The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Global warming hots up but not the weather > Comments

Global warming hots up but not the weather : Comments

By John McLean, published 4/3/2005

John McLean argues that the predictions of global warming could be quite wrong.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
It is anguishing to everyone that respects scientific understands of climate change to see the relentless flak put up by ‘ideological’ climate change deniers.

It does take an expert climatologist to establish a proof that climate change is real. Thousands of the world's leading climatologists have taken the time to do it and world leaders, including those in Australia and the USA, have deemed it appropriate to spend significant public funds on the issue.

You can disagree with world consensus but you’ll have a hard time convincing others of your view by stringing together ad hoc records.

McIntyre and McKitrick’s contribution to science is certainly genuine. Readers should point their web browser to the following link to review the scientific dialogue that has ensued. The authors of the famous and accepted “hockey stick” graph clearly refute McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms and conclusions.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MannEtAl2004.pdf

The Gummersbach conference was held by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, a German free market think tank. An examination of the paper by Professor Bray will reveal a different story than the one presented by the climate skeptics press release you quote.

You claim that “CSIRO models appear to be unable to accurately reproduce the temperature and rainfall in the last 40 years.” What is the name of a CSIRO scientist who agrees with you? Are they all liars?

Lord David Taverne: he has the rare distinction of having been reprimanded in the House of Lords for calling for Prince Charles to be “made to relinquish the throne if he made any more statements critical of GM crops”. His Lordship’s views on climate change aren’t worth much.

Mr. McLean, if you have a scientific contribution to make, then write it up and send it to a real journal. If your convictions have substance, and have the policy ramifications you think they do, they’ll surely publish it. I trust peer reviewed work because it’s where I’ll find genuine contribution.

cheers,

martin

p.s. see Melanie Phillips’ Blog(25th, and also the 18th) as it appears she has lifted much of your article.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Posted by martin callinan, Friday, 4 March 2005 2:43:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good work John, an excellent article.

I urge you to keep up your efforts to bring some reason and grounded science back into this debate. We all care about our environment but we need our researchers to base their conclusions on real science, not consenus or computer models. The pro-CO2 warmers are the first to shout that this is the most important issue facing us today.(It's not, but that's beside the point), If that's the case then it's been nothing short of criminal to have denied the deniers a voice for so long. The media and pro-warmers have for too long been howling down dissenters with crys of "oil lobby", "coal lobby", "not a climatologist" etcetera. They wouldn't have to rely on this sort of slander if they could easily rebuff dissenters with science.

Imagine what could be achieved if the time, money and effort that is put into global warming went into combating aids in Africa, world hunger, or saving our oceans, wildlife habitats, and research on how to effectively manage wilderness areas.

Debate today would probably be centred around imminent environmental problems if a few slimy politicians around the world (read Europe) hadn't smelt votes in the rising environmental awareness. Once politics gets hold of something then you're sure it's going to be corrupted and manipulated to produce some clearly intended outcomes.

We need more people like John McLean to put forward the other side, to combat the brainwashing, and to help restore this important debate to a position of uncovering the truth.
Posted by bozzie, Friday, 4 March 2005 7:56:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are points in Martin Callinan's criticism which are worthy of further consideration. First, the invoking of "thousands of the world's leading climatologists ... and world leaders, including those in Australia and the USA" implies that advancement of scientific understanding is a matter of voting. It is not so.

Second, the invoking of "CSIRO scientists" is a worry. CSIRO appears to have succeeded in freezing time! I am not making this up, I promise. When CSIRO did regional projections of future climate, it slavishly adopted IPCC's 1990-based projections as its base - it didn't revised and up-date its analyses of world economic growth, and consequent consumption of carbon-based fuels.

Hence, when CSIRO said the average number of "Dec-Feb days above 35C now is 1, and will be 42 +/- 37 in 2070" in Darwin (my birthplace), it followed the trajectory of IPCC's projections of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Look at the high-end (42+37=79 days) - this is a direct use of IPCC's 1990-based high-end A1F1 scenario.

You might recall that A1F1 had coal consumption (coal is the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels) growing by a phenomenal 37% between 1990 and 2000. We now have the figures in for 2003 - world coal consumption in 1900-2003 grew 14%. This will render IPCC's trajectory of high-end CO2 concentration during the new century virtually meaningless.

You have an in with CSIRO, by the sound of it. If so, please tell us whether CSIRO caused time to stand still for its newly-commissioned analysis of NSW climate change over the decades ahead, or did it at last revise future CO2 concentrations in the light of evolving reality. This is much more than idle curiosity. We are not talking here about profit-oriented commercial opportunism - but about the duty of care owed by those entrusted with spending the taxpayer's money.
Posted by fosbob, Friday, 4 March 2005 8:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that McIntyre and McKitrick have "disproved" the global warming "hockey stick" model is simply false - these two know little to nothing about climate science (one is a mining company executive, the other an economist) and the "journals" they publish their "research" in are simply publications that are funded by US energy industry lobby groups.

Global warming is both real and is no longer the subject of any meaningful debate in the world of climate science - that debate effectively concluded over 5 years ago after decades of research - all the latest data shows is that the warnings about global warming were correct. The debate now is about how bad the effects are going to be.

For some backgound information on the "hockey stick" disinformation campaign, you might like the read the following:

Dummies Guide to the Latest “Hockey Stick” Controversy :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
http://biggav.blogspot.com/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-latest-hockey-stick.html

Or for those who understand the technicalities of the model :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98

Tim Lambert - Hockey team vs Hacky team :
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2005/02#climate3

Scientific American - Interview with Michael Mann :
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=30&articleID=00007F57-9CE1-1213-9BEF83414B7F0000

It's also interesting to study the background of some of the people and organisations who devote their time and money to contributing to this disinformation campaign.

McLitrick and McIntyre:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/McKitrick

Astroturfing :
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20031119-3127.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000862.html

Australian Astroturf Groups :
http://biggav.blogspot.com/2005/01/australian-astroturf-groups-having.html

And in the UK:
http://www.energybulletin.net/4156.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html

New Scientist - Meet The Global Warming Sceptics :
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.500

PR Watch - Global Warming:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/warming.html

Mired In Denial :
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=2177

Mocking Our Dreams:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/02/15/mocking-our-dreams/
Posted by biggav, Saturday, 5 March 2005 7:38:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Global warming is both real and is no longer the subject of any meaningful debate in the world of climate science - that debate effectively concluded over 5 years ago after decades of research"

Decades of research. Really. Little more than two as a matter of fact.
During the 70s and early part of the 80s there was a real fear of a global cooling because the earth had been getting cooler for the previous three decades.

A theory of global warming didn't really arrive until late in the 80s/early in the 90s.

And was only developed properly after 1997 -after the Kyoto conference.

So much for decades of research - about 5-10 years looks like the amount of earnest research into the subject.
Posted by the usual suspect, Saturday, 5 March 2005 9:52:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Biggav,

McIntyre and McKitrick do not claim to be climatologists; they are statisticians and Mann's "Hockey Stick" is based on statistics.

I also note that the numerous sources that you quote also contain remarkably few climatologists or meteorologists. The website cse.unsw.edu.au is a computer science and engineering faculty, and Monbiot has no background in climatology!

One site that is staffed by climatologists is realclimate.org but what a pity that you don't realise that the site exists solely to defend the IPCC's TAR, Mann's hockey stick and claims by Schmidt. They respond to readers questions but are very selective. Just some of the questions they refuse to answer are at http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=124.

Some interesting comments on Mann's failure to disclose his full data and method can be found at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.archive.htm. Similar issues with Mann's recalcitrance are mentioned by Ulrich Cubasch, Professor of Meteorology at the Free University in Berlin (see http://www.heise-medien.de/presseinfo/bilder/tr/05/tr0503038.pdf)

Thank you for your clear example of what Taverne calls "eco-McCarthyism". I don't believe that it could have been explained any better.

cheers
Posted by Snowman, Saturday, 5 March 2005 11:48:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice no one cares to defend the bad science practiced by McIntyre and McKitrick - which is hardly suprising given its indefensible.

You criticise one reference for being from a comp sci faculty - yet this article we are commenting on was written by an IT guy with no background in climate science - are you saying we should ignore him too (I'd agree with that at least).

RealClimate is information provided by actual climate scientists to try and clear the waters muddied by this disinformation campaign - if you'd like to argue with their debunking of the "broken hockey stick" foolishness go ahead.
Posted by biggav, Sunday, 6 March 2005 9:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be good to have some consensus on this issue before billions of tax funded dollars go down the tube in building unsustainable windfarms in rural residential areas and ruining the lives of the people who have to live next to them!!
Pippin
Posted by Pippin, Sunday, 6 March 2005 1:00:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Eco-McCarthyism" hey ? What a great line - newspeak at its best.

How about I quote some more commie eco-fascists then - first Republican party bigwig and oil industry heavy James Baker speaking last week at a conference in Houston :

U.S. Must Address Global Warming, Bush Ally Says - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7803787

---
Former Secretary of State James Baker, a close ally of the Bush family, broke ranks with the Bush administration on Thursday and called for the United States to get serious about global warming.
---

Or if he is too much of a new-money leftie wiener for you, how about Lord Oxburgh who is chairman of Shell :

Shell boss's 'confession' shocks industry -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1240566,00.html

---
Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, says we urgently need to capture emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which scientists think contribute to global warming, and store them underground - a technique called carbon sequestration.

"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world," said Lord Oxburgh.

His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King, who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.
---

The global warming deniers are simply following a time worn path that was previously travelled by the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry and the chemical industry.

Coal and oil companies wish to preserve their profits and avoid restructuring their industries for as long as possible - externalising the costs associated with global gas emissions is one way for the management of these companies to keep profits up for as long as possible.

There is a great book called "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan which discusses this particular problem of corporate capitalism as it is currently practiced (highly recommended by the pinkos at The Economist and The Financial Review).
Posted by biggav, Sunday, 6 March 2005 8:05:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think biggav does an injustice to the scientific method, when he asserts that:
* McIntyre and Mckitrick know little or nothing about climate science.
That is shooting the messenger.
* The "journals" they publish their "research" in are simply publications that are funded by US energy industry lobby groups.
That is poisoning the well.
* Global warming ... is no longer the subject of any meaningful debate.
That is closing the mind.

Mann et al find a stable pre-industrial climate - disturbed only now by humans burning fossil fuels. The inference is that those halcyon days can be regained. But hundreds of peer-reviewed papers find the contrary, with a prominent Mediaeval Warm Period and a well-developed subsequent sequence of Little Ice Age minima. IPCC chose a single aberrant paper which has never been independently replicated. Abusing those who question pre-industrial stability, does not serve to advance scientific understanding. Science should be a ferment of ideas.

Mann's statistical analysis was largely based on other scientists' records of high-latitude or high-altitude tree rings in the Northern Hemisphere, principally North America. But we know these trees grow only in the growing season - less than two months in June/July. We also know that most of the variability in temperate Northern Hemisphere climate is in winter. The Little Ice Age minima are an intermittent series of very cold winters. Climate would be ill-recorded by tree-rings.

Mann and IPCC compare a little-varying Northern Hemisphere tree-ring record for 1000-1900AD with a steeply-climbing 20th century thermometer record. But most 20th century warming was in Siberia and Alaska/Yukon in winter - right when trees in those areas don't grow. They have jointly committed a schoolboy howler - by comparing 900 years of summer-only apples with a 100 years of mostly-winter oranges.

IPCC's hockeystick is brain-dead. Surely, it would be better for both science and for human well-being, if the debate now moved on to the crucial question:
What drives our ever-changing climate?
Posted by fosbob, Sunday, 6 March 2005 8:25:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Biggav,

The original article was purely a report of the current state of issues in the global warming debate. There is nothing of the writer's opinions save parts of the final paragraph.

One significant point about Michael Mann was that he was a Lead Author for the chapter of the IPCC TAR in which his "hockey sick" figured most prominently. Given his continued failure to fully disclose data and methods it is easy to see its prominence in the IPCC TAR as self-promotion.

Of course if temperatures were warmer than today - as critics of the "hockey stick" maintain - it would seem that the world can naturally warm and, more importantly, can naturally cool. Human involvement in recent warming would look very uncertain.

By the way, I see you are yet to refute the opening statements in the article, that despite an increase of CO2 equal to 10% to the total increase since 1750 global temperatures are no warmer than they were in 1998. Would you like to explain why the warming has failed to materialise?

cheers
Posted by Snowman, Sunday, 6 March 2005 8:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll not going to enter this "debate" simply because the people trying to spread misinformation about global warming will not let facts or ignorance get in the way of their views.

However I will make these observations snowman is also the author of this two bit article.
He makes light of the field of climate research by believing that years of training and working in the field does not make someone anymore qualified to comment on climate change then a part time travel writer!

Lastly 75% would constitute a wide spread agreement which last time I looked in a dictionary is the definition of “Consensus”.

Ps Pippin if you don’t like wind farms which type of power station would you like or are you a “not in my backyarder” ?
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 7 March 2005 11:30:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would the real John McLean stand up? What is the point of this person, who vigorously inhabits every forum dealing with global warming under the name "Snowman", making the same tired old points in an opinion piece and then responding to the responses under his pseudonym? And no article submitted to a peer reviewed journal yet either!
Posted by Des Griffin, Monday, 7 March 2005 2:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am 80% sure it is Snowman.

I also think he is paid to peddle his politics on this site.

I am however unsure if his employers know he is just cutting and pasting anti climate change cant, e.g. from Melanie Phillips.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Posted by martin callinan, Monday, 7 March 2005 6:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't the old pro-anthro-warmers get all shirty when someone dares question their pronouncements. John McLean's "tired old points" are nowhere near as old or tired as the increasingly hoarse cries of "consensus" and "the hockey stick". The first means nothing and the second is flawed.

I must be the only one who realises that John McLean and Snowman are one and the same. I didn't know it was a big secret. But on behalf of everyone else a big THANKS to Des and Martin for breaking this ocean level raising news.

Martin has been running around on this thread with http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/ in his tight little fist shaking it in everyones face accusing McLean of plagerism. Bit of a long bow to draw isn't it Martin? (They both quote the same sources). The blog at this link is excellent and I hope everyone has a read.

Des, this world owes much to enthusiastic amateurs. I can't see anywhere where McLean claims to put forward any original research of his own. Seems to me he just gathers facts and puts them together in one place for everyone to see. If every journalist had to submit every article to a relevant peer review journal there would be no such thing as a newspaper.

So far between Des and Martin we've got McLean portrayed as a dishonest person hiding behind a pseudonym, a plagerist, and a receiver of blood money from polluters. Give us a break boys! You only show the weakness of your cause when this sort of thing is your only recourse.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 7 March 2005 7:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point about the scientific concensus being that global warming is both undeniable and human caused needs to be reinforced - A recent survey by Science Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) of the last ten years’ published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change showed that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise.

Note that the "hockey stick" isn't the only piece of evidence, nor is it the work of a single team - it has been independently verified by at least 3 other climate science groups working independently - spo forget about your personal attacks on Michael Mann.

Bozzie - thanks for pointing out that McLean is a dishonest person hiding behind a pseudonym, a plagiarist, and a paid propagandist - I had thought he was just another extreme right wing nut and that snowman was a different person.
Posted by biggav, Monday, 7 March 2005 10:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Replying to another post, "the usual suspect" incorrectly asserts:

---
Decades of research. Really. Little more than two as a matter of fact.
During the 70s and early part of the 80s there was a real fear of a global cooling because the earth had been getting cooler for the previous three decades.
---

If you learn a bit about the history of global warming science you'll discover you are completely wrong on both all counts.

Have a read of this and you might hopefully attain some level of enlightenment - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/.

The theory of greenhouse gas caused global warming first arose over a century ago (by a Swedish scientist in 1896). There was never any sort of scientific concesus that there was human caused global cooling in the 1970's (although there was some media hype about this possibility based on the speculations of some individuals).
Posted by biggav, Monday, 7 March 2005 10:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny - Take a look at the data from the UK's CRU and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These are the recognised international sources for this data and this is where the facts are found - and those facts say that 1998 was the warmest and that carbon dioxide has continued to increase since that year. Of course if you have more reliable and more accurate information than these two sources I can assure you that thousands of scientists will be anxious to learn of your data.

As I said to biggav, I don't need to be an expert climatologist to report what others are saying.

We are often told that only a tiny minority of scientists dispute global warming and there is consensus. I am saying that 25% is not a tiny minority at all.

And for the second time, I am not and never have been a travel writer. It seems that you don't read anything on these forums!

Des - Yes, I am John McLean and I already have "snowman" as a registered name for these forums. No-one told me not to use it for postings to the forum, and no-one has asked. By the way, you show your ignorance if you believe that I could write, have an article peer-reviewed and published in just a few weeks. Be assured that an article is on the way.

Martin - I wish I was paid - I am unemployed at the moment and doing a post-grad uni course. Thanks for showing me Melanie Phillips's site because I wasn't aware of it. As it turns out we do have material from the same sources but it also seems that she misses a few other points.

Biggav - That Science article which claims that no papers refuted global warming was absolute rubbish according to other sources. They say that many papers proposed alternative natural explanations for many events or discussed possible natural mechanisms for warming.

By the way, I am still awaiting your explanation of the situation I mentioned in the opening paragraph...

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 7 March 2005 11:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Biggav,

Wrong again! Sure the work by Svante Arrhenius was about 1900 but it was forgotten until the late 1970s' or early 1980's when it was rediscovered and providing a ready-made reason for the warming.

Arrhenius's calculations are believed to be wrong because he included radiation absorption for water vapour. (CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths). Scientists are split whether a DOUBLING of CO2 will cause an increase of 0.7C degrees or just 0.22 C degrees (see http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/index.html)

In the late 1970's Stephen Schneider, now a proponent of global warming, loudly declared that an Ice-age was imminent.

Schneider is also famous for saying about global warming "...To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 7 March 2005 11:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Travel writer, travel photographer or unemployed IT consulate it really makes no difference you still are unqualified to provide a informed opinion on the subject. For everyone else have a look at this website
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon_old.htm it's not about this subject, but what it is about is showing how a seeming logical (but completely wrong) argument can be constructed by someone who has no knowledge about a subject. For those interest to know what qualified people are saying this link is a good one http://www.realclimate.org/
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:12:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

Remember this site is called online opinion. It is place where anyone, including you, can log on and have a spirited debate about opinion pieces.
By your logic - most of the stuff Greenpeace publishes must be pointless as well considering a lot of their spruikers are not climatologists, oceanographers, forestry experts.
Last night on Lateline Tony interviewed Ross Gelbspan, a journalist who is quite vocal in his support of global warming. Are his opinions less valid because he is not an expert.
In future will you only post on IT related articles because that is your area of expertise.
Practice what you preach.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 3:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The link below to the BBC science and nature home page - and an article about 'global dimming' offers some salutary lessons in not thinking simplistically about climate change. It also has some cogent ideas to offer about why gobal warming might not follow the neat linear path John McClean obviously thinks it should.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

What I find utterly frustrating about this whole debate is the tacit (and facile) expectation from the nay-sayers that claims of human-influenced climate change should somehow be prooved in order to be taken seriously. There are many instances in science where conclusive proof of a claim is possible; given a controlled experimental situation, and a sufficiently simple causal relationship, and repeatability. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of climate change does not allow for these conditions to be met. Therefore our thinking about it must proceed according to different principles and methodology.
What we do know for certain is that CO2, methane and the like do indeed act to trap heat in the atmosphere; and that the concentrations of these gases in out atmosphere are increasing, and that human beings are directly implicated in generating some of these increases.
What we do not know for absolute certain, what we cannot proove in any absolute sense, is what longer term effects these changes will have. Weather is a chaotic system; by its very nature it mitigates against precise predictability. Multiple interacting factors are involved, as the BBC article make plain.
From this point onward, John, what is therefore required is a different mind-set. In basic terms it is to say: given that we do not know precisely what effects all this will have; and given that there are a whole raft of plausible reasons for us to be very concerned about the effects it might have; therefore we should proceed with extreme caution, and guard against possible effects in the future with preventative precautions in the present.
Unlike climate change modelling itself, the logic of this really isn't rocket science.
Posted by Fish, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 3:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Usual Suspect your mixing your message. If greenpeace or anybody else enters the scientific debate without due respect for the subject as our shutter bug here has then I would treat them the same. I’ve got no issue with Snowman or anyone entering the debate but be warned that not only are your ideas going to come under scrutiny but also your qualifications to make them. Why would that not be the case? I watched the lateline show and thought it was pointless they were having a chat nothing more.

Now if you read my posts most of them are along the same lines i.e. people need to make informed decisions about social issues and defer to experts when it comes to the facts and not work on anecdotal evidence. If someone would like put up a article on dynamic modelling or the merits of event driven code then I’m sure both snowman and I would enjoy however I think the rest of you would be a bit board.
I think the people should not hold very strong views on subjects they know little about.
Arguing policy is one thing arguing the facts is completely different.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 3:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I amazed at the calibre of postings to this forum. Why on earth is there so much difficulty identifying theories, facts and opinions?

My OPINION is that a lot of uncertainties exist about global warming. To support my opinion I stated...
- the FACT that temperatures have not exceeded 1998 levels while carbon dioxide has increased,
- the FACT that at least one researcher has proposed that a mini ice-age may be on its way,
- the FACT that the "hockey stick" is being disputed,
- the FACT that German newspapers featured articles questioning global warming,
- the FACT that a survey indicated many European climatologists doubt that human activities and emissions caused recent warming,
- the FACT that other contrarian comments were made at a recent German conference,
- the FACT that the CSIRO can't predict historical temperatures and rainfall with any accuracy,
- the FACT that a researcher concludes that recent warming is plausibly entirely natural,
- the FACT that David Taverne said that the IPCC TAR was "sexed up" and that eco-McCarthyism is happening
...and then I stated the logical conclusions that follow "[i]f global warming theories are indeed incorrect ..."

Kenny and biggav - please tell us why I need to be "qualified" to state these FACTS.

Kenny - I presented FACTS so please explain your comments "I'll not going to enter this 'debate' simply because the people trying to spread misinformation about global warming will not let facts or ignorance get in the way of their views." ...and... "Arguing policy is one thing arguing the facts is completely different."

Fish - At least you were on topic. You are deluded if you believe that we should take action against something that has not been proven, and the logical extension of your precautionary principal is that you should not get out of bed in the morning in case you get injured. The only efficient way to deal with a threat is to understand it thoroughly and only then take action. From everything I've read, scientists don't thoroughly understand climate.

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 12:13:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John thanks for your patronising comments, but you're clearly no philosopher. The logical extension of my precautionary principle is not that I would not get out of bed in case I got injured. The logic is that I would get up, but over the course of day I would take a whole range of sensible precautionary actions to prevent injury - even though I din't know for certain that they would be needed.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in a car? Surely it is not because you have conclusive proof on that day that you'll be involved in an accident. Traffic, like weather, is also a chaotic system where any such predictive surity is not possible.
What we all do know is that a range of factors (including some we can measure quantitatively - mass, speed, influences of alchohol on reaction times, etc) come together to mean that things might go wrong for us in the future. Therefore we take precautionary action.
There are plenty of other examples one might think of: flu inoculations, insurance.
You suggest that 'the only efficient way to deal with a threat is to understand it thoroughly and only then take action.' Unfortunately, in the case of climate change, this means in efect that we should do nothing until the effects of the changes we are so blithely contributing too are 'fully' in evidence (whenever that's supposed to be). In other words, when it is well and truely too late to take any sensible precautionary actions.
As you rightly point out, one of the FACTS! about this debate is that some people make an educated guess (the best kind of predictive effort we can make in the circumstances) that climate change tending to warm the atmosphere might, perversely, contribute to the on set of a mini ice age.
Is this any better that the prospect of increasing average temperatures? Does this somehow justify our childish and unnecessary messing about with complex systems that we cannot (in the sense of generating proofs of efects ahead of time) fully understand?
Posted by Fish, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 10:32:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to Kenny, Martin Callinan, Des Griffin and biggav for exposing commentator Snowman as author John McLean, and for providing the many useful links showing how the malicious and misleading anti-global warming propoganda industry works, and the political payola that follows.

I have had my say on other forums about the vested interests driving this so-called debate and the misrepresentation of scientific method by foot soldiers McLean, Moran, Marohasy et al, so I won't waste any more space, except to wonder how McLean can afford to devote so much of his personal time and energy to this subject, as demonstrated by his overwhelming presence on these forums. As the French would say "cherchez le loot!".

Looking forward to that peer-reviewed article in a reputable scientific journal, Snowman (sorry, John McLean). Perhaps you could write a fictional work, disguised as science, like Crichton's "State of Fear". The Institute of Public Affairs would be sure to promote your work, boost your sales and give you that much needed income.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:46:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are all so lucky there are dedicated people on the web exposing snowman as john mcclean. your powers are wasted on an online opinion website, go forth and expose some earth shattering cover ups for the good of the world.

really, if you had bothered to look at any of snowman's previous posts about the environment you would know his links are for a site which is run by mclean - was this just a coincidence.

it wasn't rocket science to work it out but the great exposition by kenny, des, biggav etc was a clever way to go off topic, attacking the man and not the ball.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 1:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That was because Snowman had played a dummy pass and never had the ball. Your happy with snowman’s position because it fits your world view not because it is backed by real facts. It is rather easy to come up with factual sounds statements that seem to cast doubt on real facts. We have a whole profession based on that lawyers. I’m not agreeing the merits of the facts but peoples ability to understand them and interpret them. It seem obvious to me that you get the right person for the job and snowman clearly isn’t the right man for the job and nor is the majority of the so called climate skeptics. Most of them are not specialist in the field in question. Also as has been pointed out on this site and in many other sources that there is a major misinformation campaign going on funned by interest groups on both sides , but the big money is being put up by BP/Exxon. I prefer to leave it up to the climatologist, they are in the best position to workout what is going on. There has been much talk about the consensus within the climatologist community about global warming. I would be very interested to hear what snowman thought this word consensus means.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 1:51:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Thanks to Kenny, Martin Callinan, Des Griffin and biggav for exposing commentator Snowman as author John McLean"

Grace,

You have to be kidding. The persons you cite had no responsibilty whatsoever for "exposing" John Mc Lean as Snowman. He did it himself in a post on January 30, to an article by Des Griffin. You, yourself, on February 3 mentioned him by name in a post, so, that merely reinforces the opinion I formed of you that you are a careless observer and sloppy thinker, in spite of your claims to a scientific background and two degress, no less.

AGW is a serious subject that deserves a much better response than the fatuous name calling that infests this and other sites, and that has no bearing on the subject at hand. If you cannot refute data and logical arguments put before you by dealing objectively with them, then please hold your peace.
Posted by A is A, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 1:53:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
t.u.a and A is A,

I'm used to this attitude on these forums because I've met some of these people before and several like them. None of them can produce evidence to save themselves. All they do is attack the messenger and accuse them of being paid by someone. Occasionally they produce a URL to a website whose bias they seem unable to recognise.

Kenny doesn't even know what a fact is. He calls them "factual sounds statements[sic]" if they don't agree with his world. I had to tell him twice that I wasn't a travel writer and I can't be bothered telling him again about qualifications because it's clear that he takes no notice. I'd like him to substantiate his claims about skeptics being funded by BP/Exxon and to show me a clear example where a climate scientist's paper was distorted by such funding, but it's a waste of time asking because he won't provide any proof!

I've met Grace and her assertions before too. She says she has two degrees and I see that a G Pettigrew co-wrote a paper on schizophrenia. If this is her then since she appears to know something about mental states perhaps she can tell us some correct terms...
- someone who ignores evidence and relies solely on belief? (Deluded?)
- someone who says they know nothing about a subject but then attempts to defend the people that they (with no knowledge) consider to be experts? (??)
- someone who cannot distinguish fact from opinion? (this one for kenny!)

Also Grace, can you tell us if your findings were influenced by your source of funding - or would they have been if you had received funding from a commercial organisation? If you don't like the question then it's tough luck. That's the kind of allegation that you happily throw around. By the way, the answers of sceptical climate scientists appear not to be trusted so why should we trust your answer?


John
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 10 March 2005 12:12:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Furthermore...

Two more words for us please Grace
- someone who changes the subject when directly questioned or challenged by comments (There must be a better word than "evasive")
- someone who will not look at data when it is presented to them but will cling to notions that are challenged by that data

This is all rather rhetorical because I doubt that I'll get answers (see item 1 above)

It seems, t.u.s., A is A and fosbob, that this is the state of things in Australia.

Mild hysteria breaks out every time every time someone challenges the "religion" of global warming and produces evidence to support their claim.

The "faithful" retort with cries of "consensus", "you must be paid by oil companies", "what right do you have to question experts?", "precautionary principle" ... but nary a shred of counter-claim and evidence to support their arguments.

Even the politicians who aren't entirely gullible - and I think there must be some - see where the votes are and they move policies accordingly. After all, elected by religious faithfuls is still "elected".

John
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 10 March 2005 9:05:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snowman wrote "Even the politicians who aren't entirely gullible - and I think there must be some - see where the votes are and they move policies accordingly. After all, elected by religious faithfuls is still "elected"."

There is indeed at least one. Read
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=DYN
Posted by Pollie, Thursday, 10 March 2005 9:53:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A couple of quick responses.

A is A, your sledge is misdirected. Exposing Snowman for new readers on this website is an ongoing exercise and a joint responsibility for myself and my fellow McLean sceptics. And we will continue to do it, be assured, its such fun.

Snowman (McLean), I am pleased to hear that I have a namesake somewhere with expertise in schizophrenia, perhaps you should address your strange little questions to her. As to my funding source, when I wrote on global warming back in the early eighties, it was the university sector, the same place that presumably funds your "post-grad" research now, and unless you are otherwise funded, gives you the luxury of spending most of your time on this website and attempting to write a scientific article that will pass peer-review for a reputable scientific journal. Still waiting.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:43:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a test of the real intellectual abilities of the voluble defenders of GW. On February 15 I posted a question, which I repeat here. Interestingly, not one person attempted to answer it. Here it is, again.

It pertains to a presentation, by Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine
Laboratory, at the recent Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change Conference at Exeter, entitled, "the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on oceanic pH and the marine ecosystem".

You can read an abstract of the presentation at

http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html ,
or an account published in The Guardian at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1405647,00.html

"Scientists warn growing acidity of oceans will kill reefs
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Friday February 4, 2005
The Guardian
Scientists have given warning of a newly discovered threat to mankind, which will wipe out coral and many species of fish and other sea life. …Extra carbon dioxide in the air, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is not only spurring climate change, but is making the oceans more acidic - endangering the marine life that helps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.…The oceans have previously recorded an 8.2 pH reading, but this has now dropped to 8.1 and is continuing to fall."

What is the glaringly obvious contradiction in this offering in the propaganda war?
Posted by A is A, Thursday, 10 March 2005 11:04:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snowman you really don't get it do you what I'm saying about this subject is quite clear but I'll try again.
Both you and I don't know enough about this subject to make a valid assessment of the raw data. I can see that and I am happy to defer to the experts in this field you however are not. In fact form your last post you even suggest some of the worlds best climate experts who have been working in this field for decades don’t know anything about the climate. Quite full of yourself there John
I don't offer any counters to your "theories because of the above so I direct readers and yourself to a site maintained by people who do know about this subject.

The one point I’m quite happy to dispute with you about is the meaning of consensus which you seem not to understand. You will also note that I’ve corrected my description of you from a travel writer to a travel photographer you also claim to be a IT consulate, but I see climate expert is not on your list. So tell us again why have the majority of climate scientist got it wrong and your right?

As for funding I’ve have already provided links to sites about this subject.

Any one who takes the time to read your website and the real climate site can easy see where the expertise in this subject lies and it an’t with you.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 10 March 2005 11:15:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you AisA,fosbob,and Snowman. I have watched with interest the so called debates in this and other forums, and find it quite depressing. The sheer arrogance of those who say that because one doesnt have the right degrees, or not working in a particular field, then one is not able to assess the validity of a position,is unbelievable. I am a retired person with business and science degrees that are now so ancient that it doesnt matter. But I have a had a lifes long exposure to the world of both.

I have to say if one was sitting on a Board that is about to make a investment decision involving very large sums of money, on the basis of the information I have read, there is clearly quite insufficent data for any decision to be made. I also think that the trite argument that because some one is funded by whatever means that their arguments are less valid is also rubbish. All of them have a vested interest, including all the publically funded academics, and the CSIRO. But there are some conclusions that can be made.

1.Peer reviewed science is not to be trusted.There are too many examples of where this system has not worked.
2.The CSIRO has abdicated its role as the public funded arbiter of any science based debate.
3.Think tanks generally do more to advance the debate than they are given credit for, and I dont care whether it is the IPA, Tech Central, the Pew Centre, or Marshall Institute. One gets more from their respective positions than some of the personalised and arrogant academic claptrap peddled in these forums.
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 10 March 2005 11:23:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bigmal

The problem with peer reviewed journals is that one journal can have research showing one thing and another the opposite. That is what science is about.

how often do the "healthy foods" change - eat eggs, don't eat eggs, red meat good, red meat bad, trim red meat good, protein good, carbs good, carbs bad etc.

I have read plenty of peer reviewed arguments which argue for global warming and plenty that argue against it.

Then there are the IPCC reports of which the actual reports present evidence both for and against but the lead author summaries twist the information.

Peer review doesn;t equal correct. Research often conflicts.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Thursday, 10 March 2005 2:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks TUS, but I think that what you were kindly explaining to me actually underpins the point I was making, namely that the science is far too unsettled at the moment for anyone to be placing big bets either way. Given that we are dealing with a chaotic system one is better off doing nothing than doing something that has no worthwhile return and may indeed do more harm. But in the interim there are range of actions, such as becoming more energy efficient anyway, that are very worthwhile. Exploring the greater use of alternative energy sources,including nuclear, is another.

On the question of harmful foods I read recently in a American journal that they are actively considering restricting the publishing of data from single surveys, until it has been validated by a second. The recent palaver over coffee is a case in point.Two surveys said quite different things,with the outcome being,be moderate is your use of coffee but other wise it does no harm.

At the risk of being labelled a sceptic, I have to say that I thought the report by the Marshall Institute done in concert with the UK Science Alliance and entitled "Climate Issues & Questions", was very fair and reasonable. I really would like to know what others think, without it descending into name calling and academic pretentions that it is outside my domain etc.
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 10 March 2005 5:29:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoa you guys are unreal. Close all the Unis. Close all the research companies if you got any problems that need answers just ask these chaps a quick google and they will become the fountain of knowledge of any subject you care to name. Never mind going to uni and getting a degree and then studying a subject for years just ask the instant experts here. Snowman, The Usual Suspect, Timmy, bossie and BOAZ_David and now newly joined by another intellectual giant Bigmal. Man I wasted all these years training I should have just logged on and I would have been set.

Fellers anyone can have a opinion but if you have a opinion about about something you know little or nothing about why hold so passionately? And just what the very thing you guys are saying is wrong with peer reviewed scientific study is the very thing peer review is trying to do. Peer review looks at the methodology not the answers.
The hardest part about the scientific method is the need to be able to throw out all you thought you knew if new facts come up. Everyone has trouble with that it is human nature, I’ve found though that some people just can’t hack it and they are generally very strongly religious.
BOAZ_David no matter how many pictures of smiling people you want to close me my mind is made up slavery is bad
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:57:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

All I was saying is that different researchers can, legitmately, come up with research that contradicts other peer reviewed research. As long as the methodology is right, then it passes peer review.
It doesn't mean either researcher is right or wrong does it.

But lay people are allowed to read the research of a variety of experts and come up with an opinion which they think is validated by research. Most of the people who comment on this site appear to be widely read and have come up with their own opinions. You certainly have, snowman has, grace pettigrew has, bozzie has, etc.

I still do not understand your point about not being allowed to comment because someone is not an expert. I wish I had the time and resources to get a medical degree so i could be a doctor, a physics degree to become an atmospheric physicist or a veterinary science course to make my dog feel better.

But i don't, but that doesn't exclude me from reading about health issues, or global warming or what is best for my pet and forming an opinion.

You have in other posts criticised Boaz because of his religous beliefs but are you an expert on theology or have you read things and came to your own conclusion that religion is wrong/pointless.
Posted by the usual suspect, Friday, 11 March 2005 11:37:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This Message is for John McLean,

John, I am not sure if your e-mail address is public but if it is, could you post it here so I can contact you? Your article has received some attention that might interest you.
Posted by Thorengard, Saturday, 12 March 2005 7:18:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thorengard,

You can contact me via johnmclean@theinquirer.net. This is an email address via an online journal that I used to write for and may again in future.

No offence to you but I don't know who you are and I don't know what might happen if my email address is made public. I would have no qualms at all about shutting down this email address if junk mail increased inordinately.

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Saturday, 12 March 2005 10:11:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John,
What is this fact that you keep repeating that the temperature has not increased (since 1998)?? 2004 was the hottest year on record! (http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=111731). I live in Canberra (Australia) and the trend is for winters to be starting later and summers starting earlier. Temperatures have been well above average (especially at night). I have a cousin in Minneapolis (USA) and she told me that the last two winters there have been the warmest on record!

Water supply here continues to be a problem that just does not go away.

I feel that you are clutching at straws and artificial facts to back up your philosophy that human greed (sorry, economic growth) is the only perfect and rational philosophy and that it could not possibly do any harm. You are wrong John McLean, we are doing harm and the likes of you are making matters worse, causing confusion and time to be wasted. You are a trouble maker and a spoiler.

Lawrence McLean
(Canberra Australia)
Posted by Lawrence, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:38:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Lawrence, but you and your buddies are way off.

The greenhouse effect is an effect of the atmosphere. Consequently, any enhancement by human activity should show up here, first.

Global warming theory goes something like this – the earth’s surface is heated by incoming solar radiation during the day, and as a consequence, it becomes an emitter of heat as infrared radiation. Some of this heat is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the infrared band, which in turn re-emits it, partially to earth and partially to space. It is the earth-directed infrared radiation that is responsible for the "greenhouse effect", resulting in a warmer surface than would otherwise be the case.

Anthropogenic global warming theory predicates an additional warming of the surface of the earth, over and above the natural GH phenomenon, by radiative forcing from a warmer atmosphere, specifically, the lower troposphere. The problem is that, despite environmental markers at the surface showing evidence of warming since the late 19th century, no warming has been observed in the lower troposphere for as long as measurements have been taken, since 1957 by radiosondes and 1979 by satellite. Both sets of data are the most comprehensive in existence, and are essentially in agreement.

We are expected to believe, by AGW advocates, that an upward trend in surface environmental makers are evidence, per se, of anthropogenic warming, yet the driver, a warmer lower troposphere, is absent. We have the effect but without the cause, and no amount of blustering can alter this inherent absurdity.
Posted by A is A, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 4:14:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lawrence,

In paragraph 7 of the RedNova it states that 1998 was the hottest on record.

For temperature please see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/, just above "Answers to Frequently-asked Questions". Click on taveg12v.dat and the average global temperature anomalies will be displayed. (The temperature anomaly is one line, the percentage cover of the earth is the next line.) Down the far right column you will find the average annual value of 0.452 for 2004, 0.474 for 2003 and 2002, and 0.579 for 1998.

For carbon dioxide please see http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm and click on "Digital Data" (near the top). This will show a 1998 annual carbon dioxide level of 366.63 (actual) or 366.58 (fitted to a curve) for 1998. last October it was announced that the increase in 2004 was 2ppmv, taking the level to 377.64 (actual) or 377.61 (fitted) for 2004.

So you see, the world has cooled while carbon dioxide has increased !

I hope you noticed that RedNova talks in Fahrenheit and not Celsius.

Please also disregard their crap about more extreme weather conditions - the statistics show that it is simply not true.

Also, the heatwaves were not from global warming but relatively stationary high pressure cells which are caused by jetstream winds, not temperature, and these upper level winds helped drag warm air from other regions (probably in this case Africa). Temperature is very dependent on wind direction so what do the predictions say about wind direction and strength in future??

cheers
Posted by Snowman, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 10:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A is A
The lower troposphere is the the term for the air that people live in, what the heck are you saying that there has been no increase? Of course the average temperature has increased!

John McLean
The weather in a chaotic system, however you can still detect shifts in the attractor of a chaotic system. Which is what we are witnessing. Where has Kilimanjaro's ice cap gone? Where is the Arctic ice going? Other readers just check out: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861402.jpg and http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg
Both of you guys have no intuition, which is what is essential to be able to understand non-linear and/or complex systems.

Other readers please note: that I am a qualified Chemical Engineer, which includes the study of Thermodynamics and Heat transfer and in my opinion the comment by "A is A" to my post is a load of gobbilygook. Mankind is participating in a dangerous experiment. Shifting the attractor of any chaotic sytem results in a very large change in behaviour. Weather is a chaotic system, climate reflects the attractor of the Weather system. I think the climate scientists are right. We add more of a secondary greenhouse gas (Carbon dioxide) the lower atmosphere will get hotter, that is what is meant by shifting an attractor.

I stand by what I said in my first post, and extend it to "A is A". You are both a waste of time. If you had any sense you would realise that by clutching are such straws you are in danger of making serious fools of yourselves. I would be happy to be proven the fool in this issue, but sadly, I suspect it will be you guys. I only wish we did not have to prove it. Fools like you make it so!

Lawrence McLean
Posted by Lawrence, Thursday, 17 March 2005 11:45:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy