 |
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.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ken
Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 7
Location: Livingston
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming is a false myth, every serious person say |
 |
|
| Neil wrote: | Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?• |
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...
_________________
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4413
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: |
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.
|
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.
| Neil wrote: |
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. |
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.
| Neil wrote: |
Nor is Balgladesh only 11 inches above sea level.
|
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.”
| Neil wrote: |
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. |
“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.
| Neil wrote: |
Quitec worringly you have clearly ben unable to read this thread & last link. There HAS been a decline since 1999 (which is how 1999 gets to be the highest) which is EXACTLY what would be predicted if solar activity is the main driver. |
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….
| Neil wrote: |
So far as itcan be determined the medieval warming was the same, or very marginally higher, than now & theLate Roman significantly higher.
|
Incorrect. Go look at recent publications on the Medieval warming period. The temperatures were lower than now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming is a false myth, every serious person say |
|
|
| Ken wrote: | | Neil wrote: | Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?• |
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... |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken
Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 7
Location: Livingston
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There you have it then: the world IS flat! 
_________________
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken
Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 7
Location: Livingston
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why is the use by someone of the word "facts" so often in inverse proportion to their actual use of facts themselves? 
_________________
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You tell me, you may not have noticed that you just used it twice in one sentence.  
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | 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. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken
Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 7
Location: Livingston
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | You tell me, you may not have noticed that you just used it twice in one sentence. |
Well spotted! It would have been irritating if the irony had been totally wasted on you...
_________________
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | 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). |
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.”
| Neil wrote: | | As you show - nobody (except you) claims Bamgladesh is a country less than 11 inches above sea level. |
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.
| Neil wrote: | | 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. |
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.
| Neil wrote: | | 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. |
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!!
| Neil wrote: | | 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. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | 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. |
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.
| Neil wrote: | | 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. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | 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. |
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.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 | Quote: | 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.
|
What you actually said was that in the event of an 11 inch rise | Quote: | In places like Bangladesh, the entire delta system would be lost (this is essentially the whole country).
|
which requires essentially the entire country to be coverable by an 11 inch rise. Incidentally the population of Bangladesh is several times the 10-30 million you claim This is the 2nd time I have caught you lying about what you previously said which is unwise when it is there to be read.
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?
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | 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. |
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.
| Quote: | | 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. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 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. |
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.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
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. |
What you actually said was that in the event of an 11 inch rise
| Quote: | | In places like Bangladesh, the entire delta system would be lost (this is essentially the whole country). |
which requires essentially the entire country to be coverable by an 11 inch rise. Incidentally the population of Bangladesh is several times the 10-30 million you claim This is the 2nd time I have caught you lying about what you previously said which is unwise when it is there to be read. |
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.
| Quote: |
Then you lied when you guaranteed that 2005 was not only warmer than 1999 but the warmest for a millenium.
|
The northern hemisphere – it was the hottest year for the millennium.
| Quote: |
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.
|
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.
| Quote: |
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.
|
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.
| Quote: |
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. |
“"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.
| Quote: |
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. |
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?
| Quote: |
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? |
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.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
