"Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 3 42

[jmw]

At 273 posts I guess the time has come to request the old thread archived and continue in a new thread and it is in this thread that I think the latest news has its proper place.

The world has never seen such freezing heat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Oh dear,
just what do you have to do to lose the last shreds of credibility?

Tell me honestly folks, how many engineers would still have a job with a track record like Hansen?
Actually, perhaps we'd better not answer that because I suspect the answer is that in any profession there are complete f***-ups who will never be brought to book simply because the credibility of the people who have believed them for so long is also at risk and once one goes then the domino effect comes into being.

I guess that it is only when NASA closes that we will see and end to the career of this fine purveyor of temperature data but we can be sure he will turn up in some other role on the IPCC or as an acolyte of Nobel Laureate, Al Gore.

Success, it seems, depends not on getting it right but on notoriety and why else would so many deadly politicians earn so much on the speaking circuit once they have finally left office and while their dark deeds are still fresh in everyone's mind?


You know I can't help wondering, if it weren't for those "Chads" I wonder what sort of a condition the world would be in now? And, if we are in dire financial straits now, what kind of position would we otherwise be in?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[kchan711]

It's a shame how here in the U.S. and across the world how the loudest mouth gets the most attention while the truth lingers. Unfortunately, such a propaganda machine causes harsh economic conditions while putting people into a panic, forcing technology changeovers and exhausting capital resources within short time intervals.

Now I will say I believe in pursuing alternative energy sources. My reasoning is simply in avoiding the fickle energy market, which seems to grip the world so tightly. In simple lean manufacturing terms, we, engineers, should always pursue higher efficiency and reduced waste.

With that said, being engineers we have the answers. We're also intelligent enough to decipher data, false or true. This man should be banished from his profession, much like what would happen in a small engineering firm. As entrepreneurs and business leaders, we can actually use logic and reasoning rather than devious data to prove a course of action, not sell one.

I think further reading from John Coleman (founder of the weather channel, later fired for not supporting global warming) would be very enlightening to the readers on this forum.

Kyle

Kyle Chandler

http://www.chiefengineering.net

 

[cranky108]

The people who are selling these ideas are in good positions to make money from us buying into there ideas.
Very simular the the method used by playboy, to sell a life style where they make money from it (Hey how about a global warming bunny).

The idea of fireing people for disbeleaf of a flawed theory, is somewhat chilling. But this is a simular hole that a large part of the news media is facing. Everyone believes the sameway so they can't see why there ratings are declining.

 

[Unotec]

As for loud mouths, I'll have to agree. I tried to educate people, but screamers typically don't like education. I've given up, they keep screaming and I'm tired.
I strongly oppose AGW, have done a bit of research and found some of the flaws. Not to say that there has not been a warming trend, because there was some, but going as far as to blame it on anthropogenic causes and commiting financial suicide.... well, I'd like more concrete data before harking out cash. Unfortunately, if this keeps going on, my cash will leave me before I have a chance to hold on to it.
Now and then I give greenies some enlightment but I still get their religious propaganda thrown back at me, with no real scientific data to back it, obviously.
I have gone as far as agreeing that the industry should pay for pollution (not only gaseous emissions) but instead of taxing it, why not allow them to do a write-off of investments in pollution reduction?
That did not go overly well. Apparently people that believe they can somehow forecast something as vast as weather/climate well into tens of years in the future, cannot figure out how to account for pollution reduction.
I've given up, they scream and I go back to my world, where 1+1=2 and not maybe 3.5 in about 50years.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[cranky108]

Wow 1+1=3.5 in about 50 years.
Is that the new fuzzy math of global warming?
Or maybe that is the reason the averige IQ is only 100.

Did anyone see the recent Forbes article on ethonol, in the special issue?
The carbon savings of corn ethonol is about the cost to produce the same. Yet it gets tax benifits, and is loved by the geens.

If we do the math on wind it probally comes out the same with the carbon used to make the steel.

So many of these seem to be just job/money schemes for rich people. Yet we pay more so someone else can feel good.

 

[HamishMcTavish]

Cranky108 - the average IQ is 100 because that's how it's defined

Whether climate change is natural or being accelerated by people isn't really the issue (as other people have said in the past) what we should be focussing on is whether the planet can actually support our demands on it. There's a phrase (in ecology i think) called "carrying capacity" which is applicable...can the planet actually support the growth in populations which demand energy usage at the levels of "western" society - probably not!

It's "too big" a problem to solve unilaterally so all the countries will continue to debate the issue (for however long it takes) and eventually market forces will dictate when resources start to dwindle... but nobody knows when that will happen so it's head in the sand for another big problem (never mind who owns the resources...)

Natural selection in the human population (which is currently being stalled by technological intervention) will eventually take place whether that's via climate change / flooding affecting agriculture (via flooding or drought) or folks not having enough energy to stay warm because fuel resources are scarce (or too expensive)

IMO we need to consume less and strive to be as efficient as possible - learn to be happy with what we have and not what adverts on TV say we need...is it only me or does anyone else remember when "stuff" used to last a lot longer. Consumer goods / TVs / Cars all seem to have a built in obsolence whereas before they were just used until they were unrepairable - now it's not unusual to be told that something is beyond "economic repair" i.e. it's cheaper to buy a new one than repair the old one...it's like a juggernaut we can't even get off anymore because (certainly in the UK) most if not all the repair shops have gone out of business!

OK rant over - i'm going to have a cup of coffee now

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

 

[rb1957]

well i disagree with "Whether climate change is natural or being accelerated by people isn't really the issue" 'cause the politics drivng AGW leds directly to redefining the problem from "climate change" to "control atmospheric CO2", which IMHO leads to solutions that don't help the "problem".

 

[LCruiser]

rb -

The wool is being pulled over the public's eyes by those wanting to make a buck off the fear - e.g. Al Gore. The human tendency to get sucked into original sin helps the leeches...

 

[jmw]

Well, a pretty interesting site altogether.
I guess that because we are mostly surrounded by successful inventions we tend to neglect the fact that the successful inventions are the tip of an increasingly bizarre iceberg.
(Until the American Inventor TV show).

I had to chuckle when looking through the section on monowheels (

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/motorwhl/motorwhl.htm#1)

and when we get to the Greene and Dyer (1869) monowheel the comment is made that the seat is rather high with an ever present risk of "Gerbilling".

Gerbilling.
Love it.

Actually, it would probably be the next big fad if one were to produce a modern version, I mean, you see people getting into giant inflatable balls and rolling themselves down hills so why not?

I'm surprised the section on two wheeled cars stops where it does because, unless I am very mistaken, there is a modern extension to this concept complete with stabiliser wheels that let down. Switzerland somehow figures in my memory. ANy ideas?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[kchan711]

You know it's funny how you don't hear nearly as much about ozone depletion anymore. Maybe it has to do with onslaught of new products like new refrigerants, compressed canisters (not using CFCs), better smog control and the Air Force doing ozone drops at high altitudes. Plainly said, some people made a lot of money. It's hard to make as much of an issue anymore.

I think the same will happen with climate change. We'll have a change in energy resources and waste management and become at least somewhat efficient people. After that is addressed, it'll be hard to ask people to do much more. But, of course, people will notice the climate will continue to change. Welcome to life. Everyone will follow with the everlasting words, "Well, sh#@!". Like LCruiser said, fear drives money out of people. Self-interest, that's something that'll never change.

Kyle Chandler

http://www.chiefengineering.net

 

[jmw]

Well, a pretty interesting site altogether.
I guess that because we are mostly surrounded by successful inventions we tend to neglect the fact that the successful inventions are the tip of an increasingly bizarre iceberg.
(Until the American Inventor TV show).

I had to chuckle when looking through the section on monowheels (

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/motorwhl/motorwhl.htm#1)

and when we get to the Greene and Dyer (1869) monowheel the comment is made that the seat is rather high with an ever present risk of "Gerbilling".

Gerbilling.
Love it.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

You can go to either the UAH MSU or RSS MSU sites, get the satellite data, and do your own spreadsheet curve fits - you will see that the global temperature has been declining this century. Even the northern hemisphere - despite the black carbon pollution on the northern ice - has been cooling this century - just barely, but it has. The relatively pure southern hemisphere is cooling quite fast.

 

[rb1957]

"the truth ! ... you can't handle the truth"

"don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"

"blasphemer!
All I said was ..."

 

[owg]

LCruiser - Yes the global temperature appears to have been going down this century. However an argument against taking this too seriously is that the data is too weak to get a decent RSquared. When you add data back to say 1900 you get a decent RSquared but the temperature trend is up. I don't know enough statistics to figure this out, maybe someone else does. A handy site to look at temperature versus time with accompanyin statistics is

http://alanpburke.homeip.net/ClimateChange/Temperatures.aspx

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[LCruiser]

owg -

The Urban Heat Island is a funny thing. It is supposedly corrected for, but even after that "correction" urban sites have warmed much more than rural ones. Here's a good site for that:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Anybody quoting anything except the satellite temperatures is quoting gigo information. The RSquared is only important looking for monotonic trends.

The fact is that some "scientists" have been raising the alarm for decades, and we've kept pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Well, we're still doing that but the temperature is falling. How come people don't get that? This cooling trend has been predicted for years, by this method:

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html

 

[owg]

But aren't we looking for a monotonic trend? Oh no something else to think about, my head is starting to hurt.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jmw]

Christopher Booker continues to pick holes in the propaganda surrounding the AGW hypothesis in the Sunday Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/23/do2310b.xml

but what I found interesting were the "readers comments". The first declared CB a "t**t" though why he didn't actually say "twit" I don't know.
Others offered more measured comments supporting him with links to recent reports about the arctic ice trapping whales that will now have to be culled.
Back come the AGW with a comment "Christopher Booker is a deluded liar." and so on. One AGW supporter did offer a link but it was to the UK's Met Office... er not reliable I would think.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

Yet this Winter we keep setting record high tempetures. And the march for global warming in Washington was interrupted buy the unusually large amount of snow.

You just can't see something like this by standing in one place. The gulf stream moves and makes the local weather hotter or colder depending on what it's dragging along.

Now has anyong seen a chart showing recourds of sunlight on earth? Has it been determined anywhere that this is stable?

 

[btrueblood]

"Now has anyong seen a chart showing recourds of sunlight on earth?"

Better would be a chart showing solar irradiance above the atmosphere over the decades. We should have at least 100 years of such data, given that sounding balloons, rockets, etc. have been around at least that long.

Gee, why there is such a chart... see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

The second and third images are particularly interesting, showing peak values in the last century, and mostly in this last half. And the top chart is interesting when viewed in reverse order to the bottom two, noting that peak solar irradiance during the last sunspot maximum peaked at lower levels than in prior decades.

But, sunspots don't correlate at all to global temperatures, or so I was told by an astrophysicist at the U of Wash. a year or three ago...

Right.

 

[Unotec]

bio-fuels... bio-fuels.... Wouldn't these biofuels also create GHGE? Ok, we do not burn fossil fuels, we burn our food instead... that will ALSO create CO2 emissions AND deplete our food supply.
Am I missing something here? why are the greenies supporting bio-fuels?

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>