Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Walter Hinteler,

A few years ago on a visit to Barcelona, we visited the Torres winery.
This is their tasting room.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/NOV05BarcelonatoAthens039.jpg

@Ionus,

FYI:

Quote:

What Is the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

It’s a sweltering midsummer day. “It must be global warming,” mutters someone. But is it the Earth’s changing climate that has made the day so warm? Or, is it just the weather that is so unbearable?

Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity. Weather is not the same everywhere. Perhaps it is hot, dry and sunny today where you live, but in other parts of the world it is cloudy, raining or even snowing. Everyday, weather events are recorded and predicted by meteorologists worldwide.

Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live. Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years. So, the climate of Antarctica is quite different than the climate of a tropical island. Hot summer days are quite typical of climates in many regions of the world, even without the affects of global warming.

Climates are changing because our Earth is warming, according to the research of scientists. Does this contribute to a warm summer day? It may, however global climate change is actually much more complicated than that because a change in the temperature can cause changes in other weather elements such as clouds or precipitation.
Explore weather and climate!

Click on links to the left to explore how dynamic forces within the atmosphere change our weather and climate. Learn what causes weather events and climate change and how NCAR scientists are exploring our atmosphere through scientific research.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

What a lovely diatribe that didn't address any scientific issue, Ionus. This was lower than even your normal lack of standards.

Another opinion ! But it doesnt involve Global Warming does it..

Quote:

Everyone but ican has to be laughing at you

It is only ican's opinion that I would worry about. You are reticent to say much of anything about Global Warming.

Quote:

1. You didn't explain you lack of understanding
2. You didn't explain your silly claim

I will... when you explain why you dress in women's clothes and hang out on street corners.

Quote:

Your long winded stories about sex and professors makes me wonder if you feel slighted because no one would have sex with you personally.

Your depth of humanity is touching. Perhaps you are being succesful by having sex with everyone desperate enough and resent any implications. You certainly dont seem clever enough to turn a computer on unaided. There was one story involving sex. As for longwinded, you sound like someone who would have trouble with a postage stamp. But it is always your reflex to insult when clearly they are not long winded.

Quote:

Your logic seems to be that if you simply say something, there is no other argument allowed.

A bit like you and Global Warming, really..

Quote:

By the way, one would "toe" the line, not "tow" it.

You have been my spell checker before..has your career peeked ? Is that all you are valued as ? I normally use a computer for that. Who spellchecks your work ? Obviously not you..you have too high an opinion of yourself. Go back and find your errors first.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Now THERE is the sort of off-topic I could enjoy....

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Thank you CI. An interesting read, with a small bias but I can live with that.

Quote:

Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live.

Not quite. Weather can be affected by everything from mountains to proximity to water and can vary for reasons far in excess of what is known about the local climate. Butterfly effect, something Global Warming Thuggees are reticent to include because it adds unpredictability to warming, is the main reason why we have trouble forecasting the weather. In fact, it is not forecast, it is recorded somwhere and its movement is calculated. Statistical analysis has added to accuracy. Climate is increasingly thought of as global as more weather patterns like El Nino/La Nina are found to be increasingly global and affect far more than what was once thought possible.

0 Replies

re ionus. Congratulation, it's refreshing to see someone in the denialist camp finally admitting that ENSO, as probably the largest single weather phenomenon in the world, has a significant, though transitory, effect on global temperature. As I have been saying here for the last three years. Now try to convince ican of that, if you would. And tell him why it's silly to attempt to say that global temperature has been falling since the strongest el Nino on record in 1997-98, or based on the fairly strong la Nina of 2007-08. Especially considering 2005 was the warmest year on record. Nino and Nina pass. The temps go up. That's weather vs. climate. C'est la vie.

1 Reply

Lets see, global warming. Maybe to many people are thinking about it and its melting the ice caps... or maybe its a natural event.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

ican keeps displaying that chart because no-one seems to be reading it. Every time I look at it, I see what may be a volcanic anomaly around the mid 1800's (from memory). But the graph shows a temp swing downwards towards the end of its plot in both hemispere trending and the global averaging.

For my part, I have never denied Global Warming is possible. I have simply maintained that it can not be proven. The data is simply not there to show what is really going on. It may be warming naturally, because we still have the remnants of an Ice Age (the planet almost never has glaciers except in an Ice Age) or it may be warming due to man. But it is not provable. It might even be about to send glaciers back down towards the equator. By the time we have adequate data, if the Global Warming Thuggees are right, it will probably be too late. On the other hand, if they are wrong and we act as though they are right, we will be doing serious damage to ourselves.

Politicians have tried to get people to focus on real problems, but they have used the lie of Global Warming to do it. This is counterproductive, and like the boy who cried wolf, it could end very badly indeed.

It is not science to take data for 30 years and say what the Global Climate is doing. We do not have enough information to eliminate variables. We do not have enough data from past variations of climate and we do not have enough current linear data to predict a trend. The Global Climate is changed by long term factors such as the position of the continents, mountains and ocean currents, add to this the effect of short term solar cycles, and it is not clear what will happen.

Global Warming is a guess, and for various reasons it seems a lot of scientists are happy with that. There are also many who are not. At the moment, the press is only listening to supporters. Many who would like to voice an objection can not. This is also true for being published. Unfashionable viewpoints have a habit of not being published by the editors who decide these matters.

If you want to believe in Global Warming, fine, I respect your right and your opinion. Do not claim it is scientifically proven, because it can never be with current data. We know too little about the past, and if it happens it will be upon us before we can measure it but so too might the next Glacial Advance.

IT IS A GUESS.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Boring article, Walter. What does the weather have to do with a discussion on Climate ?

Of course it might be boring for some. Others find such information interesting.

Actually it isn't about 'weather' (try to find a definition of "weather"), at least I was taught differently at university about those definitions.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

(try to find a definition of "weather"),

weath·er (wr)
n.
1. The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.

cli·mate (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Where did you want to go with this ???

1 Reply

@Ionus,

You didn't take any lectures in meteorology, I hope.

Otherwise you would understand the above quoted article and it's relation to climate. And weather.

But your unsourced dictionary definition isn't that bad, too.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Otherwise you would understand the above quoted article and it's relation to climate. And weather.

Are you seriously referring to a 1 degree temperature rise ? The article has nothing to do with climate change. Where were your meteorology lectures when the mini-Ice Age occured ? Perhaps you would have had people lighting fires to warm the planet up. Do you know anything about the early colonial period of South Australia ? There were very good conditions but the aboriginees said it wasnt typical. A lot of German settlers there, and within a very short space of time the climate changed back to what it was, and the only thing left now is the ruins of their pioneer homes. Or the Dust Bowl in the 1930's in the USA. Temporary dry spells are called droughts. They are outside the normal weather but they do not need man to cause them.

What is your point ?? Do you think the place would have a drought and get colder ??? Perhaps you should have taken notes at uni.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

What is your point ?? Do you think the place would have a drought and get colder ??? Perhaps you should have taken notes at uni.

My point exactly the quoted article - whatever you think about climate and/or whatever and whatever unsourced opinions and dictionary entries you are referring at.

It's about "Climate change could devastate vineyards so Miguel Torres is preparing his family company for the worst".

And about my notes at university: why do you bother? I don't and didn't want to act as your "weatherman". It's just that you don't understand the differences between weather and climate ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

And about my notes at university: why do you bother

You mentioned University first, by making a disparaging comment about my undergraduate days.

Quote:

It's just that you don't understand the differences between weather and climate ...

I thought I did...I bow to your self proclaimed superior knowledge of me. Perhaps you would be interested in my own definition before judging me ?

As for the article, how do you feel about :

"Paying for Climate change that didnt happen could devastate many lives so Miguel Torres is preparing his family company for the worst".

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

As for the article, how do you feel about :

"Paying for Climate change that didnt happen could devastate many lives so Miguel Torres is preparing his family company for the worst".

Well, I don't consider it a bad idea to be prepared for the worst.

But certainly you and others can have a different opinion here, too.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Well, I don't consider it a bad idea to be prepared for the worst.

I would like to explain that I am only interested in stating my beliefs out of concern for what Global Warming might turn into.

If it lessens opportunities for poor countries, if it damages the economy and thus hurts the poor most of all, then to hell with it. Politicians are so very concerned about their inability to manage a shrinking economy that they recently invested very heavily to prevent prolonged recession.

If man made Global Warming is true, then we are in for a drastic shrinkage. If it is not true, but natural warming occurs and we damage the economy as we increasingly become desperate endeavouring to control something that is occuring naturally, then the combination of the effects of natural warming and our blundering efforts will cause drastic economic shrinkage.

If we do nothing at all, and nothing happens, we will run out of resources, but when...Will technology increases save us in time ? Will economic shrinkage rob us of a technology that would have made a huge difference ?

So many questions, and no reliable answers. One thing I am certain of...Global Warming can not be proven and any lies will be counter productive in the long term. There is a lot at stake. I have two criteria :
Global Warming is a guess.
Whatever we do will have to be chosen very carefully.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

You really should feel some embarrasement when you say stupid things. It will help the learning process for you. There are only two possibilities. Win or lose. These are 50/50 chances. On examining the issue, the mathematical calculation is 1 in 176 million of winning FIRST PRIZE. The odds of winning a prize are more than that. I dont have to tell them they are lying, but I may have to tell you. There are 160 million people in the member states of that Lotto. This means, if you employ faulty analysis, twice a week no one can win first prize. Do you remember posting this as I know you have been forgetting a lot lately

ohh.. it's 50/50 except when it's 1 in 176 million?

I don't know what to say to such a thing. It boggles my mind that you can claim both are true and believe they both are.

Quote:

Is it your assumption that they all must be wrong in the same direction ? Are you too biased to see that if every piece of apparatus is averaged you are multiplying the error by astronomical numbers ? If one station is out by 2 and the next by -1, it doesnt matter how many you have that are wrong, if they are all wrong their total averaged again will never be accurate. Your assumption is that somehow they will cancel each other out. This is nonsense.

No, I never said they were all wrong in one direction. Random errors are just that, random.
Random errors don't normally affect a trend line in a large series of data.

Simple problem - Graph the numbers 1 - 10. You will see a trend line.

Now let's introduce errors.
Subtract 2 from each number and graph it again.
You are graphing the numbers -1 to 8. The trend line is exactly the same as the first graph just slightly lower on the graph.

Now let's introduce random errors at a 50/50 rate.
subtract 2 from the even numbers and add 2 to the odd numbers.
Graph that and tell us what the trend is.

Unless you skew the numbers so the errors are not random in 10 million data points, the trend line will always be the same whether the individual numbers are accurate or not. We haven't even addressed the fact that the trend line is based on deviation from an average and not on the numbers itself which tends to discount errors even more.

Quote:

If you had more understanding of probablilities that might mean something.

Oh please..... What are the odds of winning the Lottery? And you want to say I don't understand "probability?"

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I will... when you explain why you dress in women's clothes and hang out on street corners.

Ionus wrote:

But it is always your reflex to insult

1 Reply

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
326
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Associate Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Guelph, is author or coauthor of dozens of peer-reviewed papers in both economics and climate science journals. McKitrick, a UN IPCC expert reviewer, and one of the de-bunkers of the IPCC 'hockey stick' graph, is coauthor of the prize-winning best-seller "Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming." In an essay published on December 5, 2007 in the National Post, he describes new research that shows the IPCC surface temperature record is exaggerated. "The data come from thermometers around the world, but between the thermometer readings and the final, famous, warming ramp, a lot of statistical modeling aims at removing known sources of exaggeration in the warming trend. In a new article in the December 2007 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels and McKitrick concluded that the temperature manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the [IPCC] graph is an exaggeration. McKitrick believes that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph has made "false claims about the quality of its data." McKitrick reports in this new, peer-reviewed study that data contamination problems "account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980." (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

It boggles my mind

No surprises here. Now I have to explain statistics ? You will have to rely on more formal methods to improve your education. When you go to High School and begin to learn statistics, you will find the first point is to list all possibilities and give them an equal chance of occurring. Then begins the analysis. Why is that so hard to understand ?

Quote:

No, I never said they were all wrong in one direction. Random errors are just that, random.
Random errors don't normally affect a trend line in a large series of data.

This is not random error. Every single reading is inaccurate. It is the only data available and Global Warming Thuggees who like to cite that references are written by superman needed something to justify their stance. The first question they were asked was what are you basing Global Warming on. Totally devoid of accurate data from the past, they seized on current weather data. Weather fluctuates far more widely than climate. Climate by its very nature is a long term trend. Needing to show a trend, and totally lacking any observable data for the earth's 3.2 billion years it has had a climate, they use the only data available. 30 years of satellite measurements and say they have enough for a trend. Prior to that, they have weather stations with increasing inaccuracy as you go back in time.

The data collection made by climatologists from weather stations is inaccurate. You seem to be repeatedly missing this point so I will explain it for a 8 year old. You wake up in the morning and it is very cold at 2 deg C. It stays that way till 14:00 when the temp climbs quickly to 10 deg C because the sun came out . By night time, the sun has gone down and it is very cold again. Most of the day, from midnight when you were asleep till the next midnight when you were asleep again, it was very cold. The average temperature was 2.7 deg C. The mid point between the max and min temps is 6 deg C. In the town nearby, there was less cloud and rain so the temp range was 2 deg C to 15 deg C. The mid point is 8.5 deg C but the average temp was 10 deg C. The first town has an error of + 3.3 deg C. The second town has an error of - 1.5 deg C. The third and fourth towns have no weather stations because they are of no interest to meteorologists and have no airfield.

With a random number generator you can also "create" numbers. Why measure anything ?

This means that to assume the mid point is always the average is wrong every single time. Why dont we do this everywhere else in science ? Because it is nonsense. If every single piece of data is inaccurate, apart from why are you using it, any trend you find is random. Are you unaware that some numbers come up more often then others in Lotto ?

Quote:

No, I never said they were all wrong in one direction.

If you find a warming trend and you have said that, and they are all wrong then yes, they are all wrong in one direction.

Quote:

Simple problem - Graph the numbers 1 - 10. You will see a trend line.

Now let's introduce errors.
Subtract 2 from each number and graph it again.
You are graphing the numbers -1 to 8. The trend line is exactly the same as the first graph just slightly lower on the graph.

Are you assuming the errors are all in the same direction ?

Quote:

Now let's introduce random errors at a 50/50 rate.
subtract 2 from the even numbers and add 2 to the odd numbers.
Graph that and tell us what the trend is.

The only way you can have a 50/50 rate is if the original assumption is correct and that is : the mid way point is also the average and errors will be evenly distributed about the average. This also assumes all temperatures, everywhere, always follow a bell curve. Whilst this is good enough for weather prediction, as it quickly becomes obvious if it was accurate or not and then they move on to the next prediction, it is not good enough to demand world wide change.

It is usual in science to measure any error and include it in the data and say why it has been discounted. This is not done because no one knows the original error. By accurately plotting the original data and then forming a trend line, one can visually demonstrate a trend and error. It is unheard of to take data that is known to be erroneous and make an assumption it must be correct because the final decision has already been made.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know