Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 151
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 7 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
OK, Mike. I give up.

I thought maybe a reasonable approach suggesting how you could improve your credibility was worth a shot. Instead you took off on another ramble full of misunderstandings of science in general and the conclusions of climate scientists in particular. I just don't have the time or inclination to embark on a point by point corrective post to address all your mistakes.

I'll just offer as a parting gift one more encouragement that you actually read the latest IPCC report and see what it does and doesn't say. I think you'll find the reality is quite different from how you portray it.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 152
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/19/2011 5:43:46 AM
Replying isnt "compulsory" Johnny so you do it for whatever reasons excite you and make you feel "fab" by doing so

Trailing the arguement into "science" is an obfuscation though, considering the "arguement" needs to be voted on and considered by "non scientists" who make up 99.99999999% of the population of the planet is kind of a relavant point

And my main point all along hasnt been a "scientific" one at all, its simply been that the majority of climate drivers are openly admitted by the scientific community itself to NOT be understood even individually, let alone in terms of how they interact

Thats the ONLY "science" that is really relevant, because no system can be defined nor predicted without such an understanding. Which by itself defines the real aim of the IPCC by trying to put forward a "scientific" hypothesis based on only scrutinising a miniscule component of an entire system and then trying to claim that component is ALL thats relevant or important

The aim of trying to avoid those quite important and unscientific facts about any system of any type and trying to claim the specific science of a miniscule component is "all" that is important is purely for the purpose of giving the impression that "scientists" should just be left to say what should happen, which in turn actually means governments which itself in turn means the task falls to global financial institutions such as the IMF, World bank and if carbon taxation ever becomes a reality the IPCC or its replacement
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 153
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/19/2011 1:48:04 PM
If I'd scrolled up to get the proper spelling I'd have expended a tiny bit more CO2 and the entire world might have ended as a result

So really you should have thanked me for avoiding that catastrophic apocalyptic occurence
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 154
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/19/2011 5:21:52 PM
Johnnie1270,

The IPCC is not the new Messiah, know all, or end all. The issue of CO2 ppm is open for debate which the IPCC isn't.

By Gore's message a decade ago if CO2 wasn't capped the world is already doomed. It didn't come to pass.

Sure CO2 is a forcing gas, but so are all the gases in the the worlds atmosphere, and the correlation between 250 ppm CO2 and 400 PPM and temperature rise is open for debate.

Regards this new study. Its just a rehash of the same temperature data give or take a few weather stations that generated the old hockey stick, which is already deemed invalid.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 155
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/19/2011 6:17:16 PM

The IPCC is not the new Messiah, know all, or end all. The issue of CO2 ppm is open for debate which the IPCC isn't.


Interesting perception. From where I sit it seems like the IPCC is all about debate. Every conclusion and degree of confidence is hotly debated by a wide range of climate scientists until something resembling consensus is reached, then the outlier scientists complain bitterly that the published conclusion is either not strong enough or too strong.

And it's important to note that there are scientists who assert that IPCC conclusions are too conservative. They just don't get all the press that skeptics get.


By Gore's message a decade ago if CO2 wasn't capped the world is already doomed. It didn't come to pass


First, Al Gore is just a messenger, not a climate scientist, so as always in these discussions I gladly agree to ignore for citation whatever he says as long as we can also ignore whatever anyone else says who isn't actually a climate scientist who has published actual research.

But secondly, please cite for me where Al Gore ever said that we'd be doomed BY NOW. The major concern with climate change isn't what's already happened or what's likely to happen in the next decade or two, but rather what will be happening by the middle and end of this century.


Sure CO2 is a forcing gas, but so are all the gases in the the worlds atmosphere, and the correlation between 250 ppm CO2 and 400 PPM and temperature rise is open for debate.


If this is true you should have no trouble offering up peer reviewed research asserting there is no connection between increased CO2 concentrations and temperature rise.


the old hockey stick, which is already deemed invalid.


Once again, evidence from peer reviewed research, only this time I"ll add the caveat of peer reviewed research in a still acredited journal, as the only challenge I've seen published turned out to be published in a journal whose credibility was successfully challenged.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 156
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/19/2011 6:40:57 PM

If this is true you should have no trouble offering up peer reviewed research asserting there is no connection between increased CO2 concentrations and temperature rise.


I didn't say CO2 didn't play some role, but as to what part, and how much the average global temperature has risen is open for much debate. I've written and reviewed programs involving energy, and I know how easy a suttle change in variables can make your outcome change.

The IPCC needs to start relying on facts not press releases. Example why the big shift from GLOBAL WARMING to GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ? Climate is always changing even before the industrial revolution.

So I will throw it back to you what caused these changes when CO2 was relatively stable at 250 to 280 PPM ? In fact put those same stable values in you IPCC computer simulation and see if the results match history.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 157
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/19/2011 8:47:59 PM
The problem with "peer reviewed" and "acredited journal" et al is that if youre in the climate game the big money and funding is related to research to support the AGW arguement

So the majority of scientists have to be pro AGW or they end up twiddling their thumbs, struggling to get funding or will struggle to get anything published

Theres a wealth of material by qualified academics on the politicisation of academia and how it leads to bias in both research funding and the peer review process and in that respect the AGW topic is a pretty hot potato

As for the IPCC being "open for debate", unless thats a fairly new addition to their stance they seem to have a pretty reliable track record for ammending authors and lead authors contributions to their reports in previous outings which led to high percentages distancing themselves from the organisation despite being qualified and working in climatology and its extensive associative fields

Infact since 1998 despite steadily rising CO2 levels global temperatures have been pretty much level with 1998 still being the hottest year on record and after NASA updated their data due to an error I am sure they ammended their hottest year for the US as a whole to 1934

Ignoring the US bit as that will be claimed to "just be weather" how come with steadily increasing CO2 we have had just over a decade of fairly steady global temperatures rather than a proportionate increase to mirror CO2 levels?

The answer would have to be that other climate drivers are more impactive than Co2 by a sufficient amount to not simply reduce whatever level of effect CO2 has, but so much so that they effectively negate its influence as far as actual increases are concerned
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 158
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/19/2011 9:19:11 PM

The IPCC needs to start relying on facts not press releases. Example why the big shift from GLOBAL WARMING to GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ? Climate is always changing even before the industrial revolution.


What shift? Both terms are in common usage. Warming is what the globe is doing overall, resulting in changes in climate that have all sorts of impacts other than heat.


So I will throw it back to you what caused these changes when CO2 was relatively stable at 250 to 280 PPM ? In fact put those same stable values in you IPCC computer simulation and see if the results match history.


As the IPCC clearly states, there are a number of triggers for warming events. Increases in greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is one, are one of the things that can cause warming, but not the only thing.

If I tell you a sharp knife can make you bleed, would you argue that since you've bled before with no knife in sight you have nothing to worry about from the knife?

Climate models are quite sophisticated, although none are perfect. That's why conclusions are drawn from the collected results from a number of different models to increase the degree of confidence.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 159
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 12:43:46 AM
The global warming is the trigger for climate changes, thus the need for the term climate change to better describe the impacts of billions of two legged lemmings doing their dance on this rock. Severe droughts, extreme rainfall, colder winters in some places, hotter summers in most places, tornado clusters, etc, are all changes that are alreading being observed and confidently projected to get much worse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/report-climate-change-means-more-frequent-droughts-floods-to-come/2011/11/15/gIQAfwqHXN_story.html?tid=pm_pop

And it's not simply a matter of adjusting the thermostat at home to deal with the changes. There are serious implications for food security, water supplies, and political stability around the world. The lucky ones will merely see rises in food prices and insurance rates. The poorer or those in the path of tornado clusters will see food unavailability, lack of water, insurance companies denying claims outright, lack of emergency responses, and migration as environmental refugees.

Businesses, those bastions of left wing tree hugging, are adjusting to the changing world.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/07/more-companies-begin-adapting-to-a-warmer-world/

Yeah, it would be a bummer if we invested in clean energy, more stable food supplies, water infrastructure, reforestation, and other job creating initiatives only to find that the warming was not as severe, and we ended up with lots less pollution. The opposite is occuring now as Teapublicans seek to destroy decades of environmental and human health protections. Nearly everything coming from these reactionaries will only create jobs in the hospital and morgue sectors. Hardly a sustainable path by any standard.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 160
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 11:20:25 AM
Before I forget somebody mentioned "severe weather" which is clearly linked to global warming by many of the alarmists and infact the IPCC itself

Heres what the IPCC document for policymakers special report into extreme weather says

Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of GDP are higher in developing countries (high confidence). During the period from 1970 to 2008, over 95% of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries.” (SREX SPM, pp. 5–6

Yet page 11 of this study says the complete opposite as do other studies on the same topic

http://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

So how come such disparity in something thats claimed to be "science"?

The footnote on the IPCC report explains the disparity of their findings

"A digression: “Fatalities” are also mentioned in footnote 4 explaining that the above figures are based on data for “all disasters associated with weather, climate, and geophysical events.”

As with many other things the data didnt say what they wanted it to say, so they included earthquakes. landslides and volcanos et al into the figures so they DID say what they wanted them to say

As for global warming causing more "extreme weather" the incidences of hurricanes has been observed to have decreased by as much as nearly 2 thirds in the southern hemisphere and a similar lack of predicted increases in the northern hemisphere

Chan, J.C.L. 2006. Comment on "Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment." Science 311: 1713.

Knutson, T.R., McBride, J.L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., Held, I., Kossin, J.P., Srivastava, A.K. and Sugi, M. 2010. Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience 3: 157-163.

Kossin, J.P., Knapp, K.R., Vimont, D.J., Murnane, R.J. and Harper, B.A. 2007. A globally consistent reanalysis of hurricane variability and trends. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL028836.

Kuleshov, Y., Fawcett, R., Qi, L., Trewin, B., Jones, D., McBride, J. and Ramsay, H. 2010. Trends in tropical cyclones in the South Indian Ocean and the South Pacific Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: 10.1029/2009JD012372.


Another claim the IPCC makes quite frequently is that the incidences of diseases like malaria will increase due to global warming

The UN perhaps purely by coincidence, but considering the overlap also just as likely by design introduced sanctions on third world countries to outlaw the use of DDT which resulted in a HUGE increase in the numbers of deaths from malaria.

And yet despite the observed warming they have steadily decreased since, and as more and more countries are now returning to the use of DDT they are starting to head back towards the numbers of deaths from malaria before the UN threats of sanctions were introduced

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4264374.stm

As for the "proof" 1934 was the hottest year in the US that would be from nasa seeing as it was their goof that had previously listed 1998

But I'm sure you already knew about that and where to find it but chose to claim you didnt tbh

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 161
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 12:53:59 PM
About as much credibility as an organisation that claims extreme weather events have increased when they've actually decreased globally really I'd say

Only difference is I dont get paid a small fortune for being so inept, nor are billions of peoples lives going to be negatively affected by my lack of science

They on the other hand......

And its not "irrelevant" what a "small piece of the planet" does at all

Each small bit of the planet contributes towards the whole. And as people pretty much only live on land then man made influences would be far more observable there than in the rest of the world

Infact I would have thought the KWH output of populated areas istself SHOULD be scrutinised far more than it actually is because the more heat generated the warmer the globe would be even without any increases in CO2 at all

As for "cherry picking"

Latif, M. and Keenlyside, N.S. 2011. A perspective on decadal climate variability and predictability. Deep-Sea Research II 58: 1880-1894.

"In summing up their findings, which include those noted above and a whole lot more, Latif and Keenlyside state that "a sufficient understanding of the mechanisms of decadal-to-multidecadal variability is lacking," that "state-of-the-art climate models suffer from large biases," that "they are incomplete and do not incorporate potentially important physics," that various mechanisms "differ strongly from model to model," that "the poor observational database does not allow a distinction between 'realistic' and 'unrealistic' simulations," and that many models "still fail to simulate a realistic El Niño/Southern Oscillation." Therefore, they conclude that "it cannot be assumed that current climate models are well suited to realize the full decadal predictability potential," which is a somewhat-obscure but kinder-and-gentler way of stating that current state-of-the-art climate models are simply not good enough to make reasonably accurate simulations of climate change over a period of time (either in the past or the future) that is measured in mere decades."

Which is a point I have made repeatedly

That you quite simply CANT model a system when you dont have the faintest idea how most of the major drivers in that system actually work or interact with each other

Claiming you can is quite literally unscientific (lies in other words)
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 162
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 5:17:52 PM
Not evasive at all

The bit I chose was purely in connection to the point I had made earlier, nothing more

So as that was the bit that did state what I had said earlier using "another bit of the report" would have been pretty pointless as it wouldnt have been the bit that DID state what I had claimed

Kind of obvious really



And its not "irrelevant" what a "small piece of the planet" does at all


Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,
Its is not relevant to discuss a very small region of the planet when we are discussing global temperature - this is hardly controversial.


But I didt say that it DID affect "global" temperatures, I said it wasnt "irrelevant" which isnt even close to being the same thing

The reason its not "irrelevant" is because the global temperature is made up of about 75 or so areas of a similar size. So what any of those does is 1/75th of the whole. And as large amounts of those 75 parts will also share other climate drivers like oceanic tidal flows, cloud densities, solar output levels etc etc then its unlikely theyre all going to be completely different

Infact if an area that size wasnt "important" to global temperatures then we wouldnt need to monitor and record data for it in the first place. But we do, so its pretty relevant really

Infact because of it being so densely populated I would say its probably more "relevant" to pro AGW groupies than the anti AGW groupies, because without the thermal output of 300 million people and a very heavily industrialised society they'd probably have to "adjust" climate data even more viciously to make it look scary
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 163
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 6:37:43 PM

Yet page 11 of this study says the complete opposite as do other studies on the same topic

http://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pd


If this is the quality of your research and reading ability, it's no wonder we're not getting through to you. Your above statement is FALSE. Read again. I can find NOTHING in the paper you provided which refutes the previous statement you provided. All of the [very few] examples provided, regarding weather- and climate- related deaths, are first world countries (including Cyprus, Brasil, United States, Australia, and a couple of others). The only third world examples were for earthquakes, which are not climate or weather-related. There is in fact zero information provided which compares third world and first world climate and weather death rates.

You're not actually READING your sources.


As for global warming causing more "extreme weather" the incidences of hurricanes has been observed to have decreased by as much as nearly 2 thirds in the southern hemisphere and a similar lack of predicted increases in the northern hemisphere

No-one is hitching their carriage to this pony. The one paper I have read documented an increase in hurricanes, BUT it also noted that a previously lower-than-average rate of hurricanes made it difficult to draw correlations to climate with any certainty. You're tilting at windmills on this one, since thus far it is an hypothesis which lacks enough evidence to test.


And its not "irrelevant" what a "small piece of the planet" does at all

Each small bit of the planet contributes towards the whole. And as people pretty much only live on land then man made influences would be far more observable there than in the rest of the world

Non sequitur. The conclusion does not logically follow from the observation. Most of the planet's surface is water. Water absorbs and retains heat far better than land does. Carbon dioxide [and other gases] produced on land does not remain over land, but is distributed globally in the atmosphere. So the pollution takes place on land, traps heat mainly over/in water, and the heated water alters weather patterns to produce systems which will make some areas of land warmer, some colder, some wetter, some drier. You can't use a minority piece of land as a benchmark for global influences - only for its specific contribution to those influences.


Infact I would have thought the KWH output of populated areas istself SHOULD be scrutinised far more than it actually is because the more heat generated the warmer the globe would be even without any increases in CO2 at all

The actual heat can be, but it isn't all that much.

By comparison, I'll refer to earlier concerns regarding the sun. The heat energy provided by the sun can be directly measured, as can the heating effects of that energy on bodies without atmospheres. The dark and light sides of the moon can be compared, as can the dark side of Mercury. The moon should be a very good comparison in terms of energy per surface area, with and without sunlight. However much the Earth deviates from that can be attributed to albedo and atmospheric insulation. Albedo should be simple to measure, especially in the age of satellites - what energy impacts directly from the sun, and what reflects back from the Earth? The insulating properties are also easily measured, and this has been done for each of the suspect gases.

The difference between sun heating and no-sun is huge, and by comparison the heat produced by man is infinitesimal. Yes, we have urban heat islands, but these are localized and partly result from pollution and other local trapping effects. The pollutants are concentrated locally, but disperse and steadily rise globally. The heat concentrates locally, but dissipates locally.



That you quite simply CANT model a system when you dont have the faintest idea how most of the major drivers in that system actually work or interact with each other

Claiming you can is quite literally unscientific (lies in other words)

And yet meteorologists do so, scientifically, all day every day wth a fair amount of reliability. The difference is that for the scale they are working with [days, regionally], there is considerably less variation to factor in. I would say that it's not so much a question of understanding how the factors work or interact, but rather that where climate change is concerned, there is so much data involved that little deviations are magnified until the models are overwhelmed by the error rates.

Weather forecasts are revised day to day and even throughout a single day, to adjust for the actual details of the various changing factors which produce the weather. Climate models are constantly revised with new historical data as well, but those data are always incomplete. Last years model didn't account for this year's 40000 square miles of burnt rainforest, the popularity of the new GasGuzzler 5000XT, expanded output of all the coal power plants in Commustan, or destruction wrought by an unscheduled earthquake, tsunami, and associated destruction.

2x2x2x2x2x2 = 64
more data, but assuming no variation from current average factors:
2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=512
more data, more variation of the data:
2x1x2x2x1x2x2x3x1=96
more data, different variation of the data:
2x3x3x2x1x3x2x2x2=864

That's the essence of climate modeling - the farther ahead you predict, the greater the error. However, even the optimistic [reduced value of more factors] model above produces a worse [higher product] result than current status quo. In climate and weather forecasting, any rising factor will be greater than 1, whether it be global temperature, solar output, CO2 concentration, etc. The gist is that enough of the factors ARE greater than 1 to lead to a rising product, and we can't even get those factors to stop rising, much less drop!

Meanwhile, there's a never-ending stream of half-educated crying about their freedom to pollute and the oppression of taxation. Crying so much that they would rather attempt to fallacy-away the facts than take any kind of personal responsibility for them. That's the ongoing global issue - the longstanding polluters don't want to be first to pay the piper, and the third world doesn't want to be forcibly kept poor [by the rich first world] by adhering to standards that the rest didn't have to follow when THEY got ahead.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 164
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 8:49:05 PM
The table on page 11 is entitled

Figure 2: Global Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events, 1900–2010

GLOBAL death rates, not 1st or 3rd world, and nothing to do with earthquakes

And the figures CLEARLY decline by a very extreme amount, whereas the IPCC claim they have been increasing due to global warming (extreme weather events) and then publicly stated over and over again by people like Gore

The IPCC managed to get its death rates to increase by including non climate related meteorolical events like earthquakes and landslides which they point out in the footnotes but dont mention in the body text

So unless you were looking at a different page 11 I cant quite see why you think its false and doesnt say what I claimed it said (pictorially speaking)



As for Co2 dissipation, from a concentrated source it can take upto 2 years to dissipate equally. And inland concentrations would obviously take longer to spread evenly outside of the confines of a large continent. Plus being pretty constantly high sources rather than just a singular burst. So you would still expect a high polluting country to have a noticeably higher concentration of CO2 and potentially higher temperatures due to human heat generation (urban heat island) especially in winter months as measurements and even satelite information doesnt as far as I know wait till everyone has gone to sleep and all man made heat has dissipated before taking readings

And as you said, seas are a large part of the surface and not only absorb heat, but the pacific is also one of the worlds largest heat vents too,

So to get a "scarier" average land based areas are going to be more significant than the same area of a sea as that would tend to pull the average down, whereas an area like the US would be more likely to pull it in the direction needed which was the main gist of my "more significant/relevant" comment

The problem (for me at least) isnt "crying" about ANY taxation, its more to do with the extent of taxation proposed and its impact

Because rather than affecting "rich polluters" it wouldnt, most of the "rich" have as much of their portfolios if not more set to profit from AGW as they have investments that will suffer.

Infact many oil families are already diversifying into buying water rights, water treatment and distribution, Have large shares in organisations like the CCX and GIH et al. Have biofuel plants, investments in green power projects and so on

So the net result of the majority of IPCC proposals will pretty much just affect the poorest people of the world

And the objection isnt based on the claim that no heating is occuring, but is based on the inability of the IPCC and other organisations to be able to acurately define without cherry picking data, "tweaking" data or relying on long range models that arent even acurate over the short term or having to exclude major climate influences because they dont understand them EXACTLY what percentage of any heat increase is specifically attributed to man made CO2 alone

Which cant be done until the full interaction and effet of ALL climate drivers and CO2 influences are known, as well as also factoring in any positives that might result from warming such as increased plant growth etc as many plants have been found to flourish in higher levels of CO2 and warmer climates rather than suffer so its not even all doom and gloom

Because until that precise effect on temperature due to just the man made component is known any extreme forms of global taxation would be remiss and needlessly catastrophic

In the meantime though theres plenty of other things that could be being done which wouldnt have such a wide reaching negative impact or one that would only affect the poor

And thats what the actual objection is. Its one of the response being proportionate to the "known" rather than suspected effect. And one that doesnt just promote poverty, but has positve benefits instead
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 165
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 9:55:49 PM
I reiterate: please actually READ. Here's a more complete quote:

Heres what the IPCC document for policymakers special report into extreme weather says

Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of GDP are higher in developing countries (high confidence). During the period from 1970 to 2008, over 95% of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries.” (SREX SPM, pp. 5–6

Yet page 11 of this study says the complete opposite as do other studies on the same topic

http://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

So how come such disparity in something thats claimed to be "science"?


Look at the details. The IPCC document you quote compares developing to developed countries. The other does not, and consequently does NOT say the complete opposite. It makes no comparison of the two at all.


As for Co2 dissipation, from a concentrated source it can take upto 2 years to dissipate equally.

And? If so, it really doesn't matter, because it DOES disperse, but it does NOT cease to exist. As a result, the local concentration may increase somewhat or remain steady, but the global concentration continues to grow. Otherwise, all animal life in urban areas would cease to exist as it suffocated in the ever-growing amount of CO and CO2 going nowhere.


but the pacific is also one of the worlds largest heat vents too,

A measurable and relatively small and constant source. Not a source which is continually expanding while also destroying the means to counteract it.


So to get a "scarier" average land based areas are going to be more significant than the same area of a sea as that would tend to pull the average down, whereas an area like the US would be more likely to pull it in the direction needed which was the main gist of my "more significant/relevant" comment

Nope. Because water absorbs and retains heat better, while land areas tend to reflect more and retain less. With water being the majority of Earth's surface and gas dispersal being global and increasing in concentration, the oceans end up being the place where the majority of heat is trapped. Remember too that "heat" doesn't necessarily arrive as heat. Many wavelengths from the sun pass right through the atmosphere, and don't generate heat until they reach the surface, at which point some energy is absorbed and some is released in infrared wavelengths - which ARE trapped by gases.


but is based on the inability of the IPCC and other organisations to be able to acurately define without cherry picking data,

A phrase you should be familiar with and perhaps pass along to your sources: Physician, heal thyself.


Which cant be done until the full interaction and effet of ALL climate drivers and CO2 influences are known

Argumentum ad ignorantium.


as well as also factoring in any positives that might result from warming such as increased plant growth etc as many plants have been found to flourish in higher levels of CO2 and warmer climates rather than suffer so its not even all doom and gloom

The "breadbaskets" of the world tend to be vast expanses of arid grasslands. The expected consequences of climate change are conversion of much of this to desert, along with decline of water sources fed into these areas. Think "dirty 30's", and note that prairie water sources are in steady decline NOW. The same is happening in central Asia and in northern Africa. The Sahel is shrinking while the Sahara expands, and the Sahara itself was largely savanna within human history. This bit about improved plant growth is a fallacy which conveniently excludes a lot of factors in order to deliberately deceive people. Do you recall posting something about a 'little truth making the bigger lie easier to believe"?


Because until that precise effect on temperature due to just the man made component is known any extreme forms of global taxation would be remiss and needlessly catastrophic

Argumentum ad metum. Conspiracy theory. Argumentum ad ignorantium.
How do taxes on Americans [the country whose investment system brought you global recession] prove to be "catastrophic", when so many other countries already pay much more without facing anything approaching catastrophe?

Not that I advocate more taxation - far from it! We pay tax on gasoline twice so far, and some places it's three times, but for some reason another tax is needed to offset the polluting effects of that fuel? Why not use the FIRST tax for that purpose!

I just don't see taxation as being so heinous, although I DO see the argument as being an irrational and single-sided scare tactic.


In the meantime though theres plenty of other things that could be being done which wouldnt have such a wide reaching negative impact or one that would only affect the poor

Seriously? You know why some rich countries won't agree to DO anything? Because the agreements tend to favor poor countries, who want to get ahead, while the rich countries [and their citizens] complain about the economic impact they might face.

That is, the first world [USA in particular] doesn't want to do anything because it has to pay a higher price than those who truly can't afford to pay more. Those who got rich on the backs of the poor wish to maintain the status quo, while the poor want the same chance to get ahead. Globally poor, globally rich. Not East LA versus Manhattan.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 166
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/24/2011 4:18:51 AM
Do you think this NEW revelation will have any impact on public opinion, or for that matter, the debate on this forum?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
 neillinnorwich
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 167
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/24/2011 9:12:51 AM
Yup, this will probably be a damaging story. What the article you posted fails to mention is that these e-mails are from the same batch that was hacked in 2009, and have been conveniently released just prior to the UN climate conference in Durban, presumably with the same derailing intent as the original release, timed shortly before the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 168
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/24/2011 10:43:24 AM


Actually I've already seen it but I would guess the juciest stuff was leaked in the first batch. So anything leaked years later would be pretty pointless and only done to cause a media stir

If the "snippets" I saw about the cherry picking of tree ring data (3 out of 34 samples) is the best they have it was hardly worth bothering with as thats already common knowledge anyway
 good_dreams
Joined: 9/14/2011
Msg: 169
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/24/2011 11:04:27 AM
All this debate seems to go round and round and never end up anywhere.

I'm wondering if anyone else can get past it and really begin to wonder about the climate changes that have occurred in the past and most certainly will inevitably happen again and how that might affect civilization as we now know it?

Since I was a young boy I have collected prehistoric artifacts that I have found around the area in which I live which led to further study about these people that have lived 1-5-10,000 yrs ago and more.... it seems to me all these different cultures have come and gone pretty much solely based on climatic changes which have changed the flora and fauna...

I think anyone who believes that will not happen again has their head in the sand and is not really educated about the reality of how this planet works, and is more interested in arguing politics of "global warming". The climate can and has changed quite dramatically in rather brief periods over time... are we prepared to face the consequences of that now?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 170
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/24/2011 1:22:35 PM
Good dreams

No offence but I think youre kind of missing the point just a tad

The natural cycles you mention are (as you also state) going to happen again.

Nothing mankind can do will alter that. So "facing the consequences" is equally unnavoidable

And no amount of politics, taxation, financial restraints on developing countries or anything else is going to alter the planet/solar systems natural processes

Nobody as far as I can see is saying climate isnt changing, nor that it will never change.

The discussion, arguement or debate whatever you want to call it seems to be pretty much between one side who claims mankinds CO2 production alone will cause natural cycles to speed up ridiculously fast and kill everyone on the planet and therefore back extensive and potentially genocidic financial restraints

And the other side disputes the level of impact manmade CO2 will have in influencing the natural cycles of the planet and think that any changes should be less pervasive and less rushed

So the entire topic IS a political one really
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 171
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/24/2011 2:15:56 PM

Do you think this NEW revelation will have any impact on public opinion, or for that matter, the debate on this forum?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Not really, other than providing another canard for the denialists to wave around. Because.... it isn't really a 'new' revelation, it's just part II of an already discredited one.

This article details some of the quote mining, misrepresentation, and outright distortions the 'new' revelation relies on to generate 'controversy'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails

Though one needn't look at external links to observe such tactics, some right here in this thread are adept.

The discussion, arguement or debate whatever you want to call it seems to be pretty much between one side who claims mankinds CO2 production alone will cause natural cycles to speed up ridiculously fast and kill everyone on the planet and therefore back extensive and potentially genocidic financial restraints

And the other side disputes the level of impact manmade CO2 will have in influencing the natural cycles of the planet and think that any changes should be less pervasive and less rushed
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 172
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/25/2011 1:21:17 AM

So the entire topic IS a political one really


On your side we have Osama bin laden and on our side we have nelson mandela....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 173
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/25/2011 7:13:44 AM
Anybody who thinks the global warming debate is anything but a political one is delusional. Its basically "Lets make sure that 80-90% of the people on the planet never achieve the level of resource consumption of poor social trash in the southern US". Its a mathematical fact that the world resources can not sustain everybody living at the level of the poorest Americans, and because there are so many more poor voters than rich ones, in democracies there is no mechanism for doing anything other than making sure that the developed world keeps its lifestyle while dreaming up methods of making sure the rest of the planet rides bicycles or walks to their huts.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 174
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/25/2011 7:35:32 AM

So the entire topic IS a political one really


Anybody who thinks the global warming debate is anything but a political one is delusional.

Anybody who thinks the whole thing is just a political conspiracy is so obviously uninformed their opinions can safely be ignored.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 175
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/25/2011 12:54:27 PM

Anybody who thinks the whole thing is just a political conspiracy is so obviously uninformed their opinions can safely be ignored.



Anyone who thinks that a political topic is a conspiracy reader is so obviously uninformed and delusional that their opinions can safely be ignored

You've obviously not figured out that world governments, the IPCC, the UN, G8, G20 etc etc are ALL political organisations then I take it? Filled with gosh,,,,,,, politicians, discussing OMG who'd have thought it.... topics with political impact based on their political leanings and where the outcome specifically in this instance will result in increased and additional taxation done by erm.....politicians in governments gee whizz


Yup, nothing at all "political there, who would ever think any of that could be even remotely linked to "politics"
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures