World on course for catastrophic 6° rise

[danielost]

No falsifying is not proving, it is showing that there is a 5% chance or less that it is correct. Sorry it IS different.

so on a 5% chance of something happening you want people to starve. if we stop using cars there will be people who are now getting food who won't be able to.

there are enough starving people on the planet. why don't we put our effort into feeding these people instead of worrying about nothing.

[ExpandMyMind]

No falsifying is not proving, it is showing that there is a 5% chance or less that it is correct. Sorry it IS different.

i said 'proving wrong', not 'proving'. so if a theory was falsified, you couldn't say it was proven to be wrong?

[Mattshark]

i said 'proving wrong', not 'proving'. so if a theory was falsified, you couldn't say it was proven to be wrong?

No, you would say it is falsified as new evidence can come about to change the situation. Proving is final, science always leaves room for change.

so on a 5% chance of something happening you want people to starve. if we stop using cars there will be people who are now getting food who won't be able to.

there are enough starving people on the planet. why don't we put our effort into feeding these people instead of worrying about nothing.

Maximum 5% chance, not a 5% chance.

Who is starving due to this? Don't be ridiculous.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Mattshark

[danielost]

No, you would say it is falsified as new evidence can come about to change the situation. Proving is final, science always leaves room for change.

Maximum 5% chance, not a 5% chance.

Who is starving due to this? Don't be ridiculous.

no one yet because no one is listening to the lies.

[Mattshark]

no one yet because no one is listening to the lies.

You are making a straw man argument then? Then you have no point.

[Moon Monkey]

Is there a 95% confidence band on this predicted 6 deg rise paper ? I cannot get full access to the pdf and the summary doesn't mention confidence bands or how they were calculated.

[danielost]

You are making a straw man argument then? Then you have no point.

you want a point how about this. there is only a 5% chance that global warming might be right. but the way you and others are presenting it. it is 100% certain. that is the lie.

[acidhead]

you want a point how about this. there is only a 5% chance that global warming might be right. but the way you and others are presenting it. it is 100% certain. that is the lie.

Daniel.... the alarmists are saving the planet.... they're heroes............saints..............

[acidhead]

Daniel.... the alarmists are saving the planet.... they're heroes............saints..............

In fact I'm repenting right now... i've been bad.... ohhhh... so very very bad to mother earth.

Please g-.... uhmmmm..... world leaders.... i'm sorry I'm alive... I'm so very sorry...... I give you a % of my pay check.... please forgive me!!!!!!!!

[questionmark]

you want a point how about this. there is only a 5% chance that global warming might be right. but the way you and others are presenting it. it is 100% certain. that is the lie.

I see, so those who are saying that there is more than 5% lie, while those who say that its 100% not happening say the truth...or did I get something wrong there?

[danielost]

I see, so those who are saying that there is more than 5% lie, while those who say that its 100% not happening say the truth...or did I get something wrong there?

no you didn't get it wrong. those who are paying attention, know that global warming/climate change is taking place. they also know that man is having an affect on it. but the real question is how much. according to you and others it is all mans fault. which it isn't, which is why no one is paying attention.

[questionmark]

here we have another gem:

CO2's 'greenhouse' properties have been known about for some 150 years now. It works by absorbing the longer wavelength out-going radiation (incoming from the Sun and stars is generally shorter wavelength radiation) from the Earth's surface and then re-emitting it in an random direction. Given that all the radiation came from one direction, and is then spherically random post-emission, invariably the net result is it effectively reflects some of this radiation back to Earth. It was also discovered that the more CO2 you add, the less effective each molecule is at producing this effect, meaning that there is a logarithmic relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its 'greenhouse effect'.

This logarithmic relationship allows us to estimate what the warming effect would be of putting as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible, and it's 0.4C. Now hold on, that's much less than the 6C quoted by the IPCC for a much smaller increase in CO2 isn't it? Indeed it is, and in order to jack it up to that figure they've used computer models with all sorts of feedback mechanisms so that a tiny increase in CO2 leads to a large increase in temperature. In this way they can massively exaggerate the importance that CO2 plays in determining the temperature of the planet, but there are two very big problems with that. First of all, if CO2 increases did lead to such elaborate feedback mechanisms, then there would be evidence of it in the past. Unfortunately, we have temperature and CO2 records that stretch back millions of years in detail, and billions of years in macro-scale, and there has never been a single period of Earth's history where CO2 appears to have any significant forcing effect on Earth's temperature. There is simply no empirical data to support the claim these computer models make. Which brings me to the second problem. Computer models are built by man in an attempt to deterministically predict the outcome of the climate, but our current climate knowledge and computer power is just simply inadequate to attempt this hugely complex and chaotic problem with any serious credence. There are so many variables and parameters involved, and the climate system is so complex and not fully understood, that the computer models are essentially worthless, for the moment. The computer models are the corner stone of the global warming hysteria, but they are unscientific (because they cannot pass the scientific method) and extremely easy to manipulate their outcomes.

A warmer planet also bring us many benefits. About 20 times as many humans die every year from cold weather than hot weather. Warming the polar areas will open up vast expanses of land for productive use, including Arctic shipping lanes. One third of the world's trees exist in the Tiaga Forest, which extends around the whole Arctic, and they are the lungs of the planet, not the Amazonian rainforest. Ironically, the forest is also soft-wood pine, which sees the largest benefit from atmospheric CO2 of any major vegetation type on the planet. The planet is in no danger of serious sea level rises either. To put it in context, the sea has risen 130 meters since the last ice age, and is currently rising naturally at a rate of 20cm a century. This rise is generally made insignificant by the rate of change of human sea-side development and tectonic plate movements. The only ice melting that can contribute to sea level is land ice (sea ice does not by the principle of buoyancy), and 90% of that ice is in Antarctica where its mass is currently growing against a 5,000 year history of melting. A couple of degrees warmer is not going to lift Antarctica above freezing point because it is already so cold, and the warmth will actually increase precipitation of snow inland and thus make the ice sheet thicker. We have nothing to worry about from sea levels. With respect to things like storms, as of yet there is no scientific proof that warmer temperatures bring about more violent weather. Certainly, there will be more heat energy in the ocean, but wind shear will also increase, breaking up storms, and the temperature differential between the poles and equator will drop, which is extremely significant for producing weather systems.

A moderately warmer planet is good for pretty much all life on it. What's bad for life is sudden and dramatic climate changes, although you might point out the evolutionary benefits of upsetting the vegetable cart. The fact is, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not going to bring about sudden and dramatic climate changes. It is only responsible for about 3% of the 'greenhouse effect' (95% water vapour, the rest trace gases), which itself a passive regulator of the Earth's temperature. Our dramatic climate changes come about through climatic coupling, stimulated by the really important things, like our orbital patterns, the Sun's output, and other celestial factors. The normal state of our planet is an ice age, which usually last about 80,000 years, with relatively short inter-glacial periods of 10,000-12,000 years, such as now. It's been 11,500 years since the last ice age. Honestly, if you enjoy getting your knickers in a twist over the climate, then consider that. You really think we have any hope of preventing it? Maybe with some more ridiculous socialist measures in the face of the Sun's influence? No, our chances for climate adaption are facilitated by our wealth, and employing socialist policies in some vain and futile attempt to regulate the temperature of the planet by manipulating the level of some virtually insignificant gas is going to destroy our wealth and make us the laughing stock of posterity.

Source

nice...now wait...is it warming or not?

[MARAB0D]

falsifying it is proving it wrong... so there was no need to reply as if you were actually saying somethihng different.

well, other than another dig at mara. mara, i hope you're thick skinned!

No worries, my Mom is a child psychologist and was a Principal of the special school for the kids like that, so I saw plenty of them at her work

[Mattshark]

Is there a 95% confidence band on this predicted 6 deg rise paper ? I cannot get full access to the pdf and the summary doesn't mention confidence bands or how they were calculated.

You don't have access to Nature? Surprising.

Not this paper no (it also doesn't mention a 6° rise in temp either) here they have a correlation coefficient as the paper is on changes in atmospheric CO2 sources and changes in carbon sinks. I was talking in general.

[Moon Monkey]

You don't have access to Nature? Surprising.

Not this paper no (it also doesn't mention a 6° rise in temp either) here they have a correlation coefficient as the paper is on changes in atmospheric CO2 sources and changes in carbon sinks. I was talking in general.

Not that surprising for an engineering research institute, I doubt there is much call for it. There might be access in the office but I am off campus (working from home, reducing my carbon footprint...well my travel bill). Can you copy/paste the paper that this thread is based on ?

[acidhead]

--anybody see reports coming out that scientists who submitted temperature records for Australia and elsewhere were caught falsifying temp. data, through emails,

prior to 1998 by lowering global temperatures to make the last 10 years appear warmer?

Any alarmists care to explain this?

[questionmark]

--anybody see reports coming out that scientists who submitted temperature records for Australia and elsewhere were caught falsifying temp. data, through emails,

prior to 1998 by lowering global temperatures to make the last 10 years appear warmer?

Any alarmists care to explain this?

No, we have seen no report coming out that... we have seen that the East Anglia University had all the personal e-mails stolen (about 3000 of them) and one of them was quoted out of context.

But keep on spinning the myth.

[acidhead]

No, we have seen no report coming out that... we have seen that the East Anglia University had all the personal e-mails stolen (about 3000 of them) and one of them was quoted out of context.

But keep on spinning the myth.

thanks questionmark...

Do you have the LINK?

Thank you... you are the best!

[questionmark]

thanks questionmark...

Do you have the LINK?

Thank you... you are the best!

There is a discussion going on about it under Science.

[acidhead]

There is a discussion going on about it under Science.

Just skimmed 4 pages there looking for it.... /// whats it called???

Any info?... could you perhaps provide the UM thread link Questionmark?

I heard Dr. Timothy Ball talking about this on the radio this morning.

Says it had something to do with Maurice Strong? Also says the MSM has avoided the issue and the all the emails are under seal except for the ones that

leaked out that indicate scientists were pressured to falsify the temp. data to corrolate to the IPCC's climate temp. models.

[questionmark]

Just skimmed 4 pages there looking for it.... /// whats it called???

Any info?... could you perhaps provide the UM thread link Questionmark?

I heard Dr. Timothy Ball talking about this on the radio this morning.

Says it had something to do with Maurice Strong? Also says the MSM has avoided the issue and the all the emails are under seal except for the ones that

leaked out that indicate scientists were pressured to falsify the temp. data to corrolate to the IPCC's climate temp. models.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=169319

[acidhead]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=169319

\Thanks for the link and info!

November 21, 2009

Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit, duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the fraud of the manmade global warming theory. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show.

For more information on this incident, please see the following articles from The Corbett Report and other sources:

Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to "hide" the real data on climate change

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles...

The Death Blow to Climate Science

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/...

Collusion, Corruption, Manipulation and Obstruction

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009...

Mike's Nature Trick

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20...

For more information on the Climate Research Unit and their unwillingness to share data with other researchers, please see The Corbett Report's earlier interview with Dr. Ball:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CVh2...

[Mattshark]

\Thanks for the link and info!

November 21, 2009

Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit, duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the fraud of the manmade global warming theory. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show.

For more information on this incident, please see the following articles from The Corbett Report and other sources:

Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to "hide" the real data on climate change

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles...

The Death Blow to Climate Science

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/...

Collusion, Corruption, Manipulation and Obstruction

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009...

Mike's Nature Trick

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20...

For more information on the Climate Research Unit and their unwillingness to share data with other researchers, please see The Corbett Report's earlier interview with Dr. Ball:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CVh2...

Again

Where ever you copied and pasted your response from has left you with incomplete links.

Also none of your links are considered reliable and nor it Timothy Ball who's organisations (Natural resource stewardship project and formerly Friends of Science) are what are known as astroturf groups (fake grass roots) in the pay of industrial concerns.

[MARAB0D]

Again

Where ever you copied and pasted your response from has left you with incomplete links.

Also none of your links are considered reliable and nor it Timothy Ball who's organisations (Natural resource stewardship project and formerly Friends of Science) are what are known as astroturf groups (fake grass roots) in the pay of industrial concerns.

*snip*

Unacceptable behavior. You can discuss things civilly without that kind of snide remark.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Paranormalcy
removed snide remark