Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
VPower said:
69 coupe said:
herewego said:
69 coupe said:
As a Daily Mail reader, Knuckles very near terra firma
thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
It doesn't say they're not melting.thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
As you were carry on
The ice mass is not getting smaller.
The general public would consider a statement that the glacier is "melting" to be saying it's getting smaller, a bit like their ice cube in that Rum & coke!
Of course some recede and some extend, but overall the mass of ice is not melting in lay-person terms of thinking!
It's that perception that eco-loonies play on!
'Overall' hides a lot.
Glaciers are retreating, meanwhile nearby, galciers are advancing - and different parts of the same glacier are growing and shrinking at the same time. If today's global mean temperature was responsible for the observed changes, and if global mean temperature is increasing, why are all glaciers in a given climatic zone not either retreating or advancing? From Svalbard to the Himalayas this is clearly not so.
And that is regardless of us not actually knowing what's happened to global mean temperature these days, beyond the satellite era, as the output data relating to surface station records are simply unreliable.
Glaciers are retreating, meanwhile nearby, galciers are advancing - and different parts of the same glacier are growing and shrinking at the same time. If today's global mean temperature was responsible for the observed changes, and if global mean temperature is increasing, why are all glaciers in a given climatic zone not either retreating or advancing? From Svalbard to the Himalayas this is clearly not so.
And that is regardless of us not actually knowing what's happened to global mean temperature these days, beyond the satellite era, as the output data relating to surface station records are simply unreliable.
turbobloke said:
'Overall' hides a lot.
Glaciers are retreating, meanwhile nearby, galciers are advancing - and different parts of the same glacier are growing and shrinking at the same time. If today's global mean temperature was responsible for the observed changes, and if global mean temperature is increasing, why are all glaciers in a given climatic zone not either retreating or advancing? From Svalbard to the Himalayas this is clearly not so.
And that is regardless of us not actually knowing what's happened to global mean temperature these days, beyond the satellite era, as the output data relating to surface station records are simply unreliable.
You'd have to ask a glacial expert, but as a suggestion I would think local weather conditions, wind direction, snowfall could explain differences in glacial response.Glaciers are retreating, meanwhile nearby, galciers are advancing - and different parts of the same glacier are growing and shrinking at the same time. If today's global mean temperature was responsible for the observed changes, and if global mean temperature is increasing, why are all glaciers in a given climatic zone not either retreating or advancing? From Svalbard to the Himalayas this is clearly not so.
And that is regardless of us not actually knowing what's happened to global mean temperature these days, beyond the satellite era, as the output data relating to surface station records are simply unreliable.
Guam said:
Farting Cows
turbobloke said:
Hilary-ous.
Not really... over here in the Emerald Isle, the bastion of greenness, they are now taxing cows to the tune of 13 Euro per head.Fine if you have one cow, I could live with that, however, take your average dairy farmer with maybe 100-200 head, that's a lot of money with milk prices at an all time low.
So what exactly is that money going towards? It certainly isn't for training cows not to fart.
As said before, it's not not f
king funny anymore.Blib said:
LongQ said:
It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...
Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....
It's good to see another of the newspapers publish an article questioning and hence undermining this stuff.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...
Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....
What's that now? Mail, Express & Times. Not forgetting the Telegraph's Saintly Deligpole.
A mere SIX weeks after the bbc/wallstreet journal buried it on their websites (copenhagen)
BBC knew about it around copehagen time.. (Dec 5th)
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/838773...
And lost it on their website, surely a GOOD NEWS story in the south east asia section of their website.. (surely worth a mention in the copenhagen, blanket coverage, or at least science and environment)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487039...
"Mr. Pachauri's actions speak even louder than his words. Last month, he branded the Indian environment minister "arrogant" after his office released a study that called into question whether climate-change is causing abnormal shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. The IPCC's line is that Himalayan glaciers could be reduced by 80% or disappear entirely by 2035—but for this factoid, it cites no scientists, only the activist group, World Wildlife Fund. Now, the meteorologist and expert IPCC reviewer Madhav Khandekar says on Roger Pielke Sr.'s blog that the 2035 date may have been derived from a typo, based on a 1996 paper on snow and ice edited by V.M. Kotlyakov, which estimates the glaciers could be severely depleted or gone by 2350."
For some reason, this did not get much coverage here in the uk, just copehagen hype of climate change (used interchangeably with man made climate change), of gordon brown, saying 'anti science' flat earther, if you were sceptical:
Climate change is not uniform across the planet - indeed, it is likely that Britain will actually cool over the next 100 years. Similarly many glaciers are receding but a small number is actually growing.
Climate change proponents will cherry pick the data which supports their case and the skeptics will do the same, so the case for climate change appears confused.
However, I would refer readers to the book by Professor Subramanyan Chandrasekhar called Radiative Transfer. This was a standard text for my university astrophysics course and, whilst the majority is on stellar atmospheres, chapter 10 is specifically about planetary atmospheres. By substituting parameters concerning the concentration of CO2 in 1850 and 2000 (which has increased almost entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels) into Chandrasekhar's equations (which are peer reviewed and utterly unchallenged) the results indicate that the Earth will retain almost 2% more of the solar flux in 2000 than 1850. It actually is therefore incumbent on the sceptics to account for mechanisms to explain how this extra energy will NOT cause the Earth to warm up.
The e-mails do seem to indicate that some climate scientists have acted in a way that is not professional though, whilst the climate unit at UEA is considered moderately prestigious, it is by no means the only institution which publishes data on climate change or the only one on which the IPCC relies for advice. Many other institutions HAVE reported clear evidence that the AVERAGE global temperature HAS increased over the last century. The last few years have shown a marked levelling off in the rate of increase (though not an actual cooling) which I am certain is largely due to the latent heat required to melt ice in glaciers and the ice caps (which are receding beyond any doubt) and to vapourise water from the oceans.
Personally, as a graduate astrophysicist, I find the case for man-made climate change pretty compelling and the fact that one small bunch of scientists conspired to fiddle their data damages their own reputations but not the fundamental scientific case.
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
(BTW - I drive a TVR myself)
Climate change proponents will cherry pick the data which supports their case and the skeptics will do the same, so the case for climate change appears confused.
However, I would refer readers to the book by Professor Subramanyan Chandrasekhar called Radiative Transfer. This was a standard text for my university astrophysics course and, whilst the majority is on stellar atmospheres, chapter 10 is specifically about planetary atmospheres. By substituting parameters concerning the concentration of CO2 in 1850 and 2000 (which has increased almost entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels) into Chandrasekhar's equations (which are peer reviewed and utterly unchallenged) the results indicate that the Earth will retain almost 2% more of the solar flux in 2000 than 1850. It actually is therefore incumbent on the sceptics to account for mechanisms to explain how this extra energy will NOT cause the Earth to warm up.
The e-mails do seem to indicate that some climate scientists have acted in a way that is not professional though, whilst the climate unit at UEA is considered moderately prestigious, it is by no means the only institution which publishes data on climate change or the only one on which the IPCC relies for advice. Many other institutions HAVE reported clear evidence that the AVERAGE global temperature HAS increased over the last century. The last few years have shown a marked levelling off in the rate of increase (though not an actual cooling) which I am certain is largely due to the latent heat required to melt ice in glaciers and the ice caps (which are receding beyond any doubt) and to vapourise water from the oceans.
Personally, as a graduate astrophysicist, I find the case for man-made climate change pretty compelling and the fact that one small bunch of scientists conspired to fiddle their data damages their own reputations but not the fundamental scientific case.
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
(BTW - I drive a TVR myself)
King Fisher said:
Many other institutions HAVE reported clear evidence that the AVERAGE global temperature HAS increased over the last century. The last few years have shown a marked levelling off in the rate of increase (though not an actual cooling) which I am certain is largely due to the latent heat required to melt ice in glaciers and the ice caps (which are receding beyond any doubt) and to vapourise water from the oceans.
Please list these other institutions, their qualifications, defined/verified methods of measurement and clarify this "clear evidence" (what has been evidenced, how?) in order that we might take your trust on their particualr veracity on board.The ice caps are reeding beyond doubt? Really? Can you also demonstrate that this is the case - and not just through speculative measures of particular areas during particular seasons of a particular year (ignoring the data available for 2009 perhaps?)
Your post would be more convincing with more evidence, argument and fact, rather than a limited description of the particular formula you came across in your studies and the so far unsubstantiated claims you make.
As for your comments on PH and sceptics here . . arrogant and mis-placed. It is precisely the interest in the science, data, evidence that has led some of us to our views, even to changing past opinions in the face of the evidence and argument emerging - about both the possible causative factors in climate and the data and theories involved, and about the activities and seeming motivations of many of the the leading lights in the AGW story. If you had troubled to read the whole thread I'm sure you would see that there is a good deal of careful and well informed presentation and analysis of science, data, statistical modelling etc. rather than just the noisy rantings of a threatened band of motorists.
King Fisher said:
However, I would refer readers to the book by Professor Subramanyan Chandrasekhar called Radiative Transfer. This was a standard text for my university astrophysics course and, whilst the majority is on stellar atmospheres, chapter 10 is specifically about planetary atmospheres. By substituting parameters concerning the concentration of CO2 in 1850 and 2000 (which has increased almost entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels) into Chandrasekhar's equations (which are peer reviewed and utterly unchallenged) the results indicate that the Earth will retain almost 2% more of the solar flux in 2000 than 1850. It actually is therefore incumbent on the sceptics to account for mechanisms to explain how this extra energy will NOT cause the Earth to warm up.
Strange, I cant remember where Chandrasekhar factored in clouds or other mechanisms that can change albedo. Equally I dont recall Chandrasekhar attributing the increase in CO2 entirely to fossil fuel burning either. Probably because he was too intelligent to make such a mistake.King Fisher said:
This was a standard text for my university astrophysics course blah
I do hope TB is hungry in the morning, he'll have you for breakfast King Fisher said:
The e-mails do seem to indicate that some climate scientists have acted in a way that is not professional
King Fisher said:
though, whilst the climate unit at UEA is considered moderately prestigious, it is by no means the only institution which publishes data on climate change or the only one on which the IPCC relies for advice. Many other institutions HAVE reported clear evidence that the AVERAGE global temperature HAS increased over the last century.
They're all interconnected as the climategate email chain demonstrates, they don't even go for a poo without first conferring and affirming that the loo roll hasn't run out.King Fisher said:
The last few years have shown a marked levelling off in the rate of increase (though not an actual cooling) which I am certain is largely due to the latent heat required to melt ice in glaciers and the ice caps (which are receding beyond any doubt) and to vapourise water from the oceans.
Interesting, that's the second time I've stumbled across that opinion today; you do know the Arctic ice sheet has gained nearly 30% in area during summer melt in the last couple of years don't you? But I'd like to see the evidence of which you are certain anyway please.King Fisher said:
Personally, as a graduate astrophysicist, I find the case for man-made climate change pretty compelling and the fact that one small bunch of scientists conspired to fiddle their data damages their own reputations but not the fundamental scientific case.
One small bunch of scientists?!? You're talking about a "small bunch" that are at the very top of the tree, whose work and papers are implemented as fact by the IPCC. The scandal could not reach any higher, but please reveal the names of the scientists above them as I'd love to know. King Fisher said:
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
(BTW - I drive a TVR myself)
You don't know us very well at all do you. We actually give one hell of a damn about the science, and we don't spend hours sitting here keeping these threads alive with the latest climate information just for fun, we do it because we care a whole lot. I've said it before, I really don't understand why people like you accuse people who enjoy cars of being pig headed and self serving when it comes to this issue. You wouldn't make the same accusation of people who enjoy electricity in their homes and they far out number us. Perhaps you need to think a little more before you open your mouth?(BTW - I drive a TVR myself)
King Fisher said:
Many other institutions HAVE reported clear evidence that the AVERAGE global temperature HAS increased over the last century. The last few years have shown a marked levelling off in the rate of increase (though not an actual cooling) which I am certain is largely due to the latent heat required to melt ice in glaciers and the ice caps (which are receding beyond any doubt) and to vapourise water from the oceans.
Lubos Motl has a discussion about the importance (or not) of the 'average' global temperature at "The Reference Frame".http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/global-uah-warme...
The specific points start about half way through the item.
I think the evidence for the Ice Cap changes being permanent loss (as opposed to permanently changing) is somewhat marginal given that measuring such things wuith any degree od continuity and broad coverage (and assumed relative accuracy) is a rather recent phenomenon in the general scheme of things.
The South Pole seems to be vacillating around a fairly min and max extent but with some calving, as one might expect, at one relatively exposed point. The North Pole seems to be going through some extremes of coverage at the moment but possible not greater than would have been seen in earlier period within the last 100 years if only the technology had existed to see it.
In terms of climate change (rather than simply heat gain) there is probably quite clear evidence for land use changes causing climate changes - UHI, desertification, eradication of the climate that caused snow to be depositied on top of Mount Kilimanjaro, and so on. In other places wind flow, as influenced by the effects of the upper atmosphere of course but possibly also by wide area structures (cities and towns), local area structures (? Wind powered turbine groups? Reservoirs? and so on) and farming seem prime candidates for changes in energy budget absorption and heat redistribution, at least at ground level. Understanding what is being measured higher in the atmosphere and interpreting that into effects lower down is a different matter, especially when one considers the effects of clouds and water vapour in general.
The apparent desire to rush the science into a state of unchallengedness with the clear and stated intent to dominate world events and give direction to all through the UN suggests that at least some of the players in this game have ulterior motives far removed from any need for a basis in valid science. We humour them in their wishes only by accepting risk that our own desires for ourselves and the future generations in our lineage will be undone by ill thought through responses to minor observations of change that have been exploded into catastrophic scenarios by people with objectives that do not fit well with humanity's overriding ambition to 'progress' rather than fall into a slough of stagnation. Most people will not react well if their 'managed expectations' fall short of promise of some form of tangible personal lifetime reward. The challenge of adapting to a slightly warmer temperature, sometimes, in some places, and maybe a few mm's of water level rise, as infrastructure is replaced over time does not seem too great compared to the volatility of human nature when angry en mass.
However it probably does not produce riches and power beyond imagination during a single lifetime and some seem to have that sort of objective.
The notion of mean global temperature measurement is in disarray, anything relying on it is inherently insecure.
Radiative transfer is one energy transfer mechanism among many, what the data tells is is that an already warm atmosphere has more degrees of freedom than models allow for, such that energy can escape to space faster than the same models predict. The application of Chandresekhar's techniques to terrestrial climate as by Liou and Fu and others dates from the 70s and is nothing new yet models still make unsupported causality assumptions about clouds that go beyond niceties of analytic or numerical solutions to this or that radiative transfer description.
What recent posts are pursuing in effect is the same weak science we've seen many times i.e. treating the Beer Law as a temperature device while focusing solely on radiative transfer. Given there is no visible anthropogenic carbon dioxide signal in global climate data over 150 years - even when inflated by GDP & LULC, UHIE, groundstation losses or omissions and a mix of substitution, calibration and homogenisation irregularities, which together seem a decent route to creating one artificially - it's incumbent on those who think it should exist to ask why it doesn't.
Radiative transfer is one energy transfer mechanism among many, what the data tells is is that an already warm atmosphere has more degrees of freedom than models allow for, such that energy can escape to space faster than the same models predict. The application of Chandresekhar's techniques to terrestrial climate as by Liou and Fu and others dates from the 70s and is nothing new yet models still make unsupported causality assumptions about clouds that go beyond niceties of analytic or numerical solutions to this or that radiative transfer description.
What recent posts are pursuing in effect is the same weak science we've seen many times i.e. treating the Beer Law as a temperature device while focusing solely on radiative transfer. Given there is no visible anthropogenic carbon dioxide signal in global climate data over 150 years - even when inflated by GDP & LULC, UHIE, groundstation losses or omissions and a mix of substitution, calibration and homogenisation irregularities, which together seem a decent route to creating one artificially - it's incumbent on those who think it should exist to ask why it doesn't.
Steve996 said:
Lots of interesting stuff in his MPs response
Interesting post, it's nice to see someone (the MP) standing up for their corner although I'm not sure about the Carbon Capture bit, that sounds a waste of investment to me given that no-one has actually proved the causality of CO2 in this merry-go-round.It's the response from Joan Ruddock that caught my eye though, and there may well be an opening to exploit. As expected, she's stopped defending the CRU and joined the bandwagon of "well, even if the CRU have fiddled things, there's lots of other scientists who haven't". At that point I'd draw your attention (and your MP's attention) to the link posted earlier by dickymint (page 373 on the thread)
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/8155921...
That video is quite short but astounding in it's claims and does refute Joan Ruddock's defence for the government position because is illustrates just how other sources have manipulated their data to show warming.
And given that it's US tv, and they are known to have a tendency to sue at the slightest chance, it sounds to me like they have real evidence.
Steve996, I should have said that the video referred to is on the "climate out of the bag" thread, not this one.
In addition there are definite come-backs to Ruddock's letter in the form of the data being supported by "peer review", which is thrown into question by the CRU email leak, to say nothing of the claims of glacier retreat/sea rising/etc which have all been debated on PH threads and show just how hazy these claims are.
In addition there are definite come-backs to Ruddock's letter in the form of the data being supported by "peer review", which is thrown into question by the CRU email leak, to say nothing of the claims of glacier retreat/sea rising/etc which have all been debated on PH threads and show just how hazy these claims are.
b2hbm said:
Steve996, I should have said that the video referred to is on the "climate out of the bag" thread, not this one.
In addition there are definite come-backs to Ruddock's letter in the form of the data being supported by "peer review", which is thrown into question by the CRU email leak, to say nothing of the claims of glacier retreat/sea rising/etc which have all been debated on PH threads and show just how hazy these claims are.
Yes not only are the claims hazy but there is absolutely no CAUSALITY which surely MPs understand. This simple requirement is forgotten more often than not and it removes all the PR fluff masquerading as science in one step.In addition there are definite come-backs to Ruddock's letter in the form of the data being supported by "peer review", which is thrown into question by the CRU email leak, to say nothing of the claims of glacier retreat/sea rising/etc which have all been debated on PH threads and show just how hazy these claims are.
King Fisher said:
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
Why the need to go straight for the ad-hominem? Are you unable to argue the science?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff