EARTH-CLIMATE WARS
16 September 2008, 09:10 AM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm, ok. isn't there something daft like an area of rain-forest the size of Wales being cut down every day, though? not sure a few trees here will help.
Now if someone were to take out Wales, that could be useful.....
Now if someone were to take out Wales, that could be useful.....
16 September 2008, 09:25 AM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts precisely UB!
The programme started "quite well", showing how the urban heat island effect causes temperatures in cities to be (in this case) four degrees higher than the surrounding land. Thus weather stations, that are gradually being encircled by concrete, will show increased average temperatures over time - even though the Earth is maintaining the status quo.
This was "backed up" by new (as in, the last ten or fifteen years) satellite data, so "up your's" to the environMENTALists. However, oops, it seems that the satellites were falling and suffering from friction, so your can't believe them - ergo the earth is undergoing unstoppable terminate warming
panic, worry, more taxes!
Funny how the programme then completely forgot about the UHIE, which still exists and thus discredits any claims that the temperature is rising. Nope, we are still all doomed, we have consensus, UHIE - what UHIE??
For the middle part of the programme, Stewart was doing his best to do impressions of Billy Connolly whilst gesticulating around like a hen pecking for corn - he is supposed to be a scientist not a bloody celebrity
And to finish the programme (after totally denying the medieval warm period on the "hockey stick"), he "proved" that sun spots don't have any effect on climate. They "extrapolated" the temperature/spot graph to show temps increasing massively over the last ten years whilst spots were declining. Er, hello Mr so-called Dr.??? Temperatures have actually fallen over the last ten years along with the spots, so your graph is a blatant lie!!!
Still, it is par for the course when the BBC are mowing the lawn - see lets run a program on lots of PCs to prove a pre-decided outcome
I might join Noel Edmunds and withhold my licence fee until they can start producing un-biased "factual" programmes!!
mb
The programme started "quite well", showing how the urban heat island effect causes temperatures in cities to be (in this case) four degrees higher than the surrounding land. Thus weather stations, that are gradually being encircled by concrete, will show increased average temperatures over time - even though the Earth is maintaining the status quo.
This was "backed up" by new (as in, the last ten or fifteen years) satellite data, so "up your's" to the environMENTALists. However, oops, it seems that the satellites were falling and suffering from friction, so your can't believe them - ergo the earth is undergoing unstoppable terminate warming
panic, worry, more taxes!Funny how the programme then completely forgot about the UHIE, which still exists and thus discredits any claims that the temperature is rising. Nope, we are still all doomed, we have consensus, UHIE - what UHIE??
For the middle part of the programme, Stewart was doing his best to do impressions of Billy Connolly whilst gesticulating around like a hen pecking for corn - he is supposed to be a scientist not a bloody celebrity
And to finish the programme (after totally denying the medieval warm period on the "hockey stick"), he "proved" that sun spots don't have any effect on climate. They "extrapolated" the temperature/spot graph to show temps increasing massively over the last ten years whilst spots were declining. Er, hello Mr so-called Dr.??? Temperatures have actually fallen over the last ten years along with the spots, so your graph is a blatant lie!!!
Still, it is par for the course when the BBC are mowing the lawn - see lets run a program on lots of PCs to prove a pre-decided outcome
I might join Noel Edmunds and withhold my licence fee until they can start producing un-biased "factual" programmes!!
mb
So in summary, you thought the show was good only when it supported your particular view, as soon as that view was shown to be floored, you thought it was a crock, and you call the BBC biased!!!!
16 September 2008, 09:53 AM
#94
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Physics, but don't use it as there are no jobs and no money! Certainly enough to realise that I don't have the depth of knowledge to decide, for example, whether the temperature data are corrected in the right way or not. Still no-one has posted that they have qualifications in the discipline, so my previous comments stand.
Consensus is all you can get at the moment in an area as complex as climate prediction as there is a world of difference between predicting and finding evidence for a long term trend and being able to accurately predict the local consequences of the trend.
What do you think of the hundreds of scientists that fed into the IPCC? Are they all somehow under the influence of Greenpeace? Every one of them sitting in their offices and labs deliberately created a fraud?
What do you think of the hundreds of scientists that fed into the IPCC? Are they all somehow under the influence of Greenpeace? Every one of them sitting in their offices and labs deliberately created a fraud?
I doubt that there is a single scientific theory that has 100% of scientists that agree with it. Take the example of the nutter professor from Haiwai who tried to stop the LHC from starting up as he thought it would destroy the Earth! There are even a few physicists that think that the Standard Model is bobbins and a lucky fluke that experimental data supports it.
Geezer
16 September 2008, 09:55 AM
#95
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I want is an unbiassed presentation of both sides but even this guy couldn't do it. He only mentioned arguements against MMGW that could be disproved, ignoring the CO2 lag, solar seasons etc.
Didn't anyone else notice the condecending sneering tone of his voice when he talked about the sceptics?
To me it seems all data regarding our planets temperature presented by both sides is scewed / misinterpreted / measured wrong etc.
If historical measurement cannot cater for the medieval warm period / arable farming in Greenland / Roman records etc then they have to rethink how to digest the data.
If they can **** up the satellite readings in the present day, how can they assume accuracy for the last 10000 years?
The truth is out there, unfortunately so are some scientists that just want to be famous, it seems
16 September 2008, 10:09 AM
#97
But this is the issue with science as a whole.... a scientist will come up with a hypothosis, aim to prove it and then it is down to the remainder of the scientific community to disprove it....peer review will always have problems.
Any scientist will tell you that the grey areas far outweigh the black/white ones and all they need to do is to be able to logically argue their point.
Any scientist will tell you that the grey areas far outweigh the black/white ones and all they need to do is to be able to logically argue their point.
16 September 2008, 10:18 AM
#100
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALL animals have an impact on the environment, we just have evolved the technology to make more of an impact, simple as.
I don't suppose that big cats felt much sympathy for the terror birds they made go extinct in South America a few hundred thousand years ago.
Species change things all the time, and the impact we have will just create oppurtunities for other new species to thrive.
Oh the arrogance of humankind, we honsestly think we can destroy a planet that has lived through far worse things we can ever conjure up, and could snuff us in an instant.
Geezer
16 September 2008, 10:23 AM
#101
Climate change is happening, it has ALWAYS been happening and will always happen. It has devastating effects on life on this planet and life in one form or another bounces back. Rivers dry, rivers flood, seas shrink, oceans grow, ice melts, ice forms and life ends, new life begins. We won't change this and we didn't start it. The end.................sooner or later
Last edited by magepaster; 16 September 2008 at 08:49 PM.
16 September 2008, 01:35 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So beavers making dams isn't adapting their environment? What about locust swarms? I don't think termite hills occur naturally do they?
ALL animals have an impact on the environment, we just have evolved the technology to make more of an impact, simple as.
I don't suppose that big cats felt much sympathy for the terror birds they made go extinct in South America a few hundred thousand years ago.
Species change things all the time, and the impact we have will just create oppurtunities for other new species to thrive.
Oh the arrogance of humankind, we honsestly think we can destroy a planet that has lived through far worse things we can ever conjure up, and could snuff us in an instant.
Geezer
ALL animals have an impact on the environment, we just have evolved the technology to make more of an impact, simple as.
I don't suppose that big cats felt much sympathy for the terror birds they made go extinct in South America a few hundred thousand years ago.
Species change things all the time, and the impact we have will just create oppurtunities for other new species to thrive.
Oh the arrogance of humankind, we honsestly think we can destroy a planet that has lived through far worse things we can ever conjure up, and could snuff us in an instant.
Geezer
The planet is of course going to be quite alright, the climate is changing though, and that may have some uncomfortable implictations for mankind.
16 September 2008, 04:34 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw it reported a while ago that when it comes to converting Carbon Dioxide and giving off Oxygen in exchange, then rather than trees, the largest influence by far is that of Algae. Interesting point that.
No one can tell us the significance of the global temperature not only not having increased in the last ten years or so, but recently it has decreased!
Les
No one can tell us the significance of the global temperature not only not having increased in the last ten years or so, but recently it has decreased!
Les
16 September 2008, 05:09 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Watford
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny you shold say that, because there are plenty of scientists you are not climatologists who have been involved in the IPCC reports, so on your logic, they have no right to decide, let alone fashion the reports. Also, there are scientists who threatened to sue the IPCC if their names were not removed from the list of people who contributed to it, such was their feelings that the data had been misrepresented.
I'd be interested if anyone had done any studies of numbers of articles etc - not sure if there is a decreasing majority or not
16 September 2008, 06:33 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept that we are changing the planet's climate through the release of various gases be they CO2, methane etc.
I agree we should all do something about it.
What I disagree with is that motorists are hammered more than other producers of CO2. When petrol prices rise, it's good for the environment as we drive less. In fact, it's government policy!!
When gas prices go up and people can't heat their homes, it's good for the environment but the politicians want action to reduce the costs
Steve
PS I have gone from a sceptic to a reluctant believer and I do a lot of work in the oil and gas industry.
I agree we should all do something about it.
What I disagree with is that motorists are hammered more than other producers of CO2. When petrol prices rise, it's good for the environment as we drive less. In fact, it's government policy!!
When gas prices go up and people can't heat their homes, it's good for the environment but the politicians want action to reduce the costs
Steve
PS I have gone from a sceptic to a reluctant believer and I do a lot of work in the oil and gas industry.
16 September 2008, 07:30 PM
#106
YouTube - Animation showing the three Milankovitch Cycles
The climate is ever changing, warming and cooling due to natural orbital cycles. So when the current trend is slowing down or reversing, the government will then say that their taxes are working and so they'll come up with new taxes to support their next theory.
So what will happen if, lets say a gigantic asteroid is heading straight for us, big enough to wipe out the entire planet. How much tax do you think it will take to fend it off?
The climate is ever changing, warming and cooling due to natural orbital cycles. So when the current trend is slowing down or reversing, the government will then say that their taxes are working and so they'll come up with new taxes to support their next theory.
So what will happen if, lets say a gigantic asteroid is heading straight for us, big enough to wipe out the entire planet. How much tax do you think it will take to fend it off?
16 September 2008, 10:52 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YouTube - Animation showing the three Milankovitch Cycles
The climate is ever changing, warming and cooling due to natural orbital cycles. So when the current trend is slowing down or reversing, the government will then say that their taxes are working and so they'll come up with new taxes to support their next theory.
So what will happen if, lets say a gigantic asteroid is heading straight for us, big enough to wipe out the entire planet. How much tax do you think it will take to fend it off?
The climate is ever changing, warming and cooling due to natural orbital cycles. So when the current trend is slowing down or reversing, the government will then say that their taxes are working and so they'll come up with new taxes to support their next theory.
So what will happen if, lets say a gigantic asteroid is heading straight for us, big enough to wipe out the entire planet. How much tax do you think it will take to fend it off?
You are conflating 2 issues here, Climate Change, and Tax Policy and in true SN style coming up with a conspiracy theory.
Nobody has ever said that the climate doesn't go through cycles, no one! This isn't new news, I think you'd have to be scraping the bottom of the sceptics arguement to suggest otherwise.
It's bleedin obvious that these cyclical climate variations have been factored into the various studies that have been undertaken over the past 3 decades, as have sun spots, El Ninio(sp), volcanic activity etc etc, the problem is that none of these factors explain the sudden and rapid increase in global temps. This begs the question, what is causing the increase in global temps? Now of cause it doesn't have to be down to human activity, but the number of scientist saying it's not are in a small and reducing minority.
As for tax policy, well I have some sympathy with your views here, a lot of the taxation increases are piece meal and half arsed IMO and do little to actually tackle the problem. But if government is concerned about this issue then taxation is a key lever (if used correctly) to reduce demand upon the useage of fossil fuels.
I'm no screaming eco-nutter, but I don't think we can afford to wait for every single person to be convinced before we act, the consequences are potentially too dire.
Cheers
Martin
16 September 2008, 11:06 PM
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
16 September 2008, 11:59 PM
#109
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it was totally biased, as Jay m A said - lets cherry pick some "facts" that support the environMENTALists and cLIEmate change agenda, give a token mention to the "opposition" and then tear them apart with one-sided lies!!!
Still, at least the Telegraph has a more balanced view (thanks to the GOS for the pointer)
mb
17 September 2008, 09:45 AM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good read. There are some people who are still confused about how much of CH4 and CO2 are in the atmosphere. Currently there is about 1800ppb of CH4 and 365ppm of CO2. Overall, nothing!
17 September 2008, 09:52 AM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 September 2008, 10:34 AM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, how many times do you think you've mentioned the statistical anomaly of the last ten years, even though you consistently ignore that within that last ten year period we've had one, if not two of the hottest years on record?
I reckon it's about 15 times now, and i'm still wondering what futile reason you have for keep doing so. Are you waiting for a reply from one person in particular? If you are, can you tell us who it is so we can get you your response so you don't have to trot it out each and every fekkin thread about the climate? It's twice on this thread alone already.
I reckon it's about 15 times now, and i'm still wondering what futile reason you have for keep doing so. Are you waiting for a reply from one person in particular? If you are, can you tell us who it is so we can get you your response so you don't have to trot it out each and every fekkin thread about the climate? It's twice on this thread alone already.
17 September 2008, 10:47 AM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find amusing is that 6 months ago, skeptics were saying that records do not have enough data , in terms of length of time, to have any accuracy - even Ice core studies didn't go back far enough.
But, now that they see it as being in their favour, all of the sudden, the last 10 years is ample proof that Climate change isn't happening
But, now that they see it as being in their favour, all of the sudden, the last 10 years is ample proof that Climate change isn't happening
17 September 2008, 11:00 AM
#117
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
Les, how many times do you think you've mentioned the statistical anomaly of the last ten years, even though you consistently ignore that within that last ten year period we've had one, if not two of the hottest years on record?
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
What I find amusing is that 6 months ago, skeptics were saying that records do not have enough data , in terms of length of time, to have any accuracy - even Ice core studies didn't go back far enough.
But, now that they see it as being in their favour, all of the sudden, the last 10 years is ample proof that Climate change isn't happening
But, now that they see it as being in their favour, all of the sudden, the last 10 years is ample proof that Climate change isn't happening
Geezer
17 September 2008, 11:08 AM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT, climate IS changing, and all other things being equal, unless the Earth has suddenly entered some new volatile era all by itself, the only variable i see is the six billion people pumping crap out into the atmosphere that weren't doing it before. With the greatest respect, i'm honestly staggered that anyone halfway intelligent can deny that man is having some sort of impact.
17 September 2008, 11:11 AM
#119
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the programme last week, the satellite data used to calculate the 10 year fall in global temperature was wrong, due to the satellite's orbit reducing in height over the period. When it was recalculated to compensate for this - it showed the Earth had indeed been warming over those 10 years.
17 September 2008, 11:47 AM
#120
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT, climate IS changing, and all other things being equal, unless the Earth has suddenly entered some new volatile era all by itself, the only variable i see is the six billion people pumping crap out into the atmosphere that weren't doing it before. With the greatest respect, i'm honestly staggered that anyone halfway intelligent can deny that man is having some sort of impact.
I was reading something yesterday which said that a warm earth would benefit us, as if we manage to melt all the ice will actually create more usable land for humans to live, as Antarctica and Greenland will become habitable, and some deserts may well decrease as the reainfall will increase globally.
Sounds good to me!
Geezer