Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Global Warming Theory not looking hot anymore


Ufo Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

no one is listening to logic no more my friend. even I've noticed that it's getting colder and colder but also, I have been watching the North Atlantic current a lot too. but like I said, no one listens to logic anymore. It's not just man that's helping heat the planet. truth be told, we're less than five percent of why the earth is heating the glaciers. The earth's core is actually heating up and melting the glaciers to drive it's self into another cooling stage. so, we'll soon see another cool age upon us. the years between 1920's to 1980 was really cold but also, it's been right at 10,000 years since the true last ice age. So it shouldn't be too much longer before we enter another cold climate.

It may well be a true expectation - but why would we be concerned about it? Humans survived at least 15-20 Ice Ages like that, as our oldest skeletons point to 2,000,000 years ago. Even Neanderthals survived the last one, are we more dumb than they were? Simple cotton clothes, impregnated with Gold nanoparticles make a superb self-heating wrap for our freezing body, one can make them in backyard. Climate change makes little threat for our specie - only for our numbers, which can be greatly reduced - but such is life after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    24

  • questionmark

    33

  • SQLserver

    22

  • danielost

    22

oh boy, just by glancing through this thread i see too many misunderstandings here and there. however let me give my two cents worth from some of the stuff i've read:

- human-induced global warming is not a scientific fact, hype yes but fact is too far fetched. we're not even close to coming to a formal definite agreement that the hypothesis is proven right. someone here stated that global warming is accepted by a huge majority of scientists; WRONG. the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a petition online about requesting the US government to review its global warming perspective on a more careful and unbiased manner. up till now, more than 31,000 scientists in the US alone have signed up for the review request.

- climatologists and meteorologists are indeed vital in the global warming debate because of our knowledge (i'm a meteorologist as well), however, when it comes to past climates it automatically becomes fragile again. we're talking about hundreds, thousands etc of years of climate data, which consists of numerous important atmospheric variables that are important in plotting a reliable computer model to forecast what exactly happened in the past. the problem here is we're nowhere near it, or the very least cannot confirm it yet:

1) sophisticated technologies and methodologies have only become available in the past 30-40 years (even the earliest satellite images were terrible in comparison to current standards; eg. IR, near-IR, WV, Dvorak IR, NAM 500mb scales, etc). These are extremely vital when it comes to monitoring the "behavior" if one may put it, of the planet's upper and lower tropospheric conditions, all which were unavailable in the past. meteorological instrumentation have also made tremendous advancement in technological handling and precision in readings in just the space of 10-20 years. if we take just that into consideration, what about the past 50 years worth of data accumulation? what if the mean height measurement for the year 1955 for example was off by 8dm? what if the mean temperatures were off by 4'C? the list goes on and on, and we're talking only for the 1900s.

as of recently, Arizona State Uni. researchers have concluded that some measures used in atmospheric science were oversimplified and important factors were overlooked as a result of their studies in aerosols in the atmosphere. while "some" may seem small, but we meteorologists know that if you screwed "some" up, then you have to do some serious reviewing because these will alter height patterns, pressure tendency levels, isotherm gradient analysis, so on and so forth.

2) Michael Mann is a living proof of a climatologist making a climatological error in his hockey-stick graph plot. he had no doubt immense knowledge about palaeoclimatology, BUT he wasn't a statistician and this is where he sprung his own trap. it took two other statisticians to find the flaw in his work and expose the infamous 21st century temperature spike graph. an important aspect in computer modelling is statistics, and there are numerous ways of plotting graphs because of difference in ways of inputting the variables needed for the graph or computer model. you make one silly mistake somewhere, and you get a whole new picture of the climate and the atmosphere. 2 questions can be raised: i) how sure which stat method should be used to fit in appropriate variables? in order to reconstruct a past climate model is a PAIN IN THE REAR!! try it yourself and you will know what i'm talking about. super-computers sure do help, but they're useless if the input contains garbage data, GIGO. ii) how sure are we that the input data is accurate? these data were 100s and 1000s of years old, are we even close enough? even the Vostok graph couldn't explain (judging if everything else were right in the correlation) what triggered the initial temperature trend, hence couldn't explain whether CO2 is driving the temperature or the former "unknown" cause? i do not doubt ice-core sampling and tree-bark dating science, but how sure are we since it's not an actual meteorological instrument? complications after complications...

3) we just do not have a sufficiently powerful computer (supercom) to initiate a precise forecast into the past and future of climate models. we simply just do not have the technology yet, and you can't blame atmospheric science for that. we can't even predict a 80% chance of a hurricane moving at a certain track 36-48 hours out, what makes you think the equivalent technology is capable of doing anything for the past 1000 years? yes we might get a good picture of what had been and what could be, but what we ultimately want is WHAT HAPPENED EXACTLY.

- someone brought up the urban-heat effect and suggesting we're warming the planet that way. that's true at its immediate vicinity, but the entire world? it's not that easy of an assumption. however, an important aspect is it will warm the surrounding city, which includes the airports where most of the current weather observatories are, which houses all the instrumentation being used now to plot our sounding data and other atmospheric variables, which is then compiled and used to compare with past climates. you see the huge anomaly here? what if we had more floats (buoys) around the world's oceans, which is also part of the planet but disregarded because of the lack in technology? what about around non-urban areas, could we place at least a simple weather observatory around the whole planet within a radius of several hundreds of kilometers to beat this inescapable bias in data procurement? if so, how will this alter our global mean temperatures then?

i think my two cent opinion became too long, sorry about that. my idea is not to barge in here and claim global warming believers are stoogers, i use to be one of them too but i decided to further investigate as i continued my studies in meteorology and climatology. there are alot of questions, as in seriously alot before we can come down to a conclusion that the planet is warming, or cooling, or neutral-ing LOL.

moreover, even the ocean thermohaline circulation has been called into question that "nearly 80% of the RAFOS floats escaped the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), drifting into the open ocean" (ScienceDaily.com). this could lead to a huge potential in totally disrupting our climate models altogether as the THC remains a significant indicator of climate change, and has been influencing climate models since 50 years ago.

so putting only all of these into perspective, ask yourself again, are you REALLY sure that global warming is final?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how none of them have either shown an knowledge of science or any scientific evidence yet they feel they know so much more than those who do because they saw a youtube video or read a media article. It is such an amazing level of arrogant stupidity and ignorance. It is blind denial, not scepticism, as the people above won't even bother addressing the evidence (seriously Steve, if you can't understand the basic graphs shown to you then you should redo high school).

All I have asked for for two years is some real science to answer the science that has been put up to show that the world is warming (and yes the BBC article is outright wrong because taking one data point and saying it is not higher than this so it must be fall is dumb) and that it is not our fault, yet I have had neither. Why is this?

I presume you have been through a fair bit of data first hand and not just taken what you have been told at face value. Would you like to share the results of your personal investigations and your raw data ? If so then we can answer some real science with science. Pleae don't just link some journal references as I know full well that 50% of published papers are incorrect when you really go through them with the raw data, same models and a toothcomb, oh and obviously not the media links/youtube crap.....but I don't need to tell that to a scientific mind like yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. A while ago, the majority of "scientists" knew for a fact Earth was flat.

Heh, no they didn't. That is known as the flat Earth myth, the ancient Greeks showed the world was not flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume you have been through a fair bit of data first hand and not just taken what you have been told at face value. Would you like to share the results of your personal investigations and your raw data ? If so then we can answer some real science with science. Pleae don't just link some journal references as I know full well that 50% of published papers are incorrect when you really go through them with the raw data, same models and a toothcomb, oh and obviously not the media links/youtube crap.....but I don't need to tell that to a scientific mind like yours.

Sorry but until you bother to put something up the papers I have previously put up stand and you have no case to argue. I am not a climatologist, however, I am a marine biologist and believe me it is very much a field affected by climate change.

It is not my responsibility to put up anything when you have not bothered in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but until you bother to put something up the papers I have previously put up stand and you have no case to argue. I am not a climatologist, however, I am a marine biologist and believe me it is very much a field affected by climate change.

It is not my responsibility to put up anything when you have not bothered in the slightest.

Without the data/models how can I possibly make my own conclusions on the reliability of any results ? I am not making claims, I am questioning them, so why should I 'put anything up' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, the institutes are funded by the Governments in one or another form,

All fundamentals research is funded by one government or another, there is no money in it.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All fundamentals research is funded by one government or another, there is no money in it.

I suggest to exercise caution in calling Climatology a "fundamental" science! Fundamental sciences are only TWO - Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. Their research provides no immediate practical output, and thus cannot be funded privately, unless in a form of a charity. This is why the governments take the responsibility to maintain these two sciences and their sciences, as their level of development present the general level of the human Knowledge.

Climatology is a descriptive science, not even an applied one (like Chemistry and Physics), so it presents the 3rd level science, involved in data collection, statistical modelling and elementary predictions. It is funded by the governments only because of its political importance, otherwise we do not need it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest to exercise caution in calling Climatology a "fundamental" science! Fundamental sciences are only TWO - Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. Their research provides no immediate practical output, and thus cannot be funded privately, unless in a form of a charity. This is why the governments take the responsibility to maintain these two sciences and their sciences, as their level of development present the general level of the human Knowledge.

Climatology is a descriptive science, not even an applied one (like Chemistry and Physics), so it presents the 3rd level science, involved in data collection, statistical modelling and elementary predictions. It is funded by the governments only because of its political importance, otherwise we do not need it at all.

lol... this analogy reminds me when I hele-logged and whenever there was a lot of fog the guys on

the hill would all become.. what we called, fogologists.

The reason was because when there is fog there is no helecopter coming to you looking to get rigged up!

lol..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the data/models how can I possibly make my own conclusions on the reliability of any results ? I am not making claims, I am questioning them, so why should I 'put anything up' ?

Well then do what we do in science and perform literature search. I posted plenty, then what you do is come on show why they are wrong and if you can do that then you should be able to write a nice rebutting paper on the subject yourself. This is how science works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol... this analogy reminds me when I hele-logged and whenever there was a lot of fog the guys on

the hill would all become.. what we called, fogologists.

The reason was because when there is fog there is no helecopter coming to you looking to get rigged up!

lol..

Put it this way - logging is essential, Mankind cannot exist without it. If, however, a certain new virus arises which overnight selectively kills all Climatologists on the planet, the Mankind with the excerpt of their immediate families would not notice this loss at all. Climatology has absolutely no practical output and presents an example of a parasite science, which only stirs the hot crap in a pot for years, while all others are doomed to smell the results. Their widely-discussed "predictions" have a damaging effect on the economies of the countries and on our personal well-being, as due to their down-to-earth result they only cause the increase of the taxes we pay and provide no positive influence on our lives.

I can understand the immediate concerns of the Ecologists and Environmentalist about the technogenic and anthropogenic pollution, these are obviously realistic and understanable - but why we all should pay their wages for them to tell us what the climate on the planet would be 10,000 years after we all die? They are just like Merlin, doing weather predictions, no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then do what we do in science and perform literature search. I posted plenty, then what you do is come on show why they are wrong and if you can do that then you should be able to write a nice rebutting paper on the subject yourself. This is how science works.

You really are a pretentious little character. I am fully aware of 'how science works' and what a 'literature search' is (but haven't called it that since my undergrad days). As I said I review a lot of 'literature' submitted for journals and conferences and also often want to use results from published articles however when given the raw data and models I cannot replicate a significant percentage of results as they were 'fiddled' somewhere or just downright wrong. I have done it myself rather than write off months of work I have made it look right and hope the reviewers don't go through every detail, which as busy people they often don't. A known name in the field is even more unlikely to have his work questioned too deeply. I recently found a paper giving results I wanted to use in my own work to be wrong and following the trail back through 25 years of references and numerous authors I found the origin was a mistake in a paper from the late 70's by a world leader in my field, it took me months to convince him but he now agrees that what he claimed is actually impossible unless the original parameters were carefully chosen. If you did as I asked and provided raw data and models I could have a look, simply reading a paper means very little unless you validate it for yourself. Do you take everything at face value or only things that you wanted to agree with anyway ?

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are a pretentious little character. I am fully aware of 'how science works' and what a 'literature search' is (but haven't called it that since my undergrad days). As I said I review a lot of 'literature' submitted for journals and conferences and also often want to use results from published articles however when given the raw data and models I cannot replicate a significant percentage of results as they were 'fiddled' somewhere or just downright wrong. I have done it myself rather than write off months of work I have made it look right and hope the reviewers don't go through every detail, which as busy people they often don't. A known name in the field is even more unlikely to have his work questioned too deeply. I recently found a paper giving results I wanted to use in my own work to be wrong and following the trail back through 25 years of references and numerous authors I found the origin was a mistake in a paper from the late 70's by a world leader in my field, it took me months to convince him but he now agrees that what he claimed is actually impossible unless the original parameters were carefully chosen. If you did as I asked and provided raw data and models I could have a look, simply reading a paper means very little unless you validate it for yourself. Do you take everything at face value or only things that you wanted to agree with anyway ?

Great, still waiting on your evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, still waiting on your evidence.

I thought that was a bit fast for you to provide any substance. Again, and for the last time, I am not claiming anything I am querying and I just wish to validate things for myself rather than take someone elses word for it. I realise that I will not get anything from you other than links to the usual 3rd party stuff so lets leave it there. I've seen it all before, you've seen it all before, you think it is gospel, I have questions. However I remain open to any future posts you may give providing said substance.

On a very related subject we finally have an admittance of what we all knew:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/10/16/not-a-green-tax-it-s-just-for-funds-61634-24943066/

Not being widely reported for some reason.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that was a bit fast for you to provide any substance. Again, and for the last time, I am not claiming anything I am querying and I just wish to validate things for myself rather than take someone elses word for it. I realise that I will not get anything from you other than links to the usual 3rd party stuff so lets leave it there. I've seen it all before, you've seen it all before, you think it is gospel, I have questions. However I remain open to any future posts you may give providing said substance.

On a very related subject we finally have an admittance of what we all knew:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/10/16/not-a-green-tax-it-s-just-for-funds-61634-24943066/

Not being widely reported for some reason.

So you are not willing to accept links to journal articles in Science, Nature and the Proceeding of the Royal Society? You want their raw data ask them for it. You want raw data from me and you will get shark body movements and you won't be able to make much out of that.

Yes I question plenty of data, does mean I assume they are all wrong? No.

You are claiming that this though

no-one has a clue about the climate and anyone who says otherwise is just chasing the ridiculous ammounts of research cash available to those who agree with what governments want saying.

Back it up, show us why you think these papers are so wrong. Please back up this claim.

Yeah so what. Hardly shocking. It bears no relation to the science though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are not willing to accept links to journal articles in Science, Nature and the Proceeding of the Royal Society? You want their raw data ask them for it. You want raw data from me and you will get shark body movements and you won't be able to make much out of that.

Yes I question plenty of data, does mean I assume they are all wrong? No.

You are claiming that this though

Back it up, show us why you think these papers are so wrong. Please back up this claim.

Yeah so what. Hardly shocking. It bears no relation to the science though.

And round and round we go. No I don't take ANYTHING from ANYWHERE at face value. And the link shows the connection between government CLIMATE CLAIMS based on the research and CASH.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And round and round we go. No I don't take ANYTHING from ANYWHERE at face value. And the link shows the connection between government CLIMATE CLAIMS based on the research and CASH.

No it shows that taxation is based on cash. You cannot justifiably make that link.

We'll keep going round till you back up your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it shows that taxation is based on cash. You cannot justifiably make that link.

We'll keep going round till you back up your claims.

What the **** are you on about...the tax is all about climate change, ask Gordon Brown, he said it himself. My claim is that I do not take things other people tell me at face value, how do I back that up ? Its not quantifiable...its my nature and experience as a scientist.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the **** are you on about...the tax is all about climate change, ask Gordon Brown, he said it himself. My claim is that I do not take things other people tell me at face value, how do I back that up ? Its not quantifiable...its my nature and experience as a scientist.

And what does this have to do with science? You are dismissing science but accepting media articles and claiming that it shows climate change is all about money and you have said before the research is not viable, remember when you said "no one has a clue about climate".

You are not even bothering to address the claims you have made. That goes against the nature and the experience of a scientists as does making unjustified correlations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what does this have to do with science? You are dismissing science but accepting media articles and claiming that it shows climate change is all about money and you have said before the research is not viable, remember when you said "no one has a clue about climate".

You are not even bothering to address the claims you have made. That goes against the nature and the experience of a scientists as does making unjustified correlations.

The global climate models used are absolutely useless, unless someone can show me otherwise, thats why no-one has a clue. I am not dismissing science, I am querying results. The media link is a report from a speech given by a minister to the House of Lords...whats to query there scientifically ? What 'unjustified correlation' are you on about ? Is your debating tactic simply to drive the other person crazy ?

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The global climate models used are absolutely useless, unless someone can show me otherwise, thats why no-one has a clue. I am not dismissing science, I am querying results. The media link is a report from a speech given by a minister to the House of Lords...whats to query there scientifically ? What 'unjustified correlation' are you on about ? Is your debating tactic simply to drive the other person crazy ?

I'm sorry, that is not how it works, you are saying these models are useless, it is your responsibility to show this and not someone else responsibility to give you want you want to see.

You correlated government taxation with research funding.

No I want evidence. You made a claim, you back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, that is not how it works, you are saying these models are useless, it is your responsibility to show this and not someone else responsibility to give you want you want to see.

You correlated government taxation with research funding.

No I want evidence. You made a claim, you back it up.

Show me the model and I'll show you its useless. As I said I work in the nonlinear dynamic systems modelling field, you would struggle to get an accurate model of a raindrop falling never mind the entire ecosystem.

Ah ok I see what you mean, the government uses the climate research claims every time it proposes a new green tax. Correlation of this is therefore 100%. As for funding given for research that is aimed at results in a certain direction, I doubt this could be proven but I have my own opinion and suspicion based on knowledge of how the funding process works.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me the model and I'll show you its useless. As I said I work in the nonlinear dynamic systems modelling field, you would struggle to get an accurate model of a raindrop falling never mind the entire ecosystem.

Ah ok I see what you mean, the government uses the climate research claims every time it proposes a new green tax. Correlation of this is therefore 100%. As for funding given for research that is aimed at results in a certain direction, I doubt this could be proven but I have my own opinion and suspicion based on knowledge of how the funding process works.

Who cares about raindrops, that is weather not climate. Search through my previous posts and find papers I have put up and tell my why they are wrong. I have said this already.

Correlation is not cause and effect and media articles don't evidence this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about raindrops, that is weather not climate. Search through my previous posts and find papers I have put up and tell my why they are wrong. I have said this already.

Correlation is not cause and effect and media articles don't evidence this.

The raindrop was an example of the difficulty of accurately modelling, surely you understood that ?.

I am not trolling through all your links, its all the same old stuff and I have seen it all before. Questions for me remain until I have validated something for myself.

I don't know what you are trying to do here. You cannot prove I am wrong in questioning results which I cannot validate. You don't have any data or models used in the generation of these results however you blindly attempt to lecture me on scientific process based on something you have read and not fully understood, just liked the sound of.

Oh I do know what correlation is, but lets not go there it is so far off topic to be ridiculous. PM me and I can point you to some good statistics books if you want to know more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The raindrop was an example of the difficulty of accurately modelling, surely you understood that ?.

I am not trolling through all your links, its all the same old stuff and I have seen it all before. Questions for me remain until I have validated something for myself.

I don't know what you are trying to do here. You cannot prove I am wrong in questioning results which I cannot validate. You don't have any data or models used in the generation of these results however you blindly attempt to lecture me on scientific process based on something you have read and not fully understood, just liked the sound of.

Oh I do know what correlation is, but lets not go there it is so far off topic to be ridiculous. PM me and I can point you to some good statistics books if you want to know more.

I know plenty on stats thank you. Your choice to not look into the papers I have posted, I'll leave it at that.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.