Climate change

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Anyone that says that AGW is a fraud is severely deluded. I have a degree in physics and have worked at the top of all fields I was associated with for the last forty years. It only takes a cursory inspection of all the data to infer what is happening. If you do not understand how our climate can be changed by upsetting the feed back mechanisms that keep it in quasi equilibrium for the current settings. You can just show me what you know that I supposedly do not. I would like all analysis only in words at first. You can show your derivation of the second order or higher partial differential equations later.

I also expect all assumptions to be clearly defined.

Bert

If man is responsible for todays climate change, what has caused the climate change for the last 4 billion years? and why are those causes not at work today?

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

With respect Bert - are you a physicist, or a forensic meteorologist/ecologist? LOL!

I suspect this thread will be locked in record time....

Originally Posted by avandonk

Anyone that says that AGW is a fraud is severely deluded. I have a degree in physics and have worked at the top of all fields I was associated with for the last forty years. It only takes a cursory inspection of all the data to infer what is happening. If you do not understand how our climate can be changed by upsetting the feed back mechanisms that keep it in quasi equilibrium for the current settings. You can just show me what you know that I supposedly do not. I would like all analysis only in words at first. You can show your derivation of the second order or higher partial differential equations later. You must also show how all major driving forces and mitigating feedback mechanisms interact. An attempt to quantify these various factors would get more marks!

I also expect all assumptions to be clearly defined.

Bert

[multiweb (Marc)]

The climate is changing alright - no doubt about that. Did we do it? Not convinced ... Can we do something about it? (meaning coordinating all our efforts world-wide) . Yeah right!
Enjoy it while it lasts. It's gonna get freaking cold before you know it

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Moon

Peter,
Looks like you have opened a can of worms here.
Perhaps we need a poll on this topic to settle it the democratic way???

Do lemmings also get a vote? (mind that first step)

[avandonk]

I am sick and tired of twits who grasp one tiny little 'factoid' to prove their position. I am merely showing how real science does things. Careful analysis of ALL available data. My own humble opinion is that us physicists study everything and derive mathematically predictable and testable systems. Then do more experiments.

My very nasty question is what the IPCC have been doing for years. And the deniers call it mere models when they cannot even differentiate a simple equation let alone think in terms of partial differential equations.

Pearls before swine!

Bert

[leinad (Dan)]

Another good book is '1984'.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I am sick and tired of twits who grasp one tiny little 'factoid' to prove their position. I am merely showing how real science does things. Careful analysis of ALL available data. My own humble opinion is that us physicists study everything and derive mathematically predictable and testable systems. Then do more experiments.

My very nasty question is what the IPCC have been doing for years. And the deniers call it mere models when they cannot even differentiate a simple equation let alone think in terms of partial differential equations.

Pearls before swine!

Bert

Couldn't agree more. Analysis of empirical evidence is what is required, not accepting the word of those that may or may not have an agenda.

[coldspace]

Originally Posted by troypiggo

Sadly, mine isn't. Just ask my wife.

So you do have a pea sized brain
So the British press were right
Just joking mate.

Matt.

[PeterM]

When computer models can predict the weather accurately for the next month (or even 10 days) then perhaps the nonsense of man made global warming from computer modelling for the next 10, 20 50 years might carry some weight. Is the climate changing, yes, of course it has been for billions of years as noted by Trevor G.
Thankfully a growing voice of scientists and others are challenging this nonsense that has almost turned into its own religion replacing Y2K (and keeping many in good employment). Until recently anyone who presented evidence or views contradicting man made global warming was cast into a pit, read David Bellamy's Price of Dissent on GW. Tis a sad day when the foundations of science (ie peer review) get thrown out the window. Trevory G you are spot on, we have 4 billion years of history compared with a few years of computer modelling. This whole issue is sadly showing that there is science and questionable science.
PeterM.

[Robh (Rob)]

In reading this thread, I noticed the old conspiracy theorists at it again.
Most of the scientists who do research on global climate change are probably based at universities and get paid lousy wages like the rest of the scientific community. Like all scientists and science teachers, they do it because they find science interesting.
There is no worldwide conspiracy. Do you really think politicians would introduce unpopular and costly carbon emission schemes if they didn't believe what the scientific community was telling them?
You really have to look at the mounting evidence. If there is so much support for human induced climate change, you've got to ask yourself why so many scientists have got it wrong! The scientific community are the most qualified and most critical judges of there own research.
The problem is the hardline skeptics won't be convinced until the sea is lapping the base of the Blue Mountains.

Regards, Rob

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

What caused the mini ice age of the late 1600s? Why is Greenland called Greenland? "Over that time sea levels rose and fell, at times exposing Bass Strait and creating a land bridge to Tasmania. Approximately 13,000 years ago rising sea levels drowned the land bridge making Tasmania an island and isolating people, plants and animals."

There are many examples of more extreme climate change than we are seeing now in the earths recent history that are not attributed to "greenhouse gas" emissions. Why are we "mankind" suddenly the culprit?



I am not advocating not looking after our planet. I am a great proponent of take only pictures, leave only footprints. I want to renewable clean energy. I want peace and harmony. I want truth and justice. I want intelligent debate, not one side media sound bytes.

I see the "climate change" religion, just as, if not more, damaging to our way of life as the radical religous terrorism of any other faith.

[tonybarry (Tony)]

Like Bert, I do hope for some rigor in scientific enquiry.

I also hope that we humans can clean up our act, reduce pollution, and leave a few natural resources for our kids and grandkids.

The scientific questions
- is global warming occurring?
- is there a significant proportion of this warming due to human activity?
- are there methods whereby we may reduce our impact?

to my mind are not answered at all well as yet. The models are not good. They don't offer predictive ability - the acid test of scientific worthiness. This may change (and I hope it does).

But I think that - regardless of the truth or falsity of anthropogenic global warming - we should still clean up our act. That's based on my personal philosophy, not science.

The strange thing for me is that I see many of the global warming adherents behaving like religious people rather than scientific people. That is not a good look, and only weakens their arguments in my view.

For those who are interested,

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

spells out the religion better than I can.

Regards
Tony Barry

[PeterM]

If so many people are so concerned about CC being caused by humans (which includes them) then why not make a statement and sell their cars (many have 2 or 3) and move into a tent. A return to the good old days of the Dark Ages, at least we would get darker skies, but the scope, computer and ccd would be a problem to run of static electricity.
PeterM.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Most of the scientists who do research on global climate change are probably based at universities and get paid lousy wages like the rest of the scientific community. Like all scientists and science teachers, they do it because they find science interesting.
Regards, Rob

Oh really . I thought research funding was directly proportional to the amount of press a scientist got . No conspiracy theories there, just survival instincts methinks (according to a few articles Ive read in New Scientist). Both sides are equally motivated by money.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

If so many people are so concerned about CC being caused by humans (which includes them) then why not make a statement and sell their cars (many have 2 or 3) and move into a tent. A return to the good old days of the Dark Ages, at least we would get darker skies, but the scope, computer and ccd would be a problem to run of static electricity.
PeterM.

Grow citrus Peter. Remember to stash plenty of copper and zinc nails prior to the Dark Ages.

[avandonk]

Can you folks get this correct.

Weather is not climate! It is short time variabilty.

Climate is long term averages which are far more amenable to some sort of prediction.

Your local weather is chaotic and almost impossible to predict more than about five days in advance.

When you deniers all go away and study what you are all purporting to comment on and get even the terminology correct. Then you just may be able to make some sort of meaningful comment.

To say that we scientists have some sort of faith in what we do is judging us by your own pathetic ignorant standards.

Science by definition can only be evidence based. If there is better evidence then we will take it on board.

Bert

[Robh (Rob)]

From Wikipedia (Global warming) ...
"The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores."

You can't ignore these figures.

Regards, Rob

[Peter Ward]

....perhaps our naysayers should

1) read the report...hey its free!

http://www.globalchange.gov/publicat...ts/full-report

2) read about the authors within the above report.

There are some seriously heavy hitters in there! These guys/girls know their onions, and would have no reason to fabricate the bleeding obvious from the data.

Glib (and uninformed) responses are just, well ,head in the sand silly.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by Robh

From Wikipedia (Global warming) ...
"The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores."

You can't ignore these figures.

Regards, Rob

And the earth has been getting warmer since the "little ice age" of the late 1600s, which came first? Temperature or CO2?

Doesn't actually prove a correlation? If your starting point is wrong then the answer is going to be off as well (think polar alignment)

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by tlgerdes

And the earth has been getting warmer since the "little ice age" of the late 1600s, which came first? Temperature or CO2?

Temperature is believed to have been fairly stable over the few thousand years before 1850. The Little Ice Age is believed to have been only a regional fluctuation and not global.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 levels from about 315 to 385 ppm since 1960. And more worrying is the projection for the year 2100 as high as 970 ppm. How could this not affect climate?

Regards, Rob