But this is an interesting read and seeing how the MSM will not publish these articles here it is!
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...me=NBR+Comment
Printable View
But this is an interesting read and seeing how the MSM will not publish these articles here it is!
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...me=NBR+Comment
Yup. :D
:yeahright: Still getting your science info out of business mags?:rolleyes:
Did you read it Tea Lady??
From Mcshane;
"Monckton and Evans found a large part of this discrepancy is the result of some basic errors in the IPCC's assessment of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. When they applied their revised factor to the effect of greenhouse gases, the temperature rise was about a third of that predicted by the IPCC."
So there ya go, a rise will happen, but only a third as much.
thanks, now we can all get some peace :)
Yes I'm "stoking the fire"
No wonder the earth is getting hotter!
Rod, please put out your fire :)
The models will need a lot of work for a long time yet, Owen McShane is merely pitting one small untested development of the theory against another. Meanwhile the fact is that the planet is rapidly (in geological time) getting hotter, icecaps and glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates, the polar bears have lost 90% of their range in less than a century...etc. At the moment our best guess is that human pollution of the atmosphere with Co2 is the main cause and if that is right then we have very little time to make the switch to non-fossil sources of energy. If that is wrong then there is nothing we can logically do and the planet will get hotter or not. Of course fossil fuels will run out during this century anyway and we will still have to go to non-fossil energy. If the theory that global warming is caused by our Co2 is correct and we do nothing then the next few generations will see global disaster. A hard choice I grant you but at the moment we seem to be approaching a consensus that the people of the earth will cut back on burning fossil fuels.
has anyone considered global warming might be caused by the continuous waffling on about global warming?????
:stirthepot::U:U
Len are you really serious! The polar bears have lost 90% of their range?
I dont think so.
Ice caps Melting?
Nope stike that one out this year too.
Chrisp, just stoking it up for the cold winter ahead!!
You're so right Rod, it just isn't happening:Quote:
Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ic_Sea_Ice.jpg
woodbe
<sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">
</sup>
Yes Rod, it is happening. It is very likely that polar bears will be extinct in the wild this century. In fact a simple linear projection of the loss of sea ice around the arctic where the bears find their food indicates that their range will all but disappear.
Arctic sea ice has just recently come off an historic low (note winter 2008 has seen an extreme increase in area back to historic averages). This follows an extreme el nino period. Further, people should note that arctic ice levels are not a function of changes in air temperature, but of ocean currentand salinity interplays.
Further, reduction of arctic sea ice, reduces the insulation of the arctic deep water, and hence cools the body of water not warms it - thus you have another negative feedback occurring - just as an aside.
as to polar bears:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11656
with lots of links - be careful of extrapolating a prediction of polar bear populations with actual occurrences - predictions based on predictions are inherently dangerous statistically - especially when you are near the top of a sine wave curve (for sea ice mass) - extrapolating in a linear fashion and presenting it as fact is dubious - one of the reasons that the most important words in scientific language are "empirical data" NOT "forward estimates" - one is for science the other is for economists and other social soothsayers. ;)
North West Passage :?Quote:
Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok
The Artic Ice cap comes and goes all the time, as does the North West passage open and close (but not so often open). We have just seen one extreme of ice melt now its comming back with a vengence. Nothing whatsoever un-natural about that.
Anyone who points to these natural events saying "global warming" is kidding themselves. The Ice melt has been proven to have nothing to do with air temperature read pharmaboy above.
You can either keep believing all the propaganda about AGW that the Media promotes or you can dig a little bit deeper for the facts. This stuff about the polar bears dying out is soooo yesterday its a joke that anyone could possibly raise it today as evidence of AGW.
But I guess that is because the facts are not reported in the media! So one should not be to harsh on those that have not heard the facts or seen the empirical evidence that proves the polar bear is in NO DANGER. But those who have and choose not to believe them, well thats another matter. They are just alarmists.
Rod, did you even look at the graphic?
De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
woodbe.
But who draws these graphics? Is someone with a money interest in the whole thing? :?
Firstly, the graphic is published becuase its interesting in that post hoc it shows something that we already know about. Its important to realise this.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
Secondly, why that particular start date and end date, and why that partciluar choice for the part of the year?
If i produced a graph starting at 2003 for instance, centred it on permanent winter ice pack, and included the latest up to date data, it would clearly show a pack trend of increasing coverage - ipso facto the arctic is getting cooler, and by extension the globe is getting cooler!!!
see how easy it is. If you dont understand how, where, why and the aim of the author, any graphic is simply a means to communicate the writers opinion. "managing" statistics is an easy art - more surprising is how many people are swayed by it without critical thought.
For an excellant insight into stats and how they can misinform, read Bjorn Lombords "the skeptical environmentalist" - especially has a great section on cancer rates to demonstrate - can be read for free on google books.
It also demonstrates something that our correspondent, Rod has implicitly denied has been happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharmaboy2
Thank you for confirming that.
You can play with stats all you like, and manage them to deny or support what you like. What cannot be denied is that we have been going through a period of reducing arctic summer ice coverage, to the point that the NW passage has been open.
I don't care for the to and fro argument, but I fail to see how a cooling planet you refer to results in less summer ice, unless you have found a way that ice melts by cooling it?
woodbe.
Global cooling not polar cooling??
I remember as a kid in the 60's that the Jehovah Witnesses thought that Armageddon was coming to decimate the entire planet, not being of the JW faith or nothing my parents had some friends/acquaintances who were.
These JW people sold up and went and said goodbye to all their relos overseas then came back to await the final end..............I wonder where they are now?:D Prolly sitting in the foetal position waiting, waiting......:doh:
What you fail to realize is that this is a natural event dependent of prevailing winds not warm air.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
Of course I recognize the fact that the ice sheet reduced in size. Just I dont believe for a second your reasoning for it.
the example I gave you was purely that - an example. It illustrates that depending on the time period chosen and the method - the result changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
Where Rod is correct, is on the upto the minute data. the northern hemisphere winter has been extreme, and the ice addition has also been extreme - therefore its highly likely that this coming NH summer, that the trend of the last 10 years will reverse as the top of the sine wave.
Anecdotal examples to demonstrate a belief are not science - they are journalism - the polar bear example for instance is journalism, as is glacial retreat, and in this case arctic ice retreat - the major factor in each isnt increased average air temperature.
That is what I responded to.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok
Pharmaboy, the only way of measuring summer ice is to measure it in the summer. If you tried it in the winter, it wouldn't be a measure of summer ice now, would it?
There has been a one year change to a trend that has been going for some years, and you two are trumpeting it as a revolution. Isn't that the sort of thing you accuse the other side of?
Extremes on both sides of the GW debate are not helpful. Characterising anything you don't agree with as 'journalism' is not helpful. The debate on GW is so fractured that anyone can find lots of supporting references for their own point of view.
My view is that western society has become so disconnected from the planet that we wouldn't know or truly care about a problem if we fell over it. We drive our cars, watch TV, run our airconditioners, etc etc. We isolate ourselves in a blinkered cocoon and are quite happy to carry on that way with little or no consideration of the effects of that existence on the planet and the future generations that will occupy it. If AGW is happening or happens in the future, the chances of being able to agree about it or decide to do anything about it before it is too late are very slim.
Personally I take one of the kids out as often as I can to see and walk gently on the land, as I think an appreciation of nature is something earned by being in it. It's really quite enlightening to see the joy in their faces and the skip in their walk return after only an hour or so away from the computer games and associated dross. 12km today: Google Earth Track
woodbe.
You bring a lot of sense to this debate Pharmaboy.
Woodboy I grew up on a farm and spent a lot of time in the bush etc over the years and appreciate nature as much as anyone. But this does not change my attitude to AGW. I call a spade a spade how I see it. More and more people a comming to understand tha AGW is at the very best only a remote possibility and at the worst blatant fraud.
I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Scientists and Pollies have backed themselves into a corner on AGW and they desperatly need an escape where they can save face.
Read what this guy has to say if you dare! http://www.davidrhenderson.com/artic...alwarning.html
Interesting admission. Can you please enlighten me what my reasoning is?Quote:
Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok
I think you are assuming some stuff here. Please go back and read what I said.
woodbe.
This is not an admission it is simply a fact.
You may not say it directly woodbe, but the inference in your posts are that it is due to global warming therby melting because the temperature has increaced. And further to that that Global Warming is caused by humans.
If this is not the case then enlighten me!
Thanks for that Rod.Quote:
You may not say it directly woodbe
Rod, I've given up debating GW. Like I say, the debate is poisoned and polluted from both sides.
I was not offering any reasoning, just that the facts certainly don't seem to support what you were saying while you were dumping on Len. After all, he has an opinion too, and it's just as valid as yours or mine.
So the arctic ice has been melting, and you agree that is is a fact. I think you might mention that to Len next time you're talking to him.
woodbe.
Woodbe the loss of Artic ice had nothing to do with AGW this has been proven already. To keep brining it up to support a debate on AGW is just wrong. Yet it keeps comming up as one of the "main" indicators in support of AGW.
Real science.com even went as far as saying that when the Artic ice reduced that it was "THE" tipping point that concluded that AGW was real.
Now the ice is back what do they say? Nothing.
There is so much at stake in this debate that it is crucial that the facts be told. How many times have scare campaigns like this turned out to be false? This one will destroy economies if left un challanged.
There is a huge onus on those peddeling the AGW theory to 100% right before committing the world to sensless carbon trading schemes etc. There is an even bigger onus on the scientists that have diss-proved the theory to stick to their guns and not be bullied by there peers who have too much to loose.
My tip is that the USA will be the first to officially "down play" the risk of AGW and do nothing.
Rod, I haven't been debating Arctic Ice and AGW.
Please read what I said.
woodbe.
Oh, and while you are forcing the AGW folk to bear an onus of 100% correctness, in the sake of the fairness you have been espousing, can you please require the same standard for the anti-AGW crowd?
That will absolutely guarantee inaction.
woodbe.
Well I hope that a plasterer from melbourne and a bloke from Newcastle have the answer to global warming... "don't worry about it folks, its all a hoax, keep cool, no sweat..." I really mean that, it will be wonderful if you are right. And I won't give a damn about all the wasted effort put in by all the scientists and administrators and politicians who are working to understand it and do something about it. It'll be the best joke ever.Mind you I did meet Prof. Tim Flannery last year after a lecture he gave on global warming, and I have read his books, and he looked to me to be both exhausted and terrified by the task and the situation. He doesn't look like a guy who is simply wrong. I sure hope he is wrong though.
This reminds me that when the first eco-alarmist book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson was published alerting the world to the danger of DDT the then US Secretary of Agriculture was Ronald Regan who sprang to the defense of DDT declaring that millions of people would starve to death if DDT was banned.
Since then there have been thousands of campaigns on environmental issues and often as not opposition to grass roots activism from powerful vested interests. Come to think of it, isn't George W Bush an oil man ?
100 meters Tim, yep I'm sure we all agree that the seas will rise 100m LOL.
But I am glad to hear you hope AGW is not happening because at least you will feel relieved. But at what point will you feel reassured? What will the evidence be that reassures you? How long will Temps have to stay down or decrease before you feel safe again?
Will it be when the Media changes their story? Or when the pollies come out and say the threat has receeded? Will it be when the scientist who are desperatly trying to find some empircal evidence to support the theory finally give up?
I dont have the answeres to relieve the stress and worry of AGW but others do and they are already all over the internet, we just need the Media to catch up eh!
I firmly believe that many people simply accept what the media are telling them and are silent on the issue. Then there is a minority of people that add the fuel for the media with sensational claims about AGW. Like Brumby blaming last weeks wind on Global Warming etc. It sells papers. The Age forced its Journo's to only report positive stories on Earth Day, directed by the greenies what to publish and when. The BBC were harassed into changing an anti AGW story by green groups.
Why is this all needed if their claims are true? Surely the truth is good enough to stand up on its own?
The web of untruths and hysterical claims about AGW are slowly comming unravelled as the internet provides the platform for common sense even if the Media wont pick up the ball.
Why not read up on all the aritcles from BOTH sides and form your own opinion based on facts. There are very few provable scientific facts that support AGW not least empirical evidence over the past 10 years.
There are more and more people speaking out against AGW and more should.
Rod, fer chrissake give it a break!. Just because you haven't got the brains to understand anything that disagrees with your unfounded beliefs doesn't mean you've got the right to bore those of us who have an IQ greater than room temperature into extinction.
Alex if it bores you dont read it!
You degrade yourself with those comments Alexs. I'm sure my beliefs are well founded are yours? Not agreeing with someone does not mean a lack of understanding. I presume you dont agree with my views, so I suppose anyone who does not agree with your view has a low IQ is that right?
Yep this is a bee under my bonnet for sure, give it a break? nup.
So Rod.
You had the opportunity right there to tell Len you were sorry for dumping on him about the melting icecap thing, because woodbe has pointed out some evidence that you agree is factual that supports disappearing summer ice.
You want people to listen to your views, but you're not prepared to admit some tiny detail like this. It's not hard to admit to someone that you were wrong, it just takes a bit of guts, and you'll feel better after, I promise.
Go for it. I'm sure Len is listening.
woodbe.
Woodbe I fail to see anything here I should be sorry for.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok
Firstly the Polar bear comment is simply not true and I am very surprised any one is still using that one!!
Secondly "ice caps melting?" See comment and read very carefully it says, "strike that one out this year too"
"This Year" recognises what you clearly pointed out before that in previous years there had been a reduction in Artic Ice.
The reasons for which have been PROVEN not to be caused by AGW.
I try very hard to to attack anyone on a personal level here but it seems others are very happy to attack me. Thats cool I'm a big guy and can handle it.
to the first question, because there are 2 or a multitude of options, the one that fits the arguement is chosen, fair? each changes the outcome - its a filter.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
To the second - thats exactly the point I am making - I'm trumpeting a one season anomaly, and the GW promoters are going on about a decade trend - a one year trend change is more relevant to a decade, than a decade is to climate.
Anthroprogenic warming should (needs?) to correlate with co2 changes, even if one builds a lag in to that effect (the lag is assumed due to observations not fitting theory - not empirically observed btw). We should be seeingan arctic melting trend of 3o years duration to help the AGW cause.
What is happening is that people believe so strongly in AGW that when they see some change, it is immediately laid at the door of AGW - doesnt matter if its glacial retreat that started in the nineteenth century, or an ice shelf in the last 10 years.
We are just at the end of an almost unprecedented el nino pattern, that has correlated with all manner of ocean current effects and quite possibly a global climate driver - now it can be argued that el nino is a result of atmospheric warming - but thats not whats been argued.
First; Science is an inherently self-correcting system where ideas are continuously being peer reviewed and tested. Hence we tend to zero in on the truth. This is not a simple process but involves research and replication of data by anybody who can do the work and publish the results. The results have to be able to be independently reproduced. To suggest that there is some vast conspiracy or delusion abroad is just silly.
Second; This thread isn't really about global warming is it ? It is a series of self-confirming circular arguments backed by blunt assertions. The subtext is male posturing. Dare to stand out from the crowd anyone ? Somebody who can take it ?
I'm done.
Len it is about awarness that AGW as a theory is being seriously challanged by scientists on many fronts.
Because the main stream media choose to ignore these papers challanging the AGW theory it is left to other means of circulating the information to the public.
My intention is to raise awareness of the fact these challenges are out there, are seriously challenging the core belief that many hold on AGW, that is, that the science "is settled". There is no way the science is settled!
Forums such as this are one of those means. I posted a link for people to read and comment on. The ensuing debate here does not reference to any challenge of the validity of the information in that link. It has been others that have tried to shoot down the "denialists positon" by posting rheteric that claims to support the "believers position" without addressing any of the issues raised within the link I provided.
So the thread has been taken off course from the original intent. Rebuttal of the responses as outlined above has got to be expected.
Why not try to read the original link and come back with your views on that?
Easy to say I'm done and ignore the issue.
I really don't know what it is that prevents people from wanting to find out the truth about AGW. Simply ignoring the challenges to AGW is not going to work!
I don't know whether this article will get put down as "journalism", but one can't walk away from the fact that more and more scientists are expressing some doubt about the cause of AGW.
Me, I have an open mind, I am always somewhat suspicious of arguments presented by people with closed minds. Most of the people saying global warming is primarily caused by us humans seem to have a very closed mind. What also worries me is that scientists that have the temerity to speak out against this dogma get dumped on from a great height.
If we are the ones causing it, we should be doing something about it, if we are not, then all that money and economic hardship people are talking about is just so much wasted effort.
What I do know is that cleaning up our act one way or another would be a good thing.
This does not include doing irrational things, such as buying a Toyota Prius, which costs 22 tons of emissions to produce and saves 1.5 tons of emissions per year. That is the sort of thing that gives "greenies" a bad name. Worst thing is the Victorian Govt seems to be running quite a few of them.