FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Global warming in the Great City

Global warming in the Great City

Started by Mozart80 REPLIES5,292 VIEWS· 08 Jan 2015, 18:38
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jan 2015, 18:38
#1
08 Jan 2015, 18:38#1

 

We are at it again after last year's coldest winter of all time.

 

Chicago Just Had Its Coldest Winter In History. Here's Proof.

The Huffington Post  |  By Joseph Erbentraut

Posted: 04/02/2014 4:00 pm EDT Updated: 04/02/2014 4:00 pm EDT

Ice builds up along Lake Michigan at North Avenue Beach as temperatures dipped well below zero on January 6, 2014 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) | Scott Olson via Getty Images

  • Share 3213
  • Tweet 158
  • 14
  • Email 109
  • Comment 33
  • We knew it was a doozy, but new numbers make it official: Chicago's seemingly endless winter was also its coldest since records began in 1872.

    According to a statement released Tuesday by the National Weather Service -- it was not, unfortunately, an April Fool's joke -- Chicago experienced its coldest four-month period on record between December 2013 and March 2014.

    Though meteorological winter ended weeks ago, cold weather has not loosened its grip on the Windy City. The month of March was Chicago's 19th coldest ever, contributing to an average temperature of just 22 degrees over the four months -- the chilliest average temperature for that period since tracking began 142 years ago.

    The next coldest December-March in Chicago came during the winter of 1903-1904 (22.3 degrees) followed by the winters of 1977-1978 and 1892-1893 (tied at 22.5 degrees).

    Still don't understand why Chicagoans are especially impatient for spring weather? Let's relive the city's epic winter of 2014 one more time:
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
09 Jan 2015, 02:54
#2
09 Jan 2015, 02:54#2
 Meanwhile in Australia we had our hottest YEAR since records were kept with ongoing droughts and bushfires .Why it should be more correctly called climate change ,as evidenced by these 2 extreme weather events .
SH
sharkbokCaptain23,201 posts
09 Jan 2015, 03:41
#3
09 Jan 2015, 03:41#3
Last year was Elnino. This is typically when weather is most extreme.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o

Last year was the hottest summer on record by far. The winter was the worst storms since World Was 2. Old bombs were found on the beach from world war 2 last year.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 05:38
#4
09 Jan 2015, 05:38#4
 Now this graph is not in dispute. You will see solar irradiance, while down from its peaks in the 50s and 80s, is well above where it was at the start of the 20th century. So temps have to be higher than they were 115 years ago. We are only dealing with a 1.3 degree C  increase over this time period. Much of which could probably be attributed to the increase in solar irradiance.
The counter argument is irradiance has declined and temperatures haven't. But in fact they have flattened out since 97 or so....this again is broadly accepted. So if we started to see irradiance decline in 1985, could it be that temps flattened out with a lag of about 10 years?
Why didn't they drop though. Well that's a good question. Climate sceptics say it's like a kettle on the boil.... You can lower the flame once it's boiling, and keep it on the boil.
But this is a difficult question for sceptics, just as the flattening temperature curve, well below model projections is difficult for Climate Change proponents.   
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 06:36
#5
09 Jan 2015, 06:36#5
 Looking at that graph the reason for the Little Ice Age is pretty obvious. The rest depends on how you view smoothing. If you smoothed the data over 20 years you would get slowly rising sun activity in the 1800s, followed by faster rising irradiance in the 1900s, with some flattening towards the end of the century. All of which would explain the mini ice ages in the late 1600s and early 1800s. Which would explain the acceleration of temps in the 1900s, apparently consistent with industrial activity, but perhaps due to sun activity. And it would suggest a drop in temperatures vs a flattening out at the start of the 2000 s. The fact is the sun seems to explain quite a bit.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 06:48
#6
09 Jan 2015, 06:48#6

Well here's a nice graph to console you Cloudy. It clearly shows things were warmer when William landed in England, than they are today. I'm sure snow was even less likely then.

 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 06:55
#7
09 Jan 2015, 06:55#7

And I like this one. Might as well go back to before the OOm was around. It's interesting that the rise of the Roman Empire, the British Empire and American Power all occurred during "warm" periods. That's probably just a false correlation but worth somebody writing a paper.

 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 06:56
#8
09 Jan 2015, 06:56#8

And we had better get some rugby soon, I'm running out of topics.

CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
09 Jan 2015, 07:20
#9
09 Jan 2015, 07:20#9
 
5 weeks dead till it starts.

4 weeks for the 6 Nations.
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
09 Jan 2015, 11:04
#10
09 Jan 2015, 11:04#10
 Dr Moz I recall when you first debunked climate change etc ou rooitwit and the other brin washed non thinkers on thsi board jumpoed up and down and threw their toys outof the kott like very childish children.I note however their deafening silence. All their confidence is gone. They realise Al Gore's Hockey stick effect is a load oftwaddel and that they were once again deceived.I am not surpirsed to see ou sharkbokkie getting it wrong and of course warped DUD 
Actually this puts me in mind of the first time we debated evolution. The ignorant oaks came out guns blazing. Beeno you idiot they screamed in shrill voices, faling to answer the many evidences provided.But where are they today? Evolution is in complete tatters. Now they are trying to cling on to the notion of a universe creating itslef from nothing with no agent. Bwahhahahahahahahahahaha. Dumboes like ou rooitwit dont even understand where the debate has reached! If you can call it a debate when one side has no leg to stand on. BwahahahahhahahahaI would warn you however Dr Moz that it is a slow process convincing these gullible types of the truth. It is still possible ou rooitwt and others will come here and still make complete twits of themselves re climate change. The graphs you put up show how rediculous all this is - ie that man is causing any significnt warming that might be taking place. But these oaks, very largely the atheists crew, are not open or perhaps even able to reason much! You can bet your hat on one thing the foolish atheist  will get it wrong - yet again.
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
09 Jan 2015, 11:37
#11
09 Jan 2015, 11:37#11

Atheist this Atheist that

 

One thing was vividly displayed on this web forum in the last few days, and cannot be denied.

 

Beeno and Clean Cut are true christians who have absolute belief in their religion

 

Fair enough... and I respect that, but their behaviour tells another story.

 

Sanctimonious post after sanctimonious post and babbling on and on with absolutely not one single factual particle to back it up.

 

As I said, I tolerate all religions, and respect other self beliefs.  It's the un-christian aspects of Beeno and Clean Cut that most have seen on here that constantly gives christians the horrible reputation they have, and why people like me respond in a bad way because it gets too much.

 

As soon as nobody believes in the same thing you do, they are then a non entity and the scum of the earth, who deserve nothing but the worst in their lives until they convert to what you believe in, and then and only then, will you be civil and decent to them.

 

But if, when you can't manage to be civil and cordial, no problem, just cleanse your sins tonight and all will be good when the sun rises tomorrow.

 

Not sure which makes me more sick in the stomach, the way you treat others who don't believe in what you do, or the fact that you do and say what you like, knowing you can cleanse yourself anytime you like, just to continue doing the same thing the very next day or opportunity that comes up

 

I won't invade this thread with these posts, but wanted to respond to Beeno's rant again about atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 12:18
#12
09 Jan 2015, 12:18#12
Baboon-ou, once again my views on climate change are shamelessly mainstream. Nowadays most educated people consider the climate change deniers to be either very stupid or else so greedy and callous that they don't care about future generations (or both, like Americans!)

From Wikipedia . . .

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.


In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

 

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

 

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

    Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

    Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.

    The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

    The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

 

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its statement to its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.


Now, unlike all the confusing and downright stupid graphs that the deniers come up with, here's a very simple one showing land and ocean temperatures since 1880:



Global mean land-ocean temperature change from 1880 to 2013, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5-year running mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates.

Baboon-ou, I know that your Conservapedia bible preaches a different sermon when it comes to climate change but I'll stick with Wikipedia, thanks all the same.

LMAO!

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
09 Jan 2015, 14:01
#13
09 Jan 2015, 14:01#13
 Bwahahahhahahaha ou rooitwit shooting himslef in the foot yet again. Rooitwit your graph starts in 1880. Go and look at Moz's graph. P ay attention to when it starts. Then ask your self why the spikes and dips etc. Come back a wiser man and tell Beeno why you are got it wrong. I suspect Dr Moz will have more to say.
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 14:10
#14
09 Jan 2015, 14:10#14
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
09 Jan 2015, 14:14
#15
09 Jan 2015, 14:14#15
Ag man DA you poor dear you are all upset now!!Listen boet I have simply conveyed to you that God says athiests are fools. I agree with Him firstly because I know He doesnt make mistakes and secondly because to continue to hold this view dispite the totally overwhelming EVIDENCE to the contary which you CANNOT ANSWER ius extremely foolish.Seriously DA you do need to know God's oipinion of you. Same with the other atheists.Did you read through the DNA article which is brilliant or the quotes article where world class scientist say dwarwinism is complete garbage, the greatest hoax ever etc and giving reason why.Then you say I havent given any evidence. I have been providing scientific evidence for days now. I have heard no countering evidence refuting what I have posted. Answer the questions or admit Science has proved the existence of God. Over to you.
I would also suggest you and your ilk have been far more insulting. Look at ou sharky54's nasty rant at me etc.



DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
09 Jan 2015, 14:58
#16
09 Jan 2015, 14:58#16

Me and my ilk?

 

Sjoh ..

 

What a moron you really are, this statement below started everything, please see if anyone started insulting anyone, before you made this general statement.

 

"Well said Seb. I also agree that atheism is the most stupid position to hold but sso is being an agnostic as it is crystal clearer that God created everything."

 

You idiot... get your facts straight.... you come flying in making grand statements, and then get upset if someone retaliates, what the hell did you expect?

 

So.. the same scientists who told you that God made DNA, have also told us so many other things, only to be proven wrong over time by another scientist when there are more sophisticated machines or instruments to do more in depth tests and studies.

 

They were the top scientists of their time, until the next top scientist of his time comes around and disproves the previous top scientist's theory?

 

The same top scientists that got all these fantastic scientific discoveries listed below published... to begin with, and to much aclaim and praise...... until they were all conclusively proven to be incorrect, when newer more sophisticated machinery or instruments or theories were implemented?

 

Geocentric Universe

Miasmatic theory of diesease

Luminiferous aether

Immovable continents

Phlogiston

Alchemy

The four humours of human physiology

Static Universe

Young Earth

Circulatory system

Earth is the centre of the universe

Atom is the smallest particle in existence

 

As mentioned before... you are incredibly ignorant

 

 

AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
09 Jan 2015, 14:59
#17
09 Jan 2015, 14:59#17
 Moz's graph is a f*cking joke, it's a manipulated graph and has nothing to do with the reality.
This is the temperature (ºC) since 1880


it's like the one showed by Rooinek and nothing in common with the last 3 peaks (1 blue and 2 orange) of the "graph" that Moz has shown.

And these are the graphs the NASA has made to show the temperature in the last 800.000 and 1500 years.
source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php



How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?


Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.




Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.




Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 15:16
#18
09 Jan 2015, 15:16#18
ABFan, have another look at Moffie's "graph" and you'll see it was prepared by a "Climatologist" called Cliff Harris and a "Meteorologist" called Randy Mann.

I put the names into Google because I wanted to find out a bit more about them and their credentials only to find that many people had done the same thing before me.

Read this hilarious article by a Kiwi who decided to do a bit of investigation as to who these charlatans were!

LMAO!
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 15:26
#19
09 Jan 2015, 15:26#19
Uh-oh, I just went to the website that these clowns run and I see our friend Cliff is promoting his new book (expected March 2015) titled "Weather and Bible Prophecy"!

LMAO!

Hmmmmm . . . who to believe . . . should we believe NASA or should we believe some amateur climatologist with no degree who's busy writing a book about the weather based on biblical prophecies?

It's a tough one . . .
SH
Sharky54Club Pro247 posts
09 Jan 2015, 16:12
#20
09 Jan 2015, 16:12#20
Rooi. There are a large number of topics - not only climate change but many others too where The Idiots (which is my collective new name for believers like Beeno) unashamedly ignore the opinions of specialists in that area. They are not willing to acknowledge the plausibility of scientific theory and so it serves no purpose trying to inform them of it.

It's like Adam Savage's T-shirt on Mythbusters 'I reject your reality and substitute it with my own'.

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Strauss, Peter Joseph amongst others are the nemesis of 'The Idiot' clan. They are like the 'America' of North Korea or radical Islam. Of course, the childish 10 year old woes Beeno will have a lot of little 'bitchy' websites denigrating every word those people say to reference. These people threaten something very dear to the Idiot clan...their collection basket...
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
09 Jan 2015, 16:35
#21
09 Jan 2015, 16:35#21

Please tell me I am wrong here... and I mean really... please do

 

Is this argument based on a graph, from this religeous climatologist Cliff Harris and meteorologist Randy Mann, who say that they can conclusively prove that they have certifiable proof that they have accurate temperatures of the earth  dating back to..... 2 500 BC

 

Ok... enough said  

SH
sharkbokCaptain23,201 posts
09 Jan 2015, 16:46
#22
09 Jan 2015, 16:46#22
Mozart, I would have to say this is a calamity of a grand scale. 
Religious people do not have any say in the scientific world because their own beliefs will prejudice the outcome of any "objective" experiment or research .
mozart
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 10263RE: Science vs Creation science . . .
January 08, 2015, 22:54:37

Well you see Shark the trouble lies in how you ask the question. Asking the question, framing it right,  is half the battle. And if you have studied as many of these macro statistical efforts as I have, as a doctoral student, consultant and executive you conclude that researchers frame the question to get the results they want.

 

Don't believe these studies without doing your homework is my advice.

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 16:49
#23
09 Jan 2015, 16:49#23
"Don't believe these studies without doing your homework is my advice."

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
No wonder the pompous old windbag hasn't shown his face around these parts today!
Too funny!


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 17:32
#24
09 Jan 2015, 17:32#24

I haven't shown my face because of the time difference you poor fool. The earth rotates ergo depending  where you are on the globe, the time is different. It's now 9.32 where I live. Perhaps you can find a scatter diagram that explains the phenome non.....wehe!

 

 

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 18:18
#25
09 Jan 2015, 18:18#25
Waaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!
The pompous and self-absorbed old codger has finally shown his rather crimson face! I wonder if he'll defend the hilarious Cliff Harris / Randy Mann "graph" when he plucks up the courage to address the issue that's got everyone laughing?
"Wehe" indeed! 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 18:43
#26
09 Jan 2015, 18:43#26
 Gosh I must have missed something.I thought all we knew is:
1 The  temps have increased 1.3 degrees since the industrial revolution.
2 The temperature increases have faded over the last 15 years
3 The models that predict doom and gloom all predicted much more global warming by now.
What have I got wrong?
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 18:59
#27
09 Jan 2015, 18:59#27
"That's probably just a false correlation but worth somebody writing a paper."
Worth writing an entire academic paper on some graph that was co-authored by a happy clappy "climatologist" who has zero qualifications and a part time high school teacher who occasionally provides weather data for the town's radio station?
Hmmmmm . . . sounds to me like someone is buying into this study without having done his homework!
LMAO!
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:06
#28
09 Jan 2015, 19:06#28
Nothing to add to the global warming record?
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:15
#29
09 Jan 2015, 19:15#29
Enough ripping into the jumped-up and boastful old fossil who pretends he's some kind of expert on global warming, let me rather add to the global warming record . . .
"Well you see Shark the trouble lies in how you ask the question. Asking the question, framing it right, is half the battle. And if you have studied as many of these macro statistical efforts as I have, as a doctoral student, consultant and executive you conclude that researchers frame the question to get the results they want.
Don't believe these studies without doing your homework is my advice.
What I'm saying beyond that is macro statistical studies are controlled by how the null hypothesis is framed.

And I like this one:


It's interesting that the rise of the Roman Empire, the British Empire and American Power all occurred during "warm" periods. That's probably just a false correlation but worth somebody writing a paper."

Wehe!  
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:17
#30
09 Jan 2015, 19:17#30

This from NASA

 

 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:24
#31
09 Jan 2015, 19:24#31

Gosh as we look at the NASA graph it seems we are exactly at the average of the last 800000 years. Of course NASA is a leading doom and gloom proponent (it helps the budget) but at least their reported historical numbers have some integrity.

 

If we don't get warming, these chaps are going to say man made warming offset the next cooling period. And the fact is their models couldn't predict the favourite in a one horse race.

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:31
#32
09 Jan 2015, 19:31#32
Hard to believe some people still set any store by NASA when we have the team of Cliff and Randy who can tell us what the temperature of the earth was 4500 years ago!
Sounds like someone on this thread hasn't done his homework!
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:32
#33
09 Jan 2015, 19:32#33

 

 

 

 

 

Draw a line across the graph at 1900 and you will see the whole 20th century has had higher solar activity. This has to add to temperatures.....so that amount has to be subtracted from the 1. 3 degree C rise in temps which have occurred  since Industrialization.

 

A small point, but the doom and gloomers are so wont to say we have caused a 1.3 degree change already. But can you blame them for cheating, it's such a paltry number as it is.

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:40
#34
09 Jan 2015, 19:40#34
Let's see . . . maybe it's time for a graph . . . bearing in mind that these macro statistical studies are controlled by how the null hypothesis is framed . . . 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 19:54
#35
09 Jan 2015, 19:54#35

That shows higher temps lead to more precipitation.....are you surprised? Don't tell me you haven't heard of evaporation....hahahaha.  Boy this is a good day for you. Think of what I have taught you......time change, the effect of solar irradiation on temperatures, the effect of temperature on evaporation and the fact that money influences scientific conclusions.

 

A few more days like this and we can tackle the intelligence and percentage atheist chart again.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jan 2015, 20:15
#36
09 Jan 2015, 20:15#36

And here we have the a serious stab at the answer. Roughly half the temperature change in the last 100 years is cal culated to be solar related. Interestingly with a lag, which puts a dent in the theory that recent drops in solar activity should have already  impacted temps. This is a credible study by US Army scientists, peer reviewed for the Journal of Geophysical Research.

 

 

 

Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the

Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600

 

N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West2

 

 

Received 18 January 2007; revised 4 May 2007; accepted 5 June 2007; published 3 November 2007.

 

[1] A phenomenological thermodynamic model is adopted to estimate the relative

 

 

contribution of the solar-induced versus anthropogenic-added climate forcing during the

industrial era. We compare different preindustrial temperature and solar data

reconstruction scenarios since 1610. We argue that a realistic climate scenario is the

one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (as the one shown by the

paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005)) with the total solar

irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al. (2005)).

Under this scenario the Sun might have contributed up to approximately 50% (or more if

ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003) is

implemented) of the observed global warming since 1900.

 

Citation: Scafetta, N., and B. J. West (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere

surface temperature records since 1600, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 20:49
#37
09 Jan 2015, 20:49#37
I think it's time to take stock of the Global Warming debate on this board.
Let's see . . . in the blue corner we have the people who think Global Warming is just a big hoax. 
So far we have Baboon-ou  . . . not sure where Baboon-ou has disappeared to . . . he was complaining about the "deafening silence" from the Global Warming lobby and demanding that we all go take a closer look at the graph that Moffie put up but he's gone strangely quiet himself recently . . . one could almost say there's a "deafening silence" from him . . . but we all know Baboon-ou has the respect of the board when it comes to his broad knowledge of science, his willingness to answer difficult questions and his proven ability to vanquish atheists with a mere clapping emoticon. 
Then of course we have the guys from Baboon-ou's favourite internet resource, the guys from Conservapedia who reckon Global Warming is a "liberal hoax" created by liberal scientists who deceive the public with fraudulent data. 
Next in the blue corner is the team of Cliff Harris and Randy Mann - an unqualified climatologist and a part-time teacher who sometimes does weather reports for his local radio station. That may not sound terribly impressive but these guys are able to tell if it was a sunny day on the 14th of May 2500BC or if the people of ancient Nippur should have prepared for a light rain with scattered thundershowers in the southern regions of Mesopotamia.
Finally in the blue corner we have Moffie: climate expert, doctoral student, consultant, executive and someone who has studied so many of these macro statistical efforts that he can easily spot anyone who hasn't done their homework.
Okay then, on to the red corner . . . these are the guys who believe Global Warming is a legitimate concern . . . 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

InterAcademy Council 
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
The National Science Academies of the G8+5 Nations
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
The Network of African Science Academies
The United States National Research Council
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Science Foundation
American Society of Agronomy
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

 

American Institute of Biological Sciences.

 

American Society for Microbiology

 

Australian Coral Reef Society

 

Institute of Biology (UK)

 

Society of American Foresters

 

The Wildlife Society (international)

 

American Academy of Pediatrics

 

American College of Preventive Medicine

 

American Medical Association

 

American Public Health Association

 

Australian Medical Association

 

World Federation of Public Health Associations

 

World Health Organization


American Astronomical Society

 

American Statistical Association

 

The Institution of Engineers Australia

 

International Association for Great Lakes Research

 

Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

 

The World Federation of Engineering Organizations


Phew, so it's a tough call whether you're going to side with the blue corner or the red corner but any posters interested in this debate should pick a side. I'm definitely in the red corner and from what I can tell, so are ABasquefan, Sharkbok and Sharky54.


Right, now that summary is out of the way, let the debate continue! Where is Baboon-ou?

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Jan 2015, 20:49
#38
09 Jan 2015, 20:49#38
I think I forgot to add Dense to the blue corner. Wouldn' t want to falsify their numbers!
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
09 Jan 2015, 20:57
#39
09 Jan 2015, 20:57#39
  And here comes Mozart discovering America............... so, the sun heat the earth, eh? good to know...................... but there's no need of phenomenological thermodynamic models for this

The problem lies when to this natural heating we sum the greenhouse effect produced by the CO2 and other hum an contaminants. Theses lasts, and not the natural heating from the sun, is what is driving the earth to a Climate Change that could (possibility) be catastrophical for the human being and all the other spiecies in the world.

And your theory about the irradiation is BS. The graph that you posted shows how since 1980, more or less, the irradiation is decreasing (orange) while the temperature has been exponentially increasing.
BL
BlikkiesPro1,526 posts
09 Jan 2015, 21:08
#40
09 Jan 2015, 21:08#40

Rooinek, your list looks impressive, but I would first like to know which of those organisations do get grants from their government. Those that do get support can easily adopt an attitude of why would they bite the hand that feed them.


Now my 2c contribution: 


Challenging climate change claims. Source: HeraldSun


NOT once when boarding a jet have I thought of ducking into the cockpit to give the pilot tips on engine thrust or fuel loads. He’s the expert. Still, if I’d booked for Bali only to land in Karachi I would know this: whatever the pilot’s credentials, he’d goofed.


I thought such a principle was so obvious that all laymen would consult it in every contact with any professional. Your extension falls down? Sue the builder.

But in one tiny yet catastrophically expensive field of human endeavour this law has been suspended. Yes, climate science.

This is the science where one plus one can equal three one day and six the next — yet never may we question the expert.

This must change and I believe, finally, that it is. The common sense of the layman is at last being restored.

Hey, didn’t you guys say it would never flood? Then what’s this stuff that’s washed my car down the Queensland street? Hmm, didn’t you also predict runaway warming? So why these 16 years of non-warming? Think I’ll get me new experts.

See, after more than a decade of scares, we are now getting the years of the busted predictions — that “Er, this isn’t Bali” moment at the top of the aeroplane stairs.


Here are just some of those moments that give us not just a reason to doubt the alarmists, but a duty.


In 2009 Professor Tim Flannery, now Climate Council head, warned: “The soil is warmer because of global warming ... So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”

In fact: Queensland, NSW and Victoria have since suffered severe floods. Dams in Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra have all filled.

In 2007 Flannery predicted: “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

In fact: Both Sydney and Brisbane’s dams are today more than 81 per cent full. Adelaide’s catchments are 75 per cent full. Sydney and Brisbane have mothballed their desalination plants. Adelaide is about to.

In 2009 Bertrand Timbal, a Bureau of Meteorology climatologist, predicted: “The rainfall we had in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s was a benchmark, but we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

In fact: The bureau has since declared 2010 and 2011 “Australia’s wettest two-year period on record”.

In 1999 Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, predicted oceans would get so warm that mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef would occur every second year from 2010.

In fact: The last mass bleaching occurred in 2006.

In 2000 Hoegh-Guldberg claimed “we now have more evidence that corals cannot fully recover from bleaching episodes such as the major event in 1998”.

In fact: The Australian Institute of Marine Science reports “most reefs recovered fully”.

In 2007 Professor Mike Archer, dean of science at the University of NSW, said: “Forget Venice; I mean we’re talking about sharks in the middle of Sydney” because seas would rise “100 metres”. The ABC’s chief science presenter, Robyn Williams, agreed “it is possible, yes” this would occur before the end of this century.

In fact: Sea level rises for the past 20 years have averaged just 3.2mm a year, according to the University of Colorado — a rate of 32cm a century. Sea levels have slowly risen since 1880, well before human influence on the climate is said to have become significant.

In 2006 warmist alarmist Al Gore claimed in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, that seas were rising so fast “that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”.

In fact: In Britain, Justice Michael Burton found “no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened”. In 2010 an Auckland University survey noted 86 per cent of 27 Pacific islands studied — including Kiribati and Tuvalu — had grown or stayed the same size over the past 20 to 60 years.

In 2008 Flannery asked people to imagine “a world five years from now, when there is no more ice over the Arctic” and Gore predicted “the entire north polar ice cap will be gone in five years”.

In fact: At the height of last year’s summer melt, the Arctic was covered by six million square kilometres of ice, more than in the previous three years. In 2009 Gore predicted the Antarctic would melt away, too: “They’re seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps ...” Professor Chris Turney, of the NSW Climate Change Research Centre, last year led an expedition to Antarctica, claiming: “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change ...”

In fact: NASA says sea ice cover in Antarctica has grown 1.5 per cent a decade for several decades. Turney’s ship was trapped in ice.

In 2000 Dr David Viner, of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit, claimed that within a few years winter snow would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”. In 2007 Sir John Houghton, former head of Britain’s Met Office, said “less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming”.

In fact: Five of the northern hemisphere’s six snowiest winters in the past 46 years have occurred since Viner’s prediction, according to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers.

In 2007 Britain’s Met Office said: “By 2014 we’re predicting it will be 0.3 degrees warmer than 2004.”

In fact: Met Office data for 2013 show no statistically significant rise in atmospheric temperatures for at least 16 years. Climate scientist Professor Judith Curry told the US Congress this year: “For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature.”

In 2006 Gore in An Inconvenient Truth claimed Hurricane Katrina was evidence of global warming, adding: “We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes.”

In 2011 Greens leader Bob Brown blamed coal miners for Cyclone Yasi because “it’s the single biggest cause — burning coal — for climate change”.

In fact: The IPCC last year said the number of cyclones and hurricanes reaching land had fallen and the Bureau of Meteorology reports fewer cyclones reaching Australia.

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/false-alarms-have-put-us-under-the-weather/story-fni0ffxg-1227159717382

↓ LOAD MORE (page 2 of 3)

More from Rugby