Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The deceit behind global warming

Naturally, bigfish can't tell the difference between a sceptical examination of who sources are, and an "ad-hom". Not that leaping to that sort of feeble abuse is an attempt to prevent discussion, oh no.

Where were we? Climate change. Happening. Caused by CO2.
 
free spirit said:
The IPCC figure specifically excludes the impact of any melting from Greenland and Antarctica, whereas Al Gore's was stating the predicted sea level rise in the event of a rapid melt of the greenland ice sheet.

The IPPC excluded the melting of the greenland ice sheet from it's figures because there was too much uncertainty about the likely rate of melt due to new research questioning old assumptions that the melt would be a gradual one, and showing that a rapid melt was a real possibility. Gore was stating what would happen in the event that the rapid melt theory was proved to be correct, which is a very real possibility.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! Have you seen this:

THE GREENLAND-ANTARCTICA MELTING PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST
Cliff Ollier, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia [cliffol@cyllene.uwa.edu.au]

The global warming doomsday writers claim the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting catastrophically, and will cause a sudden rise in sea level of 5 or more metres. This ignores the mechanism of glacier flow which is by creep. Glaciers are not melting from the surface down, nor are they sliding down an inclined plane lubricated by meltwater. The existence of ice over 3 km thick preserving details of past snowfall and atmospheres, used to decipher past temperature and CO2 levels, shows that the ice sheets have accumulated for hundreds of thousands of years without melting. Variations in melting around the edges of ice sheets are no indication that they are collapsing. Indeed ‘collapse’ is impossible.
Click to expand...

http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index....nd_antarctica_melting_problem_does_not_exist/


more bullshit, 1998 was an anomaly caused largely by the extreme el nino of 1997-98, the underlying trend has continued to be upward as is clearly shown in the graph posted by dash_two.
Click to expand...

The satellite record is the highest quality temperature data series in the climate record. It shows that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has been flat, with only a slight increase in the Northern Hemisphere. Note the El Niño peak in 1998. If it doesn’t feel warmer than it was in 1980, that's because it isn’t warmer than it was in 1980.

satellite.gif
 
laptop said:
Where were we? Climate change. Happening. Caused by CO2.
Click to expand...

I know we hear this a lot from alarmist extremists like yourself, but the evidence supporting your claim is where exactly?
 
laptop said:
Where, our troll asks?

A great deal of it is here: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q="climate+change"
Click to expand...

Ah, the old coil dump trick, a favourite move among discussion killing trolls - nice one!

I don't suppose you could be a little more specific could you as it would take me and a team of 5,000 assistants about XX years to examine all of the 676,000 articles that you very kindly provided? For example, could you provide me with a link to just a single definitive published paper on the carbon dioxide warming mechanism expounded from first principles within the frame of physics?
 
bigfish said:
Nonsense! Have you seen this:

THE GREENLAND-ANTARCTICA MELTING PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST
Cliff Ollier, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia [cliffol@cyllene.uwa.edu.au]



http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/the_greenland_antarctica_melting_problem_does_not_exist/




The satellite record is the highest quality temperature data series in the climate record. It shows that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has been flat, with only a slight increase in the Northern Hemisphere. Note the El Niño peak in 1998. If it doesn’t feel warmer than it was in 1980, that's because it isn’t warmer than it was in 1980.

satellite.gif
Click to expand...
hmm well there seems to be significant disagreement between different people's analysis of the satellite record, which would indicate that it's not actually as accurate as you make out.
msu2006-pg.gif

note the fairly major differences between graphs b and c, which are both analysis of the satellite data, but carried out by different teams to give significantly different results.

msu2006uw-pg.gif

[source = ncdc annual report 2006]
Then there's this one using the same data as the graphs above, but with additional adjustments by the University of Washington " to remove the stratospheric influences from the RSS and UAH mid-troposphere average".

sattempgraphvv1.jpg

[source = online lecture notes from a speech given by the researchers in 2006]

or this one from the same team who produced the dataset for graph c in my first set of graphs, which gives a trend of 0.13 deg C decadal temperature increase (compared to the 0.5 deg c quoted in the first graph), and specifically states that given the +- 0.05 error range it's not 'significantly' different from the +0.17 deg C / decade increase shown from the surface measurements (graph a).

The MSU and AMSU instruments were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the distinct MSU and AMSU instruments.
Click to expand...
[source= remote sensing systems]
ie - the satellite data set is not as accurate as you're making out, both due to the accuracy of the instruments, and the complexity and uncertainty of the analysis methodology. This is not to say the surface temperature record is 100% accurate either, just wanted to correct the impression you were giving about the satellite data.

btw could you please give the source for the graph you've posted, thanks.
 
bigfish said:
Note the El Niño peak in 1998
Click to expand...
ah yes, I nearly missed this bit. So I take it you accept that the 1998 peak was largely caused by the very strong 1997-8 El Nino, and that it's therefore misleading to make statements like this one
if manmade global warming is real, then why did the globe stop warming in 1998 while human emissions have continued rising since then?
Click to expand...
do you think you could do us all a favour now and stop repeating this line every few months, given that you obviously know it to be bullshit.
 
bigfish said:
For example, could you provide me with a link to just a single definitive published paper on the carbon dioxide warming mechanism expounded from first principles within the frame of physics?
Click to expand...

Plenty of references here for you to ignore, I'm sorry, I mean assess in an even-handed manner:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I liked this bit:

The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.
Click to expand...

A very basic but important question arises from that, which I believe I may have put to you several times, but alas have not yet received a straight answer. If there's no greenhouse effect, what's keeping the Earth around 30C warmer than the Moon?
 
bigfish said:
Ah, the old coil dump trick, a favourite move among discussion killing trolls - nice one!

I don't suppose you could be a little more specific could you as it would take me and a team of 5,000 assistants about XX years to examine all of the 676,000 articles that you very kindly provided? For example, could you provide me with a link to just a single definitive published paper on the carbon dioxide warming mechanism expounded from first principles within the frame of physics?
Click to expand...

I have read as much of the science on global warming as I need to now be fully convinced, I used to work in this area, but it is odd that we are still having the debate over the cuases of global warming. Even if the over whelming weight of evidence supporting the idea that much of global warming is influenced/created by man is incorrect which of the recommendations of how we can go about resolving the impacts do you disagree with?

Do you also disagree, for example, that fossil fuels are running out?

Most of the potential resolutions to this problem are things we should be doing anyway, conserving natural resources, how is reducing waste and what we send to landfill a bad thing? or looking are more energy efficient modes of transport?

This is where I get frustrated with this whole debate, people who refute the evidence of human causes of global warming can't explain why it matters, what are we being asked to do to resolve this that is really negative?
 
Bigfish believes all sorts of things, that the sun is metallic and is not fusing hydrogen into helium, that most oil is produced abiotically, that the universe is not expanding. He's a nutter, in other words.
 
free spirit said:
btw could you please give the source for the graph you've posted, thanks.
Click to expand...
actually I've sussed it out, that graph comes from David Archibald, a graph he's made using the data from the team at university of alabama, the same data that they themselves use to conclude shows a +0.13 deg C per decade increase in global temperatures, which they themselves specifically state isn't significantly different from the 0.17 per decade temperature change given from the temperature records.

It's also worth noting that using that graph, if instead of comparing the year 1980 with the temperature this year, you compared the temperature of say 1979 or 1982 with the temperature of say 2005, it shows an increase in temperature of +0.5-0.6 deg C between those years. This shows the danger in comparing temperatures of single years, which are subject to significant variabilty from many factors other than CO2 levels, rather than looking at the overall trend when attempting to make statements about the impact of rising CO2 levels.
 
Now I might be going out on a limb here, but would that imply that BF thinks the world is expanding in some way?
 
He may or may not answer your questions, but he has posted as 'marlin' on the 'Break for News' bulletin board. Some examples on this thread, eg third from bottom:

http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14558

bigfish/marlin said:
Hi Drew - Just0.. Neal Adams' idea is fascinating isn't it? Personally, I think he's on to something really big with his "Growing Earth" theory (excuse the pun).

I see what you mean about Fintan's Treeincarnation model, Just0. Abundance is materializing all around us. The universe is truly bountiful. And yet the growth of natural abundance leads to a psychopathic hysteria on the part of the propertied classes, fearful it might fall into the "wrong hands".
Click to expand...

Enjoy.
 
Quoted on there:

A wave may either be a travelling wave or a standing wave which is fixed in space. This means that matter is a structure of EM waves, not just a simple concentration of EM waves, but a tuned standing wave structure. In this respect Einstein's equation E=mc2 is quite misleading, because the equation, although mathematically correct, gives no indication of the structure of E in order to get a resulting mass. In fact, any attempt to concentrate huge quantities of energy to generate mass have been a failure. A resonant standing wave is a priori to generating any form of matter from pure energy, and we all know that the building block of a standing wave are in- and out-going waves. Once this matter standing wave structure is broken into smaller structures or even destroyed, the EM elements making it up are released and detected as travelling EM waves or other 'chunks' of smaller standing waves. What all these new ideas seem to suggest is that physical objects (matter), or even reality itself (things in motion), are not at all what everyone had supposed they are 4000 years ago, and it is surely about time that current science makes up for this, even if this comes at the cost of rebuilding from scratch science itself.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha. It's like all of physics from about Schrodinger onwards never happened, or more likely that they just haven't bothered to read it. Nurse - quick!
 
WTF? I mean I find some of gorski's stuff hard, but that's his style and language as much as anything else...but that? And what's the huge C&P about Diamond going on about?

Still no nearer to working out what expanding earth is tho...
 
Re. the 'Growing Earth' - I don't doubt the mass of the Earth has increased a bit over the aeons, thanks to being hit by meteorites, but the GE theory goes further than that iirc. 'Growing Earth' and 'Expanding Earth' into Google brings up some hits, for example:

http://www.expanding-earth.org/

. . . tho I think the 'Growing Earth' version of the idea is more uh thoroughgoing.
 
Ah, is that what the twaddle about treeincarnation and cellular mitosis was about? That because cells divide, and trees grow back, that the total mass and size of the planet are growing because there's more of everything?
 
Recent data actually suggests that there was water on the surface of the earth much earlier that previously thought, and far longer ago than 200 million years, which does blow a bit of a hole in their crackpot theory.

What is it that motivates people to indulge in this weird-ass speculation without having availed themselves of the existing information on the topic first? Is it all just a bit too much effort?
 
dash_two said:
Re. the 'Growing Earth' - I don't doubt the mass of the Earth has increased a bit over the aeons, thanks to being hit by meteorites, but the GE theory goes further than that iirc. 'Growing Earth' and 'Expanding Earth' into Google brings up some hits, for example:

http://www.expanding-earth.org/

. . . tho I think the 'Growing Earth' version of the idea is more uh thoroughgoing.
Click to expand...

Brilliant :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2hats
Aeolus - global wind monitoring satellite
Replies
2
Views
506
TheHoodedClaw
TheHoodedClaw
weltweit
Carl Djerassi RIP - Scientist behind the contraceptive pill
Replies
1
Views
435
Mogden
Mogden
weltweit
Solar Impulse plane doing epic global flight
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
150
Views
8K
2hats
2hats
frogwoman
could the earth get like venus because of global warming?
Replies
26
Views
1K
Crispy
Crispy
F
Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Replies
5
Views
694
Dr Jon
Dr Jon
Back
Top Bottom