The Weather Outlook

Remove ads from site

four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
07 February 2012 10:51:25

http://www.zeit.de/2012/05/RWE-Vahrenholt/seite-1

Germany begins to doubt 

 the conclusion, "is that global warming over the past 150 years part of a natural cycle that is characterized primarily by the sun."

 

Bild uses more colourful language


Climate horror warnings raining down on us: heat waves, hurricanes, biblical floods to the planet visit soon. Apocalyptic atmosphere! Even in school children get indoctrinated: All that we have our own brewed.


http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/globale-erwaermung/die-co2-luege-klima-katastrophe-ist-panik-mache-der-politik-22467268.bild.html 

North York Moors weather 
John Mason
07 February 2012 16:22:00
Ah, this is all about Fritz Vahrenholt. Over at the Telegraph, Delingpole can hardly contain himself....

Cheers - John

Devonian
07 February 2012 17:07:55

Ah, this is all about Fritz Vahrenholt. Over at the Telegraph, Delingpole can hardly contain himself....

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

Excitable chap isn't he. Anyway, I'm not sure I'm going to simply lap up what he, the GWPF and WTFUWT tell me to.

John Mason
07 February 2012 18:43:09
One of these days, Four will understand that too....

Cheers - John

four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
07 February 2012 19:41:58

So it can be discounted purely because Delingpole also reported it in a British paper, therefore it must be some sort of invention. 
Good logic there chaps. 

I thought you would  say it should be discounted because Vahrenholt has written a book - he has too.
It's interesting he's had to wait hold off showing what he actually believes until his career is almost over.
You have to stick to the storyline if you want to keep your pension.

North York Moors weather 
Devonian
07 February 2012 20:40:25

So it can be discounted purely because Delingpole also reported it in a British paper, therefore it must be some sort of invention. 
Good logic there chaps. 

I thought you would  say it should be discounted because Vahrenholt has written a book - he has too.

Originally Posted by: four 

Oddly, no one has said either - read the posts here...

It's interesting he's had to wait hold off showing what he actually believes until his career is almost over.

Not what Vahrenholt said.

You have to stick to the storyline if you want to keep your pension.

Not what Vahrenholt said.

four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
07 February 2012 21:08:29

 

Oddly, no one has said either - read the posts here...

 

Originally Posted by: Devonian 


You don't discount it then. you just sort of implied it ought to be discounted without saying so. 

North York Moors weather 
TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
07 February 2012 21:38:48

The only place you will get proper information on AGW is from the mainstream scientific literature.

Devonian
07 February 2012 22:14:12

 

Oddly, no one has said either - read the posts here...

 

Originally Posted by: four 


You don't discount it then. you just sort of implied it ought to be discounted without saying so. 

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

I said I wont simply lap up what Delingpole, the GWPF and WTFUWT say and I mean that.

Tom is quite right, you get science from scientists. You get politics from Delingpole and the GWPF and utter nonsense from WTFUWT. I'd talk to you, not, with respect, to Tom, about farming and I'd talk to Tom not, with respect, to you about climate science.

innov8tion
08 February 2012 00:01:17

Hello , very much a laymans question but has been puzzling me for years , I was wondering if anyone can explain why the ACTUAL heat produced by burning carbon is so completely  ignored in AGW - its only the carbon dioxide produced by burning that seems important - but it is addition of heat into the atmosphere that triggers warming or is that completely wrong ?

 If everbody on earth chose to not burn anything for a week the atmosphere would be missing a collossal amount of heat and the temperatures would surely drop . but if it wouldnt do that,  then why not ? If it would cool the atmosphere then would we condemn literally millions of Europeans to death by hypothermia by preventing them from creating heat - just so we can say we have stopped global warming from getting worse?

four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
08 February 2012 10:05:56
Gray-Wolf
08 February 2012 10:30:55

So , in areas that are hard to 'replicate findings' this report says folk are dodgy?

How can this apply to the environment where the science appears to be 'running to keep up' with events on the ground (like the 07' Arctic melt?).

Are you trying to fudge folks understanding of the subject here 4? Are you trying to falsify the reportsd findings by expanding it into other fields than those specifically mentioned?

I can see that Psychology is open to such abuse with findings hard to replicate ( how do you replicate the way a 'memory is stored' to see if a paper on such is right or not?) but this in no way applies to mainstream science.

To me this almost makes me glad. It proves (to me) that the denialasphere is aware of how it is losing the argument as new data/findings continue to add flesh to the AGW issuue. Is such a report direct evidence of the collapse of this funded body? I think it is.

 As for posting it up?????

Koyaanisqatsi

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

John Mason
08 February 2012 12:21:38
Anyway - Delingpole doesn't report. He opines. That is what he is - mysteriously - paid to do.

Four, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about your McCarthyite tendencies!

Cheers - John

Devonian
08 February 2012 12:26:01

Hello , very much a laymans question but has been puzzling me for years , I was wondering if anyone can explain why the ACTUAL heat produced by burning carbon is so completely  ignored in AGW - its only the carbon dioxide produced by burning that seems important - but it is addition of heat into the atmosphere that triggers warming or is that completely wrong ?

Originally Posted by: innov8tion 

Some interesting figures in this article. A couple of ways of looking at this. You can say globally, emissions of energy as 'heat' are neglibible (because they are, after all 70% of the planet is water few fires there....) or you could say emissions of heat energy in some places are more of a climate effect than that due to CO2 but, again, on average across the globe such emissions and their effects are negligible.

If everbody on earth chose to not burn anything for a week the atmosphere would be missing a collossal amount of heat and the temperatures would surely drop . but if it wouldnt do that,  then why not ? If it would cool the atmosphere then would we condemn literally millions of Europeans to death by hypothermia by preventing them from creating heat - just so we can say we have stopped global warming from getting worse?

Following on it follows that to stop fires across the globe would have a neglible effect on climate - but of course not on people's warmth - and remember the effect of CO2 is day after day, year after year. As to you last sentence, I don't think anyone wants to condemn anyone to death by hyopthermia but, again, stopping fires will have a negligible effect on global warming.

Gandalf The White
08 February 2012 14:43:44

Hello , very much a laymans question but has been puzzling me for years , I was wondering if anyone can explain why the ACTUAL heat produced by burning carbon is so completely  ignored in AGW - its only the carbon dioxide produced by burning that seems important - but it is addition of heat into the atmosphere that triggers warming or is that completely wrong ?

 If everbody on earth chose to not burn anything for a week the atmosphere would be missing a collossal amount of heat and the temperatures would surely drop . but if it wouldnt do that,  then why not ? If it would cool the atmosphere then would we condemn literally millions of Europeans to death by hypothermia by preventing them from creating heat - just so we can say we have stopped global warming from getting worse?

Originally Posted by: innov8tion 

There was an article on this very point in New Scientist a week or two ago, making the point that all of the energy we use ends up in the form of heat in some way.  Not sure if you can access the article on line but might be worth a look.

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



Ulric
08 February 2012 21:52:34

I think the reason is that the energy released by humans from fossil fuels is trifling compared to the energy which arrives from the sun. The problem with CO2 is that the tiny percentage of the huge amount of solar energy which is retained by additional atmospheric CO2 is many orders of magnitude larger than the heat released from the fuel we burn.

Solar is only worth it if your roof has toenail fungus.
four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
09 February 2012 17:30:34

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

  1. Measurement Technology Bias – Improvements in our ability to accurately count or measure a phenomenon is mistaken for a real underlying change in the frequency of the phenomenon.  A great example is tornadoes.  The count of annual tornadoes appears to have increased over the last fifty years, but this increase is almost entirely due to Doppler radar and other technologies identifying previously unrecognized twisters.  If one looks solely at larger tornadoes (class F3-F5) that were unlikely to be overlooked even with older technologies, annual counts are flat to slightly down over the last fifty years.

  2. One sample makes a trend – This is less a flaw of any particular formal study and more a flaw in media coverage and among catastrophic global warming advocates (e.g. Al Gore).  Individual extreme weather events are pointed to as proof of climate shifts, even when summary statistics show no such thing.  For example, individual hurricanes like Katrina are pointed to as proof that global warming is increasing hurricane frequency and severity, when in fact measures of hurricane frequency and total energy (e.g. total cyclonic energy) have actually been decreasing over the last several years, to near all-time lows.

  3. What is normal -  Trends in certain variables are labeled as “abnormal” or “unprecedented” or “not natural” despite our having an extraordinarily short history of measurements such that it is almost impossible for us to say with any confidence exactly what “normal” is.  In some cases, recent trends are labeled abnormal or unprecedented even when that trend appears to be long-standing and pre-date man-made CO2.  A great example is glacier retreat.  We have good measurements showing substantial retreats in glaciers dating all the way back to the late 1700s (at the end of the little ice age).  However, recent retreats in these same glaciers are portrayed as new and shocking and man-made, rather than in context of a longer-term trend (the exact same situation obtains with sea levels).

  4. Everything looks like a nail - Climate is an extremely complex system with many, many variables changing simultaneously.  It’s a big, complicated engine we really don’t understand that takes all these inputs and spits out certain outputs  (e.g. snow in Washington today).  Like a religious zealot that sees the face of God in his piece of toast, some observers seem to be able to magically attribute particular weather outcomes to the action of one single variable out of these millions.  Even more amazingly, time after time, it seems to be the exact same variable, man-made CO2, that is unilaterally creating the result.

 

 

North York Moors weather 
Ulric
09 February 2012 23:26:55

And your point is?

Solar is only worth it if your roof has toenail fungus.
polarwind
10 February 2012 09:32:44

And your point is?

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

Read the article, Ulric.

We are always being told that the science is settled - but are all the parts of the global warming scenario settled?

For many sceptics, the CO2 effect is real, but is the extent of the feedbacks settled? - The answer is clearly "no".

 

 

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
10 February 2012 09:42:16

And your point is?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Read the article, Ulric.

We are always being told that the science is settled - but are all the parts of the global warming scenario settled?

For many sceptics, the CO2 effect is real, but is the extent of the feedbacks settled? - The answer is clearly "no".

 

 

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

Most scientists working in the field would agree witjh that but are not 'sceptics' we know enough to say that substantial warming (you know the figures) is very likely this century but due to uncertainty in the feedbacks there is a substantial spread in the possible warming figures.

Gandalf The White
10 February 2012 11:39:36

And your point is?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Read the article, Ulric.

We are always being told that the science is settled - but are all the parts of the global warming scenario settled?

For many sceptics, the CO2 effect is real, but is the extent of the feedbacks settled? - The answer is clearly "no".

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

Dave, who has said the science is settled?

The basic principle of AGW is settled - you accept that AGW is having an impact although we disagree about extent.

To my knowledge everyone here accepts that there is scope for improved understanding of the details, the impact of feedbacks and dampenings, the effect on local/regional climate etc. etc.  This hasn't been disputed and I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement - yet again.

That said, the continued improvement in understanding might mean we realise the risks are greater and not less.  It would be entirely illogical and wrong to assume that further analysis will somehow only deliver evidence that AGW poses less risk.  Just look at our clearly incomplete understanding of the mechanics of warming on glacier movement and on the Arctic sea ice, where the trends are above expectation.

So, if sceptics are really genuinely sceptic they - we - should be seeking the truth, whether that means the predictions for AGW are worse or whether they are better than current predictions, not selective evidence to bolster the apparently default position that sceptics simply don't accept the risk.

I do find it disappointing that 'sceptic' has become corrupted in the AGW arena.  Sadly you on occasion demonstrate the same tendency.

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



polarwind
11 February 2012 09:29:06

And your point is?

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Read the article, Ulric.

We are always being told that the science is settled - but are all the parts of the global warming scenario settled?

For many sceptics, the CO2 effect is real, but is the extent of the feedbacks settled? - The answer is clearly "no".

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Dave, who has said the science is settled?

The basic principle of AGW is settled - you accept that AGW is having an impact although we disagree about extent.

To my knowledge everyone here accepts that there is scope for improved understanding of the details, the impact of feedbacks and dampenings, the effect on local/regional climate etc. etc.  This hasn't been disputed and I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement - yet again.

That said, the continued improvement in understanding might mean we realise the risks are greater and not less.  It would be entirely illogical and wrong to assume that further analysis will somehow only deliver evidence that AGW poses less risk.  Just look at our clearly incomplete understanding of the mechanics of warming on glacier movement and on the Arctic sea ice, where the trends are above expectation.

So, if sceptics are really genuinely sceptic they - we - should be seeking the truth, whether that means the predictions for AGW are worse or whether they are better than current predictions, not selective evidence to bolster the apparently default position that sceptics simply don't accept the risk.

I do find it disappointing that 'sceptic' has become corrupted in the AGW arena.  Sadly you on occasion demonstrate the same tendency.

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

Well, Tom has said this many times, but, he has explained his position - nevertheless, "the science is settled" has often been said as a "sweeping statement".

As regards me "making a sweeping statement" - Tom's reply was "Most scientists working in the field would agree with that..."

I agree "the truth" should be the aim. "Selective evidence" however is not a one sided ploy as it seems to be a forte of the "consensus". Take the case of the research considered in the new thread here - Quote:- "Only two of the eight types of temperature proxies analyzed indicate 20th century warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period." Now these proxies have been around for some time now (I believe).  Is that research the first to question the accuracy of essentially, the tree proxies? Probably not, but, anyone who has had an interest in past climate would question the hockey stick as related to the medieval warm period - as I have and do. 

The corruption of "sceptic" was of course a slur perpetrated by the "convinced" - when it was deliberately associated with "denialist". Your attack on me in your last sentence, is just another example of your personal crusade against the "unconvinced".

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

Devonian
11 February 2012 09:36:41

And your point is?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Read the article, Ulric.

We are always being told that the science is settled - but are all the parts of the global warming scenario settled?

For many sceptics, the CO2 effect is real, but is the extent of the feedbacks settled? - The answer is clearly "no".

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Dave, who has said the science is settled?

The basic principle of AGW is settled - you accept that AGW is having an impact although we disagree about extent.

To my knowledge everyone here accepts that there is scope for improved understanding of the details, the impact of feedbacks and dampenings, the effect on local/regional climate etc. etc.  This hasn't been disputed and I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement - yet again.

That said, the continued improvement in understanding might mean we realise the risks are greater and not less.  It would be entirely illogical and wrong to assume that further analysis will somehow only deliver evidence that AGW poses less risk.  Just look at our clearly incomplete understanding of the mechanics of warming on glacier movement and on the Arctic sea ice, where the trends are above expectation.

So, if sceptics are really genuinely sceptic they - we - should be seeking the truth, whether that means the predictions for AGW are worse or whether they are better than current predictions, not selective evidence to bolster the apparently default position that sceptics simply don't accept the risk.

I do find it disappointing that 'sceptic' has become corrupted in the AGW arena.  Sadly you on occasion demonstrate the same tendency.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Well, Tom has said this many times, but, he has explained his position - nevertheless, "the science is settled" has often been said as a "sweeping statement".

As regards me "making a sweeping statement" - Tom's reply was "Most scientists working in the field would agree with that..."

I agree "the truth" should be the aim. "Selective evidence" however is not a one sided ploy as it seems to be a forte of the "consensus". Take the case of the research considered in the new thread here - Quote:- "Only two of the eight types of temperature proxies analyzed indicate 20th century warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period." Now these proxies have been around for some time now (I believe).  Is that research the first to question the accuracy of essentially, the tree proxies? Probably not, but, anyone who has had an interest in past climate would question the hockey stick as related to the medieval warm period - as I have and do.

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

PW, can you name anyone who says the HS is the last word in climate recons? You cannot, we ALL think as you do about that. What some of us don't do is spend ten years attacking a paper and making vile personal attacks on it's author - like many who take your stance have. That, PW, is conviction for you.

The corruption of "sceptic" was of course a slur perpetrated by the "convinced" - when it was deliberately associated with "denialist". Your attack on me in your last sentence, is just another example of your personal crusade against the "unconvinced".

GTW and several of us have seen the tactics of 'sceptics' over the years. Roses are out.

Gandalf The White
11 February 2012 10:57:45

Well, Tom has said this many times, but, he has explained his position - nevertheless, "the science is settled" has often been said as a "sweeping statement".

As regards me "making a sweeping statement" - Tom's reply was "Most scientists working in the field would agree with that..."

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Your capacity for selective misquoting is becoming tiresome Dave.  Tom went on to say:

"...we know enough to say that substantial warming (you know the figures) is very likely this century but due to uncertainty in the feedbacks there is a substantial spread in the possible warming figures."

Which is precisely the point.  The basic science is indeed settled and the evidence is mounting that it is correct.  The details continue to be developed/understood and the way that nature responds to the GHG forcings is being better understood.  As I said before only a one-sided sceptic (yes, you) would claim the greater understanding will only show the core science to have overstated the risk.  Anyone being truly open would accept the risks on both sides.  Anyone being truly open would acknowledge the folly of tinkering with a global system whose workings we don't properly understand - as opposed to the sceptic/denialist "We don't know so let's keep pushing it until something breaks. approach.

 

I agree "the truth" should be the aim. "Selective evidence" however is not a one sided ploy as it seems to be a forte of the "consensus". Take the case of the research considered in the new thread here - Quote:- "Only two of the eight types of temperature proxies analyzed indicate 20th century warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period." Now these proxies have been around for some time now (I believe).  Is that research the first to question the accuracy of essentially, the tree proxies? Probably not, but, anyone who has had an interest in past climate would question the hockey stick as related to the medieval warm period - as I have and do. 

The corruption of "sceptic" was of course a slur perpetrated by the "convinced" - when it was deliberately associated with "denialist". Your attack on me in your last sentence, is just another example of your personal crusade against the "unconvinced".

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Pleased you referenced the new thread - I have posted there that you are being yet again distorted in your professed openness.

As for the last sentence, that's just a nonsense, sorry.  You demonstrate and do so repeatedly that you are indeed a 'sceptic' as you have defined it and not 'unconvinced'.  Your renewed tirade against the hockey stick is further proof of your biased position.  Your lame pleas of being nothing more than a humble seeker of th e truth are wearing thin, and doing so for all to see.

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



Solar Cycles
11 February 2012 12:10:37
PW speaks the truth, with all the facts that are at hand. Those who defend the hockey stick, should be beaten black and blue with one, iin order to knock some much needed sense into their skulls.

Remove ads from site