Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Today’s comments on global warming are the first on this forum for 8 months. If people really believed sea level was going to rise metres within a generation a few more folks on these islands would have a peerie bit mair tae say aboot it.

I think from memory the official UK predictions sit at about 90cm in 90 years?

Which is of course does not sound too catastrophic and is far enough away that "somebody will figure something out if it ends up being true".....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as you "publish" other people's thoughts you would have to admit it is wise to get a little legal cover against possible action based on what they might say?

 

The other option would be just to publish your own views, and not open things up to a variety of other opinions. There are websites that do that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the articles themselves should absolutely stand or fall on their own content and the authors be judged on their own data and positions.

 

But at the same time I'm happy enough for the publishers to present those articles and leave it up to the reader to form their own opinion of the content, without any guarantees.

 

Another example of similar legalese from the "Nature" website

We are not liable or responsible for the third party content on the Site. Third party content includes, for example, comments, blogs and articles posted by users, the content of advertisements, applications posted by users and content accessed through applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
^^^^ You might want to take this to the Global Warming thread:

 

http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1843

Thanks for the tip. I hadn't spotted that.

You meant the Global Cooling thread, right? :-)

 

No, I don't, I really, really don't.

 

This might not be science yet, but the trends are interesting:

http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/22/signs-of-strengthening-global-cooling/

Yes, you're right. It's not science. In fact, it contradicts the science completely. I've covered most of the stuff in the article before on this thread, but seeing as you're new here, and to save you wading through 80 pages of argument, I'll take this one apart just for you.

 

So, lets start at the beginning:

 

The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more significantly, has started to cool since 2003.

 

This is a lie.

 

The hottest year on record is 2005, and the hottest 12 month period on record is June 2009 to May 2010.

 

So, how did Matti come up with this lie? Well, it's the classic denier tactic of cherry-picking the data to suit his preconceived conclusion. 1998 is the strongest El Nino year on record and in one of the global temperature records (HadCRUT3), it is still the hottest year. However, HadCRUT3 is known to underestimate the total warming due to the fact that it doesn't include the Arctic, where the most significant warming has occurred. All of the other global records (NASA GISS and NCDC) include the arctic warming and show that the warming has continued as predicted by the global climate models.

 

It's also contradicted by the evidence on the ground such as the continuing melting of the Arctic sea ice, tundra and the Greenland ice shelf. Interestingly, later in the article, Matti says this:

 

For Canada, if you exclude the El Nino winters of 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010...

(my emphasis)

 

So, as you can see, Matti uses El Nino where it supports his conclusion, yet disregards it when it doesn't. This is, at best, sloppy and more likely, deliberately misleading. Cherry picking at it's finest.

 

So, next up:

 

Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past. Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010.

 

More cherry picking. Just because there's snow on your doorstep doesn't mean global warming has stopped. The important word here being: Global. There will always be regional variations which will buck the overall trend. Anyway, there's a perfectly logical reason for the last two cold winters which is completely consistent with AGW theory, it goes as follows:

 

In a normal winter the Arctic experiences approximately six months of total darkness. The deep cold which this causes leads to low pressure over the Arctic which confines the cold air to northern latitudes. In the last few years, however, there has been unprecedented melting of the sea ice in the Arctic. This means that the air, instead of being insulated from the warmer Arctic ocean water by a layer of ice, has been exposed to this warmer water. This has led to higher temperatures and correspondingly higher pressure. Higher pressure in the Arctic allows the warmer (though still very cold by our standards) air to spill out into lower latitudes where it causes the cold winters we've just experienced. To drive this point home, take a look at the temperatures in Greenland and Northern Canada over the last few winters. While we were experiencing temperatures a couple of degrees lower than expected, in Greenland and Northern Canada temperatures were 10-20 degrees higher than normal. Remember the last Winter Olympics in Canada? They were bringing snow in by helicopter because there wasn't enough on the higher ski slopes.

 

Next:

 

What about the warm year 2010?

 

It is a no-brainer to have an extra warm year like 2010 during a strong El Nino. The year 1998 was also such a warm El Nino year. These are natural causes that drive up the temperatures during the El Nino years. Yet there has been no statistical warming since 1995.

 

Ooooh, this one really boils my piss! Phil Jones in a BBC interview in 2009 was asked if the warming since 1996 had been statistically significant in the 95% range. He truthfully answered no, and the denialosphere went berserk, claiming global warming was dead. All it actually meant was that over such a short period of time, the global warming signal was obscured by statistical noise. Ironically, adding the 2010 data means that the warming since 1996 is now statistically significant. So that makes this another deliberate lie from Matti. Not doing to well now is he?

 

Oh, and by the way, 2010 was a moderate El Nino year, whereas 1998 was the strongest El Nino ever recorded. The fact that the overall temperatures in 2010 even came close to 1998 is testament to the global warming which has happened in the intervening years.

 

Matti then goes on to list a whole load of cold records set in 2010, conveniently missing the fact that, in 2010, 19 countries set all time high records while only one country (Peru, I think) set an all time low record.

 

The simple fact is, if you are willing to cherry pick data over short time periods, you can pretty much make the data say anything you want it to. That's why scientists say you need 30 years data to conclusively identify the global warming signal amongst the normal statistical noise. I think this graphic best illustrates my point:

 

http://www.edf.org/content_images/graph-no-cooling-in-sight.jpg

 

So, to sum up: The world isn't cooling. Over the last decade temperatures have continued to rise as predicted and in line with the predictions. Anyone who says different is lying to you.

 

If you are interested, this site has a list of all the most common denier lies and rebuttals to them all. It's worth a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ You might want to take this to the Global Warming thread:

 

http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1843

Thanks for the tip. I hadn't spotted that.

You meant the Global Cooling thread, right? :-)

 

No, I don't, I really, really don't.

 

This might not be science yet, but the trends are interesting:

http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/22/signs-of-strengthening-global-cooling/

Yes, you're right. It's not science. In fact, it contradicts the science completely. I've covered most of the stuff in the article before on this thread, but seeing as you're new here, and to save you wading through 80 pages of argument, I'll take this one apart just for you.

 

So, lets start at the beginning:

 

The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more significantly, has started to cool since 2003.

 

This is a lie.

 

The hottest year on record is 2005, and the hottest 12 month period on record is June 2009 to May 2010.

 

So, how did Matti come up with this lie? Well, it's the classic denier tactic of cherry-picking the data to suit his preconceived conclusion. 1998 is the strongest El Nino year on record and in one of the global temperature records (HadCRUT3), it is still the hottest year. However, HadCRUT3 is known to underestimate the total warming due to the fact that it doesn't include the Arctic, where the most significant warming has occurred. All of the other global records (NASA GISS and NCDC) include the arctic warming and show that the warming has continued as predicted by the global climate models.

 

It's also contradicted by the evidence on the ground such as the continuing melting of the Arctic sea ice, tundra and the Greenland ice shelf. Interestingly, later in the article, Matti says this:

 

For Canada, if you exclude the El Nino winters of 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010...

(my emphasis)

 

So, as you can see, Matti uses El Nino where it supports his conclusion, yet disregards it when it doesn't. This is, at best, sloppy and more likely, deliberately misleading. Cherry picking at it's finest.

 

So, next up:

 

Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past. Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010.

 

More cherry picking. Just because there's snow on your doorstep doesn't mean global warming has stopped. The important word here being: Global. There will always be regional variations which will buck the overall trend. Anyway, there's a perfectly logical reason for the last two cold winters which is completely consistent with AGW theory, it goes as follows:

 

In a normal winter the Arctic experiences approximately six months of total darkness. The deep cold which this causes leads to low pressure over the Arctic which confines the cold air to northern latitudes. In the last few years, however, there has been unprecedented melting of the sea ice in the Arctic. This means that the air, instead of being insulated from the warmer Arctic ocean water by a layer of ice, has been exposed to this warmer water. This has led to higher temperatures and correspondingly higher pressure. Higher pressure in the Arctic allows the warmer (though still very cold by our standards) air to spill out into lower latitudes where it causes the cold winters we've just experienced. To drive this point home, take a look at the temperatures in Greenland and Northern Canada over the last few winters. While we were experiencing temperatures a couple of degrees lower than expected, in Greenland and Northern Canada temperatures were 10-20 degrees higher than normal. Remember the last Winter Olympics in Canada? They were bringing snow in by helicopter because there wasn't enough on the higher ski slopes.

 

Next:

 

What about the warm year 2010?

 

It is a no-brainer to have an extra warm year like 2010 during a strong El Nino. The year 1998 was also such a warm El Nino year. These are natural causes that drive up the temperatures during the El Nino years. Yet there has been no statistical warming since 1995.

 

Ooooh, this one really boils my piss! Phil Jones in a BBC interview in 2009 was asked if the warming since 1996 had been statistically significant in the 95% range. He truthfully answered no, and the denialosphere went berserk, claiming global warming was dead. All it actually meant was that over such a short period of time, the global warming signal was obscured by statistical noise. Ironically, adding the 2010 data means that the warming since 1996 is now statistically significant. So that makes this another deliberate lie from Matti. Not doing to well now is he?

 

Oh, and by the way, 2010 was a moderate El Nino year, whereas 1998 was the strongest El Nino ever recorded. The fact that the overall temperatures in 2010 even came close to 1998 is testament to the global warming which has happened in the intervening years.

 

Matti then goes on to list a whole load of cold records set in 2010, conveniently missing the fact that, in 2010, 19 countries set all time high records while only one country (Peru, I think) set an all time low record.

 

The simple fact is, if you are willing to cherry pick data over short time periods, you can pretty much make the data say anything you want it to. That's why scientists say you need 30 years data to conclusively identify the global warming signal amongst the normal statistical noise. I think this graphic best illustrates my point:

 

http://www.edf.org/content_images/graph-no-cooling-in-sight.jpg

 

So, to sum up: The world isn't cooling. Over the last decade temperatures have continued to rise as predicted and in line with the predictions. Anyone who says different is lying to you.

 

If you are interested, this site has a list of all the most common denier lies and rebuttals to them all. It's worth a look.

 

There is nothing new in anything that you have said; I have heard most of it before.

All I am saying is that a scientist keeps an open mind; you seem to have an almost religious fervour about this, to the point where you cannot admit doubt.The next couple of decades may provide some certainty; in the meantime there are other matters of concern which are not conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last few years, however, there has been unprecedented melting of the sea ice in the Arctic.

 

How do you know how much ice was there 1000 years ago? 100 years ago? Nobody does, because records are only available since 1970 something.

 

The simple fact is, if you are willing to cherry pick data over short time periods, you can pretty much make the data say anything you want it to.

 

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last few years, however, there has been unprecedented melting of the sea ice in the Arctic.

 

How do you know how much ice was there 1000 years ago? 100 years ago? Nobody does, because records are only available since 1970 something.

 

The simple fact is, if you are willing to cherry pick data over short time periods, you can pretty much make the data say anything you want it to.

 

Indeed.

You're onto it.

Anyone who says "unprecedented" is an alarmist talking through a hole in his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...