The REAL global warming

This is a discussion on The REAL global warming within the General Trading Chat forums, part of the Reception category; http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9 Click the link for another huge list - 700 sceptical scientists apparently. First sceptical quote is from a Nobel ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 25, 2009, 2:47pm   #31
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

Click the link for another huge list - 700 sceptical scientists apparently. First sceptical quote is from a Nobel Prize winner (a real one, for phsyics, not that one that they give out to anybody who isn't George Bush).

Doesn't mean that much to me per se, but you seem to like lots of names arranged in a column, so enjoy!
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 2:51pm   #32
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

What would this idiot know about it?

Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,” Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.

Must be in the pay of BIG OIL/TOBACCO/ETC (insert or delete as the whim takes you).
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 2:52pm   #33
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

What do you reckon, maybe the Camorra has got to this guy?

Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d'Annunzio in Italy, the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists also agrees that nature, not mankind is ruling the climate. “I think that climatic changes have natural causes according to geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming,” Crescenti told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 2:54pm   #34
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

This numpty may claim to be a scientist, but he wouldn't be let anywhere near a reputable body such as the IPCC. Oh wait...

UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 2:57pm   #35
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

This could go on a while - and, given that I'm not checking any charts again until 4.00, it may well do. But the lesson to learn is that pasting lists is not clever, that consensus does not exist and, even if it did, it would not prove anything.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 4:02pm   #36
 
montmorencyt2w's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

And another interesting website:

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Sc...atestFraud.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Sc.../Testimony.htm

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/...from-the-cold/

(and an old but juicy gossipy snippet about Al Gore:-

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14917

)


Meanwhile, yesterday on The Guardian online's "comment is free", even George Monbiot was apologising for having taken too much on trust what the warming-alarmist scientists had been saying, without ever questioning it. This in the wake of the embarrassing CRU UEA email/document leak (or "hack" as they are claiming). Monbiot even called on Phil Jones to resign.

Having said that, today's Grauniad is playing that story down again with a tiny little article on an inside page, basically just parroting UEA's official line; no questioning; no serious investigative journalism at all. Read all about it; get your Pravda here....


Just goes to show you can't trust anyone:


Car salesmen, estate agents, bankers, "traders" selling "winning systems"; politicians; media hacks; climate modellers....

Last edited by montmorencyt2w; Nov 25, 2009 at 4:57pm.
montmorencyt2w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 4:15pm   #37
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Mont, if you ever want a laugh have a look at monbiot.com - you'll fall off your chair. The man left planet earth a long time ago, and shows no intention of returning.

The Graun is ropey enough, for sure. However, in fairness its Comment is Free is actually rather good, and welcomes a range of opinions. If you want a good(ish) and reasonably serious debate, it's not a bad place.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 5:20pm   #38
 
montmorencyt2w's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
Mont, if you ever want a laugh have a look at monbiot.com - you'll fall off your chair. The man left planet earth a long time ago, and shows no intention of returning.

The Graun is ropey enough, for sure. However, in fairness its Comment is Free is actually rather good, and welcomes a range of opinions. If you want a good(ish) and reasonably serious debate, it's not a bad place.
Possibly, although I read that they had been censoring postings that objected to the mainstream (IPCC) view on global warming. I haven't spent much time on "comment is free" for some reason, although I read the printed Guardian most days. Actually I don't think GM is all bad by any means ... I used to be something of an admirer, but he's certainly had his blinkers on on this one - he listened to the scientists who told him what he wanted to believe and didn't question, like a proper journalist should do. At least he's had the grace to admit this. Whether he will do the full U-turn remains to be seen. I somehow doubt it. The thing is, some of the things the "warmists" say we should be doing, I actually agree with; just not for the reasons they give. And if warming really isn't the immediate threat that they claim, this is all to the good. It means we can actually concentrate on some of the more pressing and genuine environmental and humanitarian concerns, such as actual pollution(*), and shortage of clean drinking water in the third world, etc.

(*)- actual pollution that is, as opposed to the "pollution" by CO2 - quite ridiculous since CO2 is produced naturally by humans and other mammals, and is an essential part of the photosynthesis cycle.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...lobal-warming/

EDIT Check out the other videos further down that link also.

Last edited by montmorencyt2w; Nov 25, 2009 at 5:27pm.
montmorencyt2w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 5:50pm   #39
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

LMAO. Wattsup is always a good read.

I agree with what you're saying - there are excellent reasons, for example, to recycle, and waste less, that have nothing to do with climate change. It annoys me that people who don't subscibe to the AGW theory are painted as heartless b******** who couldn't care less about their environment. And I've got no particular love of fossil fuels - they just happen to work well when compared to the alternatives. Personally, I think nuclear is the best option (for the time being at least), although don't get the green fanatics started on that one.

Cheap, abundant power is crtical to our way of life - and it would go a long way to improving the lifes and life expectancies of those in the Third World. The policies of those advocating the AGW theory are not just wrong but wicked - they will impoverish mankind, impede growth and development, and stand in the way of millions of human beings emerging from grinding poverty. Sadly, this would not be the first time that the lives of the poorest on our planet have been sacrificed on the altar of evironmentalism.

The accolytes of Rachel Carson will have a deal of explaining to do when they meet St Peter. Many of them should be shown straight to the elevator that goes directly to the basement.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 7:18pm   #40
 
montmorencyt2w's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
LMAO. Wattsup is always a good read.

I agree with what you're saying - there are excellent reasons, for example, to recycle, and waste less, that have nothing to do with climate change. It annoys me that people who don't subscibe to the AGW theory are painted as heartless b******** who couldn't care less about their environment. And I've got no particular love of fossil fuels - they just happen to work well when compared to the alternatives. Personally, I think nuclear is the best option (for the time being at least), although don't get the green fanatics started on that one.

Cheap, abundant power is crtical to our way of life - and it would go a long way to improving the lifes and life expectancies of those in the Third World. The policies of those advocating the AGW theory are not just wrong but wicked - they will impoverish mankind, impede growth and development, and stand in the way of millions of human beings emerging from grinding poverty. Sadly, this would not be the first time that the lives of the poorest on our planet have been sacrificed on the altar of evironmentalism.

The accolytes of Rachel Carson will have a deal of explaining to do when they meet St Peter. Many of them should be shown straight to the elevator that goes directly to the basement.
I think we're on the same wavelength here. I'd worry about old-technology nuclear fission power stations ... waste, health and safety are still real issues here, and it still has the baggage of being associated with nuclear weapons. I think there can be little doubt that it was more or less a front for being able to develop nuclear weapons in the past; no one back then cared for carbon-free energy, and oil and coal were still cheap, and nuclear power was never as cheap as it had promised to be.

Whether the "new generation" fission reactors (which are supposed to burn up most of the fuel rods and not leave so much waste as well as being super-efficient) will be any good remains to be seen. I'm moderately excited about fusion in the long-run, but doubt if I will live to see it! (My son is hoping to get a job in one of the European fusion research places; if he gets it, it could be a job for life ).

I don't think wind-power is going anywhere, except perhaps for one-off cases on a small scale, and effective solar seems to be nearly as far off as fusion. Tidal may have more going for it, but is bound to introduce environmental worries.

We should be conserving our oil though, not because of CO2/GW (although there are genuine pollution issues like diesel particulates and no doubt other nasty stuff), but because it's so damn useful for other things (e.g. plastics, etc) for which there really is no alternative, e.g.

http://www.petrochemistry.net/flowchart/flowchart.htm

[OK, you oil guys, please send the fee to the usual bank account ... ]
montmorencyt2w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2009, 12:57am   #41
Joined Nov 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by montmorencyt2w View Post

(*)- actual pollution that is, as opposed to the "pollution" by CO2 - quite ridiculous since CO2 is produced naturally by humans and other mammals, and is an essential part of the photosynthesis cycle.
Depends on what you mean by a "pollutant". It is a greenhouse gas which causes highly undesirable global temperature change. You can call that a pollutant or not, but that doesn't change the science.

CO2 is most certainly a pollutant when changes in atmospheric concentration of C02 cause change in ocean pH of sufficient magnitude to threaten ocean ecosystems and in particular coral reefs. The evidence on this is already quite clear with Ocean pH having decreased by 0.1 since preindustrial era which much greater changes forecast. The detrimental effects on coral of such changes in pH have been confirmed in laboratory experiment.

You can read more about the evidence for and issues surrounding ocean acidification here:

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issu...2_caldeira.pdf

But I'm sure that's of no real interest to you as you clearly know everything there is to know about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not. After all there is a clearly a logical progression and no further thought about the matter is required:

CO2 essential part of photosyntheses => under no circumstance can CO2 ever be a pollutant.

There is no logic in that.

Attached. CO2 levels in ocean:
Attached Thumbnails
image-1.png  

Last edited by dcraig1; Nov 26, 2009 at 1:03am.
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2009, 2:21am   #42
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Taking things a little further back, no-one has ever explained to me why we focus so much on CO2. It represents a tiny proportion of the world's atmosphere, whereas water vapour, also a "greenhouse gas", makes up around 95%. I am aware that CO2 is stronger in this respect as it were, but how can CO2 possibly have such a huge effect when it is only 0.038% of the atmosphere?

And exactly how much is generated by humans? And how did coral survive in eras when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 10 times what they are today? And where did that CO2 come from, assuming T Rex wasn't tooling around in an SUV and leaving the little red light on his telly on?
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2009, 4:46am   #43
Joined Nov 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
Taking things a little further back, no-one has ever explained to me why we focus so much on CO2. It represents a tiny proportion of the world's atmosphere, whereas water vapour, also a "greenhouse gas", makes up around 95%. I am aware that CO2 is stronger in this respect as it were, but how can CO2 possibly have such a huge effect when it is only 0.038% of the atmosphere?
That's a pretty reasonable question. (But the bit about water vapor being 95% of the atmosphere is quite wrong - the great bulk of the atmosphere is nitrogen).

The attachment shows NASA's assessment of climate forcings for the period 1750 to 2000. "forcings" simply means the degree to which various factors that are known to have changed (known by observation and measurement) have resulted in climate change. CO2 is the most important factor.

Obviously deriving these figures is pretty technical stuff. Reduced to it's simplest expression, one could say that the earth has a heat "budget". The earth receives heat from the sun, some is trapped in the land surface, some in the oceans and some in the atmosphere. What is not trapped is radiated off into space, Atmospheric conditions affect the amount of heat radiated off into space.

There is (or rather has been) a kind of balance here which has kept climate in more or less a stable state over "longish" periods. The question is how much change in atmospheric composition can occur without highly undesirable changes to that balance. That is one of the issues that climate models are intended to improve the understanding of.

Just saying CO2 is only x% of the atmosphere doesn't at all address this question. As a metaphor, one can think about a see-saw on children's playground. If there are equal weights on each end, then it is in a kind of equilibrium. But add some small weight and it tips rapidly. In this case the equilibrium is unstable and the earths heat budget is fortunately not that unstable. How stable it really is the subject of rather extensive research and that is what the determination of climate forcings is all about.

It should be understood that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. This can be determined from the physics and chemistry. No climate models needed for that. The sixty four dollar question is the magnitude of warming that can be expected due to CO2 in the extraordinarily complex system that is the earths climate. The attached chart shows a piece of NASA's assessment.

One other reason that CO2 is considered so important is that it is expected to increase more rapidly than other greenhouse gases such as methane and CFCs for economic reasons.

And finally CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a LONG time until scrubbed by natural processes. Hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than methane. All will not be put right simply by turning off the tap sometime in the future.
Attached Thumbnails
efficacy_fig28.gif  

Last edited by dcraig1; Nov 26, 2009 at 5:03am.
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2009, 6:32am   #44
Joined Nov 2001
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcraig1 View Post
That's a pretty reasonable question. (But the bit about water vapor being 95% of the atmosphere is quite wrong - the great bulk of the atmosphere is nitrogen).

The attachment shows NASA's assessment of climate forcings for the period 1750 to 2000. "forcings" simply means the degree to which various factors that are known to have changed (known by observation and measurement) have resulted in climate change. CO2 is the most important factor.

Obviously deriving these figures is pretty technical stuff. Reduced to it's simplest expression, one could say that the earth has a heat "budget". The earth receives heat from the sun, some is trapped in the land surface, some in the oceans and some in the atmosphere. What is not trapped is radiated off into space, Atmospheric conditions affect the amount of heat radiated off into space.

There is (or rather has been) a kind of balance here which has kept climate in more or less a stable state over "longish" periods. The question is how much change in atmospheric composition can occur without highly undesirable changes to that balance. That is one of the issues that climate models are intended to improve the understanding of.

Just saying CO2 is only x% of the atmosphere doesn't at all address this question. As a metaphor, one can think about a see-saw on children's playground. If there are equal weights on each end, then it is in a kind of equilibrium. But add some small weight and it tips rapidly. In this case the equilibrium is unstable and the earths heat budget is fortunately not that unstable. How stable it really is the subject of rather extensive research and that is what the determination of climate forcings is all about.

It should be understood that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. This can be determined from the physics and chemistry. No climate models needed for that. The sixty four dollar question is the magnitude of warming that can be expected due to CO2 in the extraordinarily complex system that is the earths climate. The attached chart shows a piece of NASA's assessment.

One other reason that CO2 is considered so important is that it is expected to increase more rapidly than other greenhouse gases such as methane and CFCs for economic reasons.

And finally CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a LONG time until scrubbed by natural processes. Hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than methane. All will not be put right simply by turning off the tap sometime in the future.
Your see-saw explanation shows how finely tuned all this is. It doesn't take too much of anything to disrupt life on this planet. Even a few centimetres rise of the sea level will be disastrous for someone.
Splitlink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2009, 1:03pm   #45
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Hmm, I'm not sure where I got the 95% figure from. I know that Nitrogen makes up the vast bulk of dry air, but I thought that the atmosphere as a whole was significantly different.

I love the analogy of the see-saw - haven't actually seen that one before. But surely, it is a poor one designed for soundbite purposes. The two must be completely different scenarios.

The other thing I don't understand is the extent of the "panic", given that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is one of diminishing returns - it is not linear.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Real Reason Most Traders Lose- The Real Odds of Winning at Trading: mrsoul Forex 75 May 7, 2011 11:29pm
MF Global ukdaytrader General Trading Chat 1 Jun 4, 2009 1:52pm
The Great Global Warming Swindle Bigbusiness The Foyer 361 Jul 25, 2008 8:02am

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)