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

Options
1…5681011…14

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    It takes lot of energy and man power to extract fuel from fossil fuels so the chances to go exponential are really not likely…
    Atmospheric CO2 values derived from in situ air samples collected at Mauna Loa are available here:
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

    This data fits the following exponential equation reasonably well (R^2 = 0.9925):
    y = 0.1001*e^(0.0041x)

    The rate of increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not constant and is, on average, increasing. From 1960 – 69 (inclusive), the rate of increase in CO2 concentration was approximately 0.86 ppmv per annum. From 1998 – 2007 (inclusive) this had increased to approximately 1.97 ppmv per annum.
    derry wrote: »
    Very interesting the link states that since the level of CO2 was 280PPM and is now 380 PPM the levels has only risen 23%
    So this alarmist talk of massive rise is just more crap
    You are guilty of precisely the opposite. Dismissing a rise of 23% in the concentration of one of the constituents of the atmosphere is rather foolish.
    derry wrote: »
    The graph shows the likely trend stripping out new non fossil fuel solution arriving is for CO2 to be double by the year 2255
    There’s nothing likely about that trend at all; a linear trend is assumed when a linear trend clearly does not exist (as shown above).


  • Options
    #213
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
    One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
    The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.



    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/


  • Options
    #214
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    baldieman wrote: »
    Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
    …
    Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
    That’s a nice bit of copy & paste, but anyway:
    "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,"
    …
    "We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "
    …
    "Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”
    I doubt the IPCC would disagree with any of those statements.


  • Options
    #215
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    djpbarry wrote: »
    That’s a nice bit of copy & paste, but anyway:
    I doubt the IPCC would disagree with any of those statements.
    Good old djpbarry, you've always got an answer for everything. are you sure you're not a politician? :D


  • Options
    #216
    scrumplod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭scrumplod


    baldieman wrote: »
    Good old djpbarry, you've always got an answer for everything. are you sure you're not a politician? :D

    He's not an irish politican anyway they don't have any answers!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    GarretWilliams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭GarretWilliams


    http://www.iceagenow.com/We_overlooked_193000_square_miles_of_ice.htm

    Global Warming, what a frace.


  • Options
    #218
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    GarretWilliams wrote: »
    http://www.iceagenow.com/We_overlooked_193000_square_miles_of_ice.htm

    Global Warming, what a frace.
    So a glitch in satellite sensors leads you to believe that global warming is a farce? Interesting conclusion.


  • Options
    #219
    GarretWilliams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭GarretWilliams


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So a glitch in satellite sensors leads you to believe that global warming is a farce? Interesting conclusion.

    I am amazed, all the "little errors" seem to be one way traffic. I am yet to see a "glitch" that shows massive mistaken increases in ice caps, or decreases in temperature. Sorry, I take that back, I forgot about the 1970's. In these Orwellian times, what with the memory hole and all, one must keep up to date.

    This is the latest scientific evidence;

    http://green.sympatico.msn.ca/canadianpressarticle.aspx?cp-documentid=928703

    These white coats were wrong.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

    But remember, little people, hand over your money and we will protect you from all these impending disasters.


  • Options
    #220
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    GarretWilliams wrote: »
    http://www.iceagenow.com/We_overlooked_193000_square_miles_of_ice.htm

    Global Warming, what a frace.

    nice one

    Even when you look
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    And you compare the best year dark blue 2003 feb (which is max peak time )with ~15 (15 million sq/km )on the graph compared to feb 2006 color black ~13 thats not enough to convince me of anything except normal seasonal variation.Whats really good is the graph slide both down and up is very similar so the peaks are merly peaks .Even you look the summer Min for 2003 versus 2006 we see they are similar


    Brilliant link helps put the lid on this boggie man artic ice and melting and drowning polar bears

    Really trying to measure a dynamic object like 14 square million kilometers of ice expanding and contracting best I can figure they possibly make any claims until there is something like 25% less on all months as there so many vairables


    I saw the Japanese climate scientists now 4 to one are saying man has no measurable effect on the climate from CO2 emmisions.(I will try to find the link some time )

    Seeing as the Japanese first year secondary school maths lessons are on par with first year university maths in ROI chances are better they ran the numbers better than junk science USA and EU

    Derry


  • Options
    #221
    GarretWilliams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭GarretWilliams


    derry wrote: »


    I saw the Japanese climate scientists now 4 to one are saying man has no measurable effect on the climate from CO2 emmisions.(I will try to find the link some time )

    Seeing as the Japanese first year secondary school maths lessons are on par with first year university maths in ROI chances are they ran the numbers better than junk science USA and EU

    Derry

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

    But keep it quiet, the little people might just discover the scam.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    GarretWilliams wrote: »
    <snip>
    I forgot about the 1970's.

    These white coats were wrong.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

    reproduced for legitmate education
    time.com wrote:

    Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

    yeah memory lane stuff where the TV and new and media tried everyyhting to tell us the end was nigh and the ice age was a coming

    The extract above typical where they had to blame man for it

    Some of the same group of scientists are now big global warmer bogie man pridicters

    Thanks for the japanese link

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...t_translation/

    Derry


  • Options
    #223
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    GarretWilliams wrote: »
    This is the latest scientific evidence;

    http://green.sympatico.msn.ca/canadianpressarticle.aspx?cp-documentid=928703
    Lord Stern is not a scientist.
    GarretWilliams wrote: »
    These white coats were wrong.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html
    Can you be a little more precise? What "white coats" are you referring to and what were they wrong about?


  • Options
    #224
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    And you compare the best year dark blue 2003 feb (which is max peak time )with ~15 (15 million sq/km )on the graph compared to feb 2006 color black ~13 thats not enough to convince me of anything except normal seasonal variation.
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #225
    GarretWilliams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭GarretWilliams


    derry wrote: »


    The extract above typical where they had to blame man for it

    Some of the same group of scientists are now big global warmer bogie man pridicters


    Derry

    Yes. Even reading the Time article. The same buzz words, "tipping points", "tell tale signs", "extreme weather", "catastrophic effects".

    And of course the real issue is always saved to the end. The real driving force of the whole greening movement the "OVERPOPULATION" agenda.


  • Options
    #226
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    GarretWilliams wrote: »
    Yes. Even reading the Time article. The same buzz words, "tipping points", "tell tale signs", "extreme weather", "catastrophic effects".

    And of course the real issue is always saved to the end. The real driving force of the whole greening movement the "OVERPOPULATION" agenda.



    Yeah in the 70,s we were told that to survive in 1999 we would have to Invade Africa and if nessary kill of the indiginous populations so as to ensure the refugee Europeans running from the advancing ICE sheet could survive.

    Darn it didn't the cold cycle stop buy 1980 and then we got this warm cycle and didnt the scientists in junk science Ice age jump ship and sell thier souls to the highest bidder and that was global warming trend setters


    They tuaght us in schools the world was over populated and we were all going to be in a hell of mess before 1999 with mass starvation.

    Its clear that the overpopulation agenda setters who are full for evil sh!t set the ice age and then the global warming agendas to fit the cull the world population agenda

    I for one having lived in Africa can tell you most of Africa is way under populated and that Africa wont start to become a world power and useful economic entity until the population is closer to 100 times its present population

    The super rich class dont want that as a well populated Africa would to difficult to rip off like they do now so they do thier best to cull the population in Africa with selling cheap wheapons to cause as many wars there as they can or other tricks like spead bad vaccinnes on purpose .Look in the UK Magie Thathers son caught with a private army trying to overthrow one government in west Africa so as to rob thier oil wells worth billions.

    These same evil guys want to tax us for carbon to make less uneconomic and Make ROI a
    Stallig 99 cheap labour slave camp .

    Be carefull the water in the shower units its got Galway water in it

    As I say ther is now twice as many people on the planet than when I was born and guess what !!! Its twice as good for most everything I can think of on the planet .I say Roll on ten times more as that will be even ten times better

    Derry


  • Options
    #227
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    GarretWilliams wrote: »
    These white coats were wrong.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

    From the article:

    But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate

    So when you say they were wrong...you're saying that they didn't need vastly more information? Because that's about the only thing the "white coats" agreed on in the 70s...was that they didn't have the capability to make accurate predictions either which way.


  • Options
    #228
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    believing in global warming can have expensive consequences :rolleyes:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/world/europe/22ernen.html


  • Options
    #229
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    baldieman wrote: »
    believing in global warming can have expensive consequences :rolleyes:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/world/europe/22ernen.html
    So if people stop "believing in global warming", low-altitude ski resorts will receive more snow?


  • Options
    #230
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So if people stop "believing in global warming", low-altitude ski resorts will receive more snow?



    Lets see this winter was the coldest in ROI for 18 years.USA east coast snowed in again this week after several big winter storms. I am sitting in Galway today looking at the snow on the lower slopesand this year they got more snow in the west than other years .The Artic ice they found it gained another few square million kilometers that the ice sensors mislaid that ice how convient for global warmers that was and how embarrasing to be caught out lying yet again.Austria Italy France and many ski slopes had a bumper year with deep snow and the snows came early.The scientists that seem to figure we are going into a cooler period are predicting more snow more often.Looks like the time to buy ski resorts is now and just wait for the cool cycle to arrive


    Derry


  • Options
    #231
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    derry wrote: »
    Lets see this winter was the coldest in ROI for 18 years.USA east coast snowed in again this week after several big winter storms. I am sitting in Galway today looking at the snow on the lower slopesand this year they got more snow in the west than other years.
    And 2008 was the 10th warmest year on record. Taken in isolation, that means very little, as do your statements above. But looking at the long-term trend…
    derry wrote: »
    The Artic ice they found it gained another few square million kilometers that the ice sensors mislaid that ice how convient for global warmers that was and how embarrasing to be caught out lying yet again.
    Who was lying exactly? Are you saying that the sensor was not faulty? Would you have preferred if NSIDC had kept this error to themselves, rather than informing the public?
    derry wrote: »
    Austria Italy France and many ski slopes had a bumper year with deep snow and the snows came early.The scientists that seem to figure we are going into a cooler period are predicting more snow more often.Looks like the time to buy ski resorts is now and just wait for the cool cycle to arrive
    I presume you have bought one?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    Be careful Derry, you might get sent here.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/3530607/Lawyers-call-for-international-court-for-the-environment.html

    Of course, that is after the laws get expanded, as they always do. Remember the anti terror laws now being used on council bin "abusers".


  • Options
    #233
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And 2008 was the 10th warmest year on record. ?
    Surely your records are for longer than the last ten years.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

    djpbarry wrote: »
    Who was lying exactly? Are you saying that the sensor was not faulty?
    They were lying. Caught red handed. What do you expect them to do, come out with the truth??
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Would you have preferred if NSIDC had kept this error to themselves, rather than informing the public?

    I'd prefer if they kept all of their "research" to themselves.


  • Options
    #234
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    Surely your records are for longer than the last ten years.
    Not mine, the Hadley Centre's. And yes, they go back to 1850.
    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    They were lying. Caught red handed.
    What were they lying about?
    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    I'd prefer if they kept all of their "research" to themselves.
    Why's that? Does it contradict your personal beliefs?


  • Options
    #235
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    djpbarry wrote: »
    What were they lying about?

    The extent of the ice cover I would have thought that was obvious.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Does it contradict your personal beliefs?

    Yes it does. You see I still have opinions of my own, rather than spouting the standard line of the media.


  • Options
    #236
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    The extent of the ice cover I would have thought that was obvious.
    So there was no faulty sensor? They had the correct data all along but decided to skew some measurements for January and February? To what end?


  • Options
    #237
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So there was no faulty sensor?

    These people are not stupid.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    They had the correct data all along but decided to skew some measurements for January and February? To what end?

    To what end? To pomote an agenda.


  • Options
    #238
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    To what end? To pomote an agenda.
    Let's cut to the chase; are you accusing the NSIDC of falsifying scientific data? That's a pretty serious accusation, one that I would expect you to be able to back up with your own data set.


  • Options
    #239
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Let's cut to the chase; are you accusing the NSIDC of falsifying scientific data? That's a pretty serious accusation, one that I would expect you to be able to back up with your own data set.

    Oh, it's very serious. We are going to be crippled with carbon taxes as a result of this scam. All these bought and paid for "scientists" should be hung from the lamp posts.

    You want my data. Well I don't think the government hand out multi million euro "research" grants to heretics. You have to be on the wagon, as you well know.

    Why are you getting your pay cheque? DIT research, yeah right. Propagandist.


    http://www.thehotjoints.com/2009/01/28/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-calls-him-an-embarrassment/


  • Options
    #240
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And 2008 was the 10th warmest year on record.

    Are you lying djp?

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/392789_murdockonline19.html


    Or maybe all the white coats are confusing you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    Are you lying djp?

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/392789_murdockonline19.html


    Or maybe all the white coats are confusing you.

    he's not lying, your article just doesn't tell the full story......

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

    here's the gloabl temp for 2008 from Nasa, even though 2008 was cooler, it still ranks in the top ten of warm years....


Advertisement