In your face evidence of climate change
Discussion
Dr Schulte said:
In the present study, Oreskes’ research was brought up to date by using the same search term on the same database to inspect abstracts of 539 papers published between 2004 and mid-February 2007.
Which bit of that is too difficult for thicko True Believers to comprehend?In
the
present
study...
using
the
same
database
Exactly as I said in my reply to nigelfr, Schulte's methodolody was prescribed as he was updating an existing albeit bungled litsearch by Naomi Oreskes, a historian iirc not even a scientist
ludo you loser let go nigelfr's hand and go argue Schulte's motivation with Mann and Schmidt
As I work in the oil and gas business, can I ask a very simple question??
As the earth moves and splits the tectonic plates, where will all this oil and gas we are burning going to end up if we don't comsume it first??
Think about it!
OK it might be a million years, but it might also be next year when a huge earth quake rips the crust apart.
Billions of barrels of oil floating on the oceans of the world!
So I put to you we are in fact SAVING the Earth from extinction!!
Only my theory of course! But can I have £5,000,000 to research it please?
As the earth moves and splits the tectonic plates, where will all this oil and gas we are burning going to end up if we don't comsume it first??
Think about it!
OK it might be a million years, but it might also be next year when a huge earth quake rips the crust apart.
Billions of barrels of oil floating on the oceans of the world!
So I put to you we are in fact SAVING the Earth from extinction!!
Only my theory of course! But can I have £5,000,000 to research it please?
turbobloke said:
Dr Schulte said:
In the present study, Oreskes’ research was brought up to date by using the same search term on the same database to inspect abstracts of 539 papers published between 2004 and mid-February 2007.
Which bit of that is too difficult for thicko True Believers to comprehend?In
the
present
study...
using
the
same
database
Exactly as I said in my reply to nigelfr, Schulte's methodolody was prescribed as he was updating an existing albeit bungled litsearch by Naomi oreskes, a historian iirc not even a scientist
ludo you loser go and argue Schilte's motivation with Mann and Schmidt
all nigelfr said was that Schulte had performed two searches, read the paper, he did. nigel even conceded that you had been right that he had used the same database and search term as Oreskes (and I have not contradicted that either). If you hadn't been so keen to play to the gallery, you wouldn't need all this bluster to try and cover up now! 
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
Dr Schulte said:
In the present study, Oreskes’ research was brought up to date by using the same search term on the same database to inspect abstracts of 539 papers published between 2004 and mid-February 2007.
Which bit of that is too difficult for thicko True Believers to comprehend?In
the
present
study...
using
the
same
database
Exactly as I said in my reply to nigelfr, Schulte's methodolody was prescribed as he was updating an existing albeit bungled litsearch by Naomi oreskes, a historian iirc not even a scientist
ludo you loser go and argue Schilte's motivation with Mann and Schmidt
You and nigelfr have, as we can see, not read the paper before this episode and were ignorant of what the actual published litsearch involved, nigelfr got as far as the preamble after Googling and stopped there. You managed to find the same reprint by Googling and did at least manage to read more.
At the end of the day the database used was that used by Oreskes. End of story, nigelfr was wrong, and you are both losers for taking such a pointless amount of bandwidth to emphasise how pathetic you are in defeat.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd August 17:22
nigelfr said:
NHyde said:
Very interesting article here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...
....then deep in the text , see a scientist realising what his research is showing , panicing to preserve his funding
Good article, definitely one in the eye(read the article , see the intended pun) for the "True Believers"
What the heck have you guys been smoking? You're seeing things that aren't there: I'm suspicious of your scientific credentials, but I assumed you could follow a text.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...
....then deep in the text , see a scientist realising what his research is showing , panicing to preserve his funding
Good article, definitely one in the eye(read the article , see the intended pun) for the "True Believers"
Let me break it down for you:
First quote "The ships’ logs have also shed light on extreme weather events such as hurricanes. It is commonly believed that hurricanes form in the eastern Atlantic and track westwards, so scientists were shocked in 2005 when Hurricane Vince instead moved northeast to hit southern Spain and Portugal.
Many interpreted this as a consequence of climate change; but Wheeler, along with colleagues at the University of Madrid, used old ships’ logs to show that this had also happened in 1842, when a hurricane followed the same trajectory into Andalusia. " Get it: they're talking about when Hurricane Vincent moved in an unusual direction: which was interpreted as being a consequence of climate change.
Still with me: good, try to hold on to this concept, because in the article there are 4 paragraphs of waffle then: "Wheeler makes clear he has no doubts about modern human-induced climate change. He said: “Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions. These records will give us a much clearer picture of what is really happening."
Get it now: in this paragraph he explains that you can't tie particular events to C02 emissions. If that is too subtle for you, he means that the movement of Hurricane Vincent cannot be linked to CO2 emissions. That's it: anything else is totally between your ears.
Now I was not aware that the whole case for MMCC was based on Hurricane Vincent, so I'm at a loss to understand your jubilation. Is it because you're scraping the barrel to find the slightest hint that supports your case, or because you just don't understand?
And then come your familiar attacks on the integrity of scientists, where you accuse him of saying something to hold on to his funding. If he was scared of losing his funding, why did he go to the Press in the first place?
I'm only sorry I've been busy for a couple of days because I bet I've missed a few laughs.
"A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s.
Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "
Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .
NHyde said:
Oh I'm really sorry to have missed the Nige and ludo comedy afternoon, but if you would both like to read the article I quoted in its entirety, which I cherry picked as you both seem so keen on doing.
"A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s.
Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "
Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .
History also records devastating storms and floods in the Netherlands during the Little Ice Age, there was substantial loss of life, also iirc similar stuff around New Mexico / Arizona, but the Netherlands episode is often cited. "A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s.
Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "
Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .
As it happens, extreme weather is expected to be more of a feature of climate cooling than global warming. This is due to the fact that one of the major engines driving weather on our planet - the temperature differential between equatorial and polar regions - tends to decrease during climate optima, but increases during periods such as the LIA. This leads to more extreme weather episodes.
Modern MMGWT gigo computer models get all in a tizz as the troposphere is meant to hold more energy during global warming, but these models fail to predict (or encompass any realistic mechnism for) negative feedback and it's clear from global climate data that an already warm atmosphere has more degrees of freedom than the modellers allow for and can transmit energy to space at a faster rate than 'predicted'.
So extreme weather such as storms and floods during the LIA is exactly what one would expect. ETA the Netherlands episode in the LIA (core 1650 - 1720 ish) was the Great Storm of 1703 which killed thousands.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd August 17:53
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
nigelfr said:
I don't believe it, TB, you're right: he did in fact carry out two searches, one on the Pub Med database and one on the ISI database. Well done I stand corrected.
Whether either Oreskes or Schulte had the background to properly assess the content of the papers remains debatable, unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies. Crashed and burned again
wtf are you drivelling on about, two searches? The published paper, which we were debating, had the results of a search of the same database as used by Oreskes in her original cock up. You claimed it wasn't, D'oh Would you like to dispute some more stats on green taxes from a government website, after all, if we're debating government green taxes we really ought to use the government's definition of green taxes not yours or mine, just as when we're discussing Schulte's paper and I explain the methodology which you then dispute, we really ought to concern ourselves with the database he used for his litsearch in the E&E paper
You're on a roll here nigelfr
Tee, hee, if I get this right: you believe Government spin when it suits you: e.g. all hydrocarbon taxes are eco-taxes, all of VED is an eco-tax, but when the Government says MMCC exists, you start frothing at the mouth. Hum, seems to me you have a believability problem.
Nice thread chaps - enjoying the cut and thrust of the arguement.
Question for TB:
Do you see the eventual (I presume) removal of the Earth's rain forests as at all an issue or do you think their role is overplayed?
Given time, one is bound to crop up on this thread.I think I've spotted your opportunity MBH...
Question for TB:
Do you see the eventual (I presume) removal of the Earth's rain forests as at all an issue or do you think their role is overplayed?
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
'ludo is a cock'
Well constructed example of an insult. May I use it when I encounter a cock? Given time, one is bound to crop up on this thread.
NHyde said:
"A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s.
Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "
Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .
You really don't get it do you: there's a difference between local weather and global climate. Big storms happen, calm days happen, it rains, the sun shines: that's weather. The biggest storm I ever experienced was in 1977, that was in South East England. A decade later, there was a bigger storm in the same town, but I wasn't there, so as far as I'm concerned the weather has been milder there since 1977. Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "
Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .
Your really are totally uncritical when you quote something in your favour: take the following sentance that you quote: "A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. "
It says, questions have been raised about climate change theories. Now, what is important to know is which particular climate change theories? The rest of the article gives some clues: "Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850."
So it appears that the questions raised refer to the belief of many scientists that storms are a consequence of global warming.
That is all that you can derive from the quotes you mention. IT doesn't cast doubt on the underlying theory of global warming.
As an aside,I would actually prefer it if the article was more precise: what do they mean by "many"? Even "scientists" is a bit imprecise: all scientists? Climate scientists?
nigelfr said:
NHyde said:
"A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s.
Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "
Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .
You really don't get it do you: there's a difference between local weather and global climate. Big storms happen, calm days happen, it rains, the sun shines: that's weather. The biggest storm I ever experienced was in 1977, that was in South East England. A decade later, there was a bigger storm in the same town, but I wasn't there, so as far as I'm concerned the weather has been milder there since 1977. Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "
Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .
Your really are totally uncritical when you quote something in your favour: take the following sentance that you quote: "A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. "
It says, questions have been raised about climate change theories. Now, what is important to know is which particular climate change theories? The rest of the article gives some clues: "Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850."
So it appears that the questions raised refer to the belief of many scientists that storms are a consequence of global warming.
That is all that you can derive from the quotes you mention. IT doesn't cast doubt on the underlying theory of global warming.
As an aside,I would actually prefer it if the article was more precise: what do they mean by "many"? Even "scientists" is a bit imprecise: all scientists? Climate scientists?
Can you not put your green goggles away? We are dealing with historical facts here , which now is coming in to the public domain. It is not local weather , it is regional , in this case north of the equuator( That is half the world in case your models do not show it) The article is written by a journalist , not a scientist , but if you want to read an abstract of the paper which was written in 2006 , take a look here : http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/3... .
I hold the same opinion of journalists(having been married to one) as I do of ecomentalists, however , sometimes they do have a habit of exposing things which otherwise remain hidden unless they are in the pay of the establishment. The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone ?
Reply to im
Note that 'ludo is a cock' was an example of what TB has NOT said on here but your isolated quote suggests otherwise.
As to your question, rainforests are important for many reasons, but oceans are far more important in terms of climate change. Also I doubt your forecast of total removal will happen.
Note that 'ludo is a cock' was an example of what TB has NOT said on here but your isolated quote suggests otherwise.
As to your question, rainforests are important for many reasons, but oceans are far more important in terms of climate change. Also I doubt your forecast of total removal will happen.
Professor of Biogeography Philip Stott said:
The notion of rainforests as a climax ecological community has probably been one of the most persistent, yet pernicious, concepts in world ecology.
Sandalistas and sundry lefties dislike Stott and try to vilify him and his views, so he must have a point.thinfourth2 said:
turbobloke said:
Old Geezer said:
Only my theory of course! But can I have £5,000,000 to research it please?
If you mention 'global warming catastrophe' in the submission they'll double it 
Lots of lesbians
ludo said:
thinfourth2 said:
turbobloke said:
Old Geezer said:
Only my theory of course! But can I have £5,000,000 to research it please?
If you mention 'global warming catastrophe' in the submission they'll double it Lots of lesbians
Now there is a thought
thinfourth2 said:
ludo said:
thinfourth2 said:
turbobloke said:
Old Geezer said:
Only my theory of course! But can I have £5,000,000 to research it please?
If you mention 'global warming catastrophe' in the submission they'll double it Lots of lesbians
Now there is a thought
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff