Printable View
Since we would not need so many roads to get people around to large numbers of various place, why not turn much of that infrastructure into vacuum tubes for the transport of commodities. How much farm land is there if everyone is living in Texas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.
Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Is it? Just becuase Europe and the United States have negative/ homeostatic natural birth rates thanks primaraly to people waiting until later in life to have children and abortion (imigration not withstanding), does not mean the Worlds population is dropping. In fact if anything its still growing. To further the problem, new industrialized nations are emerging like China and India, with imense populations. Just imagine the drain in rescources a single country 5+ times the size of the USA and Europe combined (the two most rescource consuming areas of the world at present btw using as much as 60% of the worlds rescources at present all by themselves) will bring to the world when it gets going.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Couple that with the fact that peak oil aquisition and production was all ready reached back in the early 80's and we have a serious problem looming on the horizon.
And this is without even getting on how fast fresh water soruces will dimminish. Look at how fast lake mead allready continues to drop every year.
As for moving the entire world population to the state of texas...smh, lets attempt to be somewhat realistic here shall we.
I am totally against the liberal left democratic parties position that "global warming/ pc climate change" is our fault per say. The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase. But any doofus with a computer or access to one can look and see for themselves how the numbers are starting to stack up conserning the loss of our glaciers through the world. Something is warming up the planet, which in some ways can be a good thing, the only problem is we dont know exactly whats doing it yet, nor do we know how hot its going to get, or when it will plateue and or stop, or swing back to cooler temperatures.
If Manchester has behaved in this manner then they won't maintain their preeminence for long. This is the very antithesis of good science. However, that does not negate the good science being done elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Any properly designed experiment relies on properly calibrated instruments for the detection of data. These instruments should be calibrated on a specific schedule. If, for some reason, a stations instruments are not properly calibrated then their data is suspect and should be discarded. This does not say that the data is necessarily wrong, just that you cannot be sure it is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Tweaking of results is done to correlate data from differing environments. For example, if you are measuring the air temperature near your home and you use one thermometer which is in shade all of the time, another thermometer which is in sunlight most of the time, a third thermometer which is near the black top of the street and a fourth which is closer to a pond, you will get greatly differing results, solely due to local variations in the environment. You need to eliminate those variations to gain any meaningful results, which is done through tweaking. Contrary to what it may sound like, this is not done to force results, but to clarify them.
While I was away dealing with Real Life (TM) Thorne has answered most of this better than I could, but since I had the answer in my head, I'll dump it anyway...
I don't know if I have failed to explain my point clearly, or if you're simply dodging it. I'll try to make it more clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
The basic theory of AGW is not based on a "complicated formula": it's a simple statistical relationship, and anyone with Statistics 101 can do the math and see if the results fit the theory. The data you need are atmospheric CO2, which is the same everywhere, and average global temperature, which you get from the public records of weather stations in a suitable number of locations around the world. You don't want just one, because it may not be representative (for example, the UK has been warming up over the past decades like most places, but it lags behind the global average because of the well documented weakening of the Gulf Stream,) but you don't want an impossible number; fifty or a hundred chosen at random should give a good first approximation.
None of this is hidden or difficult. One reason the vast majority of climatologists have come around to AGW is that it's so easy for them or someone they know to replicate the experiment and find it gives the same answer. It doesn't take a global conspiracy to make people believe what they can see for themselves.
The complicated fomulae come in when you try to give policy makers useful advice on what to expect year on year and country by country. Averages are not much help here, because everyone acknowledges that the effects will be very different from place to place; so we get into the field of long range weather forecasting, with all the uncertainties that this implies. BUT - and this is the important point - none of this complication affects the overall global picture, and none of the questions about it affect the fact of global AGW. Even if it were to be proved - which it certainly isn't so far - that one centre had commited outright fraud in their modeling, that would have no more bearing on the truth of AGW than the fact that the movie "Day After Tomorrow" is rubbish science.
Let me explain another way. There is a river called the Severn with a dramatically powerful tidal surge, and for decades people have been arguing over plans for a tidal power project there. Trying to predict the effect of the project on the tidal and current patterns calls for complex models and masses of data, and it wouldn't surprise me if people on both sides of the controversy had tweaked their models to predict what they want. BUT, whatever the accuracy of these models, the tide will rise and fall: the tide is a fact regardless of how its local effects are expressed or predicted. Likewise, AGW is a demonstrated fact regardless of how accurately its detailed effects have been modelled.
Since the actual recorded temperatures have been rising for decades, I guess this is about cycles again.Quote:
Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history?
Every climatologist knows about climate cycles: they've been studying them for most of a century, which is why they get so annoyed when people suggest that it's a new fact that changes everything. And as you say, the long term trend up till the last century was that the world is in a cooling phase, which is why people are so worried about the fact that the actual global temperature has been going up when the cycles should be pushing it down. It means that if we haven't got a grip on global warming by the time the cycles trough out and go into a warming phase, we'll be in real trouble.
The "source" of climate data is weather stations all around the world. If you believe in a conspiracy big and powerful enough to destroy or tamper with all those records, there isn't much point trying to have a rational debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
You do realise that you have to add NASA and the Pentagon to the list of liberal lefty organisations that believe in AGW?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
That depends whose data you use, climatologists' or Big Oil's.Quote:
The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase.
Basically there are two possible scenarios. (Three if you count the one that says nothing is changing, and all the stuff about melting icecaps, rising temperatures etc, is a fraud by the international communist conspiracy who've suborned all the meteorologists, naturalists and geographers in the world.)
Either the world is warming for simple physically explicable reasons which are theoretically controlable, so we could survive if we have the guts to do what's necessary.
Or the world is warming for some mysterious reason (which by a strange coincidence began when we started burning vast amounts of fossil fuels and wiping out forests) which nobody can explain or do anything about, and we might as well live it up, drive our SUVs and turn up the heating, because we're doomed anyway.
Even if the science didn't convince me, I am not a natural fatalist. We may not be able to save ourselves, but I'll always want to go down trying.
News souces indicate that all "other" sources are basing they data on the work done by Manchester.
As for the thermometer issue I must disagree somewhat. All of thos individual data sets produce an average on their own. Hence no need to tweek. Similar issue is Ozone days. Why are all the sensors placed in places known to have naturally higher levels of ozone. The result is higher reports of ozone over the entire area.
If it really were for "clarification" why then hide the "fudge factor"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
None of the above Leo, it is not an eaither or situation.
I am not in the "it isn't happening" camp.
I am in the "it is happening but the reason why is more complicated than just human population growth and industrialization" camp.
Not all of the data supports the theory of human advancement as being the SOLE cause. The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.
Do we as a species effect the enviroment around us?, of course we do, we have been since before we had language. Are we the sole perpetrators of global warming? No I do not believe we are alone responsibile, I believe our own contributions are just part of a much larger climatic / solar cycle.
Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.
The planet has been both much much warmer and colder at different times during our time upon it and we survived those times with little to no technological inovations at our disposal but we also had a far far exponentialy smaller population back then.
The small changes our climate is making currently if continued along current trends in and of themselves isnt such a big deal alltogether until you add in our ever increasing populations rescouce demands vs the dwindeling unrenewable rescource supply, and when you factor that in then we are going to be in a very very bad pickle soon enough.
But then even if the climate stops changing along current trends, we are still going to have a problem if we dont change sooner rather than later.
While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.
Climate cycles are on a downward trend and should be cooling the planet. The sunspot cycle is likewise in a phase that should be giving us less droughts and blizzards, not more. What other causes did you have in mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Population pressure and oil exhaustion are already a problem, but to be brutal, we in the rich nations have so far managed pretty successfully to make them someone else's problem. Attempts to convince the majority of Euopeans and North Americans that the rest of the world's troubles are our reponsibility as well have met a blank stare.Quote:
The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.
...
Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.
But we can't pay the weather or the sea to go somewhere else. So this is a problem we can't dodge, we either solve it or suffer along with the poorest.
The fact that the solutions to it will, if sensibly applied, also help with the other problems is a bonus.
I think you're confusing normal atmospheric ozone, such as the ozone layer, with man made ozone, that you get from the burning of fossil fuels. "Ozone days" are, I presume, a measure of air pollution, generally caused by weather conditions holding such pollution close to the ground. You place your sensors where the pollution tends to accumulate, not out in the countryside where it will generally be always low. These measurements are for local consideration only, and are not of global interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
[/QUOTE]While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?[/QUOTE]I suppose I would find myself point a finger at AP. Since all the other news outlets seem to take their reports from there verbatim. Thing is when I listen to or read news reports I do not takes notes in order to convince, or lead others to that source. If that becomes necessary that the pleasure of said reading or learning becomes seriously weakened.
[/QUOTE]And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.[/QUOTE]
Unlike certain people I have never denied that the planet had been experiencing a warming. However since that pronouncement has as its start date the end of a period called the "Little Ice Age" hardly seems like man could be the source. When the proponents of Global Heat Disaster dismiss the fact that the planet itself has done this before makes it hard to accept the edict that we puny humans are the sole cause, or even the proximate cause. When the aforementioned disasterites dismiss every bit of evidence that the planet has begun a cooling as an aberation and not worthy of consideration again tends to weaken their position.
Personally I make every effort to avoid the term conspiracy. However I will admit an agenda for the AGW crowd.
The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count, and yes I mean O3. This issue is closely related to AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
As I said, when measuring the ozone levels of pollution, that's the best place to put your sensors. Those places would be the first to show a change, either up or down, and would give you time to put out a warning. But again, these are fairly localized phenomena, more pronounced in cities with large numbers of internal combustion engines. This ozone tends to stay close to the ground and accumulate in low spots. And ozone is highly reactive, so it will "degrade" fairly quickly, especially when spread around by winds. The ozone located in the ozone layer around the planet, while chemically identical, is formed by different processes and actually performs a beneficial function. That ozone never reaches the ground, though, so I don't see how these "ozone days" that we hear about would be of any value to AGW proponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
When you are testing for something dangerous, you put the detectors where it is going to happen first. Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire. If they wanted to be calmed and reassured, they would place the detectors wide spread around the house. The detectors wouldn't be a bit of use for warnings of fire, but they would keep people happier.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Well, yes, that's what ozone means. Stuff that comes from car exhausts etc. and causes asthma. Do you know of another meaning?Quote:
, and yes I mean O3.
The only connection I can see is that there is an industrial lobby, similar to but much less powerful than the no-AGW one, devoted to persuading the gullible that ozone pollution is harmless. Was that what you meant?Quote:
This issue is closely related to AGW.
On the contrary, smoke detectors are placed outside bedrooms so that the occupants might hear the alarm in the middle of the night, when most home fires occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Not that this has anything to do with the original thread...but because it was being used as an argument, I thought I would clear the air. I am a member of both a CERT and a DART team and have had fire and disaster training. During our training it was explained why smoke detectors are placed in those locations.
At the water's edge and not inland? Here one is on the great lake and another is placed on anther body of water. Water is naturally higher in O3 regardless of pollution. Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
See #178!
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
It appears now the the prime arbiter of Global Warming data admits that the data does not exist!
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia, says the data used to create his assessment of Global Warming is lost!
Further, he states that there has not been a single case of Global Warming since 1995.
Wonder what that is going to do for the Goreites?
I think we are at cross purposes. You appear to imagine that the ozone level has some relevance to AGW research, and that therefore you are exposing data manipulation on this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
The reason people measure ozone levels is that artificially generated ozone is a polutant. It causes sometimes life threatening asthma in susceptible people, and for this reason it is important for those at risk to know when the level is dangerously high. Therefore it is measured at locations where it may become high, because that is where the danger lies.
These measurements are supremely irrelevant to any aspect of global climate research. As Thorne noted, you may perhaps be confused by the tendency of anti-environmentalists to conflate the current concern over CO2 with the 1980s concern over ozone depeletion. The two are entirely separate issues. (Well, almost. A serious increase in ozone depletion might conceivably add to incoming solar radiation enough to have an impact on climate, but the contingency is happily remote, since we seem to have successfully limited the release of ozone depleting pollutants.) In any case, the previous concern was over loss of ozone, so environmental fraudsters would hardly be trying to exagerate the levels, leaving aside that they would be taking measurements several hundred feet too low if that were the object.
All this you could have discovered for yourself with five minutes on Google, so why do we have to keep educating you in the basics?
Whilst I do take your point that noting the source of these amazing things you tell us would reduce the entertertainment value of the news for you, you cannot expect us to take these pronouncements seriously if you can only reference them by saying you heard it somewhere and you guess they got it from AP.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
There is no need to spoil your viewing pleasure by taking notes: that's one of the many things Google is for. Just trace the news item you heard, copy and paste the link, and your comments might actually carry some weight, if it turned out that the item really said what you quote.
Which will teach me to follow my own frequently given advice, and not assume that my country's practice is universal. UK firefighters and safety organisations advise us to place detectors at high points in the ceiling, at the tops of stairs etc, with the object of making sure the smoke reaches them as soon as a fire starts. Apparently they assume the alarms are loud enough that the distance from the bedroom is less important than getting the earliest possible warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
A reminder to all of us that what seems so logical that it must be the same everywhere, may be only a local practice.
I can't find any information regarding the natural concentration of ozone in water. In fact, unless the water is pure, the ozone would quickly react with any contaminants, destroying the ozone.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
And ozone (O3) IS a pollutant at low levels. It can cause headaches, burning in the eyes, and respiratory irritation. People with resperatory problems already are particularly affected. So monitoring those levels is very important. And I would expect the monitoring to occur in those areas which are most likely to have high concentrations.
I do not so think. My point is that the O3 data is itself being manipulated by choosing ONLY positions that WILL result in high O3 levelsQuote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Measuring O3 at the shore of a Great Lake, and the edge of other bodies of water and places that may produce O3 is not a true valid indicator of the O3 levels throughout the city. The data may be accurate but by definition it is biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
I know there is a difference. But as to Global Warming I suggest you check out the new things Phil Jones is saying!Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
We don't exactly place the detectors at floor level! But if you have vaulted ceilings in the living room, and normal ceiling height in the hallway outside the bedroom...the smoke detector is still placed outside the bedroom regardless of the higher ceilings elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
From an interview with the BBC!
I find you immediate reaction suggesting the report is made up insulting!
Further revelations by Phil Jones;
- Warming in the 20th century is not unique,
- There were two other recent periods,
- between 1860 and the 1880s
- in the forties
- The planet has been cooling since 2002
- The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is now
- Jones admits there is no consensus among climate scientists
So before I can use anything I have heard or read I have go back a research it all over again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
In addition to outside the bedroom we are also instructed to have one on each floor to include the basement!
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
That "high concentration" decision is part of the problem. I live in a city where the eastern boundary is a Great Lake. Levels of O3 are higher, at this point I can't quote a source other than a local news station, are higher in the vicinity of bodies of water. The level of concentration is not "in" the water, but in the immediate vicinity of the water. Most all of the recording stations are in such locations. But to presume that such readings have any bearing within the city confines five miles away can not be supported. Heck the ambient temperature does not remain constant over that distance!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Did some looking. much of the generic data on Ozone does not get terribly specific. It may take trying to find the actual data from the actual monitoring units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
OK, let's go further back and try to start from basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs infra-red, thus increasing the net heating of the atmosphere for the same level of insolation. There are other significant greenhouse gasses - methane for one, hence the concern over the rapidly increasing release of methane from warming permafrosts - but CO2 is the one whose level is the most directly affected by human activity.
B) Since the Industrial Revolution began the large scale burning of fossil fuels, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen ever more rapidly.
C) The world's climate, and specifically the world's temperature, varies according to a number of cyclical patterns. The net influence of these cycles has been being studied for a hundred years or so and is pretty well understood, and the theory agrees with observation beautifully - up to the last few decades, when the curve went off in entirely the wrong direction. According to the theories that all climatologists were happy with until AGW came into the picture, the world should be gently cooling down (hence the 1970s scare about a "new Ice Age".) Instead it is warming ever faster.
Now my first question is, which of these propositions don't you believe? If (A), you can borrow space in any High School science lab for an afternoon and test it yourself. If (B), note that this is not just one researcher or group of researchers' opinion. The chemistry of the atmosphere is available for anyone to study, and people have been doing quantitative analyses of it since the 19th Century; the results are not hidden or secret or held in one database open to fudging.
I note that you don't dispute that the warming is happening, so the question is the cause. If you believe that the existing theories of climate cycles are enough to account for it, then you can either take my word for it, or do the research yourself to find out, that back in the mid-20th Century, when AGW was a minority crank theory, the consensus of climatology was that no such warming could possibly happen because they knew how the cycles worked and they were on a downward phase. That is why the majority have come around so solidly: they saw results that didn't fit the established theory, so they looked for a theory that correctly predicted what actually happened. That's how science works.
The point is, if you accept the evidence but you don't accept the theory, you are left with the conclusion that something contrary to previous climatological theories is happening, and it is completely unexplained and mysterious. And since there is an explanation available for it which is simple physics, this is a bit like insisting that a pan on the stove is growing hot due to mysterious and unexplained forces, while refusing to see that the stove is heating it.
Regarding A don't forget H2O in gas form ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
As for B and C..
Well, we have ice samples from the last ice age (not the little one, the real one with northern europe covered in ice) where a little of the gasses of the atmosphere is caught allowing us to actually measure how it was then.
Also we can dig up the seeds of various planets to see what was growing where getting an idea about how the climate was earlier.
So to prove your point all we have to do is to compare those two ;)
And then there's trees..
The rings in them change in size depending on growing conditions if I don't remember wrong.
It's a good thing we're not limited to measuring how the weather is today ^^
For the record, this post is in support of Leo9 ;)
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
My conclusion...even the top scientists cannot agree, therefore why can't we take a step back and finish the investigation before spending trillions more on a project that will have profound effect on the country and our children's future?
I have no problem with continuing to reaserch the real cuases of climate change.
Ive allways been a proponent of more reaserch.
As for some of the projects....well, some of the projects in question, (like reducing or eliminating our dependence on non-renewable rescources) in my opinion are still just as nessesary for the furture of our specieis as a whole regardless of the cuases of global climate trends becuase there are larger issues looming over the horizon conserning them in regards to population expansion vs resource aquisition.
Also I do believe, given sufficient time, we as humans can and will impact the enviroment in such a mannner that we will wish we did change how we conduct our stewardship of the earth sooner rather than later some day.
Additionally, I see no reason good enough to support a position that promotes polution of our enviroment soley for the sake of corporate greed without regard for the wellfare of everyone involved.
The planet certianly isnt going to give us any second chances, and I don't see a viable place to expand into floating nearby that we can just fly over too any time soon.
On all of this, I agree wholeheartedly. The project I am referring to is Cap and Trade and of course the multitude of stifling federal regulations placed upon manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I beg to differ!! Top scientists do agree, science is not cut and dry and you will NEVER get an 100% concencus, I study climate and geology at university and I can tell you that 95% of scientists agree that the climate is warming and that we are either contributing or causing this. the problem is that the media gives the 5% and the 95% equal(ish) air time which makes people think that there is large disagreements.
We should currently be swinging back to a cooler period due to molanchovich cycles and we arnt.
I ask you does it really matter weather there is a concencus about weather its all our fault or just partly our fault the fact is that its happening.
We must spend money now as we need to level off our emissions 2015 to prevent a 2 degree warming which would cause food shortages and mass migrations causing huge strains on people.
look it up if you dont believe me and please dont google it. Try looking in journals and scientific publications. The news doesnt speak the truth all the time now does it!
Maybe in the UK the news doesn't "report" on global warming/climate change, but in the US we are bombarded daily with it!
It is very difficult to, with any certainty, say what the actual cause is.
However, there has been no reduction in CO2. And yet Phil Jones himself has said no warming since 1995. Further he is willing to admit that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the current temperatures. In addition that the planet has been cooling since 2002.
On the basis of that is it not reasonable to presume that man is not the prime component of the current cycle of warming. With the MWP being warmer it would seem clear that man could not have caused that.
More study is needed, FROM ALL SIDE, on the subject. No research or study should be tossed aside just because some people do not like it.
As far as the "consensus", again from Phil Jones, the only consensus in the field is that there is no consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Cap and trade is a very bad idea. Does nothing to change anything. Will do little more than raise the cost of everything. Likely put many companies out of business.
If anything we should be encouraging business. They are the ones that come up with new ideas!
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish