What global warming?

[casado]

So Casado, despite all this talk, and by god are you doing a lot of talking, you don't actually have anything to add to the great discussion other than rhetoric.

You claim to be able to understand, and work with this data. You even claim to have done calculations of your own which draw conclusions which even we should be able to see. But you fail to release your data, nor actually tell us what it is you've found.

You'd make a better politician than you ever would a scientist.

Well, if you think rhetoric is your problem, I think. More so if you think that I can work with these data and you can't.
May be cjd, because of his or her limited skills thinks that you need a supercomputer to analyse 1548, 3 digits, numbers. I wonder what computer his or her accountant must be using to analyse his or her business invoices.
Which part are you interested on? the part that tells the history of the lack of data and therefore we can not conclude that the average temperature in 1998 can not be said to be unprecedented even in a short term period, or, put in another way, that the data is compatible with the statement that the same average temperature in 1998 was also there at the end of the XIX century, or the part (which require some explaining of basic physics, specifically basic concepts of thermology) in which I say that regardless of it the data are irrelevant?
The skill to extract from that set of data the yearly average temperature and the standard deviation, should be considered general knowledge, more so when that comes as standard in any spread sheet application (I only use OpenOffice on Linux, by the way). Which in this case gives us the minimum deviation, since data are given already averaged over a month period, so, if we wanted to me more precise, we would have to add the monthly standard deviation to the yearly standard deviation. But since that would go on may favour, and I don't need favours, lets forget about it. So, you will see that the statistical indetermination on the data decreases enormously as we approach the end of the end of the last century. Well, that has nothing to do, obviously, with improving thermometers as we have not taken into account systematic errors so far as we do not have the information about it, we need to assume that those are much smaller than this deviations otherwise this analysis wouldn't make sense, and the situation would be even worse. If you don't like to look at numbers, you can see a plot, I didn't save the link, if you go the the Met Office website an look for the plot of temperatures "since records began", and you would actually see what I am telling you here, in a nice little graph.
Why then we see that. It was yesterday that before leaving I played a bit with it looking at this things, kind of a pastime. But then, if you look at each row, what do you see? What you see in the rows until well into the XX century, is the changes of the seasons, January colder than July, for instance. Is that what we should expect? Well, we don't see that in the latter rows, why? Because, specially after the II WW, and more so in the fifties, when the Americans were interested in studying the Pacific Ocean and its climate, the weight of temperature readings in the southern hemisphere, as it should be, is more or less the same as the northern hemisphere, and since the seasons in both hemispheres are in inversely correlated, when here is summer there is winter and so, on, when you take them together it smooths out the variations along the year. That is why the standard deviation decreases.
But standard deviations are just a guess, a statistical guess of what we do not know. Nos it is impossible to know what was the temperature in February 1880 in the Southern Pacific Ocean, to take the standard deviation to guess where that year's Earth average temperature falls, equates to making a lot of statistical assumptions, among them that the temperature in the places from which we have data, are uncorrelated to those from which we do not have data, which is actually negate the principle of having global temperature forcing. The only thing that we can say is that we don't know. But lets make a concession and assume that we do know, that we can take this analysis as it is, and lets make another concession and forget of the statistical errors on the monthly averages. As God, if there is one, has a sense of humour, the temperatures recorded in 1998 falls withing the error bars of the temperatures recorded at the end of 1880. This with their data at hand. I haven't gone into discussing what reliable that data is, etc. etc.
So, now, are you interested in the part that says that 'and so what..' because this is irrelevant?

 

[casado]

There was this three guys that got into a car and the car wouldn't start. One of the, who was a environmentalist activist said, "You see? I told you that we could not going on emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, that one day every thing would break down". The physicist among them try to find a logical explanation, "may be the battery is flat, or there is something wrong with the starter engine", but he couldn't figure it out. So, the IT guy who also was there intervened and said, "Look guys, why don't we get out of the car and start all over again?"

 

[cjd]

Only morons like you .........

Oops, that's torn it; you're definitely not getting a Christmas card now.

 

[casado]

Oops, that's torn it; you're definitely not getting a Christmas card now.

Yeah! let's save trees! Mr/Ms whoever

 

[casado]

Well, I forfeited a Christmas card from cjd, but, hey! this is the season of love and harmony and I love this guy, the hacker. If I know who he was I would break all my taboos and I would kiss him. If you haven't downloaded the FIO2009.zip file, you should do, you can copy it many times and makes a really good Christmas present for all the family and friends, 61Mb of inside information. They still use FORTRAN for their computation, that to me look a bit out of fashion to be honest, but anyway. There is a small paper in there, signed by Nathan P. Gillett of the CRU, very short, but let me just put here the abstract (in the original is all in bold typeface, but let me use only typeface to highlight some parts):
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In recent decades winter sea level pressure has decreased over the Arctic and increased in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics, with an associated strengthening of midlatitude westerly winds1. This trend has previously been shown to be inconsistent with simulated internal climate variability and with the simulated response to greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosol changes2,3, but other climate influences have been suggested as a possible reason for the discrepancy3. Here, for the first time, we compare observed Northern Hemisphere sea level pressure trends with those simulated in response to all the major climate forcings in eight state-of-the-art coupled climate models over the past 50 years, and find that the observed trend is inconsistent both with simulated internal variability and with the simulated response to combined human and natural climate influences. [/FONT]
You see know why I was asking you to bring on the peer reviewed papers? Because they can't say what the media, and the environmentalists warriors say they say. There is a very interesting document composed to train the staff on how to get funding for their projects etc., which shows so clearly how much power politicians have over scientists, but this we already knew.

 

[casado]

Well, I am going for lunch now, but before, I leave let me present you with another jewel, here is an email (I remove the headers and the signature, you I do not disseminate contact information) that shows in what such good terms were, at least in 2000, Mick Kelly of the CRU and Paul V. Horsman, of Greenpeace, self described as Oil Campaigner:
Hi Mick,

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular
thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?

All the best,

Paul


---------------
Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Greenpeace,

Well, well, never mind, I am sure that Dr Kelly was never influence by his mates, after all, this 'Top climate researcher' doesn't look very interested in climate research after all. You can look it up in his webssite http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/people/mick_kelly.htm, where he shows, judging from his publications a kin interest in social, political and management issues but not really interested in cranking numbers.
Such is life, what can you do apart from go compare?

 

[Subbynet]

Well, well, never mind, I am sure that Dr Kelly was never influence by his mates, after all, this 'Top climate researcher' doesn't look very interested in climate research after all. You can look it up in his webssite http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/people/mick_kelly.htm, where he shows, judging from his publications a kin interest in social, political and management issues but not really interested in cranking numbers.
Such is life, what can you do apart from go compare?

Author of over one hundred scientific publications, Mick Kelly was a member of the team that produced the definitive temperature record used in global warming detection studies. He has contributed to various international reviews of the global warming and nuclear winter issues. His primary research areas include: global warming, volcanic effects, solar influences, the El Nio Southern Oscillation phenomenon, and other potential causes of climatic change; climate prediction; Arctic climate and sea-ice conditions; climate history, particularly during the instrumental era; climate and development; and environment and society. His research has been funded by British Petroleum, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the US Department of Energy, the Greater London Council, Greenpeace International and the Natural Environment Research Council, amongst others.

Frankly, that was a weak attack on a man whose credentials could embarrass you.

 

[StephenW]

Did not notice Mick Kelly's name mentioned much re Climategate but 3 mins into this "video" he gets a mention: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/understanding-climategate-whos-who-a-video/

 

[cjd]

I believe it dates bact to the time credit in a pub was chalked up.
Earl

I just had to find out:

from "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable" revised by Adrian Room (HarperCollinsPublishers, New York, 1999, Sixteenth Edition):

BY A LONG CHALK - By far; easily. The allusion is to the custom of making merit marks with chalk, before lead pencils were common. See also NOT BY A LONG CHALK.

NOT BY A LONG CHALK - Not by any means; in no way. The allusion is probably to the chalk marks made on a floor to record the score of a player or team. A 'long chalk' would mean a high score. See also BY A LONG CHALK

 

[casado]

Did not notice Mick Kelly's name mentioned much re Climategate but 3 mins into this "video" he gets a mention: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/understanding-climategate-whos-who-a-video/

They all have one thing in common, their profession, which is not of scientists, the proper name is intellectual prostitutes. They are activists who have a got into positions where they can further their political agendas, with disregard to any duty they have to truth. In science there has always been, and there should be because is the way things work, controversy. But controversy used to be around who has the better understanding of a given problem, not about who are the good and the bad guys.
But I am saying this not out of frustration of rage, modern times have made many people prostitutes, one way or the other. And I am sure "on the other camp" there may be as many intellectual prostitutes as on that one.
If affairs were conducted in the past as they are today, we would never have the Internet, for example, because we wouldn't have understood electrons, or even we may even miss their discovery.
They have commercialized science, and make it driven by targets and result. Reading the brief in the hacked files about how to get funding, you read a lot of that, especially when it gets into how to get funding from government agencies because they pay in exchange of a product. Of course, this makes people to publish rubbish in great amounts only for the sake that they have to meet targets, and get funding. If you notice, this Dr Kelly, has 100 published papers (peer reviewed by his colleges, or brothers of arms should we say), and that makes him, if we apply this logic, a better scientist probably than Einstein, Dirac, and so many others. (By the way, I don't know how many papers Einstein produced, but all his contribution to posterity is contained in less than a half a dozen)
This are the consequences of applying Thatcherism/Blarism even to the long term endeavors of human kind.
You can pay a scientist for his capacity, and, above all, his intellectual honesty, but you can't pay in exchange that he or she have to solve a problem on a given time frame, because the problem may not have a solution. But this will not deter morons like cjd and his/her bosses, or should I say leaders?, from consider sciences as any other job, like building houses, or tighten screws. They can not tell the difference because they haven't got a clue about what creativity is, where new, really new ideas come from, because they never had any.
The shame of it is that they do the same with arts, artists are used by the power and they deliver to measure. Therefore, we have two decades now of both, scientific and artistic mediocrity, an X-factor-grade intellectual society. Intellectual starvation brings many other problems, that are plain to see all around us.
Then they try to ridicule me when I say that in many respects this situation is worse, aside physical violence of which there is plenty never the less, than in recent, well known, totalitarian regimes. We do not have any other master than the state and their satellite groups of cronies, other loyalties like to truth and fairness need to be prosecuted and eliminated. The individual, its conscience and its freedom, should be subordinated to the grater good, that only the leaders of the charade know.
But look at the bright side, I laugh my socks off when I watch the news. The BBC reports that the industrialized countries are offering 2C, while the developing nations are asking for 1.5C, and they fear that if an agreement is not reached we could have 3C. Hey! why not split the difference? come on, lets settle it for 1.75C and call it a summit? The average temperature in 2100 will be what ever has to be, regardless of how many degrees of increase the World leaders sell to each other.

 

[cjd]

Well global conspiracy centred on Copenhagen fell apart nicely. Nazis and Stalinists simply ain't as organised as they used to be.

 

[casado]

Well global conspiracy centred on Copenhagen fell apart nicely. Nazis and Stalinists simply ain't as organised as they used to be.

Did it? We have to admit that they solved the problem of global warming the first day, since then Europe and the US East Coast barely make ti over 0C. Certainly you can't ask for more.

 

[Seomul]

Every budy in this world talking about global warming but did they took any measures to prevent ..using atomic things to destroy human being as well as environment.

 

[casado]

Humanity faces a daunting question..........
is there intelligent life on this planet? Agents Mulder and Scully, from the FBI, are already working on it.
While we anxiously wait for the answer to such an intriguing question, let's examine the publications of Prof. Nick Kelly. Let me say upfront that I have nothing personal against Prof. Kelly. I couldn't have since I didn't have the honor of his acquaintance. I am sure he is a nice person, who may even like cats, along with, of course, pandas and all other endangered species. I only object to his work being used as authority in support of the idea that the hypothesis of the anthropogenic global warming of the atmosphere. The objection is based on very good reasons as it is plain to see in this link:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/ext/by_type.htm
I have to admit that Prof. Kelly has a hand for writing. Not only has published over 100 papers in refereed journals, but he also has a number of other publications, books, chapters in books, you name it. It has published so much that one can't but wonder how he manage to do anything else. May be a should take tips from him on how to become a bit more prolific than I am.
Yet, numbers are not the whole story. It doesn't take much to have a look at the titles of his publications, to see that most if not all of them, are not relevant to the physics, nor the chemistry, or for that mater any other positive science concerning the dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere.
Titles like Compensation for climate change must meet needs: Correspondence. or Coastal Bathing Water Health Risks: Assessing the Public and Scientific Acceptability of Health Risk Standards hardly promise to shed any light on whether we would be biting our finger nails waiting for the day of reckoning when we will all be fried to death on our own CO2 emissions.
Seems that someone forgot that the fact that a paper has been peer reviewed is not a warranty, not only that the peers reviewing the paper are not peers of the author in more ways than one, but also that the content of the paper has any relevance to the subject matter we are talking about.
Another proof of the propaganda behind this issue, if more proof was needed, is this way of repeating till exhaustion this tune of the peer reviewed publications without even look at the title of those publications. They know, 99% of the public will never check anyway.
The other part of the trick is this bundling together several areas of scholarship under the same name: Earth Sciences, where on can find, physicists, chemists, biologists, etc, but also, geographers, and among them, human geographers, more interested in socio-political issues than the dynamics of the Earth. But, hey! since now they are also called Earth Scientists, who cares? we should assume that they know something about the Earth.
I have checked, and this kind of bundles is the sort of thing the University of East Anglia likes: Multidisciplinary teams, they repeat it so many times in their documents that one may thing that multidisciplinarity in itself is a value superior to good solid scientific results. On the other hand, it doesn't shock me really, because the other code word they use a lot in this institution is customer satisfaction when they talk about students and how well hey are or they pretend they are been taken care of, which tells me that that university, as, I assume, many other second grade universities like this do, are full of moronic Thatcherite/Blairite managers, who did not have the the benefit of a minimal education that would have help them that the beneficiaries of a university (Universitas) are not only the students, not the most benefited, but the wider society, present and future, and that a university is a place where everyone, form students to scholars, goes as much to acquire knowledge as to produce knowledge and share it. So, this gang of T/B activist not only seem to have taken upon themselves the task of contributing to the destruction over 500 years of European University tradition, but also the task of destroying the beautifully and rich English language, reducing the idea of University to that of Secondary School, that of student to that of customer, and that of research group to a multidisciplinary team.
I haven't seen it, but I am sure as day follows night, that among the assets of this university managers we can find robust action plan. You know? Robust, from the Latin robustus, hard, strong, because I am sure, like in any other T/B institution, Robustus Rex Universitas East Anglia

 

[StephenW]

Re "university is a place where everyone, form students to scholars, goes as much to acquire knowledge as to produce knowledge and share it".

In the world outside of the university I think "information" drowns out "knowledge". By that I mean people are bombarded by all forms of media delivering "information" (good, bad, trivia, propaganda) that they are less likely to acquire worthwhile "knowledge" compared to someone brought up just a few decades ago. Perhaps this is why some people are now more susceptible to believe things that are repeated often enough.

 

[casado]

Re "university is a place where everyone, form students to scholars, goes as much to acquire knowledge as to produce knowledge and share it".

In the world outside of the university I think "information" drowns out "knowledge". By that I mean people are bombarded by all forms of media delivering "information" (good, bad, trivia, propaganda) that they are less likely to acquire worthwhile "knowledge" compared to someone brought up just a few decades ago. Perhaps this is why some people are now more susceptible to believe things that are repeated often enough.

You may be right, but at the end of the day, what I think is that the West is in desperate need of psychiatrists, good ones, not talking monkeys self appointed therapist, no, we need the ones that know how to tackle things like collective schizophrenia and the like.
I woke up today to the news in the alarm radio: this, they say, is the worse winter in 100 years. Which I take with more than a pinch of salt since another thing that is clear by know is that you can not trust this bits of "information". Go down, prepare my coffee, turn on the TV, BBC Breakfast, see that we have more than 3 inches of snow outside, and a fat lady shows up on the show, with the only authority of being an environmentalist activist, saying that we shouldn't eat meat on Mondays to combat global warming. From what I was anticipating the job of clearing the drive would be I was planning to eat a cow every Monday if that helped. It must be particularly hard to be a comedian these days, having to compete now also with the news programs. I sipped my coffee wondering how much strength faith brings to people, that by believing they are the chosen ones to save the planet they have the nerve to tell every one else to eat less when it quite apparent that who is talking overeats enough to feed a few children in the third world. What happened of leading by example?

What you say, about propaganda, is true, and well known. The immense majority of people is, or want to be, conformists. They fear to be different, their biggest aspiration in life is to be like everybody else, even if that means to be an individual like everybody else. So, if you repeat something many times, avoiding (as they are) any discrepant voice, people fear to be the odd one out. That is manipulation, not information. If instead of having this particular cold winter, we had a particular warm summer, that, in the media, would have been an irrefutable proof that we would be doomed by global warming, but that we are having three of four weeks now of virtually freezing temperatures doesn't mean anything to them.
Let me make a prediction. Since, by the look of things, this winter is like they used to be in the sixties and seventies, we will have a break in the bad weather somewhere around February, one or two weeks of nicer weather probably with sun and so on, what is called, in my place of origin, Saint Martin's little summer. If this happens, wait for the comments on TV about that been a proof of global warming.

 

[david8765]

In response to questions about a friends stand on climate change he responded with this:

Global Population Graph

 

[casado]

In response to questions about a friends stand on climate change he responded with this:

Global Population Graph

By the look of the graph Adam and Eve lived at the time of Jesus, they may even hand out together. BTW, tell your friend not to mention this plot to any politician, they my outlaw breaking wind to combat global warming.

It is a nice plot though, if we could trust it. It shows how successful the human species has been.

 

it shows that we must as a race think about a poulation cap its time to outlaw more than two kids to start with

 

[Naughty Vend]

...then get the socialists out of government if you want a policy to cap family size, you can't have both.

Socilaisim dictates fair for everyone yet it overtaxes the wealthy, whom no doubt provided the employment for the less wealthy, then as society declines in a spiral the unemployed have kids and are entitled apparently to more government money... and so they breed. Thus increasing the ratio of poor DNA derived beings as an average whom become dependant upon the state and thus the wealthy, whom then leave the country making room for non-resident immigrants.

I say, if after testing you are a junkie or alky... or deemed non-financially viable long term and keep sticking your wedding tackle into each other to make more little drains upon society, you should have your nuts disconnected because obviouslly your brain is challenged regardless and the righty's will be empowered again. Lets face it, if the state wasn't there to support these losers when they can't earn enough to feed their family that they freely chose to procreate then very quickly condom sales would go through the roof when kebab meat becomes a luxury item. That giro checks should be in the form of a home delivery from Asda or Tesco not cash in some grubby little parastitical tracksuit wearing unemployable waste of air.

Less people, less polution, less greenhouse gas... less crime... better society. Rant over... snort snort...

 

...then get the socialists out of government if you want a policy to cap family size, you can't have both.

Socilaisim dictates fair for everyone yet it overtaxes the wealthy, whom no doubt provided the employment for the less wealthy, then as society declines in a spiral the unemployed have kids and are entitled apparently to more government money... and so they breed. Thus increasing the ratio of poor DNA derived beings as an average whom become dependant upon the state and thus the wealthy, whom then leave the country making room for non-resident immigrants.

I say, if after testing you are a junkie or alky... or deemed non-financially viable long term and keep sticking your wedding tackle into each other to make more little drains upon society, you should have your nuts disconnected because obviouslly your brain is challenged regardless and the righty's will be empowered again. Lets face it, if the state wasn't there to support these losers when they can't earn enough to feed their family that they freely chose to procreate then very quickly condom sales would go through the roof when kebab meat becomes a luxury item. That giro checks should be in the form of a home delivery from Asda or Tesco not cash in some grubby little parastitical tracksuit wearing unemployable waste of air.

Less people, less polution, less greenhouse gas... less crime... better society. Rant over... snort snort...

so what do we do about the fact that life is a lottery,and for the majority it is down to which pussy they happened to pop out,and where the said item was at the time of your birth.?:|

Earl

 

[Subbynet]

so what do we do about the fact that life is a lottery,and for the majority it is down to which pussy they happened to pop out,and where the said item was at the time of your birth.?:|

Earl

Sure - Shrug your shoulders and say "that's life!"...

 

[casado]

it shows that we must as a race think about a poulation cap its time to outlaw more than two kids to start with

Why not denying medical treatment to every one over 45? Why is better to have an older useless population than prevent to have children? just because you are afraid to die? it will happen regardless of your fear.

This is total bold sh*t. If you are concern about the risk of over population and want to do something about it, just find a bridge high enough and jump from it.

Then we have NVI giving us an example of modern idiocy. Apparently, according to him, "good DNA" is (obviously his) the one that make the specimen of the spices to earn more money, and, therefore, use more resources in a way that would justify other people to live. He obviously heard something, far in the distance, about Darwin's theory of natural selection, but he didn't get it. Darwin talked about the survival of the fittest not the richest, and the fittest, by definition are the ones that can procreate more successfully, so, according to Darwin theory, the best DNA is, if NVI is right, those of the poor families who reproduce more, not of the brainless yuppie who had a vasectomy done to get laid avoiding any risk of compromise.

At the end, if this has a solution, Nature will take care of it. Putting a cap on the number of children would be most unfair, following NVI point of view, since we are not all equal, as some of us have much better DNA that most of you, things should be done in a way that our reproduction should take precedence over yours. So, may be, taking his theory seriously, what needs to be done is a mandatory sterilization of all of you who have poor DNA. You don't thing you are the ones with poor DNA? o well, that is another element of Darwin theory: competition. And as competition goes, whoever will be here in the future, in say 500 years, is very unlikely that they will be white caucasian.

All this sort of conversations, which aren't new, is a byproduct of a dimming civilization, which tend to favor pessimistic views over optimistic initiatives, fear over enthusiasm, in a word a depressed society. What you should be asking yourselves, if you were worth the DNA you inherited, is how to solve the problems humans are facing, should we start making plans for the colonization of space in 500 years? who to obtain and manage more resources, how to find the technology. To think that we are just here to be alive with no purpose other than spend half of our time trying to make a living to pay our mobile phone bill, and the other half sending text messages, is admitting that we are here for nothing, and why would we care if some thing like the swine flue wipes us all? what would be lost? just because you are afraid of some thing that will happen to you anyway should we be concern to extend the life of something that is otherwise worthless?

But if you think that, as far as we know, we are the only means the Universe has to think, create art, science, etc., then you will understand how important it is that we follow our call not as citizens, or taxpayers, or voters, or activists, but as another part of nature and that we behave as nature intended.

 

[StephenW]

Q: What's the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'?

A: Climate is when it's warming and weather is when it's not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...s-the-difference-between-weather-and-climate/

 

Sure - Shrug your shoulders and say "that's life!"...

Life is what the population make it.

Shrugging shoulders is not good exercise.:|

Earl

 

[quikshop]

We can argue whether climate change is happening or not. I tend to think it is, but it has been totally politicised, and there is mass media hysteria.

Well said, just look at the BBC News panic reporting on 2 inches of snow! They've even got a special 'snow report' on this evening

Global warming imho is a natural cyclical event that takes place over tens of thousands of years. The climate does not cool or warm in a straight line, anything from volcanic to solar activity can have short term effects.

Is global warming caused by mankind, no. That's the sort of ignorance that religious sorts use when claiming man has dominion over all other life.

Is humankind having an impact on the natural environmental cycles. I suspect we are and the real push in scientific effort should be in quantifying what impact humankind is having.

Am I going to drive 5 miles a week less to save the planet... does that Government advert even deserve the electricity my TV uses whilst the ad is on? No to both

 

[Cornish Steve]

I vowed not to get sucked back into this thread, but I would like to pass along one really interesting piece of information I learned yesterday.

Someone posted a peer-reviewed article in one of the scientific journals that appears to show a strong correlation between warming and CFCs. As the amount of CFCs in the upper atmosphere increased, so we witnessed a small but similar amount of warming. When CFCs were phased out (the effects became noticeable around 2000), warming stopped and cooling returned. The theory appears to match the data quite nicely. During the recent years of cooling, carbon dioxide levels continued to increase, so clearly the CO2 had little if anything to do with the previous years of warming. Of course, the increases are small, and weather cycles extend over centuries, not just years, but this suggestion does appear to have some merit.

I'd like to see more serious research work done in this area.

 

[sysops]

I vowed not to get sucked back into this thread, but I would like to pass along one really interesting piece of information I learned yesterday.

Someone posted a peer-reviewed article in one of the scientific journals that appears to show a strong correlation between warming and CFCs. As the amount of CFCs in the upper atmosphere increased, so we witnessed a small amount of warming. When CFCs were phased out (the effects became noticeable around 2000), warming stopped and cooling returned. The theory appears to match the data quite nicely. During the recent years of cooling, carbon dioxide levels continued to increase, so clearly the CO2 had little if anything to do with the previous years of warming.

I'd like to see more serious research work done in this area.

Correlation does not equal causality. If it did, then it would all be down to pirates.

Yes, CFCs are potent greenhouse gases, but they were released in minuscule amounts (relative to the overall atmospheric gas volume). Very unlikely to be a causal link.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Correlation does not equal causality.

You're right, but careful research can determine the independent versus dependent variables. As I mentioned earlier, increases in carbon dioxide levels in past eras always followed warming, so warming was the independent variable and carbon dioxide the dependent one (which, of course, is ignored by global warming alarmists). More work is needed to determine the link between CFCs and the slight warming trend seen in the 80s and 90s. Given the artificial origins of CFCs, though, I find it highly unlikely that they appeared because of warming.

 

[casado]

Correlation does not equal causality. If it did, then it would all be down to pirates.

Yes, CFCs are potent greenhouse gases, but they were released in minuscule amounts (relative to the overall atmospheric gas volume). Very unlikely to be a causal link.

Not only that, that the amount is not only minuscule is infinitesimal, is that is a very heavy molecule, the likelihood that it lingers in the atmosphere for long is nearly nil. Besides, I doubt very much that the amount of CFC released into the atmosphere has decreased significantly during the nineties. There was a lot of hype about replacing fridges, but what happened to those old fridges?, here in the UK they have been rotting away in land fields awaiting the promised controlled disposal that never came, releasing more CFC than if they were well kept in peoples homes. I can only imagine what happened to fridges like those in developing countries.
That was another scam, from with some tech who have patented replacements for CFC, many here in the UK, benefited from. The hole in the so much debated ozone layer, that also fluctuates and of whom we do not have data that go back far enough, seem to be correlated with chlorine (very light gas) emissions by a volcano near the Antarctic not with man made fridges, chlorine depletes the ozone layer by reacting with oxygen atoms.

Cornish Steve has fallen in the same trap as the warmists. Is not a question of whether their prediction is right or wrong, is that trying to make a prediction as they doesn't make any sense. There is no way, at the moment, that we can predict the thermal state of the whole atmosphere year on year, essentially because we haven't got the method to do describe that state. That was what I was trying to say when I asked cjd about the meaning of temperature.

Temperature is a physical magnitude introduced to clasify the state of system which are in THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM. Then is extended to try to stady process in very particular situations called NEAR EQUILIBRIUM. Well, the Earth, and the Atmosphere, ara systems far, far, very far, from equilibrium. So, there is no way we can talk about one temperature to define the thermal state of the atmosphere. We can make an effor and assume that if we look at the Earths Atmosphere from very far, and over a very long period of time, we may take an average temperature as the equivalent of a temperature for a system in equilibrium. Like even if we know that the water ina swiming pool is more or less in equilibrium, there must be temperature fluctuations from one spot in the pool to the other, and from one minute to the other, but if we leave a thermometer with a large contact surface with the water and for a long enough period, and we read the average temperature, we may have averaged out all those fluctuations. In thermal systems, those fluctuations would be of an amplitude smaller than the acuracy of the thermometer, so we would be set. Oviuously not in the Atmosphere, that there are fluctuations of over 60C counting only inhabited areas of the planet. They can be -20C in Scotland and over 40C in Rio the Janeiro. So, the only way this average of temperatures can resemble in some sort of way a temperature that gives us an indication of the thermal state of the atmosphere is if we average over: all points on the plantet at all elevations, average over all known natural cycles, not only seasonal, but sun cycles, etc. This would take us to the point that the only average atmosphere temperature that has any sense would be one averaged over decades, 3, 4, 5, several decades. Talking of year averaged temperature doesn't make any sense at all. It is most disturbing to see people who are bein paid handsomly as scientists ignore this fact that they had to read in their undergraduate courses.

In may oppinion, and I think --despite any irony coming form people like cjd, I talk with some othority here, is that they are doing the opposite what they should be doing. Do humans make an effect on the environment? for sure, after all the country side is full of crop fields and not of forests and marsh lands because of us, but to what extend that impact is in the climate? we do not know at the moment. If there was a serious interest in estudying this problem, they would designe a research prgramme, not a maketing campaing. In my oppinion they should choose carefully several places, may be upper troposphere in same areas, deserts, tops of mauntains, etc., and try to study variations in those local climate. Thos spots should be choosen in a way that they reduce the effect of anything else, like water vapour (sho the spots whould be particularly dry) etc., and then study the correlations among them, and with know sources of climate fluctuations like the sun, etc. Even so, there is no warranty that an study like that, that needs to be carried out over decades, would yield results, that is the nature of science. What can't be done is to compute an non-sense yearly average using uncontrolled temperature measures that have been taking long ago, with no common standrads, camparing them with very different averages (before 1950 averages are only in some parts of the northern hemisphere, since then temperatures from other parts of the planet have been gradually added) and draw conclussions from that.

The situation is so absurd that while all the enpahsis has been place on the risk of a global warming (if that would really be a risk) while we may be heading to a deep cooling, may be not on all the planet but on the tempered areas of the planet. During the nineties, where "global" temperatures (to call them something) have been reported rising, they have been rising realy in these tempered and artic areas, while in the tropics the temperatures have been cooling, it may be that not only the islnad heat has not been taken into account properly but also the different waight given to gemperatures taken in the tropics that we see such rise. Now, since a few years back, we are seen a cooling in the tempered areas, dramatically so this winter where whe are living under 0C from China, al the way acros Europe to the US Mid West, but it could be that in the tropics the temperatures have risen. Yet again, this average doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Subbynet]

Some of you might like to play with this little application someone made which allows you to "generate graphs showing changes in average temperatures over time, using data from the Global Historical Climatology Network."

http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/

 

[footie_matt]

its more like global cooling at the moment.

 

[casado]

Let me make a few considerations today.
Yesterday in the BBC news at 6, the "science correspondent", whose name I can't remember and whose qualifications are unknown but can be guessed to be none, try to counteract the growing skepticism among the public about the unproven hypothesis of global warming. His point was that while here we are suffering the worse winter since, at least, 1963, other parts of the planet were warmer, thank God! I would say that the entire planet is not frozen. For this end He showed us a map showing that temperatures in other parts of the Norther Hemisphere are warmer (the Southern Hemisphere is enjoying its summer). The thing is that obviously the Atlantic Ocean shows higher temperatures, so does the Mediterranean Sea and the surrounding areas, but this is what should be expected.
Any one who has done their A-level should know that the oceans act as thermo regulators, should the fact that the Arctic Cap has not yet reached Northern England, what would have done if the temperature of sea water would have gone as cold as temperatures inland (-22C in Scotland last night) can not, obviously be used as a proof of global warming, and can not hide the fact that this kind of weather, if was to persist would be typical of an Ice Age.
They seem o suddenly remember that the study of the climate start to make sense when you take periods over 30 years, what I have been saying here some time ago, so, they either decided to go back to the text books they should have read before opening their mouths or they are actually reading us. But, yes, if we take the study of the climate in 30 years period, we simple do not have the data to establish what is going on, even taking all the data since the beginning of the XX century as reliable we would have 3 or 4 data points in 30 years intervals, hardly enough to obtain a trend.
What they are reluctan to show us, when there is a heat wave during the summer, that so far they haven't last longer than one week, that also the Atlantic Ocean is also cooler. This is the typical cherry picking of information that forms the great climate scam.
But the curious thing is the lack of accountability of those who are being paid obscene amounts of money for getting predictions wrong all the time. Fair enough that the study of weather is very complicated, but precisely because of that, they can not be categorical in their predictions, nor that it can be justified that they get it wrong more frequently than if they were doing their forecast at random. Looks like in a nation with 2.5 million unemployed people the most inept are in charge or making the wrong medium term weather forecast, and nobody seems to be willing to demand responsibilities. And not only that, but they do it uncompromisingly, they don't not at a warning to their predictions that would read some thing like "temperatures can go up as well as down, this prediction is very likely to be total BS as the previous predictions, so if you heed our advise do so under your responsibility". So they predicted a barbecue summer and we had a lousy a summer as never before, they predict a mild winter and we have, so far, 5 weeks of freezing temperatures and counting, and they go on claiming that we should trust them. They are saying that even though they get it wrong all the time, they are right all along. What would the public say if the bankers came out saying that they lost all the money but they ware right anyway?
To put things into context, medium term weather forecasting is easy to asses because it can't be very detailed. We can reduce the prediction to wormer than average or cooler than average, so, since is very unlikely to get spot on the average, we have a 50% chance of getting it right just by predicting it at random. So, any success rate lower than 50% should be taken as an absurd, 50% is no success. We can even define a parameter, that we can call forecasting efficiency that would be, if we can R the rate we get the prediction right, (100%-R)*2, so it would be a parameter that would have a range between -100 to 100, and the only acceptable outcome would be when the value is positive.
Yet the Met Office, in the medium term forecast, is consistently getting it wrong, with a efficiency either 0 or lower than 0, yet there is no concern about it. In an era, under the New Labour regime, where every one who works for the government, or on any job relating to public services, is constantly asses for quality with threats of financial or professional punishment if they do not meet targets (doctors, child minders, the fire brigade, teachers, the police, etc.) looks like since the Met Office is helping a government agenda can do as the people working there pleases. Yet, in a bout if typical European hypocresy, we some times listen to politician acusing governments of third world countries of corruption... Oh! Really? not here?
But there is still a tool that can help to correct the situation.
As I said, no one can expect the Met Office to predict the weather a few months ahead with good reliablity. That's why the Met Office can not claim athorewise. If they do so, as they have done, they need o be responsible. To me is very clear that the Met Office have cause a lot of damage to businesses and individuals by claiming that their predictions were more reliable than they really were. If they had said that there was a likelyhood that they were totally wrong and that every one should prepare for a harsh winter, may be not so many weeks of feezing temperatures whis is abviously unusual, people, councils and companies would have probably prepared better, would have accumulted more grit, would have bought warmer shoes and clothes, etc. But since they did just the opposite, just like a doctor who gives the wrong advise to patients repeatedly, they need to be acountable and they should be sued for damages.
This is are the advantages of living in a civilized society. If this were to happen in Stalin's Russia, all these people would either have been shot or send to labour camps in Siberia. I find the former some how a bit harsh, but I quite like the idea to send the Met Office staff to clear the rodas in Scotland.

 

[Subbynet]

Casado,

Its possible you might have said something worth reading, but when its formatted like a pile of dog turd I refrain myself from straining to read it.

Think of it like a question and answer conversation, instead of delivering us a monologue.

 

[casado]

This post is about the weather/climate models, since some of you have showed some interest on this. Those who dislike Maths, although simple, may find this boring.
First of all a model contains nothing but the assumptions on which the model is built. People who did not have any contact with Science have a tendency to think of this things of some thing like magic or sorcery, that you have kind of gurus who are the only ones capable of understanding intricate matters, big computers, and they do their tricks and some how, out of a computer unexpected predictions come out. Nothing is further from the truth.
If you build a model under the assumption that temperatures would increase, the coding of that model would give you just that, it my quantify the increase but I can not be very far from what is expected, otherwise, either the computation is wrong or the assumptions are inconsistent or not well understood. What makes a model reliable is not to come up with the assumptions that were put on it, is the power, if it has it, to predict several phenomena with the least amount of assumptions. With an example, to take the GW model seriously, it not only needs to predict a rise in temperatures, because that is the basic assumption that goes into building the model, but some thing else that is not apparent in the assumptions, and that has not been shown yet. For instance, if it shows that temperatures increase in agreement with what is observed (which it doesn't) and at the same time, it showes that precipitaion in the Sahara also increases in agreement with what was observed, the model would gain in credibility. My point is that even in the case the success (which is not there) in predicting the evolution of temperatures would not be enough to trust the model. Since this didn't hapen, the model needs to be rejected. This says nothing on whether CO2 emissions affect the climate or not, it only says that at the moment we do not know, and if it does we do not know in which sense, needs to be studied.
But lets go down to taking models out of a hat, as some of you are doing. That is easy and could very well be built into some sort of computer game, that would probably have some educational value. As the result of the model will show at least the assumptions on which the model is built is very easy to build models even with a pocket calculater or a mobile phone calculators. Remember that, given the data available a spread sheet is enough to analyse the data. Any model you build will be successful at predicting temperatures evolution for a short period of time, say around 10 or 20 years if you know how.
Take the GW model for instance. It is built on the assumption that global temperatures (what ever that means) will rise. The reason for the purpose of building the mathematical model is irrelevant, since there is no way that we can do the detail computation tha would lead as from the radiation absortion property of the CO2 molecule to the variation of the atmosphere temperature. A very common trick in science to hide our ignorance on some thing is to model that ignorance behind very cool words. So we talk about a "forcing" on the temperature, of a magnitud unknown that will be parametrized once we build our mathematical model and code it into a computer. Once we repeat the word "forcing" frequently enough many people will forget that it realy means "ignorance".
So, at this point the model only contains an asumption, the temperature will rise monotonously, therefore the evolution of that temperature wil be represented by a funtion of time (t) that would be represented by a monotonically increasing function, in lay terms a function that will always increase with time. The people at the CRU may spend time, because they need to justify their salary, trying to justify that function, they may even includ more assumtions saying that the temperature increase is proportional to the CO2 emissions, this is mathematically irrelevant, but looks very cool in the papers, they may even type down equations like:
T : temperature
t: time
E: CO2 emissions
dT/dt = [constant] * E
and E = [another constant] * t
and by aplying very elemetary Maths reach the conclusion that T is proportional to the exponential of t times some constant. Doesn't really mater. The thing is that, that those constants, for short time intervals should contain a small parameter. Lets asume that that small parameter, we cal \alpha, that we can interpret to the inverse of a time scale, let's call that time scale \tau, so \alpha = 1/\tau. What I mean by \alpha being small, is that this \tau is large, and can be understood as a time scale, may be in our case, some thing in the orther of 100 years, so, t/\tau, in a period of, say, 10 or 20 years is always small. So, keeping only the assumption that the temperature will always increase, and dropping the poetry about CO2 emissions and so on, what we have is a function, lets call it f, of t/\tau, which is monotonically increasing. That is our model.
so T= f(t/\tau). How can we make predictoins if we do know know the form of the function?
For short periods of time, an know we can stablish what periods are small and which are not since we have a time scale given by \tau, we can always make use of the fact that t/\tau is small, and expand the function in a Taylor series, using their derivatives at a given point, say in 1980. We need to keep only the lowest terms in the expansion, therefore we can have
T~ a+ b*(t/\tau) +c*(t/\tau)^2
and we have a model, for this period of time, with just 3 parameters, a, b, and c. That if we are good at poetry, we can interpret them as functions of the forcing, i.e. the ignorace we have about the efect of the CO2 on climate. We can adjust those 3 parameters using data from 1980 to 1990, and then make a prediction for the next decade, and we will get it reasonably right. The problem, and the real test of the model will come when t/\tau is not so small, when t increases, so more terms in the series need to be added. Obviously a model like this, when it mattered, already failed because the assumption has been proven wrong, the function that represent T over time, is not monotonically increasing, since 1980, and we know that because it has been decreasing since 1998, therefore the model is wrong, and we do not need more sophisticated analysis to know that.
Yet, if you want to build models that contain a maximum around the end of the last milenium, it is easy to do so, like the case Steve comented. Say, if we assume that CFC is to blame fro the evolution of T with time, and we assume that the effect of CFC picked around 1998, we obviously get what you have put on it, another matter is that the model is consistent with other experimental observation besides temperature. And you can go on like this using the Sun as the major source of temperature variation, the number os pirates, the success of the X factor sereis, whatever. You can make as many models as you want and they will reproduce your assumtions or you are an idiot. For it to be taken seriously, and seriously doesn't mean at all that can be taken as the ultimate truth but sume thing that needs to be constantly checked and constantly put to the test, needs to succesfully precit more than one phenomena that is not included in the assumptions, not only the assumptions.
In the case of the WG model, the problem is does the assumptions are clearly wrong and to see that we do not even need to do any computation at all, so the discussion about how the code was done, and how the numbers were obtained, is totally irrelevant by now.

 

[casado]

Casado,

Its possible you might have said something worth reading, but when its formatted like a pile of dog turd I refrain myself from straining to read it.

Think of it like a question and answer conversation, instead of delivering us a monologue.

Yeah, may be you are right. We need to write for the people of our time, in a Q&A and answer form:
who loves you more?
Mummy and Daddy
who is the cutest thing in the house?
yhummm! my little boy!
We all have our limitations and, and we all do our best, but if you are interested in what if have to say, you should make an effort for something that is given to you for free. If you don't want to read it, up to you, even though I would recommend you to grow up and realize that live is not a video game, and no one has the right to claim instant satisfaction or instant simplicity.
On the other hand, if you are so interested in reading what I have to say, you pay me for it, and instead of spending just the time that takes me to type it, I will use a couple of hours every time to ponder over it and make it more readable. Up to you.

 

[Subbynet]

Maybe you're right... I should just accept, that when you have something to say, you say it as verbosely as possible.

Lesson learned.

 

[easyasit]

Maybe you're right... I should just accept, that when you have something to say, you say it as verbosely as possible.

Lesson learned.

Subby, i have read greater essays than that on here (lengthwise) though not by myself.

As for me i am keen to see what was said. However first i need my voddie and coke, a coffee, 8 hours kip, then subject to a hangover in the morning, i might just be in the right frame of mind!

 

[StephenW]

Question for Cornish Steve: Is this significant?


"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007..................."

From a Judicial watch press release, 14th Jan 2010, it says.

I mean is it significant in American legal terms or is it likely to have any impact?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...1998-1934-u-s-temperature-ranking/#more-15252

 

[Duke Fame]

Brighter people than me have produced reports on both sides of the argument. Brighter people than me havd suggested we were heading for an ice-age in the 80's. My thoughts are that whilst for some, it's better to get a report that says global-warming is man-made and for others the opposite is true. A lot of money has been thrown at scientisets to show global-warming is man-made, it's not really surpriding that dcientists are very happy to produce the reports people want.

My reading between the lines is that climate change will always go on and our contribution is minimal.

Nevertheless, this is a business forum and there is money to be made out of the tree-huggers so business should make as much out of it as we can. That is not to say I agree with too much tax-payers money being spent on what could be groundless scare-mongering.