Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sneak'n]

Sneak'n just because I know your secret identity, I will humour you for one last time. Go and do your own research and stop antagonising the other ASFers in here by demanding they must prove the science whilst you sit back and criticise them both personally and in your case illogically when they do give you the facts you so desperately require to feed your fire. DFTT everybody. Google it if you don't know the meaning.

It's as simple as putting up or shutting up, trainspotter.

If you can't substantiate your claims here, expect me to show you up as just another who takes snippets from here and there that prove nothing from a global perspective.

To quote weather events, and then make claims about institutes that show the 30s to be hotter than today, suggests to me denial of well established warming trends in both hemispheres.

As you have not provided any "facts" to substantiate your claims, I really have nothing more to discuss.

 

[brty]

Sneak'n,

Considering this is the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread, the true believers (in climate change) are the ones that need to provide any 'proof'.

Can you find one piece of unadjusted data, just one piece, that shows man made climate change. Everything that any of us comes across, is 'adjusted'. You keep bringing up figures that have been 'adjusted', yet nothing is further from the truth than 'adjusted' statistics, given that you can almost show anything you want with unadjusted statistics.

brty

 

[sneak'n]

Sneak'n,

Considering this is the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread, the true believers (in climate change) are the ones that need to provide any 'proof'.

Can you find one piece of unadjusted data, just one piece, that shows man made climate change. Everything that any of us comes across, is 'adjusted'. You keep bringing up figures that have been 'adjusted', yet nothing is further from the truth than 'adjusted' statistics, given that you can almost show anything you want with unadjusted statistics.

brty

How wrong!

The thread is based on Lindzen's claim that the warming camp is making outlandish claims about the impact of human induced global warming.

On the other hand, those denying global warming are unable to provide any evidence that there is no trend - except for brief periods - in the past century.

Unadjusted temperature data you can look at is found at our own Bureau of Meteorology site, based on instrumental measurements of surface temperature . You can find similar data for the UK and for the USA.

In relation to sea ice extent you can look at actual pictures and video streams that show the trend for the Arctic is decreasing significantly.

Other data you could look at that is not adjusted relates to snowmelt onset. These data are variously available, usually based on specific research projects, and show that for the northern hemisphere melts are starting earlier and earlier.

Another dataset you could use relates to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning. These data may differ depending on which set you choose, but as there was very little use of fossil fuels prior to the Industrial Revolution, the human contribution becomes obvious.

Adjusted datasets are used significantly because technological improvements occur that allow us to account for past anomalies in a consistent manner. For example, lower atmosphere temperature measurements by satellite since 1979 cannot compare for the entire period as many satellites have been used and their respective measurement yardsticks have all been slightly different.

 

[Calliope]

Rederob (aka sneak'n). Even if your climate hysteria has some foundation, how could you possibly delude yourself that we can do anything about it. Even Rudd has now sidelined "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time", as election winning material. That rhetoric has been diverted to Health.

If I were you I would eat, drink and be merry, while waiting for the coming cataclysm. You cannot save the world and are wasting your time trying to ram sense into the heretics on this forum.

 

[Smurf1976]

Rederob (aka sneak'n). Even if your climate hysteria has some foundation, how could you possibly delude yourself that we can do anything about it. Even Rudd has now sidelined "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time", as election winning material. That rhetoric has been diverted to Health.

If I were you I would eat, drink and be merry, while waiting for the coming cataclysm. You cannot save the world and are wasting your time trying to ram sense into the heretics on this forum.

Reality is that the world continues to burn fossil fuels as fast as they can be extracted from the ground and there is no sign of any change to that situation, indeed it has accelerated in recent times.

Australia could cut its emissions to zero tomorrow and global fossil fuel use would continue to rise. That's the reality of the situation. Constant growth on a finite planet will eventually consume all accessible resources both fossil fuel and other.

 

[drsmith]

Constant growth on a finite planet will eventually consume all accessible resources both fossil fuel and other.

That's the time we have to develop the technologies to fuel our growth beyond this finite planet.

 

[explod]

Reality is that the world continues to burn fossil fuels as fast as they can be extracted from the ground and there is no sign of any change to that situation, indeed it has accelerated in recent times.

Australia could cut its emissions to zero tomorrow and global fossil fuel use would continue to rise. That's the reality of the situation. Constant growth on a finite planet will eventually consume all accessible resources both fossil fuel and other.

Yep, it is why I stopped posting on this topic. Dog eat dog. It is every person/thing for itself. And that of course is natural selection.

 

[trainspotter]

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.

University of Alabama at Huntsville has the data evidencing the drop over a ten year period. Hardly the hottest decade on record? Satellite temperature data (UAH and RSS) is more reliable because it covers the entire earth - with the exception of small regions near the north and south poles. They use the same methodology from year to year, and the two sources tend to agree fairly closely. The downside of satellite data is that it only goes back to 1978.

Now for the science of the land based readings: LONDON: The British Meteorological Office has been forced to correct its global temperature records after a science blogger discovered that Australian weather data had been misused or discarded.

The mistakes were discovered by Dr John Graham-Cumming when the temperature records were made public by the office in December in the wake of the East Anglia University email scandal.

Dr Graham-Cumming, a London mathematician and computer programmer who describes himself as a ''computer geek'', found that data from seven weather stations in Australia had been accidentally discarded while another 112 Australian stations - or 28 per cent of the Oceania total - had not been fully included in the calculations.

''What appears to have happened is that the Met Office calculated the averages and then got more data from Oceania and then failed to update the averages,'' Dr Graham-Cumming said.

''The site with the greatest error was Napier Nelson Park, in New Zealand, where the average temperature was off by more than 1 degree. That's a lot given that the total warming seen since the 1970s is less than 1 degree and for this location the Met Office had it more than 1 degree hotter than it is. Had the error I'd found been more widespread, it could have had a real effect on the overall picture.''

He said that when the office checked his findings it discovered similar problems with US weather data, with 121 stations assigned to the wrong location or overwritten in the calculations.

Bwaaahahahahahhahaha aahaha aha

 

[IFocus]

That's the time we have to develop the technologies to fuel our growth beyond this finite planet.

Yep, it is why I stopped posting on this topic. Dog eat dog. It is every person/thing for itself. And that of course is natural selection.

Agree guys with population growth and accelerating growth in demolition of finite natural resources the whole argument seems point less.

 

[sneak'n]

Cherrypicking:
Trainspotter's last table shows lower atmospheric temperature records (not surface measurements) from 1990 to present. 1998 is a well known outlier year due to the strongest El Niño on record.

Temperature records:
Many and various; all subject to some level of error.
What they don't show-> evidence of a cooling trend on a long term basis.

Other factors to ponder:
Climate science is complex, so there may be reasons that explain something that seems anomalous. For example, is it possible that solar irradiance is affecting the UAH atmospheric temperature records?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Where is the volume on the chart.

It looks like a trading range that may break to the downside but I'd wait for confirmation.

gg

 

[trainspotter]

The plush new headquarters of the Department of Climate Change in Canberra / The Daily Telegraph Source:

Rent for new offices $8m - TAXPAYERS will pay $90 million a year to keep 408 public servants employed in the Federal Climate Change Department - despite most of them now having nothing to do until 2013. More than 60 of them are classified as senior executive staff on salaries between $168,000 and $298,000 a year. Their salary bill alone will cost an estimated $12 million every year.

A further $8 million will also be paid in rent for plush offices at Canberra 's Constitution Place until 2012, where it is believed 500 new computers will be delivered this week. Despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's decision on Tuesday to suspend the failed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least 2013, the department has ruled out plans to cut back staff.

A formal response by department secretary Martin Parkinson to a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday - the same day as the scheme's suspension - claimed the department would not offer redundancies. The formal response, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, said there were no plans for "the immediate future" of any scaling back of staff. According to official figures, the number of top-paid bureaucrats being paid up to $298,000 a year has almost doubled since January this year from 39 to 61. That was to gear up for establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, which will also now have no function. Since last year with climate change employees having risen from an initial 246 to 408.

Of the 61 senior agency officials, only nine have been inherited from the scrapped home insulation scheme. The majority, 38, were employed on the CPRS and a further 19 were employed on the renewable energy scheme which has also been axed. But none of the 408 staff within the department will be shed even though the department's key function, the CPRS, has been axed. Its own tender documents reveal a lease contract of $16 million for its offices which expires in 2012.

 

[Calliope]

Rudd is fighting a losing battle trying to convince the electorate that he is a dedicated warmist. To most people climate change now is just ho-hum.

But sceptics shouldn’t think they’ve slayed the climate beast for good.

In this week’s budget the government included a $30 million propaganda campaign to run print, radio, television and web-based campaigns to give confidence to voters that the dodgy science in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report was just an accident.

The problem for Rudd is clearly that most voters clearly don’t share his view or his passion on climate change anymore. And instead voters are reading the science of climate change with the same cynicism that they’re taking to Rudd’s outbursts.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/7.30-meltdown-shows-pm-is-hot-under-the-collar/

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

James Lovelock wrote a good article, in the Guardian that covers a few points that the hystericals would care not to talk about. Notably, crying wolf twice may not get action. Can KRudd state that it is the moral issue of our times again?

 

[Knobby22]

Good article in New Scientist.

It appears Europe is very sensitive to the Sun's radiance which has been dropping over the last 20 years. Europe will get colder while the rest of the world is getting warmer.

At least to the Sun's output starts increasing again.

 

[derty]

A well researched rebuttal of one of Lord Monckton's presentations (Oct 2009). I know there are a few Monckton fans on the site and others that have been impressed by his message. This presentation is well worth a watch.

I have seen quite a few critiques of Monckton and while they do deal with some of his claims, most seem to resort to ad hominem attacks about Monckton's claims to being a House of Lords member, Thatchers science advisor or his use of a logo very similar to that of the UK parliament in an effort to lend weight to their rebuttal. Some even poke fun at his bulgy eyes.

John Abraham is purely concerned with the data presented by Monckton. It is quite long (something to have open and running while doing something else) and imho quite damning. It would be interesting to see Monckton respond to Abraham's critique.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

 

[DB008]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8758000/8758352.stm

 

[Calliope]

I am finding it hard to resist climate hysteria. I read some bad news in the paper today... global warming may not kick in until 2200. I can't wait that long. I am sitting here with my teeth chattering.

The Sunshine Coast has seen very little sunshine in the last few weeks. Very little rain, just overcast skies and chilly winds.

Any political party that promises to speed up global warming would be a shoe in.

 

[Timmy]

Something for everyone in this!

British Panel Clears Scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1&ref=science

A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was "misleading."

And Global Surface Mean Temp Anomalies from NOAA have been updated for May,
from this source:
State of the Climate Global Analysis May 2010
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

Following chart from: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=glob&year=2010&month=5&ext=gif

Please refrain from throwing tomatoes.
:hide:

 

[trainspotter]

Then why is it so bloody COLD ??? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Technical officer at WA Climate Service, Michelle Dalpozzo, said that the bureau considered anything below 5C a cold night and Perth was experiencing its coldest winter on record.

“We’ve definitely set a record with 14 consecutive nights,” she said. “The last time it was this cold in Perth was in July 1997 for nine days.”