The REAL global warming

This is a discussion on The REAL global warming within the General Trading Chat forums, part of the Reception category; All I've taken away from reading about 'climategate' is what I already knew, which is that both sides of the ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 2, 2009, 9:11am   #76
 
virtuos0's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Re: The REAL global warming

All I've taken away from reading about 'climategate' is what I already knew, which is that both sides of the debate are fundamentally full of **** and have agendas.

The parallels between the market and the climate are something to ponder though. As already mentioned, both are massively complex chaotic systems that are way beyond our meagre intelligence to accurately explain or predict. All we are doing is scratcing away at the surface as far as I can see. Quite typically we seem to be arrogant enough to believe that we can draw firm conclusions. But anyway, long may the scratching continue because in a couple of thousand years time we might get somewhere.
virtuos0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2009, 1:13pm   #77
The Staff are paid members that perform various roles such as editorial, advertising, support or technical work.
 
Trader333's Avatar
Joined Jan 2003
Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

Another interesting link that basically says all politicians haven't grasped what is needed.


Paul

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...sen?CMP=AFCYAH
Trader333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2009, 3:59pm   #78
Joined Nov 2009
Re: The REAL global warming

Recent developments in Britain substantiate that global warming is so much BS.
jaspertrademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2009, 8:13pm   #79
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

On the accuracy of NASA's temperature record:

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/...-lies-and.html

(Use the link for the missing graphs)

During Spring, we are told, a young man's fancy turns to love. However, it is not Spring, it is Winter and so we return once again to the fantasy of global warming... er... I mean, climate change.

I think that we would all agree that to form any kind of theory about whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occurring, we really do need to have some vaguely reliable data; after all, if there is no actual warming, then it's a little difficult to say that we're causing it.

The trouble is that gaining a temperature reading for the entire world is actually a little tricky; it's a big planet we live on, and an awful lot of the surface area is made up of water. However, that hasn't stopped the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)—headed up by our old friend James Hansen (an enthusiastic proponent of anthropogenic global warming. Except in the seventies, when he was an enthusiastic proponent of anthropogenic global cooling)—relying on the land temperature record rather, than, say, satellite measurements.

There is, of course, some logic in this, as the land temperature record goes back until the late 1800s (in the US, at least), whilst satellite readings have been taken only since 1979. The trouble is that this very longevity introduces uncertainty into the temperature record: thermometers have become more sensitive, for instance, and population centres—with their attending urban heat island effect—have encroached on measuring stations once situated in the countryside.

It is, therefore, actually very difficult to gauge the average temperature over the globe with any degree of certainty, and the signal to noise ratio makes any estimate near worthless. Especially, of course, when the people responsible for the records keep retrospectively changing them, as Anthony Watts points out.


Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly - h/t to Zapruder

The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.

True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.

Please note that the above graph does not represent a change in temperature projections; GISS have effectively changed what they think that actual temperatures were (and their reationship to past temperatures). Which is interesting, is it not?

It is also interesting that GISS and the other agencies almost always put a positive bias on recent temperatures, and a negative bias on past temperatures. This processing has the simple effect of making more recent temperatures seem... well... higher.

Neatly illustrating this point is Climate Skeptic, with a blink graph of actual temperatures measured at the climate stations, against the end result that is passed to GISS from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


My point was not that all these adjustments were unnecessary (the time of observation adjustment is required, though I have always felt it to be exaggerated). But all of the adjustments are upwards, even those for station quality. The net effect is that there is no global warming signal in the US, at least in the raw data. The global warming signal emerges entirely from the manual adjustments. Which causes one to wonder as to the signal to noise ratio here. And increases the urgency to get more scrutiny on these adjustments.

It only goes through 2000, because I only had the adjustment numbers through 2000.

Part of the problem, you see, of scrutinising the adjustments is that these agencies seem to be extraordinarily coy about releasing the data and algorithms that they use to make said adjustments. Numerous FOI requests (mainly by bloggers) have revealed some of the processes (and exposed some as being deeply flawed) but not, alas, all of them.

What we do know, of course, is that adjustments for recent years are nearly always positive, a slightly bizarre process for anyone who has been following Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org project.

If, for instance, a measurement station has been encroached upon by a population centre in the last twenty years (as many of them have) and this encroachment coincides with increased temperature readings, one might be tempted at least to investigate whether said station is being affected by the urban heat island effect. And if this is the case, the adjustments should be negative, not positive.

As it happens, we can show that this is precisely what GISS is not doing. Here, for instance, is a measuring station situated near a water treatment works in Clarinda, Iowa.



The MMTS temperature sensor is the short pole next to the half pickup truck.

For those of you that don’t know, this station is located at the wastewater treatment plant there. I’ve written many times about the placement of stations at WWTP’s being a bad idea due to the localized heat bubble that is created due to all the effluent coming though. The effect is especially noticeable in winter. Often you’ll see steam/water vapor in the air around these sites in winter, and more than one COOP observer has told our volunteers that snow sometimes does not stick to the ground at WWTP’s.

The larger pole appears to be a gas burnoff torch for excess methane. I can’t say how often it is activated (note the automatic ignitor circuit on the pole) but I can tell you that putting an official NOAA climate thermometer within a few feet of such a device is one of the worst examples of thoughtless station placement on the part of NOAA I’ve ever seen. Here is an example of a methane burn-off device at another WWTP.

We’ll probably never know what the true temperature is in Clarinda because untangling a measurements mess like this is next to impossible. How many days was Tmin and/or Tmax affected at this location by gas burnoff and to what magnitude? We shouldn’t have to ask these questions.

Quite so. But I would imagine that GISS and NOAA have this all under control, yes? I mean, I am sure that they are aware of the placing of the station and have adjusted the temperature readings down, as would seem logical.

Er... no.

And, adding insult to stupidity, the GISTEMP Homogenization adjustment makes the trend go positive, especially in recent years:
...



So, either GISS, NOAA and the rest of this merry crew are lying (in which case, you shouldn't trust a word that they say) or they are very, very bad scientists (in which case, you cannot trust a word that they say).

Of course, I am not discounting the idea that both contentions are true.

Anyway, whatever the reasons, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data coming out of GISS is highly suspect and, thus, so is the contention that the Earth is actually warming at all. And using such data to back a theory that any warming is caused solely by carbon dioxide (and other greenhouses gases) emitted by the activities of human beings is to discredit the entire hypothesis.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2009, 8:16pm   #80
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Some hilarious measuring stations - trust NASA, they might as well put them next to 3 bar fires lol.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/...modelling.html
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2009, 8:18pm   #81
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

So much for consensus. The following is from Dr Vincent Grey, who was an expert reviewer for the IPCC for 18 years. It seems that he's not totally convinced:

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/...nsesus-er.html

He signs off thus:

This Climate Change Statement is veritably an orchestrated litany of lies, to borrow a phrase. As a longstanding member of the Royal Society of New Zealand I am unable to tolerate such a departure as this from the supposed objectives of fair or responsible comment on scientific matters, so I have resigned in protest.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2009, 8:28pm   #82
 
zambuck's Avatar
Joined Jan 2003
Re: Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trader333 View Post
Another interesting link that basically says all politicians haven't grasped what is needed.


Paul

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...sen?CMP=AFCYAH

Forget the Politicians....even the leanred lot havent a clue as to how to deal with the issue....

The problem is many faceted....manufacturing...production...ecnomy...a nd global trade...

If you take half of Chinese manufacturing out of China to elsewhere, then Chinese will suddenly NOT be the biggest polluters...But that will not happen as Politicians will not be able to implement that move...So everyone is working around a solution to reduce the emmissions by forcing Chinese and Indians, but at the same time not expecting them to reduce the manufacturing process...

So it is a complex process, and it is never easy to lecture other countries when thay supply goods at less than what it will cost to manufacture locally...!

There is a Patent for a hybrid aeroplane....It is half zepellin and half aeroplane...It will fly and land like an aeroplace but as it is aided by helium, it uses less power to fly...But it will take longer to reach destination as it semi floats...

Now will anyone implement it....?..NO...What we have is the biggest air bus that is being touted by West for selling onto the World...

Where is a lead by 'responsible' nations...?
__________________
zambuck

The most futile and disastrous day seems well spent when it is reviewed through the blue, fragrant smoke of a Havana Cigar.
Evelyn Waugh.
zambuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2009, 10:31am   #83
Joined Dec 2008
Re: Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

Quote:
Originally Posted by zambuck View Post


There is a Patent for a hybrid aeroplane....It is half zepellin and half aeroplane...But it will take longer to reach destination as it semi floats...

Now will anyone implement it....?..NO...


Absolute genius!
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2009, 2:32pm   #84
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

The thing is with the consensus wallahs, you can trust them. They give it to you straight. So shut your ears to doubts and feast on the following quotes from some well-known experts who care about the planet and aren't selfish b*rstard deniers like me.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King


Hard to pick a favourite, although "set levels of mortality control" is interesting, terrifying and evil.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: Gumping , zupcon
Old Dec 4, 2009, 7:50pm   #85
 
zambuck's Avatar
Joined Jan 2003
Re: Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post


Absolute genius!
.........
__________________
zambuck

The most futile and disastrous day seems well spent when it is reviewed through the blue, fragrant smoke of a Havana Cigar.
Evelyn Waugh.
zambuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 4:38pm   #86
Joined Dec 2008
Re: Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

Quote:
Originally Posted by zambuck View Post
.........
........................

Seriously though, half zep, half plane? You know why nobody will implent it? Because it's as mad as a box of frogs. Things like the OE and two weeks on the Grand Princess aside, most travel is predominantly concerned with the movement of people from A to B. As (in most cases) the actual act of travelling is not an end in itself, but a necessary step to achieving a desired outcome, most travellers prefer the travelling process to be as short as possible. Hence flying is considered better than "semi-floating", which would be seen by most people as utterly pointless. Thus the reason why your 1920s style "travel of the future" idea will not be built - no one would take it if a Boeing was going in the same direction.

As an aside, I would love air travel in something that doesn't just drop out of the sky if anything goes wrong. I'm terrified of flying and have to load up on 20mg of diazzies and a few brandies just to go near a plane. So some kind of floating device would suit me down to the ground (so to speak) - for me the extra time would be well worth. But not enough people feel the same way to make it commercially viable.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 4:50pm   #87
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

The following makes not a scrap of difference to the truth of the AGW theory. However, many proponents of it like to dismiss sceptics by claiming that they are simply doing it for the money - they are funded by Big Oil etc.

So it might be interesting to see if we can discern any reason for passion of the world's highest-profile believer, Al Gore, other than a passionate desire to save the planet for all of us. The following is taken from a piece in the LA Times.

Well, now we have some explanation for why former vice president Al Gore is delaying the announcement of his 2008 presidential campaign. He's making a big bundle off the environment by talking about it.

Thanks to thesmokinggun.com website, we have access to a copy of the contract for the recent speech by Gore at the University of California, San Diego. It's an inconvenient truth that he got $100,000 for the 75-minute environmental slide presentation at the public school and agreed to an extra 10 minutes of questions.

Among the other requirements set out by Gore:

First-class roundtrip air transportation for himself and one traveling companion, who is also to receive $1,000 per day in expenses; all meal, phone and other expenses to be covered for both; a security guard for every minute of his visit; a sedan, preferably a hybrid but definitely not an SUV, for all transportation; no press access or interviews; no video or audio taping or broadcast of the event; no photographs; approval of all scenery, logos, banners and settings for the appearance; approval of all communications and mailings regarding the appearance; Gore agrees only to a brief reception with sponsors and invited guests; and the contents of the contract must be kept strictly confidential.


Good work if you can get it - even better than buying carbon offsets from your own company .
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 4:59pm   #88
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Trust NASA completely - they're really, really, really sure they've got it right this time:

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler. (Wahington Times)

How hard can it be from NASA's point of view to determine which year was the hottest? And if it is so open to interpretation (which,given the complexity of the matter seems to me to be reasonable) how can we trust their elaborate graphs and heavily "adjusted" temperature records?
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 6:17pm   #89
 
zambuck's Avatar
Joined Jan 2003
Re: Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
........................

Seriously though, half zep, half plane? You know why nobody will implent it? Because it's as mad as a box of frogs. Things like the OE and two weeks on the Grand Princess aside, most travel is predominantly concerned with the movement of people from A to B. As (in most cases) the actual act of travelling is not an end in itself, but a necessary step to achieving a desired outcome, most travellers prefer the travelling process to be as short as possible. Hence flying is considered better than "semi-floating", which would be seen by most people as utterly pointless. Thus the reason why your 1920s style "travel of the future" idea will not be built - no one would take it if a Boeing was going in the same direction.

As an aside, I would love air travel in something that doesn't just drop out of the sky if anything goes wrong. I'm terrified of flying and have to load up on 20mg of diazzies and a few brandies just to go near a plane. So some kind of floating device would suit me down to the ground (so to speak) - for me the extra time would be well worth. But not enough people feel the same way to make it commercially viable.
The proposal and design was serious enough.....The buoyancy - if that is the right word to use in this context was well thought out design....

If people want to 'get there' is as quick as possible, then why did concord get out of fashion.....World's most uneconomical design in terms of fuel and co2 emission....

Some of the world's best design did start off as laughing stock and in the end it was accepted as norm...

New designes have never got the attention it deserves...




Car design proposed by Buckminster Fuller in 30's was an advanced and aerodynamic design. At that time Ford was designing 'Edsel' and other crap that were massive failures...






In this new fashion of sudden realisation that we will be doomed unless we do something, I would suggest that you read work of Victor Papanek called - Design for Real World.....
__________________
zambuck

The most futile and disastrous day seems well spent when it is reviewed through the blue, fragrant smoke of a Havana Cigar.
Evelyn Waugh.
zambuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 6:44pm   #90
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

OK, I shouldn't have laughed - that looks a lot better than it sounded at first. Particularly the parts about not crashing and not getting blown up by nutters. Personally (after it had been tested a great deal) I think I would prefer your idea to normal aircraft.

Speed obviously isn't everything, and I didn't mean to imply that it was. It obviously has to be balanced against other factors such as value, safety and so on. Concorde got the balance wrong.

As for technological advancement and better design, absolutely. It is why one should bet on man every time. Do you remember Paul Ehrlich and his population bomb, and the Club of Rome going on about how we'd run out of tin and whatnot? Well, crop yields have increased masively, new land is brought into cultivation, scientists engineer better seeds, on and on. And the idea that running out of any particular resource is a problem is laughable if you know anything about technological advance, substitution and so forth.

There was an advert on telly a while back encouraging people to become teachers. It focused on how interesting the job was and featured children asking profound and fascinating questions. The one that grabbed my attention was "What happens when the oil runs out?".

The answer is absurdly simple. Worst case, we'll burn something else. Most likely, by the time that becomes a remote possibility, we won't need oil anyway (it already seems very primitive - to me at least - to still be digging up bits of old animals and plants and burning them in little engines). Man's ingenuity will discover a new way, and the profit motive wil ensure that someone will make it commercially viable. What about plastics and everything else that oil goes into? Again, we'll find something better - we always do.

I agree that we will indeed all be doomed if we don't do "something" - my suggestion for a starting point would be to force everyone to read "The Emperor's New Clothes" and then have another think about AGW, before we take the West back to the pre-industrial age.

Anyway, thanks for those very interesting videos, and sorry for my hasty and dismissive first response.
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)