Could you please be specific when making claims?

    Also, please list references when making factual claims.
    It makes the difference between factual data and hearsay and rumour, and does your argument no credit.

    I notice you have backtracked from your earlier argument. Would you mind admitting, for the benefit of spank_inferno and any others, that mean temperatures have increased since '88? A 2o year increase should be sufficient as evidence for the 'now', as you put it.

    If you are unable to concede this point, and if you are unable to provide factual, reasoned arguments, instead of saying 'FACT' repeatedly or making unsubstantiated claims, yes the argument is over.

    Produce evidence, or admit you don't have it.


  • Options
    #38
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kama wrote: »
    Climate, please list references when making factual claims.
    I'm going to echo this request, but in my case it's a moderator instruction. Engage meaningfully in the debate or stay out of it - your choice.


  • Options
    #39
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    On a follow-up note, noting your evident glee at the prospect of being right, Pascal's wager is instructive here.

    Assume scientific indecidability whether we can now.
    Make a box with true/false action/inaction as its axes.

    If 'we', the AGW consensus is wrong, then you get to laugh.

    If 'you' are wrong, we will suffer a severe catastrophe, economic and ecological.


  • Options
    #40
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    Kama wrote: »
    On a follow-up note, noting your evident glee at the prospect of being right, Pascal's wager is instructive here.

    Assume scientific indecidability whether we can now.
    Make a box with true/false action/inaction as its axes.

    If 'we', the AGW consensus is wrong, then you get to laugh.

    If 'you' are wrong, we will suffer a severe catastrophe, economic and ecological.
    Thats the same lame arugment put forward for believing in a God. Well done.
    Also, please list references when making factual claims.
    Your not on a ****ing peer review commitee. I've better things to do than go searchign around for references for some goon on the internet.


    Heres some evidence. Mean global anomaly (not sure what the normalisation is) in 1879 is +.05c. 2008 to date is +.09.
    130 of industrial explosion and thats all you get.
    Game, set and match.

    Now if any of you try and disrupt the beautiful, comfortable lifestyle we have in the Western world then I will end all of you. With facts and figures of course.


  • Options
    #41
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Pascal's is a logical thought experiment. Logic is a helpful tool for thinking.
    References are a helpful habit when attempting to convince others.
    A string of unattributed numbers does not equal data.
    Insults do not equal an argument. And so on.

    I note you have ignored the moderator request.
    I am unsure if 'some goon' is me or Oscar.
    Hopefully me ^_^

    I think you've demonstrated repeatedly now that you are not contributing any reasoned argument or scientific data, anything other than preconceptions, backed by random info-tidbits divorced entirely from any kind of context within which they would make sense, served up with an attitude of superiority and contempt for the opinions of others.

    In this, you appear to exemplify the discourse of AGW-denial.
    The truth is there is no 'debate'. There is a recognised scientific hypothesis on one side, and a well-funded disinfo-meme campaign on the other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kama wrote: »
    I note you have ignored the moderator request.
    ...which has earned him a ban.


  • Options
    #43
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    What matters is the now. And now global temperatures are perfectly normal and within the standard deviation of what could be considered mean earth temperature. The only problem is that the temperature of the earth is non-staionary so there is no mean.

    If one looks at the rate of change, however, it would appear that the current change is exceptional


  • Options
    #44
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Climate wasn't making many actual arguments, just trying to muddy the water. Responding to what he said didn't accomplish much (believe me i tried) which I'm guessing was a factor in the ban.

    When trying to track the HADCrut reference, it was kinda frightening how many anti-AGW blogs and pages popped up. To my naive eye the trend seemed very clear from the start that it was an average increase, but the trough point is still being widely claimed as 'evidence' that global warming was baloney.

    Pretty scary stuff. Gerkys post on the criminal liability of the fossil fuel industry for funding the spread of disinfo like this is relevant here. Astroturf disinformation to attempt to create the illusion that there is a 'debate', much like the Intelligent Design 'debate', helps hold back the necessary policy shifts that AGW demands, and is clearly being funded on a massive scale.

    Apologies for feeding trolls, views like these should always be publicly challenged in an open forum imo.


  • Options
    #45
    piraka
    Closed Accounts Posts: 353 ✭✭piraka


    Pretty scary stuff indeed!!!

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3119


  • Options
    #46
    piraka
    Closed Accounts Posts: 353 ✭✭piraka


    I find it scary when a prominent British Antarctic Survey scientist Dr Eric Wulff, when asked if ozone depletion has had an effect on the surface climate of the Antarctic answers with an emphatic NO in front of a couple of hundred people!!!

    http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonSolomon_Science.pdf

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612141015.htm

    Son, S.-W., L. M. Polvani, D. W. Waugh, H. Akiyoshi, R. Garcia, D. Kinnison, S. Pawson, E. Rozanov, T. G. Shepherd, and K. Shibata, 2008: The impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on the Southern hemisphere westerly jet, Science, 320, 1486-1489

    http://www.columbia.edu/~sws2112/publications.html


  • Options
    #47
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Any chance of a precis or summary on what any of those references mean for the admittedly-lazy neophyte?

    Read up on the first, methodological criticism of the NASA figures by an (ex?)oilman, couldn't access one of the others, drowned in text with the ones I could.


  • Options
    #48
    Belfast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    Global warming is not a hoax. Anything on the internet that says so is obviously false and I would relate it to every other crackpot conspiracy theory. Weather is not always changing at least not like this.

    Gut feelings count for nothing. Scientists are always right.

    Just translated that garbage above for you.

    Man made global warming is a myth. Fact? Who knows, give it 50 years and we might.

    I agree man made global warming is not a hoax.

    Gut feelings count for nothing: true

    Scientists are always right. I do not think so. nobody is always right.

    I think the people who believe the ideas behind man made global warming are mistaken, but this does not make it a hoax or a myth.


  • Options
    #49
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    piraka wrote: »
    Pretty scary stuff indeed!!!
    What is?
    piraka wrote: »
    I find it scary when a prominent British Antarctic Survey scientist Dr Eric Wulff, when asked if ozone depletion has had an effect on the surface climate of the Antarctic answers with an emphatic NO in front of a couple of hundred people!!!
    Scary? Why? Did he use a scary voice?
    Belfast wrote: »
    I think the people who believe the ideas behind man made global warming are mistaken...
    Why's that?


  • Options
    #50
    octo
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭octo


    Eh... so what?
    piraka wrote: »
    I find it scary when a prominent British Antarctic Survey scientist Dr Eric Wulff, when asked if ozone depletion has had an effect on the surface climate of the Antarctic answers with an emphatic NO in front of a couple of hundred people!!!

    http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonSolomon_Science.pdf

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612141015.htm

    Son, S.-W., L. M. Polvani, D. W. Waugh, H. Akiyoshi, R. Garcia, D. Kinnison, S. Pawson, E. Rozanov, T. G. Shepherd, and K. Shibata, 2008: The impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on the Southern hemisphere westerly jet, Science, 320, 1486-1489

    http://www.columbia.edu/~sws2112/publications.html


  • Options
    #51
    EyeOnTheBall
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭EyeOnTheBall


    Promethean wrote: »
    man has had little to no effect on global warming, its a natural cycle that happens every few millennia and nothing we can do will effect it, we waste resources amd make our economies suffer in a fruitless effort to prevent it, a waste of time money sit back and enjoy the ride.......
    Could you please show links/evidence of your statement?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement