wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,273
When he thought filling the upper atmosphere with so2 was a good idea.
So, opinion on Flannery?
Hair brained nutter?
Is his stuff really bunk in your opinion? Where does he lose it?
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
thanks bas ...... 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.
Chief NASA scientist is restricted from telling public about global warming by Bush Administration.
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?"
Really, really wish you were right and that we had little to be concerned about.
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.
There are liars, outliers, and out-and-out liars.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 are liars, outliers, and out-and-out liars.
trouble is gg,And 2020 there are the naive, the foolish, the believers, the godbotherers, and sheep.
Warmeners choose your group.
:sheep:
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!"
... 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?