Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

The hockey stick curve has been proven wrong.

Zombie Lie No.1

Here's eight different hockey stick graphs, all calculated in different ways, using different data sets, and guess what? They all agree.:

 

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/mann1.jpg

[justlookin]

The data sheets are irrelevant, its the formula that is used to calculate the graph. The formula the IPCC used was proven to be flawed as it gave out a hockey stick curve no matter what data was inputed, even though it was found to be the wrong formula they still persisted to use it. I will get back to you with the name of the formula and some more details on it.

[ArabiaTerra]

Here's another graph for you, based on actual temperature measurements :

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

 

Oh look, it's going up as well.

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

I would be happier if the data used to make such graphs was made publically available so we could all add our own little interpertation, being that so much of what we see today is facts after they have been 'adjusted'.

 

Then there is the actual measurements themselves, perhaps not being ideally done..

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/19/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-74/

 

http://www.surfacestations.org

[justlookin]

Thank you N J.

 

Where did you get this graph? was it the output from independent studies? was the data collated by the IPCC?

 

AT could you please respond to those quotes from scientists?

 

Why would they say such things, why are IPCC scientist defecting?

 

Have you watched Global Warming or Global Governance?(if not i could get a copy to you, that goes for anyone else thats interested)

[ArabiaTerra]

First, to answer Nigel.

 

Yes, it may be true that some measuring stations have suffered urban encroachment and I'm not going to deny that the urban heat island effect is real (after all, I learned about in O-grade geography), but why should this make the readings from these stations invalid? After all, if the land around a station changed from forest to grassland, this would probably affect the readings compared to a nearby station which stayed as forest. But this is no reason to adjust the readings. But when the land changes to tarmac suddenly the readings can no longer be trusted. To extend this to it's logical conclusion, if the whole world were urbanised then it would be impossible to get an accurate reading anywhere, and that's just ludicrous.

 

Also, using this logic, temperatures measured over ice would have to be adjusted when the ice melted to reflect the change in albedo (pun intended), yet nobody is claiming that should be the case.

 

Secondly, the urban heat island effect means warmer air over cities which rises which draws cold air in at the edges, so readings from stations at the edges should be adjusted downwards to reflect this.

 

Thirdly, the site you posted has a scale to reflect the amount of adjustment required. It runs from 0-5 degrees. Now if I remember correctly, the difference in average temperatures between now and the middle of the last ice age are around 3-4 degrees, so according to the site you posted most of America should be experiencing temperatures not seen since the middle of the last ice age! Where is it? This ice age that nobody has noticed. The last time I saw anything about this on the news they were reporting how ice all over the world was melting, not growing. If you can find peer reviewed research to back up this size of adjustment then I will take it seriously, until then, no.

 

Justlookin, I've done some research into the "Manhatten Decleration" and the 650 alleged scientists who signed it. It turns out only half of them are scientists, the rest are businessmen and politicians. Out of the scientists, most of them are not climate scientists. A physicist who says AGW is not happening is about as credible as a climate scientist who tells a physicist that he doesn't believe in Quantum Mechanics. And of the climate scientists who have signed it, well that's just healthy science. If all climate scientists agreed then it would be religion, not science.

 

Oh and to take one in particular, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an "Expert Reviewer". "Expert Reviewer" just meant he requested the draft document like *anyone* was able to do. He had nothing to do with writing the IPCC review. And anyway, the IPCC review was exactly that, a review of the already published literature, it was not new science.

 

The thing is, while some climate scientists may have a vested interest in promoting AGW. The same goes for almost all AGW sceptics. You can't claim that one half of the argument are politically tainted and that the other half are squeaky clean, you're suspicion must be applied to both sides equally, something which Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers would do well to learn.

 

Please find me some proper peer reviewed research to back up your claims, then I'll start taking you seriously, otherwise you're just wasting your own and everyone else's time.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Climate, Holocaust and 9/11.

3 out of 3 wrong.

Not bad AT

[ArabiaTerra]

Hook, line and sinker.

 

Koy carp for breakfast I think. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/characters/character0052.gif

[justlookin]

There is not point in trying to talk sense to you. You've been converted into "one of them". The Government have lied to us about everything; iraq, afganistan, iran, recession("credit crunch" my ass), 9-11, 7/7, "War on Drugs", "War on Terror"(which is really a war on freedom and democracy), John Charles de Menezes and about Man Made Global Warming...i truly hope you see the light.

 

.....

 

You'll love this link AT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1085359/Global-warning-We-actually-heading-new-Ice-Age-claim-scientists.html

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

May anarchy rein forth."God" bless the Greeks

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

I'm old enough to remember the last time we had a scare like this, all them peer reviewed research showing a new ice age was coming.

 

Now its the oppersite..

 

 

The trouble with calling someone a climate scientist, is like calling someone a psychiatrist, not quite the same thing as a physicist or psychologist, whose disaplines are based on more mature science.

 

Also, with the nature of science, your always going to have people who disagree, once you stop having disagreement, then how are you ever going to progress...

 

My concern is more to help even the playing field and show errors on both sides, and that todays news of doom will be forgotten tomorrow when the next latest theory says something else, quite possibly oppersite thing..

 

We know far less about the world than we think we do..

 

(I'm reminded of a time not so many years ago when I got a friend to use a weather computer to tell me the chance of fog in 2 weeks time on moving day, the best technology of the day said a 5% chance.. yet it was like peasoup, well, there you go on good old reliable prediction eh..)

 

Unless its a falling apple and you can see the theory in practice, anything else is just a maybe, so you plan for your maybe.

 

Eg. Maybe all the ice will melt, maybe it won't. Lets move inland and higher up just in case, and look towards ways that are less polluting to the planet.

 

In time, we'll figure out climate, I just don't think we have a good of a model as we think we do, and I do wish both sides would stop tinkering with the figures, its like listening to the government telling you the chocolate ration has been increased..

[crofter]

Name one specific global warming tax you pay, just one.

 

Road tax is based on CO2 emissions.

[ArabiaTerra]

There is not point in trying to talk sense to you. You've been converted into "one of them". The Government have lied to us about everything; iraq, afganistan, iran, recession("credit crunch" my ass), 9-11, 7/7, "War on Drugs", "War on Terror"(which is really a war on freedom and democracy), John Charles de Menezes and about Man Made Global Warming...i truly hope you see the light.

So I'm one of them am I? Alright, I'll try again.

 

Actually, no I won't, I can't be bothered. You've swallowed the propaganda of the Bush regime and the oil industry whole. Despite the fact that you haven't managed to find a single peer reviewed paper contradicting AGW you still refuse to believe what the scientists are telling you.

 

What I don't understand is the conspiracy theory thing. The only conspiracy I can see is that by Bush and his cronies in the oil industry to rubbish the science, something which they are on record as doing, yet you seem to think there is some global conspiracy between the UN and the scientists. If such a thing really existed, Bush and his cronies would have been shouting it from the rooftops. If the science was in any way flawed, it would have been exposed by now. Instead, for the last 20 years all the science has been consistent. Nothing has been published which has contradicted the basic tenants of AGW theory.

 

Take the IPCC for instance. You seem to be under the impression that it is some over-reaching body which commissions and controls all climate research. It isn't. It's a bunch of scientists who are paid by the UN to review all of the independent research published during their remit (usually 5 years) and summarise it and write a report. The IPCC doesn't commission research, nor does it pay the scientists doing the research. It has no influence on what is published. True, the politicians have a say in the wording of the final report, but the only criticism of that I remember from the last report published was from scientists angry that the politicians had watered down the conclusions and that the report didn't go far enough!

Hardly a conspiracy.

 

Maybe if you tried looking at some of the research supporting AGW you might gain some understanding of what's going on instead of trawling the conspiracy theory blogs and sites, maybe if you tried approaching this with an open mind... nah, I'm wasting my breath, you're a lost cause, you've already made up you're mind and I'm not going to change it.

[justlookin]

The global conspiracy is to leave no other option for all nations but to unite into one Globally Governed State. The EU was a trial for Globalization. All this terror, global warming, oil prices basically, culminating to instability. Public fear causing us all to join the global union which will be proposed in the next year or so.

 

 

Have a look on http://www.BlackListedNews.com. Its not a conspiray website, just a site which reports news that the supposed nonpartisan news will not.

I personally don't go on conspiracy websites. Tend to be full of crazy nonsense like AGW. LOL

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

There isn't anything necessarly wrong with a globally governed state..

 

Unless its one where the poor end up as slaves..

[justlookin]

We are already slaves. We've been disarmed and now we have a shoot to kill policy within the police. The police are slowly being armed, county by county. Interperet hw you wish. As i said, check out the news on http://www.blacklistednews.com.

 

A global government would be good in an ideal world where an honest politician exhisted, but i am afraid that is not the case.

 

Bilderberg Group! Look it up!

 

Apologies for going off topic.