Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MikeySmith

Guest
Every time you post one of these I urge you to check out the REAL science. Go to www.newscientist.com and read all the science you can take on it, most supporting the global warming theories. These articles are written by scientists with no hidden agenda, nothing to do with the UN reports.

How do you know their agendas? Do you know them personally?

Didn't think so.

They even published a special edition de-bunking the "lies" being peddled by those with vested interests.

Both sides have vested interests. Try getting a grant for any study that doesn't presume the existence of manmade global warming. You won't be able to from any government or NGO source.

So far, you havven't made a single comment on any of the scientific articles I've pointed you to.

Knowing your background, and to your credit you've never hidden that, I suggest that your reasons for not commenting are that you have your own vested interests.

I repeat, there are vested interests on both sides of the argument. To believe otherwise is very naive.

The scientific evidence is there my friend, and your repeated searching out of articles supporting one side of the debate is tiresome.

There is peer-reviewed evidence supporting both sides of the debate and both sides use it selectively to justify their argument.
 


AB22 Easy Tiger

Director
Staff member
That's my whole point about that site though. It looks at both sides. And the special issue debunked the "lies" on both sides.

It's about as impartial a publication as I can find to be honest, if you read the letters each week, any hint of partisanship is normally ripped to shreds.

And the debate doesn't boil down to "he said, she said" as it does on many other sites.

If you can find anything that's close to being impartial please point me at it.
 

Rizla

Striker
There can be no doubt that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in the vast amount that we do is going to have an impact on the greenhouse effect. The uncertainty must be around the magnitude of the impact.

Tht article seems to suggest thus has been a colder than average year so far - well it certainly hasn't been in Europe. Far from it.
 

Thackeray

Striker
Try to get funding for any study that sheds doubt on man-made global warming... you won't get it from any "official" source.

Everybody has an agenda.

Any research application made to any funding council which sets out the results they intend to find a priori would be laughed out of court, and rightly so.
 
T

Tony

Guest
There can be no doubt that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in the vast amount that we do is going to have an impact on the greenhouse effect. The uncertainty must be around the magnitude of the impact.

Tht article seems to suggest thus has been a colder than average year so far - well it certainly hasn't been in Europe. Far from it.

:?::?::?::?:

It's over and done with then. Rizla has spoken!
 

zero_hour

Striker
:?::?::?::?:

It's over and done with then. Rizla has spoken!

its foolish to assume that the pumping of millions of tons of CO2 will have no effect, it clearly will. common sense tells you it will

however, what i dont agree with the high horse that everyone seems to be getting on when you mention "global Warming"

The crux of the matter is that we know NOTHING about how the weather interacts with the concentrations of various gases that comprise our atmosphere and how that effects temperature etc etc

All we can do is theorise. Until such time that it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that one or the other is right or wrong, then we should not have to fork out extra taxes or pay more for things that are percieved to be "green".
 
There can be no doubt that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in the vast amount that we do is going to have an impact on the greenhouse effect. The uncertainty must be around the magnitude of the impact.

Tht article seems to suggest thus has been a colder than average year so far - well it certainly hasn't been in Europe. Far from it.

That's the point, it's isn't actually that vast compared to the natural sources. And, the CO2 concentration has increased over the last 10yrs, whereas the global temperature has levelled off. That shouldn't happen if you listen to the IPCC etc etc.

It isn't as simple as the government like you to think and it really really annoys me when people (not a dig at Rizla!) tell me I am not allowed to question the basis of this disaster ridden bullshit that is forced down our throats on a daily basis.
 

Hawkeye

Central Defender
What never seems to get mentioned is that we are still coming out of the last ice age... If that's the case, and it's pretty well documented, then you might just expect the world to be geting a little warmer anyway?... so there is absolutely no way to assess whether co2 has had any impact of not and the politicians (and a lot of "scientists") are talking out of where most of their hot air originates from....
Hawk..
 

Thackeray

Striker
What never seems to get mentioned is that we are still coming out of the last ice age... If that's the case, and it's pretty well documented, then you might just expect the world to be geting a little warmer anyway?... so there is absolutely no way to assess whether co2 has had any impact of not and the politicians (and a lot of "scientists") are talking out of where most of their hot air originates from....
Hawk..

Very persuasive argument, I'm convinced.
 

Pancho

Assistant Laundry Manager
Staff member
Would you agree with the thought that with vast reserves of coal we should use it for power generation and utilise our also vast natural gas resources as transportation fuels, thus reducing our dependence on Middle-East, Venezuelan and Russian oil?

I don't understand the relevance of your question to this debate.

This is again what you resort to when someone enters a discussion with you. Why bother starting topics like this then resort to these posts? You really should know better.

You must despair at some of the ill-informed shite on threads such as this.
 
D

Deleted member 361

Guest
You must despair at some of the ill-informed shite on threads such as this.

all hail the oracle

All we can do is theorise. Until such time that it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that one or the other is right or wrong, then we should not have to fork out extra taxes or pay more for things that are percieved to be "green".

nailed on but dont tell that to the usual twats trawling the internet for info then professing to hold the moral high ground.

i would have more respect if the green drive didnt always involve tax
 
T

Tony

Guest
I don't understand the relevance of your question to this debate.

Mikey Smith stated"From my point of view, I think we should move towards low carbon energy simply because hydrocarbons are far, far, far too precious a resource to burn.I broadly agree."

and you replied, " I definitely agree with your last paragraph."

So I posed a question to you asking if we should do something to at least greatly reduce our reliance on foreign oil by using natural resources that we have in abundance. If this overtaxed your mental capacity forgive me.




]
 

Pancho

Assistant Laundry Manager
Staff member
all hail the oracle



nailed on but dont tell that to the usual twats trawling the internet for info then professing to hold the moral high ground.

i would have more respect if the green drive didnt always involve tax

If you are referring to me, then I'm certainly no oracle. I'm simply a humble observer looking for more information on a contentious subject.

If you are referring to Joe however, then yes, I have been impressed with his numerous, informed and intelligent contributions on this subject.

I can't say the same about you.
 
D

Deleted member 361

Guest
If you are referring to me, then I'm certainly no oracle. I'm simply a humble observer looking for more information on a contentious subject.

If you are referring to Joe however, then yes, I have been impressed with his numerous, informed and intelligent contributions on this subject.

I can't say the same about you.

none of us know so end of story
 

Flavonoids

Striker
I don't understand the relevance of your question to this debate.

Mikey Smith stated"From my point of view, I think we should move towards low carbon energy simply because hydrocarbons are far, far, far too precious a resource to burn.I broadly agree."

and you replied, " I definitely agree with your last paragraph."

So I posed a question to you asking if we should do something to at least greatly reduce our reliance on foreign oil by using natural resources that we have in abundance. If this overtaxed your mental capacity forgive me.

:lol:

I'm surprised you can still manage so much self love, given your advanced years.

Still can't manage to quote though.
 
T

Tony

Guest
:lol:

I'm surprised you can still manage so much self love, given your advanced years.

Still can't manage to quote though.


If you have both the time and the inclination you can become a much better critic by reading this. http://icecap.us/

I suspect however that the amount of relevant information might be a deterrent.
 

Pancho

Assistant Laundry Manager
Staff member
I don't understand the relevance of your question to this debate.

Mikey Smith stated"From my point of view, I think we should move towards low carbon energy simply because hydrocarbons are far, far, far too precious a resource to burn.I broadly agree."

and you replied, " I definitely agree with your last paragraph."

So I posed a question to you asking if we should do something to at least greatly reduce our reliance on foreign oil by using natural resources that we have in abundance. If this overtaxed your mental capacity forgive me.




]

Now that you have put the question into context, I understand.

I'm still unsure of the relevance though. It seems that you are now introducing a geopolitical element into this debate.

To me, climate change, whether it is a natural phenomenon or as a result of anthropic influence or a combination of both, is a global problem.

My answer to your question would be that as both oil and coal are finite resources, then it seems logical to me that, at least for the medium to long term, we should be concentrating research into increasing the efficiency of renewable forms of energy.

Of course this will not happen overnight, and in the meanwhile the economies of the world will inevitably continue to be based around an increase in the consumption oil, gas and coal - with all of the environmental problems that this entails.

Tony, you may well have overtaxed my admittedly limited mental capacity with your somewhat tangential question, but at least I know how to use the board's quote facility. ;)

none of us know so end of story

On the contrary, the story is probably just beginning.
 

Flavonoids

Striker
If you have both the time and the inclination you can become a much better critic by reading this. http://icecap.us/

I suspect however that the amount of relevant information might be a deterrent.

I can see the information that John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel believes it's a scam, I can also read the Weather Channel Position Statement on Global Warming. My conclusion is that the whole thing is populated at all quarters by disingenuous, opportunistic buggers.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Sunday, November 11, 2007
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Update by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap
Thursday, November 15, John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel and currently TV meteorologist in San Diego at KUSI began a series of short briefs trying to explain in simplified terms for the layman why he does not believe in global greenhouse warming on his KUSI climate blog.

Below was his original statement that got much national attention. KUSI and Icecap received hundreds of emails, better than 90% favorable, thanking John for his courage in speaking out on this issue and thanking KUSI and Icecap for covering the news the networks won’t cover. There were of course some negative responses mostly ad hominem attacks questioning motivation as is typical in this issue. Some requested John follow up with some concrete facts in understandable terms and he will begin to do that. The first brief on that link will address the ‘hockey stick”.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html


The Weather Channel Position Statement
on Global Warming
November 2007

Introduction
The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?

Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 - 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring in the past three decades. The warming has taken place as averaged globally and annually; significant regional and seasonal variations exist

Impacts can already be seen, especially in the Arctic, with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and rapid retreat and thinning of sea ice, all of which are affecting human populations as well as animals and vegetation. There and elsewhere, rising sea level is increasing coastal vulnerability.

Odds are now leaning toward increased frequency and intensity of heat waves in the warm season and warm spells in the cold season in parts of the world, as well as reduced frequency of low temperature extremes. There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and short-term weather events such as heat waves.

In some regions there has been a tendency for an increase in precipitation extremes, both wet (including floods) and dry (droughts). These observations over the past several decades are consistent with what theory and global climate models would suggest.

The jury is out on exactly what effect(s) global warming is having or will have in the future upon tropical cyclones.

Human Influence
To what extent the current warming is due to human activity is complicated because large and sometimes sudden climate changes have occurred throughout our planet's history -- most of them before humans could possibly have been a factor. Furthermore, the sun/atmosphere/land/ocean "climate system" is extraordinarily complex, and natural variability on time scales from seconds to decades and beyond is always occurring.

However, it is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

Humans are also changing the climate on a more localized level. The replacement of vegetation by buildings and roads is causing temperature increases through what's known as the urban heat island effect. In addition, land use changes are affecting impacts from weather phenomena. For example, urbanization and deforestation can cause an increased tendency for flash floods and mudslides from heavy rain. Deforestation also produces a climate change "feedback" by depleting a source which absorbs carbon dioxide.

The Future
The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. This warming will manifest itself in a variety of ways, and shifts in climate could occur quickly, so while society needs to continue to wrestle with the difficult issues involved with mitigation of the causes of global warming, an increased focus should be placed on adaptation to the effects of global warming given the sensitivity of civilizations and ecosystems to rapid climate change.

Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Not every location and its inhabitants will be affected equally, but the more the planet warms, the fewer "winners" and the more "losers" there will be as a result of the changes in climate. The potential exists for the climate to reach a "tipping point," if it hasn't already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur.

Copyright The Weather Channel, 2007. All Rights Reserved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top