Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Manmade Climate Change - the deeper agendas
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 15-01-2014 09:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
Climate change is inevitable anyway, anthropologically generated or no. Far better to prepare for it than keep pretending we can stop it. I'd use Canute as an example, but most people didn't listen to him either.

All those years of denial lead tothis.

I'm bookmarking this one.
Back to top
View user's profile 
JonfairwayOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Total posts: 1226
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 15-01-2014 12:31    Post subject: Reply with quote

i,m sure some pockets of mankind will survive to wreck the newly made climate in 100,000 years time....
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1676
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 58
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 20-01-2014 11:47    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Cochise wrote:
Climate change is inevitable anyway, anthropologically generated or no. Far better to prepare for it than keep pretending we can stop it. I'd use Canute as an example, but most people didn't listen to him either.

All those years of denial lead tothis.

I'm bookmarking this one.


Not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you think the climate won't change if we reduce our release of CO2? So why did it change - and keep on changing - before humans even existed?

Canute was trying to illustrate nature (or whatever you believe in that is behind nature, if anything) in actuality controls us, not the other way round.

He was right.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 20-01-2014 12:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Cochise wrote:
Climate change is inevitable anyway, anthropologically generated or no. Far better to prepare for it than keep pretending we can stop it. I'd use Canute as an example, but most people didn't listen to him either.

All those years of denial lead tothis.

I'm bookmarking this one.


Not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you think the climate won't change if we reduce our release of CO2? So why did it change - and keep on changing - before humans even existed?

Canute was trying to illustrate nature (or whatever you believe in that is behind nature, if anything) in actuality controls us, not the other way round.

He was right.

He was demonstrating the power of a force of Nature when faced with man's stupidity, so yes he was. Probably not the way you mean though.

However, I'm more interested in your sudden volte face after years of insisting that the World was either cooling or at least no longer warming. Also that released fossil CO2 wasn't a significant greenhouse gas.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 20-01-2014 12:36    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isis has posted an interesting point, too.

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1386895&highlight=#1386895

Not much that I can find at the Herald Sun site:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/brekkie-wrap/story-fni0xs61-1226805093034

However, despite much mentioning of the Maunder Mimimum's cooling effects and of mini-ice ages, things are not so simple.
Quote:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/01/bbc%E2%80%99s-newsnight-ponders-whether-low-solar-activity-%E2%80%9Chas-consequences%E2%80%9D-for-global-warming/

Newsnight and the Daily Mail ponder the effect of low solar activity on the climate

The Carbon Brief - blog. Roz Pidcock. 17 Jan 2014


Update - 20th January: The Daily Mail has written up the story this weekend, covering some very similar ground. The main thing to remember is that scientists think the effect of lower solar activitity will be regional rather than global.

Colder winters in Europe aren't inconsistent with a world that's warming up on the whole. See this guest blog post from Professor Mike Lockwood for a clear explanation of what scientists think is going on.

Last night, BBC's Newsnight delved into a question that seems to fascinate the media. A six-minute report entitled "What's happening to our sun?" asked how much a drop in solar activity could affect the climate here on earth. The answer from scientists is very little.

We've written about the sun's effect on climate many times. We recently had a guest blog by Professor Mike Lockwood - solar scientist at the University of Reading - about the many myths, misconceptions and misnomers about the topic.

It's well worth a read. But here's a summary of the main points.

A declining sun

Back in the 17th century, the sun went through a period of prolonged low activity, called the Maunder Minimum. This coincided with the beginning of what's become known as the Little Ice Age, when parts of the northern hemisphere cooled by as much as two degrees Celsius. (Incidentally, read Mike Lockwood's blog for an explanation of why it wasn't a 'Little Ice Age" at all.)

Scientists think the next low point in solar activity could be low enough to rival the Maunder Minimum, which often leads to the question of whether we could see a return to freezing conditions. In the Newsnight report, presenter Rebecca Morelle asks:

"Does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?"

Consequences for Europe, but a small effect globally

But the link between declining solar activity and freezing temperatures is far from simple.

Morelle talks to Lockwood, who explains that a pronounced low in solar activity could cause a drop in temperature across Europe. It does this by affecting the position of the jet stream, a rapidly moving ribbon of air high up in the atmosphere that controls weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.

But Lockwood points out temperature changes in the northern hemisphere are only a small piece of the global picture, warning:

"One has to make a very clear distinction between regional climate and global climate. If we get a cold winter in Europe because of these blocking events, its warmer in Greenland for example. So the average is almost no change. It's a redistribution of temperature around the North Atlantic."

But despite Lockwood's point that global temperature is unlikely to be affected much, Morelle follows up by asking:

"The relationship between solar activity and weather on earth is complicated, but if solar activity continues to fall, could the temperature on earth as a whole get cooler? Could there be implications for global warming?"

To be fair, the report goes on to answer this question - arriving at the conclusion that the earth is likely to continue to warm. But raising the notion that earth could "as a whole get colder" is a little too reminiscent of media declarations from time to time that "Britain faces a new mini-Ice Age".

Global warming outcompetes solar effect

In the BBC report, Lucy Green from the Mullard Space science Laboratory in the South Downs explains why the context is very different now than in the 17th century. She says:

"The word we live in today is very different from the world that was inhabited during the Maunder Minimum. We've had human activity, we've had the industrial revolution, all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere. So on the one hand you've got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other you have human activity that can counter that".

But while Green says it's "quite difficult" to know how the competing effects of a cooling sun and global warming will interact, other scientists are much clearer on this question. Lockwood, for example, says:

"[My research with the Met Office's Hadley Centre shows] the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we're due to experience as a result of human activity".

In other words, the slight drop in global temperature coming from a drop in solar activity may be just about detectable if we weren't having a much bigger impact through carbon dioxide emissions. While the BBC could perhaps have been clearer on that point, Morelle concludes:

"So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, the future for northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come."

So the report strikes the right note at the end, highlighting that colder winters in Europe aren't inconsistent with a world that's warming up on the whole. Let's hope everyone stayed tuned in till the end.

Full links at site

So, cheer up, with the sun cooling and off setting a little of the greenhouse effect warming, things could always be a lot worse.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1676
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 58
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 21-01-2014 07:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

He was demonstrating the power of a force of Nature when faced with man's stupidity, so yes he was. Probably not the way you mean though.

However, I'm more interested in your sudden volte face after years of insisting that the World was either cooling or at least no longer warming. Also that released fossil CO2 wasn't a significant greenhouse gas.


I don't know what the world is doing temperature-wise right at the moment. Or over the next 100 years. But it is reasonable to assume the current plateau cannot continue indefinitely. I forget which author drew my attention to it - Toynbee maybe, it was definitely a historian - that the whole history of civilisation has taken place in this unusual lull between the Earth's two normal - or at least long term - states (Warm and ice age).

I don't think human released CO2 as a result of the Industrial Revolution is a significant contribution. If humans have had any effect on the climate I believe it is caused by sustained deforestation which has gone on far longer.

But you clearly do, so I was pointing out that even in the unlikely event of there being a reduction there will still be the likelihood of significant climate change. I don't know when or what direction - we won't know until it happens because we simply do not know all the influences.
Back to top
View user's profile 
kamalktkOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Total posts: 949
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 21-01-2014 14:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:

I don't know what the world is doing temperature-wise right at the moment.

I linked the raw data from 16 different sources previously, is your analysis still running?
Back to top
View user's profile 
SHAYBARSABEOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 May 2009
Total posts: 1528
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 21-01-2014 16:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
I don't know what the world is doing temperature-wise right at the moment.


Going up, here's a link to NASA data http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 25210
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 21-01-2014 19:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

SHAYBARSABE wrote:
Cochise wrote:
I don't know what the world is doing temperature-wise right at the moment.

Going up, here's a link to NASA data http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Quite so. It involves an ENORMOUS amount of data.

Anyone who thinks that a few hours perusing the 'raw data' will enable them to give a thumbs up or down to AGW is sadly deluded.

First of all 'raw data' does not mean 'accurate' date - usually the opposite! All raw data has to be calibrated, to get near the true values. This means compensating for systemtic errors.

A very simple example - take two mercury thermometers and compare them across a range of temperatures. Do they always agree? Probably not. Minor difference in manufacture will introduce errors. So they have to be compared with more accurate devices, and calibration tables produced.

Atmospheric temperatures are measured in many ways - by simple thermometers, by balloons, satellites, ships and aircraft, etc. All these readings will be subject to different errors, and all these have to be compensated for by calibration. Only then can we think about comparing a satellite reading with one from a thermometer in a Stevenson screen.

And to handle all these figures requires a good understanding of statistics.

This is why it's taken so many people on the IPCC so many years to reach conclusions - it ain't easy!
Back to top
View user's profile 
kamalktkOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Total posts: 949
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 21-01-2014 20:16    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
SHAYBARSABE wrote:
Cochise wrote:
I don't know what the world is doing temperature-wise right at the moment.

Going up, here's a link to NASA data http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Quite so. It involves an ENORMOUS amount of data.

Anyone who thinks that a few hours perusing the 'raw data' will enable them to give a thumbs up or down to AGW is sadly deluded.

First of all 'raw data' does not mean 'accurate' date - usually the opposite! All raw data has to be calibrated, to get near the true values. This means compensating for systemtic errors.

Nevertheless, one argument has been that the raw data was not available for anyone to do their own analysis of. This argument has persisted despite the raw data being easily publicly available for quite some time, it wasn't just made available the day I posted it. It is one of the goalposts that keep getting moved. The other is that the analysis is being done incorrectly. It is up to those who claim this is so to show how it is, not to repeatedly question if they accounted for x or y without investigating if the scientists did account for x or y.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 25210
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 21-01-2014 20:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

kamalktk wrote:
Nevertheless, one argument has been that the raw data was not available for anyone to do their own analysis of.

The bolded word highlights my problem with this statement! It implies that 'anyone' could do their own analysis, whereas only highly trained people actually have the the knowledge and background to do so. This is not a job for the man on the Clapham omnibus!
Back to top
View user's profile 
tonyblair11Offline
Joined: 28 Jan 2002
Total posts: 2146
PostPosted: 22-01-2014 05:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
kamalktk wrote:
Nevertheless, one argument has been that the raw data was not available for anyone to do their own analysis of.

The bolded word highlights my problem with this statement! It implies that 'anyone' could do their own analysis, whereas only highly trained people actually have the the knowledge and background to do so. This is not a job for the man on the Clapham omnibus!


Yes! Only the elite mancurians have the keys to the gate of knowledge.
Back to top
View user's profile 
SHAYBARSABEOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 May 2009
Total posts: 1528
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 22-01-2014 16:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonyblair11 wrote:
Yes! Only the elite mancurians have the keys to the gate of knowledge.


You mean the ones with the degrees in statistical mathematics? Those elites?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Ronson8Offline
Things can only get better.
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Total posts: 6300
Location: MK
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 22-01-2014 22:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1676
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 58
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 23-01-2014 11:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

kamalktk wrote:
rynner2 wrote:
SHAYBARSABE wrote:
Cochise wrote:
I don't know what the world is doing temperature-wise right at the moment.

Going up, here's a link to NASA data http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Quite so. It involves an ENORMOUS amount of data.

Anyone who thinks that a few hours perusing the 'raw data' will enable them to give a thumbs up or down to AGW is sadly deluded.

First of all 'raw data' does not mean 'accurate' date - usually the opposite! All raw data has to be calibrated, to get near the true values. This means compensating for systemtic errors.

Nevertheless, one argument has been that the raw data was not available for anyone to do their own analysis of. This argument has persisted despite the raw data being easily publicly available for quite some time, it wasn't just made available the day I posted it. It is one of the goalposts that keep getting moved. The other is that the analysis is being done incorrectly. It is up to those who claim this is so to show how it is, not to repeatedly question if they accounted for x or y without investigating if the scientists did account for x or y.


Actually, the raw data is not available on that site. It's already merged (vetted?) and otherwise processed. 'Suspicious' records have been removed.

I know perfectly well that raw data has to be processed. That is precisely what a statistician does.

Bear in mind that, in establishing whether the world is currently warming or not, we are only looking for trends. Therefore systemic errors are unlikely to effect our deliberations, assuming that they are reasonably consistent over time. The whole set of readings could be out by 10 degrees, that doesn't matter as long as it is a consistent 10 degrees. We do of course have to eliminate any ground stations that have experienced abrupt environmental change, such as the encroachment of buildings. We have to decide what constitutes 'encroachment' - it may be natural as well as man-made, such as reforestation in areas no longer economic for agriculture.

As we can see we are already in the position of having to make 'assumptions' as we may have to on many other things.

Assumptions like the above made in the process of cleaning up the data are just one of the ways in which we can modify the presentation of the results in a way to fulfil any expectation our bosses might want Wink .

Demonstrably, through honest mistake or connivance or 'observer bias', the process can make the presentation of the data less 'accurate' as well as more 'accurate'. Where 'accurate' means our best reflection of the true state of a continuum that we are only analysing by point sample.

Only the original unaltered readings are in any sense 'true', although they may also be misleading. Each transformation or selection moves them further away from the genuine measurement, although if our assumptions are complete and unfailingly correct we may improve our 'accuracy' - however it only takes one wrong or omitted assumption to produce a misleading analysis.

So that is why I want the raw data. That is where you always start.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
Page 32 of 35

 
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