Global Cooling?
10 December 2008, 01:50 PM
#151
Scooby Regular
drops/drips of CO2 could cause the claimed changes.
10 December 2008, 02:12 PM
#152
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climate models are a statistal answer to that question and the greenhouse effect is the hypothesis that best fits the data. Or at least that's what the consensus seems to be.
10 December 2008, 02:21 PM
#153
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the models do not fit the observable changes, and that's a real problem.
The models did/do not show the temperature plateauing from 1998 and then dropping, but that is what happened. Also, the models for sea level rise do not reflect what has happened.
So what do they do? Change the model!
Changing the hypothesis or admitting it is flawed surely would be better?
This really isn't the way forward.
Geezer
The models did/do not show the temperature plateauing from 1998 and then dropping, but that is what happened. Also, the models for sea level rise do not reflect what has happened.
So what do they do? Change the model!
Changing the hypothesis or admitting it is flawed surely would be better?This really isn't the way forward.
Geezer
10 December 2008, 02:42 PM
#154
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the models do not fit the observable changes, and that's a real problem.
The models did/do not show the temperature plateauing from 1998 and then dropping, but that is what happened. Also, the models for sea level rise do not reflect what has happened.
So what do they do? Change the model! Changing the hypothesis or admitting it is flawed surely would be better?
This really isn't the way forward.
Geezer
The models did/do not show the temperature plateauing from 1998 and then dropping, but that is what happened. Also, the models for sea level rise do not reflect what has happened.
So what do they do? Change the model!
Changing the hypothesis or admitting it is flawed surely would be better?This really isn't the way forward.
Geezer
Try this, it's quite interesting
Global cooling: the new kid on the block
10 December 2008, 02:52 PM
#155
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting read no doubt, but.....
"The moral of the story - don't use short term weather patterns to draw conclusions about long term climate trends"
Like using 40 years worth of data to predict how a 4.5 billion year old climate system will change then?
Geezer
"The moral of the story - don't use short term weather patterns to draw conclusions about long term climate trends"
Like using 40 years worth of data to predict how a 4.5 billion year old climate system will change then?
Geezer
10 December 2008, 03:20 PM
#156
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We both know that the climate models are based upon a significantly longer time series than 40 years, so why say that...for effect??
10 December 2008, 03:37 PM
#157
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, they are not. We simply do not have accurate world wide temperature data, especially for upper atmosphere, for more than 40 years. Hell, even 200 years would be insignificant, let's be honest.
Geezer
Geezer
11 December 2008, 11:42 AM
#158
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[/Well that was the point I trying to make, thats why once you strip out the effects all the known variables (including bloody sunspots) CO2 emmisions have significant explanatory power within the models]
The models structure could be wrong of course, but I'm yet to read/see/hear a single other theory that explains recent rises in temperature.
Of course if you have the answer I'm all ears
The models structure could be wrong of course, but I'm yet to read/see/hear a single other theory that explains recent rises in temperature.
Of course if you have the answer I'm all ears
11 December 2008, 11:43 AM
#159
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8336853]So my link, or post with grapch, is less valid?
11 December 2008, 11:48 AM
#160
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8336931]
The man versus natural imapcts on climate is an interesting one, here's a specific example and it is specific to the myth constantly trotted out by climate change sceptics (and it involves numbers )
The claim is that volcanic action around the world in one day spews forth more greenhouse gases than all of man's activities in one year.
The claim is completely false. In fact, all the volcanic activity over the entire world for one entire year emits 130-230 teragrams carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). In contrast, human activities produce over 7000 teragrams/year (1 petragram=1000 tergrams). So, volcanoes emit only 3% the amount that humans do. In fact, human activity exceed that of volcanic activity early in the Industrial Revolution (by 1870).
Wrong. What is now lake Taupo (Toe-pour), NZ (It is STILL active, albeit submerged, to this day along with all the others in the region). Don't recall when...but it was several tmes bigger than Krakatoa.
The man versus natural imapcts on climate is an interesting one, here's a specific example and it is specific to the myth constantly trotted out by climate change sceptics (and it involves numbers
)The claim is that volcanic action around the world in one day spews forth more greenhouse gases than all of man's activities in one year.
The claim is completely false. In fact, all the volcanic activity over the entire world for one entire year emits 130-230 teragrams carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). In contrast, human activities produce over 7000 teragrams/year (1 petragram=1000 tergrams). So, volcanoes emit only 3% the amount that humans do. In fact, human activity exceed that of volcanic activity early in the Industrial Revolution (by 1870).
11 December 2008, 11:51 AM
#161
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 December 2008, 01:50 PM
#162
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - Climate models are another guess. What defines the parameters? The changes in the model? The degree / scope of the model?
All the controls in place within a model are based upon a series of assumptions, and there is absolutely NO guarantee that these assumptions are anywhere NEAR correct.
They are just pretty graphs that look good. You may as well stick a copy of the Last Supper up a powerpoint slide and use it as a model for Climate change.
11 December 2008, 01:56 PM
#163
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - Climate models are another guess. What defines the parameters? The changes in the model? The degree / scope of the model?
All the controls in place within a model are based upon a series of assumptions, and there is absolutely NO guarantee that these assumptions are anywhere NEAR correct.
They are just pretty graphs that look good. You may as well stick a copy of the Last Supper up a powerpoint slide and use it as a model for Climate change.
All the controls in place within a model are based upon a series of assumptions, and there is absolutely NO guarantee that these assumptions are anywhere NEAR correct.
They are just pretty graphs that look good. You may as well stick a copy of the Last Supper up a powerpoint slide and use it as a model for Climate change.
As I said all modelling starts with a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is statistically tested. So it's not about assumptions, the problem that can arise in the process are that you don't have all the key variables, overfitting the data, or just plain old bad modelling.
11 December 2008, 02:51 PM
#164
At the beginning of this year, climatologists predicted, based on models and rate the of melting ice based on historic data, that there was a high probability that for the first time in recorded history that there would be no ice at the North Pole the summer just gone (what summer!?) and that it would be possible to reach by boat! Well they got it wrong since we witnessed ol' Clarkie and his team reached it by car!
Could it be possible that the same climatolists be wrong about their global warming hypothisis?
Could it be possible that the same climatolists be wrong about their global warming hypothisis?
11 December 2008, 02:55 PM
#165
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the beginning of this year, climatologists predicted, based on models and rate the of melting ice based on historic data, that there was a high probability that for the first time in recorded history that there would be no ice at the North Pole the summer just gone (what summer!?) and that it would be possible to reach by boat! Well they got it wrong since we witnessed ol' Clarkie and his team reached it by car!
Could it be possible that the same climatolists be wrong about their global warming hypothisis?
Could it be possible that the same climatolists be wrong about their global warming hypothisis?
11 December 2008, 03:54 PM
#166
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the beginning of this year, climatologists predicted, based on models and rate the of melting ice based on historic data, that there was a high probability that for the first time in recorded history that there would be no ice at the North Pole the summer just gone (what summer!?) and that it would be possible to reach by boat! Well they got it wrong since we witnessed ol' Clarkie and his team reached it by car!
Could it be possible that the same climatolists be wrong about their global warming hypothisis?
Could it be possible that the same climatolists be wrong about their global warming hypothisis?
Well - the pole that they drove to was the Magnetic North Pole not the Geographic one that the climatologists are referring to, so this is not a good example.
11 December 2008, 04:09 PM
#167
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer
11 December 2008, 05:11 PM
#168
Ok based on opinions, facts and research presented on this board and quite frankly why thr IPCC doesn't use scoobynet as a source of research is beyond me. I predict the ice cap will indeed melt away completely next summer. This would then pave the way for Clarkson to race to the north pole in the Toyboata!
Last edited by jonc; 11 December 2008 at 07:01 PM.
12 December 2008, 12:21 PM
#169
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The line showing average number sunspots clearly goes up, shrink the temperature scale on the left which is clearly arbitrary, increase the scale on the right and you have a very significant corelation. It is very simple to decieve using scaling on graphs.
12 December 2008, 03:01 PM
#170
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, you would do well to look at all the information about global temperatures, and there is a great deal available, in a completely unbiased manner instead of just believing what we have been told by one side of the scientists and blindly accepting it.
Les
Les
12 December 2008, 04:04 PM
#171
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times do I have to repeat that I do not blindly believe anything?
If you keep saying the same thing over and over it doesn't suddenly become true you know!
Using this logic I should accuse you of blindly choosing to not believe.
I'm editing this post because I'm feeling a bit 'war weary' aften the 4 kids burnt to death thread, and I don't want anymore rows (btw thanks for your support on that, I thought I was going mad).
Time will tell who's write or wrong on this subject, personally I hope you are right and the current theory that I buy into is flat wrong.
Last edited by Martin2005; 13 December 2008 at 12:26 AM.
13 December 2008, 05:13 AM
#172
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This summer, we've had daliy temperatures consistently 10-13c below "nomal". Today it's about 32c, tomorrow it'll be down to well below what is usual at this time of year. Severe ice storms in the central US. There's not much warming going on right now.
Last edited by Klaatu; 13 December 2008 at 05:16 AM.
13 December 2008, 10:54 AM
#173
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How mant times Les?
How many times do I have to repeat that I do not blindly believe anything?
If you keep saying the same thing over and over it doesn't suddenly become true you know!
Using this logic I should accuse you of blindly choosing to not believe.
I'm editing this post because I'm feeling a bit 'war weary' aften the 4 kids burnt to death thread, and I don't want anymore rows (btw thanks for your support on that, I thought I was going mad).
Time will tell who's write or wrong on this subject, personally I hope you are right and the current theory that I buy into is flat wrong.
How many times do I have to repeat that I do not blindly believe anything?
If you keep saying the same thing over and over it doesn't suddenly become true you know!
Using this logic I should accuse you of blindly choosing to not believe.
I'm editing this post because I'm feeling a bit 'war weary' aften the 4 kids burnt to death thread, and I don't want anymore rows (btw thanks for your support on that, I thought I was going mad).
Time will tell who's write or wrong on this subject, personally I hope you are right and the current theory that I buy into is flat wrong.
Les
14 December 2008, 10:26 AM
#174
Guest
Posts: n/a
More evidence of Global warming here then ... BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Ice storm cripples north-east US " ... As many as 1m people have been left without power in the north-eastern US after one of the worst ice storms in a decade crippled the electricity grid ... "
and Met Office: Cold start to winter " ... Temperatures from the Met Office have revealed that the UK has had the coldest start to winter in over 30 years. The UK average temperature for the first third of December has been only 1.7 °C compared to the long-term average of 4.7 °C ... "
Enjoy!
Dave
and Met Office: Cold start to winter " ... Temperatures from the Met Office have revealed that the UK has had the coldest start to winter in over 30 years. The UK average temperature for the first third of December has been only 1.7 °C compared to the long-term average of 4.7 °C ... "
Enjoy!
Dave
15 December 2008, 02:28 AM
#175
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Officially...
Sydney extreme rainfall in summer 2007−08
The coolest summer (2007) in 11 years indeed. The first 15 days of summer have been very cool. Pretty inconvenient.
But Krudd747 has just given AU$1b of taxpayers money to coal and aluminium businesses to "fight" this climate change BS!
Sydney extreme rainfall in summer 2007−08
The coolest summer (2007) in 11 years indeed. The first 15 days of summer have been very cool. Pretty inconvenient.
But Krudd747 has just given AU$1b of taxpayers money to coal and aluminium businesses to "fight" this climate change BS!
Last edited by Klaatu; 15 December 2008 at 02:51 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Bazil_SW
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
24
21 September 2015 11:55 PM