Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 19:40
Dr. John, I concentrated on the last 50 years because it has only been since 1958 that Keeling started continuously recording the concentration of CO2, and the CO2-forcing necessary for the false anthropogenic global warming theories is the point of contention.

There was, indeed, a cooling period in the last century during which some extrapolated a coming ice age. And there has been a period during which submitted temperatures rose. And, there has been a period of six years in the last 50 during which the observed temperatures have remained the same.

Looking at the last 50 years, a period of six consecutive years without an increase is not a small period. The Keeling graph in John Coleman's article does not extend to these last few no-temp-increase years, but it surely would continue to go up, since the Chinese are continuing to build fuel-burning power plants as fast as they can to power their growing industrialization. They are burning fuel at an ever-increasing rate.

When you referenced the sun cycle in another post, you are acknowledging what the those who reject the GH models assert--the climate does get warmer or colder (or even stay the same) from year to year, but man burning fuel has no measurable effect. It has to do with the sun and other natural forces. (Volcanic activity and large meteor strikes could block enough sunlight to have an effect.)

To be absolutely thorough, I could add I am thinking only of the fuel-burning issue in saying man does not measurably influence the climate. I am not considering full-scale nuclear war.:)
dr john

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 18:08
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
And did you look at the graph here?
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

Yes, I did. It's a graph which portrays what Coleman describes--a period of cooling, in which alarmists warned of a coming ice age; a period of warming, in which alarmists warned of increasing warming at an increasing rate, resulting in rising seas and other catastrophes (as they flew around the globe in private jets, attending conferences and telling people not to burn fuel), and a period of six years in which the warming which the GH models predict did not happen.

No, the data in that graph clearly shows that for about 1000yrs the temperature varied by +/- 0.2 degrees, then from about 1900 onwards the temperature increased, to currently be about 0.8 degrees above the norm for the last 1000 years.

It shows, quite clearly to most people (but not apparently, to you) that small variations occur at times and so a period of a few years is not good enough evidence to say global warming has stopped (as one of your other posts claimed). We can expect a few ups and downs, as happened around the 1940 - 80 period, but the general trend is upwards.

It shows that if a best fit line is drawn through the 1900 - 2000 data, there was a slightly higher rise towards the end of the data set. And as such rises appear to be followed by a small drop or levelling out for a few years, looking at just six years of data and saying "look, it's stopped" or "look, it shows the theory is wrong" is just ridiculous.

Don't let the base line fool you, that's just the average readings from 1960 - 1990. If they'd used 1860 - 1890, the rise would look even more distinct. The base line makes some people look only at the data from about 1960 onwards and see a smaller rise than has actually occurred.

This is a long term trend, not a short term one. As the data set is extended, predictions will be come more accurate. At present, anyone looking at that graph will recognise that for the last 100 years the world has been warming up slowly. It's a big world, and the changes take time. They are changes that worry most people, except those selling oil and coal and running campaigns to discredit good science, to safeguard their profits.

Unfortunately we can't afford to wait another 100 years to confirm the trend before deciding to do something.
janet

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 17:07
The point for most of us is fairly simple - whether or not the dire predictions about global warming are true, I don't remember ever seeing any research proving that the increased level of carbon emissions are good for the environment.

We can choose to do things with our lifestyles that benefit others or we can sit back and say,"I'm alright, jack".

It's a point I've made before and will probably tiresomely make again- but the system - whatever system it is - will not get better on its own and assuming that everyone else should be doing something for it is the way to ruin.

I drive more than I should but I'm attempting to cut down. I take public transport whenever I can, and have changed other bits about my lifestyle. My car gets between 50 - 60 mpg.

Even as an American, I find it irritating that the US is so often the source for denials that there is any need to conserve energy, given the general statistics about energy use world wide.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 16:05
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Being lectured by gaz guzzling Americans on pollution or global warming is akin to Casanova promoting chastity.
That comparison would apply to former Vice-President Al Gore, who tells everyone else not to burn fuel.
Quote:
Gore and his wife Tipper, whose children all live elsewhere, reside in a behemoth 20-room mansion outside of Nashville that used nearly 23,000 kilowatt-hours last August, more than twice the annual-yes, annual-energy usage of a typical American home. Gore's preferred mode of transportation between stops on his international publicity tour is his private jet, which spews out CO2 emissions at the rate of a small army of SUVs.
quoted in newsbusters
I don't say one thing and do another. I disbelieve man-made global warming, and I don't govern my life by it. I drive older cars because my expenses are more than my income, and a new car would cost 25 times as much. I think it is good to burn enough fuel for sufficient electricity for a comfortable life, and to use enough gas for safe and efficient transportation.

Cassanova promoting chastity would be saying one thing and doing another. My words and actions agree, both in fuel use and in chastity. ;)
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 15:39
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
And did you look at the graph here?
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

Yes, I did. It's a graph which portrays what Coleman describes--a period of cooling, in which alarmists warned of a coming ice age; a period of warming, in which alarmists warned of increasing warming at an increasing rate, resulting in rising seas and other catastrophes (as they flew around the globe in private jets, attending conferences and telling people not to burn fuel), and a period of six years in which the warming which the GH models predict did not happen.
marymary100

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 15:37
You drive very old cars don't you scholar? They tend to be less friendly to the envrionment don't they?

How much walking do you do?

People who work have no choice other than to drive if there is no public transport that takes the route they need but many other journeys aren't necessary.

When I lived in the States I was amazed by the number of people who moved the car when moving between stores in the same shopping centre.

Being lectured by gaz guzzling Americans on pollution or global warming is akin to Casanova promoting chastity.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 14:50
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
How many papers say global warming is occurring, how many say it is not?

Good grief! Pseudo-science at its worst! Let's count hands: how many favor this theory? How many favor that theory? OK, the one that more people (excuse me, more "SCIENTISTS") voted for, wins.

What a load of crap that would be.

If ONE scientist represents the truth accurately, and a million write papers which are in error, the one is right and the million are wrong. Good science does not conform to what scientists think; good scientists conform their thinking to good science.kewl_glasses

I'm not suggesting you really think that, Dr. John. In conversation, it's attractive to point either to large numbers of people or to well-respected, intelligent writers on one's side and say, "Don't you think they're right?" But, ultimately, it's a method of persuasion, not a tool of logic. You wouldn't yield to it in a situation where it went against you. :)
the bear

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 11:05
Quote:
Originally posted by Quaver
Global cooling/warming etc may not be correct, but pollution is real. Less pollution the betterkewl_glasses



I'm with you Q, call it what you will, man is ravaging his own home. We only have one world.


Regards the Bear
LSemmens

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 11:02
Prevention is always better, and often easier, than cure. If evidence shows that certain things will affect our environment and that there is something that we can do about it, why shouldn't we. It's much easier to shut the gate before the horse bolts, than catching it later.
Wilbur

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 10:55
Ah, sorted then :D
dr john

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 10:18
re ozone layer

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/science/sc_fact.html

and from the last paragraph in section 111

Quote:

Because of measures taken under the Protocol, emissions of ozone-depleting substances are already falling. Based on measurements of total inorganic chlorine in the atmosphere, which stopped increasing in 1997 and 1998, stratospheric chlorine levels have peaked and are no longer increasing. The good news is that the natural ozone production process will heal the ozone layer in about 50 years.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025232.shtml
is recent paper where this is reported.

So in summary. We took notice of what was wrong (use of CFCs), tried to sort it (stopped using them), and it is beginning to work (problem will eventually go away).
Wilbur

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 10:10
Surely pollution is not as bad these days...........especially in the UK.
Many years ago, there was high pollution with 'smog', with factories pumping out vast clouds of smoke etc..
The air is a darn sight cleaner now than it used to be.

Oh, and what has happened to the huge hole in the ozone layer that we were frightned with a while back.........that seems to have gone very quiet lately.

Then earlier in 2007 one of our beloved Cabinet Ministers was pointing out that we should be buying hardy plants because of the heatwave and drought we were going to experience during the summer........we had a couple of hot weeks early on, so the theory was that we were all going to fry last summer..............didn't quite turn out that way did it ?

Then recently part of the coast was evacuated because the sea levels had risen and the powers that be reckoned that massive waves were going to arrive and wipe the place out....not a lot happened.
Ah well, at least 'they' took a few precautions I suppose.

A few years ago we were warned that another 'ice age' was coming.........I do wish 'they' would make up their minds :D

The we had the mad cow disease and we were all going to die through eating burgers and beef.

The we were all going to die of bird flu.

'Aids' was rampant and we were all going to die from that......but I reckon that if you don't 'walk on the other side of the street' there is not too much to worry about.

It just seems to me that there are so many warnings spouted that a lot of us just don't really take any notice.............the boy who cried wolf comes to mind :D
dr john

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 09:27
From the article referenced in Scholar's link

"Santer et al. (2005) recently investigated the altitude
dependence of temperature trends during the satellite era,
emphasizing the tropical zone, where the characteristics
are well-suited for model evaluation. They compared
available observations with 19 of the models and suggest
that any disparity between models and observations is due
to residual errors in the observational datasets.
. In
this article, we consider the observational results in 22
of the models that were available. As did Santer et al.
(2005), we confine our study to the tropical zone but
we reach a different conclusion
."

So who's right? Why don't you believe the first group (Santer et al)? Why do you choose to believe the second group (Douglass et al)?

Basically you are posting links to papers with one view point, and ignoring any with an opposite view point. How many papers say global warming is occurring, how many say it is not?

And did you look at the graph here?
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html
Quaver

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 06:32
I see what you mean, I'm not extreme global warming activist either, and am not prepared to swich my car to a horse just yet:D
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 06:17
Quaver, I do not mean to give you a hard time. I economize with respect to car fuel, furnace fuel, and electricity, too. It is useful for saving money, as well as any pollution it saves. But, I weigh the usefulness of using the electricity or fuel , as compared to going without. If I must mail a check to pay a bill on a certain day, the company will not accept my excuse if I say, "I could not walk to the post office before it closed, so I left it for another day." Sometimes, I just want the comfort of warmth, or the pleasant brightness of several lights on at the same time. I have even enjoyed the warmth of a fireplace in a previous home, or a campfire at church camp.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:56
Quote:
Originally posted by Quaver
I said less pollution, less doesn't mean nothing.

But, nothing is the most less you can have.

Any amount you use, using none would be less. :D
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:54
Hi, Dot! waveysmiley Are you still enjoying your large car? It''s big enough for all your needs--but it takes more fuel when you're riding alone without animals or cargo in fair weather, than a little tiny car would use. But, you're always safer than a tiny car would make you, if you ever have a big collision. :D I'm glad you have the freedom to choose what suits your life best.:D
Quaver

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:53
Yes I drive a car - but I do feel guilty for driving short distances.
I switch off lights/tv/pc when not needed as much as I can, and try to buy energy efficient models of everything even if it's a bit more expensive.

Every little counts;)
I said less pollution, less doesn't mean nothing.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:44
Quote:
Originally posted by Quaver
Global cooling/warming etc may not be correct, but pollution is real. Less pollution the betterkewl_glasses

Surely you don't mean that, without qualification!shocked_yellow
Walking means less pollution than driving a car--do you ever drive a car?

Using electricity from a fueled electric plant means more pollution than if you do not have your home hooked up to electricity. Do you use electricity in your home?

I think a better formulation would be, less pollution for the same result is better than more pollution for the same result.

An efficient engine is a better value than a less efficient one--but a bigger vehicle that can carry more people, or that has more protection for them, may be more worthwhile than a little high-mileage death trap. It may cost less resources to make one vehicle large enough for everything a person needs to do, rather than for them to have to have a second, larger vehicle, because the little one they usually drive is not large enough for vacation.
Quaver

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:27
Global cooling/warming etc may not be correct, but pollution is real. Less pollution the betterkewl_glasses
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:15
Quote:
Originally posted by Quaver
Global warming or not, pollution is badwaggyfinger

Ah, that brings up a point worth making: CO2 emissions are NOT pollution. When any person or animal exhales, he exhales some carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide does not have the exaggerated heating effect that the Green House models which attribute the late 20th century warming trend to human-produced CO2 predict.
Quaver

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:00
Global warming or not, pollution is badwaggyfinger
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2008 at 04:31
Green House Model false, predictions fail
Quote:
At that conference Australian scientist Dr. David Evans made scientific presentations to delegates and journalists revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims. Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. "We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the proof the IPCC models are wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming."