Anyone sick of the 'green'/Global warming stuff yet?
02 April 2008, 12:59 AM
#391
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old 'how is warming defined'. Take a look at http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi.../pdf/R-321.pdf which sets out major problems with surface temperature measurement ....
Enjoy!
Dave
Enjoy!
Dave
02 April 2008, 11:41 PM
#394
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you've seen is just the tip of the "carbon" iceburg. Right now, taxes are applied to fossil fuels, but you will see a "carbon" tax on everything. Of course, you could chose Govn't approved items, or buy some carbon offsets (Which will just make some people richer by literally making shed loads of money out of thin air and the rest of us, poorer).
Last edited by Klaatu; 02 April 2008 at 11:43 PM.
03 April 2008, 08:25 AM
#395
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 April 2008, 10:47 AM
#396
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the Beeb link: " But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years." Wow!! They looked at the last 20 years. An absolute AGE in climate/earth history terms.
But what do we have here ... Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends - Part 2 « Watts Up With That?
" At one level we see clear evidence of bidecadal oscillations associated with the Hale cycle, and which appear to corroborate the role of GCR’s in modulating terrestrial climate. At the other, in figure 4B, we see a longer periodicity on the order of 60 to 70 years, correspondingly closely to three bidecadal oscillations. If this longer pattern holds, we have just come out of the peak of the longer cycle, and can expect globally average temperature trends to moderate, and increased likelihood of a cooling phase similar that experienced during the mid 20th century.
In Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007 they state: “Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.” . Yet, as Figure 5 demonstrates, there is a strong correlation between the solar cycle peaks and the peak rate of change in the smoothed surface temperature trend.
The periodicity revealed in the data, along with the strong correlation of solar cycles to HadCRUT surface data, suggests that the rapid increase in globally averaged temperatures in the second half of 20th century was not unusual, but part of a ~66 year climate cycle that has a long history of influencing terrestrial climate. While the longer cycle itself may be strongly influenced by long term oceanic oscillations, it is ultimately related to bidecadal oscillations that have an origin in impact of solar activity on terrestrial climate."
60 year cycles?? Hmmm. Wonder which study I'd believe .....
Enjoy!
Dave
03 April 2008, 11:18 AM
#397
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you've seen is just the tip of the "carbon" iceburg. Right now, taxes are applied to fossil fuels, but you will see a "carbon" tax on everything. Of course, you could chose Govn't approved items, or buy some carbon offsets (Which will just make some people richer by literally making shed loads of money out of thin air and the rest of us, poorer).
Les
03 April 2008, 11:31 AM
#399
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any scientist that is skpetical to climate change/ man made cllimate change = Wise and sage man, who obviously knows his stuff, and his word should be accepted as gospel.
Any scientist that supports the theory of man made climate change = Crackpot who hasn't done his reasearch, and even a forum member who has no expertise in the field at all can pick apart his arguments.
You skeptics crack me up.
Any scientist that supports the theory of man made climate change = Crackpot who hasn't done his reasearch, and even a forum member who has no expertise in the field at all can pick apart his arguments.
You skeptics crack me up.
03 April 2008, 12:00 PM
#401
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 April 2008, 12:29 AM
#403
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any scientist that is skpetical to climate change/ man made cllimate change = Wise and sage man, who obviously knows his stuff, and his word should be accepted as gospel.
Any scientist that supports the theory of man made climate change = Crackpot who hasn't done his reasearch, and even a forum member who has no expertise in the field at all can pick apart his arguments.
You skeptics crack me up.
Any scientist that supports the theory of man made climate change = Crackpot who hasn't done his reasearch, and even a forum member who has no expertise in the field at all can pick apart his arguments.
You skeptics crack me up.
04 April 2008, 12:48 AM
#404
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 April 2008, 09:29 AM
#405
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point , perfectly illustrated.
04 April 2008, 12:12 PM
#407
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm, I'm not an advocate of AGW at all, but your statement does smack of the same I'm afraid. The people who carried out this study are not idiots, and they have gathered the data themselves and looked at the results, something which I doubt you have done.
That is not to say that it disproves the Sun as a factor, in the great scheme of things, like the Beeb seem to intimate, but it certainly suggests that for the more recent times, the Sun is not a major factor.
Geezer
04 April 2008, 12:16 PM
#408
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm, I'm not an advocate of AGW at all, but your statement does smack of the same I'm afraid. The people who carried out this study are not idiots, and they have gathered the data themselves and looked at the results, something which I doubt you have done.
That is not to say that it disproves the Sun as a factor, in the great scheme of things, like the Beeb seem to intimate, but it certainly suggests that for the more recent times, the Sun is not a major factor.
Geezer
That is not to say that it disproves the Sun as a factor, in the great scheme of things, like the Beeb seem to intimate, but it certainly suggests that for the more recent times, the Sun is not a major factor.
Geezer
04 April 2008, 01:30 PM
#409
Guest
Posts: n/a
And as for the Beeb report go and read a couple of the links I posted that say different.
Dave
04 April 2008, 01:32 PM
#410
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what they have specifically looked at, according to their data, then no.
Personally I believe that the Sun is a major factor in climate overall, but they were looking at a specific area, and they believe that the Sun was not. The BBC have misrepresented it somewhat with their headline however.
Geezer
Personally I believe that the Sun is a major factor in climate overall, but they were looking at a specific area, and they believe that the Sun was not. The BBC have misrepresented it somewhat with their headline however.
Geezer
04 April 2008, 02:03 PM
#411
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, where does all our heat come from? Even the man-made GW fantasists say that the extra COI2 holds in heat 'from the Sun'. What would happen if the sun didn't give out any heat?
And as for the Beeb report go and read a couple of the links I posted that say different.
Dave
And as for the Beeb report go and read a couple of the links I posted that say different.
Dave
The issue isn't whether the sun gives us heat...really? - honestly why even bother saying this?
The study looked at solar activity, i.e. solar flares and the sun magnetic field.
Of course you decided to rubbish it as it doesn't fit with your closed-minded view on this subject.
Sometimes I despair at the level of debate and reason used on this forum
04 April 2008, 02:10 PM
#412
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what they have specifically looked at, according to their data, then no.
Personally I believe that the Sun is a major factor in climate overall, but they were looking at a specific area, and they believe that the Sun was not. The BBC have misrepresented it somewhat with their headline however.
Geezer
Personally I believe that the Sun is a major factor in climate overall, but they were looking at a specific area, and they believe that the Sun was not. The BBC have misrepresented it somewhat with their headline however.
Geezer
04 April 2008, 02:13 PM
#413
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you need to keep twisting the facts and peoples words?
The issue isn't whether the sun gives us heat...really? - honestly why even bother saying this?
The study looked at solar activity, i.e. solar flares and the sun magnetic field.
Of course you decided to rubbish it as it doesn't fit with your closed-minded view on this subject.
Sometimes I despair at the level of debate and reason used on this forum
The issue isn't whether the sun gives us heat...really? - honestly why even bother saying this?
The study looked at solar activity, i.e. solar flares and the sun magnetic field.
Of course you decided to rubbish it as it doesn't fit with your closed-minded view on this subject.
Sometimes I despair at the level of debate and reason used on this forum
04 April 2008, 02:17 PM
#414
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Klaatu, you really need to read the article and perhaps understand what they are talking about.
And I quote.......
"The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. "
"
The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.
That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.
The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong.
Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.
"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News. "So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."
That is not the same as saying the Sun is not a major driver of climate change at all. That is why the BBC have misrepresented it with their headline.
Geezer
And I quote.......
"The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. "
"
The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.
That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.
The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong.
Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.
"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News. "So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."
That is not the same as saying the Sun is not a major driver of climate change at all. That is why the BBC have misrepresented it with their headline.
Geezer
04 April 2008, 02:18 PM
#415
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why do you need to keep twisting the facts and peoples words?
The issue isn't whether the sun gives us heat...really? - honestly why even bother saying this?
The study looked at solar activity, i.e. solar flares and the sun magnetic field.
Of course you decided to rubbish it as it doesn't fit with your closed-minded view on this subject.
Sometimes I despair at the level of debate and reason used on this forum
The issue isn't whether the sun gives us heat...really? - honestly why even bother saying this?
The study looked at solar activity, i.e. solar flares and the sun magnetic field.
Of course you decided to rubbish it as it doesn't fit with your closed-minded view on this subject.
Sometimes I despair at the level of debate and reason used on this forum
As for close-minded, then yes, but only as far as the fact that the evidence I have seen does NOT point to man-made global warming. And it has been hijacked by politicians/the green movement to extract more money in taxes from the great and gullible unwashed. If you think different then that's your perogative and in that case that should make you close-minded by your definition ......
Dave
04 April 2008, 02:31 PM
#417
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was responding to a point made by Geezer. If he didn't make himself (herself??) clear then that's not my problem.
As for close-minded, then yes, but only as far as the fact that the evidence I have seen does NOT point to man-made global warming. And it has been hijacked by politicians/the green movement to extract more money in taxes from the great and gullible unwashed. If you think different then that's your perogative and in that case that should make you close-minded by your definition ......
Dave
As for close-minded, then yes, but only as far as the fact that the evidence I have seen does NOT point to man-made global warming. And it has been hijacked by politicians/the green movement to extract more money in taxes from the great and gullible unwashed. If you think different then that's your perogative and in that case that should make you close-minded by your definition ......
Dave
You are deliberatley filtering out anything that might challenge your view, that is being close minded.
I try to look at all the issues, therefore that cannot be close minded can it?
04 April 2008, 02:51 PM
#418
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you need to keep twisting the facts and peoples words?
The issue isn't whether the sun gives us heat...really? - honestly why even bother saying this?
The study looked at solar activity, i.e. solar flares and the sun magnetic field.
Of course you decided to rubbish it as it doesn't fit with your closed-minded view on this subject.
Sometimes I despair at the level of debate and reason used on this forum
The issue isn't whether the sun gives us heat...really? - honestly why even bother saying this?
The study looked at solar activity, i.e. solar flares and the sun magnetic field.
Of course you decided to rubbish it as it doesn't fit with your closed-minded view on this subject.
Sometimes I despair at the level of debate and reason used on this forum
Les
04 April 2008, 03:14 PM
#419
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and miss out on all the fun?
Seriously though what is it about Subaru drivers that makes them
a. Tory
b. Hard-line on immigration and social issues?
c. Deny GW is man-made
This is a serious question, because this place is sometimes so unrepresentative of the 'real-world'. I have a Subaru but I feel that that's about all I have in common with a lot of people on here.
Seriously though what is it about Subaru drivers that makes them
a. Tory
b. Hard-line on immigration and social issues?
c. Deny GW is man-made
This is a serious question, because this place is sometimes so unrepresentative of the 'real-world'. I have a Subaru but I feel that that's about all I have in common with a lot of people on here.
04 April 2008, 03:21 PM
#420
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting viewpoint.
Well, I'm not Tory and most people I know (and only blubs posts here of my friends) also think man made GW is a load of rubbish, so from my point of view, SN is quite representative on that issue.
On the last however, I have to agree.......
Geezer
Well, I'm not Tory and most people I know (and only blubs posts here of my friends) also think man made GW is a load of rubbish, so from my point of view, SN is quite representative on that issue.
On the last however, I have to agree.......
Geezer