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

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    lostinsuperfunk wrote: »
    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.

    I'm surprised, as it seems that we've had many periods of warm years before, and many periods of cool years too.

    From looking at the temperature records, it doesn't seem that the temperatures in recent years are warmer than periods we have seen in the past.


  • Options
    #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    auerillo wrote: »
    I'm surprised, as it seems that we've had many periods of warm years before, and many periods of cool years too.

    From looking at the temperature records, it doesn't seem that the temperatures in recent years are warmer than periods we have seen in the past.
    True..

    I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question as to why it was warmer in the Medieval warm period and why was it colder during the mini ice age from supporters of AGW!


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Mozart1986 wrote: »
    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.
    Isn’t it? According to a 2006 report by the US Climate Change Science Program:
    For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming.
    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
    Mozart1986 wrote: »
    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.
    Where do the emails show this?
    Mozart1986 wrote: »
    So to answer your question, there is no simple answer...
    So in other words, you don’t know, but you’re going to chalk it up to some unknown ‘natural’ phenomenon?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question as to why it was warmer in the Medieval warm period and why was it colder during the mini ice age from supporters of AGW!
    Possibly because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it was warmer during the MWP, for example.


  • Options
    #95
    dahak
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭dahak


    Mahatma coat wrote: »

    But anyway Cows Fart a Methanic substance.

    I'm not quite sure what a methanic substance is but cattle and all ruminants produce methane and other gasses as part of their digestive process.
    These gasses are expelled through the animals mouth (eructation or belching)


  • Options
    #96
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Possibly because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it was warmer during the MWP, for example.

    Well the evidence that there was a MWP and an LIA is very extensive, and in all probability more conclusive than that, that the world will continue to warm as a direct result of manmade CO2.

    Rather than pick one article for it to be "torn to pieces", here is a google link to some of the evidence.
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%27Medieval+Warm+Period&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&rlz=1R2RNWN_enFR343&aq=f&oq=


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Rather than pick one article for it to be "torn to pieces", here is a google link to some of the evidence.
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%27Medieval+Warm+Period&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&rlz=1R2RNWN_enFR343&aq=f&oq=

    From teh first hit that produces:

    The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region

    Indeed, from the first variety of hits, there's nothing in there to show that there was significant global changes in temperature for either the MWP or the LIA.


  • Options
    #98
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


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

    To answer the above, I would suspect the Earth.

    Is Humankind so full of it's own importance that it suggests the Earth was in stasis prior to our arrival. Has it not gone through various cycles over the last 4.5 Billion years? I don't think any scientist disputes the advance and retreat of the ice caps throughout the ages. Now what has caused this??? The earth was once colder and the ice caps advanced - then the Earth got warmer and the ice caps receded. That might indicate to most people that a cycle/natural process of some sort was taking place and amazingly we weren't even on the planet! Such evidence hidden in plane sight negates the need for 'carbon Taxes' and the other potentially wonderful ways of 'screwing' Joe Public of his/her hard earned money. But God forbid if we try and get in the way of that Bulldozer!


  • Options
    #99
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    medicman2009 wrote: »
    To answer the above, I would suspect the Earth.
    Could you be a little more specific? If the mean global temperature is increasing, that implies that the planet is holding more heat energy, which means that the Earth is either receiving more energy, losing less energy, or both. So, which is it and what is causing it?


  • Options
    #100
    Code Breaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Code Breaker


    Well from what I understand, the changes in the earths temperature is almost if not entirely natural.

    One of the main reasons for this is solar activity. This refers to sunspots which are areas of the sun with intense magnetic activity. Research has shown that when the magnetism of the sun is strong, the energy output of the sun is also more intense. The sun goes through an 11 yr sunspot cycles, they can however be between 8 and 15 yrs.

    Climate scientists believe they can reliably reconstruct Northern Hemisphere land temperature data back to 1700.
    When the activity of changes in the suns magnetism are superposed on the reconstructed temperature record, then the two show a good correlation. The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change.

    For example, a strong warming in the late 19th century, continuing in the early 20th century, up to the 1940s, seems to follow the sun's energy output changes fairly well.
    The mid-20th century cooling, and some of the latter 20th century warming also seem matched to changes in the sun.


  • Options
    #101
    the_barfly1
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭the_barfly1


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Could you be a little more specific? If the mean global temperature is increasing, that implies that the planet is holding more heat energy, which means that the Earth is either receiving more energy, losing less energy, or both. So, which is it and what is causing it?

    Eh, theres this big 'ol ball of gas up in the sky that supplies our solar system with all its light and heat energy.. Think its called the sun.
    Rumour has it that it gets hotter and colder sometimes.

    Might want to look somewhere in that direction maybe. You're welcome.


    EDIT: see also code breaker's post for further info ^^^


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Code Breaker wrote: »
    Climate scientists believe they can reliably reconstruct Northern Hemisphere land temperature data back to 1700.
    Really? I was of the impression that reliable instrumental records dating from circa pre-1850 do not exist?
    Code Breaker wrote: »
    When the activity of changes in the suns magnetism are superposed on the reconstructed temperature record, then the two show a good correlation.
    Since the 1970’s, solar output has been directly measured and while a periodic oscillation is apparent, no upward or downward trend is evident.
    the_barfly1 wrote: »
    Eh, theres this big 'ol ball of gas up in the sky that supplies our solar system with all its light and heat energy.. Think its called the sun.
    Rumour has it that it gets hotter and colder sometimes.
    It does indeed. However, there is no correlation between solar activity and the warming observed over the past few decades.


  • Options
    #103
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Arj Barker had a good Analogy on this

    If My toast Burns, I DONT Blame the Bread, its the Toaster :)


  • Options
    #104
    Code Breaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Code Breaker


    If everyone is getting so worried about the warming of the planet after 1970 then how come all these global warming alarmists like to ignore the fact that the earth experienced considerable warming between 1900 and 1940? That is very significant considering that most of the increase in the airs concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities (over 80%) occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th Century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural...


  • Options
    #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    If climate change activists had been around in the 1930's during the "dustbowl" I wonder how they would have reacted?


  • Options
    #106
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    bonkey wrote: »
    From teh first hit that produces:

    The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region

    Indeed, from the first variety of hits, there's nothing in there to show that there was significant global changes in temperature for either the MWP or the LIA.
    bonkey wrote: »

    Indeed, from the first variety of hits, there's nothing in there to show that there was significant global changes in temperature for either the MWP or the LIA.

    I wonder how you account for all those artists who drew pictures of the ice fairs on the river Thames in London, complete with people skating and playing on the frozen river? Or the documentary evidence we have for them? Unless there was a conspiracy to record the ice fairs, as drawn and painted by hundreds of people, that would appear to be some evidence for quite a large temperature change over many years.

    Lets see if I get this right. Are you saying that , while there may be evidence for local warming around the time claimed for the MWP, ( and cooling during the LIA) and in fact there may be evidence for local warming, or cooling, in multiple locations around the world at the same time, that this does not mean there is any evidence that it was a global phenemonen?

    Or are you saying there is no evidence anywhere that there was warming in the MWP, and no evidence anywhere for the LIA?

    It would be great if you could clarify.

    Here's a list of some scientists who have examined the evidence, with links to their work, who might might disagree. The list is only a small sample and there are many additional scientists whose work agrees there appears to be evidence for the MWP and the LIA.

    Hemer & Harris (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N21/C1.php)

    or to Khim, B-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N6/C1.php)

    or to Hall and Denton (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N45/C1.php)

    or to Noon, P.E., Leng, M.J. and Jones, V.J.(http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N30/C3.php)

    or to Castellano, E., Becagli, S., Hansson, M., Hutterli, M., Petit, J.R., Rampino, M.R., Severi, M., Steffensen, J.P., Traversi, R. and Udisti, R (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N30/C3.php)

    or Williams et al (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N43/C3.php)


  • Options
    #107
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    WRS the MWP I'mreminded of the Leif Eriksson and greenland,

    its aeither

    Geenland was warm enough during that period in time tht it was possible to establish colonys there

    OR

    It was a glacier and he left themthere for a few months then robbed ther corpses

    somesuch like that but with a lot more spwculative detail


  • Options
    #108
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Code Breaker wrote: »
    If everyone is getting so worried about the warming of the planet after 1970 then how come all these global warming alarmists like to ignore the fact that the earth experienced considerable warming between 1900 and 1940?
    Who’s ignoring it? It’s kind of hard to miss.
    Code Breaker wrote: »
    That is very significant considering that most of the increase in the airs concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities (over 80%) occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th Century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural...
    Why? Carbon emissions from fossil fuels increased from virtually zero pre-1850 up to about 1,000 million metric tons per annum in the early 20th century – why are you dismissing that as insignificant? Even if the observed increase in temperature at the beginning of the 20th century was attributable to an increase in solar activity (for example), that does not mean that the observed warming of the last few decades must also be attributable to the same cause.


  • Options
    #109
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    I wonder how you account for all those artists who drew pictures of the ice fairs on the river Thames in London, complete with people skating and playing on the frozen river? Or the documentary evidence we have for them?
    The slowing of the water flow caused by the old London Bridge is thought to have been a contributory factor – as far as I am aware, the Thames has not frozen over (last documented case was 1814) since the building of Rennie’s new bridge in 1831.
    auerillo wrote: »
    Lets see if I get this right. Are you saying that , while there may be evidence for local warming around the time claimed for the MWP, ( and cooling during the LIA) and in fact there may be evidence for local warming, or cooling, in multiple locations around the world at the same time, that this does not mean there is any evidence that it was a global phenemonen?
    Most of the evidence (much of it anecdotal) is confined to Europe, is it not?


  • Options
    #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The slowing of the water flow caused by the old London Bridge is thought to have been a contributory factor – as far as I am aware, the Thames has not frozen over (last documented case was 1814) since the building of Rennie’s new bridge in 1831.
    Most of the evidence (much of it anecdotal) is confined to Europe, is it not?

    The LIA ended early in the 19th century, that would account for the Thames not freezing anymore - even if flow rate was affected.

    Written records are rare in most of the rest of the world, but that doesn't prove it either way.


  • Options
    #111
    jawlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭jawlie


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The slowing of the water flow caused by the old London Bridge is thought to have been a contributory factor – as far as I am aware, the Thames has not frozen over (last documented case was 1814) since the building of Rennie’s new bridge in 1831.

    Not if you reduced a river the size of the Thames to a flow the size of a pipette would the water freeze, unless the temperature was below 0° C.

    The fact that the river froze enough to allow people to walk on it and have ice fares and perform general hoop la suggests that the temperatures must have been very cold indeed.

    That you put forward as a serious suggestion the preposterous reason that the Thames froze due to the size of one bridge on it, merely creates the impression that you are searching for any reason which will not conflict with your conclusion that global warming is man made.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    T
    Most of the evidence (much of it anecdotal) is confined to Europe, is it not?

    None of the examples given (that I saw) were discussing Europe and all related to areas outside Europe. None of it was anecdotal but clearly described the evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,977 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    DiarmaidGNR wrote: »
    I recently watched the channel 4 documentary on the web, and I have to say that is a great piece of work with material from real scientists at the top of their field on the issue (Instead of the usual emotional hippie stuff). It more or less stated, and proved, that yes the climate was changing - but not due to man made factors.
    Before you reply to this thread please watch the full documentary. (the first half is science and then it kind of moves on to politics.)
    I realize that this thread already exists, - ( it was closed for some unknown reason), but given the unearthing of emails from the University of East Anglia showing fraudulent figures (on which the 2007 IPCC report was based) I think it is perfectly reasonable to re-post.
    I watched that with my wife a few years back. I also thought it was amazing. Then I did some research and realised it was a very clever piece of propaganda. I agree everyone should watch it. It is easily the best piece of propaganda I have seen in my 34 years of living...


  • Options
    #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I watched that with my wife a few years back. I also thought it was amazing. Then I did some research and realised it was a very clever piece of propaganda. I agree everyone should watch it. It is easily the best piece of propaganda I have seen in my 34 years of living...

    So you havent seen Al Gores movie then?


  • Options
    #114
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The slowing of the water flow caused by the old London Bridge is thought to have been a contributory factor – as far as I am aware, the Thames has not frozen over (last documented case was 1814) since the building of Rennie’s new bridge in 1831.
    Most of the evidence (much of it anecdotal) is confined to Europe, is it not?

    LOL, this made me laugh out loud. I don't know the scientific rule that says water freezes due to the speed of it's flow. I'm just back from a walk around a reservoir which appeared to be flowing very slowly, (indeed it was not noticeable at all) and it hadn't frozen over yet.

    Can you point me in the direction of literature detailing this scientific principle?


  • Options
    #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    auerillo wrote: »
    LOL, this made me laugh out loud. I don't know the scientific rule that says water freezes due to the speed of it's flow. I'm just back from a walk around a reservoir which appeared to be flowing very slowly, (indeed it was not noticeable at all) and it hadn't frozen over yet.

    Can you point me in the direction of literature detailing this scientific principle?


    I have had a quick google and found "Ask a Scientist"

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01174.htm

    bottom line: htere is no specific answer!

    Of course the water is above 0C otherwise it would be frozen, a turbulant stream of water will constantly mix water above 0C with that that is approaching 0C preventing it from freezing.

    Would a bridge slow the water enough to make it freeze (well the surface of it)??? only if it stopped the flow completely, imho!


  • Options
    #116
    Mozart1986
    Closed Accounts Posts: 191 ✭✭Mozart1986


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I watched that with my wife a few years back. I also thought it was amazing. Then I did some research and realised it was a very clever piece of propaganda. I agree everyone should watch it. It is easily the best piece of propaganda I have seen in my 34 years of living...
    So who made the documentary then? Channel 4 is the one channel I trust for considered debate and thorough investigations. They put on a huge amount of quality programming and I doubt that they would wish to discredit their name with a documentary making fraudulent claims.

    If you believe that is so, which scientists are in the pockets of Exxon or Shell? Where did the funding for the programme come from? The major issues with the hockey stick well-known. They went into those failings in detail, and there are many more besides that they didn't mention, and presented alternative theories. Nothing was presented as conclusive science, as AGW is. Nobody said "the science is in". They were merely creditable scientists outside the specifically narrow climatologist cleak that controls the process by influencing the pere-review process. All that the documentary says, at heart, is that there are alternative theories but that the a small group has beaten outright in the competition for funding. They have done this by scaring the b'Jesus out of people, which in turn made it easier to pass laws that are presented as "Green" but that have real purposes elsewhere in the socio-economic web.


  • Options
    #117
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    I know that documentary makers can take things out of context, but what impressed me about it was the sheer numbers of scientists who expressed their opinions, based on their research and evidence.

    Here's what some of them said, transcribed from the programme:

    Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

    Professor Philip Stott, Dept of BioGeograhpy, University of London; “The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven”…” it’s become a great industry in itself, and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there’s be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work”

    Professor Paul reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists.

    Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree”…

    …“People have decided you have to convince other people, that no scientist disagrees then you shouldn’t either. Whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

    Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace; “You see, I don’t even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, it’s a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level”.

    Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite team Leader, NASA; “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding”

    Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

    It's far easier to say that a programme is "propaganda" , but less easy to deal with some of the specific things that experienced people say, and far easier to just ignore them.

    Ignoring things which are uncomfortable seems to be part and parcel of those who have decided to "believe", and who then rush to find reasons why and at the same time ignore anything which might make them think a little more about it.


  • Options
    #118
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,977 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So you havent seen Al Gores movie then?
    I have and it's rough around the edges alright.

    Bjorn Lomborg has the most rational approach I have come across. Read "cool it". very good.


  • Options
    #119
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,977 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Mozart1986 wrote: »
    So who made the documentary then? Channel 4 is the one channel I trust for considered debate and thorough investigations. They put on a huge amount of quality programming and I doubt that they would wish to discredit their name with a documentary making fraudulent claims.
    They got a lot of stick for showing it. There's a lot of mud on the guy who made it as well.
    If you believe that is so, which scientists are in the pockets of Exxon or Shell? Where did the funding for the programme come from? The major issues with the hockey stick well-known. They went into those failings in detail, and there are many more besides that they didn't mention, and presented alternative theories. Nothing was presented as conclusive science, as AGW is. Nobody said "the science is in". They were merely creditable scientists outside the specifically narrow climatologist cleak that controls the process by influencing the pere-review process. All that the documentary says, at heart, is that there are alternative theories but that the a small group has beaten outright in the competition for funding. They have done this by scaring the b'Jesus out of people, which in turn made it easier to pass laws that are presented as "Green" but that have real purposes elsewhere in the socio-economic web.
    I did a bit of research after the program and I realised how they had been twisting facts. It's clever stuff alright.


  • Options
    #120
    Mozart1986
    Closed Accounts Posts: 191 ✭✭Mozart1986


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Really? I was of the impression that reliable instrumental records dating from circa pre-1850 do not exist?
    Sun-spot records go back many centuries. The monks/astronomers weren't partial.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    They got a lot of stick for showing it.

    Alot of stick from who? AGW believers?

    There's a lot of mud on the guy who made it as well.

    Do you want to back that up with something? Or is it just your opinion?


Advertisement