[Archived] The Weather

[speeeeeeedie]

Overall I have to say that an American is more likely do debunk the global warming/climate change theory than a European. A right leaning American is certainly more likely to deem it as hogwash.

I also think that human development has some part to play in why the world's weather is topsy turvy.

[Cheshireblue]

Wrong pole, Chesh.

I told you I didn't have any science to back it up.....

[Flopsy]

or in fact a grasp of geography

[Paul]

Simple way to cure global warming is to plant more trees. You can produce as much CO2 as you want if you have enough trees to convert it back into oxygen.

I do hope that's tongue in cheek.

[philipl]

A continuous series of data including a five year average trend line from the English midlands since the seventeenth century.

The downward blips coincide for the most part with particularly dirty volcanic explosions vapourising vast amounts of rock and projecting it into the stratosphere.

This sort of graph dramatically highlights that something out of the ordinary is going on.

Given the massive resources the US Government has at its disposal, the failure to produce convincing science that contradicts the manmade global warming theories has tended me to think that the US Government is wrong.

[rebelmswar]

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

http://www.thebizofknowledge.com/2007/08/n...data_wrong.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-n...-the-millenium/

Last but not at all least.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shep...media-report-it

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Edited December 19, 2007 by rebelmswar

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Jonathan Porritt was on radio this morning, discussing global warming. He points to the fact that around 20 scientists world wide, go against the overwhelming number of scientists who back the global warming evidence. Out of these 20, not one of them have produced or written a paper on the subject. They simply .

[/quote

This guy was Obviously talking out of backside. If checked the net and there 100’s if not thousands of recognised scientists who either do not believe the man-made theory or believe that the science is at the stage where it is fool-proof.

Journal the myth of man-made global warming

A list of scientists who have revesed their opinion on man-made global warming, several were key players behind kyoto

Scientists reversing their opinoin after new review

[den]

Remind me then, which part of the stern report is wrong?

Bazza?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Bazza?

Criticism’s of the Stern report

Dodgy numbers behind stern report

And more criticism

Criticism’s of the Stern report,

“While the Stern Review received significant press attention, it did not receive serious journalistic scrutiny”

"The Stern report is little but grandiose scare-mongering. It would be irresponsible in

the extreme for politicians to make major policy changes - and major economic

commitments - on such specious arguments".

Piers Akerman, Daily Telegraph, Australia

"In order to manage risk, you must scare people".

-- Lord Giddens, UK

And one of the most telling things I have read on the man-made argument

“According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007). This may seem like a rather technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of man made global warming.”

[philipl]

University of Alabama at Huntsville scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer are the two scientists who have mined the vast amounts of data from weather balloons and satellites to compose the troubling tropospheric temperature history. In doing so, they had to correct for environmental effects. The new studies, all of which were published in the online version of the journal Science, assert that their corrections, and hence their calculations, were wrong. One of the studies showed that Christy and Spencer had over-corrected for the sunlight's warming effect on temperature sensors attached to weather balloons. Another put forward that they also made a mistake in calculating for the way wind moved around the satellites. A third study factored in the errors, and came out with a warming of the troposphere very much in line with rising surface temperatures and computer models.

Straight cut and paste.

Also, according to a new synthesis report on “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere,” previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere that have been used to challenge the validity of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming have been resolved. The report, commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and drafted by the leading scientists in this research area, concludes that recent evidence has increased confidence in the understanding of observed climatic changes and their causes.

The report is undergoing a final political-level review and has not yet been approved for release as an official U.S. Government publication. But the report, as drafted and submitted by the scientists, has been posted on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Web site.

Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Thomas R. Karl, Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, editors, 2006. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.

The posted Abstract of the reports reads:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the validity of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite data showed little or no warming above the surface. There is no longer evidence of such a discrepancy. This is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Since those reports, errors have been identified and corrected in the satellite data and other temperature observations. These data now show global average warming in the atmosphere similar to the warming observed at the surface and consistent with the results from climate models, although discrepancies remain to be resolved in the tropics. The recent evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of observed climatic changes and their causes.

Edited December 19, 2007 by philipl

[den]

Thanks Philipl. Also, the first article linked by Bazza says "The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions."

You can always surf the net for cuttings about people who don't accept the Global warming debate. What you need to find are many more SCIENTISTS who can precisely counteract and demonstrate, that the facts of human involvement in climate change - as accepted by scientific institutions such as the Royal Society, are wrong.

[rebelmswar]

Just like Christians welcoming the second coming why is it that people seem to welcome the apocalypse due to the weather?

Human nature trends to us hiding our heads in the sand about catastrophes, why with this weather one do people seem almost ecstatic with the prospects of worldwide desolation brought on by a warm spell?

If global warming is brought on by us pumping heavy gasses into the atmosphere wouldn’t it be logic to presume that it would reflect solar heat getting to us? Wouldn’t it be like a nuclear winter effect so the earth would heat up until the latent heat dissipates and then cool down drastically?

What was the estimated average temperature of the earth during the Jurassic period? Why was it so hot then when Dino wasn’t running around in a Hummer? Why did the earth cool down so quickly in the 30's and 40's? Why is it during a volcanic eruption that spews millions more units of heavy gasses into the atmosphere does an earth wide cooling take place?

Edited December 19, 2007 by rebelmswar

[Flopsy]

Rebel, the radiation carrying the heat comes through at one wave length, it is then reflected off the earth and that wavelength's caught by the green house gasses.

Same way as a greenhouse works in a way

[rebelmswar]

Rebel, the radiation carrying the heat comes through at one wave length, it is then reflected off the earth and that wavelength's caught by the green house gasses.

Same way as a greenhouse works in a way

So the earth converts the heat thus not allowing it to escape? Then why does the volcano effect happen? Is this because the dirt thrown up by the erruption plays a part?

Dont get me wrong though. I am not a "To hell with trees give me tarmack" I recycle as much as I can, I even go as far as cutting the windows out of my mail to make sure I can deposit the paper portion. I just do not trust Gore at all. I remember when I was younger people where gibbering on about global cooling. I just see this as the latest craze for Greenpeace and people out to make some serious cash with carbon credits.

Edited December 19, 2007 by rebelmswar

[philipl]

I am not 100% convinced partly because I hope against hope that there is a natural blip that will reverse itself.

But if warming is man made then there is something man can do to unmake it.

Part of me says that if the people (neocon right) who say global warming is not man made have been wrong about practically everything else they have propounded then chances are they are wrong about being climate change deniers as well.

The volcano effect is simply a massive amount of dust and particulates in the atmosphere blocking sunlight. Going back through history, there have been very clear strong links between cold snaps and increased seismic activity which in turn have turned the tides of human history. A simple phenomenon is the vivid colours in Turner's paintings of skies are reflecting how the skies were in the early nineteenth century following the Tambora eruption. http://www.scribd.com/doc/323747/1816-Erup...-without-summer

Edited December 19, 2007 by philipl

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Why was the world actually warmer during the Roman empire, surely not down to the legions camp-fires.

Den You seem unable to distinguish the differing positions on the matter:

Some people don’t believe at all,

Some believe in global warming but not man-made theory,

Some believe in man-made theory ( to a degree) but are yet to be convinced 100% due to the lack of accuracy on co2 tracking, weather predicting etc ( and the fact that other theories have not been dispelled) (What i personally believe)

And then there are people who are utterly convinced by man-made theory and deny that any other natural process is perhaps taking part in global warming process

[rebelmswar]

I am not 100% convinced partly because I hope against hope that there is a natural blip that will reverse itself.

But if warming is man made then there is something man can do to unmake it.

Part of me says that if the people (neocon right) who say global warming is not man made have been wrong about practically everything else they have propounded then chances are they are wrong about being climate change deniers as well.

I agree with you and if there is a simple correct soloution lets do that without all the terror.

[blue phil]

Human nature trends to us hiding our heads in the sand about catastrophes, why with this weather one do people seem almost ecstatic with the prospects of worldwide desolation brought on by a warm spell?

Partly because it gives them a chance to have a go at the Yanks who are the greatest user of natural resources as well as being a nasty imperialistic power . Once the Great Satan get overtaken by the Chinese and Indians - and after that the Asian and African nations - then they'll find something else to get heated up about (if that's the right expression) .

If - and it's a big IF - man is playing a SIGNIFICANT factor in global warming , then it is blatantly obvious to me that there are two major factors involved .

1 - Endless chasing after economic growth and the consequence of using up of natural resources in maintaining a modern consumer world .

2 - The endless growth of human population on a planet that is (supposedly) running out of resources .

When ANY of the major world leaders stand up and argue that rise in population cannot be sustained when that population is intent on achieving economic growth at all costs - with all that entails in producing cars , infrastructure , foods , plastics , etc etc - then I'll start to believe in the incessant propoganda they pump out about the dangers to the planet .

When politicians come up with ideas that doesn't benefit them in the short term financially via higher taxes then I'll start to believe .

When they stop using aircraft to go on fact finding missions and holidays then I'll cut down too .

When they have the guts to stop importing half a million consumers a year into the country and stop building roads and runways to accommodate them then I'll do my bit to cut down .

Now we all know these professional liars aren't going to tackle overpopulation nor attempt to halt consumerism so everything else they do is merely treating the symptoms rather than the disease .

An industry is building up around this whole issue and the gullible are their consumers . Industries are only ever out for one thing . To make money .

[den]

Den You seem unable to distinguish the differing positions on the matter:

Some people don’t believe at all,

Some believe in global warming but not man-made theory,

Some believe in man-made theory ( to a degree) but are yet to be convinced 100% due to the lack of accuracy on co2 tracking, weather predicting etc ( and the fact that other theories have not been dispelled) (What i personally believe)

And then there are people who are utterly convinced by man-made theory and deny that any other natural process is perhaps taking part in global warming process

Of course I can see the different positions.

What I don't understand, is when someone comes out with a statement that calls something into question, then can't demonstrate why they say that - and have nothing of real substance to back it up. It makes me suspicious of their real motives.

I suppose it's my background of electrical CNC machine repair. Facts, nothing else. By all means ask where, when, how, but never ask why - n' all that! Troubleshooting.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Of course I can see the different positions.

What I don't understand, is when someone comes out with a statement that calls something into question, then can't demonstrate why they say that - and have nothing of real substance to back it up. It makes me suspicious of their real motives.

I suppose it's my background of electrical CNC machine repair. Facts, nothing else. By all means ask where, when, how, but never ask why - n' all that! Troubleshooting.

I have Demonstrated what I disagree with several times it’s just that you choose to ignore it, because it goes against what your personal core belief is.

I will reiterate why I personally am not convinced 100% by the man-made theory:

Why was it hotter 2000 years ago than it is now?

Why a 1000 years ago were temperatures comparable to temperatures in the 21st century some 900 years before mass industrialisation.

If man-made co2 is completely culpable for global warming, then why does rises in co2 have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around

How can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly?

You and other alike can believe what you like that is your prerogative. I may not agree with you but I respect that opinion. The trouble people such as myself are treated as nutcases if we don’t buy into the majority liberal opinion. by voicing any opinion which deviates are differs from the media-spun populist attitude

Edited December 19, 2007 by Bazzanotsogreat

[den]

I have Demonstrated what I disagree with several times it’s just that you choose to ignore it, because it goes against what your personal core belief is.

I will reiterate why I personally am not convinced 100% by the man-made theory:

Why was it hotter 2000 years ago than it is now?

Why a 1000 years ago were temperatures comparable to temperatures in the 21st century some 900 years before mass industrialisation.

If man-made co2 is completely culpable for global warming, then why does rises in co2 have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around

How can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly?

You and other alike can believe what you like that is your prerogative. I may not agree with you but I respect that opinion. The trouble people such as myself are treated as nutcases if we don’t buy into the majority liberal opinion. by voicing any opinion which deviates are differs from the media-spun populist attitude

I told you never ask "why". Go find the facts yourself.

For example: why does rises in co2 have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around? - You use that question as a reason to doubt Global warming. Don't ask "why", ask yourself - who would know the answer to that question. Then, ask that person what can cause rises in co2 to have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around? You will no doubt get the answer.

Because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there is any doubt about it. Likewise your question about how can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly? Ask the right person and get the facts. If they're wrong in what they're saying, it will show.

I haven't said what I believe either Bazza. I'm not the one who says they don't believe what the concensus of scientists tell us. If I can't prove otherwise, I accept it until I know different.

Edited December 19, 2007 by den

[blue phil]

How can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly?

They can't . They can only predict using past and present data which naturally have a more massive margin of error the further into the future they look .

The fact that people accept these predictions as gospel fact is quite worrying .

The Earth is not a machine that can be examined when it "goes wrong" . There is no right or wrong .....and even the ones doing the diagnosing on past results are rank amateurs and capable of having vested interests in doing so .

And that's before we have the politicians interpreting the scientists predictions for their own ends ......

[dave birch]

Criticism’s of the Stern report

Dodgy numbers behind stern report

And more criticism

Criticism’s of the Stern report,

“While the Stern Review received significant press attention, it did not receive serious journalistic scrutiny”

"The Stern report is little but grandiose scare-mongering. It would be irresponsible in

the extreme for politicians to make major policy changes - and major economic

commitments - on such specious arguments".

Piers Akerman, Daily Telegraph, Australia

"In order to manage risk, you must scare people".

-- Lord Giddens, UK

And one of the most telling things I have read on the man-made argument

“According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007). This may seem like a rather technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of man made global warming.”

Bazza, I've got to take issue with you here.

You state "........it did not receive serious journalistic scutiny" and then go on to quote a "Journalist".

Piers Ackerman would have to be the most right wing "journalist" in Australia. He is in the pocket of big business and a supporter of ultra rightwing politics. He would argue that day was night and night was day if it suited his politics. Before using him as support to back an arguement, be aware of the fact that he's a Murdoch employee, and check out some of the other tripe he's written

I thought that the troposphere (the lowest level of the earth's atmosphere) was getting warmer, correct me if I'm wrong.

[blue phil]

Before using him as support to back an arguement, be aware of the fact that he's a Murdoch employee, and check out some of the other tripe he's written

Sounds familiar .....

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Bazza, I've got to take issue with you here.

You state "........it did not receive serious journalistic scutiny" and then go on to quote a "Journalist".

Piers Ackerman would have to be the most right wing "journalist" in Australia. He is in the pocket of big business and a supporter of ultra rightwing politics. He would argue that day was night and night was day if it suited his politics. Before using him as support to back an arguement, be aware of the fact that he's a Murdoch employee, and check out some of the other tripe he's written

I thought that the troposphere (the lowest level of the earth's atmosphere) was getting warmer, correct me if I'm wrong.

Thats not me i just lifted a few quotes from the first link regarding the Stern report, which den had asked for

You use that question as a reason to doubt Global warming

Bangs head against a brick wall................ Several times.

DEN Global Warming YES : Man-Made Global Warming Maybe

Edited December 19, 2007 by Bazzanotsogreat