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.

Fear of a global 'coldening'

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

  1. http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,22069080-5001031,00.html

    Fear of a global 'coldening'
    By Tim Blair

    July 14, 2007 12:00am

    LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.

    Not that June should be presented as evidence that global warming isn't happening, or that we're causing it. Relying on such a tiny sample would be unscientific and wrong, even if it involves an entire freakin' continent's weather patterns throughout the course of a whole month, for Christ's sake.

    No such foolishness will be indulged in here.

    Sadly, those who believe in global warming - and who would compel us also to believe - aren't similarly constrained. A few hot days are all they ever need to get the global warming bandwagon rolling; evidently it's solar powered. Here, for example, is an Australian Associated Press report on May's weather, which in places was a little warmer than usual:

    "Climate change gave much of Australia's drought-stricken east coast its warmest May on record, weather experts say.

    "Global warming and an absence of significant cold changes had driven temperatures well above the monthly average, said meteorologist Matt Pearce.

    According to Mr Pearce, May's temperatures were "yet another sign of the widespread climate change that we are seeing unfold across the globe."

    If that's the case, shouldn't June's cold weather - coldest since 1950, remember - be a sign that widespread climate change isn't unfolding across the globe? We're using the same data here; one month's weather. And, in fact, the June sample is Australia-wide while May only highlights the east coast. Fear the dawn of a great "coldening"!

    While Australia freezes, it's kinda hot in California. Again, local toastiness is evidence of global warming; one San Francisco Chronicle writer this week referred glibly to their "global-warming-heated summer".

    What phenomenon was responsible for previous summers? Maybe they got by on the superheated fumes radiating off Lateline host Tony Jones.

    Snow cone Tone hosted an in-studio discussion Thursday night after the ABC presented The Great Global Warming Swindle, and he was hotter than a Christina Aguilera video. "Welcome to our debate on this deeply flawed and utterly mistaken documentary, which is wrong in every regard and was made by a zombie," Jones said in introduction (I'm only lightly paraphrasing).

    During an interview with filmmaker Martin Durkin Tone was visibly sweating; no easy achievement during a typical summer in the UK, to where he'd flown for his heated little chat. Perhaps Tone was anticipating the phantom British summer forecast by The Independent's environment editor, Michael McCarthy, in April:

    "The possibility is growing that Britain in 2007 may experience a summer of unheard-of high temperatures, with the thermometer even reaching 40C, or 104F, a level never recorded in history.

    "This would be quite outside all historical experience, but entirely consistent with predictions of climate change."

    As Wimbledon watchers would be aware, what with the rainiest tournament since Jimmy Connors defeated John McEnroe in 1982, those unheard-of high temperatures remain unheard-of. Someone might conclude, therefore, that the not-hot summer is not entirely consistent with predictions of climate change.

    But climate change is like Michael Moore's tracksuit - it can fit anyone. In 2005, Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault helpfully explained: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with."

    What we're dealing with, apparently, is weather.

    What will the weather be like 100 years from now? Don't ask Britain's Guardian, which, like the Independent, is full of Warmin' Normans whose warm warnings never come true. "It could be time to say goodbye to defining features of British life," the paper claimed a few months ago, "like rainy picnics and cloudy sunbathing . . ."

    Other defining features of British life - screaming, inaccurate nonsense from the Guardian, for example - will never be farewelled. Cue wet Wimbledon, the coldest day for Test match cricket (7.4C) in English history, and this BBC online headline: "Where has the UK's summer gone?"

    Maybe it migrated to Australia, like Augustus Owsley Stanley III, the American LSD enthusiast and manufacturer.

    Possibly influenced by his product, Owsley moved to outback Queensland about twenty years ago, reportedly convinced that imminent global warming would cause - in the tradition of warm meaning cold - the whole Northern Hemisphere to be covered with ice.

    Owsley, now 72, is still in Queensland, and likely not a little confused. Things didn't exactly turn out as predicted. While his former Californian haunts melt due to "global warming", this year Queensland has gone frosty. Townsville's June was its coldest since 1940; June 24 saw the coldest Brisbane morning on record.

    Think of these little factoids the next time your read a report linking a hot day or month or year to global warming. And, if you run into this Owsley bloke, please ask him to quit adding things to environmentalists' water supplies.
  2. Wonderfully humorous, and so spot on.....
  3. Just another example of an uneducated and ill-informed popular press article which does nothing to explain the true phenomenon of climate change. Read Tim Flannery's the Weather Makers (among others) before letting tripe like this influence your opinion regarding 'global warming', one of the most widely misinterpreted phases this century. In brief, climate change is characterized by extreme weather conditions, for example, drought, floods, high and low temperatures.. sound familiar?? Ask some NSW residents how they like rowing a boat to work. Been cold lately? It's not the refutation of global warming that you might think.
  4. Interesting assumptions on the dynamics of extreme weather. Many of the postulates that underpin our determination of weather patterns, do not include parameters for effects such as el nino and la nina effects (impossible to model). What is apparent from reading similar literature is that "extreme weather" is a determinant claimed when there are many unknowns.

    The facts are that we understand many singular atmospheric and hydrological porcess when examined independantly. But very little knoweldge when they interact. This is where we make many assumptions and hypothesis to estimate potential outcomes.

    Where comment is due, is to say that climate change occurs in cycles that we can trace from a geological and paleontalogical perspective that suggests we have repeating events that drive said change.

    I am looking at some research that is examining how for the past 5 years, our magnetic field around the earth is rapidly diminishing in strength. What happens (from oceanic crust examination) is that the earths mag field flips over every 100,000 years. So North becomes South etc. We are moving towards a point of magnetic minimum.
    Funny enough, much of the research has good scientific data to suggest weather patterns were "extreme" during these phases as sandstone deposits show high turbulance and distribution patterns in alignment with these historic times.

    I am not saying that our changing weather patterns are caused by this alone. Just that our current models and understanding is very limited and does not take into consideration many other global changes that are all probably causing inter-play.

    Just an interesting foot note. But thats from us scientists. :roll:
  5. But, but magnetic fields can't be seen, and don't sell newspapers or make your company look "green".
    Sorry, I am a bit cynical about the whole humans have created climate change thing, when they announce it's a really hot./cold/windy/rainy day, and then say it's the worst since 30-60 years before. So if it's so new and bad, how come it was just as bad not so long ago?

    Regards, Andrew.
  6. one of the interesting things mentioned in the dodgey doco shown on the abc (that isn't a lie) is that the extreme weather conditions are not necessarily driven by a warming climate.
    in fact (apparently) the current weather predictions have the weather events calming down. The theory goes that wild weather is driven by the temperature difference between the ITCZ and the poles, and with warming comes an equalisation effect. This has not been refuted and seems pretty logical to me laymans brain.

    one of the big problems with current global temperature measures is that many of the weather vanes are localed in cities, which are heat sinks, effectively they provide a local, fake representation fo the true temperature. It isn't entirely clear how much of an effect this has.

    having said all that I think you have missed the point of the article, which is that basing a reaction on almost zero information will lead you into strife. anyhoo... climate change thread is ---> that way
  7. I got your point Russ.
    Fact is, humans have only been accurately recording weather for a few hundred years, which is an insignificantly small amount of time in the earth's current relatively stable climate cycle.
    To say definitively one way or another one particular force or action caused something which may or may not be happening is pretty pointless.
    However, reducing emissions can only be a good thing long term, but it is not going to change the atmospheric cycle greatly.

    Regards, Andrew.
  8. Warming creating an equalising effect is a theory, not a scientifically estabished fact. It's based on the atmosphere redistributing the heat and the actual solar inputs remaining the same - thus transferring heat from equator to poles and reducing the temperature differential.

    The other theory, which is the one being espoused by the global warming believers is that the extra energy absorbed due to greenhouse gas increases will primarily be absorbed at the equator (where there is a far higher likelihood of absorption rather than reflection based on the angle of the suns rays).

    This means of course that for this energy to spread out and balance out global temperatures at first you end up with hotter spots that mean there is extra energy to drive extreme weather events.

    You dont think they're called "tropical cyclones" for nothing do you? Strange how we dont get "temperate cyclones" now isnt it.....

    The pressure differentials that cause high and low pressure systems and thus extreme hot and cold events are all driven by a HUGE amount of energy.

    greater energy absorbtion just feeds that fire.
  9. :WStupid:

    WARNING: NSFW Language in the link just above.
  10. oh yeah, forgot about the disclaimers.

    lucky im not @ work :LOL: :LOL:
  11. Want another theory (good for a laugh)...google "Global Dimming"

  12. Rofl.

    Or should I sat ^WTF
  13. I'm still like "WTF?!"
  14. Evolution-based 'scientists' can't have it both ways here; they want limitless millions of years for things to happen, but are prepared to take a 25-year snapshot of the world's weather and make it a doctrine. Talk about hypocrisy.
  15. what? :?

    what does the bible say about global warming Paul? What guidance does it provide on this matter?

    your statments make no sense, why does the existence of millions of years of history, negate the relevance of 25 years of history?
    I can think of science-based statistical reasons, but I can't think of any reasons why wanting limiltless millions of years( or contraveneing the bible) makes using 25 years of data irrelevant.

    the anti-scientist thread is --> that way.
  16. You need to read what I write and not look so quickly for a reason to argue.

    You can't say that any changes take millions of years and then base a science on a 25 year sample. I would have thought that that was obvious. It's like saying that on a sample of one person, everyone gets flu when on a sample of one thousand people the real figure is 37%.
  17. Come on Paul, keep the evolution attacks on the This I Believe thread, climate change and evolution are two completely separate issues (though you'll probably find climate change may lead to evolutionary changes, but of course evolution is just nonsense, no evidence to back that up... :roll: )
  18. you can say "it took millions of years for the techtonic plates to move into their current place" you can then extrapolate these same ideas into a volcanoes eruption cycle, and depending on the volcano you can base it on 25 years of data. if a volcano spew millions of tonnes of lava per year for 20 years in a row but in the subsequent 5 years nothing came out and seismic activity started increasing exponentially, it could be fair to predict the an eruption was immenent at some point.

    if scientists were saying "becuase of weather patterns today we know all weather patterns in history aned we've not looked at any previous historical data" then your statement would be correct.