PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years'
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 6460
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

2 As and a B wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
Fascinating paper hosted over at Watts that'll give you a whole new set of things to worry about.

How was this research funded? Has the paper been published in a recognised journal? Has it been peer-reviewed?


Well, let's have a quick look at the website it is on:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Hmmm....looks like an encyclopedia containing vast quantities of mutually-unrelated climate-change denialist propaganda.

What have we got?

Climate change caused by changes in tectonic drift.
Declining cloud height causes climate change negative feedback (cooling) (so we don't need to worry Wink )
Complaints that climate change deniers are being treated like holocaust deniers (heaven forbid Rolling Eyes )

I can't be bothered to read anymore. The page has been put together by somebody who has point blank refused to believe in climate change and is desperately looking for any sort of evidence or argument to support his pre-determined conclusion. It's exactly like creationists trying to debunk evolution. The only difference is that the anti-scientific motive is political rather than religious.

ETA: And yes, rather like holocaust denial, climate change denialism must be STAMPED OUT.

I have given up hope of getting through to JSD (about anything) but I don't understand the attitude of Snow Hope, who seems rather sensible about anything else? Why on earth do you side with these denialist idiots? Climate change is real. You're wrong. What is driving your "skepticism"? I can understand it from right-wingers who can't accept their world is going to end, but that's not you, is it?


Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3814
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You must be having a very rough day UCE..... Sad

Firstly I am not a denialist, I am a sceptic.
Secondly, I read the whole study and I make my comments based upon the matters discussed and arguments put forth in the research. I do not (as some people seem to do) go off and dig to see if it is a site that I feel backs or doesn't back my thoughts, or if I think it might be backed by the fossil fuel industry or any such stuff.
Thirdly, you must have a very fixed opinion, by saying this, "it is an entirely justified reaction from anyone who has spent the last twenty years watching the putrid stream of propaganda being produced by climate change skeptics.*"
Fourthly, I am not siding with denialists! Rolling Eyes I base my scepticism on the strength of the physics and chemistry put forth.

Why don't you comment on the the research UCE - the science? Instead of saying things like, "And yes, rather like holocaust denial, climate change denialism must be STAMPED OUT." This kind of statement makes me realise that you are not open-minded but have completely closed your mind on the subject. You have no right to tell me I am wrong - you are not God or somebody who knows the truth. Do you not realise the position you put yourself in when saying that?

You may be right, or I may be right. You don't know which it is. End of story. Rolling Eyes

You seem to be an intelligent guy UCE. So why not give us a more intelligent reply? Smile
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 6460
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
You must be having a very rough day UCE..... Sad


I'm having quite a good day today. I have spent a very long time debunking climate change denialism (20 years.)

Quote:

Firstly I am not a denialist, I am a sceptic.


Sceptical of what exactly?

Quote:

Thirdly, you must have a very fixed opinion, by saying this, "it is an entirely justified reaction from anyone who has spent the last twenty years watching the putrid stream of propaganda being produced by climate change skeptics.*"


I have a "fixed opinion" about this for the same reason I have a fixed opinion about all well-established science.

Quote:

You seem to be an intelligent guy UCE. So why not give us a more intelligent reply? Smile


OK, I have a spare 30 minutes. I'll do some digging.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3814
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To answer your question, I am sceptical of the AGW Theory, ie I remain unconvinced of this Theory.

I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 from 280 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to 390 parts per million nowadays, is all caused by mankind and that this is the cause of most of the global warming to date. And that this will cause the global temperature to rise by between 3-6c as the IPCC have indicated is most likely.

I hope that is clear?

I look forward to hearing your views on the science in that study that JSD posted. Smile
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 6460
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Results of digging:

Author - Ned Nikolov. "Air Resource Scientist". Works for the US government.

Quote:

Recent studies revealed that Global Climate Models (GCMs) have significantly overestimated the Planet’s warming since 1979 failing to predict the observed halt of global temperature rise over the past 13 years.


Bullshit. If global warming has "halted" for the past 13 years, why are the ice-caps melting at a record rate? Nothing like starting the [paper] [EDIT: blog entry, not a paper, not peer-reviewed] with a lie, is there?

Quote:

No consensus currently exists as to why the warming trend ceased in 1998 despite a continued increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.


Maybe because it didn't cease?

The next part of the paper contains degree-level mathematics, which I can't cope with, and I doubt many other people posting here can either.

All I can see is a US government employee who has been paid to produce a paper which convinces people like you there is evidence to support climate change denialism, regardless of the fact that you don't understand the maths any better than I do. It is assumed that most people reading it will not understand it.

Debunked here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/


Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 6460
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And here:

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/01/unified-climate-theory-iii.html

Quote:

More telling than the hiding of that clear physical effect by the "Unified Climate Theory", however, and indeed more outrageous, is the shape of their NTE function. They tried to give that function some physical support by comparing its shape to that of the Poisson formula for temperature as a function of pressure, but it should be noted (using their own Figure 5) that their NTE function WOULD APPEAR TO BE USELESS for calculating the surface temperature of 5 of the 8 planetary bodies they considered, as all of those 5 bodies (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, and Triton) have practically zero surface pressure, while their surface temperatures vary greatly (in other words, the NTE function is a vertical straight line, at a surface pressure of zero, in their Figure 5). Yet they claim, in their Table 1, perfect prediction of the surface temperatures of 2 of those 5 bodies (Mars and Europa), and near perfect prediction of another (Triton). It is my understanding, in the case of Mars, that its surface temperature varies widely, one would presume precisely because its pressure is so low, thus unstable. Even if their data and calculations are correct in this, this unphysical result explains the extreme form of their NTE function; and the extreme accuracy of their predicted temperatures cannot possibly be true. And sure enough, if one checks their values for the OBSERVED surface temperatures, one finds they claim to know every one of those temperatures to within 0.1K! I do not hesitate to call this delusionary.


It is politically-motivated bullshit, SH. The author has been offered lots of money to produce anti-scientific propaganda in order to allow people like you to continue to believe nonsense about climate change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 6460
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
To answer your question, I am sceptical of the AGW Theory, ie I remain unconvinced of this Theory.

I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 from 280 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to 390 parts per million nowadays, is all caused by mankind and that this is the cause of most of the global warming to date.


Why do you think either of those things?

How can you possibly doubt the bolded part? Which figure do you doubt? The 280 or the 390?


Quote:

And that this will cause the global temperature to rise by between 3-6c as the IPCC have indicated is most likely.

I hope that is clear?


Crystal clear. You reject ALL climate science, apparently. And you accept all the propaganda.


Quote:

I look forward to hearing your views on the science in that study that JSD posted. Smile


The primary evidence is meaningless. It involves knowing the average surface temperature of numerous solar system bodies to an accuracy of 0.1K, which is impossible, and about half of those bodies also have extremely low and very variable surface pressures. No valid conclusions can be drawn from such unreliable data.

Conclusion: the theory is not proper science. It is politically-motivated propaganda, dressed up as science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 15741
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.

Doh.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JavaScriptDonkey



Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1690
Location: SE England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Edited - Kenneal.


Edited - Kenneal

If you bothered to read it you can judge for yourself by the weight of their arguments.

Or you can carry on with your own opinions.

Your call.

Hang on though - you said you weren't going to read any of my posts...does that make you a liar as well as an idiot?


Last edited by JavaScriptDonkey on Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JavaScriptDonkey



Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1690
Location: SE England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.

Doh.


Any reason that it shouldn't?

It isn't 'my' graph and the paper certainly doesn't argue against climate change or CO2 levels. All it seeks to do is re-examine what we think we know of the atmosphere from what we do know about the behaviour of gases.

I do not ask for it to be accepted on faith (leave that for the Gaia Theorists). Question it. Argue with it. Provide counter points.

I would have thought the idea that we had lost 53% of out atmosphere and that the process is continuing would be enough horror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2594

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
2 As and a B wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
Fascinating paper hosted over at Watts that'll give you a whole new set of things to worry about.

How was this research funded? Has the paper been published in a recognised journal? Has it been peer-reviewed?


That's always the fallback when you don't like what you see..... Rolling Eyes

Now that is one bit of interesting research by two scientists with PHDs and working for the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO, USA. I see this was presented at the Open Science Conference of the World Climate Research Program, 24 October 2011, Denver CO, USA

Having just read what is quite a mathematical oriented paper, it makes much more sense to me that the (rather weak) AGW Theory. At last for some real Physics!

Good find JSD! It will be interesting to see what our fellow PSers make of it. Smile

No, they are natural curiosities when one sees what might be unchallenged arguments (I saw that the website where the paper was had an AGW-sceptic stance - did you?)

I am certainly not qualified to judge the veracity of the data and conclusions so I didn't even try to understand it - far too complicated. You read it; are you qualified to pass judgement on it? Is JSD? I would be interested in JSD's summary of the paper in his own words rather than lifted extracts. You know how science progresses knowledge, don't you? It's certainly not by means of open access internet forums!
_________________
I'm hippest, no really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 15741
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.

Doh.


Any reason that it shouldn't?


Yes.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
SleeperService



Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 1075
Location: Nottingham UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
And here:

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/01/unified-climate-theory-iii.html

Quote:

More telling than the hiding of that clear physical effect by the "Unified Climate Theory", however, and indeed more outrageous, is the shape of their NTE function. They tried to give that function some physical support by comparing its shape to that of the Poisson formula for temperature as a function of pressure, but it should be noted (using their own Figure 5) that their NTE function WOULD APPEAR TO BE USELESS for calculating the surface temperature of 5 of the 8 planetary bodies they considered, as all of those 5 bodies (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, and Triton) have practically zero surface pressure, while their surface temperatures vary greatly (in other words, the NTE function is a vertical straight line, at a surface pressure of zero, in their Figure 5). Yet they claim, in their Table 1, perfect prediction of the surface temperatures of 2 of those 5 bodies (Mars and Europa), and near perfect prediction of another (Triton). It is my understanding, in the case of Mars, that its surface temperature varies widely, one would presume precisely because its pressure is so low, thus unstable. Even if their data and calculations are correct in this, this unphysical result explains the extreme form of their NTE function; and the extreme accuracy of their predicted temperatures cannot possibly be true. And sure enough, if one checks their values for the OBSERVED surface temperatures, one finds they claim to know every one of those temperatures to within 0.1K! I do not hesitate to call this delusionary.


It is politically-motivated bullshit, SH. The author has been offered lots of money to produce anti-scientific propaganda in order to allow people like you to continue to believe nonsense about climate change.


A couple of things strike me. The earth (to the best of our current knowledge) has been a snowball and temperate/tropical overall at different stages. To the best of our knowledge the solar radiation level has tended to increase slowly over the same period. Atmospheric pressure has also been fairly stable. What has changed is the composition which, as noted elsewhere, is mostly ignored.

A glance at his lulu page suggests von Daniken on a massive scale

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/hdhsciences

Lastly this all ignores 'tipping points' and/or feedback effects which are generally accepted to apply to most dynamic systems like the atmosphere's.
_________________
Scarcity is the new black
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3814
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
The next part of the paper contains degree-level mathematics, which I can't cope with, and I doubt many other people posting here can either.

All I can see is a US government employee who has been paid to produce a paper which convinces people like you there is evidence to support climate change denialism, regardless of the fact that you don't understand the maths any better than I do. It is assumed that most people reading it will not understand it.


I am not going to reply to all of your (somewhat) bombasic posts UCE. You see what you want to see...... and I can see I am unlikely to change your opinion, especially when you feel that I "continue to believe nonsense about climate change."

I don't understand all the mathematics, but it is certainly not all degree level. I understand the basic physical equations of gases (whether Ideal or Real) and of kinetic energy (the energy an object possesses due to its motion). According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas
Under normal pressure and temperature conditions, air, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. behave like an ideal gas and the ideal gas law equation PV=nRT applies. Where P=Pressure, V=Volume, n=the number of molecules, R=the gas constant or Boltzmann constant and T=the Temperature. So the Temperature of the gas from the above equation is
T=PV/nR so Temperature will increase if either the Pressure or Volume of the gas increase, or if the number of the molecules decreases. (R is a constant and thus can't change).
It's not that difficult to grasp how the temperature of our atmosphere may change due to these variables, especially if some of it is being lost to space!

Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period. There are other periods in the last century when CO2 and temperature have not been in phase together. No matter how annoying this may be to some, it raises doubt about the connection between the two variables.

The paper JSD linked to, elaborates much further on the ideal gas law and Solar Irradiance, etc.

In my opinion, to conclude that, "the theory is not proper science. It is politically-motivated propaganda, dressed up as science" is way out of line and shows up your capacity for understanding physics, gases and scientific argument. Don't forget UCE that in science it is good to be sceptical.

I stand by my views on the paper, until convinced otherwise.
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7702
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A reduction in the rate of increase of temperature over the last 13 years could be explained by a reduction in solar output and the increasing loss of Arctic ice by the fact that the atmosphere had warmed enough up to 13 years ago top continue melting the ice. The sea temperature has also warmed and that will continue to melt ice from below. Global warming could still be occurring but is being masked by a temporary reduction in solar output.

I understand that in early times the earth had a much greater concentration of CO2 than today. Given a constant depth of the atmosphere and CO2 being heavier that oxygen that would make the atmospheric pressure higher. With a thicker atmosphere it would be even greater.

Just a theory. (and with no expletives or derogatory attacks)
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 7 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group