- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
it's because they are scientists trying their best to understand and model the parameters and see if they can understand the trends - and predict tomorrow's weather (so you can better plan a fishing trip) , next week's (so you can better plan a trip), next year's (so you can better plan a crop), and next century's (so you can check whether indeed we are carrying on in a sustainable way - and try to avoid dropping the grandkids in a mess that they won't thank us for)Thanks derty,
It makes me wonder though that with so many variable changes, weather, tectonics etc, how the warmeners with their graphs and predictions can be so sure about the future.
I'm not.
Its a chaotic system our universe.
gg
Andrew Bolt abused my research: climate scientist
5 Oct 08
In his column (published in the Herald Sun and the Brisbane Sunday Mail in September), Bolt quoted the findings of Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego:
Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air. In fact, as the University of California's Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?
Severinghaus told Crikey that he doesn’t make a habit of Googling his own research, but Bolt appeared on his radar when a librarian in Brisbane wrote to him asking if “I’d really meant what Bolt said I meant”.
He didn’t. “Many, many other studies have found that carbon dioxide causes the earth to warm. This is not controversial, and to continue to deny it is akin to denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer,” Severinghaus told Crikey. “The evidence for a human-caused warming of the globe is overwhelming. The scientific debate is over, and what we are seeing now is an attempt to mislead the public.”
Severinghaus explained how Bolt had been slippery with the facts, "...Bolt omitted the key piece of information that the warmings took 5,000 years, thus misleading the reader into thinking that carbon dioxide was not warming at the same time as temperature and thus cannot have caused the warming...”
Severinghaus wrote a letter to the editor of the Sunday Mail, but it was never published. He posted a comment on Bolt’s blog but told Crikey “...effectively I have not been able to make much if any response”.
“At the very least I would like it to go on record that Bolt's abuse of my science is not done with my approval,” says Severinghaus.
Nasa set to launch 'CO2 hunter'
The US space agency is set to launch a satellite that can map in detail where carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere.
Nasa's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) will pinpoint the key locations on the Earth's surface where CO2 is being emitted and absorbed.
CO2 from human activities is thought to be driving climate changes, but important facts about its movement through the atmosphere remain elusive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7769619.stm
refer my reply to LCL999 , post #493.
Indeed it does. But if it's the social drinker staying totally sober so that the loud mouth alcoholic can guzzle massive amounts then I see a problem there. In practice, that's exactly what seems to be happening so far.
refer my reply to LCL999 , post #493.
there's more than one factor. cmon ! - sheesh
Child.they are miles ahead of you, spooly.
Sure it will be interesting...It was simply a possibility to explain the missing heat we are not seeing in the IPCC models. What are your thought on this?
I agree there is more than one factor, when/where did I say otherwise?
It will be interesting to see what happens with the PDO index and temp in the future. No?
That would be a good idea.This thread has become more about personalities than CC or weather.
Let's cut the ad hominem from now on, OK.
That would be a good idea.
It would also be useful if the anti climate change brigade could put up a contrary case.
If you are not going to "believe" that the climate is warming, present some "evidence" that refutes it.
Garpal's contributions to a thread he started pander to the head in the sand brigade, or those that can feign ignorance of the facts as a valid excuse for whatever they prefer.
Yours, Wayne, are often equally disconcerting; tarring those with a view shared by Gore as unworthy, then invoking the "straw man" ploy against your critics. Jump off your bandwagon and ask yourself what the consequence of unprecedented planetary pollution will be within a generation. I know that you know and are acting to redress it. But you need to convince several billion people that oblivion is around the corner unless we all take some personal responsibility and act now.
Smurf's point about CO2 emissions misses two vital points. First, without any "agreed" cap on emissions it is probable that CO2 levels will simply continue to increase: Someone needs to start with something that actually constitutes a reduction, no matter how little. Secondly, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas and emissions are set to substantially increase as frozen lands continue to open up and release methane that has been trapped since the last ice age.
I haven't missed anything there since my point isn't about reducing CO2 emissions.Smurf's point about CO2 emissions misses two vital points. First, without any "agreed" cap on emissions it is probable that CO2 levels will simply continue to increase: Someone needs to start with something that actually constitutes a reduction, no matter how little. Secondly, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas and emissions are set to substantially increase as frozen lands continue to open up and release methane that has been trapped since the last ice age.
So I do think that there's a responsibility to be giving consumers accurate information about the impact of the decisions they make rather than doing whatever it takes to grab their money.
I'm no expert on marketing but I'd assume there's at least some proof that it works - otherwise businesses wouldn't keep spending so much on it.I dont' think you can tell consumers anything. They will do what they think is best for thier pocket.
Your early forays into this thread set your theme: Attack the messengers.Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.
Both arbitrary input sensitive.
Both rely on public funding.
Both dominated by corrupt/self interested academics.
Both complete rubbish.
I'll keep out of the personal arguments but I do have a serious scientific question about this.More importantly, surface and lower tropospheric temperatures are trending sharply higher, consistent with the theory of global warming.
The temperature as we are measuring it has trended up, that's a fact.I don't discount the possibility that AGW isn't now happening, and that it's just weather.
The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle as it is with all these issues and most others. Adding lots of CO2 will probably impact something in some way, but the worst case scenarios are unlikely to be what actually happens.
We need to act fast. Hidden in the fine print of Prime Minister Rudd's woefully inadequate 5% climate target announcement on Monday was over $130 million for an 'information campaign' to sell us his sparse climate package. Doesn't it remind you of the kind of climate policy John Howard would have announced?
So we're planning to make waves this Summer by landing the first blow during the Boxing Day cricket Test.
The Boxing Day Test is the biggest TV event of the season, and our team has been working day and night to get our own climate ad ready for it. Watch it now and help us raise the urgent resources we need to get our ad on the air as families around the nation tune in:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/SpotTheDifference
Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century
ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.
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?