Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Discussion in 'Gold' started by Tony, Feb 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I agree with the sentiment, but not the conclusion.

    The reason we have to reduce the rate of fossil fuel consumption as much as possible is that it will buy time to develop and commission realistic alternative energy sources, the most important of which will probably be fusion based.

    That might take 50, 100, 150 years, who knows.

    In the meanwhile we need to survive on existing technologies and resources, and save energy wherever possible, every last one of us. We could start by closing down the PF.
  2. Joe Public

    Joe Public Striker

    10,000 empty words, and a final sentence that clearly shows you have no understanding of climate, environment, or anything about the world we live in. What a disappointing way to end your argument.
  3. Tony

    Tony Guest

    Everybody has heard of Greenpeace and evrybody has an opinion about Greenpeace, usually at the extremes of like or dislike. Well it may interest some readers of these threads about Global Warming and Climate Change that Greenpeace has a blog called Exxon Secrets and among other things posted on the blog are details of emminent scientists who have raised serious questions about the subjects. You have indeed read some of those details on these threads, usually posted by JP who has "cut and pasted" indiscriminately from that list. I doubt if JP ran any checks to see if the information is true or untrue but the point about libellous posts has been well publicised by the Administrator. Here is the link to the list

    My recommendation is that if you want some good solid information that refutes the propaganda of the warmists you should read what some of these guys have said and written. Notice I did not say "what some of these guys are alledged to have said and written!"

    Greenpeace is a dangerous organisation that is intent on destroying our way of life and there should be no doubt in anybody's mind that if they intend to destroy the careers of the individuals listed they will not be easily deterred.

    Using the SMB as a vehicle for their slime with the help of some of our gullible friends is playing into their hands. They don't want to save our world, they want to destroy it.

    Here is the link to the site

    Judge for yourselves.
  4. Joe Public

    Joe Public Striker

    Good post, and a completely understandable point of view. It differs from mine though as its primary concern is related to the effects on humans and on the economy, it only really differs from my point of view, in that I believe the primary concern should always be the only place we and every other species of plant and animal have to live on, and have an economy on.

    Your stand point is so relevant as you know, as well as I do, that economics drives change, we have seen it every day in our line of work. It does not stop me believing that this should never be the priority though. The environment should always be the priority, but I dont believe we have to compromise economy for environment. I think that we should be able to have both, that we are surely intelligent enough as a species to overcome the energy problems we face, and if we aren't, and we do become a species that brings our own downfall and the downfall of millions of different types of life in this place, then we have never really been the intelligent race we think we are.
  5. Tony

    Tony Guest

    I suppose you preened yourself when you saw that in print! What a bloody good refutation of the points made in my post.

    The SMB now knows that I have no understanding of climate, environment and anything about the world we live in. Joe Public our Sexual Intellectual (aka Mr. "F****ing Knowitall") has decreed it.

  6. Joe Public

    Joe Public Striker


    The tone of your posts just get better tony, and now Greenpeace wants to destroy the world. :lol:

    My advice to people out there is go and look for the peer reviewed scientific papers that the anti-global warming lobbyists have written which supports their claims that man made global warming is a made up conspiracy, because you will not find many. You will, however, find reams of half baked, unscientific articles repeatedly published by bloggers, journalists, economists, and oil-sponsored think tanks with the direct intent on speading misinformation.

    If however, you take the time to review the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, produced independently by thousands and thousands of the worlds top client scientists in every different field of expertise, then you will be able to see the difference between the two, quite clearly.

    Do you regret posting it? You seem to by this post. Can you tell us why you believe that global temperature increase wouldnt be such a bad thing? You really do not understand this issue at all, you are way out of your depth.

    Keep it up Tony, you're doing really well.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2008
  7. Tony, how do you explain that virtually every month and season brings a slew of new climate records around the world these days - hottest here, coldest there, wettest here, dryest there, and so on.

    BTW here in Australia we just had our hottest ever January across the whole country, which was also the wettest in some regions, and I've never known sustained humidity like it here in Perth (normally dry Mediterranean cllimate) in the near 2 decades I've lived here.

    And it's supposed to be La Nina.
  8. Joe Public

    Joe Public Striker

    Getting back to the authour of the orignal linked article, can Tony tell us what qualifications mr Joe Bastardi has? He is a bloody weatherman for God's sake, he is completely an utterly unqualified on the topic, has no scientific back ground and should be no more listened to than if my local butcher had written an article on running a restaurant.
  9. ---Nemo---

    ---Nemo--- Striker

    Reply from Vincent to Medulla's post. ;)

  10. Medulla

    Medulla Striker


    Fucking hell, has dino hacked your account?
  11. Flavonoids

    Flavonoids Striker

  12. Medulla

    Medulla Striker

    Oh aye, how does he know that? ;)
    The radiosondes do agree that the earth is warming, as does Jones and 'the satellites'. Bizarre.

    Data from NASA's surface temperature analysis also shows this warming trend. And various proxies such as analysis of ice cores and evidence from melting of glaciers and permafrost

    He's not addressed my points on this score, merely restated his position, which I contended in the first place. Models can and are critiqued by expert peers in the scientific literature, and prior to publication.

    So because they don't predict most variables on climate correctly those that they are effective in predicting are worthless?

    This is from a recent paper (2006) that plots Mean Global Temperatures from 1988 predicted from alongside those recorded: [​IMG]

    To explain, Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B roughly linear increase and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards; essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Based on previous research, the author specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the "most plausible".

    The actual observed increases in temperature was 0.24 (+/- 0.07) and 0.21 (+/- 0.06) deg C per decade, whilst scenario B predicted 0.24+/- 0.06 deg C per decade. I think given the chaotic nature of the climate, that this is fairly bloody good no?

    Again, he doesn't provide a reference for this but if he is implying that temperature is driven by solar radiation, this view has not stood up to scrutiny , particularly as the sun's output since 1978 has shown no upward trend.

    But another point; as I say, the climate is choatic and noone expects or implies perfection from these models. They are a very useful tool however and their use is to predict trends not single years, which also addresses his comment about last month being 'the coldest for many years' (not referenced, and unclear whether he meant locally or globally).

    He doesn't provide references here, so it's difficult to examine or critique and on the latter point, unless my brain is addled from all of these stats, I don't understand what it is he means.

    The effect in providing a temporary cooling effect were predicted closely after the fact, based on the knowledge of the impact of such scale volcanic eruptions on the climate.

    An evaluation of the model to assess how well it predicted an event found that it wasn't perfect, is what he is effectively saying I think. I think I've answered this point in comments about what is expected of climate models.

    I don't think anyone suggested correlation implies causation, merely that there are numerous sources of evidence outside of mere correlation - such as the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and the effect of more CO2 in relation to this - that are highly suggestive (>90% according to the latest IPCC) that human actions are the principal cause.

    For instance, I'm also aware that scientists use a further two methods to predict a global warming trend, beyond climate computer models. One is Paleoclimate reconstructions which show that there is a direct correlation between carbon dioxide increasing and the warming that follows. The other is a measurement of the curent energy imbalance situation between the energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere and that leaving, which illustrates that a lesser amount is exiting due mostly to the driving force of CO2. Ergo, the Earth has to heat up.

    I don't doubt he has expertise in the field, nor have I suggested I am a climate scientist. My point was simply that it was important to recognise that he was stepping outside his field when commenting on climate modelling, as if a modeller started pronouncing on coal chemistry.

    However I'm sure the thousands of scientists that have contributed to the IPCC and subscribe to the AGW theory have similar or greater levels of experience so by that line of reasoning his position on the lack of any discernable global warming is untenable given the consensus. Even amongst sceptics and oil companies.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2008
  13. ---Nemo---

    ---Nemo--- Striker

    I've invited him to respond. :lol:
  14. Pancho

    Pancho Striker Staff Member Contributor

    I would like to go on record as being wrong. Tony is not slightly batty. He's a complete fruit loop.
  15. GK

    GK Striker Contributor

    When I was at college New Scientist was one of the magazines of choice, recommended by our professors and lecturers and the likes

    At the time the environmental stories started to appear, but they were pretty sparse and ignored by all but a few

    Now look at it!

    It is literally incredible how many of the scientific community are researching climate change now. The evidence is almost overwhelming, and virtually all of the scientific community agree - the earth is warming and we have contributed. There are many arguments as to how much we've influenced this warming, and what we can do to reverse it. But there is amost an outright concensus on this now. The earth's climate is warming and we have influenced this.

    You will struggle to find a single researcher of note who is still sceptical about climate change who is not on the payroll of one of the major oil corporations.

    The whole situation reminds me of the cancer and tobacco links in the 50s. Proving outright that tobacco smoke caused cancer was virtually impossible. It took decades, however it was plaint to see the link was there.

    Yet again we have huge corporations doing everything possible to belittle the scientific community in an effort to hold on to their assets.

    It's all very sad imo.

    Here is an advert sponsored by Exon a year or so back

  16. Tony

    Tony Guest

  17. Pancho

    Pancho Striker Staff Member Contributor

    Tony man, just click the quote button you numpty. It buggers up the thread otherwise.

    I would hope that I'll always admit to my mistakes. It's the only way to learn. Unfortunately, from your contributions, and despite your formidable age and experience, I think it highly unlikely that you feel the same way.

    You refuse to answer direct questions and your tangential replies are becoming so predictable. Your lame response to Joe Public consisted of comments about 'jargon and pretty graphs', and this I'm afraid is all too typical of your posts. You are increasingly incapable of carrying on any sort of rational discussion on this subject.

    You really do look like you are way out of your depth.
  18. Tony

    Tony Guest

    Well thanks a lot for putting me back on your mailing list but don't judge a book by its cover! :):)
  19. The End Game will sort all this out man, nowt to worry about.
  20. Tony

    Tony Guest

    I've just read this on a Greenpeace site and couldn't help thinking what role the drunk scientists and economists are playing in this.

    "There is still time but it is indeed getting very late. Ominously, the climate is changing faster than we imagined and impacts coming earlier than were predicted. The costs of adaptation to inevitable changes in the next decade or so are already staggering. Sober scientists and economists are raising alarm bells that can be ignored only at great peril to us all."

    Gan on somebody and tell us it's not funny!​
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page