global warming fraud - finally exposed!

Mat

Newlyn Datum was established....1900? 1950?

Some indication of SLR since then must be available somewhere, I would have thought?

Cheers

Don

This always reminds me or the caveat on the financial performance of investments that can go down as well as up.

Past performance may not be taken as a guide to possible future performance ...

It seems that the evidence of Sea Level Rise may not be readily to hand. I am sure if it were it would be cited by the Global Warming Jeremiahs.

Once again I think the important point is being missed.

It is not certain whether man is the definitive cause of Global Warming, and it is not even certain that Climate Change is actually occuring, though the media seem to make a case that it may well be convincing to many.

But there is no doubt that we must soon enough get a grip on being sustainable in our consumption of energy [and food, which comes from energy in industrialised agriculture], if we can begin to hope to maintain even a significant proportion of the current human population over the next century.

Why are we stuck on Climate Chance/ Global Warming/ Sea Level Rise [which ideas are not definitively proven to be occuring, let alone the causes being proven], when it is blindingly obvious that the real problem is massive over population - in terms of sustainability?

ATB from George

We'll not agree on that George...I don't think the evidence in support of CC is comparable with a notion that we can't support population levels.

I think the evidence for CC is overwhelming (accepted by scientific community, if not by all academics), I see very little evidence that (as we shift towards renewables) population levels will in any way prove unsustainable (I've seen no evidence whatsoever for this in fact). I do accept it seems a reasonable hunch to have.

The concentration on CC is also very simple to understand, it affects us all and the effects have the potential to kill millions in the worlds massively populated low lying coastal areas. Fossil fuels running out would be inconvenient (if we've not already shifted to alternate energy sources). There's also the issue with CC that we're losing massive amounts of our biodiversity (now) through increased temps (the loss of our warm water coral reefs for example).

It would be nice (though not essential imo) if we all use less energy in coming years (renewables and nuclear should see us right) , it's essential however that we start to obtain some control over our effects on the climate.

George, Mat

In a recent thread, I asked how people on this forum would set about convincing the CC sceptics that CC is driven by mankind and that is can be prevented from reaching cataclsimic proportions or reversed (by mankind).

Silence.

I have now asked an incredibly simple question about historic SLR.

Silence.

I am not impressed by Milliband suggesting I am the modern equivalent of a "flat-earth-believer".

Posting a link to some learned society's journal isn't a welcome response. A clear, concise summary of the evidence would be a useful start.

I shall continue to breath normally, whilst awaiting elegant explanations.

Cheers

Don

Don mate...hang on a minute.

You asked a question on SLR...I said I'd ask folk at work who are experts in this and get back to you. In the interim period you're just as capable as me to do some research into what's available.

I missed your earlier question regarding how to convince folk about CC? I've no idea mate, it baffles me - it seems that there's an army of folk out there who believe what unqualified crackpots print, but won't believe experts in relevant fields...how do you address that? I've no idea...total silence from me Don.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Don mate...hang on a minute.

You asked a question on SLR...I said I'd ask folk at work who are experts in this and get back to you. In the interim period you're just as capable as me to do some research into what's available.

I've no idea mate, it baffles me - it seems that there's an army of folk out there who believe what unqualified crackpots print, but won't believe experts in relevant fields...how do you address that? I've no idea...total silence from me Don.

Remember I too asked for evidence of historic SLR and you fobbed me off saying you could not say because of where you worked or something.

Also for so long as you and the AGW crew (including the possible fraudsters at the Hadley Institute) continue to use phrases like "AGW deniers" and (your words) "it seems that there's an army of folk out there who believe what unqualified crackpots print..." then you should not be surprised that an increasing number of people doubt the alarmist utterances.

Perhaps you would like to say what a climatologist is and what branches of science one must be in if one is to be taken seriously?

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
I've no idea mate, it baffles me - it seems that there's an army of folk out there who believe what unqualified crackpots print, but won't believe experts in relevant fields...how do you address that? I've no idea...total silence from me Don.

This is the question for the ages. Get an answer to this one and bottle it - you'll be rich.

quote:

George, Mat

In a recent thread, I asked how people on this forum would set about convincing the CC sceptics that CC is driven by mankind and that is can be prevented from reaching cataclsimic proportions or reversed (by mankind).

Silence.

...

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I am not a Climate Chance sceptic. I simply do not know the answers [or were to find the research evidence in an unbiased form] and I am not expert in the field. It seems that what is being said may even chime with the evidence we can see with our our eyes. Springs are earlier, snow much rarer and does not hang round, insufferably hot nights in the summer all too often ...

But what gets me is two points really. Science seems to suggest that this may be in part caused by mankind, and this seems reasonable, if CO2 is the culprite, as in the last say one and a half or two centuries [since the Indusrtrial Revolution], mankind has been liberating CO2 from stored sources [coal, oil, natural gass] in a way that is entirely new in the natural order of things.

But I have no idea what proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is presently there as a direct result of man's actions and what is the result of processes that are not affected by mankind.

Why am I so precise about this? Because to me it is crucial to work out if there is even the slightest chance of causing a beneficial change in CO2 levels [assuming that CO2 is too large a proportion in the atmosphere currently, which seems to be the implication of what the scientific community is saying] by modified actions of mankind. Can we make a difference?

If the phenomenon is entirely natural then we can make no difference at all. If we are responsible for a proportion of the excess [of CO2] then we can by completely shutting down economic activity, make an incremental difference. This, of itself, would be pointless inmy view unless we can guarantee that by returning to the stone age we can be certain of a second Renaisance in perhaps 10,000 years. This sounds like bread today and jam in ten milenia to me! My view is that if it is largely a natural phenomenon, then rather than tackle it head on, we would be better planning to cope with the changes, and design stategies that will allow for mass migration as certain inhabited lands become inundated by the sea.

My constant thought is that even if we knew mmakind happened to be completely responsible for all the excess CO2, it is going to be dacades before China and India stop increasing their CO2 outputs, and given the populations of these cpountries, this will entirely wipe out the effort that anyone else make make. Thus the coping strategy out;ined in the previous paragraph applies all with all the more immediacy. For it is the only one that can be done in practice.

So my contention is that what is going to happen is going to happen regardless of anything we [in the old Western World] might do. A recipe for inaction you might say. But no! Not at all!

My contention is that we should be moving with all possible speed [in terms of inventing new technologies and implementing existing ones] towards a complete resource sustainable economy, which incidentally will yield carbon neutrality without insisting on cutting our own economic throats while the Chinese and Indians surge ahead. And regardless of the head shakers who say it will all end in tears. It may end in tears, but nothing anyone can do outside China or India is going to make th blindest bit of difference in preventing that if it is inevitably the putcome of increasing CO2 emmissions of the next two oe three decades. The case for planning to limit disaster is compelling!

ATB from Geogre

Derry let's be clear mate - I think you're mistakingly thinking I'm trying to convince you about CC issues. I'm not. If folk wish to take the word of suspect journalists, over scientists...then that's their choice.

Let's also be very clear - I've already made this pretty simple, but I don't mind doing so again. Folk who are involved in the discussion relating to CC would include:

Meteorologists
Atmospheric scientists
Oceanographers
Geophysicists
etc etc...you know, folk who study some element of climate.

Just to help you along a little further with an example. Who would I want doing research into Cancer in humans?

Geographers (maybe an element of disease distribution I grant you)
Geologists (nope)
Oncologists (yep)
Dodgy journalists? (not for me I'm afraid)

That's my take on it...what's your's?

You're doing a lot of asking my friend and not a lot of giving. I've pointed you towards the Royal Soc pages (there is masses of stuff and links there). You on the other hand, despite my repeated asking have provided links to journalists and nothing more. Not a single scientific paper...not an abstract, not a quote from anybody with any scientific insight. Not even the remotest sniff of it.

The SLR issue. I've addressed it and made it very clear. I've asked around at work for data for the Thames from 1900, whatever I get back I'll post. Your manners are appalling mate, I didn't fob anybody off, I gave a totally reasonable position for not commenting on
Defra's 2006 figures on a public forum.

You have also twisted what I've said on numerous occasions, and you're becoming a bore. I'd love to discuss this with you, but you need to raise your game a bit mate (said in good faith).

Good post BTW George.

I've said this numerous times, I'm not an expert in CC in any way. I'm a marine scientist nearing the latter stages of his career...this in no way qualifies me to contribute to the debate - this is just my opinion based on what I've read and folk I talk to. BUT - imo, I tend to think it is too late now...so do many which is why adaptation is the key.

We still face sad losses though. I love warm water corals, I look forward to snorkeling through them with my daughter and sharing that with her - whichever reef that may be. Sadly, she will not have the chance to do this with her offspring. We face some very sad losses this century, not just in terms of species but in terms of habitat.

Ok. Two things:
1) Defra's figures for SLR predictions from 2006 are available online. As I've said, look at them for yourself; and

2) Monitiring SLR is complex, since ocean volumes fluctuate (sometimes more in the Atlantic than Pacific, sometimes oceans have convex or concave phases etc. We can monitor this now, but in the past it would have been difficult (though not impossible). Equally, before the 70's and 80's monitoring of SLR in realtime to high accuracy had no drivers and was a low priority. The science behind looking at rates of glacial melt and equating that to SLR and looking at changes in the atmospheric water sink are not complex. But conservative estimates will look at current rates of melt, other estimates on global temp increase.

Forgeting about the rebound of the UK since the ice aga (which some have said is mm - but still considered) past trends and future projections (Defra) are available. Have a look at the graph below Don.

People will no doubt be dismissive of any figures such as this...but it's based on science...not journalism.

Yet again, a CC thread, where a bystander like myself has seen absolutely no credible evidence that we're being mislead by scientists or indeed that the scientific community is in any way biaised - petro chem companies have invested huge amounts in this, and not been able to find any evidence contrary to the observations of NASA, NOAA etc. In fact it reconfirms my suspicions that all there is to counter this is journalists of no reputation. I'd genuinely love to see some robust science posted by the likes of Derry...can't see it though. FUnnily, enough I'd love for somebody to disprove the whole thing...I'd be the first to have a beer to celebrate.

Oh goody whoopee graphs!

The Graph for Aberdeen is not very impressive ! No wonder I've got woolly socks on .

colored graphs BigH, colored graphs!

colored? you mean coloured?

Thanks Mat. presumably the SLR is measured in mm?

Cheers

Don

Quite right Don, sorry 'coloured'...too long in the colonies.

Yep mm I'd guess from scale.

Proudman Labs website is worth a surf in anybody's interested in oceanography generally...forgeting the SLR aspect for a second, it's an excellent body - one the Brits should be proud of.

I watched a bit of that late night programme with Portillo and Andrew Neil last night.

They had some clown on who was a pro-climate change cheer-leader.

Nasty piece of work. Actually agreed to refrain from referring to non-believers as "deniers". Chose instead to call them "err, idiots"

Could be the end of any further discussion/action on climate change if he ever got further air-time. Not a good ambasador at all.

Portillo put up a decent performance for a change. Suggested a bit more effort was needed by Governments and scientists to present the facts that mankind IS responsible for climate change, and that mankind COULD prevent a catasrophe, instead of simply berating people to change their way of life, without seeing the evidence.

Cheers

Don

Whoopee graphs i.e. graphs with lines and no meaningful legends or calibrations, they can of course be coloured.
Quite often associated with snake oil Hi-Fi products.

Folk like that do untold harm.