Page 75 of 212 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785125175 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,125 of 3177
  1. #1111
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Here's a graph for you ... see if you can spot the correlation and tell me what's causing the warming of the late 20th century:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.svg
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  2. #1112
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Scientists quietly moving the goalposts:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/2...oalpost-again/
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  3. #1113
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    ... AND ... as an answer to those who still don't believe that "its the sun, stupid!" ... I offer the following peer-reviewed research:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA012989.shtml

    which in the summary notes:

    Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.
    Maybe some of those climate scientists will have to adjust their models ...
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  4. #1114
    CC Grandmaster Lonesome Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,740
    Industries Buried Internal Findings
    Climate Wording Cut From Public Report


    By Juliet Eilperin
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, April 25, 2009

    A group funded by fossil-fuel-dependent companies that argued for years that human-generated greenhouse gases were not driving global warming was advised by its own scientists that this was the case, according to documents submitted as part of an ongoing lawsuit between auto manufacturers and states seeking to regulate vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions.

    The Global Climate Coalition, a group of representatives of the oil, auto and coal industries, spent years telling the public that the link between human activity and climate change was too uncertain to justify U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 treaty aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In 1995, however, a "primer" on the issue produced by the organization's own scientific experts concluded that "the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."

    This language was deleted from the primer when the group released it to the public.
    ...

    In a sign of how much has changed over the past dozen years, former members of the defunct industry group now endorse a cap-and-trade bill to curb emissions.

    "The utility industry doesn't dispute the science or the need for federal legislation," said Dan Riedinger of the Edison Electric Institute. "Our focus is on urging lawmakers to enact a climate bill that cuts emissions but also protects our customers from sharply higher costs."
    Wanna help buy a goat (and help change a life) - Check out Kiva.org to Learn How

  5. #1115
    CC Grandmaster Lonesome Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snail King
    Here's a graph for you ... see if you can spot the correlation and tell me what's causing the warming of the late 20th century:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.svg
    The graph may be accurate (or may not), but as a Wikipedia entry summarised as:

    Summary
    Description English: Numbers of sunspots since 1610.[1][2] Several periodic cycles are evident, most notably the 11 year (131 ± 14 month) cycle....
    Source Self-made using gnuplot.
    Date 1 Aug 2008
    Author (not named)

    it cannot reasonably be regarded as a reliable source
    Wanna help buy a goat (and help change a life) - Check out Kiva.org to Learn How

  6. #1116
    CC Grandmaster Lonesome Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snail King
    Scientists quietly moving the goalposts:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/2...oalpost-again/
    That blog was dated 25 Feb, prefaced by:
    "SWPC has just made a change in their solar cycle predictions in the middle of the month without any preannouncement. Both Sunspot and F10.7cm predictions were altered significantly."

    The explanation is given on the SWPC site www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle -

    "Recent Changes to Solar Cycle Values and Plots

    March 2, 2009 -- The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has not issued any updates to their prediction. However, the Space Weather Prediction Center, and the Chair of the Prediction Panel decided to implement what they believe to be an obvious change to the plotted data. The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact. Once the date of solar minimum is known, that is all the information needed to arrive at a prediction curve. The panel prediction of solar minimum in March, 2008 has been eclipsed. Minimum will now occur no earlier than August, 2008. For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount. SWPC commenced doing so in mid-February and will continue to do so, unless or until the prediction panel sets a new predicted date for the time of solar minimum."
    Wanna help buy a goat (and help change a life) - Check out Kiva.org to Learn How

  7. #1117
    CC Grandmaster Lonesome Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snail King
    ... AND ... as an answer to those who still don't believe that "its the sun, stupid!" ... I offer the following peer-reviewed research:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA012989.shtml
    which in the summary notes:

    Maybe some of those climate scientists will have to adjust their models ...
    All that abstract seems to tell us is that solar irradiation has been amplified somehow according to studies of data dating from around 1950(?). The paper itself is not freely available.

    We know from satellite measurements that there has been no unusual increase in solar activity since 1978 (i.e. since data collection by satellites began).

    So there is no correlation between recent solar activity and recent global warming.

    See also
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-solar-forcing
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...st-few-decades
    Last edited by Lonesome Earl; 26-04-2009 at 09:07 AM.
    Wanna help buy a goat (and help change a life) - Check out Kiva.org to Learn How

  8. #1118
    CC Grandmaster Lonesome Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,740
    Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates
    By Kari Lydersen
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, February 15, 2009

    CHICAGO, Feb. 14 -- The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.

    "We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Field, a member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said emissions from burning fossil fuels since 2000 have largely outpaced the estimates used in the U.N. panel's 2007 reports. The higher emissions are largely the result of the increased burning of coal in developing countries, he said.

    Unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere as the result of "feedback loops" that are speeding up natural processes. Prominent among these, evidence indicates, is a cycle in which higher temperatures are beginning to melt the arctic permafrost, which could release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, said several scientists on a panel at the meeting.

    ...

    Field said the U.N. panel's next assessment of Earth's climate trends, scheduled for release in 2014, will for the first time incorporate policy proposals. It will also include complicated models of interconnected ecosystem feedbacks.

    The panel's last report noted that preliminary knowledge of such feedbacks suggested that an additional 100 billion to 500 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions would have to be prevented in the next century to avoid dangerous global warming. Currently, about 10 billion tons of carbon are emitted each year.

    Edit: Article was quoted in full, inadvertently breaching copyright and forum rules - now truncated.

    The article also includes report of the reduced ability of terrestrial and marine ecosystems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The annual rate of athropogenic emissions with a peak in 2030, as mentioned in Post 1105, seems to be just about here already
    Last edited by Lonesome Earl; 26-04-2009 at 10:28 PM.
    Wanna help buy a goat (and help change a life) - Check out Kiva.org to Learn How

  9. #1119
    CC Grandmaster Lonesome Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,740
    Post 1098 carried extracts from a review of Prof Ian Plimer's latest book -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Beware the climate of conformity
    Paul Sheehan
    Review of Heaven And Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science by Ian Plimer
    SMH 13 April 2009
    Prof Robert Manne calls for balance -

    Cheerleading for zealotry not in the public interest

    Robert Manne | April 25, 2009
    Article from: The Australian

    LAST week, The Weekend Australian published three pieces enthusiastically welcoming the publication of Ian Plimer's new anti-climate science book, Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science: an overwhelmingly favourable editorial, a lengthy interview with the author and a column by Christopher Pearson of gushing praise. In these three pieces not one word of criticism of Plimer was to be found.

    It might have been supposed that the editors of this newspaper would wonder about the capacity for fair-mindedness of a geologist who describes the entire climate science community as "the forces of darkness"; who recently told Adelaide's The Advertiser that his book would singlehandedly "knock out" not one or several but "every argument we hear about climate change"; and who, in earlier work, had spent considerable energy trying to prove that Noah's Ark was a myth, the intellectual equivalent of a zoologist seeking to dispose of the belief that the serpent in the Garden of Eden could really have spoken to Eve.

    ...

    On the question of human causation of climate change, the central point that Plimer challenges, there are among the scientists two broad camps.

    In one camp are the tens of thousands of climate scientists in many discrete disciplines who, despite differences of emphasis and interpretation on many questions, regard it as now beyond doubt that, through the release into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, human beings have been responsible for post-industrial global warming. The work of these scientists has been summarised in four cautious reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the most recent, the IPCC argued that the evidence for human causation of climate change was unequivocal.

    In the other camp are a few dozen scientists who are best described as global warming pseudo-sceptics. Most do not publish in the refereed climate science academic journals. Some have been financed by greenhouse gas-emitting industries and provided with moral support by anti-global warming lobby groups.

    Many regard the work of the tens of thousands of climate change scientists as fraudulent and the IPCC as a sinister and vast international conspiracy. Plimer is a typical member of this camp.

    Over climate change, citizens face an apparently acute dilemma. The question of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's future is by far the most important issue our generation faces. Yet those of us who are not trained scientists are in no position to make independent judgments on the fundamental scientific issues for ourselves.

    This dilemma is relatively easy to resolve. In regard to the science of climate change, as Clive Hamilton has put it, the only decision citizens have to make is not what to believe but who. We can place our trust either in the tens of thousands of climate scientists whose work has been published in the relevant scientific journals and summarised by the IPCC, or in the few dozen pseudo-sceptics who dismiss mainstream climate science as a politically correct, rent-seeking hoax.

    ...

    The consensual views of the climate scientists are our only reliable guide to the causes of global warming or what the impact of greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be. However, they cannot tell us what, given this knowledge, we must do. This is a decision that citizens must make within the framework of the democratic political process.

    If the scientists are right, humanity is at present marching, with eyes wide open, towards disaster. The future of the planet now depends on whether human beings are capable of rising to the challenge of global warming.

    Many industries that rely on fossil fuel emissions are working hard to safeguard their interests by convincing citizens of nations such as Australia to delay the tough decisions that must now be made.

    Pseudo-sceptical scientists such as Plimer, who falsely help to convince citizens that the scientific knowledge in this field is fiercely disputed and basically unsettled, are among their most valuable assets.

    It goes without saying that Plimer has every right to publish whatever it is he believes. However, for the editors of this newspaper to give books such as his the kind of enthusiastic welcome hundreds of others published in this country every year cannot dream of receiving and, even more, to treat their publication as important events, seems to me a grave intellectual, political and moral mistake.

    Robert Manne is professor of politics at LaTrobe University in Melbourne.
    Last edited by Lonesome Earl; 27-04-2009 at 09:59 PM.
    Wanna help buy a goat (and help change a life) - Check out Kiva.org to Learn How

  10. #1120
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray
    Prof Robert Manne calls for balance -
    What would non-scientist grievance-mongering Manne know? And his idea of "balance" is quashing all dissent from the warm-mongering and "stolen gneration" shakedown industries. News flash: Plimer's book IS the balance!
    “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor.”—Didache 2:2, 1st century AD

  11. #1121
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    30,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray
    Prof Robert Manne calls for balance -

    [..]

    It might have been supposed that the editors of this newspaper would wonder about the capacity for fair-mindedness of a geologist who describes the entire climate science community as "the forces of darkness"; who recently told Adelaide's The Advertiser that his book would singlehandedly "knock out" not one or several but "every argument we hear about climate change"; and who, in earlier work, had spent considerable energy trying to prove that Noah's Ark was a myth, the intellectual equivalent of a zoologist seeking to dispose of the belief that the serpent in the Garden of Eden could really have spoken to Eve.
    Manne's comments about Plimer vs Noah's Ark are very dubious here. Plimer's major engagement re said Ark was attacking a specific claim to have found Noah's Ark, and Plimer's primary contribution was to claim, on the basis of his expertise as a geologist, that the claimed Ark was a naturally occurring geologic structure, a syncline. No doubt Plimer does believe the Ark is a myth and I would expect that he would have argued that from time to time - but it's not the "considerable energy" Plimer is known for.

    Looks like in his desire to portray Plimer as one who habitually speaks outside his area of expertise, Manne has himself made inaccurate claims about a subject he would appear to be inexpert on (the bio of Prof Plimer) in which case Manne's attack has not merely failed but also rebounded on itself.

    In the other camp are a few dozen scientists who are best described as global warming pseudo-sceptics.
    And this is also going much too far in the direction of trying to dismiss opposition since while the opposition may be small it is not that small.

    Robert Manne is professor of politics at LaTrobe University in Melbourne.[/INDENT]
    And if he believes his own arguments he should be sticking to what he knows too, rather than suggesting that he, as a non-scientist (and not any kind of expert in philosophy or history of science either), is in a position to say whether a near-consensus among relevant scientists should be believed or not.

    I don't disagree with all Manne says (unremarkable as it all is) but he does his case a disservice by arguing it in such a shoddy manner and resorting to unnecessary cheapos.

    It also bothers me that Manne is so determined to knock down Plimer that he's even willing to dismiss the value of scientific commentary on the plausibility of biblical stories just for the sake of a bogus ad hominem. Of course, whether "X strongly appears scientifically impossible" implies "X is probably myth" is a statement that some will consider to follow and some will not, but for many who discuss the veracity or otherwise of Scripture it is very much relevant.

  12. #1122
    CC Grandmaster Lonesome Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    ...I don't disagree with all Manne says (unremarkable as it all is) but he does his case a disservice by arguing it in such a shoddy manner and resorting to unnecessary cheapos....
    He does go over the top, doesn't he? I was quite increulous about some of his comments, but the article was worth posting just to stir the pot
    Wanna help buy a goat (and help change a life) - Check out Kiva.org to Learn How

  13. #1123
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    30,467
    I do find the strange alliances provoked by "misotheist" Plimer's appearance as a global-warming sceptic/denialist (take your pick!) to be very amusing.

  14. #1124
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Manne's comments about Plimer vs Noah's Ark are very dubious here. Plimer's major engagement re said Ark was attacking a specific claim to have found Noah's Ark, and Plimer's primary contribution was to claim, on the basis of his expertise as a geologist, that the claimed Ark was a naturally occurring geologic structure, a syncline.
    Yet he got that wrong, because it was a mud flow. Creationist Ph.D. geologist Andrew Snelling got it right, then Plimer followed suit but still took credit—see documentation in Who really sunk the Noah’s Ark site? by Cameron Horn, 1997. And of course, although CSF (now CMI) had explicitly rejected this "ark" site in a detailed 1992 article, Plimer dishonestly persisted years later in claiming it was a crucial creationist argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    It also bothers me that Manne is so determined to knock down Plimer that he's even willing to dismiss the value of scientific commentary on the plausibility of biblical stories just for the sake of a bogus ad hominem. Of course, whether "X strongly appears scientifically impossible" implies "X is probably myth" is a statement that some will consider to follow and some will not, but for many who discuss the veracity or otherwise of Scripture it is very much relevant.
    This is rank hypocrisy, because Manne's allies in the MMM (Mendacious Mainstream Media) cheered Plimer for just this. See Plimer–Roberts Court Case: Media Mendacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I do find the strange alliances provoked by "misotheist" Plimer's appearance as a global-warming sceptic/denialist (take your pick!) to be very amusing.
    We've noted this with amusement too, as all his erstwhile friends in the MMM have turned on him now that he's attacking the PC establishment rather than being its mouthpiece
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 28-04-2009 at 04:04 PM.
    “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor.”—Didache 2:2, 1st century AD

  15. #1125
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    30,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Yet he got that wrong, because it was a mud flow. Creationist Ph.D. geologist Andrew Snelling got it right, then Plimer followed suit but still took credit—see documentation in Who really sunk the Noah’s Ark site? by Cameron Horn, 1997. And of course, although CSF (now CMI) had explicitly rejected this "ark" site in a detailed 1992 article, Plimer dishonestly persisted years later in claiming it was a crucial creationist argument.
    So if Plimer was sloppy and naughty then (and I don't think there's that much "if" about it) what's changed now?

    We've noted this with amusement too, as all his erstwhile friends in the MMM have turned on him now that he's attacking the PC establishment rather than being its mouthpiece
    Well, he did get that one surprisingly favourable MMM review from someone previously sympathetic to the global warming case, so maybe his former status carries some weight after all.

    I would be interested to know what the breakdown of organised atheist/sceptic groups is in terms of positions of members on global warming.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Proposed Renaming of Great Global Warming Swindle thread
    By Tony Dowden in forum Help and Feedback
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 31-01-2014, 12:02 PM
  2. Kierkegaard (and quotes thereof) sf. global warming
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 10:44 PM
  3. Does the Bible say the earth is round, sf. global warming
    By road runner in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 23-01-2008, 07:46 PM
  4. derivation of "hebrew" sf global warming
    By Axiom in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 23-01-2008, 09:39 AM
  5. global warning
    By firegoat7 in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13-02-2006, 11:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •