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 > Going cold on climate change > Comments

Going cold on climate change : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 2/3/2007

Looking at the science - a small error with the computer climate models now could make a nonsense of the results in 100 years.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All
Bennie, you ask whether "the author, or anyone else on this forum, [has] any comment on the increasing amount anecdotal evidence we are going through a period of rapid change like never before?"

The answer to this has to be yes. There is a teeming mass of anecdotal evidence available, particularly on the Internet.

Unfortunately, that actually lessens its value, since there is available on the Internet an increasing amount of anecdotal evidence of absolutely anything you care to name, from UFOs to Princess Diana murder conspiracies.

The question should not be about volume - the weather has always been a default talking-point, probably since the first dinosaur hunt was delayed by a damp outfield. So the fact that every man + dog can air an opinion that is heard by gazillions of other people is not, in itself, particularly useful.

From my own viewpoint, I can categorically report that in my youth the days were substantially warmer, longer and more carefree than they are today. I would however resist the notion that anyone should use this anecdote as evidence of anything more than misty-eyed nostalgia.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 4 March 2007 7:48:46 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
"Looking at the science - a small error with the computer climate models now could make a nonsense of the results in 100 years."

Waterboy..The above is the subheading of the authors article which to anyone with an ounce of commonsense would say it absolutely correct.
To quote but one source

" Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain. Even the degree of uncertainty is uncertain, a problem that stems from the fact that these climate models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behaviour."

Or

" At the very least the possibilty of human induced climate change is a known unknown but arguably it is close to making the transition to becoming a known known."

Top of the list of uncertainties are clouds and aerosols. If you want the evidence take up Vikings suggestion to me (assuming one hadnt done so already) and just google for it, and it just pours out.

The authers subheading is spot on. All it requires is the shonks at the CSIRO climate research group to also understand these simple truths and stop stirring up the natives with half baked opportunistic self serving nonsense, that some how their projections for next 70- 100 years have even a smidgin of credibility.
Posted by bigmal, Sunday, 4 March 2007 8:51:54 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
Pericles there's no doubt you can find whatever you're after on the net. I'm talking of the cancellation of Germany's skiing season, disappearing glaciers, the shrinking icecaps, all the signs among the natural world. All credible and documented. All this has occurred before but no-one claims it happens within a single generation.

This thread is about long-range forecasts, which won't mean much at all if nothing gets done today. Pure polemics. So, the IPCC didn't get its forecasts right? There are plenty of things it didn't predict, none good, that may well overshadow what it did. They say the tiger has claws; sceptics point out they grow very, very slowly and maybe even not at all, so it's safe to poke sticks at it. But that fails to acknowlege climate change shows all the signs of having teeth we aren't even aware of yet.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 4 March 2007 9:23:29 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
Bennie, you may be absolutely right.

All the doomsayers may be absolutely right.

The point is, how much are you prepared to sacrifice on the strength of their predictions?

The logical end-point, if the we-are-rooned contingent are correct, can only be reversion to a lifestyle that we left behind before the Industrial Revolution. Which, I'm afraid, the vast majority of us are manifestly incapable of reaching and sustaining.

Are there any other choices?

One is to accept the inevitability that we have exhausted this planet's ability to support us, but fight against the product of that depredation for as long as possible - i.e. wait until it happens, rather than anticipate it.

The all-consuming virtue of this approach is that if the pundits are wrong, or technology once again comes to our rescue, we have not turned ourselves needlessly into a bunch of subsistence farmers with no car, house in the suburbs, airconditioning and plasma TV.

Amidst all this hyperventilating about climate change one thing is missing: what exactly is needed to i) halt and ii) reverse the problem. All we have is vague "if we don't, then...", but this doesn't fill me with confidence.

If the science can paint such a gloomy picture of the consequences of ignoring global warming, surely they can paint us a picture of what life will be like if we take the needful action.

The fact they don't, worries me.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 4 March 2007 10:25:33 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
I can state with absolute certainty, to Bennie and all the other planet plodders who claim the IPCC is the fount of wisdom etc, that the IPCC conducted no consultation with the forest industry or the entire field of related experts when they devised their rules for accounting for carbon from wood sources. Absolutely zilch.

The IPCC had their collective heads so far up their own backsides that they were certain they knew it all but have since been forced to admit that uncertainty levels of 85% plus apply to the 19% of total anthropogenic emission that come from Land Use Change and Forestry.

That is another way of saying that there is only a one in six chance that they have got it right. But if they had bothered to consult with industry experts they would recognise that they are even more off the mark.

And when you run models that project out 100 years when basic inputs are out by between 25% and 35% it is absolutely certain that the projections are garbage out as a result of garbage in.
Posted by Perseus, Sunday, 4 March 2007 12:53:25 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
Sir, have you ever heard of the Precautionary Principle?

It has been estimated that between the '60s and '90s, major natural disaster rates had increased by a factor of 10. Uninsured disasters, by a factor of 7 and insured disasters by a factor of 15.

According to the Munich Reinsurance Corporation, one of the world's largest underwriters, the worldwide bill for severe weather damage from 1996 to 1998 was $180 billion.

The US and Canada have been cooperating in weather modification experiments since 1958.

Hundreds of experiments have been conducted including the Churchill Chemical Release Modules (CRMs) into the upper atmosphere. This involved the release of barium azide, barium chlorate, barium nitrate, barium perchlorate and barium peroxide. Some 2,000 kilograms of chemicals were dumped into the atmosphere including 1,000 kgs of barium and 100 kgs lithium which is a highly reactive toxic chemical that is very easily ionised by the sun's rays.

This increases the density of electrons in the lower ionosphere and creates free radicals that are highly reactive and capable of causing further chemical damage.

Changes in the ionosphere bring about corresponding changes in Earth's weather and climate.

The US military's intention to undertake environmental engineering especially to gain control of weather, is well documented.

Most scientists, when pressed, admit that the ionosphere must have been weakened at the time chemicals were dumped in the stratosphere (1990) from canisters simultaneously augmented by rockets launched from Puerto Rico, the Marshall Islands and in the Pacific Ocean, which produced luminous clouds that began as a pinpoint of intense red and blue light and spread to one-third the size of a full moon in about 30 seconds.

Environmentally destructive actions by the military, nuclear explosions, releases of radioactive substances from the mining of uranium, other industrial and chemical pollutants, land degradation, population explosions, ocean pollution, species extinction and other actions by covert governments etc etc are not evolutionary. They are man-made - in massive volumes.

Those who purposely make ignorant commentary about concerned scientists and environmentalists will remain in a simian state - truly unevolved.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 4 March 2007 5:19:38 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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All

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