Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, Nov 15, 2007.

  1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

    An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

    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.

    ‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’
    No excuse for soft climate change laws
    Jeremy Clarkson: Cornered by the green lynch mob
    Related Internet Links
    New Scientist on Climate Change
    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 changeâ€.

    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.

  2. didn't read the whole thing PP but i challenge the strongest proponents of climate change to move to melbourne and shiver for 8 months of the year! without being a scientist i do believe in global waming, i just wish it would come to melbourne some time soon :evil:
  3. Yes, the climate is changing a bit. FACT.

    It's all our fault, and driving hybrid cars, recycling and using energy-saver bulbs will fix/improve/slow it down? Total bullshit.
  4. +1 Ktulu.

    Isn't also funny how a whole range of new jobs and business has kicked off around the ridiculous notion of carbon trading :roll:

    This certianly ranks up there with the best of corporate and political brainwashing!
  5. Ah yes, carbon trading, the 'Y2K Bug' of the 21st Century, and just as relevant to absolutely nothing. People made fortunes in the 90's protecting the world from absolutely nothing.
  6. Well the world wants to believe it achieved something, and doesn't want to fear terrorism anymore: so the media feeds us something new to be afraid of.

    ... oh wait, it's not even new. There've been beatups about 'coming ice ages' for decades in the news.

    But it is amusing how quickly it is reinforced by big-business, when something like this scores points with the market.
    People want to believe they are doing something for the good of the planet [maybe the internet and speed of worldwide communication has allowed this sense of global identity and subsequent responsibility? Perhaps] - when really, all their opinions and ideals do is form a powerful and emotional division in a number of markets, just waiting to be recognised and made use of so someone can still turn a buck.

    Companies are so quick to claim the good they're doing, too!

    Allow me to paraphrase...

    "We here at [Dodgy Brothers] Energy, are sacrificing net-profits and opportunities for expansion, research and development, in order to make ZERO difference to a semi-imaginary problem. Would you like to buy some more shares in our company now?"
  7. The goddam DINOSAURS didn't have cars, electricity and all that cr*p, yet the climate changed enough to kill them!
  8. Oil, coal and gas are all wonderful stuff. It makes sense to use 'em for more worthy purposes than driving the Hummer to work where a 250 scooter would do the job, or having a zillion little red lights and digital clocks in the loungeroom.

    And just to nail my colours to the mast, I think hybrids (at least the ones released so far) suck from an enviro point of view, delivering no smaller a carbon footprint that many good, small turbo diesels. And don't even get me started on how crap fuel cells are.

    Regardless of climate change (and I'm agnostic on whether or not it's human induced), it's the matter of waste that really pisses me off. Probably comes as a result of an impoverished childhood. It strikes me as a good idea to curb our (industrialised humans) current enthusiasm for pissing our fantastic but finite fossil fuel resources up against a metaphorical wall.
  9. Ah yes, but had they had the infrastructure to implent a carbon trading policy between species things would have been different :LOL:.
  10. I second PatB on the notion that humans are wasting resources.

    Whether climate change is 'man made' or not, should make a difference to us changing our habits to work towards being more sustainable.

    To me, the people who are against making changes to curb 'climate change'/ wasteful resource usage are the ones who are too lazy & pigheaded to want to bother to change to become more sustainable. There're also some pretty nifty gaps in 'documented research' done and provided by the nay-sayers.. but really, please do go ahead & believe what you read without doing more research yourselves. ;) :p

    Whether global warming is influenced by humans or not, we're going to have to wake up to the fact that oil's going to get a hell of a lot more expensive, & eventually run out. We're going to have to realise that we need to use water differently. We're going to have to stop being consumers for consumption's sake. & those are all real, regardless of whether 'climate change' is 'coming or going', human influenced or not.
  11. Uh,

    Last time I checked there are more than 19,000 scientists that disagree with all the BS theories on man made Gwarming.

  12. With all of the theories?

    A number of organisations have checked the petition list and found a number of rather dubious names (including Spice Girl Geri Halliwell) not to mention a corporation listed as an individual.

    The fact that the names are not listed with educational affiliations is rather dubious and the fact that less than 90% list having a degree (none state the field of their qualifications) also makes the term 'scientist' somewhat vague as well.

    Scientific American did a check on a sample of the signatories and found that some of them had no recollection of the petition. Some others stated that they wouldn't sign it again and some had only signed after a cursory reading.
  13. And there is an argument that the whole thing is a scare to facilitate the "whole one world government" agenda.

    The only solution to climate change would be to have the OWG.

    Then we could all bow down to the master and take it up the kyber.

  14. Clearly, you are making comments which need to be backed up with some literature.
    By the way, anybody can sign a petition. You can support any cause, so the Geri is free to do so. Does not detract from the thousands acknowledging this. Yes some will retract for job reasons if questioned (normal defensive human behaviour).

    Other than that from your response its easy to piss on something with no evidence in your hands about it.

    I personally know of dozens of scientists (including myself) that have reviewed all the IPCC material, and can sit down with anybody and show where the material is a mixture of hypothesis and carefully concealed language.

    Their review process and material is significantly flawed. To the point of being fiction.

    If you feel you are hard done by, read this official page (link below). Keep in mind the language used. All the hypothesis that are being used are not able to be decoupled from non-anthropogenic measures.

    If you think this introduces doubt, why don't you go read all the literature (scientific) from the IPCC official site. Including how they actually reviewed the work. :roll: Less than 2 reviewers per section. Whom have very little interconnectivity in terms of work.

    This is an official site:


    Now look at the responses to the questions :roll:


    Is the climate warming?

    Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

    Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?

    On a global scale there is little evidence of sustained trends in climate variability or extremes. This perhaps reflects inadequate data and a dearth of analyses. However, on regional scales, there is clear evidence of changes in variability or extremes.

    Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed.

    Is sea level rising?
    Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Projected increase from 1990-2100 is anywhere from 0.09-0.88 meters, depending on which greenhouse gas scenario is used and many physical uncertainties in contributions to sea-level rise from a variety of frozen and unfrozen water sources.


    This only a sample of reviews of their own material.

    You are being sold BS, in terms of scientific certainty.

    What you will get is a global tax system to further fund governments.
    See how you are smiling when you pay $2.50 for fuel and and extra grand to keep you house a year.
  15. wall of text, sunday morning, is there a paragraph summary anywhere :LOL:

    Cheers :cool:
  16. Back again is it... :grin:

    Pro-pilot mate you seem to know you're stuff and not be mad, but I don't think that banging on about the O.I.S.M. actually helps, that survey seems to be very flawed and isn't really going to sway anyone.

    An Interesting article from sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

    Do you have anything from outside the US as they just seem to get into this whole pinko commie mindset???
  17. Please don't ever become a scientist :).
  18. I encourage you then to read the IPCC documentation and understand the history of its organisation and goggle the people that are involved.

    Also read all of the Caveats that encompass it. Unfortunately they love to obscure the scientific methods used, let alone the tweaking of their so called model parameters.

    The objection to man-made global warming is not that some parts of the world are not changing. It is that there is no reliable science to implicate human forces alone are driving this. As a matter of fact much work in the field of geology and earth sciences shows that these patterns (changes) are always occurring, and when they do it is quite rapid (usually in centuries). What you are seeing is no different to the past.

    We know for a fact that the population and numbers of animal species on the earth also go through extinction and mutation cycles. This will also occur in humans, but we can use technology to shield us from these changes to some degree.

    As a scientist I can’t tell you if all this is being driven by an agenda or just due to the birth of a new quasi-religious paradigm. But what I can tell you with certainty is that the science of this matter is incomplete, no more than hypothesis and all based on computer based scenarios, which they keep changing parameters (in fundamental increments not just tweaking) constantly.

    In terms of science, we have no direct measurements from data that these models are even close. As a matter of fact, in some parts of the world, the models fall apart.
    This means that the hypothesis is based only on regional findings not global. So our emissions refuse to obey the laws of physics and stick around where it’s convenient to measure.


    What I love is how when they speak of this issue, many authors leave out the word ‘Man made’ out of global warming. So that they are scientifically being more accurate. As there is evidence of global warming, but not man made.

    Please do review the information for yourself!
  19. pro-pilot I wasn't denying that you know your stuff, and most of your links point to sensible reports with much to say) I always like scientists that say they don't have all the answers), but what I was pointing out that promoting the O.I.S.M. organisation is not going to help at all apart from many things the one and only member of staff is a loon.