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

12357…14

Comments

  • #122
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    baldieman wrote: »
    "Most of the warmest years" We are only a century and a half out of the end of the little ice age.
    The term "little ice age" is somewhat questionable; there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet.
    baldieman wrote: »
    As solar activity became more regular and stronger we had a warming trend which continued until 1998 then dropped slightly till 2006 07 and 08 even cooler.
    There is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years or so:
    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf


  • #123
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The term "little ice age" is somewhat questionable; there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet.
    There is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years or so:

    Now I know you're a plonker!
    Even though i'm afraid of the cold, I hope the current weak solar activity continues and the cold follows and clowns like you are shown for what you are.


  • #124
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    baldieman wrote: »
    Now I know you're a plonker!
    Even though i'm afraid of the cold, I hope the current weak solar activity continues and the cold follows and clowns like you are shown for what you are.


    Maybe this link can help you show them the cold is a coming

    http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/

    and the graph spells cold BRRRR
    graph reproduced here for educational requirements

    Derry


  • #125
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    and the graph spells cold BRRRR
    graph reproduced here for educational requirements

    Thats not good enough. The graph started in 2002. Since then there has been cooling, which is probably accounted for by El Nina and solar spots, however on a larger zoomed out graph we get warming trends which continue to this year which is one of the ten warmest on record.

    The graph also zooms in on the Co2 record ( starting at about 365 ppm up to 390 ppm - a mere 25ppm - this zoom is to seem like a large change in Co2 is having little affect).

    Even more damining the chart does not exmpahize the zero ( no anomaly) line, and runs from -0.3C to +0.7+ ( non-symetrically): thus de-emphasising the fact that all months on the the Hadley line, and all bar two months on the UAH MSU line have positive anaomalies relative to whatever averages they are measuring against.

    If you believe that sunspots, or lack of them, affect the climate then you should be even more worried as climate warming will resume, and accelerate when the activity takes off again.


  • #126
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    asdasd wrote: »

    If you believe that sunspots, or lack of them, affect the climate then you should be even more worried as climate warming will resume, and accelerate when the activity takes off again.

    Let us assume for a moment that there was no warming for the last half century or so. The summers and winters have been much the same, every few years you could skate on the local lake or canal, make snow men etc...
    Then someone comes up with this theory that burning oil and coal will change the climate and cause the earth to become too warm. The years go by and nothing changes. How many people would be worried about global warming?
    Not too many I think!
    The point I'm making is that we believed in this theory because we have seen the climate change in front of our eyes over the last couple of decades and without no other explanation we accepted it. Then another explanation did turn up, (which I was skeptical about myself at first) It's a natural cycle. We had a one hour TV program giving us some information about this natural cycle, something to do with the sun being responsible.
    Channel 4 came under attack from various groups, the IPCC looked at legal action. Anyway, it looked like this was just a reactionary group, people in the oil industry etc...
    Then after the wettest summer in decades, I read something about sunspots, or the lack of them and decided to do my own research.
    This internet is a wonderful thing, It's very difficult to censure it.
    That begs the question, why would anyone want to censure information on global warming, and when I say global I mean global warming, not climate change, because the whole issue it CO2 causing the greenhouse effect and causing the atmosphere to heat up.
    The IPCC has become a well funded organization where many careers have been made. This organization would have no function if it became clear that GW was a neutral event.
    Getting back to the sunspots and wet summers. There have been two convenient changes lately, that might help to provide evidence that perhaps there is a stronger influence on our climate then CO2.
    Solar activity has become very quiet and the weather has taken a turn for the worst. Now there are some people here that will say that weather has nothing to do with climate and to a certain extent they are correct.
    But remember the hot summer of 1998 in western europe people were dying from the heat. That was the weather event that gave the global warming activists the ammunition they needed to convince the world that we were on the brink of run away global warming. That was 10 years ago and until 2006 the temp. has been slightly cooler 2007 cooler again and it will be interesting to see the figures for 2008.
    2007 was a poor summer in Europe 2008 has been far worse.
    The last two winters in the southern hemisphere were colder and snower for many years. South Australia still had snow in some high ground areas 5 weeks before mid summers day this year.
    Drought in Australia is no longer a major issue, most dams and rivers are back to capacity.
    Snow in parts of Africa that has never been seen in living memory.
    Snow in north America this Christmas not seen in 40 years. many records broken.
    Snow in Ireland before Halloween this year. not to mention the floods this summer.
    Now the other change that has happened lately, The Sun.
    A Danish Scientist, Henrick Svensmark, Proposed a theory several years ago claiming that solar activity is responsible for global warming. This theory has been disputed by many who favour the CO2 theory.
    A change has indeed happened in the sun lately which may help to prove that it does play a major part in climate and weather.
    This change was first noticed by NASA in the mid 90's. The solar wind started to decline. Whilst the solar wind increases and decreases regularly it was'nt noticed much at first, but the trend has been down ever since.
    According to NASA it's about 25% weaker since the space age started.
    Sunspots are part of a 11 year cycle that go from a count of 10 -15 and often zero, at its quiet period, to well in excess of 100 at it's peak.
    As the last cycle went into decline in 2005 some scientists noticed some unusual anomalies, (I'll post links for anyone who wants)
    The next solar cycle (no. 24) should have started 18 months ago, but is still in the doldrums. This is now the deepest minimum in 100 years.
    Historically, when this happened, the weather became colder and wetter.
    How cold, may depend on how long the minimum lasts, or how weak solar cycle 24 becomes. But we may find out in the next year or so.

    http://www.spaceweather.com/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    baldieman wrote: »
    The IPCC has become a well funded organization where many careers have been made.
    Name one scientist whose “career has been made” by the IPCC.
    baldieman wrote: »
    Solar activity has become very quiet and the weather has taken a turn for the worst.
    Quiet in what way? Are you referring to the sunspot cycle? The period of which is approximately ten years? Meaning that a similar lull in solar activity was observed in the mid-90’s. And the mid-80’s. The mid-70’s too. There is nothing unusual about the current state of the sun.
    baldieman wrote: »
    But remember the hot summer of 1998 in western europe people were dying from the heat. That was the weather event that gave the global warming activists the ammunition they needed to convince the world that we were on the brink of run away global warming. That was 10 years ago and until 2006 the temp. has been slightly cooler 2007 cooler again and it will be interesting to see the figures for 2008.
    1998 was seen as a big deal because it is the warmest year on record. Incidentally, 2008 is expected to the 10th warmest year on record. The other nine? In chronological order; 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. 1999 comes in at 12th and 2000 is 14th.
    baldieman wrote: »
    A Danish Scientist, Henrick Svensmark, Proposed a theory several years ago claiming that solar activity is responsible for global warming. This theory has been disputed by many who favour the CO2 theory.
    No, it’s been disputed because there is no evidence to support the theory:

    “There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”

    http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
    baldieman wrote: »
    Sunspots are part of a 11 year cycle that go from a count of 10 -15 and often zero, at its quiet period, to well in excess of 100 at it's peak.
    As the last cycle went into decline in 2005 some scientists noticed some unusual anomalies, (I'll post links for anyone who wants)
    The next solar cycle (no. 24) should have started 18 months ago, but is still in the doldrums. This is now the deepest minimum in 100 years.
    Historically, when this happened, the weather became colder and wetter.
    And yet, at present, we are experiencing one of the warmest periods in recorded history. Strange that.


  • #128
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    djpbarry wrote: »


    And yet, at present, we are experiencing one of the warmest periods in recorded history. Strange that.

    It's the open minded people who read on these forums that I'm writing to.
    I don't expect to have any positive response from djpbarry,
    This is a great machine, do your own research.


  • #129
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    baldieman,

    I think some of the problem lies with the sensationalist reporting by the less scientific parts of the global warmists ( the English Independent I am looking at you) to propose that every single weather event is caused by global warming - i.e. drought in Australia, Hurricanes, cold summers, warms summers, wet summers, dry summers and them same for winters. These are often in the range of normal weather, not climate change, and when they reverse they give more ammo to the deniers.

    I am far from being PC but you have to realise that djpbarry is making a good case - even with the small amount of cooling since 2000 we still have had the warmest decade in recorded history. 1998 was an outlier as a year in terms of warmth, as were the years around it - ( probably El nino related) - and if some global cooling is caused by sunspot activity then it clearly has had little effect. What effect it has may have been acting to cool by only a small bit - which means that warming will accelerate once sunspot activity resumes. Not good news.


  • #130
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    asdasd wrote: »
    baldieman,

    I think some of the problem lies with the sensationalist reporting by the less scientific parts of the global warmists ( the English Independent I am looking at you) to propose that every single weather event is caused by global warming - i.e. drought in Australia, Hurricanes, cold summers, warms summers, wet summers, dry summers and them same for winters. These are often in the range of normal weather, not climate change, and when they reverse they give more ammo to the deniers.

    I am far from being PC but you have to realise that djpbarry is making a good case - even with the small amount of cooling since 2000 we still have had the warmest decade in recorded history. 1998 was an outlier as a year in terms of warmth, as were the years around it - ( probably El nino related) - and if some global cooling is caused by sunspot activity then it clearly has had little effect. What effect it has may have been acting to cool by only a small bit - which means that warming will accelerate once sunspot activity resumes. Not good news.
    As a consequence of the very active solar activity and then sudden reduction in solar activity, I believe the past decade or so has been the peek of a warm period and we may now returning to a colder period.
    If solar cycle 24 makes a sudden recovery, then it may be hard to prove one way or another, but on the assumption that it continues weak for the next year or so and that cooler trend does not continue, then I'll reconsider my position.

    Here's an interesting link
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/roys-blog.php

    If you want to check out Dr. Spencer's credentials, see
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/about-roy-spencer.php


  • #131
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a valid point, so I found the source of the data used to generate the graph, and re-graphed it with a linear regression overlaid:

    graph_regression.png

    I think the result is clear.
    I'm curious as to what mathematical formula you used to draw your line?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    Well, maybe not on boards.ie, but the tide is changing.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum....-disproved.html


  • #133
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    baldieman wrote: »
    Well, maybe not on boards.ie, but the tide is changing.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum....-disproved.html

    Doesn't disprove anything
    First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
    One or two cold years doesn't prove that there is no long-term warming trend.
    Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact,
    As I have pointed out before, that "conference" was a party for climate change deniers, very few of whom were scientists, organised by a right-wing American think tank.
    Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
    No evidence at all given for these claims.

    Maybe when an important scientific institution stakes its reputation on "disproving man-made global warming", rather than staking its reputation on the fact that it's happening, I will begin to take your case seriously.

    Until then baldie, I will brand you and 99% of other deniers as liars with ulterior motives.


  • #134
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    baldieman wrote: »
    I'm curious as to what mathematical formula you used to draw your line?
    It's a linear regression. Look it up.


  • #135
    hoser expat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭hoser expat


    asdasd wrote: »
    Thats not good enough. The graph started in 2002. Since then there has been cooling, which is probably accounted for by El Nina and solar spots, however on a larger zoomed out graph we get warming trends which continue to this year which is one of the ten warmest on record.

    The graph also zooms in on the Co2 record ( starting at about 365 ppm up to 390 ppm - a mere 25ppm - this zoom is to seem like a large change in Co2 is having little affect).

    Even more damining the chart does not exmpahize the zero ( no anomaly) line, and runs from -0.3C to +0.7+ ( non-symetrically): thus de-emphasising the fact that all months on the the Hadley line, and all bar two months on the UAH MSU line have positive anaomalies relative to whatever averages they are measuring against.

    If you believe that sunspots, or lack of them, affect the climate then you should be even more worried as climate warming will resume, and accelerate when the activity takes off again.

    Agreed, that graph is a wonderful look at how to be selective with data. You can't have an anomaly line that doesn't even hit zero!


  • #136
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,229 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    ShortCircuit wrote: »
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html?startindex=40

    That's more like.

    Like what?


  • #137
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    Here,s a good one from a Belgium newspaper.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ait-in-belgium.jpg

    Some evidence that the medieval warm period was at least as warm as the last 20 odd years

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4783#more-4783


  • #138
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    New Danish study adds support to Svensmarks Theory that cosmic rays effect climate.

    http://www.france24.com/20090112-earths-magnetic-field-impacts-climate-danish-study


  • #139
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    As I woke up this morning to temperatures of –6 degrees Fahrenheit (-21 degrees Celsius), I read that according to the Institute for Liberty, the carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration is expected to exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. So much for being green, and concerns about global warming, for the biggest self-congratulatory event in the history of mankind.


  • #140
    ebmma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭ebmma


    @ People who say that that humans have nothing to do with global warming because Earth has natural warming and cooling cycles:

    http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg

    See the way the black line going up and down? That's natural variations. Planet "breathing" so to speak. The CO2 levels go up and down naturally A BIT. CO2 gets produced (forest fires, etc) and then gets used by plants in photosynthesis.

    On average levels stay the same (i.e. if we had natural variations only the graph would be a HORIZONTAL wavy line).
    Because people can produce so much more CO2 through their different activities (e.g. burning fossil fuels) the curve is going upwards and average CO2 levels increase.

    @ People who say it's no big deal it is getting warmer

    A warmer climate by itself is not so bad. But we have our nice comfortable cities build in specific places. We've got established infrastructure.
    Will people be willing to abandon their city for, say, somewhere in Siberia if it floods or something like that?


  • #141
    ebmma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭ebmma


    AlanD wrote: »
    I don't think it's going to kill the earth. The earth is very resilient and will manage. .


    yep. Earth will be fine. Its is a planet. It doesn't give a ****. Even If it turns into a bare piece of rock orbiting the Sun due to completely natural causes.

    This is NOT the point.

    By trying to behave a bit better we are not doing a favour to "Mother nature". It is not a pet. It's a rock that happened to support some forms of life on it.
    Trying to do something about global warming is just not ****ting in the middle of your living room. It is a healthily selfish self-preservation thing, not a great and honourable cause!



    /end rant


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    extremeweather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭extremeweather


    How unusual is the recent series of warm years?

    - the answer is "very unusual", at least in the context of the last 150+ years.

    The temperatures experienced in the last 10 to 20 years are extremely unlikely to occur by chance (P < 0.001 for the statisticians) in a stationary, unchanging climate. This result is arrived at by purely statistical methods and without recourse to climate models.


  • #143
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Can we change the topic from global warming to climate change ?
    To be fair what warms the globe could send Ireland back to being a scandanavian climate, It is pretty difficult to specifiy what the changes will be, but its never going to be a 3 degree warming worldwide, change of wind or water currents could be potentially catastrophic for anywhere that depends on a prevailing current for their climate. For an example check the Ceide Fields in Mayo, which contains fossils of Olive groves C3000BC, a clear example of how climate can change, without any catstrophioc effect. (unless your economy depends upon olives ):p


  • #144
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    As I woke up this morning to temperatures of –6 degrees Fahrenheit (-21 degrees Celsius), I read that according to the Institute for Liberty, the carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration is expected to exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. So much for being green, and concerns about global warming, for the biggest self-congratulatory event in the history of mankind.
    Thanks. Your post has given me such relief as I now see from the above evidence that man-made climate change is not happening.


  • #145
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Húrin wrote: »
    Thanks. Your post has given me such relief as I now see from the above evidence that man-made climate change is not happening.

    Indeed, Pocono Joe, I suggest you submit your research to the IPCC: I'm sure they would be very interested in your findings.


  • #146
    BrickWall
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭BrickWall


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    Can we change the topic from global warming to climate change ?
    To be fair what warms the globe could send Ireland back to being a scandanavian climate, It is pretty difficult to specifiy what the changes will be, but its never going to be a 3 degree warming worldwide, change of wind or water currents could be potentially catastrophic for anywhere that depends on a prevailing current for their climate. For an example check the Ceide Fields in Mayo, which contains fossils of Olive groves C3000BC, a clear example of how climate can change, without any catstrophioc effect. (unless your economy depends upon olives ):p

    Angry Hippie, maybe you should change your name to George Orwell;

    "who are we fighting today Winston, East Eurasia or West Eurasia?"

    The memory hole is alive and well.

    I am shocked by the contents of your post. The little Irish guy, and he sees himself as a good little guy, will adapt to anything, change his opinions on command. Right is left, left is right.

    Global cooling, oh yes the planet is cooling (1970's)
    Global warming, oh yes the planet is warming (90's - 2005)
    Climate change, oh yes the climate is changing

    Little Jim Hansen would beg to differ with your 3 degree remark.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4286006/Barack-Obama-must-act-now-to-tackle-climate-change.html

    What a farce.


  • #147
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    There are X amont of possibilties

    1/ The increasing amounts of CO2 will cook our our goosse rapidly less than 100 years

    2/The increasing amounts of CO2 will cook our our goosse less rapidly more than 100 years possibly 1,000 years

    3/ The increasing amounts of CO2 will cook our our goosse rapidly less than 1,000,000 years


    4/The increasing amounts of CO2 will have no effect ever at all at all

    5/The increasing amounts of CO2 will have agood effect less rapidly as in less than 1,000,000 years

    6/The increasing amounts of CO2 will have agood effectmore rapidly as in less than 1,000years

    7/The increasing amounts of CO2 will have agood effectvery rapidly as in less than 100 years


    Now for me its piss easy simple

    The atmoshere is enomourous more like a ocean .Of that 75% of it over the ocean where vitualy no human activity takes place.

    The total amount of CO2 both man made and naturaly made is exceeds tha world abilty to recycle it cdaily buy a small amount best calculation I come up with is 1/65,000,000 of the atmosphere is carbonised every day.Which amont comes from humans is probaly less than 10% of this so humans carbonize maybe 1/650,000,000 of the atmoshere

    To understand this this is like saying a flea inside a sealed up Jumbo jet is going to effect the climate of the jumbo Jet

    So for me much as I would like to try to see where this global warming or climate change issue come from in simple maths it falls into the most likly maths fact if you take infinitly large number and devide by a infinitly small number the result is as aclose to zero as doesnt matter

    Even the best case maths which show that there is 2 watts per 1200 watts heat increase at the tropicsthat means the heating effect is 0.002% heat increase

    Now if anybody bothered to find read books like GHIA from the 1970's era when this academic subject was first being descussed the subject then showed any extra heating can be cancelled out easily with extra cloud cover reflecting sun back and other factors


    So nothing new under the sun .Climate change has always happened.The cycles are huge over millions of years subject to orbit wobble orbit distance and many other factors.We are the fleas in the jumbo jet pontificating crap while our planets future isnt looking to me to be rueined from this bunch of fleas passing wind or breathing the air.

    So from weak maths models and slanted computer models the end of the world brigade has us all running around worried about something which for best case might cook our goose in 10,000,000 years if oil burning lasted that long or may have no effect one way or the other

    I for one say the proof isnt there and it is up to the global warmers or climate changers to prove thier case and show they are not in this climate change gravy train to get on the easy peasy ligs of quazi religious fevour rather than do real sciuence which probaly pays badly


    Last I saw the evidence for the converor belt the gulf stream slowing down was found to have been falsly made with doctoring the numbers .It seems the cgulf stream is doing very well and not the slightest bit effected by the predictions of doom projected towards it

    So for me its all the boogie man is coming to get you from the new religious movement dressed in a spooky green suit waving science degrees



    Oh the bad news is if we keep going at this rate in 65,000,000 days or 200,000 years we will run out of oxygen to breate

    so set your counters and start counting the end is nigh is 64,999,999 days 64,999,998 days...


    then the good news fossils fuels will at most last a mere 10,000,000 years so chances are we will only get to carbonoize a mere 1% of the atmosphere so ots going to take a really big population breathing to reach the 200,000 target


    Derry


  • #148
    planetX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭planetX


    can't agree more with last post. Coming from a strongly scientific background, I've seen how research works - in the last decade everyone has gone beserk trying to get a slice of the enormous funding available for any slant to do with global warming. I know people who have made their careers out of this, and who make damn sure that their climate models come out with a nice graph supporting the theory which funds them. People are given the impression that these models are realistic and reliable - it's utter crap, they are predicting things like ocean currents, with only a fraction of the true factors involved. The earth systems are so incredibly complex, and we think we have them modelled? Add to that the pressure to disregard anything that doesn't fit - it's all geared at getting those articles published!
    Climate never stays the same, the earth is ever-changing, and it's not looking after us. We should be investing in technology to help us adapt to change, not throwing it away in phoney carbon taxes. Who is profiting from the carbon credit system? Someone, you can be sure. In this country, why shouldn't that money go towards improving our own (pretty crappy) environment - more national parks, clean water, public transport. This should be the green issue, not throwing money down the drain for some vague idea of carbon totals.


  • #149
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    Thanks planetX.Me I am a joe soap having dropped out from third year science who over many years kept an eye on the Ice agers verus the Global warmers academic debate and not impressed with where the debate went to .

    It should have remained a academic debate but serious moneyed forces starting with Maggie Thathers pro Nuclear lobby which threw gobs of cash at the debate and now today its devided into two distinct camps

    "Denialists" or" Belivers "of the CO2 is going to cook our goose are now the two camps

    Science got thrown out with the bath water

    Nice to get some support

    For me its more important to get clean drinking water in galway or ROI . Also much more public transport and more bio fuels and stop offshore drilling exploration for yet more fossil fuels . To little of the money goes to the Irish from gas or oil finds and we risk to get big oil spills or gas explosions .

    There is some case to keep a few scientists doing climate change issues but more like a very very few and keep things in more academic debate where ideas can be tested and not have a neo fachist religious element driving the issue in one direction.There is loads of science to be done but CO2 has hijacked a lot of those resources for something that just doesn't look to be possible no matter how many crap computer programs they invent .

    The problem is when the reality shows that CO2 is only a boogy man it can lead to massive damage fall out for enviorementalists and take envioremental issues from the forefront of the publicity to rock bottom in a media driven world and deprive all science of funds for all projects.

    I think the days of mass producing lots of low level scientists from academic colleges all scrambling for limited resources making them vunerable to economic agenda's needs to be re thought out .A solution to this could help ensure science doesn't find itself in binds like this again .


  • #150
    hoser expat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭hoser expat


    derry wrote: »
    Thanks planetX.Me I am a joe soap having dropped out from third year science who over many years kept an eye on the Ice agers verus the Global warmers academic debate and not impressed with where the debate went to .

    It should have remained a academic debate but serious moneyed forces starting with Maggie Thathers pro Nuclear lobby which threw gobs of cash at the debate and now today its devided into two distinct camps

    .

    Funny, I don't see a shred of science in any of your posts. You're right, it should have stayed an academic debate....but that didn't stop you from posting.

    Signed, Man in Spooky Green Suit waving three science degrees (and an endowed professorship in climate science).


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    hoser expat wrote: »
    Funny, I don't see a shred of science in any of your posts. You're right, it should have stayed an academic debate....but that didn't stop you from posting.

    Signed, Man in Spooky Green Suit waving three science degrees (and an endowed professorship in climate science).



    Here comes the Big guns from GW belivers set to try to prove to us plebs that they earn thier crust. (if we can believe anything in cyber world)Yet more fleas in the Jumbo jet of life.Well as far as I am concerned its up to the GW or climate changers to prove thier argument and guit with the debate is over non science quazi religious beliefe solutions that seems to be the prefered solution to use .



    Based on the total lack of abilty of the climate watchers to spot the global dimming for over twenty plus years and a host of other failures to predict el nino or many other things the track record for climate changers is iffy at best.

    If however the debate had remained a largly off beat not trendy academic debate I would have been quite happy to take a back seat and let the pro climate change versus the rest debate it out in the academic forums.

    However now the stories due to media hype often which are driven from alarmists is now on gazzilions of public forums . GW has overshadowed and usurped lots of important issues all which were probaly as important if not more important .Prior to this GW or Climate change for me was a sideline along with envioremental stuff and alternitive energy and a host of other subjects .The continious drum beat of the end is nigh from Climate changers brigade folowers often latching onto some demi god climate changer proffessor out to bump up his fievedom means I am forced to contribute to these non science forums.

    So whats your trip to be hanging out here trying to increase numbers so we can democratically vote in GW or climate change and ensure the debate is really over and stuff the science part as surplus to requirements .

    For me givin a choice between a bunch of fleas on a planet or a sun a million times bigger than this planet causing GW or climate change without science so for a bookie the odds would have to be on the sun as the main culpit (if the subject really exist )

    You dont need rocket science to see the slush funds bouncing around the system with axes to grind like political organizations like IPCC pro the humans cause GW or Climate change to see that science is being hijacked sold out and prostituted to suit a non science agenda.

    The problem is just like the fairy land property bubble burst when the suedo science GW CC bubble bursts the fall out impact is more likely to stave all science of funds as the new religion of science is dumped into the rubbish bin

    That for me is the big tradegdy that some of the FEW real scientists sorrounded by millions of gullable badly qualified University paper carrying science tecky types who cant do science to save thier lives will bring down the whole funding system to ride a quazi science wave like GW or Climate change

    Those badly qualified University paper carrying science tecky types who cant do science to save thier lives will just go off and do a masters in buisness and find another wave to ride when the GW CC wave falls apart


    Me I am not embedded in science so ultimatly its not my problem so I can shoot from the hips and say it how it is that this profit of doom stuff from GW or climate change is seeming from many other both deep embedded science and other sources to be most unlikely coming from humans activity.


    Nothing would please me more that in maybe 10 years time when this subject GW CC goes back to its backwater where it probaly belongs to see you cross swords with your peers on academic forums and I can go back to being a spectator sport enthusiast lurker



    Derry


Advertisement