IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Topic Summary: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Created On: 21 November 2012 10:41 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Previous 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.
 03 February 2013 01:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: robmercel
Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.

Is that the 'peer reviewed science' we keep hearing about?

Regards.
 04 February 2013 10:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



clivebrown

Posts: 21
Joined: 28 October 2001

For any of you with 30 mins to spare there is an interesting BBC interview with environmentalist Mark Lynas - mainly concerned with his switch of views on GM crops & Nuclear power, both of which he now advocates because of peer reviewed science & risk assessment.
Climate Change is very briefly mentioned - he still maintains his concern on that one because of the peer reviewed science.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e...ampaigner_and_author/

Regards.....Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown
 04 February 2013 09:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

It is important that we look after our environment and there is a lot of environmental regulation in place, and more on the way, to do this. However, if we look to the wider world we are then making it harder for ourselves to compete with other countries who do not share our concern for the environment and this is because our legislation and standards add cost to our businesses.....so it is always a delicate balance to get correct. I think that if we are going to look at history and predict future doom and gloom with regards to the climate then I think we also need to take into account the history of human ingenuity and invention for solving problems.

Regards.
 05 February 2013 09:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
...I think we also need to take into account the history of human ingenuity and invention for solving problems.

But only when humans accept that the problems exist to solve in the first place...

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 05 February 2013 10:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

I found this another interesting read. It is by Professor G. Cornelis van Kooten who holds a chair in Environmental Studies and Climate at Canada's University of Victoria.

Here are some quotes:


What people fail to realize is that the oil and, particularly, the coal companies are the main beneficiaries of policies to address global warming.

My skepticism of the IPCC was vindicated and remains to this day.

I have now encountered a significant number of scientists and others who have been personally attacked and even threatened with violence for their contrary views on climate change, and even more scientists who have contrary views but keep such views to themselves.

Subsequently, the statistical analysis underlying the hockey stick was thoroughly trashed, but there are some who continue to think otherwise (which is disappointing).



The full article is on his web site.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 05 February 2013 10:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

This graphic has been doing the rounds recently. This one is from Jo Nova's site.

If manmade CO2 is really a problem then it is very worrying.

Proposed new coal power stations

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 09 February 2013 10:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



clivebrown

Posts: 21
Joined: 28 October 2001

Originally posted by: amillar

Originally posted by: westonpa

...I think we also need to take into account the history of human ingenuity and invention for solving problems.


But only when humans accept that the problems exist to solve in the first place...


I've recently found that there's lots of climate change info here:-
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange ( the Grantham Institute for Climate Change )

A few quotes from a question/answer discussion with the director of the institute, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, in early Dec'12 (just before the start of the Doha Climate Conference):-

Irrefutable evidence of climate change or just another normal year?
It is too soon to say that there is irrefutable evidence that this collection of extreme events is associated with climate change, and this may remain the case until it is too late to do much about it. However, we can say that some of the events are more likely to occur because of the greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by human activity. I know that some scientists, like high profile NASA climate expert James Hansen, already say there is a definitive link between the occurrence of the extreme events and increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This does a great job of keeping climate change in the news, but to me it goes beyond what we can say with confidence based on current scientific understanding and evidence.
The last record temperatures were recorded in 2010, what are the chances that we'll break these in 2013?
I'll be surprised if we don't get a record year soon. The multi-decadal trend of increasing global temperature is very clear; of the 10 hottest years on record, nine of them have occurred over the last 12 years. If we get another El Nino event in the Pacific 2013 has a high chance of breaking the record. Globally every month since February 1985 has been above the 20th century average temperature, that's 332 consecutive months. Since the 20th century average itself includes the warmer period at the end this makes it even more impressive. It is an amazing statistic!


Do you have a message for the UN climate negotiators at COP18 in Doha?
We need global agreement and action to reduce the impacts of climate change. There are no winners in this game, but without an agreement there will only be losers.
If you talk about 2°C or 4°C warming people say 'oh we can adapt to that', but beyond a certain point the entire climate system will change and we're going to see massively different weather patterns. These thresholds are likely to have really large impacts and we don't want to cross them. However, we don't know what they are or when we might reach them.
Scientists contribute the necessary background research but it's governments that decide what will happen. The Committee on Climate Change, of which I'm a part, has set UK targets based on reducing global CO2 emissions consistent with limiting the risk of a 2°C temperature rise to 50 per cent. It also means a negligible chance of 4°C temperature rise, as it is thought that damaging climate thresholds will have been passed before this point .


Originally posted by: richwin

This graphic has been doing the rounds recently. This one is from Jo Nova's site.



If manmade CO2 is really a problem then it is very worrying.



Proposed new coal power stations


Yes, that is really scary. Does anyone know how much of that 1400GW of new coal is likely to be fitted with CCS?
Or is there some other, less suicidal, way that the human race can 'progress'?
.....But maybe the answer to that should be explored in another forum!
Regards.......Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown
 09 February 2013 12:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

"If you talk about 2°C or 4°C warming people say 'oh we can adapt to that', but beyond a certain point the entire climate system will change and we're going to see massively different weather patterns.
These thresholds are likely to have really large impacts and we don't want to cross them. However, we don't know what they are or when we might reach them."

And yet here we are, all 7 billion of us, living on a relatively small piece of rock travelling through a vacuum at 10's of 1000's of miles per hour and which theoretically started from a tiny spec which exploded in a big bang. We are here because life began and it did adapt and has continued to do so.

What Professor Sir Brian Hoskins says is but one possible version of our future but he is saying it without considering all the other developments which possibly will take place in the future.....he is a pessimist.

Regards.
 09 February 2013 09:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 34
Joined: 13 October 2007

Was that the Professor Sir Brian Hoskins who appeared in the video promotion of the Times Atlas and described it as a 'useful tool against climate change sceptics'.

That was the atlas that erroneously showed Greenland loosing 15% of its ice in only a decade and he failed to notice.
A glowing example of the lack of due diligence climate 'scientists' give to anything that supports their 'message'.
 15 February 2013 07:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Between 2002 and 2010 $120 (£77) million of secret funding was donated to anti-climate groups in the US gu.com/p/3dnyn/tw

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 16 February 2013 12:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
Between 2002 and 2010 $120 (£77) million of secret funding was donated to anti-climate groups in the US gu.com/p/3dnyn/tw
Regards

Did you say it was 'secret'?

Regards.
 16 February 2013 02:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Between 2002 and 2010 $120 (£77) million of secret funding was donated to anti-climate groups in the US gu.com/p/3dnyn/tw



Regards


I quite enjoy the climate, thanks. If we didn't have one we would not exist. With all due respect please remember the audience on this forum has a grounding in mathematics and physics.
Terminology like 'anti-climate' shows you for what you are, an activist that has a closed mind.
Strong langauge but it had to be said.

Regards

Dave
 16 February 2013 11:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Between 2002 and 2010 $120 (£77) million of secret funding was donated to anti-climate groups in the US gu.com/p/3dnyn/tw.

Regards


When considering funding you should also consider:

The $68.4 billion spent by the US federal government between 2008 and 2012? See: The Daily Caller

Or the EU's proposed Euro 200 billion? See: europaeum.org

Then there is this: fairquestions It details some (well, huge quantities, actually) support for environmental organisations, not just AGW supporters.

There was this published about Bill McKibben (of 350.org fame) in WUWT (sorry Geoff ) this week. bill-mckibben-is-not-what-he-s...e-i-catch-him-in-a-lie

This says, amongst other things, that the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy donated $2.7 million to Middlebury College to endow the program in "Environmental Journalism" where McKibben is employed as "Distinguished Scholar." Bill is effectively working on behalf of the Schumann's but he is not officially on their payroll. The Schumann's sponsor a college and the college pays Bill - an estimated $100,000 pa. This helps to obscure the link. That is not his only source of income, by the way.

For further reading look at some of the "legal money laundering" organisations in the US. They take money from donors and pass it on to the intended recipients without having to disclose where it came from. Thus enabling billionaires to support their favourite organisations without anyone finding out. Try searching for critiques of The Joyce Foundation and The Tides Foundation, for instance.

The Joyce Foundation has links to all kinds of people and things you might have heard of like Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, The Chicago Climate Exchange, Al Gore and even Barack Obama.

Wasn't Enron pushing strongly for Kyoto? Unfortunately, nothing happened quickly enough for them so they went bust.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 18 February 2013 06:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
Between 2002 and 2010 $120 (£77) million of secret funding was donated to anti-climate groups in the US gu.com/p/3dnyn/tw

£77 million? A drop in the ocean against the $250 Billion EU 'Climate' spending just announced. A full 20% of their total budget. And remember, that's just the EU. We can expect a similar amount from the loonies in the US administration. So I think it's time for Geoff to put his "well-funded deniers" meme to bed.
 18 February 2013 07:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



clivebrown

Posts: 21
Joined: 28 October 2001

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Between 2002 and 2010 $120 (£77) million of secret funding was donated to anti-climate groups in the US gu.com/p/3dnyn/tw


£77 million? A drop in the ocean against the $250 Billion EU 'Climate' spending just announced. A full 20% of their total budget. And remember, that's just the EU. We can expect a similar amount from the loonies in the US administration. So I think it's time for Geoff to put his "well-funded deniers" meme to bed.



That link (the 'announced' one!) is certainly worth looking at.....contains encouraging news from the US on:-

1) President Obama's State of the Union address - two brief quotes....
WASHINGTON, DC, February 12, 2013 (ENS) - In a State of the Union Address focused on rebuilding the U.S. economy, President Barack Obama tonight pledged to fight climate change "while driving strong economic growth."
"For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change," Obama told a joint session of Congress, with his Cabinet, the Supreme Court justices and the Joint Chiefs of Staff also present.......


"We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science - and act before it's too late,"





2) The appointment of 'Climate Champion' Senator John Kerry as the new Secretary of State. One brief quote....
"Global climate change and energy security are two of the greatest challenges facing the United States today. America's contributions to global climate change and our oil dependence are endangering our national security, our economy and our environment," Kerry says on his website. "But the global climate crisis is more than an urgent scientific imperative; it is also a tremendous economic opportunity to secure America's leadership in creating the low-carbon global economy and our future prosperity."


I don't consider that very loony; in fact its some of the best news I've read from the USA for quite a while.

Regards......Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown
 18 February 2013 11:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: clivebrown

... in fact its some of the best news I've read from the USA for quite a while.

If you mean the bit about:


Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science ...


then I agree.

The climate debate is like a medieval war. In those circumstances both sides thought that God was on their side. God has now been replaced by science. (Where is Richard Dawkins when you need him?)

Science says that between certain times the global average surface temperature anomaly has increased. Do you think the general public actually understand what that means?

If you compare temperature to voltage for instance (bad analogy but it's a start) then what would be the meaning of the average voltage of a circuit board? Voltages would be measured only at a small number of test points. So consider two test points at 12V and one at 6V.
Average is (12+12+6)/3 = 10V. So far so good.

Suppose we add another test point and it proves to be 14V.
Average is now (12+12+6+14)/4 = 11V. That is how you "prove" that this is the hottest year on record in the US, by the way.

Is that useful?

Let's get it closer to what the climate scientists do. This time let's try to measure power by using V^2 (voltage squared). Climatologists try to measure energy by using T^4 and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

First, average the day and night values, then divide the circuit board up into square grid cells. Next interpolate or extrapolate the original test points to get a voltage figure for the grid cells. Then subtract a past average value for the current day from the current value and assign that to the grid cell. Then add up all the grid voltages so far calculated and divide by the number of cells. Square the value to get the power. Feel free to make corrections to any voltages at any point in the calculation if you want to.

Hands up all those who think that the circuit board's "power" calculated in that way would be a useful measure of anything.

In climatology, they have the situation where a degree rise at the equator combined with a degree fall at the poles results in an energy increase while a fall at the equator and an increase at the poles gives an energy decrease because of the way anomalies and T^4 interact.

So when "the scientists" tell us that the global average surface temperature anomaly could increase by 0.07 degrees per decade what should we really think? More energy? Less energy? No difference? Disaster, status quo, part of a cycle, within acceptable bounds, exceptional, unprecedented, natural variability ...?

When you combine the interesting way of forming an average with the problems of station siting, stations moving, heat islands, varying numbers of thermometers over time, operator errors (missing a few days, reporting deg C as deg F etc) equipment changes producing step changes in readings, raw data being "lost" and then how to combine that with tree ring data where you get only one reading per year and temperature is mixed up with rainfall and other growth-related issues then how many people can honestly put their hands on their hearts and say they understand what the figures mean - or how they claim the accuracy that they do?

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 20 February 2013 12:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

This isn't what I originally wanted to post, had trouble embeding links:

Energy crisis

Obama critic

Check the Marc Morano link in the last article, I would link here but the forum software hangs.

And finally:
It's the Sun stupid

Edited: 24 February 2013 at 05:30 PM by HazelGroveWolf
 24 February 2013 02:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Even Rajendra Pachauri thinks that global warming is on a break at the moment.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 24 February 2013 01:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

That article may have been supported by an 'anti-climate' group!

Regards.
 24 February 2013 02:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Indeed. In the absense of any warming this century the scaremongerers have moved onto blaming perfectly normal weather events on man-made CO2. Despite all records showing zero trend in severe weather. There hasn't been such an appalling outbreak of medieval superstition and anti-science since the salem witch trials: "We never had floods or droughts round here until those witches moved in". The desperate warmists are now relying on the public's poor memory of weather - coupled with the global proliferation of personal video cameras and youtube - to brainwash the gullable with non-stop footage of floods and storms that would never have been reported 10 years ago. Expect an E&T issue on "extreme weather" sponsored by Vestas any month now - if they haven't had one already.
IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

<< 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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