The Great Global Warming Swindle

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

auerillo wrote: »

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

I have absolutely no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion?

Misrepresentation corrected;)

bonkey

auerillo wrote: »

Whether or not one understands the theory of global warming, it is evident that there has been virtually no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

I heard the other day that average salaries had dropped 10% because of the financial crisis. I know my salary hasn't dropped, so obviously the claim was suspect.

Right?

(In case its not clear, your argument is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what an average is)

auerillo

bonkey wrote: »

I heard the other day that average salaries had dropped 10% because of the financial crisis. I know my salary hasn't dropped, so obviously the claim was suspect.

Right?

(In case its not clear, your argument is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what an average is)

Perhaps you are showing a misunderstanding in appearing to claim that I mentioned anything about average. We seem to be descending into semantics. What I said was

auerillo wrote: »

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

Whether or not I understand what an average is is irrelevant to the temperatures for central England and Kilkenny.

bonkey

auerillo wrote: »

Perhaps you are showing a misunderstanding in appearing to claim that I mentioned anything about average.

You did. You mentioned global warming.

Global warming refers to an increase in average temperature, where that average is taken across the globe.

If you changed your comment to refer to local temperature, there'd be no problem in what you said....except of course that it would become clear that it had no relevance to a discussion about global issues.

We seem to be descending into semantics.

That's the darned thing about discussions pertaining to scientific issues. Semantic accuracy is essential. Using vague terms as you feel like using them rather then as they should be correctly used only serves to confuse the issue.

Surely a correct and accurate understanding of the issues at hand is essential in arriving at an informed opinion?

Whether or not I understand what an average is is irrelevant to the temperatures for central England and Kilkenny.

I agree. It is relevant to the (ab)use of the term global warming in relation to those temperatures however.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

Misrepresentation corrected;)

What misrepresentation? I was drawing attention to the fact that temperatures in two different locales are being compared to a global average.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

What misrepresentation? I was drawing attention to the fact that temperatures in two different locales are being compared to a global average.

you wrote

...

instead of

in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

... which was significant to is meaning if you'll try to be a little pragmatic for a bit.

That said, auerillo had the wrong of it on this occasion because of his clumsy use of the expression "global warming" instead of "regional warming". But you still misrepresented his obvious meaning.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

... which was significant to is meaning if you'll try to be a little pragmatic for a bit.

Not really - as I said already, I was highlighting the fact that a global average was being compared to regional temperatures. But then, seeing as how you referred to same in your last post, I think you knew that.

dahak

auerillo wrote: »

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

This is auerillo's original post, the two paragraphs are linked so they need to be considered together. The first paragraph talks about global temperatures, referring to the Hadley and MSU graph that zuutroy presented.

zuutroy wrote: »

Auerillo takes a trend from the graph saying that

auerillo wrote: »

...they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

So far this has been all about global temperatures.

Now in the second paragraph auerillo asks

auerillo wrote: »

If this [the global reduction in temperature of 0.5°C between 2005 and 2008] applies to central England and Kilkenny...

Bolded section inserted by dahak.

So the attempt here is to apply an average global reduction in temperature (from the graph) over three years to two specific locations, central England and Kilkenny in this case. As the graph of temperature central England and Kilkenny finishes in 2005, so I can only assume that that the implication meant was that if the central England and Kilkenny graph had the years 2005 to 2008, they would show a 0.5°C drop in temperature between 2005 and 2008, following the global trends.

So now we have extended a temperature series for two sites using global temperature difference over the time period to be extended.

auerillo wrote: »

Extending the graph for central England and Kilkenny in this way would bring a reduction in temperature for 2007 and 2008 which would lend strength to the following:

auerillo wrote: »

...that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

e04bf099 wrote: »

you wrote instead of ... which was significant to is meaning if you'll try to be a little pragmatic for a bit.

That said, auerillo had the wrong of it on this occasion because of his clumsy use of the expression "global warming" instead of "regional warming". But you still misrepresented his obvious meaning.

There was no obvious meaning as far as I can see, global temperature trends were used to extend the temperature series for two sites. Then the statement that there has been no warming (we'll leave out the global part for now) at these sites over the last 173 years. Now as the topic of this tread is abut climate change what is the implication here supposed to be?
That there has been no warming at two specific locations? That because there has been no warming at two specific locations that climate change is not occurring? It is not obvious what the point being made was at all.

Now if globe or global had been used once it might be fair to say that was a slip, but it was used twice.

auerillo wrote: »

...central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe) that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny...

bold formatting applied by dahak

That would seem to suggest that the intent was to discredit the concept of global warming by trying to show that two specific sites had not had a temperature change, if not what was the 'obvious' meaning?

auerillo

dahak wrote: »

...That would seem to suggest that the intent was to discredit the concept of global warming by trying to show that two specific sites had not had a temperature change, if not what was the 'obvious' meaning?

I hesitate to suggest this, but might it not be better to read what I wrote rather than what I didn't write, or what it "seems to suggest" ?

I only point this out as you seem to have gone to a lot of trouble making assumptions about what my post seems to suggest, and from reading your post it's not what i meant to suggest at all.

Your confusion seems to be that you assume the phrase "global warming" means only what you want it to mean, and not what someone else might want it to mean. I used it in the sense that both central England and Kilkenny are members of the globe, and it appears there has been no discernable warming in either place in over 170 years.

I found that interesting, just as I find that the same appears to be the case for Dublin in another thread.

dahak

auerillo wrote: »

I hesitate to suggest this, but might it not be better to read what I wrote rather than what I didn't write, or what it "seems to suggest" ?

I only point this out as you seem to have gone to a lot of trouble making assumptions about what my post seems to suggest, and from reading your post it's not what i meant to suggest at all.

What did you mean to suggest? the key points as I see them are:

1. You looked at the Hadley and MSU temperature graph and took a 0.5C average global temperature drop from 2005 to 2008
2. You applied this global average to extend the temperature time series for two spectific locations, namely Kilkenny and central England
3. You 'suggest' that no global warming* has occurred in Kilkenny or central England

*See below on redefining terms.

auerillo wrote: »

Your confusion seems to be that you assume the phrase "global warming" means only what you want it to mean, and not what someone else might want it to mean. I used it in the sense that both central England and Kilkenny are members of the globe

The first thing that came to mind after reading this was a quote from the The Princess Bride

The Princess Bride

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's not what I want it to mean, global warming is a technical term with a specific meaning. I have to fully agree with bonkey here.

bonkey wrote: »

That's the darned thing about discussions pertaining to scientific issues. Semantic accuracy is essential. Using vague terms as you feel like using them rather then as they should be correctly used only serves to confuse the issue.

Oxford English Dictionary

global warming, n.
A long-term gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and oceans, spec. one generally thought to be occurring at the present time, and to be associated esp. with side effects of recent human activity such as the increased production of greenhouse gases.

Merriam Webster

global warming:
an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution

e04bf099

You're right. He should have been more explicit. But auerillo has made a lot of good points also. There are a lot of people here (mods and all), regardless of their positions, who have refused to accept their own misleading expressions, some intentional, some inadvertant. It all makes for an unnecessarilly convoluted and painfully pedantic debate. I for one, hope that my mistakes are pointed out pragmatically by people I tend to agree with and don't agree with.

Well I hope all you global warming climate change activists are satisfied, €1.50 increas on a tank of fuel from midnight! :mad:

This is the reality of what you wanted!

e04bf099

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I hope all you global warming climate change activists are satisfied, €1.50 increas on a tank of fuel from midnight! :mad:

This is the reality of what you wanted!

+1000

From next year (after May) it will cost between 4-11% extra to heat your house, great if you've already had a pay cut.

The great swindle has started!

zuutroy

but gas is falling 8% so we're even!

e04bf099

Deleted User wrote: »

From next year (after May) it will cost between 4-11% extra to heat your house, great if you've already had a pay cut.

The great swindle has started!

I'm not a green no more, but... insulate. And you could always think about using green diesel:D

I'm a very reserved person and am humble with my opinions. I always consider my sources. But I've talked to people I trust, who have researched this subject thoroughly, including my uncle, who is a retired geneticist that used to work in Trinity with nothing to gain from either eventuality, and I just want to vent my feelings a little. Obviously he is not a "climatologist" or any kind of public authority, so I would never attempt to use this as an argument for other people to go by, but it is an argument for the formation of my beliefs. It is a damn sight better than blind faith in fallible malleable scientific institutions. I still can't believe that the proponents are just burying their heads in the sand. It just shows how emotionally invested people were. I was an active member of the Greens until recently. I'll probably stay in because I do believe we need to get off oil and reform the planning process, but I'll be considering my allegiance very carefully in the few months.

Its such a relief to know the worlds not going to end. I think we should all have a big tyre burning party:D I'll provide the beer if yee provide the tyres:D

e04bf099

e04bf099 wrote: »

I'm not a green no more, but... insulate. And you could always think about using green diesel:D

Yep! When I built the house I doubled up on the insulation, so have smaller than average fuel bills.

Still annoying though! All we need is another speculative run on Oil and we're all screwed - transport heating electricity etc, all depend on oil.

e04bf099

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep! When I built the house I doubled up on the insulation, so have smaller than average fuel bills.

Still annoying though! All we need is another speculative run on Oil and we're all screwed - transport heating electricity etc, all depend on oil.

The really scary one is the speculative run on carbon credits! Banks around the world may realise, and very suddenly, that they're worthless fictional bull****.

hoser expat

auerillo wrote: »

I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

quote]


So which is it? An average annual increase of 0.5oC over 170 years (which would imply that Kilkenny long passed the boiling point) or 0.5oC over 170 years?

It's not just semantics you know.

The problem here is that people are just throwing out numbers they really don't understand. Leave science to the scientists. Yes, I am one.

e04bf099

hoser expat wrote: »

So which is it? An average annual increase of 0.5oC over 170 years (which would imply that Kilkenny long passed the boiling point) or 0.5oC over 170 years?

It's not just semantics you know.

The problem here is that people are just throwing out numbers they really don't understand. Leave science to the scientists. Yes, I am one.

Well I am put in my place. I'd better cancel my tyre burning party. Damn!

If you need to concentrate your arguments on typos then the justification for your faith in these disgraced institutions must be weak.

Johro

probe wrote: »

1. The petabytes of objector content to this programme – most of it probably comes from the “scientists” who have their snout in the trough of CO2 global warming cash.

2. Even if CO2 has some part to play in the equation, it doesn’t really matter what Ireland or the rest of Europe does to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions – because China, India, the rest of Asia and North America will continue to suck up all the carbon based fuels on the planet to grow their economies.

3. The only positive thing that Ireland and the rest of Europe can do is develop a mass market in renewable technologies which lowers the cost of renewable energy based systems. Germany is the only country to have made a dent in this direction. Make fossil fuels obsolete before they are used up.

4. EU initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are simply bureaucrats **ssing into the wind, if one can be so vulgar, in the global scheme of things. It will make absolutely no difference to climate change, and will cost business and consumers €zillions, to no useful end.

Nicely put. Yeah I must say I don't have too much confidence in the politicians, simply because politicians the world over are owned by the banks first, then lobby groups like the oil lobby and road lobby (gotta keep building em ya know..) and the big pharmaceutical companies. Also, any of those can pay scientists to say whatever they want them to say. We see it all the time in the TV ads for beauty products, detergents etc. Maybe the only and best way is for people to start their own initiatives, community cooperatives like some that exist not too far from where I live,where locals have put in their own money to set up wind turbines which supply their farms and even give them surplus energy which they sell to the grid. Ya gotta start at home.

Son Of A Vidic

Carbon credits!... what next? maybe Fart vouchers? In the words of Public Enemy...''Don't believe the hype''. The Earth predates us by oh, a couple of Billion years. It goes through it's natural cycle - Ice sheet advances - Ice sheet retreats and so on.This will continue long after we are gone, I think mankind should worry more about something like Ebola Reston mutating with Ebola Zaire. Now that's something that will pretty much wipe us out, how to stop cows farting doesn't really put a blip on my radar.

Mahatma coat

A lot of people could do their bit to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions very easily, Simply stop Breathing out

But anyway Cows Fart a Methanic substance.

and as always its worth bearing in mind that the Planet wobbles on its own cycle and the Sahara was a Forest at one point in the not too distant(geologically) past.

auerillo

hoser expat wrote: »

auerillo wrote: »

I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

quote]


So which is it? An average annual increase of 0.5oC over 170 years (which would imply that Kilkenny long passed the boiling point) or 0.5oC over 170 years?

It's not just semantics you know.

The problem here is that people are just throwing out numbers they really don't understand. Leave science to the scientists. Yes, I am one.

For a scientist, you have to ask which it is? Couldn't you look at the graph and apply your scientific brain to the problem? For clarification, we were discussing a graph showing "average annual" temperatures, and the "average annual" temperature rose by something in the order of 0.5°C over 170 years, as was evident from the graph under discussion. If you aren't able, as a scientist, to read that from the graph, then I'm sorry for you.

It must be irritating to you that "people" are throwing out numbers they don't understand.

I have to say I think it unlikely that many non scientists will go for your exciting idea of leaving science to the scientists. Especially on a message boards forum for everyone, and not just the scientists. Good luck with the idea though.

auerillo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

A lot of people could do their bit to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions very easily, Simply stop Breathing out

But anyway Cows Fart a Methanic substance.

and as always its worth bearing in mind that the Planet wobbles on its own cycle and the Sahara was a Forest at one point in the not too distant(geologically) past.

The wobbling abouit the axis is called precession and it takes something like 26000 years for the precession cycle to complete. It's unlikely we'd notice any short term heating or cooling effects from precession, as it happens very slowly.

Although it does serve to remind us that scientists from one discipline sometimes see an effect and don't know what is causing it, while scientists from another discipline understand well what might be causing it.

lostinsuperfunk

It isn't useful to select just two years from a long record, calculate the difference between their temperatures, and make a pronouncement on warming or cooling in the intervening period.

There is always year-to-year variability. A cold year can appear during a warm period, and vice versa. The analysis has to be done with rigorous application of statistics, and even that may not be sufficient.

For an example, see this paper which considers (and rejects) the possibility that the recent series of warm years could just arise by random variability in an unchanging climate.

djpbarry

Johro wrote: »

Yeah I must say I don't have too much confidence in the politicians, simply because politicians the world over are owned by the banks first, then lobby groups like the oil lobby and road lobby (gotta keep building em ya know..) and the big pharmaceutical companies.

Let’s save that for the CT forum, shall we?

Johro wrote: »

Also, any of those can pay scientists to say whatever they want them to say. We see it all the time in the TV ads for beauty products, detergents etc.

So you need a scientist to back you up before making a claim such as “8/10 hairdressers agree it leaves hair touchable soft” ?

djpbarry

medicman2009 wrote: »

The Earth predates us by oh, a couple of Billion years. It goes through it's natural cycle...

Ah, the old ‘natural cycle’ argument. So if the observed warming is ‘natural’, what’s causing it?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

So, you’re using the Hadley data (which clearly shows a global warming trend) to show indirectly that no warming is taking place at individual locations in an attempt to demonstrate (presumably) that global warming is not taking place?

Mozart1986

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, the old ‘natural cycle’ argument. So if the observed warming is ‘natural’, what’s causing it?

Many things. The Earth and its climate are very complex. Carbon dioxide is a relatively minor green-house gas and the green theories are contentious because the troposphere is not warming as it should in climatological models. There are many contentious issues surrounding the warming. What the e-mails clearly show, unless you have your head in the sand, is that the warming is not as dramatic as is being presented by those who believe they are fundamentally right. There is no room for funamentalists in science though, and even if the popular conception of this farce is slow to turn, scientists will soon stop regarding the scientists involved as legitimate.

So to answer your question, there is no simple answer, whether you believe it is anthropogenic warming or not.