Do you believe that Global Warming is being caused by us?

Turtwig

Danno wrote: »

Warm seas and cold air will do this. Nothing to do with AGW. BTW, it looks like we are headed for the coldest December ever. Still has nothing to do with AGW either - I am sure you'll agree.

I never said it had anything to do with AGW. I do however think though that climatalogists have predicted these sort of conditions to become freqeunt. For which, we'll just have to wait and see.:)

digme

Make up your own mind.

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

I never said it had anything to do with AGW. I do however think though that climatalogists have predicted these sort of conditions to become freqeunt. For which, we'll just have to wait and see.:)

So climatolgists are now weather forecasters? As to Ireland's weather becoming more extreme, I have yet to see it, and even if so, what is extreme weather? why is it more significant? It is just weather.

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

So climatolgists are now weather forecasters? As to Ireland's weather becoming more extreme, I have yet to see it, and even if so, what is extreme weather? why is it more significant? It is just weather.

Well what is weather?

wiki wrote:

Weather is a set of all the phenomena occurring in a given atmosphere at a given time.

What is climate?

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.

Statistics is the key word.
Climatalogists predict the statistical frequency of various occurences in the weather e.g how often rainfall, or snow in a particular region will occur. They predict long term weather changes.

As for extreme weather. Well that would depends on the region. In Ireland, we're talking more intense showers of rainfall in winter time and summer time. Although, I must stress that from what I've read, the models have inaccuracies when it comes to precipitation*, more so for summer time changes (temperature is sound though).

*Before anyone goes down the route of "ohh they're admitting they don't know". Climatalogists always admit what they don't know and provide error estimates to the uncertainities, using this uncertainity as a basis to say that they cannot possibly know anything is a statement of pure faith.

Some people find it so hard to give up what they have been fed for so long now..

Watch this greenpeace lady try to answer questions put to her by Monckton, she cant even answer the questions, yet shes at a bleedin conference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6irdVZkX40&feature=player_embedded

Turtwig

digme wrote: »

Make up your own mind.

Just had a quick glance through the powerpoint presentation.
Meh, couldn't be arsed at the moment cos it's still the holidays so I'll keep this brief.

Folks against AGW love to accuse AGW proponents of being involved in something like a religion. Yet they keep posting stuff that concerns only their own camp and reasserts their own beliefs. Groupthinking is dangerous to both science and humanity, you need to read both arguments and stop posting just one side because you think it's right.

Turtwig

Jake1 wrote: »

Some people find it so hard to give up what they have been fed for so long now..

Watch this greenpeace lady try to answer questions put to her by Monckton, she cant even answer the questions, yet shes at a bleedin conference
<video>

Is she a climate scientist?
This "tactic" eeks so much of creationist pseudo propaganda bullsh1t. Find a layperson, quiz them in detail on their beliefs because they trust the people who study the stuff.
Typical creationist nonsense here:

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

Well what is weather?


What is climate?
Statistics is the key word.
Climatalogists predict the statistical frequency of various occurences in the weather e.g how often rainfall, or snow in a particular region will occur. They predict long term weather changes.

As for extreme weather. Well that would depends on the region. In Ireland, we're talking more intense showers of rainfall in winter time and summer time. Although, I must stress that from what I've read, the models have inaccuracies when it comes to precipitation*, more so for summer time changes (temperature is sound though).

*Before anyone goes down the route of "ohh they're admitting they don't know". Climatalogists always admit what they don't know and provide error estimates to the uncertainities, using this uncertainity as a basis to say that they cannot possibly know anything is a statement of pure faith.

My understanding was for drier, warmer summers in Ireland. My question was more to do with extreme weather. How is it defined climatically/scientifically? Is an intense downpour really more significant than the break in the clouds afterwards?

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Is she a climate scientist?
This "tactic" eeks so much of creationist pseudo propaganda bullsh1t. Find a layperson, quiz them in detail on their beliefs because they trust the people who study the stuff.
Typical creationist nonsense here:

I think you'll agree they didnt just 'Find' a lay person. The lady quite clearly states she is from Norway, she was at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, so to suggest that Lord Monckton just accidently found a Lay person is strange to me.:)

RandomName2

Malty_T wrote: »

Well what is weather?

What is climate?
Statistics is the key word.
Climatalogists predict the statistical frequency of various occurences in the weather e.g how often rainfall, or snow in a particular region will occur. They predict long term weather changes.

As for extreme weather. Well that would depends on the region. In Ireland, we're talking more intense showers of rainfall in winter time and summer time. Although, I must stress that from what I've read, the models have inaccuracies when it comes to precipitation*, more so for summer time changes (temperature is sound though).

*Before anyone goes down the route of "ohh they're admitting they don't know". Climatalogists always admit what they don't know and provide error estimates to the uncertainities, using this uncertainity as a basis to say that they cannot possibly know anything is a statement of pure faith.

Well, that's true I suppose - and you are right about the creationist nonsense. But there is something of a stumbling block when it comes to weather statistics...

It is possible to say what the average weather is like in a large part of the world over a thousand year period. However, in relation to global warming (or climate change as it more often referred to nowadays - as opposed to the big freeze as it was referred to in the 80s) that statistics are mostly confined to a hundred year period (the 20th century). That is, apart from the nonsense hockey stick graph (2,000 years ago the Earth was as cold as Pluto!).

You say look at the scientific literature to gain a clear picture of what is going on (and ignore hysterical tabloid headlines). Well, that's a sensible enough suggestion. However I look, and what I see is respectable scientists saying is that:

Ice cap volumes are decreasing
Antartica is increasing
Antartica is staying the same
Ice cap volume is very significant in terms of ocean levels (as there is a lot of it) and if even a small amount of it melted, the effect on global coastlines (and oceanic currents) would be significant.
Ice cap volume has no real significance in terms of ocean levels (as it is less than 1% of earth's water volume, and besides which, most of it is already in the water, thus due to Archimedes' principle it melting will not have an enormous effect).
Ice cap melting statistics are mostly predicated on cyclical melting and refreezing.
The northern ice cap no longer exists and is merely a figment of the imagination.

and this is only in a relatively small field of research in terms of climate change. Oh, and besides which, in terms of average statistics we are due for a new Ice Age (roughly speaking). Perhaps funds should be channeled into research of climate change rather than implementation of laws concerning carbon dioxide production? It seems a rather blinkered approach.... :pac:

Danno

The much trumpeted retreating glacier - despite FALLING temperatures - right this way... http://www.inesad.edu.bo/mmblog/mm_20090323.htm

Now cast your minds back to school when in the 1980s you were taught what deserts really were... a place of little precip... not a hot place... just a place of little precip. Afterall boys and girls, Antarctica is one of the largest deserts on earth!!!

The observed evidence from
Chacaltaya is thus inconsistent with the Anthropogenic
Greenhouse Warming (AGW) theory, or, at least, if there is an
AGW signal, it is completely drowned by other climatic changes
unrelated to AGW.

It is ironic that the melting
Chacaltaya glacier has become such an important symbol of the
AGW theory, when in fact the evidence from Chacaltaya seems to
refute this theory. (In contrast, the evidence from Chacaltaya
is fully consistent with Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory
(5), but that is another story).

Another one bites the dust!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm

Temperature and CO2 feedback loop 'weaker than thought'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst



The new study used data from tree rings and ice cores
The most alarming forecasts of natural systems amplifying the human-induced greenhouse effect may be too high, according to a new report.

More research that is contradicting the IPCC "official line".

Maybe climategate has finally enabled people to see the wood for the trees, and feel able to report it without being shot down.

Deep Easterly

I was reading through this interesting article earlier, and it does make some obvious points:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451756.stm

Abstract:

"people often make the same mistake but in the other direction, and link every heatwave, major flood, drought and famine to global warming. Of course, we know that these things happen anyway, even without climate change - they may happen more often under a warmer climate, but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event.
Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda."


Climate science would be taken a lot more seriously if the middle men kept out of it. Scare stories on an almost daily basis by so called experts about individual weather events being the sole consequence of Climate Change. The November rain event really brought this problem home to me with scare mongers misleadingly claiming it was a result of global warming.



The onus is on the media, but they seem not to care about the distinction between truth and supposed truth.

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Climate science would be taken a lot more seriously if the middle men kept out of it. Scare stories on an almost daily basis by so called experts about individual weather events being the sole consequence of Climate Change. The November rain event really brought this problem home to me with scare mongers misleadingly claiming it was a result of global warming.



The onus is on the media, but they seem not to care about the distinction between truth and supposed truth.

+1.
Media, in general, sucks when it comes to science.
Faux Fox News is by far the worst offender that I've come across.

Pa ElGrande

Malty_T wrote: »

+1.
Media, in general, sucks when it comes to science.
Faux Fox News is by far the worst offender that I've come across.

"Auntie Beeb" or the BBC is the worst offender by a country mile, the pro global warming corporate bias permeates every program on that station, and most state run broadcasters in western media are pro-global warming. Fox news is really about taking an opposite line to CNN and appealing to that demographic, but it's still crap.

Whatever happened to Tomorrows World?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbdjx1MYPtc

Turtwig

I don't actually think the BBC is that bad. After all, it openly critiqued Al Gore's film and pointed out the scientific errors in it. In general when it comes to science the BBC is one of the better sources. There are many networks that push a "green" agenda down our throats, I don't think the BBC is one of them. I think the channel just sides with mainstream science on about every issue and occasionally makes reportage cock-ups.

I might be a bit biased here, because of Horizon being such an excellent program especially with such cutesy episodes like these:

mike65

And the water vapour issue rears its head...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change

Turtwig

mike65 wrote: »

And the water vapour issue rears its head...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change

Better article about it here.:)

SonOfPerdition

Deleted User wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm



More research that is contradicting the IPCC "official line".

Maybe climategate has finally enabled people to see the wood for the trees, and feel able to report it without being shot down.

The article isn't really all that comforting though is it?

The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.
Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high.

He said that if the results his paper were widely accepted, the overall effect on climate projections would be neutral.
"It might lead to a downward mean revision of those (climate) models which already include the carbon cycle, but an upward revision in those which do not include the carbon cycle.
"That'll probably even itself out to signify no real change in the temperature projections overall," he said.

Blocking out some of the sun's rays is a faster and cheaper method of controlling the Earth's temperature than cutting greenhouse gas emissions, says a research paper authored by University of Calgary researcher David Keith.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Canadian+researcher+calls+radical+strategy+reflect+rays/2495132/story.html