Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I bet you've not long learned that.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I agree 100%, but it is good manners to try to leave the place tidy behind us. ;)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'm sure God or a meteorite will sort out what needs to be done :)

I was reading the other day that the earth has gone through I think 9 stages of big change due to meteorites (a great big stone)
we could all live in the dark ages for the sake of saving the planet, and find all our efforts destroyed just like that :)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The basis of risk analysis* is likelyhood and impact - so the impact (in so many different ways) of a meteorite hitting earth is high, the likelyhood is extremely low; whilst the impact of Climate Change is medium-high, and the likelyhood is medium-high, this equates to a higher risk than a rock from space.

However, if you have concerns about another dinosaur-killer coming along, you may find this useful.

btw, it's not about living in the dark ages, it's just about making adjustments to mitigate the risk.

*Risk Analysis consists of
(1) Identification of possible negative external and internal conditions, events, or situations
(2) Determination of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships between probable happenings, their magnitude, and likely outcomes
(3) Evaluation of various outcomes under different assumptions, and under different probabilities that each outcome will take place
(4) Application of qualitative and quantitative techniques to reduce uncertainty of the outcomes and associated costs, liabilities, or losses.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

They were fooling us all along :D

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.


Warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Open Letter to Climate Change Minister Nick Smith

From retired climate scientist Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, of Christchurch
16 October 2009

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0911/S00214.htm

The scam has been busted.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

IIRC there have been two separate recent nature/wildlife programs on BBC TV where the narrator said that conditions were the coldest on record.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Global warming is a crappy and imprecise term.


However climate change means climate change and that involves increased instability in climate and weather patterns before settling down again at some indefinite point in the future. For the British Isles, kept warm by the gulf stream, climate change might very well mean we will first subject to colder, possibly wetter conditions.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Link

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

There's a paper entitled "Late Quaternary ostracod and planktonic foraminiferal dissolution signals from the eastern Tasman Sea - palaeoenvironmental implications" in the 1994 International Workshop on the Late Quaternary Palaeoceanography of the Australasian Region. Gripping stuff :tu:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'm waiting for the film to come out.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

at the moment my house is 300 meters from the beach, if global warming is actually happening and the seas rise i will soon be living in a beach side property and i can keep my cabin cruiser in the garden .

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Something to look forward to, then. :)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Here they go again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

It's the poorer countries which will suffer most, then you'll have a massive refugee problem heading our way.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

What, you mean the increased likelihood of the UK suffering extreme weather events due to climate change? Yes, indeed, they do 'go' again. They 'went' all over Cockermouth last week. Or hadn't you noticed?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Sorry - I wasn't meant to come over as being a skeptic. It just seems they keep issuing these warnings and no one seems to actually do anything.

I know that there is Kyoto II to come next month but I can't see that being very productive what with it being politicians and all.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Another "alarming" story from "experts" that tells you sod all.

What pattern? tell us what the pattern is then? we had a heatwave 5 years ago and we've had some flooding last year, and this year in fact we've had flooding in different parts of the country virtually every year.

What's next in the pattern? a heat wave next year? I recall the Met Office (one of the "experts" in this report) advising at the start of this year that we'd have heat wave, a "barbecue summer". Well it didn't happen up here, a couple of good weeks a the odd good day nothing out of the ordinary.

What's the pattern?

Climate change is irreversible, who are we to think that we can stop a planets climate, that has been in continual flux for millenia?

but are still lower then when 30% of the earth was covered in ice and snow in the last ice age?

I love this quote, there is nothing clear about this quote. I'll try and translate it.

"We have no actual hard evidence that any of the current ecological events are caused by global warming but they are happening"

Yes, and that's from a professor.

Whilst I'm all for cutting pollution, and we should endeavour to reduce emissions whereever possible, we must not put our faith in that cutting emissions will be enough. Unlike our learned friends.

We must start investing in ways to live with climate change, because it is going to change whatever we do.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Its a shame that international agreements like Kyoto etc, end up being a load of horse-trading, smoke and mirrors con jobs, and watered down bullsnot.... The bottom line is that fixing the earth, will, well, cost the earth....

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I don't think there is much we can do, once there is some momentum in the weather systems there's not much chance of stopping it even if we all stopped burning fossil fuel completely from tomorrow.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Ok you need to stop quoting "experts" in such a fashion. You seem to be saying that they are not experts. The Met Office for example is staffed by some extremely intelligent people, you need to be smart to work there, just like a lot of these people who you, imo, disrespect by denigrating their expertise in such a fashion.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Is that why they never get a weather forecast right.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Because Weather is unpredictable, they don't pretend to know everything.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Firstly, I don't need to stop quoting "experts" is such fashion, and you are correct I am implying that they are not experts or certainly not credible.

The met office may be staffed by some intelligent people, doesn't make a blind bit of difference. They are the ones going on record as predicting calamity abound for years to come if we don't act on "climate change" when they they can't forecast several months in advance let alone years

Well if they don't pretend to know everything, and if weather is so unpredictable, then why are they contributing to this statement??????

Whenever I see, or hear, a story that starts with the sentence "experts say" or "scientists say" I treat it with the contempt it deserves. The quote from that professor confirms my reservations

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

It depends who the experts are. Scientists at the Met Office are credible sources of information, some guy who calls himself an expert without the evidence to back it up is not credible.

The Met Office has many different areas of staff but they are generally well educated in their fields. We're talking PhD and Masters level, often in subjects much as physics and maths. Then to top that off there are many years of experience. So if they say something than maybe your first reaction should not be to "treat it with the contempt it deserves". I am trying to think of a major scientific institution which rejects the science behind global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Your the one making the mistake in thinking predicting short term weather patterns, like will it rain next week, is the same science as forecasting weather trends and examining those in the past. They know which conditions cause certain events (hurricanes, floods, droughts) and they can estimate the likelihood of those occurring again.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

No I'm not, the Met office predicted that this summer would be very hot, they went on record at the begining of the year, and they were wrong. I'm not talking about next here but months in advance.

Obviously using all of their historical data they predicted a blazing UK summer, and were wrong.

Predicting Hurricanes is easy, I predict that there will be several hurricanes and/or tropical storms in the South Atlantic and Carribean between August and October.

The truth of the matter is that "scientists" and "experts" don't know what effect the changing climate will have on the planet.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Ok. They are scientists and experts. They can be wrong but that doesn't diminish their expertise in their areas. If they are to be treated with such disrespect and contempt then who should we listen too? The only way to disprove their claims is with science, practised by scientists, who need to be experts in their field.

Looking at long term effects on climate is different to predicting the weather. They know for example about freak weather patterns can occur and not if they will occur. We seem to be having freak floods more often than usual for example. While we did not get a heatwave in summer but we do seem to have a warmer November. Neither of which matters because it's how all the data trends over long periods that prove anything.

So they look at this, and the scientific community has pretty much formed a consense that Global Warming is real and the rate is being increased faster by human factors which are producing additional amounts of Carbon Dioxide, among other things.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Not all scientists subscribe to the mainstream global warming argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I didn't say all. Most do. There are scientists who promote Intelligent Design and the Young-Earth stuff as well.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

IIRC the heatwave of a few years back was because of existing hot air coming up from the Sahara. So overall the amount of 'heat' was the same, it's just that some of it escaped northwards.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Why was there more hot air that year from the Sahara?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Perhaps a climate change conference was held there. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Doesn't matter why, the Sahara was cooler and north of the Sahara(eg France and UK) were hotter. Combining the areas, the amount of heat was the the same, not more.

There have been two recent nature/wildlife programmes on the BBC where it was stated that, in the area that they were in, the weather was the coldest on record.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

OK, your in-depth explanation has convinced me.....;)

Except for the fact you have contradicted yourself re the Sahara being hotter and cooler. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

New estimate for sea level rise by 2100 - up to 1.4m

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Good article on Global Warming: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...ate-change.ars

Obviously written by a Scientist.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'd better dig out my snorkel then. :)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

No point worrying then.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

:confused: Where was I saying that the Sahara was hotter? Just think of two rooms connected via a door. One room is 'hot', the other a 'normal' temperature. Open the connecting door and the hotter air will escape and make the 'hot' room cooler and the 'normal' room hotter. Overall the heat in the two rooms is the same, the heat was moved from one place to another. Overall, no warming has taken place.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

:erm:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Where were you saying that the Saraha was hotter? That would be in the post that stated -
One would assume if hot air was coming from somewhere (up from the Sahara), it was because that area (the Sahara) was hotter (or has the second law of thermodynamics been repealed? ;) ).

btw, I think you may find that the model of atmospheric heat equilibrium is a little more complex than that. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Ans here is the other side of the argument.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-control.html

No doubt the Global Warming fundamentalists will have you shot for reading this, let alone agreeing with much of it.

If the estimate of rising seas is correct, which I doubt, then I'd start building some defences

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Ain't that the truth. I'll remember to quote it again the next time we're having a Creation/evolution thread. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

People are indeed vulnerable to vested Interests. After all he himself is the owner of some mining companies whose profitability would be under threat by measures to reduce Global Warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Pli...ning_interests

Kind of rich he should accuse the majority of scientists who concur with climate change of being motivated by cash. Although not-unexpected from the Daily Mail who have a habit of negligent to mention vested interests by their expert contributors. Especially evident in MMR where their 'concerned doctors speaking out' often stood to gain financially from the scaremongering.

Although it is less convincing that the vast majority of scientists are won over by commercial gain. Many of these are academics. So why do the majority of scientists agree with Global Warming being at least made worse faster by Human interventions? (Incidentally he uses natural CO2 emissions as proof global warming is natual but obviously we still have those emissions combined with our own).

Science is a process. It is not a religion. However it is a process which seeks to understand though testing and re-testing and trying to, as best we can, prove facts about our universe. As such it's findings do have some weight. Some people seem to think it's just a point of view, a 'side', among many which is what is annoying about the Creationism 'debate'. The idea that religions belief is an equal, on Scientific terms, to evolution is wrong.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Bearing in mind the topic of this thread ... ;) ... you're addressing the scientific method as the ideal means to 'do science'. Prof. Plimer, on the other hand, is addressing the people who do the science, and pointing out that they are as fallible as anyone else.

You can praise the method as much as you like, but the fact is, once you expect human beings to perform it, it becomes as prone to 'fads, fanatics and frauds' as anything else.

To quote him again, with added emphasis:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

:D

While it is certainly true that Science is not immune from it, it's a bit of a leap to say it is just as vulnerable. There are processes in place to make it less vulnerable. There is peer review, the process by which fellow scientists judge whether a paper is sound and worth publishing. There is the practice of writing up your studies and results in such a way that they can be replicated by others.

Sure, some people will defend their stance no matter what the evidence, and will just look for evidence that supports their stance. Some people will even massage and manipulate the data to suit their agenda, but generally, they don't. Partly because most scientists just want to find out how stuff works, and want to do it in the proper way, and partly because it won't do your career much good if you don't play by the rules.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Yes but this reduces with the more people practise it. If this were a single individual or organisation, a collective which a shared motive, then I would agree that their findings would be just that of one study/person. I would take them with a massive pinch of salt if there was suspicion of economic incentive for that person/collective.

Other Scientists looking at the study and agreeing the study is sound, with no evidence suggesting foul play, would start to help reduce doubt. Finally scientist upon scientist coming up with similar findings, ones who may contradict some elements but not the overall picture, and peer review validating those conclusions would cause me to believe that, at the moment, this is the most likely truth.

That is the case with Global Warming, and to a stronger case evolution, with a few disagreeing voices. The problem is that their relatively small voices (i.e minority) are given more weight by the groups that want them to be right which distorts their actual importance and creditability in the debate. Effectively creating a set of sides which do not really exist in the wider scientific community.

These people are in the minority in the Scientific community. They deserve to be heard and serious studies (not populist books) should be taken into account because that is what science should be. However we cannot give undue prominence to them. Science cannot stop every time there are a couple of people who disagree.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

What he said. :dunce: