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 > Marketing global warming > Comments

Marketing global warming : Comments

By David Holland, published 10/12/2007

Is 20th century warming so exceptional? How the IPCC has dealt with this issue exposes poor process, bias and concealment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All
Col, I fully admit it's speculation - I'm still hoping to get an answer from an expert in the field.

The only data I have to back up my speculation is this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=2004&year2=2007&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

Which shows two areas of Greenland where the summers have warmed over last 4 years, but one area where it hasn't, so it's not terribly conclusive.

Nick, whatever. All I ask is for you to tell me exactly how much evidence would you consider good enough to make it worth making what is, in the scheme of things, a fairly inexpensive change away from heavy fossil fuel dependence, which would have multiple benefits even aside from reducing CO2 emissions? Personally, even if the scientists themselves were only 50% sure that allowing emissions to go on unrestrained was likely to lead to serious consequences, I would think that quite good enough rationale. You appear to want 100% certainty.
Posted by wizofaus , Friday, 21 December 2007 6:00:49 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
This a response from glaciologist Elisabeth Isaksson:

"Very good that you are interested in what is happening with our polar areas. I think you have lined out many of the possible answers in your message! The Greenland ice sheet is large and indeed the dynamics very complex. Therefore it is difficult to single out one reason for the melting but it is little doubt that the meterological conditions during summer are playing a major role here. It is not only temperatures that are important but also wind, clouds, radiation, albedo..... Albedo is extremely important. Once the surface conidtions have changed from a white highly refelctive surface to a darker melting one it will warm up even faster because a dark surface attracts more solar radiation (heat) that a white one. This is a the most important feedback mechansim for polar areas.
I hope this is helpful information for you."

In other words I think it's fair to conclude that it's too soon to conclude that any acceleration in the speed of ice melt in Greenland in the last 4 years is indicative of any acceleration in the rate of global warming.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 22 December 2007 7:04:02 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
Catching up/stepping back.

Graham – I appreciate your suggestion to write an essay for OLO (I may even take that up, we’ll see) and I fully understand and accept your reasons for word/post/time limits.

Given your expertise in on-line publishing, I defer to you when it comes to open forums such as this.

I also think you and the OLO team do a fantastic job in providing a forum such as this – thanks, and all success to you.

I would also defer to Col Rouge (if I needed an opinion about accountancy) as I would defer to my oncologist about my prostate … as much as I defer to my mechanic about the ‘health’ of my car.

There are similarities, there are differences.

I have extensive experience and qualified expertise in a specialised field of water resources, and am but one of the myriad of scientists that make up the knowledge base we have in science today. But I am not an atmospheric physicist, glaciologist, paleoclimatologist, geochemist, oceanographer or climate scientist.

I can, because of my background involvement and training, have an informed opinion about climate science.

Others, because of their deep desire to understand (like Wizofaus in contacting a glaciologist) can also have an informed opinion about climate change in Greenland.

Others choose not to enquire of sources that may pose a threat to their beliefs. Some ask, why not?

However, it never ceases to amaze me why so many people presume to know more about the intracies and technicalities of a specific science than the people who have specialist knowledge that has been gained over years of dedicated pursuit.

I am sure you realise this as I am just as sure you have rolled your eyes at some comments you see on OLO.

You have asked specific questions of some things that I thought were better addressed in the scientific journals. You did not like my citations so I pointed to specific papers (which you did not, or could not, read). Everybody was challenged to contact the experts themselves.

Wizofaus did, the rest chose not to.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:13:36 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
Wizofaus,

The mendacity of Nick Lanelaw/Leo Lane has been made public, in his own spin about the Xstrata case.

He continually distorts the facts about the Xtrata saga. Nick/Leo also thinks Carter, the IPA and the Lavoisier Group are the ‘ant’s pants’ in understanding climate change.

The LG are a conservative ‘right-wing think-tank’ that has been linked to policy formulation of the Howard government and actions of the “Greenhouse Mafia”.

Nick/Leo failed to mention that the QCC successfully appealed the Xtrata decision and the Queensland Court of Appeal ordered a re-trial.

However, the government indicated on the day of the judgment it would amend the law to prevent any delay to the mine. The government passed the amendments four days later, effectively over-riding the decision of the Court of Appeal and preventing a re-hearing.

The Decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal:

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QCA07-338.pdf

It’s not about the science Wiz, it’s about power and control of politicians and the masses by a few self-interest groups, including the fossil fuel lobby and the likes of the IPA, Tech Central Station, Competitive Enterprise and Cato Institutes, and Nick/Leo’s favourite, the Lavoisier Group … to name but a few.

Nick (Leo) – I agree … in millions of years we will have another ice age. Unfortunately, you seem incapable of understanding that we are currently in a warming period the rate of which, in your “reasonable” time frame, has not been experienced before.

You also seem incapable of understanding that if you take out anthropogenic CO2 over the last 200 yrs as a driver of this current warming period, nothing else can explain it – not Solar, not cosmic rays, not Milankovich cycles, not even your farts … not nuthin.

I hope you understand (I have me-doubts) that there are very many different sciences – geology is but one. If I want to find out about rock layering, I will call Bob Carter who has indeed published in peer review journals on stratigraphy. He is has no kudos in climate science journals, he attracts kudos in daily newspapers – not the same league.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:16:19 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
An investor, a politician and an IPCC scientist were on a ship.. It began to sink. The three found themselves in a 2 man lifeboat, so they knew one had to go.

Without fuss the IPCC bloke went over the side and swam for a tiny smudge on the horizon.

Suddenly several menacing fins broke the surface and the other two thought the IPCC scientist was about to pay the ultimate price. But to their amazement two sharks started leading the way and the others formed a protective circle as whales and dolphins tried to attack the scientist.

Watching gobsmacked from the lifeboat, the politician stammered, “That’s the weirdest thing I ever saw!”

“Not so weird,” replied the investor, “the Dolphins & whales KNOW Global Warming theory is an eco-terrorist coverup for heinous wastewater pollution that is destroying their species. And the sharks protective behaviour? Well that’s simply a matter of professional courtesy.”

*-*-*-*-*

Have a good one people
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 23 December 2007 3:03:08 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
You too KAEP, have a very Ricci Christmas and a Dynamic New Year.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 23 December 2007 6:45:28 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. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All

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