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.

London conference on Climate Science (Ontario)

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, May 28, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Key out takes from week 1 of the conference:

    • Most delegates have confirmed that we are experiencing a period where climate change is more rapid than background evidence would suggest for a given subject time period.

    • It is agreed (funnily enough) that there is still an inability to separate natural (or background) emissions from potential anthropogenic sources.

    • Many new theories have been tabled (at each end of the debate spectrum) which range from new mechanisms on how CO2 causes a temperature amplification effect to how the current change in magnetic pole shift is driving this change.

    • Global temperatures have stabilised over the last 10 years and have some very short term data showing a fall. However there is a debate as to the trigger. Some are arguing that la Niña is a masking effect while others are tabling effects of a natural cycle peak. Either way this still questions significantly the anthropogenic contribution vs. natural.

    • Interestingly enough it appears from the last 6 months of data that CO2 levels are actually starting to fall. Now this may be some short term effect that will smooth out but starts to enter into the debate that climate cyclic nuance may be the cause. If this is the case then the anthropogenic cause of CO2 increases vs. natural sources of emissions is increasingly questionable.

    • Modelling is still inconsistent and poor in understanding the medium to long term effects the ocean and upper atmosphere has as a driving mechanism in regional climatic zones (no change here from several years ago, just more of it).

    • IPCC has reviewed several modelling points and predictions which will cause downplay in the anthropogenic effects of CO2. But still does goes as far as to doubt is position or findings. However expect some significant updates to the next IPCC release in re-evaluating their estimates (due 2010).

    • Key theory has been changed as to realise why there is stable troposphere temperature behaviour vs. increasing ground temperature. This has been the stake in the IPCC’s heart when claiming their models are accurate.

    • IPCC has introduced two new models to their inventory. Now they have eight models with different inputs and non-contiguous outputs that are drawn together inn giving their predictions.

    • Peak oil as a driver for new technologies and distribution of energy sources has been dismissed (thank god for that!). Leading the topic was one of my mentors in petroleum geology who gave a great summarisation on the topic.

    - Basically original peak oil theory claimed the world had a ‘recoverable’ volume of ‘useable’ crude oil in the order of 3.8 trillion barrels. To date we have used about 1.1 trillion.
    - However, The goal posts for ‘recoverable’ and ‘useable’ have shifted continuously as technology and resources have continued to make headway.
    - It is now estimated for 2030, we will have the equivalent of 12.5 trillion barrels of ‘recoverable’ volume of ‘useable’ crude oil, at which point 2.1 (2030) trillion will have been consumed.

    • Economic models for future ‘eco’ solutions do not take into consideration the whole of life impact on the supply of these technologies or ongoing costs to society or governments.

    In short, what does this all mean?

    It means that the science behind climate change is still very much theory and conjecture, either for the pro-man made camp and the natural cycle camp.

    All in all we are seeing much in-consistent data and modelling that can be used to interpret findings one way or the other.

    However, one thing that has been noted (without acceptance of course) is that we are seeing trends in the environment which are inconsistent with a straight line effect of human presence.

    More to follow…..
  2. Oh god....please....no..... [-o<

  3. Bit like watching a car accident isn't it? You don't want to but...........

    May as well get comfy, this could be a looooooooooooooooooooonnnnnggggggggggggggggggg thread....
  4. I had to look up what anthropogenic means !

  5. Now before we even bother looking into your assertions here, I note you have definitely altered and edited entries, so they are not direct quotes.
    You have definitely had a history of misinterpreting articles, and misquoting articles…
    Not to mention evident instances of outright lying…
    So your credibility is somewhat in tatters, why should we even bother expending the energy to analyze the content you are referring to?
    In Short
    Answer the question or STFU!
  6. ...plus, pp, do you have linkage to this conference? Can't seem to find a current climate conference in London, Ontario.

    Will keep looking.
  7. At first blush, that was probably the most even handed climate change post PP has put up to date.

    Are there any other online resources which summarise the climate change meeting outcomes?
  8. I can't even dig up any evidence of such a conference existing, but it's entirely possible that the flaw is in my google-fu.

    I'll be indebted to anyone who can find it.
  9. i don't understand what's in it for you PP to keep flogging away at this stuff. surely the first 350 threads would've sufficed to make your point. i'm genuinely curious to know why you keep at it given that anyone who has anything to contribute on this topic has already said everything they have to say via your previous threads?!?!?!?
  10. nada
  11. I saw something apposite to this only yesterday or the day before:

  12. I suspect it's just a climate change professionals conference, not an international nation attending one like the Bali conference in December.

    Still, it'd be interesting to be in the hall of the main stream where someone piped up with something pretty controversial.

    I'm still intrigued by the notion that the temperatures have stayed static. The graph that PP linked to in: https://netrider.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50061 clearly had a upward slope up until the last year.

    Here's the graph:


    And Falcon's annotation.
  13. Even a conference for climate scientists would show up somewhere on the web, just because the uni running it would want the profile.
  14. Yep, and no mention of any conference on the Earth Science pages of the University of Western Ontario (which is in London). Maybe try sending someone there an email and see if they know anything if you're really interested:
  15. Why do you guys even bother to open a thread started by this bloody idiot?

    Why did I?

    :? :shock:

  16. To make sure when he posts blatant rubbish like this that it doesn’t go unanswered so that someone without the knowledge doesn’t stumble on it and take it as gospel.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.