The great global warming swindle-9pm tonight (thursday 8/3/07)

piraka

trogdor wrote:

Just out of interest does anyone else have any other good links to papers or other info where the data is not flawed or convientently censored?

Trogdor this might be of interest to you (or other interested parties).

There is lecture being presented in the RDS by Prof. Richard C. J. Somerville titled:

'Global Warming: The Last Word on the Best Science'

It is free but you have to book your place. I believe there are some places still available.

http://www.rds.ie/home/index.aspx?id=1922

http://myprofile.cos.com/somerv96

I understand that Prof. Somerville takes a very balance approach to global warming issues.

Trogdor

piraka wrote:

Trogdor this might be of interest to you (or other interested parties).

There is lecture being presented in the RDS by Prof. Richard C. J. Somerville titled:

'Global Warming: The Last Word on the Best Science'

It is free but you have to book your place. I believe there are some places still available.

http://www.rds.ie/home/index.aspx?id=1922

http://myprofile.cos.com/somerv96

I understand that Prof. Somerville takes a very balance approach to global warming issues.

Damn! that is something i really would be interested in going to, but i'm away from tomorrow till Friday:( :mad:

djpbarry

MooseJam wrote:

personally I don't think anything should be done about this global warming thing , why ? because the thing thats aparantly causing it is running out - fossil fuels, oil, just when the stuff starts to run out we see it's effect on the environment , so we should continue as is and burn the remaining oil and when it's all gone we will switch to something cleaner like hydrogen and all will be well

You don't really think everything will be that straightforward, do you?!? How are we going to just "switch to something cleaner like Hydrogen"? It's not going to happen overnight. Apart from anything else, there is still a relatively large amount of carbon trapped in fossil fuels that have yet to be burned. Burning ALL the remaining fossil fuels on the planet would significantly increase the CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere - possibly even up to toxic levels.

djpbarry

piraka wrote:

There is lecture being presented in the RDS by Prof. Richard C. J. Somerville titled:

'Global Warming: The Last Word on the Best Science'

I understand that Prof. Somerville takes a very balance approach to global warming issues.

I attended this lecture last night, but, to be honest, it didn't tell me anything I didn't know already. However, Prof. Somerville is very diplomatic in his approach.

Some useful links for interested parties:
www.ipcc.ch
www.realclimate.org

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

I attended this lecture last night, but, to be honest, it didn't tell me anything I didn't know already. However, Prof. Somerville is very diplomatic in his approach.

Some useful links for interested parties:
www.ipcc.ch
www.realclimate.org

I also attended and was disappointed with the content as it was just a rehash of the 4AR report. I suppose my expectations were a little too high.

I was surprised that when he made reference to the early 20th (1920’s, 30’s and 40’s)as a solar event. This was after telling us that we have low level of knowledge on solar irradiance on climate.

I understood that the warming of the early 20th century was due combination of solar and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. The Atlantic Ocean warms every 60-70 years and is due to changes in Thermohaline Circulation. The scientists are still not sure of the mechanism of the AMO and are not certain on what was the driver for the early century warming.

I was very disappointed in the Q&A. Only a few people in one corner of the hall got too presented their questions.

climateaudit.org
climatesci.colorado.edu/

piraka

Sorry double post

djpbarry

piraka wrote:

I also attended and was disappointed with the content as it was just a rehash of the 4AR report. I suppose my expectations were a little too high.

Agreed; he really didn't present anything new.

piraka wrote:

I was surprised that when he made reference to the early 20th (1920’s, 30’s and 40’s)as a solar event. This was after telling us that we have low level of knowledge on solar irradiance on climate.

Well, he did admit on several occasions that climactic measurements made in the early 20th century were less than ideal, but it's the best we have. What surprised me was how well measured data over the last few years matched predictions in the early IPCC reports. Now, admittedly, I am always sceptical of any organisation with such heavy government involvement, but I find it difficult to undermine the IPCC. For example, I did not realise that 35% of scientists who contributed to the latest report are from developing countries / economies.

piraka wrote:

I was very disappointed in the Q&A. Only a few people in one corner of the hall got too presented their questions.

Yes, absolutely :mad: ! That part of the evening was very badly managed. There was a lady in front of me who had her hand raised the whole time, was given a mic, and then the guy just ignored her!

I had to laugh at the question about a possible link between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the Earth's orbit!!

Trogdor

Thanks for the links. I wouldn't have got into the Somerville lecture, i passed on the link to a friend who i thought might be interested and they rang the RDS straight away but it was already booked out with a very long waiting list.
More against AGW, the debate continues to rage.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=

rc28

trogdor wrote:

More against AGW, the debate continues to rage
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=

Lol, the U.S. Environment commitee, I never knew they had one;)

djpbarry

trogdor wrote:

More against AGW, the debate continues to rage.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=

trogdor,
Please, do a little background check before you post these links. First off, this website is very biased - the US Senate Committee on the Environment indeed :rolleyes: . They're twisting the truth here. This is the guy who wrote the paper in question:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html#educ
This is taken directly from his website:

It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock.

McSandwich

These might be of interest..

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625023.600.html

Trogdor

djpbarry wrote:

trogdor,
Please, do a little background check before you post these links. First off, this website is very biased - the US Senate Committee on the Environment indeed :rolleyes: . They're twisting the truth here. This is the guy who wrote the paper in question:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html#educ
This is taken directly from his website:

Ok:o , thats what any counter argument is usually put down to though, i know some people may have a possible motive to bribe "skeptics" to speak out against AGW but even if they do, imo, there's just to many speaking out against it for them all to be getting paid. I know others who have done quite a bit of research and genuinely believe that Co2 emmisions are not the main cause of GW. There's nothing in it for them to speak against the AGW theory.

piraka

Interesting read on what Kevin Trenberth the lead author for the IPCC 4AR had to say about climate predictions

Recent research on cirrus clouds

piraka

The issue of the little temperature adjustment!

piraka

Its that pesky ozone again.

piraka

Tiny particles increase the solar heating of the lower atmosphere by about 50%.

piraka

NAO influences temperature over Ireland

A positive relationship between air temperature in Britain and the NAO has been identified for records dating back to 1865 (Jones and Hulme 1997). In that study 45% of variation in winter air temperatures could be explained by variation in the NAO index. This value is slightly lower than the values of 53% and 59% found for Belmullet and Valentia (respectively) since 1960.

http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu//other_papers/surveys.pdf
http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100232.pdf

djpbarry

trogdor wrote:

I know others who have done quite a bit of research and genuinely believe that Co2 emmisions are not the main cause of GW. There's nothing in it for them to speak against the AGW theory.

So who are these people?

djpbarry

A very apt quote from Bertrand Russell:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

Trogdor

djpbarry wrote:

So who are these people?

Tom Presutti on here
http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/default.aspx
and village here, for a start
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/
Sorry, i can't post their profile pages because you can only view them if you're registered.
There are a lot of smart well-read(on the issue) people on both forums, a few absolutely support the AGW theory and a few absolutely say it's rubbish, but most users on both are taking a balanced approach for much the same reasons as posted by Snowbie in the other thread.

rc28

trogdor wrote:

Tom Presutti on here
http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/default.aspx

Lol, Tom Presutti is one of those iceagenow nuts who is always trying to push his ridiculous ice age agenda in nearly ever one of his posts so do you really think he'd like to hear that the world is actually warming up rather than cooling down?
Here is a direct quote of his avatar;

"2012 and beyond.. The era of the Polar Presutti winter.. :eek:
The change is coming.. will YOU be ready?
The next ice age is upon us .. www.iceagenow.com"

Need I say more:rolleyes:

lucernarian

He is a knowledgeable man about the weather in his own right, and if that's the conclusion he wants to draw from any climate change data or predictions then so be it.

Much like how I regard the likelihood of warmer winters because of climate change, so I regard the likelihood of another Ice Age in the next few decades. I don't see why one outcome should be more likely than any other, when talking about 20 years time. Expecting a particular outcome in the future will always have a degree of risk

One can be sure that there are and will be plenty of experts in various corners of meteorological thought who will be proven wrong in the decades to come.

djpbarry

trogdor wrote:

There are a lot of smart well-read(on the issue) people on both forums, a few absolutely support the AGW theory and a few absolutely say it's rubbish, but most users on both are taking a balanced approach for much the same reasons as posted by Snowbie in the other thread.

It doesn't matter how "smart" or "well-read" someone is. At the end of the day, anything posted on a public forum (such as this one), is just someone's opinion. The only information you need to consider is peer-reviewed scientific evidence and form your own opinion on this.

Trogdor

djpbarry wrote:

It doesn't matter how "smart" or "well-read" someone is. At the end of the day, anything posted on a public forum (such as this one), is just someone's opinion. The only information you need to consider is peer-reviewed scientific evidence and form your own opinion on this.

Yes, but then your told that these are biased, funded by oil companies, etc. It's just politics atm. You have your own opinion already, and i will develop mine as i read up more on this.

Weather BOFH

I don't know if anyone has seen this on the BBC, but apparently the Northwest passage between the Atlantic and Pacific has opened up fully for the first time on record, although they only began monitoring it in 1978.

And according the European Space Agency the Northeast passage through the Russian Arctic "remains only partially blocked".

piraka

Move over CO2 and let ozone take over.

http://www.physorg.com/news109127672.html

djpbarry

piraka wrote:

Move over CO2 and let ozone take over.

I don't think that's what's being said here.

djpbarry

This may be of interest:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/record-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-1115116.html

Trogdor

djpbarry wrote:

This may be of interest:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/record-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-1115116.html

Failed to mention that it was this summer's strange synoptics that casued the heat but anyway, it seems strange to have a headline like that when it happened 2 and a half months ago.

independent wrote:

One scientist came back from the North Pole and reported that it was raining there, said David Carlson, the director of International Polar Year, the effort to highlight the climate issues of the Arctic and Antarctic. "It makes you wonder whether anyone has ever reported rain at the North Pole before."

Yes, it's normal!

djpbarry

torgdor wrote:

Failed to mention that it was this summer's strange synoptics that casued the heat but anyway, it seems strange to have a headline like that when it happened 2 and a half months ago.

It takes time to compile, analyse and confirm data. It is likely they waited until their analysis was complete before issuing a press release.

You do not find these observations a touch worrying?

trogdor wrote:

Yes, it's normal!

I’m going to have to ask what you are basing that on? The average summer temperature at the North Pole is 0 degrees Celcius.