|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 14, 2012 7:06:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Dec 14, 2012 7:40:18 GMT
As far as I recall big jumps in scientific knowledge have always been brought by first investigation and sometimes by a bitter hostility to new ideas from some part of the timewell settled scientific comunity. Heisemberg, Plank, Eistein, Newton... and more, they even recognized where wrong here and there, sometimes entered disputes, but finally all of them had a big share in the glory of modern physics and mathematics... So no-consensus at IPCC is a good sign! We are on the verge of new scientific models for our sun an climate, it won´t take it more than 5-10 years even less... I´d like to believe it... want to witness New findings in my lifetme for knowledge is freedom |
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 14, 2012 13:50:01 GMT
If TSI is such a major player in past warming it's a good job that our fossil fuel particulate pollution has impacted it's abilities to warm us?
What happens once we clean up our global act and the full wallop of TSI is again able to impact temps?
I suppose that's bad thinking as it involves mankind impacting global temps via his fossil fuel pollution?
Oh! Happy Holidays!
Surely Mr Manglewurrzle will run out of stock for them to use soon enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 14, 2012 15:32:02 GMT
Graywolf:
The atomosphere has already had over 10 years of slowly becoming clearer. Yet, the temperature metric has not risen.
Naut posted a link to Cheifco, where he examined some basic observations. It was a very interesting piece of writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 14, 2012 18:51:12 GMT
If TSI is such a major player in past warming it's a good job that our fossil fuel particulate pollution has impacted it's abilities to warm us? What happens once we clean up our global act and the full wallop of TSI is again able to impact temps? I suppose that's bad thinking as it involves mankind impacting global temps via his fossil fuel pollution? Oh! Happy Holidays! Surely Mr Manglewurrzle will run out of stock for them to use soon enough? Just keep making it up graywolf..... |
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Dec 14, 2012 19:12:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Dec 14, 2012 19:22:24 GMT
Always wise to check both parts... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 14, 2012 19:45:38 GMT
16 years and Hockey stick gone missing but from the link.
"Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London and contributing author on the recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme events, said that sceptics' reading of the draft was incorrect: "Alex Rawls' interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong. In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued, so any interaction with cosmic rays is clearly having minimal – if any – effects. IPCC AR5 reiterates what we can be absolutely certain of: that contemporary climate change is not a natural process, but the consequence of human activities.""
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 14, 2012 20:09:47 GMT
trbixler: You can lead a man to water, but he will die of thirst before he drinks if he is a "climate scientist" anymore. These types of folks are just so unbelievable. But wait.....ya mean that the sun may be the reason? Hark........William Herschel figures this out a longggggg time ago. www.real-science.com/astronomer-william-herschel-sunspots-wheat |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 14, 2012 20:13:01 GMT
16 years and Hockey stick gone missing but from the link. "Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London and contributing author on the recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme events, said that sceptics' reading of the draft was incorrect: "Alex Rawls' interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong. In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued, so any interaction with cosmic rays is clearly having minimal – if any – effects. IPCC AR5 reiterates what we can be absolutely certain of: that contemporary climate change is not a natural process, but the consequence of human activities."" Someone else who will burn their hands on a pot of boiling water at the simmer. "Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it." Stephen Vizinczey, An Innocent Millionaire |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 15, 2012 17:12:53 GMT
Whether the IPCC will continue to examine all factors affecting climate remains to be seen.
We know that the earth's atmosphere has been clearing since approx 1994. This should have allowed a continued increase in temperatures. That hasn't happened. In fact, the clearing atmosphere when looked at with the temp metric would suggest that the clearer the atmosphere, the faster heat is leaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 17, 2012 4:16:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Dec 17, 2012 7:56:19 GMT
Thanks Sigur, reading it carefully...
So, is it truh there is "no more Consensus within IPCC scientist?
That would be good for scientific debate...
I would sign against Carbon Trade markets and all that filth! Tha´t something both "believers" and "skeptichals" should agree on... regardless of the exact amount of percentage our human footprint is leaving on earth´s climate natural variability -which demands keep on investing in real Scientific investigation as I do think it is an importan issue to be settled- that CO2 trade market is a shame, dosen´t even serve for what is supposedly intended to, and is leaving Europe as the stupid student that keeps on limiting its growth while pouring euros in African Countries corrupted governmens for "buying" their CO2 emission share.... It really upsets me!!!
And meanwhile:
-will we be able to stop overpolluting and overexploiting our oceans?
-stop rainforest destruction?
-grant fresh water to overpopulated mankind?
-grant food?
These are the big problems mankind has to face, and little is being doing as markets care for themselves, not for the weak ones, but then the "solution" is create a Market Off The Air!!!
Any supposedly humanistic and pro-enviromental approach not taking into account the latter questions is a falacy by itself.
It´s not CO2 stupids! But rather the rest...
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 17, 2012 16:07:05 GMT
karlox:
There is prob consensus within the IPCC scientists. When you pick a team, you pick a team because of what the team members will provide. The IPCC, in its present form, is a study of group think.
We are lucky to have Thermostat posting here. He has become a perfect example of what the IPCC is. Show them knowledge, and they refuse to accept.......and even read the knowledge.
I have now decided to call this dichotomy the Skeptical Science syndrome.
The thing about this board is that Kevin has allowed us free rein to actually discuss papers, ideas, etc. Wattsupwiththat does the same type of thing.
The beauty here tho is that anyone who is a member can start a new thread of discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Dec 17, 2012 18:29:50 GMT
karlox: There is prob consensus within the IPCC scientists. When you pick a team, you pick a team because of what the team members will provide. The IPCC, in its present form, is a study of group think. We are lucky to have Thermostat posting here. He has become a perfect example of what the IPCC is. Show them knowledge, and they refuse to accept.......and even read the knowledge. I have now decided to call this dichotomy the Skeptical Science syndrome. The thing about this board is that Kevin has allowed us free rein to actually discuss papers, ideas, etc. Wattsupwiththat does the same type of thing. The beauty here tho is that anyone who is a member can start a new thread of discussion. I´ve learned so much through the past years with this forum... An back to politics on IPCC... I think I had already said here -time ago- that all this CO2 reduction or share or rights or whatever scheme could have an additional underlying political purpose: that is putting the briddle on the horse... China. But they -chinese- aren´t that stupid... meatime the falacy of CO2 "future" markets and merchants... uff!! I do care about food shortage, and being able of granting a minimum of power supply to all communities around the world, to grant them a minimum for survival... That´s not contradictory with believing we should increasingly depend less on fossil fuels, so they will last more, for instance... so an adequate varied combination of power supply is good and wise for any country (don´t rely on one or two only) and I think than any nation´s power selfsufficiency -or as close to- would be an acceptable target, assuming additional cost among all of us... And feel sorry for my country´s high dependency on foreign oil and gas... |
|
