The REAL global warming

[Benton D Struckcheon]

A bit off topic but I thought that I would comment.

There are 180º between freezing and boiling in Fº and 100º in Cº It is more accurate, but in theory rather than practice, surely? As a tankerman I used temperatures of oil as part of my cargo calculations and, once you've got used to it, there is no difference.

Where metric wins is in teaching. Counting in metric must make it far easier to learn. Temperature doesn't matter so much but money, weights and measures it is a far easier system.

I wouldn't argue with you on that. I just remember trying to set a thermostat in France in a hotel that actually had a/c, and being a bit frustrated because if you set it to one temp (I honestly don't remember which) it wound up being a bit too hot, and of course the next degree over made it a bit too cold. I knew what temp I wanted in F, and couldn't get to it because it was in between the two degrees in C.
As for more scientific stuff, obviously C wins out.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

Back on topic, I see the Maiden has gone back to spamming the site and eating up scads of bandwidth with her silliness.

 

[maiden22]

Back on topic, I see the Maiden has gone back to spamming the site and eating up scads of bandwidth with her silliness.

Well, there's silliness and there's silliness.

From your previous posts, you clearly believe in the theory of AGW. Presumably therefore you accept the necessity of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

You also encourage the widespread manufacture, installation and use of unnecesary air-conditioning, largley it seems because your mother-in-law suffered slight discomfort in a Paris hotel. To hold the two positions simultaneously strikes me as being more than a little silly.

One further small point. In a previous post you urge an English contributor to prevail upon his French "compatriots" to more fully embrace the air-conditioning alluded to above. Alas these days this is a greater insult to the Frenchman than to his English counterpart. Nonetheless even I must advise you that a copy of Webster's would be a wise investment.

 

[dcraig1]

It depends upon where to take your starting date. From the end of 70s or the little ice age? Probably. From the MWP? Probably not.

From a long time ago:

Oh, I forgot those charts are part of the conspiracy.

These are not "data corrections". It is deliberate manipulation to turn a cooling trend into a warming one. The scale of the "corrections" is simply staggering. You are attempting to dismiss this without addressing it because you cannot accept the truth.

People have tampered with the temperature record to create a false impression of warming. For the region under discussion, it does not exist.

That temperature record is completely bogus. It is a lie.

The message board kangaroo sits in full session again. With you as chief inquisitor.

It is no secret that there have been problems with some of the Australian station record. Fifty or one hundred years ago many of these sites really were the middle of nowhere with a capital "N". Some still are. Nobody ever thought that temperature records would someday become so important. Temperatures were probably of most interest as a talking point in the pub a hundred years ago.

When organizations such as the Australian BOM, whose integrity has never been questioned do their best to make the temperature record as accurate as they can, people like you start screaming falsification - for the sole reason that it doesn't fit your fringe political views. Have you ever asked the BOM on what basis they make adjustments - no of course not. Is there any peer reviewed research showing statistical bias - you can bet there isn't. But anybodies integrity is fair game in a campaign of internet slander where the only truth is your political obsessions.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

Well, there's silliness and there's silliness.

From your previous posts, you clearly believe in the theory of AGW. Presumably therefore you accept the necessity of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

You also encourage the widespread manufacture, installation and use of unnecesary air-conditioning, largley it seems because your mother-in-law suffered slight discomfort in a Paris hotel. To hold the two positions simultaneously strikes me as being more than a little silly.

One further small point. In a previous post you urge an English contributor to prevail upon his French "compatriots" to more fully embrace the air-conditioning alluded to above. Alas these days this is a greater insult to the Frenchman than to his English counterpart. Nonetheless even I must advise you that a copy of Webster's would be a wise investment.

I believe in a) progress and b) science. A/C and AGW are both products of that, in that progress based on science produced the first and has proven beyond the reasonable doubt of anyone who bothers to look at the entirety of the evidence the latter. Flat-earthism, which is what denying AGW is about, since it involves introducing politics into the conclusions of science, and the kind of luddite who would think having A/C is contradictory to AGW, are not. The fact you think the two are contradictory is evidence of pretty shallow thinking.
As for the rest, oh well. I actually liked the French, though; they at least knew how to cook.

 

[anestelen]

Global warming is real, their has been a climate shift, on one is debating if it is real or not. The question that is being debated is if it is caused by human cause, or if it is a natural cycle of the earth's climate, their is strong evidence for both.

 

[dcraig1]

Global warming is real, their has been a climate shift, on one is debating if it is real or not.

If would be good if that was universally accepted, but there are some jokers on here that maintain the temperature record is some giant conspiracy and the hockey stick is fabricated for the purposes of introducing a New World Order (TM).

The question that is being debated is if it is caused by human cause, or if it is a natural cycle of the earth's climate, their is strong evidence for both.

Not true. The evidence overwhelmingly points to increasing temperatures being principally driven by increasing green house gas emissions caused by human activity. Nearly all climatologists take this view as does any national science academy or professional scientific association of international standing that has expressed an official position.

 

[maiden22]

I believe in a) progress and b) science. A/C and AGW are both products of that, in that progress based on science produced the first and has proven beyond the reasonable doubt of anyone who bothers to look at the entirety of the evidence the latter. Flat-earthism, which is what denying AGW is about, since it involves introducing politics into the conclusions of science, and the kind of luddite who would think having A/C is contradictory to AGW, are not. The fact you think the two are contradictory is evidence of pretty shallow thinking.
As for the rest, oh well. I actually liked the French, though; they at least knew how to cook.

This is really very simple. You beleive in the AGW theory, and presumably therefore think it wise to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

You also advocate the manufacture, distribution, installation and operation of millions of wholly unnecessary air-conditioning units. This will involve the emission of a very large amount of CO2, exacerbating a problem whose cause you consider "proven beyond reasonable doubt".

This is extremely silly.

 

[maiden22]

If would be good if that was universally accepted, but there are some jokers on here that maintain the temperature record is some giant conspiracy and the hockey stick is fabricated for the purposes of introducing a New World Order (TM).


Not true. The evidence overwhelmingly points to increasing temperatures being principally driven by increasing green house gas emissions caused by human activity. Nearly all climatologists take this view as does any national science academy or professional scientific association of international standing that has expressed an official position.

Be careful - you will pass quite beyond the pale. The Hockey Stick, for Heaven's sake? It is hard to think of something that has been more comprehensively demolished. Even fervent beleivers are embarrassed by it.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

"The evidence" ... as though there were only one piece of evidence, such as a smoking gun with fingerprints on it.

Anyway, more scientists speak out:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...ak-out-in-the-wake-of-climategate/#more-14998

including an interesting comment:

Roger (07:46:11) :

[...]

Henry Chance

That politically correct filter seems to be working overtime at the Hadley Centre in Exeter where the CET to 6th has, after a long delay due to software problems, been promulgated at -.8C.
The figure for the 7th, published by http://theweatheroutlook.com/twodata/dattwocet.aspx is -2.3C
Further research reveals Philip Eden’s calculation up to the 7th as -2.1C
http://www.climate-uk.com/index.html
So there we have it.
Three attempts to measure the average temperature of a small triangle of England over a six/seven day period produce a discrepancy of -1.5C and yet we are asked to believe that they can measure the whole globe over a 100 year period and produce an irrefutable temperature rise of 0.7C
[...]

And now for some "emotional" argument:


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/


Emotional arguments? Excuse me? Can I just say the words: "polar bear"?

 

[dcraig1]

Anyway, more scientists speak out:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...ak-out-in-the-wake-of-climategate/#more-14998

Do they?

You do, I presume, have some good reason for believing that an energy economist has some special expertise in climate science, or radiative physics?

If you want to engage in this kind of nonsense, you could a least try to find a denier with some sort of claim to having some expertise in the field.

 

[dcraig1]

This is really very simple. You beleive in the AGW theory, and presumably therefore think it wise to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

You also advocate the manufacture, distribution, installation and operation of millions of wholly unnecessary air-conditioning units. This will involve the emission of a very large amount of CO2, exacerbating a problem whose cause you consider "proven beyond reasonable doubt".

While I agree that aircon is grossly overused and building design and insulation could be improved to reduce the need for it, there are plenty of cases where it really is essential. It is a fact that very high temperatures can be very dangerous and life threatening for elderly people and do cause acute discomfort. Try living in temperatures like Melbourne had last summer (> 46C ~= 115F) or Adelaide has at the moment (low 40s with yet more bush fire alerts) and see what you reckon.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Do they?

You do, I presume, have some good reason for believing that an energy economist has some special expertise in climate science, or radiative physics?

If you want to engage in this kind of nonsense, you could a least try to find a denier with some sort of claim to having some expertise in the field.

Some would regard economics as a science.

However, if you had read the rest of the article (there is a link from the article in wattsupwiththat.com, you'd see some other names mentioned:

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/...-longer-so-politically-correct/comment-page-1



Furthermore, Steve McIntyre is a statistician, and Ross McKitrick is an economist, but despite these (as you would see it) handicaps, they have jointly made mincemeat out of Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph. Mann-made-global-warming, indeed.


There are plenty of questioning scientists who do have a claim to expertise in the field, e.g. John Christy, Roy Spencer, Bob Carter. Yes, the "usual suspects", you will say, but you can't deny that they have expertise in the field.


I note the further use of judgemental, emotive wording: "nonsense".
(To add to the previous ad-hominems).


In passing, to what extent did you study climate in your physics degree?

 

[montmorencyt2w]

While I agree that aircon is grossly overused and building design and insulation could be improved to reduce the need for it, there are plenty of cases where it really is essential. It is a fact that very high temperatures can be very dangerous and life threatening for elderly people and do cause acute discomfort. Try living in temperatures like Melbourne had last summer (> 46C ~= 115F) or Adelaide has at the moment (low 40s with yet more bush fire alerts) and see what you reckon.

My brother lives in Melbourne, as it happens. He tells me that you can have all four seasons (as it were) in the one day, in that part of the world.

I see from the BBC weather site, that Adelaide is indeed very hot, but Brisbane is only slightly hotter than a good English summer, or about average for a continental European summer. Sydney is about the same. Melbourne admittedly has some very hot days forecast, but also some average ones - it is very variable, as we have established.

Australia is hot. Not exactly news. A bunch of Europeans (your ancestors and maybe some of mine) decided to colonise a far-distant land to which they were not evolutionarily suited (killing or displacing the people to whom it was suited, by the way). And they need air-conditioning in order to survive there, which needs energy. So where would you, as a physicist, propose that this energy come from? Solar, tidal? Wind? I'm sure you have a solution. One that works all year round.

Or maybe they should move somewhere cooler, like Tassie! That's cooler, and very beautiful, I gather.


My brother tells me that you Aussies are absolutely useless when it comes to water conservation, e.g. you refuse to re-use processed water, and pump it into the sea. You are a bunch of absolute bloody wasters (literally); and then you whinge about drought. So what are you, as a famous physicist, going to do about this? Are you working on forms of alternative energy? Are you campaigning to change the minds of your fellow citizens? If not, why not?

The ancient people of Nazca in Peru constructed a system of underground aquifers which stored the runoff water from the mountains. Some of them have not survived but a lot of them have, and still serve the present-day city of Nazca (near the famous Nazca lines). It seems that something like this is beyond present day Aussies. OK, perhaps the geology doesn't allow it, but it doesn't sound like you have searched very hard for alternatives.



Green? It seems that you lot (collectively) don't have a clue, and then you (personally) have the nerve to lecture a bunch of freezing Europeans on the dangers of global warming, claiming your degree in physics as proof that you are a superior being in this respect. Somehow we fools are not able to see that "the science" (all of it, apparently, whatever that is...) is "settled". There is no room for doubt. There are no unknowns.
Yeah, right. (Plate tectonics anyone? These weren't even in the textbooks when my wife was studying the subject at university).

 

[dcraig1]

My brother lives in Melbourne, as it happens. He tells me that you can have all four seasons (as it were) in the one day, in that part of the world.

That is true. Nevertheless it does have protracted heat waves.

I see from the BBC weather site, that Adelaide is indeed very hot, but Brisbane is only slightly hotter than a good English summer, or about average for a continental European summer. Sydney is about the same. Melbourne admittedly has some very hot days forecast, but also some average ones - it is very variable, as we have established.

The BOM reports 2009 to be the second hottest year on record. Australia is a big place and climatic conditions vary greatly. Melbourne has more extremes than does say Brisbane (paradoxically even on the high end even though Brisbane is a long way north of Melbourne). But just go a little bit inland of Brisbane and you get the extremes of scorching hot summers and cold winters. But overall 2009 was very hot and all time record hot in the south east.

Australia is hot. Not exactly news. A bunch of Europeans (your ancestors and maybe some of mine) decided to colonise a far-distant land to which they were not evolutionarily suited (killing or displacing the people to whom it was suited, by the way). And they need air-conditioning in order to survive there, which needs energy. So where would you, as a physicist, propose that this energy come from? Solar, tidal? Wind? I'm sure you have a solution. One that works all year round.

I said before I don't claim to be a scientist - though I do have a BSc in physics. In Australia's case solar is excellent option. Wind is good. I haven't seen any serious mention of tidal/wave for Australia. One extremely promising option for Australia is geothermal hot rock - involving the drilling of very deep shafts (> 4Km) through sedimemtary rock into underlying very hot granite. Then water (steam) is pumped though to drive ordinary steam turbines. Australia has the right geology for this, and lots of skills in geology/mining engineering/oil drilling and associated disciplines and trades, that could be employed. It is estimated that there is sufficient geothermal energy for literally millenia. It would require the building of a very high voltage DC transmission system to get the power into the grid. If Australia could build the widely acclaimed Snowy Mtns hydro system 50 years ago with far less wealth than it has today, I can see no logical reason for not giving a much bigger hurry up to geothermal today. It is utter nonsense to suggest that there are not clean engineering/technical solutions.

My brother tells me that you Aussies are absolutely useless when it comes to water conservation, e.g. you refuse to re-use processed water, and pump it into the sea. You are a bunch of absolute bloody wasters (literally); and then you whinge about drought.

No doubt there has been a lot of waste. But things certainly have changed somewhat for the better - though water management of the Murray/Darling system is still a shambles. There is still a long, long way to go.

There is much more public awareness of water conservation these days - spurred on by acute shortages in the cities - Brisbane reserves dropped to 18% of capacity at one stage. Appeals to the public to conserve water have actually been very successful and domestic water consumption has significantly dropped. It is commerce and industry that hasn't come to the party.

Green? It seems that you lot (collectively) don't have a clue, and then you (personally) have the nerve to lecture a bunch of freezing Europeans on the dangers of global warming, claiming your degree in physics as proof that you are a superior being in this respect. Somehow we fools are not able to see that "the science" (all of it, apparently, whatever that is...) is "settled". There is no room for doubt. There are no unknowns.
Yeah, right. (Plate tectonics anyone? These weren't even in the textbooks when my wife was studying the subject at university).

We all share the same atmosphere so this us/them nonsense is not in the slightest bit relevant.

 

[maiden22]

While I agree that aircon is grossly overused and building design and insulation could be improved to reduce the need for it, there are plenty of cases where it really is essential. It is a fact that very high temperatures can be very dangerous and life threatening for elderly people and do cause acute discomfort. Try living in temperatures like Melbourne had last summer (> 46C ~= 115F) or Adelaide has at the moment (low 40s with yet more bush fire alerts) and see what you reckon.

Once again, this is very simple, and remains so, despite your bizarre attempts to confuse the issue.

Doubtless it would also be useful in the Sahara, or Death Valley. This person was talking abour the widespread adoption of air-conditioning in Europe, not Australia. He had shortly before proclaimed the idiocy of those who do not accept the AGW theory.

Once again, this is very silly.

 

[rwb]

Do they?

You do, I presume, have some good reason for believing that an energy economist has some special expertise in climate science, or radiative physics?

If you want to engage in this kind of nonsense, you could a least try to find a denier with some sort of claim to having some expertise in the field.

Do you mean expertise and qualifications like, say ~
Rajendra K. Pachauri with a degree in Industrial Engineering, Ph.D in engineering&economics and held past directorships in various companies involved in Oil, Gas and coal production
or Ogunlade R Davidson ~ Ph.D. Heat Transfer: M.Sc, Thermo-fluids, B.Eng. (Mech.)
or Ottmar Edenhofer ~ Ph.D in economics.

 

[rwb]

Quote from Dcraig1 "One extremely promising option for Australia is geothermal hot rock - involving the drilling of very deep shafts (> 4Km) through sedimemtary rock into underlying very hot granite. Then water (steam) is pumped though to drive ordinary steam turbines. Australia has the right geology for this, and lots of skills in geology/mining engineering/oil drilling and associated disciplines and trades, that could be employed. It is estimated that there is sufficient geothermal energy for literally millenia. It would require the building of a very high voltage DC transmission system to get the power into the grid. If Australia could build the widely acclaimed Snowy Mtns hydro system 50 years ago with far less wealth than it has today, I can see no logical reason for not giving a much bigger hurry up to geothermal today. It is utter nonsense to suggest that there are not clean engineering/technical solutions."

I think this is the way to go and although other countries may not have such ideal conditions as you outline above there is a strong case for it in terms of reliability, some independence from the grid, sustainability but here in the UK most importantly, cost!
I'm currently looking at both ground-source and air-source heat pump systems both of which provide a good %age of the energy for water/heating but still require topping up from conventional fuel sources.
I have some major concerns about gas supply here in the UK now that Russia has opened its pipeline to their east coast and therefore is not so reliant in shipping it westwards. Shipped liquified gas from Kuwait etc may not be the answer. On top of that the UK energy companies are having to expand their renewable supplies which will be at the consumers cost so energy prices will continue rising regardless of the relative low cost of conventional fuels. So yes it does make a lot of sense to look at the geothermal options, not just in your country.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Quote from Dcraig1 "One extremely promising option for Australia is geothermal hot rock - involving the drilling of very deep shafts (> 4Km) through sedimemtary rock into underlying very hot granite. Then water (steam) is pumped though to drive ordinary steam turbines. Australia has the right geology for this, and lots of skills in geology/mining engineering/oil drilling and associated disciplines and trades, that could be employed. It is estimated that there is sufficient geothermal energy for literally millenia. It would require the building of a very high voltage DC transmission system to get the power into the grid. If Australia could build the widely acclaimed Snowy Mtns hydro system 50 years ago with far less wealth than it has today, I can see no logical reason for not giving a much bigger hurry up to geothermal today. It is utter nonsense to suggest that there are not clean engineering/technical solutions."

I think this is the way to go and although other countries may not have such ideal conditions as you outline above there is a strong case for it in terms of reliability, some independence from the grid, sustainability but here in the UK most importantly, cost!
I'm currently looking at both ground-source and air-source heat pump systems both of which provide a good %age of the energy for water/heating but still require topping up from conventional fuel sources.
I have some major concerns about gas supply here in the UK now that Russia has opened its pipeline to their east coast and therefore is not so reliant in shipping it westwards. Shipped liquified gas from Kuwait etc may not be the answer. On top of that the UK energy companies are having to expand their renewable supplies which will be at the consumers cost so energy prices will continue rising regardless of the relative low cost of conventional fuels. So yes it does make a lot of sense to look at the geothermal options, not just in your country.

However, geothermal energy is not without its problems:


http://www.naturaloregon.org/2009/12/16/warning-geothermal-energy-can-cause-earthquakes/

Warning: Geothermal Energy Can Cause Earthquakes
December 16, 2009
By Dennis Newman

An opinion in the journal Nature says it’s time for some straight talk on the dangers of geothermal energy.

The warning comes from a supporter of geothermal energy who says he’s not trying to be an alarmist. Rather he says, he wants to avoid a backlash against EGS because of its amazing potential to supply clean energy just about anywhere.

 

[dcraig1]

The current freezing weather in the UK in perspective. 30 day mean surface temperature anomaly: