Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

"If it was a concrete fact I sincerely believe that the Goverment would act differently."

Sea level rises are unlikely to flood Houses of Parliament before the next general election. There is therefore no chance of this government doing anything 'unpopular' to help slow down climate change emissions, and which might result in them not getting elected next time.

Short-termism rules, OK.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Harumph!............we only got your word for that! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
The data

As I said, I don't want to start a futile data war, but here's a short response:

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's interesting, as is also that the 1910 and 1940 period was mostly below the 1961 - 1990 average, as were the previous thousand years. The fairly consistent rises since the mid 1800s do, to my eyes at any rate, look rather out of step with the earlier climatic cycles of the millennium.


[/ QUOTE ] The earlier period was lower because it was recovering from the Little Ice Age. We are told that the rate of rise is unprecedented, but the earlier period is before the massive increase in hydrocarbon use after about 1940 and the rate of rise is the same. The earlier climatic cycles of the millenium are simply not shown in your data, but it is interesting that you note a consistent rise since the mid 1800s, i.e. BEFORE the vast increases in hydrocarbon use.

[ QUOTE ]
That's simply not the case. The graph covers both periods.


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, it does, but it doesn't show them. There have been a number of documented statistical manipulations which eliminate the well-documented Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age temperature variations. Even your Wikipedia graph (and I don't think you should be presenting Wikipedia as a reliable source) shows a much smaller variation than the unmanipulated data suggests.

[ QUOTE ]
international records of cloud cover (for I presume that's what you're referring to) must be a recent thing,

[/ QUOTE ] No, I am referring to atmospheric water vapour, not clouds. Water vapour is by far the most important greenhouse gas, contributing between 40% and 95% of the effect, depending on who you are asking. That variation alone shows how unreliable is the "science". As to references, just Google or look at your favoured Wikipedia.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that you are misinterpreting the (insurance) data.

[/ QUOTE ] You may be right, but any interpretation of insurance claims data, with so very many imponderable influences, is hardly a reliable proxy for global warming. FWIW, the population of the USA, which has by far the greatest influence on those figures, increased from about 200million to 320 million between 1980 and 2007.

We can swop referenced data until the cows come home. The problem is the selection of the "right" data.

P.S. Check the temperature change between 1860 and 2000 as shown on your two graphs. You may be surprised at the difference.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand of the scientific process, most scientists are not willing to publish until they are convinced that their work is correct and as a corrolary of that, other scientist will not challenge a published work unless they have strong grounds to believe that it is wrong. Due to the huge amount of data (and cost of analysis and study) involved in MMGW including looking at data extending back before recording began, the chances of "reputable" scientists being able to produce evidence that the original research is wrong is very small.

Once work is "approved" then the work takes on a different status as being peer approved. At that point the work is seen as fact and used as the basis of approving future work. To contradict a theory at this stage becomes a "do or die" activity for any scientist. If it can be successfully shown to be wrong then the scientist is made for life, if the proof against isn't quite convincing then the scientist is probably ruined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am afraid that you do not appear to understand the scientific process at all. It simply is not like that and I think the problem is that you seem to have the wrong impression about what is a 'unit of publication'.

Willing or not, nothing is published in the (peer reviewed) scientific literature without strong supporting data and convincing analysis. But this is not at the level of 'GW is right/wrong and here is the evidence'. The unit of publication which forms the backbone of science is MUCH smaller. A typical paper describes a single experiment, a series of observations, a set of data, a new interpretation etc. Provided that it was properly written and defendable, a paper whose data appeared to contradict an accepted theory would have no difficulty getting published. There are an unlimited number of examples of this in the literature, they are generally interpreted to mean 'it's not as simple as we had thought!'. Sometimes the accepted model gets chipped away at until the discipline realises that it has a new model.

The less frequent 'review' type papers look at this first level data and summarise the state of thinking in a given area. That is how science works 95% of the time, a series of tiny incremental steps leading to a concensus. There are often reviews of reviews, all with a different mix of primary and secondary data.

Now if I tried to write a review paper saying that (for example) evolution is a load of rubbish, I would have a great deal of difficulty in getting it published because there is no supporting body of data. If I went for a VERY rare one-hit paper in which I presented new data and attempted to use it to overturn the principle of evolution, I would have to work very very hard to get it past referees because they would expect a very high standard of proof.

But I could published data tomorrow that appeared to be inconsistent with the evolutionary process, it would not be seen as a challenge or a threat. I would be expected to defend the data and it would create a great deal of interest. If someone subsequently showed that my data was perfectly consistent with evolution, then no-one's career would suffer. Only if someone showed that I had deliberately falsified data or had made some major blunder in the analysis would I suffer any adverse consequences.

There are exceptions where a single paper attempts to overturn conventional theory. These are even rarer when they also present all the supporting data in the same paper. Given the nature of the subject it is hard to see this happening in climatology or most other areas of science. The one place where it does sometimes happen is in maths and theoretical physics.

You say that most scientists will not challenge published work because of the costs of generating data and performing analysis. That is wrong on 2 counts. 1. At the pre-publication, peer review stage, any referee can demand any more proof of anything they want regardless of cost. That happens all the time. If you cannot sustain the time/effort/cost of the confirmatory data then you must withdraw the paper or tone-down the conclusions. Exactly that happened to me recently. We submitted a paper which drew genome-wide conclusions from the analysis of a single chromosome. A referee said that was unacceptable so we had to re-run the analysis across the whole genome. Because the complexity goes up exponentially, that will take about 4 months of computer time. It was a damn stupid throwaway comment, but we didn't argue.
2. All raw data is in the public domain. Except in very special cases that is a condition of publication. So re-examining data sets, often combined into a new 'meta-analysis', is perfectly possible and frequently done.

So this idea of 'pro and anti' scientists is just wrong. Most are just grinding away collecting data and performing experiments that, at best, will make a tiny contribution to a corner of a big idea.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
basically most of the public really couldnt care a stuff about global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is correct, to be honest. I don't know many people who are not. Sadly enough, those that I know who are not, are already or about to collect their pensions. Everyone, pretty much, my age and below is very concerned for their future. I suppose if you are 70 and told that GW may go into a super accelerated mount up in 20 years time means a different thing, to those of us under 40.

The sad part is, if I am right in my analysis, then this is a very sad part!
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

What if you're wrong?

If the people in my camp are wrong, we either win or lose.

If your camp are wrong, we lose.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Just out of interest - what happens to the level of water in a glass with an ice cube in it, when the ice melts ??

The level goes DOWN - otherwise the ice wouldn't float in the first place - if you don't believe me ask Archimedes.

Ergo, if the North polar ice cap melts, sea levels actually drop not rise.

Now before I get shouted at, I know that the Antartic ice shelf is on land and if that melts, that will put sea levels up - depending on what happens the net effect should be zero (ish). Thats not to say that increasing sea temeperatures will not increase sea levels but that is because the density of water does change very slightly with temperature.

What gets my goat is not that GW could cause sea level changes but that the science presented to us is B*****s. If we were offered cogent rational argument then I am sure a lot of us would be prepared to be convinced but if I see another shot of an iceberg calving and be told that we will all be underwater in 10 years I will throw up.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Greenland - sort of Arctic isn't it?

Greenland icecap, up to 3000 metres deep. 2.85 million km³ of ice in total. On land. When melted, will cause a global sea level rise of 7.2 m.

Oh, and melting Arctic sea ice helps accelerate further warming (ice more reflective of solar radiation than sea), so accelerating warming process, so leading to more ice loss, so accelerating warming process, etc.

So don't be too complacent about ice cubes in your G&T.

"the science presented to us is B*****s."

That depends who is doing the presenting and what they choose to dumb down. But the science behind the science that's presented to us is the dog's b*****s.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh - it's staggeringly simple.

Regarding the man-made bit, it is my understanding that much of the problem revolves around whether or not we, as individuals, believe/trust our elected leaders to be telling us the truth.

If we trust the government/UN scientists, then we nod our heads, say - Ooh, innit terrible - and, sheep like, bleat to our comrades about how they need to reduce carbon emmissions 'cos the evidence is there, see? (baah, etc.)

If, however, we have an inherent distrust of our learned friends, then we shake our heads and say Nay - they're trying to browbeat us with some bollox which means they must have a hidden agenda.

Then, the free-thinking ones amongst us start to examine exactly what has been done about this man-made problem which would appear to be making some kind of difference - particularly by our trusted leaders. And what do we see ? What wonderful solutions have been proferred to at least attempt to stem the situation ?

Answer – taxes have been increased, thus relieving the great British public of more of their salaries should they choose to travel - anywhere - by whatever means.

For an economy largely founded on the ability of its citizens to circulate freely – who, when it comes down to earning a crust, don't really have a choice - that's just rubbish.

Does anyone really believe that Wayne and Sharon won’t bother flying to Torremolinos now that airport tax is so very punitive ( - and air fares start at about 20 pence one-way) ? I don’t.

But Gordon knows this, doesn’t he ? Which confirms that H.M.Gov. aren’t really very serious at all about reversing this “man-made” trend. Which leads me to believe they see it for what it is - a simple manipulation of statistics to put fear into the great unwashed, leading directly to greater dependency on our leaders who will remain in power because of this fear, who will then appear to have saved us all by harvesting our tax dollars and “investing” them wisely by employing additional civil servants/government scientific advisors/ECO-advisors.

Indeed, some of the contributors to these august fora are already employed in such a capacity, and, as such, will continue to bang the MMGW drum for all they are worth – I know I would if it meant I could continue to put bread on the table.

When the problem is finally revealed as being just smoke and mirrors – but, and here’s the clever bit, not before the next weapon of fear has been discovered/implemented, the government will simply claim - once again - to have saved us all.


So there you go. It’s about fear/control/raising tax revenue/jobs for the boys.

Now, let’s have a poll;
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Ere! Ooo you callin a proselyte.... Blimey had to look that one up... but I did so it's OK cos it means I am a convert (or summat) but who am I supposed to be envious of /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif In any case who appointed you as bleedin' referee ye narrow hulled do gooder ? Some of us are enjoyin' this!
UP THE PROZELITES!! DOWN WITH THE OSTRICHES!!!
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of interest - what happens to the level of water in a glass with an ice cube in it, when the ice melts ??

The level goes DOWN - otherwise the ice wouldn't float in the first place - if you don't believe me ask Archimedes.

Ergo, if the North polar ice cap melts, sea levels actually drop not rise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Factually wrong, given no change in the water temp the level will stay the same. If the temperature rises above 4C then the water level will rise as the water expands.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Ken, Don't disagree about Greenland but whenever I've read carefully about sea level rise it is actually the density decrease with increasing temperature in the oceans that is far more significant than the ice caps. But it is never mentioned by the media - I get the feeling that they don't want to confuse the argument with facts when the shot of a cuddly Polar Bear in soft snow is easier. To people with half a brain one then wonders how much else we are told is rubbish.

By the way I don't disagree that GW is currently happening, I do not believe I have seen real evidence that it is man made - there are too many conflicting theories around.

I do agree that we are going to run out of fossil fuels and we need to do something about that, irrespective of the GW debate. What I hate is being patronised by politicians.

By the way it was Maggie Thatcher who set up ICC and she was trying to get more acceptance of nuclear power. So I think there is a conspiracy behind all this but its not man made CO2 thats the problem its politicians trying to achieve one end by using it as a scare.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of interest - what happens to the level of water in a glass with an ice cube in it, when the ice melts ??

The level goes DOWN - otherwise the ice wouldn't float in the first place - if you don't believe me ask Archimedes.


[/ QUOTE ] I think you ought to re-visit your understanding of Archimedes. The level will stay the same.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Excellent answer. Most laypeople don't understand the way the scientific community works and the disciplines involved in the development of ideas within it. I am only a humble engineer but I do have a degree in applied physics and read avidly trying to keep up. Unfortunately to keep up with this subject one needs to discern between published scientific data and theories and other completely unscientific gobbledegook broadcast widely in the press and on the internet. There are references to such on here which I am sure the posters believe are "facts" but are actually articles written by people with no real scientific background and an axe to grind. To be fair to the "ostriches" many have been swayed by these articles and programmes on TV and are not at all convinced when they are discredited by bona-fide scientists afterwards.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of interest - what happens to the level of water in a glass with an ice cube in it, when the ice melts ??

The level goes DOWN - otherwise the ice wouldn't float in the first place - if you don't believe me ask Archimedes.


[/ QUOTE ] I think you ought to re-visit your understanding of Archimedes. The level will stay the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haw you .. I said that first .. harumph ..
 
The last peak global temperatures were in 1998 and 1934 and the troughs of low temperature were around 1910 and 1970. The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about an impending, devastating Ice Age. Our end was nigh!

Then, when temperatures took an upward swing in the 1980s, the scaremongers changed their tune. Global warming was the new imminent catastrophe.

But the computer model - called "hockey stick" - that predicted the catastrophe of a frying planet proved to be so bent that it "disappeared" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's armoury of argument in 2007. It was bent because the historical data it used to predict the future dated from only the 1850s, when the world was emerging from the Little Ice Age. Little wonder that temperatures showed an upward trend.
The Romans grew grapes in York and during the worldwide medieval warm period - when civilizations blossomed across the world - Nordic settlers farmed lowland Greenland (hence its name) and then got wiped out by the Little Ice Age that lasted roughly from the 16th century until about 1850.

There is no escaping the fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising for 150 years - and very uniformly since the 1950s. Yet the temperature has not increased in step with CO2. Not only have there been long periods of little change in temperature, but also the year-to-year oscillations are totally unrelated to CO2 change. What is more, the trend lines of glacial shortening and rise in sea level have shown no marked change since the big increase in the use of fossil fuels since 1950.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Ice floats on water so it is less dense than water. The weight of the ice is equal to the amount of water it displaces (Archimedes). When the ice melts and turns to water its density therefore increases to that of the water and so its volume must consequently reduce, net effect is a drop in the original water level
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top