Global Warming

[Whitey Grandad]

Like you, I don't have any. That's rather my point. Unless you quote actual scientists, publishing in respected journals, it's all a bit too easy and really quite crap to say that climate science is 'bad science'. So to repeat my question: what is it about the methodology of climate science that renders it 'bad'? Phil won't answer, so maybe you will. As you see, I am ever hopeful.

Are you saying that an Engineer is not a scientist???

[aintforever]

Much of this science is very simplistic. For example, for many years climate scientists ignored the effects of clouds because they did not know how to model them. Also, when they talk about 'solar activity' they only look at total solar irradiation and completely overlook the effects of high-energy particle streams which have a significant effect on cloud formation.

 

Where is the evidence for high energy particle streams causing changes in climate. It would be great if true.

[Verbal]

Are you saying that an Engineer is not a scientist???

 

Not a proper one, no. Pretend, wannabe - you get the drift. Engineering, like,say, architecture, is dependent obviously on a number of sciences, like physics. But you're not a physicist - nor a climate scientist. So about that methodology problem...

Edited 22 December, 2010 by Verbal

[Whitey Grandad]

Not a proper one, no. Pretend, wannabe - you get the drift.

 

Then you know nothing.

[Whitey Grandad]

Where is the evidence for high energy particle streams causing changes in climate. It would be great if true.

 

I'll try and dig it out for you. I should have some free time over the weekend, there's nothing on the tele.

[buctootim]

Some of us go back over 20 years before that. In the 1960's the next Ice Age was the big concern amongst the scientific community.

 

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

 

Thomas C. Peterson

NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

 

William M. Connolley

British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

 

John Fleck

Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico

 

Abstract

 

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[Verbal]

Then you know nothing.

 

Stop doing a Phil and answer the question, grandad. I want to know how you're qualified to determine the 'simplistic' sciences you've complaining about. Being an engineer doesn't cut it. Quote an informed, peer-reviewed critique, then your claim might be a bit more credible.

[Thedelldays]

T

 

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. 1[/url]

 

and in 30 years time..when the goal posts have significantly shifted..they will claim "science as we know it was not around in 2000-2010"

[buctootim]

and in 30 years time..when the goal posts have significantly shifted..they will claim "science as we know it was not around in 2000-2010"

 

Come on Jamie. Do tells us how climate research was actually framed in the 1960s

[Thedelldays]

Come on Jamie. Do tells us how climate research was actually framed in the 1960s

 

so..are you saying what we have no (in terms of science) will not advance that much..?

is there NO chance that in 30 years time science might have evolved that much and tell us that man has little effect on global warming, climate change, or what ever they call it then...

 

are you saying YOU are right as much as they thought THEY were right 30 odd years ago...?

[Whitey Grandad]

Where is the evidence for high energy particle streams causing changes in climate. It would be great if true.

 

The story begins....

 

http://www.economist.com/node/8074812?story_id=8074812

[buctootim]

so..are you saying what we have no (in terms of science) will not advance that much..?

is there NO chance that in 30 years time science might have evolved that much and tell us that man has little effect on global warming, climate change, or what ever they call it then...

 

are you saying YOU are right as much as they thought THEY were right 30 odd years ago...?

 

Congratulations on totally missing the point. Whitey trotted out one of sceptics hoary old myths that in the 1960s and 1970s scientists were predicting the next Ice Age. They werent. I simply showed that wasnt true. They werent wrong then and arent wrong now.

[Whitey Grandad]

The story begins....

 

http://www.economist.com/node/8074812?story_id=8074812

And there's more (Jasper Kirkby again, I wonder how he's getting on?)

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/07/theory-says-climate-change-depends-on-so

[Whitey Grandad]

Congratulations on totally missing the point. Whitey trotted out one of sceptics hoary old myths that in the 1960s and 1970s scientists were predicting the next Ice Age. They werent. I simply showed that wasnt true. They werent wrong then and arent wrong now.

 

That's what we were told at the time. There was not a mention of global warming. I'm sure I would have noticed.

[Verbal]

That's what we were told at the time. There was not a mention of global warming. I'm sure I would have noticed.

 

Being an engineer.

[buctootim]

And there's more (Jasper Kirkby again, I wonder how he's getting on?)

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/07/theory-says-climate-change-depends-on-so

 

Dont bother.

 

 

"Henrik Svensmark

Rebuttal to Svensmark assertions: Svensmark has received a fair amount of attention in the denialist world. But why? He says he is being ignored. But Why? Is it because there is a great conspiracy of scientists trying to hide the truth about galactic cosmic rays? Or is that that Svensmarks conclusions were not supported by the work presented? As it turns out, his conclusions were not sufficiently supported.

 

Peter Laut found errors in their paper and published a paper addressing the corrections. When the errors are removed the conclusions and assumptions of Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen simply do not stand. Solar can not account for modern global warming.

 

Simply put, galactic cosmic rays (GCR's - paleo and modern measurements) do not correlate with the rise in global mean temperature. The now well established facts are in the connection between greenhouse gases, attribution and radiative forcing. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere account well for the current climate forcing."

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark

Edited 22 December, 2010 by buctootim

[dubai_phil]

Bad Science?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

 

Or close enough Science?

 

An eminent US Scientist who holds similar views to myself regarding The Modelling that is advocated as Hard Scientific research.

 

http://www.noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php

 

Now again before the lynch mod returns. Here is a respected Scientist and someone who has studied climate change for 30 years who is saying that

 

In a nutshell, he thinks the computer-generated models being used to predict long-term climate consequences are flawed because scientists have too little information about many of the variables that must be taken into account.

 

Oh, and

 

Although the public thinks that "anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment," he feels the opposite is true.

"Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists," he insists. But they believe old-fashioned pollution and nuclear weapons are bigger concerns.

 

Again, like me he is not questioning whether Global Warming is or is not occuring, he questions the models used to make the decisions

 

his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science

 

Oh and finally

 

Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

 

So, no doubt that isn't good enough, a Nobel Prize nominee, 30 Years of research and a complete 8 page examination of his thoughts and mental health in the New York Times.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

 

I humbly apologise Verbal. I used the English Word Bad in front of Science. If I was a globally renowned Physicist instead of a campaigner on Green issuers I would of course not used The English but instead the American Word Lousy.

 

Many factors, many voices, putting up Green taxes only in the EU is NOT the way to solve the problem when the US & The Emerging Nations just gain even More competitive advantage and cause even worse pollution.

[Whitey Grandad]

Being an engineer.

 

You very obviously do not understand what a Chartered Engineer is. We are several levels above 'scientists'.

[Whitey Grandad]

And more from the same:

 

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/?p=1647

 

As for CERN, it appears that they are still working on the experiment:

 

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088

[dubai_phil]

Here is a good question.

 

How many people are involved in Climate Research? Or earn a living now from the Carbon Exchanges around the world?

(I have no idea)

 

Then as an Environmentalist concerned about the whole eco-system ask

 

How many people are employed in identifying global trends in Toxic Electrical & Electronic Waste dumping by Interpol? (ie all the junk that the world dumps apart from you well behaved people in EU)

(I know that one - the answer is 2. Source Emile Lindemulder, Interpol, Sept 29th 2010 New Orleans)

 

The toxins being released into the Atlantic, South China Sea & Indian Environments are affecting the food chain and will kill people far quicker than global warming can. UN Step research in 1985 listing the work that led to WEEE & RoHS legislation showed that one mobile phone can render 600,000 litres of water toxic to humans.

 

So when that stuff is broken down it releases greenhouse gases as well as other far more harmful toxins. Carbon (ie energy) is then needed to scrape more materials out the earth and turn that into Iphones and then ship it to you guys.

[Verbal]

Bad Science?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

 

Or close enough Science?

 

An eminent US Scientist who holds similar views to myself regarding The Modelling that is advocated as Hard Scientific research.

 

http://www.noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php

 

Now again before the lynch mod returns. Here is a respected Scientist and someone who has studied climate change for 30 years who is saying that

 

 

 

Oh, and

 

 

 

Again, like me he is not questioning whether Global Warming is or is not occuring, he questions the models used to make the decisions

 

 

 

Oh and finally

 

 

 

So, no doubt that isn't good enough, a Nobel Prize nominee, 30 Years of research and a complete 8 page examination of his thoughts and mental health in the New York Times.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

 

I humbly apologise Verbal. I used the English Word Bad in front of Science. If I was a globally renowned Physicist instead of a campaigner on Green issuers I would of course not used The English but instead the American Word Lousy.

 

Many factors, many voices, putting up Green taxes only in the EU is NOT the way to solve the problem when the US & The Emerging Nations just gain even More competitive advantage and cause even worse pollution.

 

Well, you took your sweet time. Slow google connection? First things first, I think we can both agree that the WSJ article is about as authoritative as anything written on here...or maybe a bit less. The author, according to his own blurb accompanying that piece, won a prize, you know! (For creative writing).

 

Freeman Dyson is another kettle of fish - being as he is the eminence gris (really, I thought he was dead) of modern 'out there' scientific thinking. He is probably best-known for his musings about our imminent lives on other colonised, 'terrafirmed' planets. And such. What he says is interesting and challenging - he is, after all, good at that; it's what he does and has done all his life. He lambasts Al Gore (not a scientist but a politician) and James Hansen for said 'lousy' science. Hansen, unlike Gore, is one of the big gorillas of climate change science. He was among the first to warn of the onset of global warming in 1988 (Whitey Grandad was probably there but sleeping at the time because as he just said, he 'didn't notice').

 

Steven Weinberg - actually a more eminent scientist, in the sense that he is famous for actually discovering something and getting, unlike Dyson, a Nobel for it (and someone, to namedrop, I've met) - has an interesting comment: “I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice.” In other words, any consensus is like a red rag to a bull with FD. It doesn't mean the consensus is wrong. Contrarians like Dyson have their place, certainly. But his charges are asked and answered, even within the confines of that oh-so-long NYT piece.

 

So humble apologies not accepted Phil. Try or grovel harder.

 

Happy Christmas!

[Verbal]

You very obviously do not understand what a Chartered Engineer is. We are several levels above 'scientists'.

 

Oh, Im sorry. When you said 'engineer' I didn't realise you meant 'The Great Engineer', aka God. So my humblest apologies. But I don't need to give them do, I, because you are all-seeing. And I only thought 'dumbass' - such impure thoughts - when I read your earlier posts; I didn't actually write it - so will you forgive me?

[Thedelldays]

Oh, Im sorry. When you said 'engineer' I didn't realise you meant 'The Great Engineer', aka God. So my humblest apologies. But I don't need to give them do, I, because you are all-seeing. And I only thought 'dumbass' - such impure thoughts - when I read your earlier posts; I didn't actually write it - so will you forgive me?

 

ah I see...when you have nothing left to say..you go back to being a patronising pr*ck

[dubai_phil]

Well, you took your sweet time. Slow google connection? First things first, I think we can both agree that the WSJ article is about as authoritative as anything written on here...or maybe a bit less. The author, according to his own blurb accompanying that piece, won a prize, you know! (For creative writing).

 

Freeman Dyson is another kettle of fish - being as he is the eminence gris (really, I thought he was dead) of modern 'out there' scientific thinking. He is probably best-known for his musings about our imminent lives on other colonised, 'terrafirmed' planets. And such. What he says is interesting and challenging - he is, after all, good at that; it's what he does and has done all his life. He lambasts Al Gore (not a scientist but a politician) and James Hansen for said 'lousy' science. Hansen, unlike Gore, is one of the big gorillas of climate change science. He was among the first to warn of the onset of global warming in 1988 (Whitey Grandad was probably there but sleeping at the time because as he just said, he 'didn't notice').

 

Steven Weinberg - actually a more eminent scientist, in the sense that he is famous for actually discovering something and getting, unlike Dyson, a Nobel for it (and someone, to namedrop, I've met) - has an interesting comment: “I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice.” In other words, any consensus is like a red rag to a bull with FD. It doesn't mean the consensus is wrong. Contrarians like Dyson have their place, certainly. But his charges are asked and answered, even within the confines of that oh-so-long NYT piece.

 

So humble apologies not accepted Phil. Try or grovel harder.

 

Happy Christmas!

 

Nah wasn't google it was time to do some work then get dinner sorted and most importantly Canadian Bacon on the telly.

 

I knew I had seen the comment somewhere re "ok" Lousy Science.

 

Thing is when something is as important as The Earth, Climategate has done severe damage. As an example you (or I) could continue to google, that is not the point, the tarnish is done and in the public domain. It is so like MP's expenses, sure they have been proven (well many) not to have done anything wrong, but it has still undermined Public Confidence.

 

Giving Presentations, Focus Groups and Panel Discussions on green issues and (trying) to get the Governments down here to change their attitude to Green, those idiots at East Anglia Uni should have been hung. They make the story more difficult to sell to drive change. That is why I would be happy to see the entire CURRENT argument obliterated.

 

How? by PROPER research and by models that don't turn out to have had one line of Code in the programme wrong (possibly)

 

Which Nation on Earth has the Highest Per Capita Carbon Footprint on the planet (and has proudly led the UN table since 2005) - yep this place.

 

And the thing is there are about 2 or 300 people now really trying to do something about it (yes and make money) and things that Undermine the message really hack us off.

 

Integrated Solutions to an Integrated Problem. Emirates Airline LOVES the UK Green Passenger Duty, they just fly people straight past you now.

[Verbal]

ah I see...when you have nothing left to say..you go back to being a patronising pr*ck

 

Was I talking to you? Was I?

[dubai_phil]

Lol I thought they were in the middle of their worst drought ever?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8220113/California-hit-by-flooding.html

[Verbal]

Nah wasn't google it was time to do some work then get dinner sorted and most importantly Canadian Bacon on the telly.

 

I knew I had seen the comment somewhere re "ok" Lousy Science.

 

Thing is when something is as important as The Earth, Climategate has done severe damage. As an example you (or I) could continue to google, that is not the point, the tarnish is done and in the public domain. It is so like MP's expenses, sure they have been proven (well many) not to have done anything wrong, but it has still undermined Public Confidence.

 

Giving Presentations, Focus Groups and Panel Discussions on green issues and (trying) to get the Governments down here to change their attitude to Green, those idiots at East Anglia Uni should have been hung. They make the story more difficult to sell to drive change. That is why I would be happy to see the entire CURRENT argument obliterated.

 

How? by PROPER research and by models that don't turn out to have had one line of Code in the programme wrong (possibly)

 

Which Nation on Earth has the Highest Per Capita Carbon Footprint on the planet (and has proudly led the UN table since 2005) - yep this place.

 

And the thing is there are about 2 or 300 people now really trying to do something about it (yes and make money) and things that Undermine the message really hack us off.

 

Integrated Solutions to an Integrated Problem. Emirates Airline LOVES the UK Green Passenger Duty, they just fly people straight past you now.

 

Phil, I know I've been hard on you - but put down the bottle! This is all over the place. I'm trying to sort out your 'one line of code' stuff (unspecified) from your claim that the UK has the highest per capita carbon footprint (actually it's Qatar, with - guess what? - UAE in third place!).

[Whitey Grandad]

Oh, Im sorry. When you said 'engineer' I didn't realise you meant 'The Great Engineer', aka God. So my humblest apologies. But I don't need to give them do, I, because you are all-seeing. And I only thought 'dumbass' - such impure thoughts - when I read your earlier posts; I didn't actually write it - so will you forgive me?

 

As I said, you have absolutely no idea what the term 'Engineer' means, which would tend to invalidate every other one of your comments.

[Verbal]

As I said, you have absolutely no idea what the term 'Engineer' means, which would tend to invalidate every other one of your comments.

 

Okay God. Sorry.

[Whitey Grandad]

Okay God. Sorry.

 

Don't be such a tit. You are above this.

[Verbal]

Don't be such a tit. You are above this.

 

No I'm really not.

[buctootim]

You very obviously do not understand what a Chartered Engineer is. We are several levels above 'scientists'.

 

Nice try but being jobbing engineer with a degree and membership of a professional body does not rank you above most research scientists. You are short a phd and an entire career dedicated to pure research - calculating RSJ loads doesnt match up.

[Whitey Grandad]

Nice try but being jobbing engineer with a degree and membership of a professional body does not rank you above most research scientists. You are short a phd and an entire career dedicated to pure research - calculating RSJ loads doesnt match up.

 

Oh dear.

[dune]

Oh dear.

 

They (the know it all climate comrades) always get their claws out when anyone dares to have a different opinion.

[Verbal]

They (the know it all climate comrades) always get their claws out when anyone dares to have a different opinion.

 

You! Back to your dark room! Now!

[dubai_phil]

Phil, I know I've been hard on you - but put down the bottle! This is all over the place. I'm trying to sort out your 'one line of code' stuff (unspecified) from your claim that the UK has the highest per capita carbon footprint (actually it's Qatar, with - guess what? - UAE in third place!).

 

UAE is the highest 2005 to 09 they are really hacked off they lost top spot to Qatar and have called me in as a consultant to help them regain the #1 spot.

 

True

 

 

Well, nearly

[buctootim]

Oh dear.

 

Its true isnt it? You dont have phd, most likely at best a MSc. Have you held a position in scientific research? Im not criticising being a professional engineer, its worthy profession - but to claim you are better qualified to comment than a research scientist working in their own field is risible.

[Deppo]

My best mate is a Chartered Engineer and he is as thick as pigsh*t and knows f*ck all about climate change. He's currently being paid to do a PhD. Go figure.

[dubai_phil]

Phil, I know I've been hard on you - but put down the bottle! This is all over the place. I'm trying to sort out your 'one line of code' stuff (unspecified) from your claim that the UK has the highest per capita carbon footprint (actually it's Qatar, with - guess what? - UAE in third place!).

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita

 

The harm that the growth of China has caused is well shown in the data in this article. And who buys the products that are made in China?

 

But it's OK EU is taxing everyone for flying & driving instead of taxing imports from non-sustainable Carbon Emitters.

 

Enough of this off to do something important that I have been putting off.... choosing the 12 courses for the Polish Xmas Ee dinner that I have to eat (how many tons did the ood use up to get here? lol

 

Would rather try and debate Football Finances with Corp Ho, but it's gotta be done

[dubai_phil]

My best mate is a Chartered Engineer and he is as thick as pigsh*t and knows f*ck all about climate change. He's currently being paid to do a PhD. Go figure.

 

I completely disbelieve that statement.

 

 

You can't have a best friend surely?

 

 

[buctootim]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita

 

The harm that the growth of China has caused is well shown in the data in this article. And who buys the products that are made in China?

 

You're right Phil - sustainable sourcing of products by purchasing professionals is the only way to go. The issues are too complicated to expect consumers to know which kind of wood /fish/ tv to buy and from where.

 

Wal Mart have made a start. Whats interesting is that they dont do it to be good guys, they do it because the embedded carbon content is closely matched with energy use - if they force suppliers to reduce energy they think they can screw them down on the price. That is bigger news than it sounds. Wal Mart spend £180 billion each year on product, 80% of it with China. They are China's fifth biggest trading partner - bigger than the nation of Canada.

 

http://www.bnet.com/blog/energy/walmart-will-force-suppliers-to-cut-carbon-use/3264

Edited 22 December, 2010 by buctootim

[Deppo]

I completely disbelieve that statement.

 

 

You can't have a best friend surely?

 

 

 

I did say that he is as thick as pigsh*t.

[dune]

I'm going for a Daily Mail Christmas, and will endeavour to leave as big a carbon footprint as possible.

 

[buctootim]

No-one cares Dune because you arent in a position to make any decisions that count. You are the thickie on the fringes of society who never quite gets it.

[dune]

No-one cares Dune. You arent in a position to make any decisions that count. You are the thickie on the fringes of society who never quite gets it.

 

Thanks Tim not nice but smart.

[Deppo]

I'm going for a Daily Mail Christmas, and will endeavour to leave as big a carbon footprint as possible.

 

 

Are you running out of things to say? Here, this may help you come up with some new posts:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5f4hbg

 

Although, I'm pretty sure you've been using it for a while now. I recognise some of it from your posts.

[dune]

Are you running out of things to say? Here, this may help you come up with some new posts:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5f4hbg

 

Although, I'm pretty sure you've been using it for a while now. I recognise some of it from your posts.

 

That's very ironic coming from you.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I'm going for a Daily Mail Christmas, and will endeavour to leave as big a carbon footprint as possible.

 

 

Are you really going to need all that food for just you?

[aintforever]

And there's more (Jasper Kirkby again, I wonder how he's getting on?)

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/07/theory-says-climate-change-depends-on-so

 

Your solar rays theory doesn't seem to impress these guys, who use data collected by NASA. The quote below seems to indicate they might know what they are talking about. All your quotes are theories of how solar rays cause clouds which could effect temperature - that is already known. You don't show any measurements or data that conclusively show that solar rays have increased, clouds have increased and thet correlates to the temperature variations.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11480916

 

"So we might have the ultimate paradox that in a globally warming world we'd have cold winters in Europe. But it would be an awful lot warmer in Greenland," he said.

 

Professor John Shepherd, who studies climatic change at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, added:

 

"The observations do show that solar radiation does some peculiar and interesting things, which will hopefully be revealed through future research.

 

"As with all other known solar effects since measurements began, these effects are subtle and tiny - certainly nowhere near enough to explain any of the climate changes that we observe."

Edited 22 December, 2010 by aintforever

[Deppo]

That's very ironic coming from you.

 

"I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?"