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 > The 'which years are the hottest?' non-conspiracy > Comments

The 'which years are the hottest?' non-conspiracy : Comments

By Stephen Keim, published 30/3/2010

Good science is more complicated than lay people and politicians would like to believe.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Amicus, genuine scepticism allows for the possibility that global warming is primarily caused by human activity. Most 'deniers' (sceptics) - from my reading - question the extent to which human activity contributes and others dare to question whether warming will be catastrophic (given observed trends and theoretical understanding as against sanctification of computer modelling) - maybe a continued warming will just be problematic, or maybe no big problem, or maybe advantageous on balance.

Science just does not survive without genuinely free and open debate. Charges of denialism seek to stifle that.

Regardless of that, however, there is good reason to support vastly greater investment into energy sources other than fossil fuels, as these will become depleted and more expensive due to massively increased demand upon them from places like China and India. Medieval windmills aren't the answer and solar cannot generate base-load power. This leaves nuclear and geo-thermal - but why not think big? Why so little support for fusion power?! (Answer: in my view, because capitalism stifles innovation because new capital will undermine existing capital)
Posted by byork, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 12:29:32 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
The author says the two main sources for temperature readings but he forgets all about satellite measurements.. there are two sources of satellite measurements of temperature of the atmosphere (as opposed to the ground networks), UAH and RSS. Both of those show the peak at 1998. Hanson's GISS site needs to reword its calculations. But so many questions have been raised the ground network (all the sites using ground instruments draw considerably from the same network) that we have to default to satellite in any case. Climategate was only a small part of it.. there were also the problems raised over Steve Jones' allowances for heat island effect, and the very recent fuss over the measuring stations being left out of the network they all use.
Sorry fellas, but we have to use the satellites.
Now those measurements show an increase of about 0.6 degree C since the mid-70s and there is no real question that this decade is hotter than any of the preceeding decade for perhaps centuries.
1. Is that an unusual increase?
2. Is the hot decade significant?
Answers - 1. No-one knows. 2. No.
Even with the imperfect surface network we are seeing the present temperature record in high resolution, but what we know of past changes for which there is only low resolution (quality, accuracy, completeness) data there is nothing unusual about the increase.
We know climate goes through cycles, and we are in a high part of one cycle. There have been suggestions that industrial gases have boosted temperatures but the trouble with that is there is no real way to tell whether any part of the increase is artifical. Even if this proposition is found to be true making forecasts using that knowledge given the vast unknowns in atmospheric feedback systems is a waste of time.
As is now acknolwedged the great oceanic climate cycles are a major marker of climate and both the Pacifc Decadal Ascillation and the Atlanic cycle have turned into cool mode. Ergo temperatures will turn down..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 12:49:10 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
byork, I'm open to climate change being added to by human activity, like land clearing, river course changes, farming practices and so many other possible sources of contribution, in fact I am pretty well sure those behaviors affect the climate.

What I'm not a believer in is that CO2 is THE culprit, there is no proof of that outside of climate scientists saying, well we know it can't be all these other factors, so it must be .. oh, that!

We don't know enough about climate to say that, which is why I'm skeptical, because if it was all so clear, why do climate scientists need to groom data?

Don't mistake skepticism of CO2 adding to climate change, to climate change skepticism - I'm not skeptical about, nor do I deny the climate changes.

I just got an email from an employer organisation in Victoria, one of the courses they offer is "How to recognize Carbon in the office environment and how to eliminate it", just the most absurd rubbish you could expect to hear. Is that what the "science" is about? We should be opposing that sort of crap, and the climate scientists do not.

I'm happy for open debate, are the Agw believers?

It seems the suppression of debate and insults (Denier!)come from the AGW side, would you agree?

So let's have a debate, but how do have it not reduced to slanging and insult? We haven't been able to so far have we?

Why do climate scientists want debate now, they never did before, it was all consensus, and the debate is over?

Whenever they are put to the test, they humbly request open debate .. yeah, right, sure they do.

Someone mentioned fusion on another article today and was attacked by a climate scientist, well they claim to be a scientist anyway, who knows this is an opinion site.

Me, I'd like more investment in bio fuels, like grassoline .. let's mow! Seriously, renewables that we can grow, have got to be considered, currently we seem to be pursuing renewables where we can't control the source.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 12:54:41 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
Take a legal matter to your lawyer, & you'll get an opinion. Take the same matter to 5 more, & you'll get five more, & different opinions. And this is in their area of expertise. They can never agree.

In that case, why would we pay any attention to the opinion of these blokes, when it comes to something they know nothing about?

One thing this AGW debate has brought home to me is just how lacking in any ability to understand anything are the legal profession, & even more suprisingly, the economists.

With the economists you would expect at least some understanding of numbers, but no, they have almost the least understanding when you talk figures.

Only the social science people, who could not possibly make the suggestions they do, if they had not stopped studding any math, after year 10, show less understanding.

I suppose one should have expected the lack of ability with numbers with economists, in view of the global financial crisis they have inflected on us, but it does still come as a bit of a surprise that they are quite as bad as they are.

The leagal blokes obviously just don't care. They'll take "evidence" from anywhere they can get an opinion that suits their case.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 1:05:43 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
So much talk and dogma about what the temperatures were in the last 10 years. What is always totally ignored by the believers in the gw religion is the fact that past prophecies of global cooling and warming often have be proven totally false despite the 'science' or should I say dogma being settled. Whether it be the recent freeze in Europe and America or the flooding of Queensland anyone with half a brain can see that these prophets really are guessing. If you want to call it science so be it but to slam and label people for questioning the dogmas is sheer arrogance.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 1:18:16 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
Amicus, yes, I agree that "the suppression of debate and insults (Denier!)come from the AGW side".

It does worry me, though, when the other side shows a similar tendency at times. The "suppression of debate", however, can only come from those with the power to suppress debate - and that's not the skeptics!
Posted by byork, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 1:32:44 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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