mikkey 0
Recommended Posts
mikkey 0
QuoteFor those that find no reasons to believe CO2 has at this time shown a effect on the climate.
Do you believe that it is not necessary to regulate/modify our consumption of fossil fuels period? Or are you saying that efforts to do so should be adjusted as to not adversely effect the economic and technological boundaries we now face
You are making an interesting point.
Firstly carbon fuels are finite (we do not know exactly when we run out - but we can assume we will).
Secondly we are basing the political process on a flawed theory and focus on "bringing down temperatures".
My point is that IMHO we cant influence the climate the way the politician say they will and that the focus on CO2 can actually be unhelpful in developing alternative energy sources.
We should focus of reseraching alternative energy. "Punishing" carbon energy wont help as it will undermine our wealth (and ability to do so).
Introducing taxes to make energy more expensive does not achieve things - investing into reserach into the alternatives will.
Do people really think that wind and solar power are the alternatives? They are expensive and have far too many limitations. Ever heard of baseload?
The "market based" carbon approach will only increase and subsidise old insufficient alternative energy sources like wind and solar. We need other far more sophisticated alternative sources (e.g. fusion, thermal etc.).
We need more government investment into the real thing - we need watershed solutions - not patches. I believe the current policies will mainly subsidise expensive and inefficient solutions - not the big ticket items.
For example - I believe we should increase our efforts in the area of fusion energy, hydro energy, geothermal etc. This will not happen because you increase the cost of oil and coal - it needs major investment by goverment (a bit like a new moon landing project).
In the meantime we are creating conflicts with the third world and India/China if we try to stop their access to cheap energy / development. The cost of what we are doing now can easily be higher then using money on addressing issues created by any climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
JackC 0
QuoteQuote>Check the satellite data for global temperatures.
OK! See below. (I assume this is not a surprise to you since you admit it's getting warmer.)
You are posting graphs that are out of date and incorrect. You should know that yoour 2005 claim is not correct and that the updated graphs I posted are the consensus from 3 out of 4 institutions which measure global temperatures. Temperatures have not increased since 1998 - you are really tring to muddy the waters.
I looked up the reference for your satellite graphs and they claim the data came from the Hadley Centre for Climate Research and the University of East Anglia so I chased it up. It seems you are cherry picking the last 10 years from a graph that runs for 150 years. That's not very honest. Here is the full graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
mikkey 0
QuoteQuoteQuote>Check the satellite data for global temperatures.
OK! See below. (I assume this is not a surprise to you since you admit it's getting warmer.)
You are posting graphs that are out of date and incorrect. You should know that yoour 2005 claim is not correct and that the updated graphs I posted are the consensus from 3 out of 4 institutions which measure global temperatures. Temperatures have not increased since 1998 - you are really tring to muddy the waters.
I looked up the reference for your satellite graphs and they claim the data came from the Hadley Centre for Climate Research and the University of East Anglia so I chased it up. It seems you are cherry picking the last 10 years from a graph that runs for 150 years. That's not very honest. Here is the full graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
The temperatures shown are from sattelite data and not disputed - the peak was 1998 and since they have come down. You can hold your hands over your ears and pretend it aint so, but its the fact. 2005 was not warmer then 1998 - full stop.
Attached another recent graph that shows both both satellite and surface data.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
Quote
Do you believe that it is not necessary to regulate/modify our consumption of fossil fuels period? Or are you saying that efforts to do so should be adjusted as to not adversely effect the economic and technological boundaries we now face
The latter.
We are all engines of karma
JackC 0
QuoteQuoteI looked up the reference for your satellite graphs and they claim the data came from the Hadley Centre for Climate Research and the University of East Anglia so I chased it up. It seems you are cherry picking the last 10 years from a graph that runs for 150 years. That's not very honest. Here is the full graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
The temperatures shown are from sattelite data and not disputed - the peak was 1998 and since they have come down. You can hold your hands over your ears and pretend it aint so, but its the fact. 2005 was not warmer then 1998 - full stop.
I'm not holding my hands over my ears, the data is what the data is. The correlation between satellite and surface data seems good so we should be able to have some confidence in the earlier data where no satellite data exists. Clearly there are many periods where the temperature began to fall (1878, 1884, 1900, 1940, 1960, 1980, 1990, 2002). Nevertheless, over the whole 150 year period, the temperature rose considerably. You can hold your hands over your ears and pretend it aint so, but it's a fact.
QuoteQuoteWe were in Chamonix recently and took a trip to the 'Mer de Glace'. On the footpath down to the glacier, they have positioned signs with the dates that the gacier was last at that position .... It's an eye opener on how the glacier has receeded in very recent times (last 20 years!!).
Well, it has happened before in history - the climate has always changed - this is why the hockey stick is such a con. It was probably warmer around the year 1000 then it is now.
I'm sure that your are right (I'm far from qualified to enter the scientific debate that's going on here - but I do find it interesting
) - All that I'm saying is that from my ovservation, changes is occuring now on That glacier and it's dramatic.
The other point (IMHO) is that the politicians are the VERY LAST people that we should be listening too. They are short termist and self-serving, so any 'proposed solution' that they bring to the table, will nearly always cost US (the tax payer) money and make them or their mates a fortune.... We are seeing this, this week in the U.K where they are formulating a new Power Policy which they have already said means that energy will cost the consumer more (a lot more?)... I think (as you said earlier) this 'Band-Aid approach needs to be stopped and a fundamental reassesment made (Personally, I hate wind turbines, they are inefficient, and make some people lots of money whilst doing little or nothing good for 'The Environment').
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
TomAiello 26
QuoteSo, you're not capable of sharing your knowledge in reasonably simple terms.
Well, he is a part of the academic elite. Their thoughts are so complex and wonderful that mere mortals should simply bow in assent and do as they are told.
In other words: "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it."
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Quote
Well, he is a part of the academic elite.
Which university? North Chicago State, or something like that?
We are all engines of karma
JackC 0
QuoteQuoteSo, you're not capable of sharing your knowledge in reasonably simple terms.
Well, he is a part of the academic elite. Their thoughts are so complex and wonderful that mere mortals should simply bow in assent and do as they are told.
In other words: "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it."
When you explain, and they get it wrong, so you explain in simpler terms, and they get it wrong, so you explain in even more simple terms, and they finally get it, then they go back to the original problem and get it wrong, so you explain, and they get it wrong, so you explain in simpler terms, and they get it wrong, so you explain in even more simple terms...etc etc...
So eventually you give up and get slagged for being one of the arrogant academic elite. It's no wonder there is a shortage of science teachers, who the fuck would sign up for that on a daily basis?
chasteh 0
His terms are complex enough to be placed in the academic elite. To be in the academic elite is to be elitist. To be elitist is to look at everyone around you as mere mortals. To look at everyone as mere mortals is to force them into agreeing with you. And forcing people to agree with you is the same thing as being socialist, and NO ONE wants to be a socialist!
God help us!
God help us!
Quotethe data is what the data is. The correlation between satellite and surface data seems good so we should be able to have some confidence in the earlier data where no satellite data exists.
Jack - people keep tossing out the term "satellite data" as if it is an adjunct for surface data.
Satellites measure atmospheric temperatures. There can be some disagreement between surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures. In fact, plenty of that is seen today with this ten year pause we are in - surface warming and atmospheric measurements have some correlation but lag.
These measurements should be kept separate when discussing the data. GISS = surface temps. Satellite = atmosphere (especially troposphere).
Edited to add - okay. Not "kept separate." Maybe "separately identified."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
JackC 0
QuoteSatellites measure atmospheric temperatures.
Incorrect. Satellites measure radiance which is inverted to infer temperature. That radiance comes mostly from the planets surface, not the atmosphere.
QuoteEdited to add - okay. Not "kept separate." Maybe "separately identified."
Separately identified yes, and they usually are. But that does not mean they cannot be used together.
Thanks for the correction.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The last 10 years we have seen a cooling trend - so whats your point?
?? 2005 was the hottest year, ever. So it would be more accurate to say "the last 3 years we have seen a cooling trend."
>You are misrepresenting me - it has warmed until 1998 - since then its
>gone the other way
From 2009:
=========
Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica
By KENNETH CHANG
Published: January 21, 2009
Antarctica is warming. That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.
Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.
In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.
“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.
===========
>you have no prove of it
I have basic thermo.
> if you looked at the misinformation spread by the AGW believers you knew
>exactly what I am talking about.
Nope. Once again, I don't feel guilty - do you?
> And how comes that you personally have made yourself so carbon neutral at
>your house when you should know it does not make a difference . . .
Because I enjoy building stuff and prefer to put my money where my mouth is. I cannot change the world - but I can do what's right.
>Rubbish again - Bjorn put the current proposals through exactkly the
>models the AGW believers use . . .
Ah! Well, if being able to operate computer models makes you a climate expert, then I am one as well, and I say he's wrong.
?? 2005 was the hottest year, ever. So it would be more accurate to say "the last 3 years we have seen a cooling trend."
>You are misrepresenting me - it has warmed until 1998 - since then its
>gone the other way
From 2009:
=========
Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica
By KENNETH CHANG
Published: January 21, 2009
Antarctica is warming. That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.
Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.
In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.
“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.
===========
>you have no prove of it
I have basic thermo.
> if you looked at the misinformation spread by the AGW believers you knew
>exactly what I am talking about.
Nope. Once again, I don't feel guilty - do you?
> And how comes that you personally have made yourself so carbon neutral at
>your house when you should know it does not make a difference . . .
Because I enjoy building stuff and prefer to put my money where my mouth is. I cannot change the world - but I can do what's right.
>Rubbish again - Bjorn put the current proposals through exactkly the
>models the AGW believers use . . .
Ah! Well, if being able to operate computer models makes you a climate expert, then I am one as well, and I say he's wrong.
billvon 2,991
>You should know that yoour 2005 claim is not correct
Five warmest years in recorded history, in order:
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
>and that the updated
>graphs I posted are the consensus from 3 out of 4 institutions which
>measure global temperatures.
THERE'S NO CONSENSUS! (sorry, just had to say that)
>Temperatures have not increased since 1998 - you are really tring to muddy the waters.
Except for 2005. But maybe if you post the 1998 thing a dozen more times, it will become more valid.
Five warmest years in recorded history, in order:
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
>and that the updated
>graphs I posted are the consensus from 3 out of 4 institutions which
>measure global temperatures.
THERE'S NO CONSENSUS! (sorry, just had to say that)
>Temperatures have not increased since 1998 - you are really tring to muddy the waters.
Except for 2005. But maybe if you post the 1998 thing a dozen more times, it will become more valid.
billvon 2,991
>2005 was not warmer then 1998 - full stop.
==========
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic.
============
In other words, the only way you can claim that 1998 was warmer is to ignore the Arctic. You have to selectively throw out data to reach your preferred politically correct answer.
==========
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic.
============
In other words, the only way you can claim that 1998 was warmer is to ignore the Arctic. You have to selectively throw out data to reach your preferred politically correct answer.
You are posting graphs that are out of date and incorrect. You should know that yoour 2005 claim is not correct and that the updated graphs I posted are the consensus from 3 out of 4 institutions which measure global temperatures. Temperatures have not increased since 1998 - you are really tring to muddy the waters.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites