| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Neil |
Global Warming is a false myth, every serious person says soCzech President Vaclav KlausQ: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?• A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.• Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...• A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. • Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?• A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.• Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?• A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.• Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...• A: ...I am right...• Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?• A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.• Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?• A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm Not reported by the MSM |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Scott2006 |
Um...interesting.
I still think on balance that a degree of global warming is going on - more than 200 years of increased carbon and pollution emissions have to result in some environmental impact. Maybe not the extreme positions stated by some pro-environmental pressure groups but certainly not none at all... you'd have to question his sanity not Al Gore's. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
I don't think he is expressing doubt as to whether we might be having a 0.1 degree chnage but whether rhe 15 inch sea level rise predicted by the IPCC let alone the 20 feet by Al Gore are something other than hobgoblins. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Scott2006 |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change by Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported. Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming. The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm. What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier. The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005. In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year. Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”. Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out. The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does this article disprove most of what the global scientific community believe to be facts? What about the evidence from the Arctic ice-cores that have recorded temperatues for tens of thousands of years? They suggest more CO2 is in the atmosphere now than as far back as they can go. I'm surprised that big business in some form of grant didn't find it convenient to back Svensmark's work. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
It doesn't disprove it - it casts doubt on it Which is what real science does.
It does prove that those who say there is a "scientific consensus" (there isn't but there is a political one) & that the "debate is over" are not only wrong but aren't scientific. Exxon recently agreed to drop funding for a couple of groups expressing scepticism for warming because of some browbeating by US senators & (most shamefully) the Royal Society. Big businesses are not the big bullies they are often portrayed as - any COE who harms his brand's image by getting shouted at in public has a short shelf life thus they will do or say almost anything to be allowed to make money rather than waves. Ask Gerald Ratner who owned the company & still got kicked out for telling the truth in private. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| azzuri |
My personal view is that the global climate is always changing and there is nothing we can do to prevent that, but whether we are accelerating the process or not is questionable. You'll actually find more scientists who disagree with the 'global warming' theory - the reason we hear about it so much is because of the 'panic the masses' attitude that the media seem to love so much. First it was mad cow disease, then foot and mouth, thousands of terrorists wanting to blow us all up, then bird flu and of course global warming, which predicts we'll all be living up in the hills as the water levels rise, sipping pina coladas with our sun cream on in 100 degrees heat in 50 years.
I believe that it's more a global strategy of trying to scare people into becoming more 'green', not because of climate change but because we need to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels as we reach 'peak oil' (see wikipedia) and prices of a barrel of crude from Iran and gas from Russia shoot up. It's not a bad strategy actually, panic being the opium of the masses and all. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
I will certainly agree that the powers that be actively try to keep as scared (see my tagline) but I disagree about it being a useful antidote to peak oil. If the Israelis can produce oil from shale at $17 a barrel, as they say, then our resources, already not nearly as low as forecast have tripled. Beyond that we know there are enough radioactives on Earth to keep going for billions of year.
If it were necessary beyond that we have the potential of solar power satellites & fusion - there are no limits on what we can achieve if we try, which is why the Luddite agenda is so dehumanising of the human spirit. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Not my area, but have a look at the following... Appologies for the table.
Descirption This figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing effectiveness for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record. Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in the five year average of temperature as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, the bands indicate the estimated size of fluctuations that are expected to result from changes in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors. In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is approximately equal to the sum of the responses to each of the factors taken individually. They conclude therefore that it is reasonable to discuss how the evolving man-made and natural influences individually impact climate. Meehl et al. attribute most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures. Note that "Net" reflects the model runs with all factors included and is not identical to simply summing the individual factors. Temperature change relative to 1900 _________________1940 1970 1994 Greenhouse gases __0.10 0.38 0.69 Sulfate emissions___-0.04 -0.19 -0.27 Solar forcing_______0.18 0.10 0.21 Volcanic forcing_____0.11 -0.04 -0.14 Ozone ___________-0.06 0.05 0.08 Net_______________0.19 0.17 0.53 Observed__________0.26 0.21 0.52 References Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727. Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
This might also be of interest. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/resea...ntre/models/temperature_anim.html | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
I also presume that Lloyd's don't have an agenda and are only interested predicting risk.
http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre...;gclid=CIGD3PLHtYoCFSYSQgodpyxzCw |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Nobody denies that over the last century temperatures have gone up something like 0.6C & nobody but the Hockeystick proponents that this is less than the changes in many previous centuries. What is in dispute is that we are suddenly heading for the catastrophic warming claimed by the IPCC & other Hockeystick proponents.
If you look at the graph you will see a drop from the late 1940s to the early 60s while the CO2 increase is starting its take off which suggests the link is not close (indeed it corellates much better with the sunspot cycle). While the modelled growth correlates well with the actuality it should be noted that this modelling clearly happened after the reality. Prediction is so much easier when it is of the past. If we project this beyond the RH side of the page the Hockeystick would show this upward trend continuing at about 0.2C a decade (which is why the graph is said to look like a hockey stick). In fact since 1998 there has been a very slight decrease. Even the IPCC have dropped their projected sea level rise to 15 inches which makes Al Gore's 20 feet look insane & is only double the not particularly "catastrophic" increase in the last century & most centuries since the last ice age. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Just to point out the predicted sea level changes have always been 11-16 inches - by all respectable sources. An addition of this 11 inches (best case scenario), will be enough to cause catastophic effects for humans. Over 40% of the worlds population will be put at risk with an 11 inch rise (44% of humans live in coastal areas). The 20 feet rise is a different prediction, and is far from 'insane'. It is based on the fact that there is a very good chance that Greenland and Arctic icesheets will melt. The prediction from leading researchers, suggests that if this occurs there will be a 23 foot rise in sea levels. As for evidence of this melt, SLG has already posted it:- video of T change and ice sheet melt Just click on the images to view the videos. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Oh and no, afraid not. There is a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures. yes. However recent data has been showing that despite a decrease in sunspot activities temperatures are still increasing. 2005 was the hotest year in a millenium. Global temperatures continue to rise. However the sunspot activity is currently low:- sunspot activity The next major sunspot activity is going to occur in 9-15 years. With the addition of Global Warming, the temperatures in 9-15 years time will break all the records set in the 1990s. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
The fact is the previous IPCC report said up to 88cm (35 inches) & so they have halved their prediction. They are definitely not predicting the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, at least not this millenium, & neither is anybody both honest & sane. The idea that "over 40%" of the world's population live within 11 inches of sea level merely has to be made to be shown as ridiculous (even if you include the population of Holland predicted to be flooded out in 2007 but actually quite safe).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4651876.stm |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Nope
2005 was the warmest year since 1999 but still marginally cooler according to the satelites. All the other years were cooler than that. Predictions based on sunspots actually say we are heading for cooling. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/20060825-091321-7556r/ |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
It is easy to misinterpret results - I understand your problem. Each prediction includes different variables. They just changed parameters depending on the need of the data. I suggest you look at that video from the met office, and the mounting data suggesting that infact there is a major chance of summer time ice sheets in the Arctic being complete absent. ('Honest and sane' - I'm not sure how you can suggest this to be the case when there is significant evidence). No, it is not rediculous. 40% of the population will be 'at risk'. For example. London often suffers from tidal bores due to Northerly winds pushing water into the narrow English Channel. The Thames Barrier was built to prevent major flooding of London. An 11 inch increase in sea level, would make the Thames Barrier obsolete in the majority of tidal bores - leading to possiblities of major flooding in London. Also I point out that with an 11 inch increase in sea levels, sea erosion will increase dramatically. In Britain, sea erosion is already causing major problems - 11 inches will be enough to triple erosion rates in some areas (eg Hampshire). In places like Bangladesh, the entire delta system would be lost (this is essentially the whole country). Also consider an additional 11 inches in a storm surge of say 10 feet (a huge one like Hurricane Katrina). A 10% increase in height would have made a catastophic incident worse. The 11 inches compounded by a natural event, in any area of human population will cause catastophic problems. This is why 40% of human population will be put 'at risk'. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
(Haha, always easy to find a dodgy russian scientist when you need to prove something......) I must point out that you should look at the sunspot activity I showed (if in doubt always go to the source of the data). That suggests temperatures should have been cooling over the past 5 years since sunspot activity decreased. However they haven't. They have remained constantly high (temperature change last 100 years) and are predicted to jump up again in the next few years, and again when sunspots activities increase again. As for temperature, the important things are the overall trends - individual years can not be looked at to determine global warming (some years are lower, some years are higher - just due to variability in other parameters). The overall trend now demonstrates that there have been increases in average temperatures for over 40 years now. And these can not be attributed to anything else other than the massive increases in human interference with the planet. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Well I'm afraid I can't accept your 11 inch sea level rise as a significant threat to 40% ofthe world.
At worst, for infinitely less than the cost of Kyoto we can add 11 inches to the Thames barrier, Dutch dykes etc. I note that on the link you gave it indeed showed 2005 as the warmest since 1999 but still cooler. It is, of course, possible to draw the line connecting the dots in many ways & extend it in many more, but the raw data do not show a catastrophic or even historicaly unknown warming. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Do not misquote me - I said 'at risk'. I never said 'significant threat'. This is how things get misinterpreted. As I already stated - the threat from such a rise is when compounded by another environmental happening - which occur all the time. Risk from erosion will of course occur, every year houses fall into the sea - this will speed up.
Haha, 11 inches to the Thames barrier. Just think about it. A tidal bore is a quantity of water being forced into a narrow area. So add 11 inches to an ocean like the North Sea, you are adding an additional 300 km cubed of water. This is 'free water', which is freely available to move in the North Sea. Now imagine that quantity of water being forced into a small channel. The height you are talking about isn’t meer inches, you are talking metres increase in height. As for the cost to London if a flood occurred - the current loss would be ~£125 billion. As for the cost across the UK, you are talking Trillions. Remember there is only 1 such barrier in the UK that can hold to such a bore. This is one example of the effect of global warming……. Another few examples:- - 10-30 million Bangladesh homes would need relocation in the next 50 years. Cost estimated - $180 million per 1000 people….. As for Kyoto’s cost. I believe for the UK it will be £10 billion for the next 10 years. Globally – the most radical plans would cost globally $800 to 1200 billion. The costs have been totaled for the next 100 years, and yes it costs now. But the savings are immense.
If you look at the sunspot maximum activity, it correlates to 1999. Since then sunspot activities have decreased. However, quite worryingly there hasn’t been a decrease in the temperatures. Therefore the high temperatures of 1999 could be related to that. As for the high temperatures 2000-2006 these are unrelated. Yes, it is possible to connect ‘dots’ in many ways. However there are stastically correct ways of plotting data; like the met offices graph. As for historically unknown warmings……. The last 40 years have had the most rapid temperature increases and highest temperatures for the past 2 millennium (2000 years). (need I say more). However before you say. The Medieval Warming – assumed to be caused by solar activity, and unusual volcanic activity. However the temperatures then are still lower than present. Also it does not explain the recent reduction in solar activities, and continued high temperatures; however CO2 does. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Ok I'll grant
Hahaha (see one more ha than yours) - think this one through. The tidal bore efect you are mentioning alteady exists which is exactly why the Thames barrier is needed. Raising the water level by 11 inches will not result in all those 11 inches being combined over central London, or Amsterdam or Stirling or anywhere else - it will flow everywhere since that is what water doe. If there is an 11 inch sea level rise there will be an 11 inch sea level rise. By your "thinking" the fact that there has been a 6 inch rise over the last century means that London is currently under 150 cubic km of water. I promise you it isn't. Nor is Balgladesh only 11 inches above sea level. Your belief in the cost of Kyoto is, of course, somewhat wrong. $400 million a day means about $8 million (£4 million) a day = £14.6 billion. Of course Kyoto's proponents agree that it will have only a very marginal effect on warming & that we will need something very much worse to work say £14.6 billion a year or £14 trillion in Britain by 2100. Quite a lot to "save" having to add 11 inches to the Thames Barrier.
So far as itcan be determined the medieval warming was the same, or very marginally higher, than now & theLate Roman significantly higher. On such complete contempt for mere facts does the entire Luddite case depend. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Ken |
Re: Global Warming is a false myth, every serious person say
Aye, and the world is flat. And there's no link between HIV and AIDS... But then if you are running the Czech Republic, perhaps the state that is the furthest of any in Europe from the sea, global warming is something you can afford to worry about less than if you are running the Maldives... |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
I grant their population is not part of the 40% of the world's population who might, allegedly, drown in an 11 inch sea level rise. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
For most of history, these parts of the world would be no where near as habitable as they are now. Living in the north, we are effectively living in a temporary and rather unnatural climate anyway.
Climate change is not something we can stop, we just ought not to get so attached to where we live now. Oh, and perhaps we might want to tart Africa up a bit - because that's where we'll end up going back to eventually. We're overdue an ice-age - maybe one day we might thank our forebearers for polluting the environment as much as they did. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
I see your knowledge of tidal bores is insignificant. The Thames Barrier was built in 1982, at a cost of £1.3 billion pounds (eq.). Since being built it has be closed more and more often in response to the increase in tidal bore events caused by other effects of global warming. In 2001 it was closed 15 times…. Anyway, the barrier was built to protect from a 1/1000 year tidal bore. (15 of them in 2001!!) Anyway, the most that it can be raised by is 50 cm more, although that is not worth it as the Thames banks are not high enough. So, a tidal bore. Let me explain. It is when winds from the North - force water from the North Sea down towards the English Channel. As it is narrower in the English Channel. water starts backing up. Causing unnaturally high water. For example, a normally tidal height can be +/- 4 m. A tidal bore can add up to 10 m ontop of that. Okay – so this is why the Thames Barrier was built. Okay, now – you add 11 inches of water onto the entire North Sea. Due to the shape of the North Sea, the water becomes ‘movable’ or ‘free water’, and the majority is available therefore to ‘bore’. So no, I never said all that water would end on London. What I said is that when that water is pushed down under force, the increase is not 11 inches. It is an increase equivalent to the area in the channel, compaired to the volume of water and wind strength. I calculate in a normal bore an increase of 1.5m, but that was done on a back of an envelop.
No, a 10 cm rise in sea level in 100 years. Well since 1982, when it was built, there has been a 2cm rise. Which is nothing compared to an 11 inch rise.
Relocation reasons…… (starts yawning) “Between 115 and 143 million people live on the delta, despite risks from floods…. …..the Ganges Delta has a population density of more than 520 people per square mile (200 people per km²), making it one of the most densely populated regions on earth.” “The Ganges-Brahmaputra delta is one of the world's most densely populated areas, and the combined effects of subsidence and sea-level rise could cause serious drainage and sedimentation problems, in addition to coastal erosion and land loss. With higher sea level, more areas would be affected by cyclonic surges; inland freshwater lakes, ponds, and aquifers could be affected by saline and brackish-water intrusion. The present limit of tidal influence is expected to move further upstream, and increases in soil salinity, as well as surface-water and groundwater salinity, may cause serious water supply problems for drinking and irrigation over large areas (Alam, 1996). Reduced dry-season freshwater supply from upstream sources may further exacerbate salinity conditions in the coastal area of Bangladesh. These impacts clearly would have immense socioeconomic costs.”
“The global cost of Kyoto compliance is around $150billion a year” and that is from an anti-Kyoto writer in the Guardian. Okay you may know that the US and China are responsible for the majority of pollution etc, I doubt we would foot 1/50th of that bill. As for the potential effects of global warming – I don’t think even you are so confused that you think the only effect will be sea level changes. The cost has been estimated at 100s of trillions.
Ummm. I think you should look at what I said, and the relationships. 1999, was an exceptionally hot year, but you can not judge a trend on a single year, especially when you look at the error bars associated with temperature fluxations. Since, 1999, there are 5 years where temperatures are 0.4oC above average. What is amazing is these are infact 5, out of the 6 hottest years seen for over 1000 years (the hottest being 1999). There has been no DECREASE since 1999. There has been a continued hot period. Look we have a statistician in our midst here, maybe you can ask him for help on this….
Incorrect. Go look at recent publications on the Medieval warming period. The temperatures were lower than now. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Re: Global Warming is a false myth, every serious person say
Apart from the fact that the Czech Republic has suffered the worse out of any country from pollution related effects in Europe. They recieve all our pollution (from western Europe) in the form of acid rain. Their reductions in pollution in the Czech Republic has been amazing. There are a lot of recent publications showing this. Oh and there President wasn't the smartest guy on air pollution. He read a preprepared speach written by a guy in my institute on acid rain. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
To explain once again - London & most estuaries already have tidal or storm bore effects. Raising the sea level 11 (or 6) inches doeesn't (& didn't) increase the pressure disproportionately. It just increases everything by 11 (or 6) inches. Thus you won't get the flooding you predict (or pastdicted).
As you show - nobody (except you) claims Bamgladesh is a country less than 11 inches above sea level. Unlike Holland which, if the eco-nutter journalists are to be believed is going under water this year. Care to place a bet on whether the most prominent newspaper group pushing warming is in any way to be trusted. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/in...onal/story/0,6903,1153514,00.html My bet is that Holland is not going under water this year. £100 on it. That the UK is responsible for 2% of CO2 release has been well reported. 2% is 1/50th (100 divided by 2 is the same as 50 divided by 1 - its called arithmetic). The cost can be estimated at triliions or mega trillions or gigatrillions or anything else you want or equally I could calculate it as positive by as much as I wanted - such predictions prove nothing. If 1999 was warmer than succeeding years, something you have denied & then proven to be the case, then by definition the succeeding years have not been warmer - there HAS been a DECREASE. This should be obvious to even the meanest intelligence but clearly not to eco-nuts. The roman & medieval warmings are as I said. The attempts of catastrophe enthusiasts to wish them away (for example the Hockeystick depends entirely on them never having happened) falls on the undeniable historic evidence of crops tree line height, the medieval Swiss pass that is only now coming out from under the glasiers etc etc etc. You make it absolutely obvious Screeger that itis impossible to believe in full catastrophic warming unless you are innumerate & as divorced from reality as Mr Gore is said to be. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Ken |
There you have it then: the world IS flat! 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Ken I admire the intellectual rigour with which you have been able to restrain yourself from any attempt to interact with facts. A true renewababbler
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Ken |
Why is the use by someone of the word "facts" so often in inverse proportion to their actual use of facts themselves?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
You tell me, you may not have noticed that you just used it twice in one sentence.  
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Just on this point. I think Screegor made it clear that, yes, 1999 was a hotter year, but you can't look at it on that simple basis. Due to the year on year variability, you have to look at the trend rather than individual years. On that basis, the years following 1999 were actually hotter. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Ken |
Well spotted! It would have been irritating if the irony had been totally wasted on you...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
On his graph the 2 years following were relatively low, then 3 high, though still less than 1999, & then the last one slightly lower. Trying to establish a long term trend on a small number of data is putting more weight in it than it can bear.
Nonetheless it is quite clear that the situation does not reflect the promised new continuously fast rising Hockeystick trend on which the previous IPCC report took its stand. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Every day mini-tidal bores occur yes. The Thames Barrier was created for when there were the massive tidal bores, for example when there are northerly winds. In these the added water in the North sea is a major factor….. As for past records, firstly I will point out these major tidal bores are occuring more frequently every year. As for past heights of tidal bores, they have only recently been measured, but the evidence suggests in these events, they are getting disproportionately higher, indicating that infact the relationship is not a meer 11 inches, and has been put to the dependence of the ‘free water’. You can go do your own homework on this. There were a couple of science papers last year about this – one was in Met Soc Journal, and a couple in QJ of the Royal Met Society. Oh a 1.5 m allowance was given to the Thames Barirer in 1982. In theory there has been less than a 3 cm rise in sea level but the designers and runners of the Thames Barrier state:- “the allowance could be surpassed as early as 2010.”
I never claimed that Bangladesh is 11 inches above sea level. I claimed that 10-30 million Bangladesh citizen’s would need relocation in 50 years. This is due to knock-on effects of an 11 inch rise in sea level. I will summarise some of the knock on effects causing the relocation (as already posted):- * Serious drainage and sedimentation problems * Coastal erosion and land loss. (already evident in the low lying Delta islands) * Greater effects from cyclonic surges; * Inland freshwater lakes, ponds, and aquifers could be affected by saline and brackish-water intrusion. * Drinking and irrigation salination You will learn nothing if you do not read peoples posts properly.
Firstly I am no eco-nut. I collect and publish air pollution data for the UK and soon US, to demonstrate whether there are effects on the environment. I have no agenda, to prove or disprove. I publish in completely neutral journals and it has no benefit for me to prove or disprove anything – as whatever I find it is a benefit to the science community and myself. No, there has been no decrease. One point on a graph of 1000 data points is not enough to put a trend on. Go conduct a significance test to prove that a decrease is occurring. If it comes out above 90% I will believe you. In realism your ‘decrease’ is no more than an outlier. Which is what I have been saying. The overall trend, is continued high temperatures.
I have never attempted to ‘wash them away’. No data can be ignored. Nor is anybody in the science community. Since it is them conducting the back dating of the historic records. Maybe some policy makers and politicians have misunderstood what they demonstrate. No, the current trends are not based on the disproving of the past data. The current trend in temperature increases is extremely different from previous warmings. The speed of temperature increase is exceptionally fast, and is correlating to CO2 increases (and solar radiation changes). What is important there is that CO2 is a major cause of temperature changes. It is basic knowledge that CO2 and CH4 increases global temperatures. It is clear that humans have increased these gases, so there is no surprise temperatures are increasing!!
Haha, the data you are using to attempt to disprove me is collected in the same institute that I work in. Your knowledge in the subject is sketchy and misinterpreted. You need to improve your scientific understanding on global climate change. As well as your ability to listen to the other side of an opinion. Denying facts and insulting people in your responses makes me wonder what job you are doing. I so hope you are not in a position of authority. Isn’t it funny for 20 years acid rain was denied to be occurring. As a result entire ecosystems across Europe have been lost. Of course now the problems are being approached, the ‘clean up’ is occurring and the benefits far outweigh the economic costs. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Exactly. That's why you can't single out any one year. Or even any two or three years. You need to look at the trend. That's exactly what that figure shows. The trend temperature after 1999 is higher than at 1999.
Yes it does. The trend is still one of increasing temperature. I won't get into the predictions for how that might continue long term, or whether we're responsible for it. Or whether Kyoto is god value in dealing with it. I don't know enough about those areas. But you can't deny the present trend of increasing temperatures. 1999 looks like an outlier to me and the trend presented in the Met Office figure takes that into account. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Relatively low....... but more to the point, still 0.22 oC above the global average. Anyway, if you do your homework you would know that the global temperatures were lower those 2 years due to natural changes in Southern Oscillations in the Pacific Ocean (i.e. the opposite to El Nino - which of course was partially responsible for the 1999 high peak). Of course the Northern Hemosphere for 2000-2001, was 0.4 oC above average. But then you probably knew that already. Of course. This is higher than the predicted line of the chart. Here is an example period for 2001 - demonstrating the higher T in the North (caused by continued 'global warming'), and the low T in south caused by natural effect. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Whether it is 0.22C above the"global average" or 0.4C above the 1960-90 average is irrelevant in establishing whether the trend is rising or falling. What is important is whether it is higher or lower than previously - the fact that the temperatures since 1999 have been uniformly lower despite a continuing & massive increase being predicted at the time suggests the predictions were wrong.
In any case "global average" is a meaningless term except over a VERY long term since it depends on what years you start & end your average on. There are, of course, always potential excuses as to why the chamge didn't pan out as advertised but the important fact is that it didn't. SLG you may say 1999 looks like an outlier to you or that it looks like the high point - we will know in due course - but the succeeding years do not show the fast rising trend on which the Hockeystick depends. Screegor claims
Then you lied when you guaranteed that 2005 was not only warmer than 1999 but the warmest for a millenium. I note you guarantee to have no reason for bias. I take it that either you are not paid for your work or that the bidy doing so, & the government ultimately doing so is not one that has already expressedan opinion on warming. The only alternative is that you would be lying. - again. You guarantee that "nobody in the science community" has disputed the existence of the roman & medieval warmings. This is totally untrue. The original depictions of the Hockeystick made it quite clear that global temperature had allegedly been flatlining for milleniaprior to the alleged sharp & continiung increase which has failed to continue. Since the human contribution to CO2 is only 3% & CO2 itelf only 3 10.000ths of the atmosphere it is not "basic knowledge" that it has had a immense & catastrophic effect. It would be at least equally reasonable to say that it has probably had an effect orders of magnitude less than solar variance. Hahahaha you have been caught out repeatedly fabricting & lying. While it is easy for anybody online to claim credentials they virtually unanimously fail to produce them - I challenge you to prove that your claim is not merely anither Luddite lie. You have here refered to scientisrs with whom you disagree as "dodgy" despite clear credentials - lets see if yours can match theirs. Isn't it funny thet 25 years after we were threatened with a new ice age we are being threatened with this rubbish. Incidentally since you promise us perhaps you could point to even a single eco-system in western Europe that has been rendered as dead as the Sahara by acid rain in the last 20 years - I mean you wouldn't be lying about that too would you? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Well when studying the data on that website, it would have to be classed as an outlier. Whether the trend goes up or down from now on, it will probably end up still an outlier. Making any statement on the data relative to that one year (1999) is pretty meaningless IMO.
Neil, you're getting a bit carried away with all this talk of lying. Just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they're lying. Just because you think you spot some inconsistency in someones argument does not mean they're lying. By jumping in with the insults rather than taking a more amiable tone and sticking to the debate, you deflect attention away from the argument itself and will only alienate yourself from the people you're trying to debate with. I'm friends with Screegor in real life and I can assure you he is no Luddite. I can also assure you that he has made no statement regarding his position that can't be backed up. It's a bit much to expect folk to give away too much about their identity on a forum like this, but telling people a bit about his background was relevant. Of course you don't need to believe anything, in that case stick to what's written and referenced. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
OK SLG - you have been reasonable in the past so I accept what you say about his qualifications. I must admit I do get annoyed at people trying to pull rank in debate online.
If you take out the 1999 figure what you are left with is a series of years since then which have been pretty flat. That is not evidence of an upward trand, let alone a fast upward trend & may turn out to be evidence of peaking. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Luckily they have data – and have reconstructed the data for the past 2000 years. And luckily scientists have been able to forecast temperatures based on best knowledge the future temperatures. You know most scientists do not have an agenda. It is the politicians and public that have objectives. This is why – you reading second hand data is extremely poor for your arguments. You should be reading from the primary source.
10-30 million will need to be rehomed in the next 50 years. The population of Bangladesh is 150 million. There is no lie in my words. I think it is clear that in the next 50 years 10-30 million will need to be rehomed. The majority of this is due to salinisation problems (not flooding – as I have pointed out many times now). As the problems get worse, more of the population will need rehoming. So within 100 years, when the full 11 inches SLR (minimum prediction) more of the population will need rehoming due to the knock on effects of SLR. There is no lie there. I used the lowest predicted figures and ranges. And said exactly the truth.
The northern hemisphere – it was the hottest year for the millennium.
I am not currently paid for my work, I will be again soon. But more to the point - I get paid whether I prove or disprove a hypothesis. As I say – for scientists proving a point is just as important as disproving a point.
At that time past temperature records were not fully constructed. They made a past prediction. Which was wrong. That doesn’t mean the data was wrong, infact it has been proved correct – as the temperatures continue to follow the trend they set.
“"basic knowledge" that it has had a immense & catastrophic effect” – again you are making up stuff I said – I said “It is basic knowledge that CO2 and CH4 increases global temperatures” As for evidence you can see current temperature increases, and if you do not believe them. It is one of the few times you can relate back to when there was higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, where temperatures were orders of magnitude higher than they are now.
What evidence do you need? I work at Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Edinburgh, leading world researchers in air pollution. I will be working for the United States - Environmental Protection Agency. Why what credentials do you have?
I will give 2 examples of ‘lost’ ecosystems. Again, I will point out you misquoting me again – I never said ‘dead’ ecosystems – you should really read as you get very confused very easily. Firstly. The lose of lakes and heathlands in Scandanavia:- “Today, some 14,000 Swedish lakes are affected by acidification, with widespread damage to plant and animal life as a consequence. The damage is extensive in large parts of Scandinavia” 
Secondly:- “From the yearly European survey it appears that every fourth tree examined can be classified as damaged (the loss of leaves or needles exceeding 25 per cent). This damage to the forest has many causes, but most researchers agree that acidification of the soil and high concentrations of ground-level ozone are important contributing factors.” I had the unpleasant eerie experience of visiting this area when I was in the Czech Republic, these pictures are 20 years on from acid rain damage. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Well I can understand when folk are saying 'believe me, I'm an expert honest' to add weight to their argument. But equally, sometimes it is relevant.
Well not really, we have a couple of years at a lower level (below trend) and then the next few years it's pretty much matching the trend and rising slightly in real terms. The most recent years are the hardest to fit into the trend as the further back you go the more data you have on either side of each data point. I don't think we can properly fit the last few years into the trend until we have the following few years as well. That said, the long term trend is clearly upwards and I don't see enough data there to suggest it is starting to plateau. If you look at 2001 relative to the few years prior, you'd say temperatures were falling off, the same in 93. That would be wrong. I think the best we can say, based on that data, is that the trend has been upwards till now. It's up to the climate modellers to predict whether this trend is likely to continue or not. That's a different argument. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
If in one post you claim "essentially the whole country will be lost" by an 11 inch sea level rise & then say that 80-93% of the population will be able to stay the inconsistency is obvious.
Waht you said of acid rain (off topic but you brought it up) was that "As a result entire ecosystems across Europe have been lost" which does require it to be something like the Sahara. Since these winter scenes, which are the worst you can come up with, obviously do not depict what you postdicted we have another inconsistency. Checking out the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in Edinburgh's website, for which you work, unpaid, I notice it seems to devote more time to liasing with teachers to help them teach children about the importance of the things you have misinformed us about here. At its best this does not seem to be the white heat of scientific research your credentialism here implied. SLG might reasonably disapprove if I said what I think propagandising the minds of the yoing with such untruths was. I note the organisation is government funded - since the government os making a very good thing of supporting the warming scare & thereby raising taxes & increasing regulations it is difficult to believe that somebody who told the kids the evidence I have produced here about the warming scare would, even if unpaid, retain their position. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
I have been away for a few days on importnat errands.
Do you know what an ecosystem is? An ecosytem is lost when the ecosystem there at present is replaced by something else. For example. Moorlands turn to grassland in areas of high N depostion - moorland ecosystem is lost. Rainforest lost due to precipitation changes -> turned into grassland - rainforest ecosystem lost. Losing ecosystems such as these is hugely impacting, for example loss of moorlands or ombrotrophic bogs into grassland is resulting in massive releases of methane from the soil. Not to mention loss of biodiversity. (Winter scenes, no - they were coniferous trees anyway. (and no they are not Larch))
''The Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) is the UK 's leading research organisation for land and freshwater science. Its scientists carry out research to improve our understanding of both the environment and the processes that underlie the Earth's support systems.'' The webite is set up for people to learn, and yes relaying info to younger people is important. However, I think you should relook at CEH's credetials. You must of missed all the science, it is summarised here although for science papers you will have to search on the individual people; look in CEH website - there are plenty of scientists, then search them in google, or google scholar:- ((CEH science)) However - although there is no need to back CEHs credentials I will point out some info for other interested parties. CEH Edinburgh is afterall very important to Scotlands science research. Firstly, the head of the institute was given a CBE this year for his work and has well over 300 publications to his name. There aren't many scientists anywhere with that many publications. As for CEH as a whole, the science output is masive, a couple of interesting current projects (at least in my view) are below; there are hundreds more current projects, but I haven't the time to list them all. But if anyone wants information on anything they read in CEH website, I will do my best to answer it:- whim moss nitroeurope Oh and I suppose the fact that all UK, and a lot of Euopean pollution maps are produced by CEH is also a bonus: Link to pollution maps (Oh I just found this, meh a report of CEH overall. My work gets a mention  cool.
I meerly pose the opposite view. You preach that GW does not exist based on no scientific evidence. I am yet to see any primary source data backing up your views. I produce science evidence galore backing up my views. If you can do the same maybe people would listen to you too....... And no my position is safe. My work is in NH3 depostion (although I'm guessing you know even less about that ). If funding is lost there I can move into another area of science. Science is ever changing and scientists are therefore ever changing. There are few established scientists that have remained in the same subject there whole lives.
As for my current position I am being paid, in a collaboration with the US. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
OK
In normal English usage when an eco-system or anything else is lost it is no longer there. You are using "lost" to mean "changed". The ecosystems you mentioned have obviously not been "lost". If you would care to use English properly it would make debate more fruitful. In any case, by your own definition there is not a piece of farmland or garden anywhere in Britian whose ecosystem has not been changed, or as you put it "lost". If you are sincerely concerned about that you will have posted at least 1,000 times as much about farmers & gardeners "destroying" eco-systema as acid rain - links please. I take it when yous said the whole of Namgladesh was to be "lost" you were equally using a purely personal form of English. So the CEH doesn't just lie to children it also makes pollution maps in which, I assume, it details, areas where the eco-system has been entirely "lost", such as all the farmland in Europe? Such would appear to me to be more a propaganda organisation than serious science. I note that we have your word that you are able to keep your impartiality in what you say because you are unpaid. I note that we have your word that we should take what you say seriously because you are paid. I note that you have "yet to see" any evidence that the catastrophic warming predicted isn't happening. I note that your own graph shows the warming up to 1998 has basicly plateaued. That means you didn't see the C4 programme last night & (more extraordinary for a "scientist" or even somebody teaching eco-catastrophe to children) you weren't already aware of it. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SouthernJock |
After watching Channel 4's documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I feel very angry with the government, all the other political parties in this country, especially the Greens an all those environmentalist who put down the Global Warming to the rise in CO2 emissions, which is now shown to be a complete and blatant lie.
I have always felt that the planets climate is cyclical and is more influenced by the Sun as well as the planet itself and not mankind. This belief was more than vindictated by what I saw on the documentary. Its a fact that the planet was actually warmer in medieval times, yet we didnt have 4 x 4's roaming over the countryside and no one flew. It also transpires that the planets co2 levels increase as a result from warming not the other way around. It was amazing to listen to scientists talk about the global climate changes , one of which had his name used by the IPCC, but which he had to take legal action to have his name removed as the IPCC report was flawed. It turns out that the bulk of the IPCC report was written by people with no scientific background. Im angry that we have politicians jumping on the 'green' bandwagon, without actually finding out what its all about, but then again Im not surprised as the 'green' issue is an easy way of getting more taxes from the citizens of this country. We need to stand up to these 'green' lobby groups and tell them and the politicains that we will not put up with this crap any more |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
I hadn't seen the graphs correlating solar flux with warmth before & the correlation was clearly extremely close.
Though I generally believe it I wouldn't suggest that anybody should automatically accept this documentary as gospel any more than we should automaticaly accept everything punted at us by the BBC etc over the years. Nonetheless it is quite obvious that the mainstream media has been censroing & lying for years on this with claims such as that "the scientific debate is over". As my signature under suggests politicians, media & lobby groups have a strong incentive to frighten us with stuff like this. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
Haha,
Well the channel 4 program was complete rubbish - the same rubbish that is being spouted here. I would like to inform you of the fact that some scientists shown in that program are seeking further action, for editting what they were saying etc. The film maker was already previously discreditted for previous editting of interviewers answers etc. The graphs they used were wrong. eg They stated global CO2 levels decreased after world war 2, due to recession - and showed a graph of UK data (which did decrease) - however globally it was still increasing. The science they used was absent. I saw no evidence, just quotes from scientists and showing discredited theories. I refer you to this article. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2...s-problem-with-science/#more-1047 There is now talk of Channel 4 making an offical apology for misrepresenting the scientists being shown in that film. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
I'm sorry you were mislead by the program, I was made to feel amazed by the program; how it was just going for what appeared to be viewer ratings based on no scientific evidence. I was just glad by the fact I had non-scientist friends contact me afterwards informng me the program was complete rubbish. They even spotted the fact that the one graph they showed didn't support what the guy was saying at all. There is a lot of new research out there. Go to science journals eg Nature for simple reiews etc. They are unbiased peer reviewed journals. Unlike biased viewer grabbing programmes. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
That is the exact reason scientists refer to these ecosytems as 'lost'. As the ecosystem there is lost! It is gone, unrecoverable - all the plant and animal life in that sytem is gone forever. It is a common science term. Maybe you will learn a new definition for your limited static dictionary. Even what you say agrees with me, you say 'dead as the Sahara' - the Sahara is an ecosystem! An ecosystem can be lost, and replaced with a different ecosystem. But in science it is refered to as lost. Your inability to accept this - just goes to show why you can not understand science at all.
Yes it is terrible, there is more land in peoples back yards than in total areas of National Parks in the UK. This was not such an issue when gardens were green, but now gardens are paved over - and this is a terrible disaster for the UK.
I invite you to visit CEH. Send me your details to my mail, I will set up a personal tour of CEH. You may learn a lot. Also I posted the links to the maps, you clearly didn't look. They actualy detail all pollutants in teh UK and Europe, without those maps etc, we would still have smogs in London and Glasgow etc. Again I invited you to look at the ouput from CEH in peer-reviewed publications. You didn't. You are just lookng more and more stupid to me. You are trying to criticise a world respected institute with no evidence. You just shout worlds like propaganda, when you have no basis. Come to the istitute - I challenge you.
I don't understand your point here. I'm a scientist, I study. I have a hypothesis - if I prove or disprove it - the results are published, the money is given no matter what.
Please refer to recent data etc, and the comments I made earlier on this. I am not going to restate things I have already said.
Yes I watched it. I've already commented on this. That program did more damage to the anti-GW arguement, than any pro-GW info I have seen. Everyone I have spoken to since that thought about the program in a reasoned order - saw the complete rubbish that it was. (I've never taught a child - I am a pure research scientist - my work is peer reviewed, and never taught to children directly.) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
I regret that you saw no evidence. Perhaps since in your first post you say the"graphs were wrong" & in your second post that only used "the one graph" you were not watching very carefully or is this another of your "scientific" definitions of plural. Nonetheless I am glad you acknowledge the comparison between the programme & what I have long been saying. It is good to be ahead of the curve. As regards your previous criticism of me
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Screegor |
I'm glad you have finally accepted the term 'lost', it will help you if you converse with scientists. I see you can learn. It just takes a lot of work.
Also, I have organised 4 people to show you round CEH, I am just awaiting your details to be sent. You visiting one of the leading research stations in the UK, may help you understand the world of 'science' more and the reason there isn't this political indoctination that you believe to exist.
Because he wants to stand up for his learnt science and beliefs against a channel 4 program that warped what he said, you think he is put under pressure! (I also point out the director has a history of warping what people say)
That was one example. Another is the fact that the sunspot / CO2 trend was updated a year ago once they found that the equations had been calculated wrongly. Now infact it shows the opposite. This is in Nature. A third example, is the final theory about clouds being affected by the solar radiation. That has been shown to be impossible, as there would have to be additional processes in the atmosphere to achieve the desired effect - that do not exist. How about when demonstrating the T changes correlating to the sun, they failed to point out that the correlation ceased when concentrations of CO2 increased. I could carry on if you like.
The science you are talking about is already over a year old. You are way behind - science is moving far quicker than you are.
To me it is a disaster imo, the loss of so much habital ground for animals and plants, when the majority of people that use there gardens do so infrequently. It is a tragedy. Although gardens with plants in carry there own problems such as Rhododendum ponticum, Japanese knot weed etc. CEH Banchory have done a lot of work looking into this type of thing.
Well if you are saying it is impossible for any scientist to be impartial or correct despite whether paid or not then you do not understand the world of science. Secondly if you are challenging my scientific ability/background etc. I really do not care, I am a published and well know scientist in my field.
Well actually it has. We were discussing today that the program would have been better, if they had presented the program with balanced views. ie The GW evidence and the non-GW evidence. The trouble would be finding evidence for the latter - as infact they proved in the program; also the fact you are yet to provide any primary source peer-reviewed publication backing up your views. So far all you have shown is a Russ |