Global Warming, eh?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:28 pm

eyeno wrote: What good does it do to treat the symptoms of pollution (climate change) and not address the cause? ...


What a mess of pro-polluter lies, excuses, and scapegoating. :puke:
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:32 pm

Luther Blissett wrote:In what way is pollution innocuous or even good for us? I feel like climate arguments ultimately distract from the fact that we, and more of us, are literally trashing the planet.

Hi Luther Blisset, yes but unfortunately that's what happens with more people, and especially if they are financially better off. I suppose it analogous to the more food I eat, the more faecal waste I produce. :)

And though defecating is not the most dignifying and pleasant activity, I imagine it is an essential part of life,.. and even good for us, though definitely we should see that it gets recycled in a way that does not befoul the 'nest'...
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby eyeno » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:55 pm

wintler2 wrote:
eyeno wrote: What good does it do to treat the symptoms of pollution (climate change) and not address the cause? ...


What a mess of pro-polluter lies, excuses, and scapegoating. :puke:



Climate change (if it be man made) is a symptom. The disease would be pollution. Carbon tax is treating a symptom, not the disease. Treating the disease, sincere efforts at reducing the pollution, is the cure. This is my position and you consider this pro-polluter?
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:19 am

eyeno wrote:
wintler2 wrote:
eyeno wrote: What good does it do to treat the symptoms of pollution (climate change) and not address the cause? ...
What a mess of pro-polluter lies, excuses, and scapegoating. :puke:
Climate change (if it be man made) is a symptom. The disease would be pollution. Carbon tax is treating a symptom, not the disease. Treating the disease, sincere efforts at reducing the pollution, is the cure. This is my position and you consider this pro-polluter?


Yes, because it willfully forgets 40 years of efforts to simply 'reduce pollution'. That has worked as much as it is going to, its gains were marginal and swamped by growth in consumption, we need to get real. Forgetting important history is revolting, in my book.
Your analogy is screwy just fyi, because C tax doesn't treat the symptom (climate change in your words), it is reducing the cause, GHG pollution.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby eyeno » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:25 am

wintler2 wrote:
Your analogy is screwy just fyi, because C tax doesn't treat the symptom (climate change in your words), it is reducing the cause, GHG pollution.



The people that collect the taxes have a glorious history of using the money to buy castles in France and multimillion dollar yachts. I remain dubious. Why should I not be dubious? :shrug:
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby publius » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:26 am

The climate science is unsettled because of science. Politics on the other hand requires a perpetual state of emergency. AGW is good politics.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/03/a ... e-dynamic/

Although the hacked climate emails indicate a very interesting peer review process operating from settled assumptions in regards to AGW, follow the money indicates quite well the players.
Polluters fund studies that refute AGW. Imagine that. It is as if they have economic interests that AGW threatens politically. The interesting menagerie of funders on the AGW bandwagon reveals a quite different agenda than the polluters. Profits must come from new technology. The public purse will bring this forward for private profits. No significant investment in alternative technology will be made otherwise. And one reason is that it is not profitable enough and not controlled enough for the profits sought.

Of course if profits do not flow fast, if the funding for other technology does not come quickly from the public purse for new owners to make profits, Neo-Feudalism will be implemented sooner and only the rich will be permitted to pollute at will. Then a few decades later, better new technology will be brought in to be used--that is, once the global Neo-Feudal Tsardom permits it.
“To think is easy. To act is hard. But the hardest thing in the world is to act in accordance with your thinking.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
publius
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:07 am

Ok, so now the Daily Mail is hitting the panic button re lack of warming for 15 years,..supposedly based on Met figures, and now it's an ice age we need to worry about based on the slacking of in activity of that lucky old Sun who's probably somewhat exhausted from creating all that global warming in the late 20th century... :)

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By DAVID ROSE
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Image

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
Image

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
Image

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. ‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:40 am

Just keep pretending the green line is a figment of your imaginations.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5930
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:48 am

Ben D wrote:Ok, so now the Daily Mail is hitting the panic button re lack of warming for 15 years,..supposedly based on Met figures,


An artful construction of Met figures you mean..

In reality, both the graph and the manner in which Rose has framed the article is misleading. What a tangled web we weave, when we make graphs to deceive

Firstly, note the “X” axis, that shows average global temperatures ranging between the very narrow band of14.2 and 14.6 degrees Celsius.

What the Daily Mail fails to tell you is that the baseline temperature for the globe is calculated at 14.0 °C, as the Met Office notes.
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com ... l-warming/


So ALL of the years the Mail article bothers to graph are ABOVE AVERAGE.
All - warmer - than - before.
That that span is anyway too short to prove anything about climate trends is not, i think, relevant, thats just the Daily Mail for you.


Ben D wrote:and now it's an ice age we need to worry about based on the slacking of in activity of that lucky old Sun who's probably somewhat exhausted from creating all that global warming in the late 20th century... :)

If the sun has been less active why are we still warmer than average? Did the Arctics ice liquidate itself?

Cute article tho, 'specially the way Rose wrapped up with a threat:
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

Global Warming Policy Foundation chairman: Lord Nigel Lawson (former Tory Chancellor to Margaret Thatcher.).
Last edited by wintler2 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:51 am

Iamwhomiam wrote:Just keep pretending the green line is a figment of your imaginations.

What's your point?

If you are referring to 1997 - 2012 graph, I understand what you mean, but it seems to me that the year 1998 is considered the 'actual' warmest on record.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:35 am

What's my point? Seriously?

You deny our planet is warming and the graph you and others posted demonstrates most clearly that it is.

Edited to correct misspelling of 'it' as 'is'
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5930
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:48 am

Iamwhomiam wrote:What's my point? Seriously?
You deny our planet is warming and the graph you and others posted demonstrates most clearly that it is.

Edited to correct misspelling of 'it' as 'is'

Sorry to sound mean Iamwhomiam, but it would save a lot of confusion for you if you actually read the thread before jumping in without understanding where this discussion is at. :whisper:

So fyi, my Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:14 am post...
The thing is that average global temperature has increased about 0.8 of a degree Celsius since records began in 1880 until now. The skeptical community agree that's about right so there is pretty much a consensus on the amount of warming.

This discussion is not about the 0.8 degree C warming according to the green trend line on the graph, there is consensus on that,...it's about the accelerated global warming that AGW alarmists claim was going to happen in the 21st century that would see, depending on the what figure you take (the figure has been revised downwards as time goes on,...we are already 12 years into it and the accelerated deviation hasn't emerged.. ), could anywhere from 2 to 12 degrees C by the year 2100.

If you continue that green trend line to the year 2100, it will show another 0.6 degree C warmer. I reiterate, this isn't the global warming that is being spoken about and projected to occur by the AGW community, theirs predict a much greater warming than 0.6 degrees C and the truth is,..until now, the predicted accelerated global warming hasn't been shown to be evident.

That's what the scientific sceptical community is saying, the AGW computer climate models are not being verified by the actual temperature data in time.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Sounder » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:49 am

Wintler2 wrote…
You'd think a billion dollar 'perception management' industry could come with some new lines every decade or so .. but no.


That is just humor coming from you, Mr. you guys are pro-polluter Koch bros. loving swine.

Or is it more like, Stay on the bandwagon folks, this writer is a conservative shit so there is no need to consider the content of the article. Yet the facts remain that Professor Garnaut is the go to guy on climate policy and the chairman of Lihir Gold.


In the year 2007, when all Australian states were under the control of the Labor party, the then Federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd with the help of his state colleagues, commissioned Professor Garnaut to undertake a study to understand the effects of climate change on Australian economy and recommend suggestions to reduce its impact.

That announcement in effect became Labor’s “Climate change policy” that it took to 2007 election. At almost every speech and at every forum whenever Kevin Rudd was quizzed about climate change, he had the same answer -We will make our policy clear in due course based on Professor Garnaut’s review. But Rudd is not the only connection Garnaut has with the Labor Party.


This is the ‘real’ Prof Garnaut; another typical eviscerator of meaning content of categories. In this case; environmentalism. Huh just like you, but on a much larger scale. At least you have a target to aim for, (you Koch loving pro-polluter scum.)

"The mine sludge contains cyanide and heavy metals and the practice of dumping toxic mine-waste, submarine tailings, into the sea, is *banned* in China, Canada and the United States. It is banned by the UN. But in his webcast to Lihir shareholders last month, Professor Garnaut made the extraordinary statement that “The LGL Board, [Lihir Gold] has always
adopted responsible environmental management. Our environmental track record of Lihir is exemplary".

Do you wintler2 support the work of Prof. Garnaut? Here is the table of contents for his latest report.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update- ... -2011.html

• Download the Garnaut Review 2011 (PDF 1.41 MB)
• Read the Garnaut Review 2011
o Preface l PDF 83 KB)
o Introduction l (PDF 90 KB)
o Part I The global shift
o Chapter 1 Beyond reasonable doubt l (PDF 229 KB)
o Chapter 2 Carbon after the Great Crash l (PDF 214 KB)
o Chapter 3 What's a fair share? l (PDF 146 KB)
o Chapter 4 Pledging the future l (PDF 171 KB)
o Part II Australia's path
o Chapter 5 Correcting the great failure l (PDF 88 KB)
o Chapter 6 Better climate, better tax l (PDF 95 KB)
o Chapter 7 The best of times l (PDF 190 KB)
o Chapter 8 Adapting efficiently l (PDF 92 KB)
o Part III Australian transformations
o Chapter 9 Innovation nation l (PDF 113 KB)
o Chapter 10 Transforming the land sectori (PDF 113 KB)
o Chapter 11 Electricity transformation l (PDF 269 KB)
o Chapter 12 Choosing the future l (PDF 76 KB)
o Notes l (PDF 143 KB)
o Acknowledgments l (PDF 128 KB)

Wintler2, that guilt by association bit goes both ways and while Sharma may be a conservative this Garnaut fellow is scum.

But hey sure lets talk about Sharma.
Last edited by Sounder on Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3835
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby publius » Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:32 am

"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes

The IPCC climate models almost complete failure at climate prediction has become an embarrassing joke within the general science community as these money-eating simulation efforts starve other science projects of funds. Almost on a weekly basis there is new research revealing the climate model failure fiasco, which likely will remain the case for the foreseeable future, per a recent study.

Wan et al. analyzed the Atlantic tropical bias that exists in the major IPCC climate models that prevents the coupled models from accurately reproducing Atlantic equatorial sea surface temperatures. This failure will not be solved in the near future they determine, which precludes these models being able to "predict" abrupt climate change.

"The authors write that "the notorious tropical bias problem in climate simulations of global coupled general circulation models manifests itself particularly strongly in the tropical Atlantic,"... they state that "the climate bias problem is still so severe that one of the most basic features of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean -- the eastward shoaling thermocline -- cannot be reproduced by most of the IPCC assessment report models,...as they describe it, "show that the bias in the eastern equatorial Atlantic has a major effect on sea-surface temperature (SST) response to a rapid change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)."...ultimate implication of Wan et al.'s findings is, in their words, that "in order to accurately simulate past abrupt climate changes and project future changes, the bias in climate models must be reduced." But if "little or no progress" on this problem has been made in the tropical Atlantic "over the past decades,"..." [Xiuquan Wana, Ping Changa, Charles S. Jacksonn, Link Jia, Mingkui Lia 2011: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography]
“To think is easy. To act is hard. But the hardest thing in the world is to act in accordance with your thinking.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
publius
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:08 pm

I wonder how many billions will be collectively sucked from the 99.999999% , before one of any of a host of promising exotic technologies finally come to fruition ( and they will - be assured of that ) after years of slow progress due to the lack of the very kind of monies that we are currently paying to the reptiles to perpetuate the global warming / carbon tax/credits scams ?

Like just about everything else on this earth, its one big fucking joke. You have to laugh, or you'd crack up.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests