Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Climate Change - Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [NOT]; There is no consensus.
Topic Started: April 2 2011, 02:24 AM (26,636 Views)
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pielke Sr. on the Muller testimony

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/01/pielke-sr-on-the-muller-testimony/

By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

"First, as posted on my son’s weblog in

Global Temperature Trends

the global temperature anomaly is essentially irrelevant in terms of climate change issues that matter to society and the environment. Even in terms of global warming, it is a grossly inadequate measure, as discussed, for example, in

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55."

"The global average surface temperature, however, unfortunately, has become the icon of the IPCC community and in the policy debate."
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote of the Week:

“To reduce the interpretation of all kinds of climate change and of global warming to one variable, CO2, and to a small proportion of that one variable – human induced CO2- is impossible to accept.” Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, cited by Lord Turnbull, Article #2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-15/

Please see part of Lord Turnbull's statement in later post.
Edited by radiospu, April 4 2011, 12:13 AM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Listen up, “deniers”! Your Internet use is destroying the planet

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/listen-up-deniers-your-internet-use-is-destroying-the-planet/

"Personally, I’ve always thought that the key to an advanced and open society was freedom of information. Apparently too much freedom for certain labeled groups of people is going to destroy the planet. Gosh. Australian media really has gone off the edge of the Earth since Gillard took over. Oh in case you haven’t seen it, here’s the leaked Gillard game plan to teach those Australian “deniers” to accept a new carbon tax. Damn that Internet and those meddling kids!"
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Former EPA researcher Alan Carlin publishes his paper
Posted on April 3, 2011 by Anthony Watts
My New Paper On The Economics And Science Of Climate Change

Guest Post by Alan Carlin

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/former-skeptic-epa-researcher-alan-carlin-publishes-paper/

"From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:

· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.

· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.

· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.

· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lord Turnbull: The Really Inconvenient Truth Sunday, 27 March 2011 10:12 Andrew Turnbull

Lord Turnbull has recently made a statement as to CO2 and the reduction of same under actual and proposed legislation in the UK. He lists three things which must be considered regarding such legislation:

"But there is an Inconvenient Truth, and it is not the same Inconvenient Truth of Al Gore’s film. The Real Inconvenient Truth is that this whole structure is built on shaky foundations.
One can analyse this agenda at three levels:
First, the basic science, i.e. the relationship between CO2 and temperature
Secondly, for any given rise in temperature the real world impact on sea levels, rainfall, drought etc
Thirdly, for any given picture of impacts, what are the appropriate policies?
The three tiers correspond to the three working groups in the IPCC structure."

He then goes on to show that the science regarding these stated views is not yet agreed upon.
On this simple, and at the same time comprehensive sumary, lies the nub of the debate on Climate Change...

"What is described as a consensus is no such thing. There is a huge controversy at each level of the analysis. Let us look first at the science. The IPCC view has been characterized as an ice hockey stick. For the past thousand years, global temperatures are presented as fluctuating within a narrow range, possibly around a slight downward trend. But since the arrival of industrialization, the output of CO2 has risen sharply, producing the sharp rise in global temperatures, the so-called man-made or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
This has been challenged on a number of fronts:
Has the back history being correctly described? Many scientists believe that in the IPCC’s later reports the fluctuations in the past 1000 years have been wrongly flattened out, underplaying a Medieval Warming Period (1000 -1,350 AD), followed by a Little Ice Age (1350-1850), and the recovery from it over the last 150 years. This alternative view indicates that our climate has been variable long before the recent movements in CO2. Early reports from the IPCC acknowledged these fluctuations, But of course they are inconvenient to the AGW believers, one of whom e–mailed another saying "We must get rid of the Medieval Warming Period."
Even the history of the last 150 year presents a lot of problems. Over this period the global temperature has risen by 0.7°C But unlike the rise in CO2 which has been pretty steady, there have been markedly different phases. Temperature rose rapidly from 1900–1940 when the CO2 increase was modest, followed by a small drop in temperature between 1940–70 despite the fact that CO2 growth was particularly strong at this time. Between 1970 and the late 1990s both CO2 and temperature increased strongly together, but over the past 12 years or so temperature has been on a plateau. If CO2 were as important as many AGW theorists claim, why has temperature not followed a steady upward path? Immediately it becomes obvious that one needs to bring other factors into the story, especially the sun and the way heat is stored in an distributed around the oceans. So it is very unclear what is the relative contribution of natural forces and what is AGW.
But principally one needs to look at climate sensitivity, by that I mean the coefficient between CO2 and temperature. No one questions that CO2 has greenhouse properties. A cubic metre of air with 550 ppm in it will retain more heat than one with 280ppm. But most scientists will admit that a doubling of CO2 alone will not produce the 3°C or more that is built into the IPCC models. The pure CO2 effect for a doubling in concentration is probably closer to 1°C. So where do the higher figures come from?
They come from what is assumed to happen to water vapour which is a much more prevalent and powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. A hotter atmosphere will hold more water vapour. But does this automatically mean that there will be a positive, ie amplifying, feedback effect? Not necessarily. Cloud does have an insulating property but it also has what is known as an albedo effect reflecting the sun back into space, which is why cloudy days are cooler. So the net effect could go either way.
The IPCC models have assumed but not proven a strongly positive feedback. But this is an area of science that is still poorly understood.
To summarise this part of the argument:
Global temperature has been rising since the early part of the 19th century, but at a much slower rate than is projected forward. There was a period of sharp rise from 1970 in the late 1990s but this is too short a period on which to base an extrapolation to the end of this century. In the opening decade of this century we have fallen way behind the asking rate to achieve a 3°C increase which is approximately four times the historic rate.
CO2 has been rising significantly only in the last 60 years while the rise in temperature has fluctuated
I can deal with Level 2 of the IPCC’s work very quickly. In my view this is where their work is at its shabbiest. Lots of dramatic claims about sea levels, melting glaciers, ice, crop yields, extinction of species, especially polar bears. Much of this has been shown to have come from unpeer reviewed material, the so-called grey literature, and worse still some of it was even drawn from material supplied by green NGOs. There has been a consistent pattern of cherry picking, exaggeration, highlighting of extremes, and failure to acknowledge beneficial effects. By and large, humanity has prospered in the more warm periods. Plants grow faster and capture more CO2 in an atmosphere that is hotter, wetter and more CO2 rich. Cold causes more deaths than heat. The main cause of more storm damage has been that we have put more people and property in harm's way. The fears about the spread of malaria are largely discredited.
Let me now turn to Level 3, policy.
The first problem is that policy has been based on a preponderantly warmist view of the world. Many such as the institution Civil Engineers think that too little attention has been paid to adaptation, i.e. being more resilient which ever way the sum of natural forces and CO2 takes us, up or down. This warmist view of the world may explain why we have been underprepared for cold winters, a phenomenon which is very readily explicable by the state of the 11 year solar cycle where sunspots are at an extreme low.
The major problem of UK policy is its unilateralism. Our Climate Change Act imposes legal duties, regardless of what ever else other countries do, or do not do. The UK, producing only 2% of world GDP, has minimal effect on the global warming outcome. If we push too hard on decarbonisation by raising the price of carbon through a range of instruments we will suffer double jeopardy. Energy using industries will migrate, and if the climate pessimists are right we will still have to pay to adapt, e.g. by raising our flood defences. In my view we should concentrate on those things which have a clear no regret benefit, and there are many, and advance into the rest of the agenda only as part of international action. There is furious row in the EU Commission on precisely this point. The Climate Action Commissioner wants to adopt the more ambitious 30 percent even in the absence of any agreement, while the Energy Commissioner is strongly opposed.
The logical economic approach is to rank policy responses according to the cost per tonne of CO2 abated and then work through the merit order, starting with the most effective. Or what amounts to the same thing, set a price on carbon and then let the various technologies – gas, coal with CCS, nuclear, wind, tidal, energy efficiency etc, fight it out for market share.
But the EU Renewables Obligation is the denial of this logic. One particular set of technologies, and in particular wind, has been given a guaranteed market share and a guaranteed indexed price, regardless of how competitive it is. The current pursuit of wind power is folly. Its cost per kwh substantially exceeds that of other low carbon sources such as nuclear when account is taken of intermittency and the cost of extending the grid far from where consumers are located. There is a constant confusion between installed capacity for wind and its actual output, which is about 25-30 percent of the former. There is also the problem that the coldest periods in the UK often coincide with low wind speeds.
There has been in this country, initially, a hostility to nuclear power and now at best a half-heartedness. The Secretary of State at DECC has called nuclear a tried, tested and failed technology. It may be that in the UK, historically, it has not been as successful as it might have been, but it has for 50 years provided around 20 percent of our electricity reliably, competitively and safely. Just 20 miles from our coast, France has produced over 2/3rds of its electricity from nuclear and regards this as a great success. Clearly, events in Japan are raising new questions about nuclear power. We cannot yet say whether there is a general lesson about current designs or whether the lesson is about 40 year old designs in seismically active areas.
The feed-in tariff mechanism is fast becoming a scandal. Those lucky enough to own buildings large enough on which to install solar panels, or enough land for a wind farm, have been receiving 30-40p per kwh which is retailed at only 11p. The loss is paid for by a levy on businesses and households. It is astonishing that the Liberals, who attach such importance to fairness, turn a blind eye to this transfer from poor to rich, running to Łbillions a year. If you live in a council tower block in Lambeth you don’t have much opportunity to get your nose into this trough.
There is a major new development which fits the description of a disruptive technology, that is the introduction of new drilling techniques which make it possible to extract gas from shale. This has dramatically widened the geographic availability of gas, has produced a massive upgrading of gas reserves and is decoupling gas prices from oil. Gas has the advantage that it produces about half the CO2 that coal produces. So we face a happy prospect that we can replace a lot of coal burning with gas, reduce energy prices, and make a big reduction in CO2 emissions, albeit not the complete decarbonisation sought by some. Certainly the opportunity cost of renewables has risen, and perhaps that of nuclear power too.
Another defence of the AGW agenda is the so-called green jobs argument, i.e. we should be in the vanguard of adopting green technologies so that we get first mover advantage as a supplier of these technologies. My view is simple. If a technology can justify itself without massive subsidy we should build up our research and our skills. But if a technology exists only by virtue of subsidy, we only impoverish ourselves by trying to build jobs on such shaky foundations.
To summarise on policy:
We should concentrate on those measures which are no regret, which improve resource productivity, and which do not depress living standards. In my book these are stopping deforestation, raising the energy efficiency of our buildings and our vehicle fleet (though the effect of greater energy efficiency on CO2 reduction may be limited if consumption is sustained by lowering the effective price of energy), investment in nuclear power, an expansion of energy from waste and, if we are going to adopt CCS and the economics has yet to be established, it would be better to attach it to new gas-fired stations rather retrofitting old coal-fired stations.. It also means much less wind and solar, an end to current biofuels.
Let me conclude with a few remarks on the sociology and politics of the AGW phenomenon. First, there is the change in the nature of science. Great figures of the past such as Galileo and Darwin were not salaried professors, did not receive large research grants and were not showered with honours. They were driven by curiosity and were prepared to challenge the established order. Nowadays, our environmental scientists have jobs and research ratings to protect as well as celebrity and airmiles. There has been a shameful failure by the grandees of the Royal Society who should have been the guardians of scientific integrity, upholding its motto “Nullius in verba,” i.e. no one has the final word. Instead they have become campaigners, spouting nonsense that the science is settled, and failing to review rigorously the Climategate e-mails affair.
There are now plenty of vested interests in the green agenda, whether consultants, suppliers of green technology or those taking advantage of the economic opportunities. It is not just the traditional energy suppliers who have positions to defend.
Uncritical adoption of the green agenda by the Conservatives has helped them push the Blue is Green message as a way of escaping from the nasty party image.
There is a structural flaw in the IPCC. Far from being the distillation of the work of 2,500 scientists to produce a consensus, there is a core of 40-50 at its centre who are closely related, as colleagues, pupils, teachers, reviewers of each other’s work. They have managed to define a very simple AGW message and have sought to prevent alternative voices from being heard. The media have failed in their mission to challenge and have bought into the group think. It has been left to the blogosphere to provide a platform for different viewpoints.
Where does the religious moralising tone come from? It can be traced back to Chapter 3 of the Book of Genesis. Man was born into Eden in a state of grace, but has damaged his environment and now must repent and pay for his sins.
To conclude:
We need to acknowledge that there have always been fluctuations in out climate. Rather that writing natural forces out of the script we need to build them into the analysis.
We have witnessed a warming tend in the last 150 years, but this warming has not followed a steady upward path. We are currently on a plateau. CO2 has probably, ceteris paribus, made a small positive contribution.
Our understanding of the effects of water vapour is still limited and not enough to justify the weight that is put upon it.
We need a more eclectic approach and certainly a more modest one.
In the words of President Klaus of the Czech Republic.
“To reduce the interpretation of all kinds of climate change and of global warming to one variable, CO2, and to a small proportion of that one variable – human induced CO2- is impossible to accept.”
From our politicians we need more rationality, less emotion and less religiosity; and end to alarmist propaganda and to attempts to frighten us and our children. Also we want them to pay more attention to the national interest and less to being global evangelists.
Finally we need from our scientists more humility, and a return to the tradition of scientific curiosity and challenge. We need more openness and transparency and an end to attempts to freeze out dissenting voices. There should be more recognition of what they do not know. And acceptance of the Really Inconvenient Truth - that our understanding of the natural world does not justify the certainty in which the AGW views are expressed."
Andrew Turnbull, March 2011
Lord Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords and a member of the GWPF's Board of Trustees.
Edited by radiospu, April 4 2011, 12:10 AM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sorry - link for above...

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2711-lord-turnbull-the-really-inconvenient-truth.html#ja-content
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
40% of Australians don't believe in man-made global warming (and boy are they irritated)

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/40-of-australians-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Who knew? CSIRO funded a 5,000 person poll last July and August and then sat on the results for months. Perhaps they were disappointed that only 50% of people thought humans have any role in changing the global climate? Worse, 90% of people acknowledge that the world is warming, and 40% have figured out that that the key issue is not whether it warms but whether it's natural that matters, and it's hard to call them deniers. How inconvenient. ....
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know I'm always on about the Watts up with that website, but here's another one which looks at the subject from another viewpoint.

http://joannenova.com.au/about/
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hey! I've just noticed I've become a gale!!!! h-e-h-e
Edited by radiospu, April 4 2011, 10:44 PM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CSIRO shows cyclone (hurricane) frequency down, contradict Gore and many others who claim Global Warming will increase them

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-change-to-mean-fewer-cyclones-and-smaller-waves-says-csiro-research/story-e6frg6xf-1226033322365

One paper, by CSIRO researcher Debbie Abbs, found rising temperatures could halve the frequency of tropical cyclones.
Edited by radiospu, April 4 2011, 10:44 PM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Climate Craziness of the week – Claim: nuclear tests stopped global warming in the mid 20th century...

I give up! You decide? Read on if you will.....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/04/claim-nuclear-tests-stopped-global-warming-in-the-20th-century/
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12969167

The ozone layer has seen unprecedented damage in the Arctic this winter due to cold weather in the upper atmosphere.

Er, right. So it’s not due to global warming? Or maybe AGW results in both warming and cooling. Or maybe it’s that AGW causes warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere simultaneously. Hmm. Yeah. Ok.
Edited by radiospu, April 5 2011, 01:00 PM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
One of the finest and most interesting scientists of the last century was Richard Feynman. He was unique in many ways, but being able to laugh at himself and his fellow "experts" was one of the hallmarks of his finer attributes....

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark (IWO)
Member Avatar
Admin

Spu, my guess is that you might not agree with this US study

http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/u-s-study-demonstrates-climate-change-effects-on-forests.html
The coldest winter you will ever experience is a summer in West Clare.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Practise what you preach is not what I would say is Ross Garnaut's best attribute?

Ross Garnaut on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G589qQyCeoU&feature=player_embedded

The hypocrisy is mind blowing! :(
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Video: Geophysicist explains how the Sun controls climate, not CO2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Rejoice ye 'skeptics', ye 'Deniers' - ye 'Flat Earth simpletons'!!! Ye non believers in the Global Warming religion, rejoice!!!!! h-e-h-e h-e-h-e h-e-h-e h-e-h-e

Global temperature still headed down- UAH: negative territory

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/global-temperature-still-headed-down-uah-negative-territory/#more-37362

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/uah-temperature-update-for-march-2011-cooler-still-0-10-deg-c/

La Nina Coolness Persists

The post 1998 cooling trend persists. In spite of the gross exaggeration of temperatures reported by the Warmists for circa 2010. :)
Edited by radiospu, April 5 2011, 08:32 PM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all

Editorial: "The sun is our only truly renewable energy source"

30 March 2011 by Mark Buchanan

He*** concludes that it is a mistake to assume that energy sources like wind and waves are truly renewable. Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels, he says, and we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change.

***Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany***

This from "NewScientist" Magazine. here...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
NASA admits all previous warming trends caused by sun

http://www.helium.com/items/2129635-nasa-admits-all-previous-warming-trends-caused-by-sun

Under mounting pressure from scientists that reject the politically popularized man-made global warming and climate models—the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory—the American space agency NASA has admitted that all past warming trends were driven by solar activity.

A victory for the man-made 'global warming deniers'

As more scientists have joined the outcry over the politicization of Earth's climate cycles—the current number exceeds 20,000—promoters of the AGW model have denounced the "global warming deniers" countering that little evidence supports the view that the sun is driving the observed warming trend.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/w-cci040411.php

Via Eurekalert, and from the “Department of Population Color Doppler Shift”, comes this story of the bluing. Next comes the violet. After that, well, I don’t even want to talk about it :(


Published in the Journal of Animal Ecology

Climate change is making our environment ‘bluer’

The “colour” of our environment is becoming “bluer”, a change that could have important implications for animals’ risk of becoming extinct, ecologists have found. In a major study involving thousands of data points and published this week in the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Animal Ecology, researchers examined how quickly or slowly animal populations and their environment change over time, something ecologists describe using “spectral colour”.
Edited by radiospu, April 6 2011, 11:49 AM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ Mark.
Until now, I didn't realise you had added a comment/post regarding "U.S. Study Demonstrates Climate Change Effects On Forests".
This is interesting. I haven't seen any comments on this phenomenon elsewhere, so my mind would be open on matters such as this. What I do know is that these studies often cause a stir for a while, until some biology professor comes along 6 months, or 6 years later and publishes a peer reviewed paper that entirely refutes the previous science. Strange also that it's always as a result of climate change and NEVER anything else - that is until someone else refutes the original findings.
I'll keep my eye out for counter arguments as time goes by, Mark.
Thanks.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Climate 'technical fix' may yield warming, not cooling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12983795

Whitening clouds by spraying them with seawater, proposed as a "technical fix" for climate change, could do more harm than good, according to research.

Whiter clouds reflect more solar energy back into space, cooling the Earth.

But a study presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting found that using water droplets of the wrong size would lead to warming, not cooling.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Richard Lindzen says it all - a radio transcript. Worth a listen - this man is simply a genius!

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8613
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark (IWO)
Member Avatar
Admin

radiospu
April 6 2011, 12:03 PM
@ Mark.
Until now, I didn't realise you had added a comment/post regarding "U.S. Study Demonstrates Climate Change Effects On Forests".
This is interesting. I haven't seen any comments on this phenomenon elsewhere, so my mind would be open on matters such as this. What I do know is that these studies often cause a stir for a while, until some biology professor comes along 6 months, or 6 years later and publishes a peer reviewed paper that entirely refutes the previous science. Strange also that it's always as a result of climate change and NEVER anything else - that is until someone else refutes the original findings.
There is a lot of toing and froing regarding the science behind such studies alright. It is much too easy to draw a connection with climate change, the populist interpretation of the term that is.

Do you agree that climate change can also be a naturally recurring phenomenon, one completely unrelated to mankind i.e. would it be safe to say that the last ice age was the result of this natural climate change process?
The coldest winter you will ever experience is a summer in West Clare.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
...and we've been telling them this for years!

Wind farm efficiency queried by John Muir Trust study

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410

They really need to listen more - :)
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Do you agree that climate change can also be a naturally recurring phenomenon, one completely unrelated to mankind i.e. would it be safe to say that the last ice age was the result of this natural climate change process?


I am not so sure that Anthropogenic factors are not in there somewhere. [Perhaps - perhaps not]. But that's the difference, Mark. I say let's wait and see - i.e the science isn't settled yet. The Warmist brigade won't even listen to an alternative viewpoint. The reason for this is sometimes ignorance, sometimes pig headedness, and sometimes greed! [Certain "climate specialists" simply don't want to lose their jobs in the research institutions].

The natural climate process must have something to do with it all, and contained therein are such things as El Nino, and La Nina, the ocean currents, clouds, the sun, cosmic rays, etc. Yes, the warming is part of the recovery process from the last ice age, but it is, and can be a plethora of other forces, both negative and positive, as well. We can add to that, the uncertainty that the data are fully accurate in the first place, and in addition have not been tampered with, [a la Hockey stick, etc.] :)

The last ice age was followed by a drop in CO2, not the other way round, just as in centuries gone by, the rise in CO2 followed the warming. As someone said recently, it's like saying "cancer causes smoking", not the other way about!! Hope this helps!!! :)

Coupled with all this is the fact that global temperatures have reached a plateau since 1998.
Edited by radiospu, April 7 2011, 12:18 AM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wind turbine foes to get support at hearing

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Wind+turbine+foes+support+hearing/4565414/story.html#ixzz1ImfbAAZx
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Climate Change: Bigger health threat than AIDS, malaria

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/bigger-health-threat-than-aids-malaria/

No comment!
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Warming or Cooling? Heads or Tails?

This article, originally published in the Wall Street Journal, is now republished here, with the author’s permission, using his website post. Mathematician Doug Keenan (in so many words) rhetorically asks the question: “Are we flipping a two headed coin to determine if it is warming?”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/warming-or-cooling-heads-or-tails/

How Scientific is Climate Science?

What is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in plain English.

Guest post by DOUGLAS J. KEENAN
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark (IWO)
Member Avatar
Admin

One for you David

http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/climate-change-poses-major-risks-for-unprepared-cities.html

This research is backed by UN. Doesn't make it true of course :)

ps...thanks for reply
The coldest winter you will ever experience is a summer in West Clare.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
One for you David


Yes this one is doing the rounds at the moment. The fact that is is a U.N. backed study makes me wary to say the least. After all the I.P.C.C., is UN based too, and is cited more times than usual as being prejudiced in favour of the Warmist religion! 'Bankeemoonie' or whatever his name is, has come out with the most ridiculous statements about Climate Change, like attributing the Moscow Heatwave last year and the Pakistan floods and Chinese weather related problems to global warming, when even NASA tell us that it was the change in direction of the jet stream that brought these things about, and and nothing to do with carbon emissions or CO2 at all. The CAGW gang is running scared.

Some of what they say may be true, but they hype it up because their case is not being accepted as much or as strongly as it was. The article makes some good points, but it always comes back to CO2, and that is rubbish!
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
News Article “Aircraft Condensation Trails Criss-Crossing The Sky May Be Warming The Planet On A Normal Day More Than The Carbon Dioxide Emitted By All Planes Since The Wright Brothers’ First Flight In 1903, A Study Said On Tuesday”

More hype this time from Reuters, answered scientifically here:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/news-article-aircraft-condensation-trails-criss-crossing-the-sky-may-be-warming-the-planet-on-a-normal-day-more-than-the-carbon-dioxide-emitted-by-all-planes-since-the-wright-brothers-first-flight/

[Wow that's a long URL!]
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Now they're trying to get the Medical profession on board - next it will be what - who knows?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/bigger-health-threat-than-aids-malaria/

Climate Change: Bigger health threat than AIDS, malaria

Quote from Anthony Watts...
"They couldn’t get the TV weathercasters to go along, so they moved up the food chain. Expect climate change lectures with speeding tickets next. “Sir do you realize you were going 65 in a 60 zone? That hurts the planet with excessive emissions”.
Edited by radiospu, April 7 2011, 10:16 PM.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark (IWO)
Member Avatar
Admin

http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/increase-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-ireland.html
The coldest winter you will ever experience is a summer in West Clare.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Some true journalism :)

After a week of mostly stories of this flavor, “Scientist smacks down filthy climate change denier, film at 11“, this article in the Telegraph by Tom Chivers is refreshing and gets it close to 100% right.

This really is well worth a read - it speaks the truth, and as Anthony Watts says on the WUWT website it is almost 100% accurate...read on


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100082886/climate-change-will-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-change-watts-up-with-thats-mind/
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
From the “weather is not climate” department…

Apparently, Nature is weighing in some support for action in Sacramento to end California’s economically punishing anti-carbon law. We saw earlier this winter some significant snowfall in Los Angeles, but Hollywierd continues to suffer the cold shoulder and chill wind of nature even as spring is well underway.

Today the National Weather Service issued the following advisory, cautioning potential snowfall in LA county in the Antelope Valley and Santa Barbara, with snow accumulations of up to 4-7 inches possible:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/snow-in-los-angeles-county-nws-winter-advisory/
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The debate about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) rages within the blogosphere, but not in the U.K. mainstream media, which is led by the leftwing newspaper The Guardian and the BBC.

In Britain the BBC wields more power to shape public opinion than any other organisation over any other nation on earth. Moreover, the BBC invariably takes its cue on the big issues from The Guardian, from which it stands accused of adopting its political outlook.

Consequently the BBC has relentlessly promoted one side of the argument whilst suppressing the other, with catastrophic consequences for the nation's governance.

There is however a significant fact-based scientific consensus that argues against the theory that man has had, or is having, any significant impact on the climate.

These scientists cite the fact that past rises in global temperate predated the atmospheric rises in CO2; that the past rises in CO2 were actually a product of temperature rise, not their cause; and that the temperature rises were actually a product of increased solar activity.

It is, however, a side of the debate that the BBC refuses to air, contrary to its lawful obligations.

This twelve-minute video introduces the style in which the BBC covers the warming debate, followed by a selection of clips featuring renowned scientists whom the BBC freezes out, delivering the arguments that the BBC refuses to air.

The final four minutes introduces a major story of Press criminality, which for the last thirteen years the BBC and the rest of the media have suppressed.

The relevance of this notorious political scandal to the issue of AGW may not be readily apparent. However, all will become clear by the sequence of captions leading up to the video's climax.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/lO63oWe6XXo
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Australian circus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCNYb3XWVTE&feature=player_embedded

Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
what is this from Tim Flannery head of Australia’s Climate Commission bizarre, unscientific & globalist rant some quotes from This bizarre rant
“Today we are on the edge of creating a global super organism
“We will form a global community with a set of shared beliefs”
“We will be a regulating intelligence for the planet”
“….And lead to a stronger Gaia or planetary system”
“In an ant colony only a few ants can reproduce…..Is very true in human society as well”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c&feature=player_embedded
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radiospu
No Avatar
Str breeze
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
UEA were trying to muzzle sceptical free comment via the press complaints commission in the UK. Andrew Montford(Bishop Hill) and Steve mcintyre helped out….

Delingpole:

“I’m talking about the Press Complaints Commission’s ruling on a complaint brought against this blog by our old friends at the University of East Anglia. They lost. We won. (And I do mean we: I’m hugely grateful to my legal advisers, as well as to experts including Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford, Richard North and Christopher Booker.)”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/
:) :) :)
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Climate · Next Topic »
Add Reply

tm