Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I got to post 87 and have now given up.

I do the same sort of work as Joe Public used to (before he saw sense and left to run his shop;)), therefore my job involves trying to design more energy efficient buildings and assisting our clients in complying with legislation linked to the governments energy targets. However I do not subscribe blindly to the global warming lobby.

It's not that I disagree that it is happening, it may well be, and I think the 95% certainty level as identified in the latest reports is probably about right. My concern is that we all seem to be completely missing the point.

Climate change is not the real issue and I will explain why;

..etc...etc
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.
 

Joe Public

Striker
If the world is warming there is not enough evidence to blame fossil fuels for the problem. And if the world is warming why is it such a bad thing anyway?
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.
 
T

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 http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Scientists

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 http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Judge for yourselves.
 

Joe Public

Striker
I got to post 87 and have now given up.

I do the same sort of work as Joe Public used to (before he saw sense and left to run his shop;)), therefore my job involves trying to design more energy efficient buildings and assisting our clients in complying with legislation linked to the governments energy targets. However I do not subscribe blindly to the global warming lobby.

It's not that I disagree that it is happening, it may well be, and I think the 95% certainty level as identified in the latest reports is probably about right. My concern is that we all seem to be completely missing the point.

Climate change is not the real issue and I will explain why;
  • We have a finite amount of fossil fuel
  • The world population is growing exponentially
  • Our consumption of fossil fuel will therefore increase with time
  • Energy efficiency will only delay the time period it takes us to burn all the fossil fuel and we will burn it all anyway and do it in a time scale which is insignificant on a global scale
  • Global warming effects will take tens of thousands of years to self rectify if you believe the scientists
  • Fossil fuels will run out in probably 200 to 300 years at present rates of consumption (oil much sooner)
You can argue about some of the niceties in the above list, it may be 500 years before we run out of fossil fuels for e.g. but that is just pedantry. However, I think we can all agree on the basic premise behind the above list.

Having agreed on this we need to ask ourselves a question, why are we even worrying about global warming?

To prevent it getting worse we would have to STOP burning ANY more fossil fuels today. Energy efficiency just delays the inevitable by an insignificant period.

The real issue is not global warming but how we continue to sustain a growing population when the very lifeblood of what has enabled us to get to where we are runs out. We have no viable alternative source of energy to replace fossil fuels and oil in particular.

There is a further complication, the law of supply and demand. Best estimates (from the oil industry) are that we have roughly consumed half of all the oil we can realistically hope to ever extract. Like all finite resources, oil is cheap and easy to extract at first but becomes ever more expensive and difficult to extract once you have consumed half of it. It is also impossible to extract more on a daily basis (a technique the Saudis have used to stabilise world economies for 30 years or more) once the wells start to empty. We are getting to that point and the pressure of industrialisation in China and India just exacerbates the effect.

Demand for oil will increase year on year and production conversely will begin to decline and the gap between the two diverging lines on the graph will see oil prices escalate hugely. It could be argued we are already seeing this happen. I would note here that currently we only sustain a world population of around 9 billion people by growing foods using oil based fertilisers to boost production. World population is predicted to double by 2030.

Imagine a scenario whereby petrol is £1 a litre today, but £2 a litre in 2 years and £4 a litre in 2012, and then disappears off the scale? It will happen someday, the only debate is when.

We need to forget about global warming and concentrate on developing a real, viable and sustainable alternative for fossil fuels, otherwise we are potentially facing a return to the dark ages.

The taxation has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with trying to buy some time while we seek the panacea of an alternative fuel source.

Running out of fossil fuel, or more accurately running out of most of our fossil fuels, has the potential to cause economic strife world wide that will make the 1930's look like a minor blip. When oil prices escalate, a few pence on tax will be the least of your worries. Things will rectify themselves in time. The planet will return to a sustainable population level, through the usual methods of rectification, War, Famine, disease etc.

The only way to avoid this doomsday scenario is to find an alternative energy source.
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.
 
T

Tony

Guest
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.
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.

Pisspot!
 

Joe Public

Striker
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 http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Scientists

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 http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Judge for yourselves.

:lol::lol::lol:

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.

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.

Pisspot!
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:
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.
 

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.
 

---Nemo---

Striker
Reply from Vincent to Medulla's post. ;)

Dear Nemo

Thanks for the letter. I don't often get the chance to argue with these people as they are so sure they are right.

My replies are as follows; and I have no objection to publication.

These people are not scientists , but BELIEVERS. It is a fact that the globe is not warming, but they believe otherwise. Only Jim Hansen would agree with you, but not Jones, GHCN or the satellites or the radiosondes, Last month was the coldest for many years (12-20 I make it),

You can only judge models if you are outside the field. The judgement of the model makers is contaminated by their conflict of interest. They are paid money to produce them, and even more if they express "confidence" in them. Unfortunately there is hardly any evidence that they predict correctly most aspects of climate.

They actually do try to find examples, but they are not very convincing.

The stratosphere cools; even when the globe is not warming; not predicted

The models fail to predict the temperature in the atmosphere, after the recent corrections to the satellites.

The temperature rise from 1988 followed a fall that was not predicted, The most reliable temperature records (which do not include amalgamation of weather stations) show a periodic change related to changes in the sun and ocean oscillations. Models do not predict this.

The warming of the ocean is also periodic and does not go back far enough to take in the previous fall.

Prediction of Mt Pinatubo was after the event. Douglass et al 2006 found that most of the models were wrong with a smaller value of climate sensitivity and negative feedback.

Water Vapour is the main greenhouse gas, and it has the lowest concentration over the poles. If it provides a positive "feedback" the poles should both be warming least. This happens at the South Pole, so the North Pole behaviour is anomalous. Water Vapour is highest over the tropics; yet they are definitely not warming.

Even if the models sometimes work, so what? Have you people never heard of the logical principle that a correlation, however convincing does not prove causation, There is always an alternative explanation which you do your best to denigrate, so that it can be ignored.

One last point, I have been a climate scientist for seventeen years. How long has this fellow studied the subject?


Cheers

Vincent Gray
75 Silverstream Road
Crofton Downs
Wellington 6035
New Zealand
Phone/fax (0064) 4 973 5939
"The desire to save humanity is
always a false front for the urge to rule it"
H L Mencken
 

Medulla

Striker
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.

Pisspot!
:lol::lol::lol:

Fucking hell, has dino hacked your account?
 

Flavonoids

Striker
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.

Pisspot!
:lol::lol::oops:
 

Medulla

Striker
Nemo said:
These people are not scientists , but BELIEVERS.
Oh aye, how does he know that? ;)
It is a fact that the globe is not warming, but they believe otherwise. Only Jim Hansen would agree with you, but not Jones, GHCN or the satellites or the radiosondes, Last month was the coldest for many years (12-20 I make it)
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

You can only judge models if you are outside the field. The judgement of the model makers is contaminated by their conflict of interest. They are paid money to produce them, and even more if they express "confidence" in them.
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.

Unfortunately there is hardly any evidence that they predict correctly most aspects of climate.
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:


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?

The temperature rise from 1988 followed a fall that was not predicted, The most reliable temperature records (which do not include amalgamation of weather stations) show a periodic change related to changes in the sun and ocean oscillations. Models do not predict this.
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).

The models fail to predict the temperature in the atmosphere, after the recent corrections to the satellites.

The warming of the ocean is also periodic and does not go back far enough to take in the previous fall.
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.

Prediction of Mt Pinatubo was after the event. Douglass et al 2006 found that most of the models were wrong with a smaller value of climate sensitivity and negative feedback.
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.

Even if the models sometimes work, so what? Have you people never heard of the logical principle that a correlation, however convincing does not prove causation, There is always an alternative explanation which you do your best to denigrate, so that it can be ignored.
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.

One last point, I have been a climate scientist for seventeen years. How long has this fellow studied the subject?
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:

Pancho

Striker
Staff member
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 http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Scientists

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 http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Judge for yourselves.

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

GK

Striker
Well that certainly muddied the waters. :lol:

I was already on to the Realclimate site Joe but apparently there are doubts about the credibility of that site as well. No doubt over time the evidence and methodologies will be studied and analysed by an increasing number of independents and a less partisan picture will emerge.
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!


http://environment.newscientist.com/home.ns

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

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av3g0&search=Competitive%20Enterprise%20Institute[/YOUTUBE]
 
T

Tony

Guest
I would like to go on record as being wrong. Tony is not slightly batty. He's a complete fruit loop.[/quote]


I accept your cofession! You are wrong but I personally think it's nice that you are man enough to admit it. ;);)
 

Pancho

Striker
Staff member
I accept your cofession! You are wrong but I personally think it's nice that you are man enough to admit it. ;);)
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.
 
T

Tony

Guest
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.
Well thanks a lot for putting me back on your mailing list but don't judge a book by its cover! :):)
 
H

haddaway and shite

Guest
The End Game will sort all this out man, nowt to worry about.
 
T

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!​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top