Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

Dear Wayne,

I've always suspected you of being a farter.

All Czechs are of your ilk , from my experience , at least the young ladies I met some years ago on a trip through middle Europe..

Only Greens don't fart.

Constipation rules in their tiny dry world of ignored kak.

Happy Christmas mate.

gg

LOL

I believe it is referred to as "passing wind" here in Cheltenham, it's those folks in Gloucester who fart.

..and Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[rederob]

Has the President of the Czech Republic also been conned, or is it like he says and it's the likes of you that have been conned?

Considering your utterly dogmatic approach, indicating indoctrination, perhaps even brainwashing, I think it likely the latter.

Quoting from others and not supporting your or their cases is hardly the making of a reasoned debate.
On which part of the science did the President provide a rebuttal to climate change?

 

[wayneL]

Quoting from others and not supporting your or their cases is hardly the making of a reasoned debate.
On which part of the science did the President provide a rebuttal to climate change?

Mate, we are all quoting from others, unless doing the science ourselves. I don't think any ASFers are doing that. Think of another angle that won't leave you hoist by your own petard.

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too.

 

[Knobby22]

Interesting article from New Scientist. Maybe we are doing good??


Humans may have prevented super ice age
18:00 12 November 2008 by Michael Le Page


Our impact on Earth's climate might be even more profound than we realise. Before we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-permanent ice age, two researchers have proposed.

Had we not radically altered the atmosphere, say Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and William Hyde of the University of Toronto in Canada, the current cycle of ice ages and interglacials would have given way in the not-too-distant future to an ice age lasting millions of years.

"It's not proven but it's more than just an interesting idea," says Crowley.

For much of the 500 million years or so since complex life evolved, Earth's climate has been much hotter than it is now, with no ice at the poles. During the last of these "hothouse Earth" phases, from around 100 to 50 million years ago, the Antarctic was covered by lush forests and shallow seas submerged vast areas of America, Europe and Africa.

Oscillating wildly
Since that time, though, CO2 levels have slowly fallen, possibly due to the rise of the Himalayas. As a result Earth has gradually cooled, with permanent ice sheets starting to form in Antarctica around 30 million years ago and later in the Arctic.

Then, 2.5 million years ago, the climate entered a curious new phase: it started oscillating wildly, see-sawing between interglacial periods with conditions similar to today's and ice ages during which the amount of permanent ice in the northern hemisphere expanded hugely.

At the peaks of these transient ice ages, much of northern Europe, northern Asia and North America were covered in ice sheets up to 4 kilometres thick, and sea levels were 120 metres lower than today.

From a "deep time" perspective, this ice age-interglacial cycle may be just another brief transitional phase. It has been becoming ever more variable, Crowley says.

Bigger swings
When the cycle began, the climate went from ice age to interglacial and back roughly every 41,000 years. More recently, it has been happening every 100,000 years.

The temperature swings have also become greater: the interglacials have been no warmer but the ice ages have become much colder. So the overall cooling trend was continuing - until the arrival of the Anthropocene, the period in which humans have started to have a major affect on Earth's climate and ecosystems.

According to a simple climate model developed by Crowley and Hyde, this increasing variability was a sign that the climate was about to flip into a new stable state - a semi-permanent ice age. This ice age might well have lasted for tens of millions of years or more, Crowley says.

In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can be placed on the results of single runs out of many.

Hello snowball
The idea of the world becoming locked in an ice age is certainly plausible, says James Zachos of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who studies past climate. It's not that rare for the climate to switch from one state into another, he says.

And there were extensive and long-lived ice ages during the Carboniferous period, around 300 million years, points out climate modeller Andy Ridgwell of the University of Bristol, UK.

Further back, around 700 million years ago, there was an even colder period known as "Snowball Earth", when the planet froze over nearly completely.

However, Crowley and Hyde are going to have to do a lot more work to convince their peers. Because of the vast lengths of time involved, they used a very basic model to simplify calculations. "It is not as complex as everyone wants it to be, but you can run it for a very long time," says Crowley.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Maybe we are doing good??

From an eternal viewpoint the (all things) evolutionary process is perfect.
From observation it `seems` we are on a path to self destruction but THAT is the evolutionary path for imbalance.

- feeling philosophical on the 24th Dec.

 

[Julia]

Quoting from others and not supporting your or their cases is hardly the making of a reasoned debate.

There are ample links via google, and it was discussed earlier in this thread.
But a quick demonstration.
Lord Monckton: "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" (2008) has a section on forcing that bypasses the accepted physics and instead focuses on temperature variations and the effects of feedback. He goes on to suggest that models need to use low value feedback parameters lest they become unstable, Yet his conservative conclusuions are derived from the highest value feedback parameters which he earlier argued against.

Rederob: why is it so difficult for you to simply provide your own analysis as I requested?

You are doing just as you have suggested is inappropriate. I frankly couldn't care less what any Lord Monckton says.

I've simply asked you for your own definition of what constitutes a "junk scientist" as opposed to a "valid scientist".

You know so much, surely this can't be too hard an ask for you?

 

[rederob]

You know so much, surely this can't be too hard an ask for you?

Please don't bother me with what you already know.
Open a thread on junk science and see who you can trap.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Please don't bother me with what you already know.
Open a thread on junk science and see who you can trap.

Rederob , when I was a lad I won a prize to a science fair on atomic energy.

It was the great hope for the future.

The warmeners seem more political than even that fair was.

As sixteen year olds we saw through it all.

You guys are like lemmings.

You can't see the other point of view.

gg

 

[Smurf1976]

1/ Determine conclusion that will get funding.

2/ Design research to support conclusion.

3/ Avoid at all costs, data that contradicts conclusion.

4/ Publish paper with aim of getting further funding.

5/ NEVER, go against the prevailing thought process

6/ Rinse and repeat

That is exactly how consultants engaged by management work. Tell them what to find - the consultant's job is simply to find some data that supports the decision already made.

If you are being funded to research climate change then, unless you want to put yourself out of business, you can't really come back and say there's no such thing as climate change. Nobody's going to fund something that doesn't exist.

 

[Julia]

Please don't bother me with what you already know.
Open a thread on junk science and see who you can trap.

That's a completely irrelevant answer.
You were the one who started using the term "junk science/junk scientists".
I am simply asking you to define this.

 

[rederob]

Mate, we are all quoting from others, unless doing the science ourselves. I don't think any Askers are doing that. Think of another angle that won't leave you hoist by your own petard.

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too.

You are mistaken on two counts.
First, an understanding of the science does not imply you are actually "doing" the science.
Secondly you are "foist" on your own petard.

 

[wayneL]

You are mistaken on two counts.
First, an understanding of the science does not imply you are actually "doing" the science.
Secondly you are "foist" on your own petard.

This still leaves you "hoist" by your own petard.

 

[rederob]

That's a completely irrelevant answer.
You were the one who started using the term "junk science/junk scientists".
I am simply asking you to define this.

Do you have a problem opening a new thread to appease your concerns?
I gave an example of junk science and you gleaned nothing from it?
"Valid" science or whatever you wish to call it would have used the known principles of forcings, applied these to climate models, and determined a range of responses depending on the variables, the most important (and uncertain) of which is "feedback".
My response was contexted to this thread's theme.
Simply put, junk science is not science. It's a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves.
If you were paying attention you might have noticed that we are presently repeating what was experienced by the scientists who worked out the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the atmosphere. The CO2 debate is deja vu.

 

[slim pickins]

It seems all very unfair, we are down to only one member of the church of climetology. The rest must be out whale watching, or tree hugging.

You see like you I thought tree hugging was just a phrase. In London a month ago while jogging I saw lady acually hugging a tree at champion park. She wrapper her arms around it and held it for 10 minutes at least. Frightening stuff.

Redrob, if you think that CO2 is a problem could you outline a solution?
A solution that does not destroy our industry and econmic system and lead to wedespread poverty. Please take the liberty of a detailed response. And do follow up by providing solutions to problems youbwill create.

Eg. If we all have 2 tonnes of batteries on our electric cars how will we deal with those toxic batteries.

Eg. If we all have solar pannels on homes what will we do to provide electricity to those for whom such tech will make electricity prohibitavely expensive. Don't forget even at todays prices a lot of the world can't afford it.

?????

 

[Wysiwyg]

It seems all very unfair, we are down to only one member of the church of climetology. The rest must be out whale watching, or tree hugging.

You see like you I thought tree hugging was just a phrase. In London a month ago while jogging I saw lady acually hugging a tree at champion park. She wrapper her arms around it and held it for 10 minutes at least. Frightening stuff.

It seems you experienced a brief moment of someone elses life whilst oblivious to your own.Selflessness ... a rare trait indeed. from me and from him.

 

[wayneL]

Part A - "Valid" science or whatever you wish to call it would have used the known principles of forcings, applied these to climate models, and determined a range of responses depending on the variables, the most important (and uncertain) of which is "feedback".


Part B - Simply put, junk science is not science. It's a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves.

Red,

I'm confused.

Part B of your argument could, indeed does, completely destroy your argument in Part A.

Climate modeling with the end in mind (a la the IPCC model) has indeed been a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves. AKA junk science.

Worse is the religious zeal the perpetrators of this hoax have somehow managed to implant in it's acolytes, without furnishing them with any real solutions apart from some sort of Orwellian dystopia where the loyal followers would presumably be rewarded with Stasi-like positions of authority over the plebeians and heretics.

Clearly you believe you have a grasp of the science; but your statement as quoted clearly shows that you don't, and have difficulty grasping the difference between modeling and real world observation.

The unequivocal fact is that, real world observation is insolently at odds with the IPCC model, and has smacked DVD copies of "An Inconvenient Truth" into the isle next to "Mars Attacks", where it aways belonged.

I model outcomes for a living, it's what I do. But I have been around models long enough to know that they are not reliable and notoriously inefficient at prediction of outcomes in chaotic systems. Despite many times more iterations at our fingertips that climate scientists will ever have available, the model is BS and everybody knows it. Hence anomalies such as skew.

In the end, that's all the IPCC has, a model and a hypothesis; one that in the real world has utterly failed to measure up.

That's why the politics are now involved and thats why climate pessimists must resort to petulant ad hominem attacks, perpetual surlyness and Goebbelesque propaganda.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Do you have a problem opening a new thread to appease your concerns?

Avoidance of the issue.

"Valid" science or whatever you wish to call it would have used the known principles of forcings, applied these to climate models, and determined a range of responses depending on the variables, the most important (and uncertain) of which is "feedback".

Rederob are you saying this is real science that you are following to back up your opinions and facts?

Simply put, junk science is not science. It's a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves.

So your view of junk science would be that of the charlatan or the fraudster if we were to somehow try to represent it with another concept, word, thing, whatever?

If you were paying attention you might have noticed that we are presently repeating what was experienced by the scientists who worked out the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the atmosphere. The CO2 debate is deja vu.

I would like to see some info on that.

Just for the sea ice issue:
http://www.nsidc.org/seaice/intro.html

Even though sea ice occurs primarily in the polar regions, it influences our global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface, so much of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As a result, areas covered by sea ice don't absorb much solar energy, so temperatures in the polar regions remain relatively cool. If gradually warming temperatures melt sea ice over time, fewer bright surfaces are available to reflect sunlight back into space, more solar energy is absorbed at the surface, and temperatures rise further.

Now that increase in sea ice must be a good thing. But I wouldn't dare to hint that it is more imortant than land ice that ripped a hole in the Titanic. Perhaps you could help here.

 

[rederob]

Red,
I'm confused.

I can see that you have been for some time on this topic.
When you can work out the key difference between the models you personally are familiar with, and climate models, come back for some debate.
By the way, climate models are not "chaotic". They attempt to replicate known outcomes over decades, the results of which vary minutely year on year.

 

[rederob]

Redrew are you saying this is real science that you are following to back up your opinions and facts?

Snake
I can see you are trying hard to keep up.
Here's a crash course on the "science":
http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_up...al_carbon_cycle/pk_cc_02_ghgforce_handout.pdf

 

[rederob]

I would like to see some info on that.

A good summary: http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

You will soon see there is nothing new in this thread.
A principal difference with climate change is that man's output of greenhouse gases is ubiquitous. Crudely, every fart counts, as Garpal is only too aware.