IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Cancun Big Freeze Special
Topic Summary: IET Magazine
Created On: 30 November 2010 11:49 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 30 November 2010 11:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

It's that time of year again - the mercury's plummeting and snow's covering much of Europe for the 4th year running. Yes - it's time for the Cancun COP16 global warming conference! Hurray. The 45-man UK government delegation have just arrived by jet and are already settling in for their 2 week stay in their £240-a-night 5-star luxury hotel - along with 15,000 other delegates.

Just wondering if the IET magazine will be devoting an entire issue to the conference again this year? Last year's Copenhagen issue was a keeper. Perhaps IET's intrepid Arctic explorer Nick Smith is there. He certainly has good green credentials: Having dismissed IET members sceptical of catastrophic man-made global warming theory as "Deniers" in the pay of Big Oil. I'm sure Nick could give a balanced, unbiased account of the conference.

Barely a peep from the media so far about Cancun. Will no-one bang the drum for global warming? Come on IET. Think of the poor subsidy farmers, rent-seekers, carbon traders and bankers.
 30 November 2010 05:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19668
Joined: 23 March 2004

Wise not to confuse weather with climate

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 30 November 2010 11:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

I guess all the volcano eruptions this past year or so, has nothing to do with it.
 02 December 2010 09:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Originally posted by: OMS

Wise not to confuse weather with climate



OMS
Ipayyoursalary appears to be a one-trick pony. I've only seen him posting on this particular subject, and then never making a point about the science or technology, just his highly skewed view of the politics.

The present cold weather (like last years two cold snaps) are due to blocking highs in the arctic region. These have always occurred but are more likely to occur because the arctic has warmed disproportionately.

He's convieniently missed the stories about how NOAA and GISS have rated 2010 as the warmest year ever. HadCRUT has it rated joinly with 1998, but HadCRUT ignores polar temperatures, making it consistantly lower than GISS. Also missed were record lows for extent and volume of multi-year ice in the arctic.

Predictions for next year are for temperatures to be less extreme because we've entered a La Nina cycle
 03 December 2010 03:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mike.mcclory

Originally posted by: OMS

Wise not to confuse weather with climate

OMS
Ipayyoursalary appears to be a one-trick pony. I've only seen him posting on this particular subject, and then never making a point about the science or technology, just his highly skewed view of the politics.

The present cold weather (like last years two cold snaps) are due to blocking highs in the arctic region. These have always occurred but are more likely to occur because the arctic has warmed disproportionately.

He's convieniently missed the stories about how NOAA and GISS have rated 2010 as the warmest year ever. HadCRUT has it rated joinly with 1998, but HadCRUT ignores polar temperatures, making it consistantly lower than GISS. Also missed were record lows for extent and volume of multi-year ice in the arctic.

Predictions for next year are for temperatures to be less extreme because we've entered a La Nina cycle


Actually for the most part he just asks for the relevant institutions to present both sides of the data/argument rather than just the one sided argument for 'global warming'.

Regards.
 03 December 2010 06:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19668
Joined: 23 March 2004



OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 03 December 2010 10:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

If you are really going to use vineyards as a proxy for temperature then we should be positively roasting, as there are far more of them nowadays. The most northerly established vineyard is in Camforth, Lancs, with mention of one just north of the Trossachs.

http://www.vinesforwines.co.uk...rtherly-vinevineyard/

The number of vineyards has grown from 46 recorded in the Domesday survey to over 400 now:

http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

Lets not try and propagate the more silly denialist objections, especially ones so easily countered.
 03 December 2010 10:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Originally posted by: westonpa

Originally posted by: mike.mcclory



Originally posted by: OMS



Wise not to confuse weather with climate



OMS
Ipayyoursalary appears to be a one-trick pony. I've only seen him posting on this particular subject, and then never making a point about the science or technology, just his highly skewed view of the politics.



The present cold weather (like last years two cold snaps) are due to blocking highs in the arctic region. These have always occurred but are more likely to occur because the arctic has warmed disproportionately.



He's convieniently missed the stories about how NOAA and GISS have rated 2010 as the warmest year ever. HadCRUT has it rated joinly with 1998, but HadCRUT ignores polar temperatures, making it consistantly lower than GISS. Also missed were record lows for extent and volume of multi-year ice in the arctic.



Predictions for next year are for temperatures to be less extreme because we've entered a La Nina cycle




Actually for the most part he just asks for the relevant institutions to present both sides of the data/argument rather than just the one sided argument for 'global warming'.



Regards.
If there was a presentable arguement against the underlying tenets of global warming then you might have a point.

1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus has the capacity to warm the planet (Tyndall, 1858).
3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).
4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).

These have not been disputed.
 05 December 2010 07:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

"If there was a presentable arguement against the underlying tenets of global warming then you might have a point."

If we go back to read the original Arrhenius 1896 paper we will find that he did a paper calculation to find out that increasing CO2 results in increasing warming WHEN there is unlimited energy photons available.

In the real life case of the Earth, there is EXCESS CO2 (& water vapor) above what is needed for the Greenhouse Effect. This means that for an increased GHE where it is required that there be BOTH axtra added energy photons to be absorbed by an extra available GHG, then when one (CO2) is in excess, then the other (the photons) is what actually dictates how much of a GHE there is. THUS the energy coming in dictates the Earth's temperature. Adding extra added CO2 results in adding extra CO2 to the air. It does NOT result in added warming, UNLESS the energy photons are ALSO added. Given the excess CO2 then CO2 emissions control (Cap & Trade etc) will only reduce the extra excess CO2 in the air. IT WILL NOT IMPACT THE TEMPERATURE. (This is explained in the paper Excess CO2 Scenario available at www.scribd.com.)

This paper also explains that gravity and planetary eccentricity results in variable amounts of energy being available to change the temperature (& the GHE which is apparently always about 10% of the Earth's temperature and so also varies.)

However, since it is gravity that changes the temperature and results in the 30 year cooling (1880-1910, 1940-1970, 1998-2028) AND 30 year warming (1910-40, 1970-1998, 2028- 2058...) cycles, and Man has no hope whatsoever, of controlling gravity, then trying to change the climate is a worthless endeavor. The IPCC still can't get the science right.

Now, given that the paper referenced above identified the 60 year Jupiter/Saturn resonance cycle as dictating the Earth temperature, thus resulting in the 30 year cooling from 1998 to 2028, AND it also identifies a 900 year cycle in the Jupiter and Saturn orbits which dictate Earth eccentricity, then we are currently at or close to a longer term temperature peak. ie it will cool till 2028, then warm till 2058, perhaps as high as the 1998 high, but then global cooling should be expected for several hundred years.

"Lets not try and propagate the more silly denialist objections, especially ones so easily countered."

I think I will keep recycling and not waste natural resources but even so I think I can show a little respect to those who wish to disagree with either side of the argument.

Regards.
 05 December 2010 08:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 546
Joined: 17 September 2001

Originally posted by: westonpa

However, since it is gravity that changes the temperature and results in the 30 year cooling (1880-1910, 1940-1970, 1998-2028) AND 30 year warming (1910-40, 1970-1998, 2028- 2058...) cycles, and Man has no hope whatsoever, of controlling gravity, then trying to change the climate is a worthless endeavor. The IPCC still can't get the science right.



What's gravity got to do with World temperatures? The gravitational force at the Earth's surface has been 9.81 metres/second-squared since it was first measured . It definitely does not change on a 30 year cycle.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 05 December 2010 09:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: ectophile

Originally posted by: westonpa

However, since it is gravity that changes the temperature and results in the 30 year cooling (1880-1910, 1940-1970, 1998-2028) AND 30 year warming (1910-40, 1970-1998, 2028- 2058...) cycles, and Man has no hope whatsoever, of controlling gravity, then trying to change the climate is a worthless endeavor. The IPCC still can't get the science right.


What's gravity got to do with World temperatures? The gravitational force at the Earth's surface has been 9.81 metres/second-squared since it was first measured.


It definitely does not change on a 30 year cycle.


Prove it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2734...Causes-Climate-Change

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1947...ory-of-Global-Warming

Regards.
 07 December 2010 09:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Those opinion pieces (they aren't scientific papers, though they are dressed to look like them) are utterly rubbish.

Mr Dodds contention that gravitational potential energy is an energy input is a blindingly obvious falsehood. Since the Earth is in orbit it is in an equilibrium state, there are small variations, the biggest one of these (purely in terms of orital mechanics) is that the earth is in a very slightly ellipical orbit. To say that the kinetic energy variation due to the changes in our orbital velocity is 'much larger' than that of solar insolation is blatantly wrong. I note that he fails to calculate any figures for this variation. The variation in orbital velocity will be mosted averaged out over one year. There will be some very small variation due to orbital interactions between the planets, but the scale of them is minute, as explained here:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...ronomical_cycles.html

The mangling of Arrenhius' work is just poorly phrased goobledgook. There's no 'excess' of greenhouse gases, there's no evidence of saturation of any of the greenhouse gases. So the need for an 'excess' of photons is not required. In fact, the sun is just coming out of a quite sustained minimum, so solar isolation has been at a low and will increase of the next few years.

His phrase:

"Similarly when the GHG water vapor humidity triples locally from a nominal 33% to 100% when it rains, the temperature from the GHE does not triple to a 90C WV contribution, because there is no extra absorbable energy available."

made me chuckle. His change of point of view from local variation to world wide effect is quite spectacular silliness. If we managed to reach 90% humidity worldwide, please let me know!

Just about every contention he made could be ripped to shreds. He even falls into the hole of the H2O / CO2 ratio arguement, which fails to look at which is a forcing factor and which is a feedback factor, and lifetimes.

Yes, there are variations due to orbital cycles. No, it's not the cause of the present bout of global warming.
 07 December 2010 10:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for roddalitz.
roddalitz

Posts: 125
Joined: 19 April 2002

It is getting quite hard to ignore the trolls.

I would like members to remember that the name is CLIMATE CHANGE and that even though some cynics doubt the causes of climate change, there is no doubt that the global climate is changing. As the global average temperature increases, models indicate that there will be greater fluctuations and more severe weather. If the Gulf Stream does cease, Britain will experience extremely cold winters. Local weather is no evidence of global trends.

As with the Tea Party, there is a lot of noise (in the mis-information sense) and disrespect for science. Somehow minor errors lead to denial of serious conclusions, while uninformed right-wing views such as Palin are uncritically welcomed. To me, the decline of the West is becoming scary. There are too many examples of politics ignoring evidence.

-------------------------
regards, Rod Dalitz (CEng MIEE FInstP)
rod.dalitz@blueyonder.co.uk
 07 December 2010 10:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 866
Joined: 19 July 2002

Rod,
I agree, the climate is changing and has always changed. There is a lot of politics and bad science involved in the discussions regarding mans influence (probably due to the large amounts of money to be made), however we should still reduce, reuse and recycle. Many of our resourses are finite and should be treated as such.

Best regards

Roger
 07 December 2010 01:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mike.mcclory

3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).

4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).

These have not been disputed.


Here is a dispute which seems to contradict your statement.

"The original Arrhenius 1896 scientific paper is scientifically incorrect and a fraudulent basis for the California law AB32 which mandated the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) or CO2 emissions, and for the IPCC report (AR4, WG1, Ch1, p116). Adding more GHGs does NOT result in more warming. It is also noted that mandating the use of 25 or 33% renewable energy at 3 to 5 times the cost of fossil fuels(in Ca) results in doubling the cost of energy to the consumer/voters and in excessive inflation to all users such as transporters and manufacturers.

The Arrhenius justification for "more GHG emissions means more warming" (see Wikipedia for "Arrhenius" & ref 3 for the paper) or Delta_F=a*ln(C/Co), or the rise in temperature is proportional to the concentration of the GHGs, FAILS in the evening when the temperature decreases while the concentration is constant or increasing slightly due to mankind's CO2 emissions. It FAILS in the morning when the temperature increases dramatically even thought the concentration is constant or increasing slightly. It FAILS when the concentration of Water Vapor, the most potent GHG, increases when the humidity increases when it rains, but the temperature does NOT increase.

The reason the Arrhenius Law fails is because it incorrectly uses the concentration of the GHG or CO2 in the air instead of the concentration of the GHG "IN USE" for the Greenhouse Effect. (GHE). More properly it should use the number of energy photons IN USE for the GHE since it is this added energy that causes the warming, and for every photon absorbed there must be a GHG to absorb it. Adding a GHG can NOT increase the warming unless an added photon of energy is also used in the GHE.

Arrhenius improperly assumed (in Sec 5) that whenever there is more CO2 then it is used for an increasing GHE. The reality is that there is an excess of GHGs in the air over the number of absorbable photons, and hence the GHE warming is limited by the available energy, not by the available GHGs. Every night when the available energy coming in decreases, then the number of GHGs in use also decreases and these unused GHGs are then "released " to the air to become more excess GHGs. Whenever man generates more GHGs they are simply added to the unused excess GHGs in the air. They do not add to the GHE because there are no available photons to combine with the excess GHGs. It is obvious that there are more GHGs than photons, because if it was the other way round with more photons than GHGs, then the photons would just continue to increase the very real Greenhouse warming effect until all the GHGs (CO2 and water vapor) in the ocean were in use and vaporized and the oceans had dried up.

The idea of excess GHGs available also raises the question of the validity of water vapor feedback mechanisms in the models. If an added photon comes in why would it pass up the opportunity to get absorbed by a readily available excess water vapor molecule, when it could wait for man to generate more CO2 to increase the temperature to then result in more available excess water vapor molecules to cause the feedback warming effect? Mother Nature usually does things in the most efficient method possible. This then eliminates the concept of AGW, or anthropogenic, man caused global warming, and puts the burden back on natural mother nature, and it means that man's geo-engineering can not control the temperature unless it can reverse the effects of gravitational potential energy.- ie by inventing anti-gravity!

Given that the increasing energy causes the increasing GHE and warming, and that the incoming solar insolation, the sole source of energy used by the models and IPCC, has been essentially constant since the 1970s while the globe has been warming, then it is necessary to identify another source of cyclic energy on Earth to account for the cooling and warming. Papers are available at http://www.scribd.com called Gravity causes Climate Changes. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2734...-Causes-Climate-Change and http://www.scribd.com/doc/1947...ory-of-Global-Warming- to explain how gravity causes eccentricity which causes warming and cooling cycles as Earth's energy goes from potential energy to kinetic energy like a pendulum. These gravity cycles correspond to the measured 12 and 60 year (1880. 1940, 1998...) Earth temperature cycles and to the longer cycles identified in GISP2 ice cores. The gravitational effects of Jupiter in causing the thousands of kilometers of eccentricity in the Earths orbit and hence the cyclic variation in Earth-Jupiter distance and gravitational potential energy far exceed the effects which solar insolation have on the Earth. The increased kinetic energy from the potential energy results in warmer ground temperatures which then radiate more absorbable energy photons. These effects have not been considered in the Models, IPCC reports or the Ca AB32 regulations.

It is the coincident current nearest approach by both Jupiter, Uranus and Venus that is causing the minimization of potential energy and maximization of kinetic or heat energy and the current 2009/2010 peak in Earth warming. This is mostly caused by the 12 year Jupiter orbital cycle which last approached this peak , coincident with Venus, during the 1998 warming peak. It is the increase in available kinetic energy from primarily the decreased gravitational potential energy due to nearness of Jupiter and Venus in the last half of 2010, that has enabled the weather extremes of increased Atlantic hurricanes, the movement of Hurricane Earl in Sept as far north as Nova Scotia in Canada, the appearance of a tornado in New York in Brooklyn and Queens in Sept 2010 etc.

In summary cyclic Earth eccentricity causes Earth cooling and warming, not the availability of excess Greenhouse gases."

There are plenty of 'scientific papers' which are later found to be incomplete and/or incorrect. I for one am not against all the 'global warming' data and argument and am in favour of recycling, re-using and conserving resources and developing renewable technologies etc., however I also respect that there is other data and arguments which give other reasons and predictions. Many of those in favour of the 'global warming' argument being caused by humans simply want to 'shout down' or 'name call' those who disagree rather that present their arguments and data in a professional way and this has included the relevant institutions and politicians. If it is a case of the majority are correct and so it must be correct then think back to how many times in history when the majority have done things which have later been judged to be wrong. I may disagree with the opinion of others but I can still show some respect to it.

Regards.
 07 December 2010 01:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



StewartTaylor

Posts: 99
Joined: 18 January 2003

westonpa cites a lengthy article, (with no citation of its provenance) without comment on whether he agrees or disagrees with its statements, as evidence that the points Mike McClory made are disputed. Perhaps it would be a good idea if he actually analysed what he is citing (assuming he understands the science himself) and then decides whether this is a credible contribution to the argument. Or does he still think the creationists have a valid point to make?

Actually, I don't disagree with the point that a lot of climate change talk has become dogma (Himalayan glaciers anyone?) but it doesn't mean that we have to spend time on every piece of writing that is brought up. We all have two options - learn to understand the science ourselves, or place our trust in those who do. There are no other realistic options and the second is unreliable because if we don't understand we can't judge who does.

So... don't give us articles by somebody. Give us evidence to support your arguments and explain the mechanisms that you think make things happen the way you claim they do.

-------------------------
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
 07 December 2010 02:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19668
Joined: 23 March 2004

Personally speaking it's quite simple to me - I am not wholly convinced either way and therefore adopt a precautionary principle as we simply don't know either way if anthropogenic CO2 has a forcing effect on a constantly changing system.

Couple that with the much more selfish interest in energy security and it suggests that not burning fossil fuels where other renewable alternatives exist is probably a sensible approach.


If climate change due to man made CO2 is happening then we have made a start, if it isn't we've saved up some fossil fuels for another generation - simples

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 07 December 2010 07:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: StewartTaylor

westonpa cites a lengthy article, (with no citation of its provenance) without comment on whether he agrees or disagrees with its statements, as evidence that the points Mike McClory made are disputed.


It matters not whether I agree or not because it disputes some of the papers which Mike says have not been disputed and that is the point I am making. In all these matters there is discussion and debate and this is healthy and I respect ipayyoursalary's general request that the institutions present both sides of the argument. The 'global warming' argument has been damaged by the one sided argument that was put forward which seemed to suggest that it was beyond dispute and that we 'had 50 days to save the planet' and so on. Subsequently when some data was found to be in error it damaged the public's trust in the science. However if a more balanced approach had been used then some people and institutions would not now be left with 'egg on their face'. I believe that this is far more complicated than we yet understand and that what we research and discuss today adds to the future understanding. However that understanding is best served by allow all those concerned to have their say without the 'name calling'.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if he actually analysed what he is citing (assuming he understands the science himself) and then decides whether this is a credible contribution to the argument. Or does he still think the creationists have a valid point to make?


The fact that I present it by default says that I think it is a credible contribution to the argument else I would not present it. I do not believe any of the arguments presented are 100% correct because our understanding is always improving based on new data as it becomes available. As for the creationists.......well that's another discussion for another day.

We all have two options - learn to understand the science ourselves, or place our trust in those who do. There are no other realistic options and the second is unreliable because if we don't understand we can't judge who does.


Many years ago science suggested smoking cigarettes was healthy for us and yet this has now been proven not to be the case. Science is littered with 'facts' which have been found to be incorrect. I am happy to also follow the precautionary approach and care and concern for our home, i.e., Earth, but equally I prefer to hear all sides of the argument.

So... don't give us articles by somebody. Give us evidence to support your arguments and explain the mechanisms that you think make things happen the way you claim they do.


Why, are you the moderator on these 'discussion forums'? Is there something in the IET rules which says that we must do this? I may disagree with others but I am more than happy to show them a little respect and ask for their valued opinions rather than 'give out instructions'.

Regards.
 08 December 2010 11:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Unfortunately the articles you've posted up are based on a number of logical and mathemetical fallacies, so they don't really dispute anything. There is no saturation of the GHGs, so the need for 'excess' photons is un-necessary. The effects of the other planets on the Earths orbital velocity are orders of magnitude less than that of the moon and the sun and those are several orders of magnitude less than the energy received from solar isolation and the greenhouse effect (>15K). The change in radiative balance due to global warming effects is small, but it has been observed and measured and the changes in outgoing spectra are strong evidence of warming through increased CO2. To save going through posting the links to the relevant studies (why go through the rigmarole yourself when it's already done for you!?), he's a link that can explain some of the evidence far better than I can, complete with links to the supporting published papers:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...in-global-warming.html
 08 December 2010 01:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mike.mcclory

Unfortunately the articles you've posted up are based on a number of logical and mathemetical fallacies, so they don't really dispute anything.


By default and according to English language they dispute the things they claim to dispute......quite simple logic really.

From what we understand all that exists is based upon quantum physics of which we humans only understand the smallest fraction. We do not understand our own universe or what came before and maths still has a big prolem with zero. No one fully understands 'global warming' or 'climate change' and thus the precautionary approach is a sensible one. Note that I do not need to resort to 'name calling' such as "one-trick pony" to suggest this.

Regards.
IET » Feedback and questions » Cancun Big Freeze Special

1 2 3 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.