IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Printable View
IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Ah yes, the climategate that has been checked over several times now, yet it apparently does not satisfy the skeptics because somehow the scientists keep getting exonerated. Must be a conspiracy somewhere.
They should be more open with their research though and have AFAIK rightfully been criticised for that.
The butcher judging his own product as we say here, the models on which the consensus is based are flawed or at least disputed, and that's the nicest thing you can say about it, outright fraud would be more accurat. It reeks of post-normal sciene, and not a little bit. Wouldn't go as far as calling it a conpiracy, but a lie yes, and a very lucrative one.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
I have told you in this thread multiple times. You are living in denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
First, that article is outdated. Second, Booker is a fringe journalist, who has lost all respect he may have ever gained from being a founder of Private Eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
There were several independent investigations of it, both UK and US making it a total of six so far I believe. But it will never be enough.
Don't worry Fragony. If you ever get tired of it all and want to find a more remote place to live I hear they need more farmers on Greenland.
Funny you bring that up, as the 15% decrease in ice was actually only 0.1% of it. They even apoligised for itQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Yes and? Evidence of global warming being wrong? Evidence of conspiracy? They still grow more crops up there and then it does not matter how many blogs goes into frenzy over how much ice there is or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It wouldn't matter to you if global warming is a lie? The earth just isn't warming up. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
And there's is no such thing as an ice free Northwest Passage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I give you that there's no clear increase for the last decade, but it's worth to remember that 1998 was an extreme year in 1998, while it's a warm year in 2011.
I'm sure 1998 was pretty extreme in 1998, weren't we all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Free passage existed by the way you dreadbeards found it
Greenland was called that for a reason. Is it the greenest it has ever been?
=][=
Is the world warming? Overall yes
How much is man made? A lot, but how much I'm not sure.
Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily. It is much better then a mini ice age. Dinosaurs roamed a much warmer world. So whose up for T-Rex drumsticks? They come with one hell of a bite.
You all do realise that the Earth is being terra-formed in favour of the octo-squids?
One of the Biggest Climate Skeptics' own research has set the record straight for him.
News Article on Washington Post
Quote:
Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.
Quote:
Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.
Quote:
The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.
Quote:
skeptics are wrong when they claim that a “heat island” effect from urbanization is skewing average temperature readings; monitoring instruments in rural areas show rapid warming, too.
Quote:
The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
happy to agree with all of the above, but it does not substantially change my criticism of CAGW:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10...udy/page2.html
Quote:
Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."
I'm not surprised that little light is shed on that, since I don't think anyone claims that climate change looks like a human. It might however be anthropogenic. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
lol, i noticed that too when i read it yesterday, but i think we know what he means. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Is it bad that I saw that too? I guess I'm in good company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Am I understanding this; Muller is no longer a skeptic at all because his research says that two out of three temperature gauging stations show warming...? Is the fact that the earth is warming even up for debate? :dizzy2:
Sorry buddy, but unless your research shows that 1) it's anthropogenic, 2) it's going to continue to rise to crises levels I will happily remain incoherently grumbling and being stunned silent. :rolleyes:Quote:
The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Edit: I guess what I'm not understanding is the media's reacting to this as a lolpwnd moment for skeptics.
Well that depends whom you are replying to... Ah, here it is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I would not say that, but rather that man is not the main driver of the climate, since in the past we have seen fluctuations of the temperature. There is an experiment at CERN called the CLOUD experiment Basically they are testing in lab conditions to see what is driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I
good vid, cheers
If you are a scientist you should be a balanced skeptic. Examine the evidence and refine the methods to get the data.
Science should work to a consensus it should not work towards being a dogma.
The current consensus is that humans are helping the globe warm.
The reaction should not be denial it should be to build better tools and to question if this is really a good or bad thing.
Too much and we are Venus so global warming could be terrible, a couple of degrees more and we can go back to having Terrible Lizards.
i'm not sure that there is anything to disagree with there Pape.
No it isn't, can't just decide that there is consensus, it really has to be thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Cool new e-mails http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-debate/
The euro crisis is a godsend in way, at least gutmensch gets to blame capitalism for something that is real, the absence of a need for post-modern science is somewhat refreshing, but I still think we should rebuild the wall
NEINNEINNEIN thx to the IPCC models we can predict an industrial age every 10.000 years with clockwork precision and ours is comming to an end
if we do not act right now
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...jim-lacey?pg=1 <-'More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming' inquisitive journalist explains e-mails
But warmists will just continue to repear repeat keep repeating, it doesn't have to be true just keep repeating
durban failed, jolly good:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/12/cop17_failure/
i have a pretty high confidence that the science in IPCC5 in 2015 will be 'right', and some small confidence that the policy recommendeed will not be quite so insane, but i'll be damned if i want any legally binding treaties agreed before then.
I was watching Frozen Planet with the great David Attenborough. One stat he mentioned is that the Artic ice since 1981 has retreated to 2/3s the surface cover...a third of the ice has disappeared!
But it's not that bad, it's worse. Another stat in the same section... Military submarine data that measures Artic ice thickness ... And they have measured it a lot... After all if you need to surface for an emergency you need to know where. The ice thickness has halved.
So the Artic ice has halved in amount.
That's bad, but wait its worse.
You need to multiplie the two area x thickness = volume.
Artic ice volume 2011 = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 the volume of 1981.
Now if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its ice the oceans would rise 40m. Nothing to worry about there.
good job it isn't then, eh?