View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 23rd, 2014, 8:27 am



Reply to topic  [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
 does anyone really care about global warming? 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Tetenterre wrote:
Interesting (to me, at least) paper: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html
omigod - yes, no doubt the absence of any greenhouse effect would leave us in a permanent ice age, and FTM, entropy means that the Universe will I believe go that way in the very long run (in which, as Keynes said we are all dead anyway). So in principle, global warming is good. But that is all a lot of non sequiturs, not to say hot air, if we are talking about saving the populations of the near future from too much of a good thing!

I trust, TNT, that you do not subscribe to the totally unsubstantiated charge by Hoyle that somehow these scientists are conspiring to foment unreasonable fears simply in order to grab resources?


January 9th, 2012, 1:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14454
Location: Gloucester
Carbon emissions 'will defer Ice Age'

But, as with an ice age, it will also mean that more parts of the Earth will becoming non-viable so far as farming of any kind is concerned.

Buggered either way!

Is now the time to invest in large solar energy farms? There may be large areas, even in S. Europe, that are fit for little else if the worst scenario comes to be. I have only skimmed over this but it looks interesting as an alternative to PV systems. Need to see what the comparative energy yields per money/hectare is though. And how that stacks against the "traditional" energy sources.

I remember the French trying CSP for industrial purposes, smelting/casting metals (especially rare ones processed in small quantities).

But, like wind turbines, how long does it take to get make "profit" over the carbon cost of acquiring/processing the materials and then building/maintaining these large structures?

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


January 9th, 2012, 1:36 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:
the continuing rise in sea-levels is hardly just a prediction but a demonstrable fact,
But they are also falling in some places!
I will have to get you to substantiate that statement. I know that there is a scientist called Morner who claims that even in the Maldives, levels are falling. Again, one gets to the point that the only reasonable layman's verdict on such a glaring contradiction is to simply say that he is a minority, possibly of one. Look, leaving aside whether "sooner or later" is a weasel phrase - which it is not IMO because it simply points to an inevitable outcome on the basis of a trend (rising sea-levels) which is generally agreed - do you or not accept that global sea levels are rising? Your logic seems to be that, even if I know I am driving my car north at a certain speed, I should not make a prediction that eventually I will reach the North Pole because I have not specified exactly when I will do this


January 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: March 13th, 2011, 12:36 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Between the New Forest and Cranborne Chase
animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:
the continuing rise in sea-levels is hardly just a prediction but a demonstrable fact,
But they are also falling in some places!
I will have to get you to substantiate that statement.
This is becoming tiresome. You can start with the University of Colorado data and you might want to look at Vanuatu; with that, you can do your own leg-work.

Quote:
Look, leaving aside whether "sooner or later" is a weasel phrase - which it is not IMO because it simply points to an inevitable outcome on the basis of a trend (rising sea-levels) which is generally agreed
Of course it's weasel-words; it encompasses anything from a few days to a few tens of millennia. If the model was reliable, they would be able to specify a rise (with error-bars) within a stated time-frame.

Quote:
- do you or not accept that global sea levels are rising? Your logic seems to be that, even if I know I am driving my car north at a certain speed, I should not make a prediction that eventually I will reach the North Pole because I have not specified exactly when I will do this
That is an utterly inane misrepresentation of what I wrote; I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

_________________
Steve

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. (Richard Feynman)


January 9th, 2012, 5:18 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Tetenterre wrote:
That is an utterly inane misrepresentation of what I wrote; I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
fine, but can you just answer my question about whether you actually believe that, on a global basis, sea-levels are rising?


January 9th, 2012, 5:42 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Tetenterre wrote:
you can start with the University of Colorado data and you might want to look at Vanuatu; with that, you can do your own leg-work.
well, I am looking at Vanuatu sea level rise and fall on the Web and I don't see any claims about falling sea-levels, though certainly there are disagreements on just how fast the rise is. So what was your point? Did you mean Tuvalu? The link below was just one of many:

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Climat ... nuatu.aspx

(later) well, I am now on my other assignment from you :wink: , ie Colorado University (do you mean its Sea Level Research Group?). Not sure what I am meant to be finding, but this outfit does not seem to be making radically unorthodox claims about sea-level rise or fall. Apparently there was a unique fall in 2010 which they relate to El Nino and La Nina.


January 9th, 2012, 7:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Tetenterre wrote:
Quote:
Look, leaving aside whether "sooner or later" is a weasel phrase - which it is not IMO because it simply points to an inevitable outcome on the basis of a trend (rising sea-levels) which is generally agreed
Of course it's weasel-words; it encompasses anything from a few days to a few tens of millennia. If the model was reliable, they would be able to specify a rise (with error-bars) within a stated time-frame.
that's strictly true about "sooner or later", but of course no-one is talking about tens of millennia! I doubt if measurements could detect any changes which were so slow as to require such vast aeons of time; also, I imagine the models provide some range of projected changes based on a panoply of research findings - and to repeat, any perfunctory search of the Web confirms the overwhelming preponderance of actual research which supports substantial change


January 9th, 2012, 7:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: March 13th, 2011, 12:36 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Between the New Forest and Cranborne Chase
Pondered whether to post this. Doing so is against my better judgement given that, if past history is anything to go by, this will be met with demands to substantiate/cite/etc. (which I will not do; this is a discussion forum, not a learned conference, and people are free to do their own research), but...
animist wrote:
but can you just answer my question about whether you actually believe that, on a global basis, sea-levels are rising?
No, I do not "believe that, on a global basis, sea-levels are rising". It is not a matter for belief, given there are substantial data sets that provide evidence, rendering belief redundant. From my interpretation of the evidence I accept that the general recent picture (with local exceptions) is of a sea level rise, the rate of which may have decelerated at the end of the first decade of this century (but a longer period is required to be certain if this is a change of trend). I further accept that the evidence is that this against a deepening of the oceans which would otherwise have resulted in a general fall in sea levels.

_________________
Steve

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. (Richard Feynman)


January 10th, 2012, 6:51 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Tetenterre wrote:
Pondered whether to post this. Doing so is against my better judgement given that, if past history is anything to go by, this will be met with demands to substantiate/cite/etc. (which I will not do; this is a discussion forum, not a learned conference, and people are free to do their own research), but...
animist wrote:
but can you just answer my question about whether you actually believe that, on a global basis, sea-levels are rising?
No, I do not "believe that, on a global basis, sea-levels are rising". It is not a matter for belief, given there are substantial data sets that provide evidence, rendering belief redundant. From my interpretation of the evidence I accept that the general recent picture (with local exceptions) is of a sea level rise, the rate of which may have decelerated at the end of the first decade of this century (but a longer period is required to be certain if this is a change of trend). I further accept that the evidence is that this against a deepening of the oceans which would otherwise have resulted in a general fall in sea levels.
well, thank you for this; I am not sure why you feared that I would ask you to substantiate what you say, since it merely expresses your own views (and of course, we have to agree to disagree on the relationship between belief and whatever you call your own views). One thing though: I don't understand the last sentence; does it say what you meant it to say?

I sense you are getting tired of this discussion (which inevitably did acquire some characteristics of a citation-based scientific forum) but I still hope that you will respond to my post yesterday on the Web references which you yourself pointed out to me


January 10th, 2012, 9:05 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: March 13th, 2011, 12:36 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Between the New Forest and Cranborne Chase
animist wrote:
does it say what you meant it to say?
Yes. It really isn't that difficult. Dig two holes, same cross section, one deeper than the other. Pour the same amount of water into each. It should not surprise you if the water level is lower in the deeper hole.

_________________
Steve

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. (Richard Feynman)


January 10th, 2012, 10:31 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14454
Location: Gloucester
Another aspect considering the effects of all this on people and the world of nature, which is the only aspect that gives the discussion any credible value, this from `The First Global Warming Refugees'

Reading the list of "papers" on the home page of this site does seem to indicate that it is of the anti-man-made-global-warming persuasion, but I feel that this item raises points that muddy the already murky waters of this subject. Once again the pragmatic person that I am wants to shout, "Never mind the cerebration, get on with the action." I am sure there are those well able to pick holes in who-ever says what, whilst, for whatever reason, people suffer.


Quote:
Will Shishmaref be the tip of the iceberg, so to speak? The Shishmaref islanders are seeking $100 million to be relocated 5 miles to the east. And Tuvalu islanders are seeking compensation for supposed rising sea levels (see this site). Are we about to witness a new wave of refugees demanding their "rights" to resettle, or seeking redress from oil companies or the USA for supposed greenhouse gas induced sea level rises whether or not these rises are real or imagined? It is important for them and their lawyers to keep the greenhouse gas theory to the fore because that gives them a case. If the warming we have witnessed in the last 300 years is mainly due to completely natural sources (ie the sun) then they have no case at all; they can hardly sue nature.

As long as there is no sustained and well constructed counter argument against the wilder prophecies of the greenhouse warming advocates then we will continue to see money and time being wasted in chasing inappropriate solutions to a non-existent threat. The media in particular are spreading misinformation in the most irresponsible manner. To fully understand the issues discussed here a knowledge of a range of disciplines is needed. Focussing on one aspect (global warming sea level rises) may provide a seductively neat analysis of the problem but the outcome is a wrong conclusion for the wrong reason. Papers published on this site have shown that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere must cause some warming by their very nature but it has also been argued that the contribution, even for a doubling of carbon dioxide, would be very small and could not be easily distinguished from normal temperature variations.

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


January 11th, 2012, 6:34 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14454
Location: Gloucester
As I suspected John L. Daly, the late owner of the website carrying the above, is a known "greenhouse sceptic".

But the article does illustrate that there are more facets, directly affecting people now, that are causing argument between the pros and cons. All that energy, and money, might be better spent sorting out the evident problems - regardless of cause.

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


January 11th, 2012, 10:31 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:
does it say what you meant it to say?
Yes. It really isn't that difficult. Dig two holes, same cross section, one deeper than the other. Pour the same amount of water into each. It should not surprise you if the water level is lower in the deeper hole.

TNT, you're fun in a potentially explosive way :smile:


January 11th, 2012, 12:15 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Dave B wrote:
Another aspect considering the effects of all this on people and the world of nature, which is the only aspect that gives the discussion any credible value, this from `The First Global Warming Refugees'

Reading the list of "papers" on the home page of this site does seem to indicate that it is of the anti-man-made-global-warming persuasion, but I feel that this item raises points that muddy the already murky waters of this subject. Once again the pragmatic person that I am wants to shout, "Never mind the cerebration, get on with the action." I am sure there are those well able to pick holes in who-ever says what, whilst, for whatever reason, people suffer.
that is a very interesting article, Dave, and it raises some issues. You want action, and I agree on an emotional level, but maybe it is simply a fact of law that victims of natural processes like coastal erosion and longshore drift (if the latter is indeed the cause of the Alaskan case) cannot claim that human policies are to blame for their problems. I get the impression that this is the case, sad as it may be: I suppose that one is expected to be aware of things like erosion before buying a property.

The other thing I meant to say in response to your posts is that spending money to combat climate change does only make sense if there is a proven link between this and human actions like CO2 emissions: if indeed temperature rises were mainly due to natural causes, then reducing greenhouse gases would not help much. Of course in fact I agree with you that AGW is real and important, but it does need to be argued out


January 11th, 2012, 1:05 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14454
Location: Gloucester
I agree that those who are victims of natural forces cannot claim anything from any "blame" that might be applied to Big Oil, motor manufacturers etc. etc. They are unfortunate victims - but they are also (as are we all) victims of those who seek to obfuscate the arguments (usually Big Oil etc. etc.) or even those scientists (and I am sure they exist) who seek to bend the blame away from "natural causes".

Oh for a truly trustworthy, honest scientific group who all are prepared to accept as such! But Big Oil = Big Money and that always seems to win in the end, until the point is reached where, for whatever reason, no-one can afford to burn oil and coal any longer. If only because all economically viable sources are used up. Trouble is petrol is almost a waste product left over from using the oil to produce plastics and medicines etc. If cars don't burn it what do we do with it? The only real solution is the development of alternative sources of chemical feed stock - even if the means using GMOs.

I doubt that I will live long enough to see the real effect of global warming, of which I am convinced, or how much cash is put into finding solutions for the refugees that will want to invade the more temperate zones (wherever they may be, ever further north and south for sure - and there ain't much in the south.)

As tropical Africa warms up agriculture may become more and more untenable. More people will move out to become "economic emigrants" - or, in other words, "people trying to survive." This is bound to exacerbate the already serious illegal emigration problem to Europe.

Trouble is the only people who have anything like the funds and income to sort this are those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo at least. The European nations certainly do not have those funds.

There are times when I am almost ashamed to have to rely on money from Big Oil, Big Pharma etc. for my company pensions. So I have to give a bit back - that's about all I can do (apart from being as energy frugal as I can.)

Yeah, emotions do get in the way, but they are still a major driving force for human endeavour. Let us hope that a very large dose of emotional drive caused by no work, poor wages, desertification, starvation etc. does not increase the amount of violence in the world.

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


January 11th, 2012, 4:11 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
I have received a reply from Chris Folland. I was trying to download it from my email account, but this does not seem to be working. I will try to get it posted,


Attachments:
animist1.png
animist1.png [ 657.83 KiB | Viewed 2063 times ]


Last edited by Alan H on January 16th, 2012, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Edited to make image smaller - if anyone can't read it, let me know!

January 16th, 2012, 4:03 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14454
Location: Gloucester
Have you tried simply "copy"ing from the email screen and then "paste"ing into the post reply box, animist?

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


January 16th, 2012, 4:16 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
thanks, Dave, here is the reply itself (unfortunately does not seem to come out wordwrapped - any suggestions?):


Dear Mr Ellway

I have been asked the same question numerous times in the last 20 years!. This is an exagerated reference to the situation around 1992 before the advent of climate change detection and attribution and at a period of restricted available global observations. Since 1995 the use of observations has been critical to IPCC through climate change detection and attribution results, aided by an improved and greatly extended range of different kinds of climate observations discussed in their own right. Indeed the climate change detection and attribution statements, based critically on observations as well as models, have been one of the most the prominent results of the IPCC Reports in 1995, 2001 and 2007 as you know.

The attached short publication in 1993 "Hot Air, Hot Topic", with the then Head of the Technical Support Unit of IPCC Working Group 1, summarises accurately my and a widely held scientific view as it was then about observations and climate change studies in the IPCC context. The letter importantly indicates how this situation would likely change in the years to follow as climate science advanced. This indeed happened by the time of the publication of the second IPCC Report in 1996 - a very long time ago! - reinforced greatly since. Observations are now central to IPCC. I hope this explains everything.

Some climate sceptics have a bad, self-defeating, habit of repeatedly quoting, mis-quoting or severely criticising old climate science 10 or 20 years out of date as if climate science stands still - there are a number of prominent examples, of which this is one.

Yours sincerely

Chris Follandn, EX1 3PB
01647 432978
[email protected]

Hon. Prof. School of Environmental Studies, University of East Anglia

Guest Prof., Dept of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Physics, Univ. of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Adjunct Prof, Dept of Sustainable Catchments, Univ. of Southern Queensland, Australia


January 16th, 2012, 4:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
now that you can read the email from Chris Folland to me, and the attached short letter from him to Physics World in 1993 (thanks Alan and Dave!), the gist seems to be that, at that time, the predictions were indeed based on models and not measurements - and he himself seemed far from certain at that time that AGW was a proven phenomenon. But this is virtually 20 years ago, and the position has changed as a result of research; yet sceptics like to quote such out-of-date statements.

I must say I like, and can empathise with, his question regarding the science of climate change: "...what hope is there for the lay person?" What indeed?


January 16th, 2012, 4:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15331
Dave B wrote:
Have you tried simply "copy"ing from the email screen and then "paste"ing into the post reply box, animist?
That won't work - the comment box is just a simple text editor and doesn't support drag and drop.

I've made animist's attachment smaller so it isn't so huge, but I think it's still readable.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


January 16th, 2012, 4:56 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.