myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 352, 353, 354 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(Sorry- computer.)

Lastly, my main point is that over the last thousand to two thousand years we have historical accounts which clearly suggest Northern Hemisphere warming phases, which may well have exceeded that of today. But of course, that can just be dismissed because those fine folk from NASA were not around in those days.

Question; why did the rapid and marked warming of the 1980's and early 90's cease (the 'pause') when CO" pollution was increasing ever faster? The explanations to date, oceans absorbing it and holding down increase in temperature, don't add up. WHY did they not do exactly the same in the 80's and prevent that rapid rise in global average temperature then? Strange inconsistency don't I think!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The uncertainty argument stems from the fact that its to close to call whether 2014 was the warmest ever on record or a statistical tie with the last 3 record years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone that has actually studied measurement, and the science and math behind it, has an understanding that we cannot measure anything absolutely. There is a level of precision that we can achieve, and that any number that we derive from physical measurement has accuracy limitations. For decades, responsible scientists have reported the increase in global average temperatures with certainty bounds. I think the last estimate that I saw for a centuries worth of change in the average temperature was 1.2 degrees, plus or minus about 0.3 degrees. Anybody that understood that, would not say something like this:

Quote:
Failing to mention the huge amount of uncertainty in that study indicates that the journalists on whom we rely for information are either incompetent or biased. It's probably both.


unless they had an agenda.

Second, there are a large number of things that affect weather and climate. The data set, which can actually be seen here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

is very chaotic. But since 1998, the time that deniers argue that warming stopped, we have had the ten warmest years in the entire 134 year record. Nothing in the limitations of our accuracy in measurement--which is represented as limitations in accuracy, not uncertainty--changes the fact that the globe is warming. Nothing in the science suggests that we have a perfect understanding of the reasons for short term variations, although most of them are actually well understood. Look at the actual data and then tell me that there is no warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
Lastly, to dismiss the Russian Academy scientists as irrelevant may seem to smack of such certainty and arrogance on your part as to make me enquire what do you know that they do not?

Quite the opposite. Please read again what I tried to say. I said that there is a chance that the Russian/GT solar cooling is relevant (I used "non-zero" which is somewhat silly, so my apologies), and that there is a chance that CO2 driven global warming is wrong. I hope you agree that you misunderstood.

So you have nothing to say about acting on something in the absence of perfect information. What about ocean acidification? If I follow your reasoning on warming, I could argue that oceans were much more acid at some point in the distant past, in fact, I just saw that one such event occurred 56 million years ago. But I am not sure that is helping today's problem in any way.

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
Question; why did the rapid and marked warming of the 1980's and early 90's cease (the 'pause') when CO" pollution was increasing ever faster? The explanations to date, oceans absorbing it and holding down increase in temperature, don't add up. WHY did they not do exactly the same in the 80's and prevent that rapid rise in global average temperature then? Strange inconsistency don't I think!

I am sorry, so some presumably competent scientists publish a peer-reviewed paper based on actual measurements that may provide an explanation for the pause, and you and I have no way to judge the results. You choose to dismiss them without any relevant reason (and please, that their results do not explain everything does not invalidate the research, it indicates the need for further investigation). Instead, those results provide another piece of evidence (not final prove, just another piece of evidence) supporting CO2 driven global warming.


Last edited by LHDR on Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
For decades, responsible scientists have reported the increase in global average temperatures with certainty bounds.

Interesting choice of words. That implies that there are irresponsible scientists, but scientists never the less.
So were supposed to not believe any "scientist" that challenges humans being responsible for any AGW, because they are irresponsible.
Okaaaaaaay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LHDR. I know my position requires the adoption of certain assumptions, and I dislike that part of it, but in a situation of none certainty I see little alternative. Of course I could be wrong, but we are what we are.

Sorry if I sounded peeved and abrupt (old student days habit during those all-nighter arguments), I should know better.

C.B. It's not that I think those who are sincere in their beliefs tell lies, but officials in any large organisation (NASA) often have to set aside their own doubts or differences, and tow the corporate party line. This is one reason why I think lone voice mavericks (unless they're potty) may sometimes have more credence. They are free to speak their minds.

However, I'd rather not end on a 'fall out' note with anybody (even Frederick Wink ) so I'' shush!

(Just been kayaking today. In big freeze, and so much warmer than windsurfing.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW--you obviously don't comprehend the difference between responsible science and industry apologist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And then there is this, just for GT:

Quote:
Damian Carrington
Properties worth over £1bn will be lost to coastal erosion in England and Wales over the next century, with no compensation for homeowners, as it becomes too costly to protect them.
Almost 7,000 homes and buildings will be sacrificed to the rising seas around England and Wales over the next century, according to an unpublished Environment Agency (EA) analysis seen by the Guardian. Over 800 of the properties will be lost to coastal erosion within the next 20 years.

The properties, worth well over £1bn, will be allowed to fall into the sea because the cost of protecting them would be far greater. But there is no compensation scheme for homeowners to enable them to move to a safer location.

In December 2013, a huge tidal surge flooded 1,400 homes along the east coast and saw numerous homes tumble into the ocean. Earlier this month, the environment secretary, Liz Truss, visited Lowestoft on the anniversary of the surge, which flooded the town.

“Last winter’s storms saw the eastern seaboard overwhelmed,” said coastal community campaigner Chris Blunkell, who lives on the North Kent coast at Whitstable. “If government won’t defend all people living on the coast, then it must make sure that they can move elsewhere, and that means compensating them for their loss. It’s wrong that the costs of climate change should be borne by the most vulnerable.”

Coastal erosion expert Professor Rob Duck, at Dundee University, said: “It is a very difficult issue, but we can’t defend everything at all costs. There are just not the resources to do it and keep on doing it. But it is not just about money, often people have lived in places for generations and there is a lot of history and memories.”

The local authority in which most homes are expected to be lost in the next 20 years is Cornwall, with 76. Cornwall also tops the list for homes lost in 50 years, with 132. Looking 100 years ahead, six local authorities are expected to lose more than 200 homes each: Great Yarmouth (293), Southampton (280), Cornwall (273), North Norfolk (237), East Riding of Yorkshire (204) and Scarborough (203).


Duck said the east coast from Yorkshire down to Essex is “soft and vulnerable” and that the stronger storms and rising sea level being driven by climate change will increase their vulnerability. A recent EA document stated: “It is widely accepted that [climate change] will lead to an acceleration of coastal erosion due to more aggressive marine conditions.”

The EA analysis assumes that funding for shoreline management plans – a mix of holding the line and managed retreat – is maintained. Without this, the number of properties lost within 100 years would increase tenfold to over 74,000. The central estimate for properties lost even with continued coastal defence is 7,000, but the EA analysis found there is a 5% chance this could rise to almost 9,000 if the weather was particularly extreme.

Currently, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) states that “there are more than 200 homes at risk of complete loss to coastal erosion in the next 20 years”. But the newly revealed EA analysis puts the number at 295, and at 430 in the extreme case.

etc at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/28/7000-uk-properties-sacrificed-rising-seas-coastal-erosion


And we will hear cries from people who consider themselves conservatives that the government must step in and save their homes. Wait for in Malibu. Bard?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac As I've clearly stated way back in this thread, Britain is slowly tilting downwards along much of the East coast, and south coasts, (isostatic adjustment) and has been doing so for over a thousand years. (I remember pointing out that Romney marsh has been below sea level for all of that time, and in the last decade major sea wall defences have been shored up in a continuing and ongoing process. (Remember I said as a teen I watched a storm surge tide in Sandgate demolish an old Victorian house and watched a grand piano defiantly jangling its keys to the last as it crashed down out into the surf.)

I also stated that a village called Ravenser (or some such) from king henry's (part one I think Laughing ) time now lies over half a mile out to sea. A railway line from Saltburn to Whitby I travelled on as a youngster long since had to be closed as the cliffs eroded and was too close to the edge. (Iwatched a huge cliff fall into the sea once - just like a Hollywood disaster movie,)

But this claim (rising sea levels the cause) says everything I hate about this Global warming circus, and the often silly claims made. The cause, in this case, is GEOLOGICAL. Yes, IF sea levels rise in the future it will make it worse, but that is not the cause at present, nor has it been for all the centuries past!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT, kayaking in Britain in January? You are one of a few smart enough to enjoy the outdoors, very cool. Tell us more. I know your under light South winds now, where do you do this? Temp? Sea conditions? Cheers. F.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 352, 353, 354 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 353 of 573

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group