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

1…34689…14

Comments

  • #152
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    planetX wrote: »
    Coming from a strongly scientific background, I've seen how research works...
    Evidence of this is distinctly lacking in the rest of your post.
    planetX wrote: »
    ...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 could do with some extra research funding myself – could you please point me in the direction of this “enormous funding” that is apparently available to me if I “go berserk”?
    planetX wrote: »
    I know people who have made their careers out of this...
    Perhaps you could list a few names?
    planetX wrote: »
    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!
    Could you give an example of a published article that describes one of these “utter crap” models? Could you suggest how this model (in the example that you are going to provide) could be improved?


  • #153
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    The atmoshere is enomourous more like a ocean .Of that 75% of it over the ocean where vitualy no human activity takes place.
    Yes, of course, the atmosphere above ocean is partitioned from that above land :rolleyes:.
    derry wrote: »
    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 atmosphere
    According to the Keeling Curve, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 20% over approximately 50 years; this is equivalent to roughly 7,000,000,000 tonnes per annum. You don’t think that’s a significant amount?

    Your argument about the relative size of the atmosphere is meaningless; just because a substance is present in amounts that are small relative to the size of the Earth’s atmosphere, it doesn’t mean that it cannot have a significant effect. Take ozone for example; concentrations as low as 40 parts per BILLION can have adverse health effects.
    derry wrote: »
    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
    Oh really? It’s that simple is it? And there’s me thinking that the Earth’s atmosphere is an incredibly complex system with a virtually infinite number of variables.
    derry wrote: »
    Climate change has always happened.The cycles are huge over millions of years subject to orbit wobble orbit distance and many other factors.
    Indeed; such ‘wobbles’ are termed Milankovitch cycles. I believe most climatologists are aware of them and would have factored them into their calculations. But hey, best get onto the IPCC with your findings, just to be sure.
    derry wrote: »
    So from weak maths models and slanted computer models...
    Which models are you referring to? In what way are they “weak” and “slanted”?
    derry wrote: »
    Science got thrown out with the bath water
    Did it indeed? So what are these guys basing their conclusions on?
    derry wrote: »
    There is some case to keep a few scientists doing climate change issues but more like a very very few ...
    Let’s take Ireland as an example; how many people work in research in this country? How many of them are “doing climate change issues”? How many do you think should be “doing climate change issues”? What are “climate change issues”?
    derry wrote: »
    ...and keep things in more academic debate where ideas can be tested...
    Are scientists currently doing otherwise?
    derry wrote: »
    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...
    What doesn’t look to be possible? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That fact is easily verifiable. In fact, it can be demonstrated experimentally by pretty much anyone.
    derry wrote: »
    I think the days of mass producing lots of low level scientists from academic colleges...
    What exactly is a “low-level scientist”?
    derry wrote: »
    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.
    Is it? I would say that, for example, the IPCC’s record of predicting a rise in the global average temperature has been pretty accurate so far.
    derry wrote: »
    The continious drum beat of the end is nigh from Climate changers brigade folowers often latching onto some demi god climate changer professor out to bump up his fievedom ...
    Interesting terminology. Could you give an example of one of these “climate change professors”?
    derry wrote: »
    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 )
    Is that a guess or do you have any evidence that solar activity is increasing?
    derry wrote: »
    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...
    Evidence?
    derry wrote: »
    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 ...
    That’s a mighty big chip that you’re carrying on your shoulder. How do you define a “real scientist”?
    derry wrote: »
    Those badly qualified University paper carrying science tecky types who cant do science to save thier lives...
    By “university paper”, I presume you mean a degree? In what way are science graduates “badly qualified”? And you are aware that most researchers will have more than a bachelor’s degree to their name, aren’t you?
    derry wrote: »
    Me I am not embedded in science...
    That much is quite clear.


  • #154
    planetX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭planetX


    Well DJPBarry,
    You must be right since you are so eminently endowed with degrees, and snide to boot. You ask plenty of questions, but answer precious few.
    One I would like answered is why the response to anyone questioning GW is always so righteously angry.
    I do have a PhD, having spent most of my adult life involved in scientific research. I'm sorry my post is so unscientific in your eyes. There are two other people in my family, both with science PhDs who also doubt the current view of human involvement in global warming. Why does your response have to insinuate stupidity in anyone who questions the current majority view. It is a majority view, but there are still plenty of educated people who have very grave misgivings, especially about the quality of the research, and how it is presented. And there are very very many uneducated people who have taken this theory in some form and made it into a quasi-religion - with huge financial implications for all of us.
    I know someone very well who is currently working as a researcher in the area of climate change at one of the Irish universities. I know for A FACT that this person has in the past altered his results. I know for a fact that his main drive as far as his research goes is to get 'good' results so that he can publish papers and present at conferences.
    I might add that this person and his colleagues (and I have met many of them, both European and American) are not so concerned about their predictions that it changes their lifestyle in any way. They will fly any amount of airmiles to attend conferences, take foreign holidays, drive 4x4 cars, I've yet to meet one who is enthusiatic about recycling or any other 'green' issue. Surely being involved in modelling the dire changes that we are to believe are going to occur on Earth would make you want to do something about it.
    Hey, they could be right... or not - both possibilities. I will keep my healthy dose of scepticism until the cataclysm occurs. I do believe that exaggeration at the very least is in the self-interest of those involved. And if I hear one more person saying - God this weather, you can really see climate change happening - I might have to scream... Meanwhile the EU and our government will fleece us with carbon taxes, while China, India and Africa continue to try to improve their standard of living, belching out carbon dioxide as they go.


  • #155
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Anyone care to cast their eye over this piece? will happily read a counter to this


    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783


    CONCLUSIONS

    Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

    The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.



    Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. For further details see his list of publications

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #156
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    planetX wrote: »
    Well DJPBarry,
    You must be right since you are so eminently endowed with degrees, and snide to boot. You ask plenty of questions, but answer precious few.
    One I would like answered is why the response to anyone questioning GW is always so righteously angry.
    I do have a PhD, having spent most of my adult life involved in scientific research. I'm sorry my post is so unscientific in your eyes. There are two other people in my family, both with science PhDs who also doubt the current view of human involvement in global warming. Why does your response have to insinuate stupidity in anyone who questions the current majority view. It is a majority view, but there are still plenty of educated people who have very grave misgivings, especially about the quality of the research, and how it is presented. And there are very very many uneducated people who have taken this theory in some form and made it into a quasi-religion - with huge financial implications for all of us.
    I know someone very well who is currently working as a researcher in the area of climate change at one of the Irish universities. I know for A FACT that this person has in the past altered his results. I know for a fact that his main drive as far as his research goes is to get 'good' results so that he can publish papers and present at conferences.
    I might add that this person and his colleagues (and I have met many of them, both European and American) are not so concerned about their predictions that it changes their lifestyle in any way. They will fly any amount of airmiles to attend conferences, take foreign holidays, drive 4x4 cars, I've yet to meet one who is enthusiatic about recycling or any other 'green' issue. Surely being involved in modelling the dire changes that we are to believe are going to occur on Earth would make you want to do something about it.
    Hey, they could be right... or not - both possibilities. I will keep my healthy dose of scepticism until the cataclysm occurs. I do believe that exaggeration at the very least is in the self-interest of those involved. And if I hear one more person saying - God this weather, you can really see climate change happening - I might have to scream... Meanwhile the EU and our government will fleece us with carbon taxes, while China, India and Africa continue to try to improve their standard of living, belching out carbon dioxide as they go.
    Very good post, yer man never has an argument, just asks stupid questions in the illusion of some kind of argument!
    I don't have a PhD but I know people who do and have a skeptic view on AGW
    I recently had an assignment on wind power and it's potential. As part of my conclusion I mentioned how much CO2 it would save!!
    So hypocritical self interest is everywhere. :(


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    planetX wrote: »
    You ask plenty of questions, but answer precious few.
    Not terribly good at answering questions yourself. What would you like me to answer?
    planetX wrote: »
    One I would like answered is why the response to anyone questioning GW is always so righteously angry.
    Who's angry? You have argued that:
    1. There is a large amount of funding available to anyone who is prepared to conduct research on anything remotely related to global warming.
    2. That there are a large number of people who have made a career out of 1. above.
    3. Climate models are overly simplistic - anything that "doesn't fit" is omitted with a view to publishing results.
    All I have done is asked for evidence of any or all of the above - I'm guessing you're not going to provide any?
    planetX wrote: »
    I do have a PhD, having spent most of my adult life involved in scientific research. I'm sorry my post is so unscientific in your eyes. There are two other people in my family, both with science PhDs who also doubt the current view of human involvement in global warming.
    I am close friends with every single author of these reports:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

    Does that add weight to my argument?

    Always a sign of a weak argument when qualifications (on an anonymous internet forum :rolleyes:) are mentioned.
    planetX wrote: »
    It is a majority view, but there are still plenty of educated people who have very grave misgivings, especially about the quality of the research, and how it is presented.
    So present some; give me a paper and list your "misgivings" related to said publication.
    planetX wrote: »
    I know someone very well who is currently working as a researcher in the area of climate change at one of the Irish universities. I know for A FACT that this person has in the past altered his results. I know for a fact that his main drive as far as his research goes is to get 'good' results so that he can publish papers and present at conferences.
    Do you have an example of one of these papers?


  • #158
    pedigree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 67 ✭✭pedigree


    Silverharp,

    Your post is interesting exactly what David Bellamy said last night on the Late Late Show.
    Maybe now we will get some balance to the argument.

    Pedigree


  • #159
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    silverharp wrote: »
    Anyone care to cast their eye over this piece? will happily read a counter to this


    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
    I'll have a go.
    Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008...
    Not sure what is meant by this; 2007 and 2008 are two of the warmest years on record.
    IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100...
    Very misleading. The latest IPCC report predicts warming of between 1.1 (best case) and 6.4 (worst case) degrees Celsius. As for ‘Figure. 1’, I’d be amazed if the IPCC produced such shoddy graphs – not surprisingly, I can’t find either on their website.
    ...historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001).
    None of these references are listed anywhere, so there’s no way to verify their content.
    Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.
    Not sure about that:
    http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
    Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years.
    I presume here that he is referring to Figure. 2, which shows changes in the local temperature in central Greenland, not the average global temperature (and once again, I don’t know what the citation refers to).
    The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.
    And the cause is?
    In 1992, Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related (Fig. 4).
    There may well be a relationship, but that plot of temperature shows a distinct upward trend. This is where his argument falls apart, as he doesn’t even acknowledge this upward trend. The rest of the article, arguing that future climate changes can be predicted based on these past observations is obviously flawed as a result.


  • #160
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    Well the sun may unfortunately prove the issue either way in the next few years. And we may not like it.


  • #161
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Okay, I don't have a PhD, but,
    It makes more sense to me for the apparently vast funding given over to looking really hard for evidence of global warming to be spent on methods of limiting the impact of climate change on the human races ability to survive and feed itself. Areas for these re-allocated funds could involve soil regeneration programs in countries like Burkina Faso and Chad, down as far as Forest preservation in South America, Even at home in Ireland a change in climate could change our ideal agricultural produce, should a little more time and money be allocated to these problems, that will exist regardless of whether the mercury rises or falls, and not paying a load of people to second guess each others research and draw conclusions that only time will prove true or false ?
    Or maybe we should all get jobs as climatologists and spend the all our time arguing about something that we probably cannot do a whole lot about either way, as long as our economies are dependent on hydorcarbons for energy, there is not going to be any major reduction in emmisions.:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    planetX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭planetX


    DJPBarry,
    the only reason I felt I had to mention degrees etc is because you ridiculed my opinion on the basis that I obviously had no scientific background. I was demonstrating that we do exist - educated people with grave doubts about the global warming scenarios which are presented as fact, and which more importantly our policymakers are taking as fact.
    The IPCC documents in no way prove anything - these are the very people with a vested interest in hyping up results. Where was it they held a meeting recently? Bali. Nice carbon footprints..... yeah, very worrying this climate change...


  • #163
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,767 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    thebigshot wrote: »
    We clearly know that the earth is not warming, it has not warmed since 1998.
    Could it be that you are talking about two different things; i.e., the difference in short term temperature fluctuations and major cycles measured in geologic time?

    You may not be taking a gradual 3 or 4 average degrees warmer temperature shift over prolonged time seriously, but according to the article "No-Flood Zone" in the January 2009 issue of WIRED, Dutch engineers have plans to raise and extend their levees in defense of an anticipated rise in ocean water levels due to gradual global warming over the next 100 years at a projected cost of 1.5 billion USD per year.

    You may debate the reasons "why" the planet evidences gradual shifts in average temperature in terms of prolonged periods of time, be it warmer or colder, but they have occurred and will continue to occur, and the Dutch are planning accordingly.


  • #164
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    planetX wrote: »
    ...the only reason I felt I had to mention degrees etc is because you ridiculed my opinion on the basis that I obviously had no scientific background.
    So no evidence to back up your claims then, no?


  • #165
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    planetX wrote: »
    DJPBarry,
    The IPCC documents in no way prove anything

    Nor should they.

    As a PhD, you will no doubt be fully aware that no science proves anything.

    ETA: The IPCC documents also do not claim to prove anything.


  • #166
    extremeweather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭extremeweather


    Here is an interesting paper from 1938 on the temperature effects of industrial emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere. It is a bit long, but easily readable by any non-expert with a good knowledge of science or engineering, and a lot easier to understand than modern papers on the subject. Of course it is a bit simplistic by today's standards.

    The author's affiliation is the "British Electrical and Allied Industries Research Association", not the kind of agency you would nowadays expect to find at the forefront of climate science.

    The author predicts an annual average temperature rise of 0.003 degrees C based on the addition of 4,300 million tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere. From this, he predicted a temperature increase of 0.57 degrees C by 2100 based on sustaining this level of emissions.

    However, nowadays the annual anthropogenic CO2 emission (from all sources, not just industry) is estimated at over 27,000 million tons.

    //
    Extreme Weather, Climatic Shifts & Natural Disasters in Ireland
    http://wiki.ucc.ie/extreme-weather


  • #167
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    extremeweather wrote: »
    Here[/URL
    is an interesting paper from 1938 on the temperature effects of industrial emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere. It is a bit long, but easily readable by any non-expert with a good knowledge of science or engineering, and a lot easier to understand than modern papers on the subject. Of course it is a bit simplistic by today's standards.

    The author's affiliation is the "British Electrical and Allied Industries Research Association", not the kind of agency you would nowadays expect to find at the forefront of climate science.

    The author predicts an annual average temperature rise of 0.003 degrees C based on the addition of 4,300 million tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere. From this, he predicted a temperature increase of 0.57 degrees C by 2100 based on sustaining this level of emissions.

    However, nowadays the annual anthropogenic CO2 emission (from all sources, not just industry) is estimated at over 27,000 million tons.

    //
    Extreme Weather, Climatic Shifts & Natural Disasters in Ireland
    http://wiki.ucc.ie/extreme-weather


    Yes a interseting read

    Quick scan definitly part of the older academic methods of postulating a idea and trying to prove it in academic arena
    ( For academics a walk down memory lane on how easy it was to have in house private debates away from the cult followers )

    Strong hints of the Ice agers debate and the threat of the imminent arrival of the ice age can be seen bottom of page 236 and the real good benifits of making the world hotter with stuffing the atmosphere with even more CO2 " in any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitly "

    In those days the Iceagers held all the top positions in most big universities and suggesting global warming often had to be done in under the radar methods if you wanted not to ruffle feathers upstairs
    " in any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitly " was serious academic private dig at the Ice agers fievedom


    Maggie Thatcher and her pet love the nuclear lobby when they needed to find a good reason to push Nuclear power jumped on the save the planet from global warming with nuclear power and the underdog CO2 warming brigade routed the UK academic Ice agers Fievedomand the rest is history


    The problem with these tit for tat papers in the academic world of its era we lose a lot of the meaning when we look at in todays world

    In normal academic papers even today most papers float between peers who tit for tat throw personel grudges at each other and will cuase one or both parties to take extreme points of view as the academic debate hots up.

    Later the problem is maybe resolved ,tempered down, or abandoned whatever and the papers go into the vaults of the colleges.

    Its a bit like cooks in the kitchen scream and shout as the broth is brewwed and then the dinner is presneted to the punters in a nice quite resterant away from the maddness of the kitchen that makes the final product .
    In this climate science case we now have all the cult followers with junk science logic and big funding embeded in the kitchen and often changing the ingredients when the cook isnt looking so we all end with a dogs dinner in a mad house



    However for all sorts of bizarre reasons the global warming academic debate left the academic arena and these academic broad side arguments with large funding have reached some sort of absurd level where a estimated heating effect of 1.6 watts per square meter of the ~1200 watts that hits the surface at the tropics (~0.0015% world wide ) can be even more important than the sun proven variable radiance of ~0.007%


    Thanks for digging up this paper it will be a useful guide to for future climate science as they dissect the CO2 emissions fiasco event that virtually destroyed climate science credibility when the big funders of pushing this CO2 heating event are exposed as junk science manipulators and then bail out of future funding


    Me thinks there is going to be a lot of climate scientists looking to jump ship and do buisness or medicine or some other research as this sunami funding wave collapses


    It would be interesting to know how far a Ice ager theory advocate could get in the CO2 GW top heavy climate science academic world that exist presently.
    Now also intersting is what outlet would exist today like "British Electrical and Allied Industries Research Association" to have a go at anotherangle on a climate science problem blocked with big glacier thinking fievedoms

    Nothing new in science power blocks and climate science fievedoms come and go :pac::pac:

    Derry


  • #168
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    In normal academic papers even today most papers float between peers who tit for tat throw personel grudges at each other and will cuase one or both parties to take extreme points of view as the academic debate hots up.
    Could you provide an example of such a paper?
    derry wrote: »
    Later the problem is maybe resolved ,tempered down, or abandoned whatever and the papers go into the vaults of the colleges.
    How can a paper "go into the vaults of the colleges" if it has been published?
    derry wrote: »
    Me thinks there is going to be a lot of climate scientists looking to jump ship and do buisness or medicine or some other research...
    Yeah, because an expert in climatology or meteorology can become an expert in medicine overnight :rolleyes:.

    Fancy answering some of the questions that were asked of you earlier?


  • #169
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    djpbarry wrote: »
    <snip>
    How can a paper "go into the vaults of the colleges" if it has been published?

    <snip>

    yes the magazine rack in easons is dripping in papers written from colleges on the subjects like global warming reduces honey bees sex life

    Most papers get lost in the sea of time and a few bubble up to get into junk science mag in Easons and even fewer will get in semi reputable mags like new scientists

    Why are you miffed the bubble up process failed you and nobody breathed a bright future into your paper

    And no I am not going to answer every question everybody asks me as there isnt eneogh hours in a day to be spending all of here only in this forum in ROI as I hang in lots of world climate forums also

    Outside USA ,UK , ROI, Germany and a few richer counrtries like Sweden there isnt so big a following from the public or even academic circles for this climate science subject as lots world wide are not covinced the end is nigh from CO2 warming

    Interesting paper this one from Poland where lucky thier science debate isnt too curropted with this top heavy CO2 debate
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

    Careful this guy Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski is real hard core Ice ager and when the clean sweep decends on the Climate science department and the Ice agers trample all over the GW brigade in the new climate science fashion coup he or his Ice ager friends could be your boss if your in a climate science department


    Derry


  • #170
    gerky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,407 ✭✭✭gerky


    derry wrote:
    yes the magazine rack in easons is dripping in papers written from colleges on the subjects like global warming reduces honey bees sex life

    Most papers get lost in the sea of time and a few bubble up to get into junk science mag in Easons and even fewer will get in semi reputable mags like new scientists

    Why are you miffed the bubble up process failed you and nobody breathed a bright future into your paper

    And no I am not going to answer every question everybody asks me as there isnt eneogh hours in a day to be spending all of here only in this forum in ROI as I hang in lots of world climate forums also

    Outside USA ,UK , ROI, Germany and a few richer counrtries like Sweden there isnt so big a following from the public or even academic circles for this climate science subject as lots world wide are not covinced the end is nigh from CO2 warming

    Interesting paper this one from Poland where lucky thier science debate isnt too curropted with this top heavy CO2 debate
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...CoreSprg97.pdf

    Careful this guy Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski is real hard core Ice ager and when the clean sweep decends on the Climate science department and the Ice agers trample all over the GW brigade in the new climate science fashion coup he or his Ice ager friends could be your boss if your in a climate science department


    Derry

    Zbigniew Jaworowski is the man who claims the damage done by lead in petrol was a myth:rolleyes:

    And just to point out, that paper is from 97 and 21st Century Science and Technology is not a peer reviewed magazine.


  • #171
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    yes the magazine rack in easons is dripping in papers written from colleges on the subjects like global warming reduces honey bees sex life
    You don't seem to understand the difference between an article in a pseudo-science magazine and a peer-reviewed paper.
    derry wrote: »
    Most papers get lost in the sea of time...
    No, they don't. They are archived and are easily accessible through search engines such as Scirus and PubMed.
    derry wrote: »
    And no I am not going to answer every question everybody asks me...
    Why am I not surprised.
    derry wrote: »
    Outside USA ,UK , ROI, Germany and a few richer counrtries like Sweden there isnt so big a following from the public or even academic circles for this climate science subject...
    Nobody in the developing world has any interest in climate research? I suggest you consult the author list on the latest IPCC report and note their countries of origin.
    derry wrote: »
    Interesting paper this one from Poland where lucky thier science debate isnt too curropted with this top heavy CO2 debate
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
    So you’re an expert on climate research in Poland now, eh? You are aware that the website is American? I thought they were one of the "corrupt" nations, pushing the AGW agenda? Or is this website squeaky clean because they happen to present a point-of-view that you agree with? Why doesn't "21st Century Science & Technology" fall into the "junk science mag" category?

    I'm guessing you didn't read the article itself?
    derry wrote: »
    Careful this guy Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski is real hard core Ice ager...
    Is he? If he's so "hard core", then why has he not published a paper on the subject since 1994?
    derry wrote: »
    ...when the clean sweep decends on the Climate science department and the Ice agers trample all over the GW brigade in the new climate science fashion coup he or his Ice ager friends could be your boss if your in a climate science department
    I'm not.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    gerky wrote: »
    Zbigniew Jaworowski is the man who claims the damage done by lead in petrol was a myth:rolleyes:


    I am doing my own private research on petrol to see how to get better MPG. What an eye opener. If you knew the half of the chemical mix in it you wouldn't go within 1000 miles of the stuff.Petrol and its 200 plus chemical if it was a new product and I tried to bring it to ROI in this safety consious market . They would not let the stuff enter Irish waters its such a toxic mix and it would never get a safety cert for sale for any uses.
    Lead is the least of the problems from that toxic mix. Also lead is a background metal that exists in nature most everywhere like Iron and other a bundant metals. Replacing lead in petrol for ~5% ethanol is like removing a trace element lead from poision and adding 5% Ethanol to make it a lesser poision



    Oil refined Deisel fuels are close behind and are definitly proven carcongens fuels both before burning and after burning

    If you knew the half about the very nasty fuel mix the ships burn nearly a black tar product a very heavy dredges left over oil from oil refinery full for nasty metal etc is nearly a unsaleable product you wouldnt go within ten miles of a shipping port

    Its not such a dumb debate as you think it is as you breathe in many of these toxic fumes when you enter cities or enclosed car parks or fill your car .Lead is the least of your problems from that toxic mix.

    Removing lead from petrol is like putting a sticky plaster on a poison bottle and declaring the poision safe


    Breathing the fumes in your car will probably kill you faster than CO2 emmisions
    gerky wrote:
    And just to point out, that paper is from 97 and 21st Century Science and Technology is not a peer reviewed magazine.

    so????
    very in depth intelectial report on the paper

    titles is wrong reject the paper

    dive dive athung athung emergency dive Ice agers bombing dropping

    see no ice age
    hear no ice age
    speak no ice age
    HISS AT IT and melt the Ice agers away

    Sorry "extremeweather" the guys in the forum dont buy the paper from 1938
    as it comes from the "British something or other" non university sources

    http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf

    Could be intersting to find older science papers from peer approved sources who figured that it was impossible for man to make a machine that could fly.Bike makers didnt read those peer papers and guess what they flew

    I have read 90% of this paper from Zbigniew Jaworowski and all of several other papers he has done on this drilling ice

    Not saying everything he says is correct but no gettting away from the old science adadge that watching the experiment can change the experiment. Its seems to me very hard to get a pore from that deep that isnt contanimated from the drilling process itself.He does seem to throw a number 10 spanner into the drill core reading accuracy


    Derry


  • #173
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nobody in the developing world has any interest in climate research? I suggest you consult the author list on the latest IPCC report and note their countries of origin.

    In your wet dreams the whole world wakes up and says eeekkk the GW is the biggest subject of my life
    Just go to Romania and stop at random the locals and try to find any who give a fiddlers about the GW or CC debate
    Try Russia you might find afew from Siberia who will say Fantastic solution GW best thing since sliced cheese making minus 20 degree winters instead for minus 60 degrees keep pumping out that CO2 stuff

    Its media driven in lots of english speaking countries and is often a very off the beaten track side show in academic circles outside those places
    Yeah a few often junket circus scientists from every country for the new demi god IPCC means the whole world is spooked by this boogie man CO2 global warming and belives it like a new gospel

    Get real

    Derry


  • #174
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    silverharp wrote: »
    Anyone care to cast their eye over this piece? will happily read a counter to this


    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

    nice one :D
    bit of ice to cool down the show :cool:
    exit stage left GW kicking and screaming it true we tell you it true :eek:and entrance stage right the ice agers with the cold frosty glaciers :Psucking polo mints telling us best buy for a house is Spain as ROI will be one big glacier any time soon :pac::pac::pac:

    Short skirts long skirts fashion industry stuff really:pac::pac::pac:

    Derry


  • #175
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Why in Gods name are we still arguing about whether the Mercury goes up or down when we All acknowledge that any change could be catstrophic. I fully accept that the thread title is GW, but a change in climate still moves the goalposts beyond our current abiltiy co cope with it. Anyway its raining in Brisbane now, so I've gotta get off the balcony and away from the end of a 10 year drought. Answers on a postcard....


  • #176
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    Petrol and its 200 plus chemical if it was a new product and I tried to bring it to ROI in this safety consious market . They would not let the stuff enter Irish waters its such a toxic mix and it would never get a safety cert for sale for any uses.
    Right; that’s why petrol is so difficult to source in Ireland. Oh no, wait...
    derry wrote: »
    so????
    very in depth intelectial report on the paper
    Which part did you find particularly interesting? The title?
    derry wrote: »
    Could be intersting to find older science papers from peer approved sources who figured that it was impossible for man to make a machine that could fly.
    Indeed; although I doubt such a paper exists.
    derry wrote: »
    Its seems to me very hard to get a pore from that deep that isnt contanimated from the drilling process itself.
    Care to elaborate?
    derry wrote: »
    In your wet dreams the whole world wakes up and says eeekkk the GW is the biggest subject of my life
    Just go to Romania and stop at random the locals and try to find any who give a fiddlers about the GW or CC debate
    Try Russia you might find afew from Siberia who will say Fantastic solution GW best thing since sliced cheese making minus 20 degree winters instead for minus 60 degrees keep pumping out that CO2 stuff

    Its media driven in lots of english speaking countries and is often a very off the beaten track side show in academic circles outside those places
    Yeah a few often junket circus scientists from every country for the new demi god IPCC means the whole world is spooked by this boogie man CO2 global warming and belives it like a new gospel
    Is there a point in there somewhere? Whether you care to admit it or not, climate change is a global issue, as evidence by multilateral participation in, for example, the IPCC and the Kyoto agreement.


  • #177
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    djpbarry wrote: »

    Is there a point in there somewhere? Whether you care to admit it or not, climate change is a global issue, as evidence by multilateral participation in, for example, the IPCC and the Kyoto agreement.

    For a few in the global community lets ball park 200,000 directly involved mayby 400,000 followers from students to cult followers mayby total 600,000 worldwide.Lets be really generous lets go out on a limb and maby there is much as 6,000,000 in the planet with passing interest like trying to keep up with this boogie man story that the kids come home from school with ,which is giving them nightmares or thrill seeekers who watch Al Gores spooky movie several times to remind themselfs what real fear is .

    The rest of the worlds 6 billion population some 99% of it probaly think global warming is some new kinky sex toy to buy in adult shops .

    Lets face it Spain sells 1000 times more football sport result journals than daily newspapers and that before we look at the third world where the issue where the next meal come from exceeds global warming issues

    OH you mean the inteligentsia who hang in colleges universities the type that imagine the whole world hangs of every global warming boggie man statement they issue in hushed tones of dont panik our goose is cooked :pac::pac::pac:

    get a grip try explaining global warming outside your insular inviorement of other global warming followers and then you find it is a very fringe sport enjoyed by mostly saddo types that wish they controled the planet and who could burn what carbon when where etc.

    you guys who swollow the GW or CC trip are a hoot :pac::pac::pac:

    derry


  • #178
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    For a few in the global community lets ball park 200,000 directly involved mayby 400,000 followers from students to cult followers mayby total 600,000 worldwide.Lets be really generous lets go out on a limb and maby there is much as 6,000,000 in the planet with passing interest...
    Figures pulled out of one's posterior does not a convincing argument make.
    derry wrote: »
    ...look at the third world where the issue where the next meal come from exceeds global warming issues
    You're really showing your ignorance now. Here in Pakistan, climate change is a huge issue. Why? Because Pakistan is one of the world's largest producers of agricultural products. Crops such as chickpeas, cotton, sugarcane, milk (Pakistan is the world's 5th-largest producer of milk), onions, mangoes, oranges, rice and wheat are all mass-produced here. You think Pakistani farmers are not worried about potential changes to the climate? The same is true in other developing countries where agriculture forms an integral part of the economy. Developing countries do not have the necessary resources to put in place contingency plans should changes in the climate impact negatively on their economy – it is much easier for the developed world to adapt.


  • #179
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    derry, why are you doing this? Are you bored? Retarded? You're certainly not bothering to make good arguments.


  • #180
    hoser expat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭hoser expat


    Húrin wrote: »
    derry, why are you doing this? Are you bored? Retarded? You're certainly not bothering to make good arguments.


    Maybe he figures continual stream-of-consciousness ranting about something he obviously knows very little will improve his spelling? :p


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    Top NASA scientist declares himself a skeptic and points the finger at Hansen.
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320


Advertisement