Ask Me Help Desk - Yet another reason why AGW

yet another reason why AGW

is a crock of you know what
Finally, some good news - scientists find cities can be surprisingly good at soaking up carbon dioxide | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au
they just happened to leave an important variable out of the equation. Could it explain why the Earth isn't warming the way they thought?

It appears the great minds (scientists some call them) who analyse climate etc attribute no value to vegitation in cities as carbon sinks and yet there are some who take what these dills serve up as absolute truth and a reason to change our way of life. I wonder what variable we shall find they left out next. Perhaps they left the oceans out of their calculations? I know how you can predict AGW; think of a number, double it, take away half the number you first thought of, divide by 9 and if what you have is a whole number use that, otherwise do the exercise again.The number you get is the predicted temperature rise by the year 2050

And then there's this: Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money - Environment - GOOD

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

And then there's this: Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money - Environment - GOOD

So we have frauds on both side of the debate, which leads me to say I don't believe any of it. Look, Climate Change is happening, whether this is just an on going process, and there is evidence it might be, the result of human activity, and there might be evidence to support this theory, or the latest way of funding scientific research, and there is evidence it might be, there is also strong evidence to the contrary. We know there appears to be a group of scientists for hire by the tobacco industry, the oil indistry, the coal indistry, etc but there is also a group of scientists who make it up as they go along, and then there are the vested political interests who are using this to restructure the world economy

They are scientists... quid pro quo their research is unimpeachable... Isn't that what we were told about the leading climate scientists who's research support the hypothesis of human caused AGW ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

So we have frauds on both side of the debate, which leads me to say I don't believe any of it. look, Climate Change is happening, whether this is just an on going process, and there is evidence it might be, the result of human activity, and there might be evidence to support this theory, or the latest way of funding scientific research, and there is evidence it might be, there is also strong evidence to the contrary. We know there appears to be a group of scientists for hire by the tobacco industry, the oil indistry, the coal indistry, etc but there is also a group of scientists who make it up as they go along, and then there are the vested political interests who are using this to restructure the world economy

Global warming? Climate change? Climate cooling? Perhaps we can apply Occam's and come up with a micro view, rather than concentrating on a macro view of global warming/climate change/climate cooling. In this case science fiction may well be as good as science fact.

What might this fictional view view look like?

Sometime in the future climate scientists will eventually come to the conclusion we are slowly entering into a era where climate will manifest itself in terms of localized climatic phenomenon. The world might be looked at in terms of hundreds of mini climatic zones, each different, but each exhibiting a similar phenomena. That being, a dramatic almost day to day shift in climatic conditions.

For example, in the temperate zone during Winter minimum temperatures could range from -5 to 15 degrees within the one area on a regular basis. That is to say, day to day, week to week, during the Winter months We will get the impression we are experiencing a very brief period Summer in the middle of Winter. Exactly the same thing applies to Summer, i.e we are experiencing Winter condition in Summer, but only for a brief period.

Yes, I do dabble in science fiction writing. Sometimes science fiction becomes science fact.

Tut

Quote:

Yes, I do dabble in science fiction writing. Sometimes science fiction becomes science fact.

Tut ;the 21st century HG Wells .

Of course it doesn't take a scientist to determine that a city park with trees is cooler than a city street without trees. I need to get me some of those research bucks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut ;the 21st century HG Wells .

Hi Tom.

Yes, we don't want a group of scientists making the political decisions. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case at the moment.

This is the problem with democracy. Decision making is slow and in the end we never move away from the middle ground. Philip of Macedon understood this very well when it came to dealing with Athenians.

Perhaps some scientists are also aware of this principle.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

They are scientists ...quid pro quo their research is unimpeachable ...Isn't that what we were told about the leading climate scientists who's research support the hypothesis of human caused AGW ?

Who told you that, you've been smoking dope with Ex again

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Global warming? Climate change? Climate cooling? Perhaps we can apply Occam's and come up with a micro view, rather than concentrating on a macro view of global warming/climate change/climate cooling. In this case science fiction may well be as good as science fact.

What might this fictional view view look like?

Sometime in the future climate scientists will eventually come to the conclusion we are slowly entering into a era where climate will manifest itself in terms of localized climatic phenomenon. The world might be looked at in terms of hundreds of mini climatic zones, each different, but each exhibiting a similar phenomena. That being, a dramatic almost day to day shift in climatic conditions.

For example, in the temperate zone during Winter minimum temperatures could range from -5 to 15 degrees within the one area on a regular basis. That is to say, day to day, week to week, during the Winter months We will get the impression we are experiencing a very brief period Summer in the middle of Winter. Exactly the same thing applies to Summer, i.e we are experiencing Winter condition in Summer, but only for a brief period.

Yes, I do dabble in science fiction writing. Sometimes science fiction becomes science fact.

Tut

Tut we have tried that and look at the conclusion they came too. Interesting you have just described the winter/summer climate where I live. How many observations did you take?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tut we have tried that and look at the conclusion they came too. Interesting you have just described the winter/summer climate where I live. How many observations did you take?

Hi Clete,

There are possibly many areas that have experienced a number of seasons within the one season so to speak. I have few observations and thus no evidence for the theory. There also exists the problem of drawing macro conclusions from micro facts.

If we keep going the same way then perhaps in a hundred years or so we will no longer experience Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. The terms may well become superfluous in many areas.

Hey! It's no worse than any other theory on climate change going around at the moment. I just wish I had a few figures to fudge.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Clete,

There are possibly many areas that have experienced a number of seasons within the one season so to speak. I have few observations and thus no evidence for the theory. There also exists the problem of drawing macro conclusions from micro facts.

If we keep going the same way then perhaps in a hundred years or so we will no longer experience Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. The terms may well become superfluous in many areas.

Hey! it's no worse than any other theory on climate change going around at the moment. I just wish I had a few figures to fudge.

Tut

Hi Tut I think there are six seasons where I live maybe more now certainly there are not four distinct seasons. The bulbs in my garden are very confused. It seems we can have snow anytime up to December and what we would describe as winter conditions anytime. Summer has fled in recent years and now is a short hot period perhaps in late January. Global warming is a great theory but I think is only truly experienced in the high latitudes and these Antarctic blasts seem to be becoming more frequent. No data to to prove any of it. Ah for the heady days of my youth when we could expect at least one good heat wave

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Hi Tut I think there are six seasons where I live maybe more now certainly there are not four distinct seasons. The bulbs in my garden are very confused. It seems we can have snow anytime up to December and what we would describe as winter conditions anytime. Summer has fled in recent years and now is a short hot period perhaps in late January. Global warming is a great theory but I think is only truely experienced in the high latitudes and these Antarctic blasts seem to be becoming more frequent. No data to to prove any of it. Ah for the heady days of my youth when we could expect at least one good heat wave

Hi again Clete,

In my youth I lived in Sydney and in the middle of Summer you could always rely on a 'southerly buster' to cool things down for a few days. Don't see many of them these days,

I usually try and get down to Mt Selwyn as much as possible during the ski season. The start of the ski season was just about perfect down there. Big snow falls just in time for the long weekend. I checked it out on the web cams they have in place and it looked absolutely perfect.

I thought I would wait a week after the event ( when the crowd goes home). Anyway, I checked out the web cams again just before I was about to leave and I couldn't believe my eyes. Most of the snow had disappeared due to the rain and warm conditions.

Anyway, it's back again. I acknowledge that Mt. Selwyn is not as high as the other ski resorts in Australia, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Tut

And in repression to that, all the other news refuting AGW and the fact that most Americans no longer believe in AGW, The Goracle is riding to the rescue.

The Climate Reality Project

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And in repression to that, all the other news refuting AGW and the fact that most Americans no longer believe in AGW, The Goracle is riding to the rescue.

The Climate Reality Project

So we are once again to be subjected to Mr Gore's powerpoint presentation of selective facts but note climate change has become CLIMATE CRISIS and we need to realise climate change is not a matter of whether you believe it or not, it is happening but the idea that we can do anything about it is the big question mark. Science tells us many conflicting facts;
1. it is caused by human CO2 emissions.
2 only one fifth of CO2 emissions come from human activity.
3. global warming will continue for a hundred years even if emissions stop completely
4. renewables can replace all emitting energy production.
5. this is only a warm interlude between ice ages
6 glaciers are melting but some glaciers are still growing

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And in repression to that, all the other news refuting AGW and the fact that most Americans no longer believe in AGW, The Goracle is riding to the rescue.

The Climate Reality Project

It doesn't really matter what most people believe; 99.9 percent of the population can be wrong at any one time.

Tut

Clete you forgot sunspots. I pick #5

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

It doesn't really matter what most people believe; 99.9 percent of the population can be wrong at any one time.

Tut

When your 'proof' is propaganda it's all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete you forgot sunspots. I pick #5

Well Tom that's not actually a scientic fact. We could also attribute it to approaching the galactic merdiian or some such. The point I was making, once again, is the science is not as settled as some would like to think and there are conflicting theories depending upon which disciple you consult. As our knowledge of this world is actually only a couple of hundred years old we really have no idea of what is normal, or even if a norm other than ice age exists. We have people digging up dinosaurs, finding tissue and still saying this creature died millions of years ago. We are worrying about CO2 when there are other things we should be more concerned about like getting us to hell out of here. We are, scientists say, overdue for a super volcano eruption, an asteroid strike, an extinction event, shift of the poles and facing starvation from over population, water shortages, depletion of energy sources. I think we have just outstayed our welcome and we have only been here a short time

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

When your 'proof' is propaganda it's all that matters.

Hi Speech,

Your statement is certainly true. It becomes a case of who is winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the population.

As I have said before, we are all extremely bad at predicting the future. Yet we see politicians galvanizing the population in opposing camps.

Strange isn't it? It is though one group knows the truth while the other group is deluded.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Strange isn't it? It is though one group knows the truth while the other group is deluded.

Tut

Hi Tut interesting observation but which group knows the truth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

but which group knows the truth?

Hello again, clete:

Who cares, if the solution provides benefits which far exceed the costs to implement them? The bottom line is we are running out of fossil fuels, so we'll have to replace them anyway. Why not now? Plus, we'd have the added advantage of NOT transferring our wealth to nations that hate us, and we might create a few jobs in the process.

If we DID that, we may NEVER find out which group knows the truth, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

excon

Last I heard the US had zero operating mines of the rare earth minerals required for alternative energies. The last one operating was shut down due to environmental concerns .So bottom line ;even with new technology we will still be net importers of energy from nations that hate us .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

even with new technology we will still be net importers of energy from nations that hate us .

Hello tom:

Not really. We won't be importing energy... We'll be importing the tools we need to MAKE our OWN energy... It's the difference between importing raw materials or importing finished products. It's a BIG difference, too.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

Who cares, if the solution provides benefits which far exceed the costs to implement them? The bottom line is we are running out of fossil fuels, so we'll have to replace them anyway. Why not now? Plus, we'd have the added advantage of NOT transferring our wealth to nations that hate us, and we might create a few jobs in the process.

If we DID that, we may NEVER find out which group knows the truth, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

excon

But ex what if you took the pain of higher energy prices and it didn't make any difference. I'm not against finding alternatives to fossil fuels but do you actually know, with all the emphasis on renewables, that they are predicting a rise in the use of fossil fuels after 2030. They already know it isn't going to work, the growth in demand is too great and we are going to take the pain now for nothing. We already have the solution both your nation and mine have vast reserves of uranium but we won't take the chance which is a very small risk really. Those jobs you need should be in construction of nuclear plants and we could put 50000 abos to work digging uranium where they have no prospect of employment now. What I know is we are too thick to see the obvious. That's the truth

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

they are predicting a rise in the use of fossil fuels after 2030. They already know it isn't going to work, the growth in demand is too great and we are going to take the pain now for nothing.

Hello again, clete:

I don't know who THEY are. But, THEY seem to be saying we don't need to do the science, because THEY already KNOW the outcome...

Seems to me, the only people who would say that, are people who DENY basic science.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

I don't know who THEY are. But, THEY seem to be saying we don't need to do the science, because THEY already KNOW the outcome...

Seems to me, the only people who would say that, are people who DENY basic science.

excon

No ex the forecasters are using simple equations based on on the same science used to forecast climate outcomes. In the next two decades renewables will significantly reduce production of CO2 from Coal/Oil however after 2030 new technologies like sequestration will increase the use of coal/oil again and the curve goes right back up to where it started and way beyond
http://www.internationaltransportfor...ionPaper18.pdf. Look at the graph on page 15
There is also the problem of fugative emissions which no one is addressing.
Do some research man

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Do some research man

Hello again, clete:

Ok. THEY were predicting that the Wright brothers would fail. They didn't. Instead they changed the future... About the same time, Bell was up against naysayers too - it's a good thing he didn't listen... He changed the future. There's more.

The research you'd like me to do can only uncover the PAST. It couldn't tell me about future breakthroughs... But, it DOES tell me that breakthroughs HAPPEN.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

Ok. THEY were predicting that the Wright brothers would fail. They didn't. Instead they changed the future... About the same time, Bell was up against naysayers too - it's a good thing he didn't listen... He changed the future. There's more.

The research you'd like me to do can only uncover the PAST. It couldn't tell me about future breakthroughs... But, it DOES tell me that breakthroughs HAPPEN.

excon

It's not breakthroughs we need Ex it's breakouts. Our thinking is tied into our economy and so we only make incremental gains. 100 years after the Wright Brothers planes have just got bigger but the concept is the same, cars still use internal combustion engines. We must understand our past so we don't repeat our mistakes, but we must not be bound by it. No the research I'd like you to do is look at all aspects of the debate before you decide which side you are on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

No the research I'd like you to do is look at all aspects of the debate before you decide which side you are on.

Hello again, clete:

Let's recap. We're running out of oil. If we want to maintain our present lifestyle, we're going to have to replace it. Personally, I'm for SEEKING out whatever it is that WILL replace it. You? Not so much.

What am I missing?

excon

PS> Oh, yeah... If we DO that, then whether the world is heating up or not WON'T matter anymore.

Yet another nail in the coffin of the forecasts

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

What am I missing?

excon

Your consensus scientists are missing the obvious Ex their calculations are WRONG. Yet another report of how far they are out
Forests absorb a third of fossil fuel carbon emissions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Now this doesn't solve the oil problem but it goes along way to solve climate change and AGW. The solution is simple stop the destruction of tropcial rainforest and the Amazon basin. It also tells us how much B/S we have been subject to from the so called scientists who gave us alarmist forecasts instead of firming up their research

I have given you the answer Ex but you didn't answer it. Nuclear! It seems like your ears are closed and you just want to push your argument first the garbage in the air barrow and now the peak oil barrow. We could also try wave energy there is plenty of ocean to go around, of course some of us have more than others

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I have given you the answer Ex but you didn't answer it. Nuclear!.

Hello again, clete:

I'm a supporter of nuclear energy.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

I'm a supporter of nuclear energy.

excon

How unfashionable of you, but it appears you and I agree on that one. We will have to watch it here Ex, you and I are agreeing on more and more

Lord Monkton said something interesting in his address to the Australian Press Club yesterday. He said that mathematically and he is a mathematician it isn't possible to predict more than a 1 degree rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. His logic was that doubling of CO2 concentrations since 1790 had only produced 1 degree of warming. While I think his logic was a little off on the day and pure rhetoric, it sounds like a good reason to revisit the modelling and question the assumptions particularly those of catastrophic climate change which he claims is not borne out by the evidence
Oh lord, there's a climate sceptic in the house
Although this fellow is a scientist investigating weather variability he doesn't regard himself as a climate scientist. Begs the question then, what is a climate scientist?

Let's see what has come forth since I posted this thread, we have been told "scientists" underestimated the impact of forests on CO2 emissions and we have been told that modelling was inaccurate regarding heat loss from the Earth. Now we know what happened to "global warming" it got lost with the rest of the scientific B/S. Now I wonder how many grants will be given out to investigate all sorts of issues, such as heat lost into space, heat retained by the Earth, absorption of CO2 in oceans and forests and let's not forget urban gardens, and the impact of greater vegetation growth due to CO2 abundance. I want a grant to investigate catastrophic climate change on Mars. I think it might have some relevance to Earth after all Mars has a CO2 atmosphere and guess what? Its colder. Where did all these "scientists" come from. Why higher education of course. We have been turning out educated idiots for years and this is what we have got

Consensus at last!

Hey Ex how's this for a consensus
Nearly Three Quarters Believe Global Warming Data Falsified
I'm willing to bet this is the sort of consensus you aren't willing to accept. It's not nice to find yourself on the wrong side of history. I 'know you are going to tell me these people aren't "scientists", but given the size of the population there must be a fair few "scientists" among them. Perhaps these are falsified statistics? Falsified in the same manner as the climate models were falisfied? Or is it that people have just lost faith in B/S

That poll is weak, It is an indisputable fact that the leading scientists ;heading the top climate research institutions ,proponents of man made AGW, falsified their data.

Hi Clete and Tom

Unfortunately when it comes to scientific consensus it doesn't matter what we think. We are not part of the consensus. Consensus is as an issue only applicable to the scientific community involved. This doesn't mean the consensus is right. It also doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.

Some consensus issue within science may be controversial within the public arena but non-controversial within the scientific community.

Tut

Tut ;don't you think that by definition 'consensus ' is anti-scientific by nature... especially when the consensus scientists control the media where their hypothesis should meet the falsifiable test ? Part of the most disturbing aspects of Climategate is the coordinated efforts to purge the publication of material that falsifies their work ;and to limit peer review to those that affirm their results.