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

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Options
2456789

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    e04bf099
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭e04bf099


    djpbarry wrote: »
    That depends on what you mean by "agenda" and "driven".
    ... which depends on what you mean by "depends" & "mean". Cut the pretend arguments please.

    Here is another example of what probe is referring to as "agandas" driving the research of scientific subcultures (please do not be so ridiculous as to ask what I 'mean' by "subcultures" before you use a dictionary, or even wiktionary). The influence (both funding & also manipulation) of the US military & the CIA (i.e. solely government funding) in cognitive science, which were used to produce intelligent missiles, created the fallacy of artificial intelligence, because the scientists would not have been so willing to produce missiles as they would a human mind. So they were used, because since Turing, they believed that the mind was a computer. This influenced philosophy (which cultivated the same ideas in the popular mindset). I study philosphy, and came head-to-head with the pathology of AI, when people like John Searle were crucified by his peers, only to be accepted more and more as the years rolled by. His peers were invested in the general consensus. But John Searle was just a bog-standard western phenomenologist and while his arguments were fully legitimate and sophisticated, he was lambasted for his "religiosity". Whether he was right or not is another issue. The human mind may be a computer still. But he was marginalised and attacked, and the root cause of this was government and malleable scientists.

    Most of this was all exposed in one of Adam Curtis' documentaries. Unfortunately, I can't find a link to "It Felt like a Kiss". I'm sure it is that one but I searched for over an hour and now I have to go. I invite you to investigate yourself. This is a direct analogy with the climate change political movement and if you look back through the history of science you will find it as a recurrent trend. Sorry I couldn't find the link. I would ordinarilly, but I've got to start studying again.


  • Options
    #33
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    the direct colleration between both planets warming up at the same time, is not something to be ignored either.
    No, it isn’t. But I trust you haven’t ignored the explanation offered for the warming on Mars which is presented in the article? Furthermore, the different means of monitoring temperature change on both planets is not something that should be ignored.


  • Options
    #34
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    bladespin wrote: »
    The earth is about four and a half billion years old, using temperatures measured for two thousand years would be sketchy as evidence for anything, two hundred years evidence is absolutely meaningless, it'd barely be regarded as a trend statictically...
    So how long do we have to wait before the trend may be regarded as significant? Given that the Earth is billions of years old, another few centuries won’t make much of a difference, relatively speaking, will it?

    The Earth has, on average, warmed over the past century or so – there has to be an explanation for that. Stating that it’s too soon to tell whether the planet has warmed significantly is a bit of a cop-out.
    bladespin wrote: »
    There are any number of possible reasons for the earth's temperature to change...
    How many have strong evidence to support them?
    bladespin wrote: »
    Mars had polar caps on it's mountains that have receeded over time, this would be pretty conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming...
    If it could be conclusively demonstrated that this is occurring, then yes, I suppose it would, assuming it was not a regional phenomenon.

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mars is warming – what’s causing it?


  • Options
    #35
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    e04bf099 wrote: »
    ... which depends on what you mean by "depends" & "mean". Cut the pretend arguments please.
    ...
    Sorry I couldn't find the link. I would ordinarilly, but I've got to start studying again.
    May I suggest that you begin by studying the difference between the Green Issues forum and this one.


  • Options
    #36
    e04bf099
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭e04bf099


    djpbarry wrote: »
    May I suggest that you begin by studying the difference between the Green Issues forum and this one.

    So analogy is not a credible argument? The thread is about a documentary. My post was on green issues but my point was an indirect one. Can you please tell me how my stated example of manipulation of a scientific subculture was not relevant to this percieved manipulation another scientific culture? That was what the documentary was about after all. I'd have thought a mod could stay on-topic.

    And the idea that my point was conspiratorial is ridiculous. I never mentioned a conspiracy, I mentioned an example of institutionalised pathology, of which there are many obvious examples. In 1938, if you had said that Hitler was planning on killing the Jews, would that have been conspiatorial. This is my last post. I don't believe you are even attempting to understand the points of people who disagree with you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    e04bf099
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭e04bf099


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So how long do we have to wait before the trend may be regarded as significant? Given that the Earth is billions of years old, another few centuries won’t make much of a difference, relatively speaking, will it?

    The Earth has, on average, warmed over the past century or so – there has to be an explanation for that. Stating that it’s too soon to tell whether the planet has warmed significantly is a bit of a cop-out.
    How many have strong evidence to support them?
    If it could be conclusively demonstrated that this is occurring, then yes, I suppose it would, assuming it was not a regional phenomenon.

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mars is warming – what’s causing it?

    One more actually.

    Here is another analogy. Can you deal with analogies?

    The highest building in the world has a huge pendulum swinging freely in the middle of it on a very high up story. The building is so high that it sways in high winds. This means that the customers in the top story resteraunt experience sea sickness. To stop the swaying the inertia of the pendulum, which is delayed beacuse of its weight, counter-balances the more abrupt swinging of the building itself, thus smoothing out the sway.

    It is very likely that the sea, which takes thousands of years to heat up and cool down, does the same job for the Earths temperature, thus smoothening out the change in global temperature. Thus, for a more accurate record of the causes of temperature change, you would need to take this into account. So one century of temperature increase (which was significantly not constant) would be an extremely small sample when understand in accord with the effect that the sea has on global temperatures.


  • Options
    #38
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    e04bf099 wrote: »
    Can you please tell me how my stated example of manipulation of a scientific subculture was not relevant to this percieved manipulation another scientific culture?
    Stating that science is open to manipulation is not much of a stand-alone argument.
    e04bf099 wrote: »
    It is very likely that the sea, which takes thousands of years to heat up and cool down...
    Thousands of years? Really?
    e04bf099 wrote: »
    ...does the same job for the Earths temperature, thus smoothening out the change in global temperature. Thus, for a more accurate record of the causes of temperature change, you would need to take this into account.
    Yeah, I’m pretty sure that ocean temperatures have been taken into consideration when compiling data sets such as the global land-ocean temperature index.


  • Options
    #39
    e04bf099
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭e04bf099


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yeah, I’m pretty sure that ocean temperatures have been taken into consideration when compiling data sets such as the global land-ocean temperature index.
    We were talking about tree ring data. Please keep up with the thread.

    This is childs play.


  • Options
    #40
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    e04bf099 wrote: »
    We were talking about tree ring data.
    We were? What gave you that impression?


  • Options
    #41
    e04bf099
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭e04bf099


    djpbarry wrote: »
    We were? What gave you that impression?
    Ok, sorry, you were talking about temperature data the last two hundred years and thousand years. My bad, I was having a conversation here at the same time and I got confused (So much for my exams). The same point applies though. Temperature variation is intimitely linked to ocean temperatures, which oscillate in a regulatory fashion, and which are sluggish in terms of there rates of change. Their oscillation happens over thousands of years... which gets you back on track, if you'll have a wee think before you post again;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, it isn’t. But I trust you haven’t ignored the explanation offered for the warming on Mars which is presented in the article? Furthermore, the different means of monitoring temperature change on both planets is not something that should be ignored.


    TBH, I have little knowledge of the Mars tempreture data collection methods, I am taking NASA as being up to date on this... unless you have further information on why it shouldn't be trusted???

    no I haven't ignored it... just suggested it was a conincidence worth reviewing more, and IMHO it could add more to the Solar activity explanation for global warming.....


  • Options
    #43
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    e04bf099 wrote: »
    Temperature variation is intimitely linked to ocean temperatures, which oscillate in a regulatory fashion, and which are sluggish in terms of there rates of change.
    But the oceans are warming, are they not?


  • Options
    #44
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    TBH, I have little knowledge of the Mars tempreture data collection methods, I am taking NASA as being up to date on this... unless you have further information on why it shouldn't be trusted???
    It’s not an issue of trust, it’s one of common sense – our estimate of the mean temperature on Mars could not possibly be as accurate as our estimate of the mean temperature on Earth.
    robtri wrote: »
    ...it could add more to the Solar activity explanation for global warming.....
    It could, only there’s absolutely no evidence that solar activity has been increasing in recent decades. In which case, I’m going to opt for the ‘changing albedo’ explanation as the most likely at this point.


  • Options
    #45
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Speaking of Mars, haven't Nasa pondered the idea of terraforming Mars by pumping gasses into it's atmosphere to lock in heat, with intent to melt the caps? Why would they consider this if man played no part in climate change?


  • Options
    #46
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Speaking of Mars, haven't Nasa pondered the idea of terraforming Mars by pumping gasses into it's atmosphere to lock in heat, with intent to melt the caps?
    I think that's a topic best reserved for the 'Astronomy & Space' forum.


  • Options
    #47
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s not an issue of trust, it’s one of common sense – our estimate of the mean temperature on Mars could not possibly be as accurate as our estimate of the mean temperature on Earth.

    wow, yes of course our tempreture here on earth is a bit more accurate....

    but that does not change the fact that the mean temp on mars is rising....
    unless you can prove otherwise, I am still with Nasa, over your common sense.


  • Options
    #48
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It could, only there’s absolutely no evidence that solar activity has been increasing in recent decades. In which case, I’m going to opt for the ‘changing albedo’ explanation as the most likely at this point.

    check out here
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color.pdf

    again i will take nasa data .....

    from sunspot numbers you can see a steady rise.... with a big jump in late 1960's which conincides with when global warming started.....
    a drop back in 1970's then a steady rise agin to the end of the current sun spot cycle...


  • Options
    #49
    samson09
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭samson09


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEfriG06Xt4


    At least someone knows what they're talking about!


  • Options
    #50
    zuutroy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,854 ✭✭✭zuutroy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It could, only there’s absolutely no evidence that solar activity has been increasing in recent decades.

    Huh? Its widely accepted that solar activity was at its highest level for several hundred years in the late 20th century.

    I know the 35 years of cooling after WWII was attributed to aerosols but has there been any report on the current deviation between the static global temperature coupled with increasing CO2 as shown below?

    CO2_temps_08.jpg


  • Options
    #51
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    wow, yes of course our tempreture here on earth is a bit more accurate....
    A bit?
    robtri wrote: »
    unless you can prove otherwise, I am still with Nasa, over your common sense.
    Your source was The Times, not NASA. You might say I’m being pedantic, but I think we can both agree that the media has a pretty poor track record when it comes to reporting science. So, I’ve been searching the NASA website for information on how the temperature on Mars is determined, but I haven’t found a conclusive ‘compilation’ as yet.

    The point is that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the supposed warming on Mars. For example, there is evidence that the observed shrinking of an ‘ice cap’ at the southern pole is a regional phenomenon. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Mars is warming. Now...
    robtri wrote: »
    check out here
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color.pdf

    again i will take nasa data .....

    from sunspot numbers you can see a steady rise...
    I see a periodic oscillation, but no distinct upward or downward trend. If anything, there’s a slight downward trend since the 60’s – how can that account for the increase in global temperature observed over the same period? There’s another figure here from New Scientist showing various other indicators of solar activity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    zuutroy wrote: »
    Huh? Its widely accepted that solar activity was at its highest level for several hundred years in the late 20th century.
    Maybe it is. Has it been increasing over the last few decades?
    zuutroy wrote: »
    I know the 35 years of cooling after WWII was attributed to aerosols but has there been any report on the current deviation between the static global temperature coupled with increasing CO2 as shown below?
    I’m not sure. Changes in ocean heat content probably play a role. Oscillations in solar activity probably play a role. I doubt there’s any one single cause. Besides, there are plenty of local minima and maxima in the temperature record.


  • Options
    #53
    zuutroy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,854 ✭✭✭zuutroy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Maybe it is. Has it been increasing over the last few decades?

    Judge for yourself. Seems fairly constant since the 60's. I'm not sure if temperature is expected to lag sunspots by a certain amount of years in that explanation.

    sunspot_web.png


  • Options
    #54
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    It's a shame in the graph the temperatures seem to be only there since 1998, and not for the preceding 100 years to give it more perspective.

    I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

    My understanding is that, since 2005 annual average temperatures have declined, suggesting that, if there is warming, it's hardly noticeable, and in the meantime there are peaks and troughs which were not, presumably, caused by CO2 levels, but by other factors. It seems, from the graphs, that fluctuations in the annual average temperature are normal, and we are still within the historical normal fluctuation range.


  • Options
    #55
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    samson09 wrote: »
    At least someone knows what they're talking about!
    Who?


  • Options
    #56
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny...
    Why just Central England and Kilkenny? Surely it would make more sense to consider the global temperature?


  • Options
    #57
    e04bf099
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭e04bf099


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Why just Central England and Kilkenny? Surely it would make more sense to consider the global temperature?
    I hope nobody replies to this seriously. This is the definition of trolling.


  • Options
    #58
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    auerillo wrote: »
    It's a shame in the graph the temperatures seem to be only there since 1998, and not for the preceding 100 years to give it more perspective.

    I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

    My understanding is that, since 2005 annual average temperatures have declined, suggesting that, if there is warming, it's hardly noticeable, and in the meantime there are peaks and troughs which were not, presumably, caused by CO2 levels, but by other factors. It seems, from the graphs, that fluctuations in the annual average temperature are normal, and we are still within the historical normal fluctuation range.

    As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

    If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.


  • Options
    #59
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.
    According to the HadCrut3 data set, the temperature anomolies for 2005 and 2008 were 0.479 and 0.315 respectively. Not that individual data points mean all that much in isolation.
    auerillo wrote: »
    If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming...
    I have absolutely no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion?


  • Options
    #60
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    auerillo wrote: »
    that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny

    Only if you misunderstand or misrepresent what global warming, and the theory of global warming is about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    bonkey wrote: »
    Only if you misunderstand or misrepresent what global warming, and the theory of global warming is about.

    Whether or not one understands the theory of global warming, it is evident that there has been virtually no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.


Advertisement