Climate Change

xakzen
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Climate Change

Post by xakzen »

VinceP1974 wrote:The ice core data shows a correlation alright.... that Air Temp Changes are followed, hundreds of years later, by changes to the CO2 level in the air. So it's the opposite relationship than the one the Alarmists suggested.
The charts that I've seen don't seem to be accurate to that scale so I couldn't visually ascertain which was following which, but I'm sure someone who had access to the complete original data series could answer whether that is true or not known due to the accuracy of the data.
VinceP1974 wrote:I think the effect of burning "large amounts" of carbon based fuel is well known. What needs more publicy {sic} is what is the true motivation of the people who seek to control it by foisting a fraud on society.
I'll be the first to agree with you here. I do think we need to be careful to stick to the facts when arguing against Man-Made Global Warming which is certainly not anywhere near an issue as it is made out to be so that we cannot be later accused of the same selective data fallacies of the Global Warming alarmists who I agree likely have alternative motives.

VinceP1974
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:41 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Climate Change

Post by VinceP1974 »

Ah finally some good rational news

From the UK, oddly enough:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 061162.ece
TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.

The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.

The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again. …

The rulings will be an embarrassment for Miliband, who has tried to portray his policies as firmly science-based. He had commissioned two posters, four press advertisements and a short film for television and cinema, which started appearing in October last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks.

They attracted 939 complaintsmore than the ASA received for any advertisement last year. The deluge posed problems for the ASA, which is not a scientific body, so it decided to compare the text of Miliband’s adverts with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Based on that comparison, it ruled that two of the DECC’s adverts had broken the advertising code on three counts: substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.

[...]

The ASA said: “All statements about future climate were based on modelled predictions, which the IPCC report itself stated still involved uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.” It added that both predictions should have been phrased more tentatively.
This is exactly why I say.. make the Alarmists prove thier case. They are claiming the mantle of science.. It is up to them posit a valid hypothesis.. which the Scientific Method says must include falsification.

The "Deniers" have been the ones who insist on true science.. that is the Scientific Method, be the methodology to establish the facts about Global Warming.. not incomplete (or worse.. rigged) computer models.

VinceP1974
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:41 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Climate Change

Post by VinceP1974 »

Here's an interesting bit of news....

My quick two sentence summary is that the researcher is saying that the variations of the sun's relative distance from the earth are correlating to the variations of the air temp changes. The sun's distance from earth is affected by the gravitational pull of all the objects in the solar system, including Jupiter and Satarn

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/14/d ... uestioned/
Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”

Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today. He’s done some very extensive analysis of the solar contribution that bears examination. Pay particular attention to this graph from page 49:

Image

WUWT readers may remember him from some previous papers and comments he’s written that have been covered here:

Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling

Scafetta: Benestad and Schmidt’s calculations are “robustly” flawed.

Scafetta-Wilson Paper: Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades

He writes to me with this introduction:

On February 26, 2009 I was invited by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) to present a talk about my research on climate change. I thought that the best way to address this issue was to present an overview of all topics involved about the issue and their interconnections.
So, I prepared a kind of holistic presentation with the title ”Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion about Some Key Issues”. Then, a colleague from Italy who watched my EPA presentation suggested me to write a paper in Italian and submit it to an Italian science journal which was recently published.



I realized that it could be done more, so I thought that actually writing a short booklet summarizing all major topics and possible future perspectives could be useful for the general public. So, this work I am presenting here and which is supposed to be read by the large interested public came out. It contains a translation into English of my Italian paper plus numerous notes and appendixes covering also the most recent results that have transformed the original paper in a comprehensive booklet.


This booklet covers more or less all topics I believe to be important for understanding the debate on climate change. Herein, I argue why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned.


Finally, a suggestion for those who would like to print it, the best way is to use the “booklet option” of the printers and staple it in the middle.
========================

Download the report here (PDF -warning over 10 MB – long download time on slow connections)

This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009. A video of the seminar is here:

The Italian version of the original paper can be downloaded (with possible journal restrictions) from here

Felix34
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by Felix34 »

These issues are all interconnected.

How much is gas now? And who can afford it if you're not in the top 1 percent? My household has to struggle to pay for gas and oil to heat/cool/fuel our house every year.

Why is this?

Why is oil so much money? Does it really take that much money to obtain oil out of the ground? and all the money we burn transporting it to other places?

The idea of being able to get rid of oil is not just an opportunity to solve this economic crisis (by creating jobs and finding and unlimited source of fuel in OUR OWN backyard as opposed to a country that hates our guts) but an opportunity to solve the global warming crisis and perhaps other issues.

If we start to research more natural resource perhaps we can find something that allows us to replenish the earth of minerals. Or we could find a cheaper way to transport food to people of other countries.

Lastly, arguing about the idea of angels is not the same as discussing global warming mainly because we have tangible evidence to work with.

VinceP1974
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:41 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Climate Change

Post by VinceP1974 »

The reason why nothing is as cheap as oil is because oil is the most economic store of energy!

Quite simple, really.


Ask the Democrats why they're putting all of our energy supplies off limits.

robfromraleigh
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Climate Change

Post by robfromraleigh »

Actually, oil is relatively cheap. To get an appreciation for how hard it is to get it out of the ground, even in Saudi Arabia, go read the book "Twilight in the Desert". That book gives a grim assessment on the future of oil prospects in the middle east.

And that does not even touch on refineries. Nobody wants them in his backyard, so there are not that many of them. Due to the dangerous nature of the business, workers there must be paid lots (not to mention the auditors and safety inspectors have to be paid salaries as well).

And how much does a gallon of gas cost? Typically a little bit less than a gallon of milk nowadays. How hard is it to make milk? Well, although cows may not be the most pleasant-smelling creatures on earth, they are certainly better to have in one's backyard than an oil refinery. Granted, milk must be homogenized and then transported in refrigerated vehicles to be sold quickly before spoiling. But...milk is usually produced within a 100-200 miles of the consumer. Not true for oil--the majority of it used in the US is shipped thousands of miles before hitting its end destination. So transport costs should, in theory, be about equal.

I always felt something fishy was taking place in the late 1990's when, on spring break, I stopped at a gas station in Georgia. Gas was 69 cents per gallon, but the 500 ml bottled water I purchased was $1.09. Something was seriously wrong with that picture! Had I only been smart enough to invest in petroleum companies at that time...

With that said, it is very dangerous for America to put all of its eggs in a petroleum basket. Our transportation system needs some serious diversification with both natural gas and electric cars taking a segment of the market. Luckily, our electricity generation system is a bit more diversified (with some renewables, lots of domestic natural gas, and some nuclear). I've not bought too much into the global warming argument, but I do agree that America does need to break its addiction with oil and other "heavy carbon" fuels (such as coal). Diversification of light carbons (like natural gas), renewables, and nuclear should be our best option, but we should not be strong-armed into it by questionable cries about global warming.

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by gerald »

OLD1953 wrote:And the above is an example of something very important, which Ifirst heard of as Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is shit.

90% of all research is shit, 90% of all the economic "fixes" are shit, 90% of what you are told about politics and religion is shit (in those cases, perhaps even a higher percentage) 90% of EVERYTHING we think we know or understand is just plain crap!

This doesn't mean the world is hopeless, it just means you need to have the old BS filter turned up pretty high on everything.

And that's why I don't get upset when I'm told that some scientists are exaggerating the results of their research - they are already in my crap pile.

When you are trying to make up your mind about something, you have to go to the basics and work up from that, and by basics, I meant original data that's public and known to be good as you can get.

So what was the data that I felt confirmed global warming was happening that could not be refuted or altered? The most obvious bits were:

1. The satellite data for worldwide temperatures is accurate and the gathering methodology isn't changing. Nobody is disputing that data, though it only goes back to the 70's.
2. Breakup of the Antarctic ice shelves as predicted
3. Opening of the NorthWest passage for the first time in over a century.

All of those are facts, none can be argued with, and they aren't crap. The stuff that CAN be argued about, is crap, and I dismissed it as crap long ago. (Yes, Al Gore is full of crap.) So I don't get excited about it. Incidentally, if they'd drop the price, I'd take that cruise through the NorthWest passage. That's got to be some cruise.
You have to understand, and I am sure you do, ( as indicated by your comments ) that scientists, those in authority, etc.
have agendas. Scientists to maintain funding, authority to maintain their position, and others etc. And in many cases ( I do not want to say all, for there are truth seekers ) the truth be damned. For example, anomalies that do not fit, are dismissed,( for any number of reasons ). Or studying something to maintain funding, which if viewed from a different perspective looks like a dead, is another.

Trying to find the "truth" and accepting the "truth" is not easy, and many times it can be very disturbing, because it might be something one does NOT want to accept. "Global warming" depending on sources, has been going on for about 400,000 years, the Northern and Southern 1/3 of the planet at that time could have been covered by ice. And of course there have been cycles of ice advancing and retreating. A side note, if you can do the Northwest passage do it , I haven't, but better yet, do a cruse to Antarctica. I highly recommend Antarctica, it changes one's perspective, the others on the cruse said so as well.
Gerald

VinceP1974
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:41 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Climate Change

Post by VinceP1974 »

Code: Select all

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals 
are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday 
from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical 
change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. 
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 
81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream 
still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, 
the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely 
disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while 
vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are 
being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
From 2010?

No. 1922

OLD1953
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by OLD1953 »

The problem you've got with that graph, despite it's confusion ("it's a duck" as they say in "quantitative display of information") is that examining the peaks and troughs shows an increase in temp over time, not a steady state. There is only one hottest year in a decade or century, it's the trend that counts. And the troughs and peaks both show a steady increase.

As I said before, that temp is gradually rising is evident, the cause is not so evident. And, as I also pointed out, it's well established that the trend for the future will be rising over time very slowly, as the sun ages. That's inevitable, and will eventually overshadow anything else in terms of earth's surface temps. We'll either die off, shade the planet or move it.

VinceP1974
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:41 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Climate Change

Post by VinceP1974 »

OLD1953 wrote:The problem you've got with that graph, despite it's confusion ("it's a duck" as they say in "quantitative display of information") is that examining the peaks and troughs shows an increase in temp over time, not a steady state. There is only one hottest year in a decade or century, it's the trend that counts. And the troughs and peaks both show a steady increase.

As I said before, that temp is gradually rising is evident, the cause is not so evident. And, as I also pointed out, it's well established that the trend for the future will be rising over time very slowly, as the sun ages. That's inevitable, and will eventually overshadow anything else in terms of earth's surface temps. We'll either die off, shade the planet or move it.
We should be thankful that it is as warm as it is.. long term trends indicate we're late for our ice age.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests