Author |
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular! |
|
|
5-Jun-2009 4:20:59 PM
|
This is awesome. 12 pages of debate on climate change on a climbing site.
Anyone who outright 100% refutes or believes in human-induced climate change is an idiot. How can any one person possibly hope to understand such a complex issue (physics, chemistry, interaction between ocean-atmosphere-biosphere, social, economic, geology, past climate history). Get real.
Evan I wish I had enough time as you.
|
5-Jun-2009 4:23:10 PM
|
On 5/06/2009 harold wrote:
>Looking at the IPCC graphs you've posted, there still appears to be very
>little discernible difference in the slope of the temperature line between
>the two time periods 1910-1940 and 1979-2009.
That is true. Never looked at it before. Not sure what it proves though. It worries me that although the slope is the same, the recent timeframe starts from a much higher baseline.
|
5-Jun-2009 4:37:35 PM
|
Sorry to interrupt TB and EB but as a man of science I consider it my duty to point out to the gentle reader that both of you are talking crap.
Neither the charts nor papers either of you provide "prove" anything. No causal link will ever be "proven" either way, and in the extremely unlikely case it ever does it certainly won't be through wiggly lines. Proof of causality through two charts showing a trend does not exist. For example, I was born in 1980 and ever since then my height has increased --am I the cause of global warming?
That is a silly example, another less silly is the stupid doctor in the UK that "proved" a link between the MMR (measles,mumps,rubella) combined inoculation jab and autism. The fact that the timing of the jab and the age of the typical onset of autism coincided meant that a few wiggly lines later he'd "proved" a link (there was more smoke and mirrors behind his thesis - but all equally bad science). Such an emotive subject (ie a parent doing the best for their child) means that the association still resonates 10 years later. Despite the fact that hundreds of peer reviewed papers have since refuted it.
Unfortunately EB has mentioned the word "proved" a few times and TB is exploiting this (by proof through wiggly lines).
Sorry EB but I don't think you have "proved" anything. On the other hand the only thing TB can produce (other than proof through wiggly lines) is a conspiracy theory of scientists and governments. Are you angry Tony? Do you want some love? I'm here for you. You ARE 100 percent right EB has proved nothing.
On the other hand, sorry TB (I still luv ya though), EB has produced inordinate amounts of refs to propely peer reviewed papers. None of which prove anything, HOWEVER, the overwhelming view is of a link between emissions and global warming.
Tony, the only premise of yours that I'm prepared to work with is the conspiracy theory (or some compelling new real research -so no more wiggly lines please). So unless you are going to get all X-files with us can you please shut up.
|
5-Jun-2009 4:43:39 PM
|
On 5/06/2009 richardo wrote:
>Sorry to interrupt TB and EB but as a man of science I consider it my duty
>to point out to the gentle reader that both of you are talking crap.
Fair cop.
I'd been avoiding the definitions arguments, and trying the line of 'balance of probability', but it doesn't seem to make a difference.
I'm going back and editing all my posts to be more accurate, now that my work has been peer reviewed. I'll resubmit next week.
|
6-Jun-2009 7:06:20 AM
|
>On 5/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>>Firstly here's a graph from the IPCC. It shows how temperatures were
>>>much higher than currently during the Medieval warm Period.
>>Now, I know this is a harsh term, but I think you're pulling a furphy
>>here. That graph is not from the IPCC.
Calling me a liar is offensive. Here's an actual quote from IPCC 1990, together with the actual Figure 7.1 from the IPCC 1990 report.
Note especially : "Thus some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities."
An apology would be appropriate.
---------------------------
"
There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5,000-6,000 BP) at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the pre-industrial era at this time (Section 1). Thus parts of western Europe, China, Japan, the eastern U.S.A. were a few degrees warmer in July during the mid-Holocene than in recent decades (Yoshino and Urushibaru, 1978; Webb et al 1987; Huntley and Prentice, 1988; Zhang and Wang, 1990). Parts of Australasia and Chile were also warmer. The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987; Lamb, 1988). This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum. China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but south Japan was warm (Yoshino 1978). This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases. Cooler episodes have been associated with glacial advances in alpine regions of the world such neo-glacial episodes have been increasingly common in the past few thousand years.
Of particular interest is the most recent cold event, the Little Ice Age which resulted in extensive glacial advances in almost all alpine regions of the world between 150 and 450 years ago (Grove 1988) so that glaciers were more extensive 100-200 years ago than now nearly everywhere (Figure 7.2) Although not a period of continuously cold climate, the Little Ice Age was probably the coolest and most globally extensive cool period since the Younger Dryas. In a few regions, alpine glaciers advanced down-valley even further than during the last glaciation (Miller, 1976). Some have argued that an increase in explosive volcanism was responsible for the coolness (for example Hammer 1977; Porter 1986); other claim a connection between glacier advances and reductions in solar activity (Wigley and Kelly, 1989) such as the Maunder and Sporer solar activity minima (Eddy, 1976) but see also Pittock (1983).
At present there is no agreed explanation for these recurrent cooler episodes. The Little Ice age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities. So it is important to recognize that natural variations of climate are appreciate and will modulate any future changes induced by man.
Schematic diagrams of global temperature variations since the Pleistocene on three time-scales: (a) the last million years; (b) the last ten thousand years, and (c) the last thousand years. The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century.
"
|
6-Jun-2009 7:43:15 AM
|
On 6/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Calling me a liar is offensive.
The bollocks you continuously post is offensive. i am trying to figure out which is more fanciful. The X-files or your claims. your claims are just nosing ahead at the moment. keep it up and they will be a clear winner. unlike your claims however i used to really enjoy the x-files. there must be a bit of mulder in me because "I want to believe" in the CC scam.
>Here's an actual quote from IPCC 1990,
>together with the actual Figure 7.1 from the IPCC 1990 report.
Tut tut tut Tony. Pls go back and edit your post to reference your source properly (i.e. IPCC 1990 cited by http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=233). How can you be sure that the quote is correct when you rip it from an internet site? How can you be sure you have the information in the right context? Especially when it has been retyped and includes excellent sentences such as " recognize that natural variations of climate are appreciate and will modulate any future changes induced by man." (google is a fantastic way to catch students that plagiarise). Not saying all scientists have excellent grammar or that typos would not exist in a report of that size. Also, confident that the original grpah didnt have a big line up the left hand sign of it like yours and *gasp* the one from the website share. Following the principles of Occam's razor, I would say you ripped it......How the hell did you get your PhD? What ever you learnded about scientific rigour in the process hasnt hangeded around has it. Or would utlisling that scientific mind mean you wouldnt have a leg to stand on?
|
6-Jun-2009 5:16:16 PM
|
So to take a different angle from your most recent graphs, but tying in some of the previous data presented: we are possibly coming out of a cooler period, but the current temperature even so is in the highest of temperature ranges that have been experienced in the previous million years. Concurrently, we have quantified that atmospheric levels of multiple heat-trapping gasses are above levels that have ever been seen in human history and are still increasing, not to mention that some of the most potent of these are man-made. Not setting up for an optimistic prediction there.
Sea levels are rising (by small amounts, not obvious without specific measurements, but recorded with enough rigorous science as to be accepted by everyone), as a combination of thermal expansion and ice-shelf melting. And please dont argue the ice-shelf stuff, you're not going to win it. Ice reflects light and heat, seawater absorbs it. So we're increasing absorption, decreasing loss, in a self-perpetuating manner. Again, not a positive situation for long-term survival.
The oceans can and do absorb carbon dioxide, but this will increase their acidity. If pH gets too low (and its not a major jump as far as pH units go...) a lot of the oceans life will die -> more CO2 release from decay. Acidity can also dissolve sequestered CaCO3 and similar compounds in the sea floor, dead exoskeletons etc. More CO2 release, not to mention the social outcomes of lost food production.
And from another angle again - all the fossil fuels we are burning are non-renewable. If someone was too selfish to look at options simply as alternatives, hopefully they'd consider the impact on the future generations or their own kids / grandkids. We WILL run out, regardless of any climate change aspects. Lets do something so our kids aren't reduced to burning wood for fuel, thats if the environment hasn't collapsed to the point where even wood isn't available.
|
6-Jun-2009 6:05:35 PM
|
Tony WHY are you fighting this soo much if we can help to clean up our act a bit then it must benefit us and the planet, how can you be so anti that?
|
9-Jun-2009 10:02:14 AM
|
On 6/06/2009 D.Lodge wrote:
>Tony WHY are you fighting this soo much if we can help to clean up our
>act a bit then it must benefit us and the planet, how can you be so anti
>that?
Very good question. The answer is that spending $4,000,000,000,000 annually on the CO2 scam will do nothing for the environment.
Would you prefer to spend your $2050 dollars annually, on something worthwhile ?
|
9-Jun-2009 10:03:36 AM
|
Gravity Hound,
Do you claim that this quote is not from IPCC 1990 ?
|
9-Jun-2009 10:09:49 AM
|
A couple more shitty graphs to keep the angry alarmists snapping and snarling.
Anyone who has wondered why the Arctic ice has returned to normal will appreciate the following graph of Arctic temperatures since IPCC2001. Surprise surprise, no warming ! Al Gores animated polar bears won't have to swim 60 miles after all !!
|
9-Jun-2009 10:17:26 AM
|
Anyone who is interested in the history of how $50 billion has already been spent trying to find evidence of man caused global warming, might find this summary of interest. Of course $50B is a drop in the bucket compared to how much the pollies want to tax you on the basis of this rubbish.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm
|
9-Jun-2009 10:44:23 AM
|
No. Am wondering whether you got the information from the report yourself and interprested it yourself or whether you ripped it all from a website that typed out what was written in the report.....
From SMH today
SCIENTISTS have criticised the Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, for promoting "misinformation" that the sun could be to blame for recent global warming.
David Karoly, a climate change expert at the University of Melbourne, said Senator Fielding was also wrong to argue that debate about the influence of the sun on recent rises in global temperature had been stifled. Independent teams of scientists had been assessing the evidence for many years, Professor Karoly said. "There has been a rigorous debate."
The conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change had been accepted by more than 70 of the world's science academies.
Senator Fielding had been "misinformed by a group of people who probably have a vested interest", Professor Karoly said. The contribution of the sun "has been addressed over and over again".
Paul Cally, professor of solar physics at Monash University, said a gradual increase in solar activity during the first half of last century might have contributed up to 30 per cent of global warming.
"But it was totally swamped by man-made effects late in the 20th century," Professor Cally said. "It is very clear if you look at the data."
He was concerned by misrepresentation of science because "it may cause us to do nothing when when we really need to be doing a lot".
The former chief of atmospheric research at the CSIRO, Graeme Pearman, said scepticism was healthy, but it was "silly" of Senator Fielding to think he had suddenly hit on an idea scientists had not thoroughly considered and dismissed. The conclusion that global warming was not due to natural causes, like solar flares, was the result of "25 years of research", Dr Pearman said.
Senator Fielding also said he had been influenced by a recent book on climate change, Heaven And Earth, by a University of Adelaide geologist, Ian Plimer.
Professor Plimer's book has been heavily criticised by other Australian scientists for its selective use of evidence, most recently by the president of the Australian Academy of Science, Kurt Lambeck, who said it was sloppy. "[It] is not a work of science," he said on ABC radio. "It is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist."
|
9-Jun-2009 10:58:12 AM
|
On 9/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Would you prefer to spend your $2050 dollars annually, on something worthwhile?
Here in lies the crux Tony. You don't think mitigating a massive risk to the environment is 'worthwhile'. Simple as that. You can find what ever contradictory science you want to support your view, but this is what it boils down to. You don't care about anyone except your self and your income. We will never be able to convince you otherwise.
|
9-Jun-2009 11:20:17 AM
|
On 9/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>A couple more shitty graphs to keep the angry alarmists snapping and snarling.
I'm not angry Tony. Are you still sulking over your interpretation that I called you a liar? I'm deeply sorry for offending you if that's the case. It's your ideas that I think are stupid and appalling, not your good self.
>
I do love the way you continue to cherry pick your data, despite many concerns over it. Shorten the timeline to 8 years, and loe and behold, it shows us what you want! Would you mind bumping the time line out till 1991? Just 10 years can't make a difference can it? I assume that you're plotting temperature here. Yet another graph without axes.
|
9-Jun-2009 11:26:02 AM
|
As I said before. You can all reference till the cows come home and after doing a bit of reading for and against I am sitting side saddle towards the GW side of the fence. If it takes a few bucks now to save the planet and stop me having to pay a fortune later then so be it. We have been taking from the earth creating fortunes for a long time now and it's time to start putting back. All I ask is that it's done hoenstly. Just tell me what it's for and why it's done and get on with it. Impose heavy fines on polluters and get rid of this carbon trading scheme bullshit. If you cause pollution then you clean it up, don't just buy your way out of it. If that drives up the price of the product then people will be paying the true price for the product and know that it's a high polluter. It's a bitter pill to swallow but we've been living a unsustainable lifestyle that needs to change.
Tony, I hold the whole GW debate at arms length and usually question everything because I am a cynic by nature. Unfortunately your responses a far to open ended and inconclusive for anyone to really make a conclusion from. One thing you need to do is to stop quoting from a 1990 report. It's 20 YEARS old dude.
|
9-Jun-2009 11:32:44 AM
|
On 9/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Anyone who is interested in the history of how $50 billion has already
>been spent trying to find evidence of man caused global warming, might
>find this summary of interest. Of course $50B is a drop in the bucket
>compared to how much the pollies want to tax you on the basis of this rubbish.
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm
"trying to find evidence". Quite a lot of evidence has been found Tony, and some contradictory evidence. You clearly think all the evidence so far has been wrong though, hence your one-eyed view of the reporting.
The pollies won't tax us anything if we stop supporting polluting industries. And here is another awesome piece of stupidity in your position, ignoring the other benefits of a low emissions economy. If we can get more renewables on the grid, that makes our energy supply less susceptible to external shocks, like the oil crash in the 70s. Moving to electric cars means we can spend less time killing Arabs for oil. Less pollution will mean cleaner skies, cleaner water supplies better air quality. And yet, you and your kin, are opposed to this carte blanch because it'll cost you a couple of extra bucks. Pretty short sighted in my opinion.
|
9-Jun-2009 11:35:01 AM
|
forget about the red line what is the trend of the maxima mimina both steeply rising from 2001 to 2007 , also the range between max/min is decreasing . 2009 is different from the trend and that data is the only year which "pulls " the trends down to even , or slightly below positive . Why dont you exclude 2008 and 2009 or why dont you go back to 1990 and see what you get . while 2009 in the artic may have been cooler surely australian temperatures this year so cooling is definitely not the trend. Picking very selective data and claiming proof is hardly rigorous .
|
9-Jun-2009 11:35:57 AM
|
>The former chief of atmospheric research at the CSIRO, Graeme Pearman,
>said scepticism was healthy, but it was "silly" of Senator Fielding to
>think he had suddenly hit on an idea scientists had not thoroughly considered
>and dismissed.
I would add "deceptive" bordering on outright fiction & lies.
And good on Evanbb for smashing all the arguments put forward by TonyB. It was
several pages back that TonyB was given up for a lost cause, but debunking this stuff
properly is still time consuming.
"There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and
intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to
deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a
right to intentionally subvert the public awareness."
http://www.desmogblog.com/about-climate-cover
It would be funny to read all this if it didn't make me so damn angry. To the 'deniers' I for
one hope that when your kids ask: "What did YOU do about climate change" , that you
are at least honest, and tell them you did NOTHING, you 'didn't believe the data'.
If you work for an organisation that is involved in the deliberate deception of the public. I
hope you have your day in court, or perhaps some other form of public shame, once
we've gone well past the tipping point, and looking someone to blame.
|
9-Jun-2009 12:41:21 PM
|
On 9/06/2009 devlin66 wrote:
>
>Tony, I hold the whole GW debate at arms length and usually question everything
>because I am a cynic by nature. Unfortunately your responses a far to open
>ended and inconclusive for anyone to really make a conclusion from. One
>thing you need to do is to stop quoting from a 1990 report. It's 20 YEARS
>old dude.
I agree with this Tony, particulalry the referencing - Im not a scholar by any means - If I tried to reference a 20 year old report for uni I would loose grades. As my sources would be considered too outdated.
Your facts are either poorly referenced, too short a timeline (a nine year cooling trend particulalry since its been taken from the hottest year on record is not convincing anyone, Im surprised it is convincing you!)
You seem to be picking and chosing data that supports your views and omitting the copious amounts of data that doesnt, worse, if it doesnt suit your claims you dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.
I think, Tony, you are asking Evan and Co to provide 100% proof of CC or you will just dismiss it entirly. That is never going to happen. It may surprise people to know that humans are not all knowing and seeing. We do not know everything and we do make mistakes. 100% proof, just because humans are fallible, is never going to happen. Tony Im kinda surprised you rock climb, concidering the risk and the uncertainty involved in the sport. (unless your a sport climber in which case I take it back)
I am at a loss to understand how you could argue that CC is COMPLETLY non existant full stop.
I dont know. I think maybe Tony is just trolling.
|