Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
kennas said:
So, opinion on Flannery?

Hair brained nutter?

Is his stuff really bunk in your opinion? Where does he lose it?
Click to expand...

When he thought filling the upper atmosphere with so2 was a good idea.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2020hindsight View Post
hang on a sec wayne
you publish two results from two consecutive years
and you pretend that the scientifically honest opinion is that the trend is getting cooler (OR DO YOU - WHO KNOWS ?)

and then you criticise IPCC
We can only deal with facts. But when doing so, we must consider ALL facts, not just those that suit your religious belief such as the "Young Earth Creationesque" IPCC.

Much to the alarm of the alarmists, when ALL data is considered, there is evidence that the recent warming trend in some parts of the earth has halted and may be reversing, as is normal with the cyclical nature of Earth's climate.

A sure way to confuse oneself, is to believe the propaganda of a totally fraudulent organization such as the IPCC and Al Bore and be faced with:

1/ the reality in several years time that there is no or very little co2 warming.

2/ the disgracefully hypocritical behaviour of their High Priests, Al Bore and members of the IPCC committee.

3/ The monumental hypocrisy of their own actions.

4/ The humiliation of having supported lunatic hair brained and dangerous nutters like Tim Flannery.

5/ The depression of having prostrated themselves on the political CC alter and support of their liberty sapping ulterior agenda.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the depth of invective heaped on scientists and others who view global warming as a critical disaster in the making. Not much analysis on the evidence just a monumental spray on the people.

This takes us back to the analysis George Monbiot reported a couple of years. This identified that the vast majority of public criticism against the possibility GW was real was run by fossil fuel company lobbyists whose cleverest skills are promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt - not to mention an excellent line in scorn and ridicule.

Consider Al Gore. He had been banging on about GW for many years but with relatively little success. I suppose because he was a politician he was probably seen as suspect anyway.

So after he loses the 2000 election he trots off and becomes a one man presenter on the science behind global warming and the consequences we face if we don't take urgent action. He did this hundreds of times until a friend with a camera (so to speak) said "Bloody hell. This presentation is really good, and really important. Lets turn it into a doco and get millions of people to see it and understand what is happening."

Lets remember what he has done. He took the years of research and evidence that scientists had done, distilled the essence of the information and put it together in an understandable, humourous and engaging way.

Boring? Hardly. Wrong or misleading? Only if your main mission in life is creating fear, uncertainty or doubt. So of course since An Inconvenient Truth he has been ridiculed (Al Bore) or scorned.

What about Tim Flannery? Up until a few years ago he was a very capable palaeontologist. He them decided, as a scientist, to scrutinise the work of climate scientists on global warming. The Weather Makers reflects his initial understanding of the history of changing climate on life on earth along with the realisation that mankind is in the process of the creating most rapid and dangerous climate change in history.

Wayne decides that Tim is nutter because he proposes we spray SO2 into the atmosphere to slow global warming. Tim would be the first person to agree this was an extreme measure and certain to cause a range of real problems. But then Tim's overriding concerns are :-

1) The solutions we should have started 20 years ago - de -carbonisation of the economy, developing non polluting fuels, restoration of forests ect have all been sabotaged.

2) The problem is getting worse far more quickly than scientists believed even 5 years ago

3) If we don't actually tackle global warming with an almighty hit we face the likelihood of runaway global warming that will cook the earth to the point of killing almost all life.

The evidence of points 2 and 3 are best illustrated with the rapid decline in Arctic Sea Ice. Even 10 years the GW models suggested that the arctic sea ice would be last for at least 100 years. But even that rate of decline was quick historically speaking.

But the pace of GW has accelerated so quickly in the past few years scientists are suggesting the arctic could be ice free in the summer by 2030.

The problem is that when the oceans are ice free in the northern summer the heat of the sun pours unchecked into the ocean adding enormously to the heat load in the oceans. The then warmer oceans are undermining the glaciers holding up the Green Land ice caps .


The collapse of the Greenland ice caps effectively raise the sea levels by 7 metres. Join the dots.

This quickening of GW is a postive feedback loop. There are a dozen other positive feedback loops identified as happening around the world. Can you appreciate why climate scientists are scared xxxxless?

Cheers

_________________________________________________________


How Bad is Bad
A terrifying leap in average global temperatures of 6.4C *with higher figures nearer the poles *could occur over the next century, according to the most authoritative report yet on global warming. The rise, which would make agriculture, even life, almost impossible over much of the Earth, was the worst-case scenario envisaged by hundreds of scientists on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Click to expand...

For the rest of the story and links to feedback loop research check out

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/treder20081120/



Up to date science research on Climate Change from Science Daily
Can we believe that all these scientists are deceiving themselves and everyone else ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0902-our_changing_climate.htm
 
:sleeping:

Going around in circles here again. Anyway, I've had my fun in this thread. I'm going to go and play in the early snowfalls and leave you guys to your egregious and misguided fretting.

Perhaps we'll cross swords over trading.

Ciao

:band
 
Cheers Wayne,

I can appreciate your frustration.

Really, really wish you were right and that we had little to be concerned about.
 
Concern about the accelerating rate of ice melt in Arctic peaked this year when there was an extraordinarily big jump in the ice free ocean. This has caused the scientists in this field to reassess their predictions.

As I mentioned earlier the Arctic will warm much more quickly than the rest of the world because the increasing loss of summer sea ice will enable far more of the summer suns 24 hr a day energy to be absorbed by the oceans.

http://oilsandstruth.org/ice-free-arctic-could-be-here-23-years-area-2x-size-england-lost-last-week

The website below has some excellent extra information.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/...-total-loss-possible-by-2030-scientists-warn/
 
Someone else's brief summary on the rapidly changing scenarios for melting of Arctic sea ice and collapse of Greenland ice cap.


Melt your Hearts outt

A
Edmundsen did traverse the Northwest Passage in 1905. Trouble with comparison to today is that he started in 1903.

Jim Hansen wrote a recent article on Scientific Reticence stacks.iop.org/ERL/2/024002 in which he describes how scientists don't do a good job of reflecting the cumulative information because it requires individuals to step outside their personal field of expertise. Five years ago a report noted that Greenland's melt rate indicated a complete loss of ice cover in a thousand years. If you look at the globe, Greenland is unique at its latitude for having an ice cap, and is regarded as a self-perpetuating relic of the last ice age. About three years ago the melt rate was shown to have doubled as indicated by increased runoff from inland waterways, and extreme surface melting. Earlier this year, the rate was again doubled, due to measurements of melting of ice around the shores and the rate of exposed rock warming and melting surrounding ice. These reports are not being reconciled with each other, but the suggestion is that in five years we have gone from a thousand years to 250 years for a 20 foot sea level rise.

Nor do we reconcile the fact that if Greenland melts, the WAIS probably won't be unaffected. I don't like to sound like an extremist, but I don't like to see good information neglected either. We are seeing Arctic ice melt because over 20 times as much thermal warming has entered the surface waters of the ocean as has entered the atmosphere. This was not adequately considered in climate modelling until a couple of years ago, and is probably only now being examined in any detail. The Arctic melt won't raise sea level much, but it will accelerate warming due to albedo change. It will affect thermal expansion of the ocean. Someone will tell us how much, soon, and that estimate will be dated, soon, because there will be supplementary factors the first estimate will forget to consider.

Climate change is like that. Yeah, it is.
Click to expand...
 
Oops here I go again...

Spooly 74 your request for some clearer back up for my assertion that the Arctic could be ice free by 2030 brought some thought provoking information.

One of the claims made by people who disagree that GW is actually happening is that scientists are following the money for GW grants and that they have become very alarmist because this will gain them more funds. (I believe that is the argument).

In the real world however, anyone who has been involved in scientific research would know only too well the pressure to be conservative in your conclusions. The big statements too often end up getting you nailed to the floor.

Anyway James Hansen hit the nail on the head with the following paper published in the New Scientist. I have only attached the first sections. The remainder of the article outlines why he is concerned about a rapid break up of the Greenland ice cap.

Huge sea level rises are coming - unless we act now

* 25 July 2007 by James Hansen


James Hansen heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. A physicist and astronomer by training, he began his career studying the clouds on Venus. Since the late 1970s he has been studying and modelling the human impact on Earth's climate, and has published more than 100 papers. He entered the public spotlight in the 1980s with his outspoken testimony to congressional committees on climate change. Last year he made headlines when he spoke out against attempts by the US administration to gag climate scientists.

I find it almost inconceivable that "business as usual" climate change will not result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century. Am I the only scientist who thinks so?

Last year I testified in a case brought by car manufacturers to challenge California's new laws on vehicle emissions. Under questioning from the lawyer, I conceded that I was not a glaciologist. The lawyer then asked me to identify glaciologists who agreed publicly with my assertion that sea level is likely to rise more than a metre this century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow: "Name one!"

I could not, at that moment. I was dismayed, because in conversations and email exchanges with relevant scientists I sensed a deep concern about the stability of ice sheets in the face of "business as usual" global warming scenarios, which assume that emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase. Why might scientists be reticent to express concerns about something so important?

John Mercer effect

I suspect it is because of what I call the "John Mercer effect". In 1978, when global warming was beginning to get attention from government agencies, Mercer suggested that global warming could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Although it was not obvious who was right on the science, I noticed that researchers who suggested that his paper was alarmist were regarded as more authoritative.

It seems to me that scientists downplaying the dangers of climate change fare better when it comes to getting funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for the relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out.

I can vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper in 1981 that described the likely effects of fossil fuel use, the US Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund my group's research, specifically criticising aspects of that paper.

I believe there is pressure on scientists to be conservative. Caveats are essential to science. They are born in scepticism, and scepticism is at the heart of the scientific method and discovery. However, in a case such as ice sheet instability and sea level rise, excessive caution also holds dangers. "Scientific reticence" can hinder communication with the public about the dangers of global warming. We may rue reticence if it means no action is taken until it is too late to prevent future disasters.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article...evel-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html
 
basilio said:
... Anyway James Hansen hit the nail on the head with the following paper published in the New Scientist. I have only attached the first sections. The remainder of the article outlines why he is concerned about a rapid break up of the Greenland ice cap.
Click to expand...
thanks bas ...
This from 2 years ago - Hansen complaining that the White House censored his information to the public. :rolleyes:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jc4OzpgTOhk
embedded:-
James Hansen on White House censoring of Global Warming

Chief NASA scientist is restricted from telling public about global warming by Bush Administration.
Click to expand...
 
To give you an idea of the nonsense that Andrew Bolt puts out, he said on Insiders the other day that "Climate Change stopped ten years ago (1998)".

(there's a video attached to this if you're real keen :-
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s2427253.htm )

So what does the graph of Global Temp look like? lol . O boy - there was a spike in 1998! - so he figures the trend since then is down :confused:

The man is a conman, or a professional statistician lol - simple as that.

what was that one ?
A mathematician, an applied mathematician, and a statistician all apply for the same job. At the interview, they are asked the question, what is 1+1.

The mathematician replies, "I can prove that it exists but not that it is unique."

The applied mathematician, after some thought, replies, "The answer is approximately 1.99, with an error in the region of 0.01."

The statistician steps outside the room, mulls it over for several minutes, and eventually returns in desperation and inquires, "So what do you want it to be?"
Click to expand...

The first graph below ends in 2004. (the others in 2007 - origin NASA)
 

Attachments

  • GW graph 1998.jpg
    GW graph 1998.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 72
  • TEMP TO 2007.jpg
    TEMP TO 2007.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 80
  • TEMP TO 2007a.JPG
    TEMP TO 2007a.JPG
    34.8 KB · Views: 74
basilio said:
Really, really wish you were right and that we had little to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

I was young and something once before.... I wanted to make a difference. I sent letters to the presidents of the country my parents had immigrated to. I met Gerald Ford. I demonstrated.

My Great Grandkids are stuffed.
 
:confused: :rolleyes:

Melting ice may slow global warming
Scientists discover that minerals found in collapsing ice sheets could feed plankton and cut C02 emissions

Collapsing antarctic ice sheets, which have become potent symbols of global warming, may actually turn out to help in the battle against climate change and soaring carbon emissions.

Professor Rob Raiswell, a geologist at the University of Leeds, says that as the sheets break off the ice covering the continent, floating icebergs are produced that gouge minerals from the bedrock as they make their way to the sea. Raiswell believes that the accumulated frozen mud could breathe life into the icy waters around Antarctica, triggering a large, natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/07/melting-icebergs-slow-global-warming
 
You blokes who don't believe / accept the scientific evidence - nor want to take into account the consequences of getting it wrong - might enjoy this one ...

A statistics major was completely hung over the day of his final exam. It was a true/false test, so he decided to flip a coin for the answers. The professor watched the student the entire two hours as he was flipping the coin...writing an answer...flipping the coin...writing an answer. At the end of the two hours, everyone else had left except for that one student. The professor walked up to his desk and interrupted the student.

"Listen, I see you didn't study for this test; you didn't even open the exam. If you're just flipping a coin for answers, what's taking you so long?"

The student (still flipping the coin) said, "Shhh! I'm checking my answers!"
Click to expand...
 
This website might help ...

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/068.htm

... climate indicators, including tree rings, corals, ice cores, and laminated lake/ocean sediments, can be used to provide detailed information on annual or near-annual climate variations back in time.

Certain coarser resolution proxy information (from e.g., boreholes, glacial moraines, and non-laminated ocean sediment records) can usefully supplement this high-resolution information. Important recent advances in the development and interpretation of proxy climate indicators are described below.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top