 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Seany, See here's the thing that puzzles me.............................
1) Mans production of CO2 is causing global warming. Mans production of CO2 has gone up in a fairly linear fashion for the last decade or so.
2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly.
How do you reconcile these two "facts".
Don't ask me to support this argument, it'll clog up the thread completely. Go Google. But do yourself a favour. Open your eyes.
The science has not been done, and it's far from conclusive. So if you believe in your new "religion", fine, just don't try to force it on others.
John. |
I don't reconcile the 2 'facts' because 1) is barely a fact and 2) isn't.
So you aren't going to p[rovide any evidence for your position because it wil 'clog up the thread'? Really? How about you suggest some specific search terms then? Climate science is a big discipline and if I go off on a google hunt how can I be sure what I'm reading isn't the work of cranks, nutters, lobbyists and the uninformed?
As I've stated before:
1) There is a consensus about the science. If you think there isn't show me the credible climate scientists who disagree.
2) I don't take anything on faith so it's not a religious position. If your credible climate scientists from 1) have some good evidence to disporive the AGW hypothesis then show it to me. One. single. piece. of. peer. reviewed. evidence. |
The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact.
However it has no bearing on comment 1, because AGW is not, never has been and never will be the only show in town. Climate is always changing and whatever underlying trend may occur due to increasing CO2 concentrations does not stop natural cycles and natural variability.
Thus it was imo extremely short sighted, if not damaging and downright stupid to have engaged in AGW scaremongering and predictions of always getting warmer. The reality was always going to be different because of climate variability and immense damage has been done to the credibility of climate science in the public eyes, that is hugely destructive to the cause of dealing with the problem. |
in a crude way the way that global warming/climate change is being treated is similiar to how house prices were reported and trended.
basically there is only one way.
if you build a model to prove something i'm sure that you will succeed. Freeman Dyson has said the big issue with the debate is that there is no debate, as suggested by seany.
my impression is there is a lot of potentially sub prime science out there
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Not sure why someone at the start of this thread assumed that the Carmen de Jong's objection to snowmaking was something to do with global warming. Whatever the reason it has resulted in a thread that has nothing much to do with her views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
snowball, you're absolutely right. The key issue may be the academic freedom of Carmen de Jong to undertake her research in good faith.
The Sunday Times journalist appears to have tried to get a response to her complaints from the university (see last line of report) but wasn't successful. Universities (as least in the UK) operate only one step removed from the business world and this may affect their independence. We have to be careful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tuxpoo wrote: |
| Google "interglacial state". |
If you;ve got some good evidence why don't you just link to it?
| tuxpoo wrote: |
from IPCCs own homepage ...
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
Tux |
With reference to the IPCC, you said
| Quote: |
| I'm sure you know they are not scientists or climatolagists or even "weather men". |
I then referred you to their website which says:
| Quote: |
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals |
So you were wrong. It's a scientific body comprising hundreds of scientists set up to review the state of the research. What's your problem with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| mugen wrote: |
if you build a model to prove something i'm sure that you will succeed. Freeman Dyson has said the big issue with the debate is that there is no debate, as suggested by seany.
my impression is there is a lot of potentially sub prime science out there |
What's your impression based on though? What specific problems do you have with the research?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| Number one is "barely a fact"? It's a core argument for MMGW.. |
But the way it was expressed wasn't very accurate, it;s a bit more complicated than that.
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| Number two "isn't" a fact? Are you really serious? |
Yes. So are the Met Office:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
"The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2 °C warmer than the average for the decade 1990–1999."
What problem do you have with their data?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
if you build a model to prove something i'm sure that you will succeed. Freeman Dyson has said the big issue with the debate is that there is no debate, as suggested by seany.
my impression is there is a lot of potentially sub prime science out there |
What's your impression based on though? What specific problems do you have with the research? |
it's not a problem with the research, beyond the fact that 50 years or less is not a significant time frame to judge anything with regards to climate.
but the attitude that it's all over bar the shouting and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, crank or clown.. for me that attitude is dangerous and starts to be far less about fact and more about belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact. |
Have you got a link for the prediction? in any event, just because a specific prediction hasn't been borne out it doesn't invalidate a long term trend. As the Met Office and Nasa state:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
| Quote: |
The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.
A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. [...] The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures. |
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
| Quote: |
| "Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. |
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
| Quote: |
| Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record. |
So what problem do you have with these summaries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| it's not a problem with the research, beyond the fact that 50 years or less is not a significant time frame to judge anything with regards to climate.. |
Erm, why? Do you really think that there isn't a good understanding of what is happening and why? Do you think that the modelling is being used to see whether AGW will happen at some point in future?
| mugen wrote: |
| but the attitude that it's all over bar the shouting and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, crank or clown.. for me that attitude is dangerous and starts to be far less about fact and more about belief. |
Well argue some science then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| it's not a problem with the research, beyond the fact that 50 years or less is not a significant time frame to judge anything with regards to climate.. |
Erm, why? Do you really think that there isn't a good understanding of what is happening and why? Do you think that the modelling is being used to see whether AGW will happen at some point in future?
| mugen wrote: |
| but the attitude that it's all over bar the shouting and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, crank or clown.. for me that attitude is dangerous and starts to be far less about fact and more about belief. |
Well argue some science then. |
ok you seem stuck in a loop..
incidentaly would you ever fly ryanair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| ok you seem stuck in a loop..incidentaly would you ever fly ryanair? |
So you're not going to argue any science then? Fair enough.
I fly Ryanair all the time. Probably 12 flights in the last 2 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| ok you seem stuck in a loop..incidentaly would you ever fly ryanair? |
So you're not going to argue any science then? Fair enough.
I fly Ryanair all the time. Probably 12 flights in the last 2 years. |
hmmm
your totally missing the point, how can you argue science when you believe there is no discussion to be had.. that is a belief system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
| how can you argue science when you believe there is no discussion to be had.. that is a belief system |
No it's not. His belief is that you'll not be able to come up with an anti-AGW argument that cannot be refuted by means of peer-reviewed scientific data. Whether or not he believes you are wrong is irrelevant to the argument, it is that you appear to have no arguments that stand up to scrutiny.
It's also interesting that the anti-AGW lobby recently jumped on the report of low sunspot activity - claiming we're about to enter another iceage. Since the sunspot activity goes through an 11-year cycle, and we're currently at the bottom of the lowest minimum for about 100 years a) temperatures should have been nosediving over the last 5 years (by that argument) and it would appear (from the paper cited above) that the best that can be said is that they have been holding steady, despite a colder 2008, and b) we should be currently having the coldest decade for the last century, rather than the hottest. So there's a prima facie case that the lower sunspot activity is masking the effect of AGW and, if/when the solar pattern starts returning to normal, we're actually in a worse state than even the mainstream is saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| how can you argue science when you believe there is no discussion to be had.. that is a belief system |
No it's not. His belief is that you'll not be able to come up with an anti-AGW argument that cannot be refuted by means of peer-reviewed scientific data. Whether or not he believes you are wrong is irrelevant to the argument, it is that you appear to have no arguments that stand up to scrutiny.
It's also interesting that the anti-AGW lobby recently jumped on the report of low sunspot activity - claiming we're about to enter another iceage. Since the sunspot activity goes through an 11-year cycle, and we're currently at the bottom of the lowest minimum for about 100 years a) temperatures should have been nosediving over the last 5 years (by that argument) and it would appear (from the paper cited above) that the best that can be said is that they have been holding steady, despite a colder 2008, and b) we should be currently having the coldest decade for the last century, rather than the hottest. So there's a prima facie case that the lower sunspot activity is masking the effect of AGW and, if/when the solar pattern starts returning to normal, we're actually in a worse state than even the mainstream is saying. |
i dont have access to reams of data or the ability to propely interpret it. but i do think that once someone tells me that there is no discussion to be had that at that point there is a great need for discussion.
also can't abide people that talk the talk and dont walk the walk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| mugen wrote: |
| i dont have access to reams of data or the ability to propely interpret it. but i do think that once someone tells me that there is no discussion to be had that at that point there is a great need for discussion. |
What I actually said was:
| Quote: |
| Well, why would there need to be a debate about the science? Nobody feels the need to have a debate about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (except for free energy cranks) or evolution (excepts for creationists). The science has been done and it's conclusive. None of the so-called sceptics have been able to provide any good scientific arguments to support their anti-AGW stance and it's hardly surprising, the whole movement is made up of clowns like Monckton and non-experts like David Bellamy. |
Which is different to what you are suggesting. Show me some evidence then let's 'debate'. If you haven't got any then there is no discussion to be had.
| mugen wrote: |
| also can't abide people that talk the talk and dont walk the walk |
Do you see the irony of this statement? You are arguing against AGW without understanding the science. Talking the talk..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
mugen, the most erudite sceptic sH on 'global warming was probably laundryman - one of his last offerings on the subject here. I doubt that his views have changed much - I suspect he just got bored with those who relied on the IPCC 'consensus' as being sufficient - and anybody who disagreed with the IPCC being a 'usual suspect'.
I think this thread is a bit tedious, too, however - it just goes over old arguments as though they were new. Rather a shame that it has drifted from the original post's point about an alpine community suppressing a dissenting voice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| achilles wrote: |
| mugen, the most erudite sceptic sH on 'global warming was probably laundryman - one of his last offerings on the subject here. I doubt that his views have changed much - I suspect he just got bored with those who relied on the IPCC 'consensus' as being sufficient - and anybody who disagreed with the IPCC being a 'usual suspect'. |
Yeah, you'll have to forgive me for going to the scientists for my science, rather than some bloke off the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| achilles wrote: |
| I think this thread is a bit tedious, too, however - it just goes over old arguments as though they were new. Rather a shame that it has drifted from the original post's point about an alpine community suppressing a dissenting voice. |
Well for that I apologise, but I've got SIWOTI syndrome. And Mugen started it Miss.
And since when has going over old ground been a problem round here?
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 5-05-09 21:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| i dont have access to reams of data or the ability to propely interpret it. but i do think that once someone tells me that there is no discussion to be had that at that point there is a great need for discussion. |
What I actually said was:
| Quote: |
| Well, why would there need to be a debate about the science? Nobody feels the need to have a debate about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (except for free energy cranks) or evolution (excepts for creationists). The science has been done and it's conclusive. None of the so-called sceptics have been able to provide any good scientific arguments to support their anti-AGW stance and it's hardly surprising, the whole movement is made up of clowns like Monckton and non-experts like David Bellamy. |
Which is different to what you are suggesting. Show me some evidence then let's 'debate'. If you haven't got any then there is no discussion to be had.
| mugen wrote: |
| also can't abide people that talk the talk and dont walk the walk |
Do you see the irony of this statement? You are arguing against AGW without understanding the science. Talking the talk.. |
you are suggesting there is no further science to do, it's all over.. this i find sinister if it is throughout the scientific community.
that said you have not advanced anything with regard to your own qualifications, merely that you can read things from t'internet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
you are suggesting there is no further science to do, it's all over.. this i find sinister if it is throughout the scientific community.
that said you have not advanced anything with regard to your own qualifications, merely that you can read things from t'internet |
I'm saying that the relevant science has been done and the results are in. Why do you find it sinister? It's how science works. We're not repeating Newton's experiments or Boyle's or Curie's - because they've been done already.
If you think the science done so far is wrong you have to argue the science. On science's terms. One. peer.reviewed. paper.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 5-05-09 21:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
you are suggesting there is no further science to do, it's all over.. this i find sinister if it is throughout the scientific community.
that said you have not advanced anything with regard to your own qualifications, merely that you can read things from t'internet |
I'm saying that the relevant science has been done and the results are in. Why do you find it sinister? It's how science works. We're not repeating Newton's experiments or Boyle's or Curie's - because they've been done already. |
whats your background.
also why is it only clowns that say gw isn't happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| ......I'd guess Freeman Dyson has a rather better one |
I'd bet on that!
| Quote: |
| but it doesn't mean he's right. |
Or wrong.
However, getting back to the original post, I am concerned that de Jong's voice is being so vigorously suppressed. I have tended to the view that the local people know best how to look after their mountains - but I am not so sure that that is so if discussion is suppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
whats your background.
also why is it only clowns that say gw isn't happening. |
What's my background got to do with anything? Do you know what an ad hominem argument is?
I didn't say that only clowns say that gw isn't happening. I think (from memory) that I called Monckton, Booker & Lawson clowns. They are. They couldn't be more clownish if they had collapsible cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
whats your background.
also why is it only clowns that say gw isn't happening. |
What's my background got to do with anything? Do you know what an ad hominem argument is?
looked it up on wikipedia actually
I didn't say that only clowns say that gw isn't happening. I think (from memory) that I called Monckton, Booker & Lawson clowns. They are. They couldn't be more clownish if they had collapsible cars. |
back that satatement up
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| back that satatement up |
This demand for evidence is a bit ironic since I've been asking you to do the same thing for 3 long pages without any joy.
Just look at Booker's long history with asbestos to see what a complete joker he is. He should be throwing buckets of glitter over audiences, not being paid to write about science in the national press.
Roll up, roll up, all the thrill of the big top as Coco Monckton makes real scientists laugh with disbelief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seany, tut tut. If you must continue this tangential debate, please don't bolster your argument by relying on a reference considered dodgy by the reference itself.
| Quote: |
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
* Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2009.
* Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since January 2009. |
Did you submit the Wikipedia page?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Seany wrote: |
| Do I have to explain how a wiki works? |
I do not know. Do you have a compulsion to do so? You do seem to have a compulsion to keep off topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
| Do I have to explain how a wiki works? |
I do not know. Do you have a compulsion to do so? You do seem to have a compulsion to keep off topic. |
Whatevs. Booker's a clown. Unless you happen to think that he's got a compelling case for his asbestos nuttery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Seany, See here's the thing that puzzles me.............................
1) Mans production of CO2 is causing global warming. Mans production of CO2 has gone up in a fairly linear fashion for the last decade or so.
2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly.
How do you reconcile these two "facts". |
The surface temperature may have fallen, but that only reflects what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea. The oceans have soaked up more heat energy than normal, causing the surface air temperatures to fall - far more heat is stored in the oceans than in the air.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Seany wrote: |
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact. |
Have you got a link for the prediction? in any event, just because a specific prediction hasn't been borne out it doesn't invalidate a long term trend. As the Met Office and Nasa state:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
| Quote: |
The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.
A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. [...] The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures. |
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
| Quote: |
| "Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. |
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
| Quote: |
| Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record. |
So what problem do you have with these summaries? |
I didn't say it invalidated the long term trend. The 'problem' as you call it, is that through scaremongering and the resultant hype, if the long term trend is not seen continuously even at short timescales it will discredit the climate science even where valid in the eyes of the public. No matter how sound the science is, the public must be carried if action is going to be taken.
Snow is very emotive thus a useful symbol, thus bashing Scottish Snowsports and predicting its death (it should have died based on original predictions) is very convenient to certain environmental groups who as it happens want to end lift served snowsports in Scotland anyway. The effect of media coverage means the perception of climate change in Highland Scotland has been far more damaging than any actuality to date.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 6-05-09 0:37; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| I didn't say it invalidated the long term trend. |
What you said was:
| Quote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact. |
Point 2 being:
| Quote: |
| 2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly. |
So you said that temp since 2000 has not increased. It has.
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The 'problem' as you call it, is that through scaremongering and the resultant hype, if the long term trend is not seen continuously even at short timescales it will discredit the climate science even where valid in the eyes of the public. No matter how sound the science is, the public must be carried if action is going to be taken. |
I didn't call anything a problem, I asked what your problem was with the Hadley and Giss data showing warming. Apparently your problem is not with the data (which you thought showed cooling but doesn't), it's with the media reporting. Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Ok
Here is an easily readable pulbished "peer reviewed" paper on the global warming petition project.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
Unfortunatly us mortals dont get access to vast majority of papers as this costs.
Fortunaltly this paper was published for free.
No dought you will find fault in this somewhere.
But before you do, I will do the AGWers trick of questioning if you are educated enough to argue the science.
Im not... TBH I dont care. A few degrees raised (prob when im old or dead) will make little difference to me. I could prob grow grapes when i retire.
All gores film has been massivlty discredited. SOmething like 60 feet sealevel rise? Even the IPCC has forcast only a few cm (using same computer models that forecast it to get warmer in the last 10 years... opps what happened).
Use some common sence. This debate is over because the science has been hijacked by politicians and the media.
Someone mentioned newtons laws. Just want to point out the Newtons laws are an aproximation. The science was not a DONE DEAL. How would we have come out with general relativity?
Anyone who described Einstein as a 'newton skeptic clown' or 'newton denier', will have massive egg on thier face
Dont forget ...
attack the messenger, repeat the mantra! attack the messenger, repeat the mantra! attack the messenger, repeat the mantra!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's how forcasting works. Here they say:
| Quote: |
| In a preliminary report, released today on behalf of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global mean temperature for 2008 is 14.3 °C, making it the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850. |
And:
| Quote: |
| They say this figure is slightly down on earlier years this century partly because of the La Niña that developed in the Pacific Ocean during 2007. |
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
| Winterhighland wrote: |
Hadley Global Temperature Trend graph (actually slightly below flat now):
 |
It's a trend graph. Is the trend flat?
Do you have a graph to show that the Hadley Decadel trend is flat?
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. |
The trend here isn't flat:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Wed 6-05-09 9:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAIL. It's not peer reviewed. It's published by these people:
http://www.oism.org/
Info here:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
I think that paper is overpriced.
| tuxpoo wrote: |
No dought you will find fault in this somewhere.
But before you do, I will do the AGWers trick of questioning if you are educated enough to argue the science. |
Try arguing some science with me and find out.
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Im not... TBH I dont care. A few degrees raised (prob when im old or dead) will make little difference to me. I could prob grow grapes when i retire.
All gores film has been massivlty discredited. SOmething like 60 feet sealevel rise? Even the IPCC has forcast only a few cm (using same computer models that forecast it to get warmer in the last 10 years... opps what happened).
Use some common sence. This debate is over because the science has been hijacked by politicians and the media. |
Ok, you don't care, fair enough.
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Someone mentioned newtons laws. Just want to point out the Newtons laws are an aproximation. The science was not a DONE DEAL. How would we have come out with general relativity?
Anyone who described Einstein as a 'newton skeptic clown' or 'newton denier', will have massive egg on thier face |
I mentioned Newton's experiments and that fact that we don't have to repeat them. We don't. Newtonian mechanics work fine here on earth. On a universal scale they don't. Which is where relativity comes into its own. It helps to know the science before you use it as support for your argument.
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Dont forget ...
attack the messenger, repeat the mantra! attack the messenger, repeat the mantra! attack the messenger, repeat the mantra! |
Do you have a comprehension problem? I've been asking you to argue the science but you won't or can't and have been making ad hom arguments against scientists and me. IRONIC FAIL. One. peer. reviewed. piece of. evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Somehave free previews.
Im sure you will find fault in them all.
|
Of course he will.
His mind is completely closed on this, since so far as he is concerned, "the science has been done and the results are in".
He is, of course, wrong. Some "science has been done". Some but very few "results are in".
There is plenty more to do on both counts, and there certaihnly is still debate going on, regardless of his arrogant certainties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
