|
Post by havelock on Sept 5, 2010 20:56:28 GMT 1
Then why do you want ALL discussion of AGW kept to this one thread that begins with a post about bias (whether that be the IPCC or The Telegraph)?
Wouldn't a better strategy be to not engage in the debates/threads that do not discuss the science of Climate Change but to ensure that the science of climate change is discussed thoroughly?
In as many threads as is necessary to discuss the SCIENCE
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 20:59:09 GMT 1
Lets discuss the data then. It's very easy to come up with a rising trend in temperature if one alters the data to provide it.
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 5, 2010 21:02:22 GMT 1
May I politely suggest that AGW be kept to this thread, and not be brought up in threads about unrelated topics? Are you saying keep AGW solely to this thread? One called; The Great Global Warming Swindle? Fair point, I didn't think that part through, but I'd stick with my point about "and not be brought up in threads about unrelated topics". Shame to see it's already a case of "block your ears and shout at your opponent" - with the skeptics coming off as the worse offenders, again.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 21:03:52 GMT 1
Would you like to discuss the data, bluebiro? No?
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 5, 2010 21:06:38 GMT 1
Would you like to discuss the data, bluebiro? No? No, I don't know enough about the subject. That's why I want to follow a civilised and informed discussion so that I can form an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 5, 2010 21:07:35 GMT 1
Which data would you like to discuss? From www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdfThe 10 indicators are: 1.Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. 2.Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest. 3.Air temperature over the oceans. 4.Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one. 5.Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in… 6.Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate. 7.Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures. 8.Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide. 9.Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades. 10.Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 5, 2010 21:10:50 GMT 1
May I politely suggest that AGW be kept to this thread, and not be brought up in threads about unrelated topics? Are you saying keep AGW solely to this thread? One called; The Great Global Warming Swindle? Shame to see it's already a case of "block your ears and shout at your opponent" - with the skeptics coming off as the worse offenders, again. blue_biro, I think no matter how vehemently we disagree with AGW sceptics they do have a right to free-speech, in fact, I think it is a very healthy condition that they do! What if they turned out to be right?!
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 5, 2010 21:18:18 GMT 1
blue_biro, I think no matter how vehemently we disagree with AGW sceptics Who's disagreeing with them? As I've said over and over again, I want to know more about the subject so that I can form an opinion. I am not pro-AGW, I am not anti-AGW. Which is why I want to see civilised discussion. Then they'll wish they'd expressed themselves politely in respectful debate instead of alienating the people they could have won over.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunterx on Sept 5, 2010 22:18:44 GMT 1
Then they'll wish they'd expressed themselves politely in respectful debate instead of alienating the people they could have won over. True dat
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 22:24:34 GMT 1
Ah, the IPCC state sponsored line. 1. Land surface air temp - corrupted by station drop out and UHI effect. 2. Complete tosh manipulated by that Gov dept, the met office (mostly). I'm a fisherman and have been (along with my father before me) recording sst for 40 years. Yes, there was a slight rise up till 2000, then a levelling off for 5 years, then a sharp decline. Last winter (Early Feb) saw sst at it's lowest ever. (in 40 years). 3.See above 4.Given 1,2 and 3 above - I don't believe the data. 5. Part of a trend, fluctuating over millenia 6. Utter tosh. There has been no (or next to no) sea level rise. I live beside the sea and use piers. To say they can even measure to the silly degree of accuracy they claim is proposterous. Air pressure, wind direction and tidal cycle interact to make this claim laughable. 7. Then the drought in Russia must be symptomatic of Global cooling??? 8. Big deal, they've been retreating since the last ice age. 9. There has been an insignificant and normal fluctuation in sea ice. Last winter, Arctic sea ice was back with a vengence. Stockholm was closed due to ice for god's sake. If you could follow my example and state your employment and affiliations, i'd be much obliged. Unless you've got something to hide. Isn't it scientific to consider all the evidence and show your methods?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 22:27:55 GMT 1
I see my Karma is minus1??? How does that happen? I know it's wrong anyway cos I helped a young swallow find it's way out of my shed today.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 5, 2010 23:04:32 GMT 1
Even if all Havelock's "indicators" were impeccable, and they are not, what would they show? Merely a very slight warming NOT a cause. Phil Jones has stated that the rate of late 19th century warming the 1910 -1940 warming and the 1975 -1998 warming were "similar". He claims the same rate of warming has continued in the 21st century. Plenty of others say it has not.
We have neither unprecedented warming nor an unprecedented rate of warming. There is nothing to link CO2 to our oscillating temperature variability. CO2 is supposedly on an upward linear trend. However, temperatures have plateaued out since the peak el nino year of 1998 and it is predicted they will cool for the next 2 or 3 decades. We'll see!.
The oceans are now cooling with the cool phase of the PDO. The jets stream changes are supposed to be related to sun cycles. I think the sun is the main cause of the variability warmists attribute to CO2, myself. Extra CO2 cannot cause global cooling. That is not how a greenhouse gas works!
The swap from supposed anthropogenic "global warming" to the current "climate change" where simply EVERY weather variation is attributed to CO2 is symptomatic of the failure to show a causal connection between CO2 and warming and to demonstrate a mechanism.
In the words of the Newspeak Climate Dictionary, "AGW cannot be disproved therefore it is "Science". This is the sort of voodoo "science" LazarusHavelock is promoting, and not very well at that!
(I like the proboard format, BTW, don't you? You can go back and correct spelling errors etc and bad wording! The only disadvantage seems to be that it is not clear WHO one is addressing in any particular post. So I suggest we try to remember to make it clear by addressing our interlocutor by name in the opening sentence. If you want simply to quote a few words or a sentence from another post use the square brackets round the usual quote.../quote we used on the BBC boards)
|
|
|
Post by trollhunterx on Sept 5, 2010 23:27:48 GMT 1
Then why do you want ALL discussion of AGW kept to this one thread that begins with a post about bias (whether that be the IPCC or The Telegraph)? Wouldn't a better strategy be to not engage in the debates/threads that do not discuss the science of Climate Change but to ensure that the science of climate change is discussed thoroughly? In as many threads as is necessary to discuss the SCIENCE I think bluebiro's hope was that the interminable slanging matches, grimly retreading the same old ground, with the same old taunts, could be restricted to one thread. Not a realistic hope, I'm afraid. Short of constraining any discussion about climate to this one thread, and dooming reasonable posters with an interest to cohabitation with the ad hom haranguers, it's not possible to make any board a trouble-free zone.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 23:33:46 GMT 1
Joe, Do you want to engage in mutual congratulatory comforting session or a debate on the science of AGW? Does the fact that other people hold different views cause you some sort of anxiety?
What a boring world it would be if everyone agreed on everything.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 5, 2010 23:39:54 GMT 1
Joe K.
You may be convinced that the science is settled but many others, and increasing numbers of them, are not.
AGW is the biggest science story of all time. It is perfectly natural that we should want to discuss it. AND WE WILL - never mind hiving us off into a segregated section where we will not frighten the horses or offend those of a fragile AGW disposition who perennially seem ready to dissolve into hysteria whenever sceptics raise the subject.
There is simply masses of "evidence" to discuss and I for one think it is perfectly fascinating.
|
|