[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

Z11, if nothing else, you win the award for sustained callousness in the face of other peoples suffering.

Your question (again) highlights your willingness to cut and past the first thing you find that seems to support your argument without stopping to think first.

Sea levels are rising.

Because the oceans are a complex system this has different effects in different places.

It is not just as simple as a few millimeters of average rise that we have to worry about. In some places there is a much bigger change to the tidal range, so high tides are much higher (like tens of cm) higher than they have been. Combined with increased storms due to more frequent El Nino years this is having devastating effects in areas like Bangladesh.

Nils-Axel Mörner is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).

Mörner has published books and papers on the interaction among isostacy and eustasy, the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe, the changing geoid concept, the redefinition of the concept of eustasy, the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses, and the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and solid Earth. His publications span over thirty years. His most cited paper has been cited about 30 times in early 2008. At that time his Hirsch index, as ascertained with Google Scholar, was 9, meaning that nine of his papers which are in the Google Scholar system had been cited 9 or more times by other papers in Google Scholar.

I think he is just a tad more qualified than you TJ! 🙄

Doesn't stop him being a total crank and that is not many citations. His most cited paper had 30 citations? Says it all.

google his name and you see what a crank he is

Seeing as this thread is full of folk copy and pasting I'll do a bit.

Nils-Axel Morner

Morner claims to be an expert in "dowsing," the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig.

Morner's attempt to prove his dowsing abilities is chronicled by James Randi, the well-known myth buster, who has offered the longstanding One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Research and Background

Morner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Morner has published 65+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of paleoseismicity, [b]in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.[/b]
Morner and the NRSP

Listed as an "allied expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

DeSmog uncovered information that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project [b]are registered energy industry lobbyists and senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”[/b]

From http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

and lots more where this came from

So what you are saying is that Scientists will relinquish their morals to tailor data to sway evidence in a particular direction? And that is different from UEA and IPCC how?

What I am saying is you need to weight the importance you attach to the research depending on how honest you believe the people to be, how good their research is, what their qualifications are, how many folk agree with them and a pinch of common sense.

I like the research I look at to be rigorous, valid and reliable - all of which have precise meanings in scientific research Morners stuff appears to be none of these

Still - carry on with your laughable attempts to deny the truth. Its highly amusing to me.

Scientists contribute to the IPCC on a voluntary (unpaid) basis. Which is probably a good sign.

TJ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You can't accuse people of disregarding the science whilst playing the ad hominem game and ignoring all the [i]peer reviewed[/i] research that doesn't support your theory.

RPRT

Combined with increased storms due to more frequent El Nino years

Peer reviewed source please! There's no proven causal link between weather and extreme climate events -

Correlation is not causality!
Weather is not climate!

TJ, to be honest i have seen a number of your posts on other subjects so know that debating with you is not really worth while. However it does make me laugh how anyone who disagrees with your views is suddenly labelled a crank or an idiot. Very blinkered of you.

What I am saying is you need to weight the importance you attach to the research depending on how honest you believe the people to be

I like the research I look at to be rigorous, valid and reliable

So by that then you would agree that the IPCC and UEA research should now be viewed with deep sceptisism?

When 100 say white and 10 say black and the 100 have rigorous reliable and valid research and the ten do not its easy to see where the truth lies.

still - carry on. Are you a real contortionist or merely a mental one?

This has to be the funniest thread on here ever. You really are laughable in your naivety - or is it a superb troll?

As i said, pointless debating with you. 😯

Hainey I approach all research with open minded scepticism. that's how I was trained along with being given the mental tools to assess the research. Yes the revelations about the stuff you mention means any sensible person will be sceptical about it. Still the overwhelming mass of evidence is on their side and the distortions they made are tiny in comparison to the distortions from the deniers.

I shall leave you to it now. and just carry on laughing at your pathetic attempts to prove black is white.

hainey - Member

As i said, pointless debating with you

whats that phrase about kettles and pots again?

I shall leave you to it now

Goodbye 😉

that debating with you is not really worth while.

Says the person who refuses to answer direct questions - have a little self awareness.
We did the crank above and he was actually disowned by the organisation he worked for and the article HE PUBLISHED - that means he could not get it published - the article was eventuall picked up and published in the journal which includes this in it's latest issue

British Crown Peddles Hitler-Style Genocide- Shocking documentation of the Crown's calls for reducing world population by several billion people in the short term

Jan. 2—As the New Year begins, there is an unmistakable pattern of British-provoked asymmetric warfare around the globe, particularly in the aftermath of the Monarchy's failure at the December 2009 Copenhagen conference on global warming. At the Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad & Tobago in November, Queen Elizabeth II stepped directly onto the world stage, to declare, on behalf of the British Monarchy, "We are in charge." But just weeks later, the British failed miserably in their attempt to use Copenhagen to strike a death blow against the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states, and to depopulate the planet.

Since Copenhagen, the British have launched a new global "strategy of tensions," beginning with the physical assault against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and then, against Pope Benedict XVI. A senior U.S. intelligence source warned that the targeting of Berlusconi and the Pope signaled a new round of British destabilizations against all of continental Europe. When London goes to war against continental Europe, it always starts with Italy, a U.S. intelligence source elaborated. Since the end of World War II, Italy has been the weak link on the continent. "Love him or hate him," the source explained, "Prime Minister Berlusconi has brought a degree of stability to Italian politics, that is unprecedented in the last half-century. The targeting of Berlusconi, followed by the assault upon the Pope, delivers an unmistakable message: Italy is in London's crosshairs."

IT does indeed strike me as a little unbalanced - poorest reference used on this entire thread AGAIN - laughabally funny publication though - even the Daily mash has never come up with something that daft.
Do you really want someone like this on your side? And published in that magazine

See here and the page after
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/13

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21285895/Global-Warming-and-Sea-level-Rise-by-Madhav-Khandekar-Canada

Scientific study, peer reviewed, published - the works!

the best guess value of SLR from now until 2025 is estimated to be just about 30 mm with a 95% confidence
interval of +/?10 mm. This estimate is significantly lower than the range projected by the IPCC fourth assessment report in 2007. In terms of climate policy, [b]such a value of future sea level rise poses no major threat to the coastal regions or low-lying countries (e.g.Bangladesh,[/b] The Maldives, Tuwalu) of the world at present or in the foreseeable future.

Go junkyard go! More power to your organ!

In Fact:

1. Holgate (2007): This study examines nine long and almost continuous sea-level
records to obtain SLR estimates for the period 1904–2003. The rate of SLR was
found to be larger in the first half of the 20th century (2.03 +/? 0.34 mm/yr
1904–1953) than in the second half of the century (1.45 +/? 0.34 mm/yr
1954–2003). According to Holgate, the highest decadal rate of rise occurred in
the decade centered on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) while the lowest rate of rise occurred
in the decade centered on 1964 (?1.49 mm/yr).
2. Wunsch et al (2007): This comprehensive study obtains regional estimates of
sea level trends using over 100 million data points generated by a 23-layer
general circulation model with a 1° horizontal resolution. The general circulation
model uses many different types of data including salinity, sea surface
temperature, satellite altimetry and Argo float profiles over a period 1993–2004.
The study finds large regional variability, governed by thermal, salinity and mass
redistribution contribution. Based on a careful analysis of such a large data base,
the authors obtain a global mean value of SLR as 1.6 mm/yr which is about 60%
of the pure altimetric estimate of 2.8 mm/yr, as mentioned earlier. The authors
also identify several uncertainties and regional variations in the altimetric data
and conclude that “it remains possible that the database is insufficient to
compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of
global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be”
3. Jevrejeva et al (2008): In this study the authors examine the global sea level
acceleration in the context of recent satellite data (TOPEX/Poseidon) and conclude
that present sea level acceleration (~0.01mm/yr2) began over 200 years ago. The
authors suggest that if this sea level acceleration continues, then a value of 34 cm
for the total SLR by the end the 21st century would be expected. The authors
further suggest faster sea level rise than IPCC estimates due to thermal inertia of
oceans and higher melt rates from Greenland Ice Sheets.
4. Wopplemann et al (2008): This study examines one of the world’s longest tide
gauge records, at Brest (France), and concludes that the Brest tide gauge is stable
over the period 1889–2007. These authors further conclude that the sea level rise
at Brest has been at a constant rate for over 100 years and as such the rise does not
appear to be influenced by rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 of the last fifty years.

Of course, the science is settled!

I guess you can quote from Energy and Environment if you can't find a proper journal.

I prefer the Daily Mash myself 🙂

Well, of course - if the collaborators at nature refuse to allow anyone to publish anything that disagrees with their own views, they're gonna have to find an alternative journal aren't they 😉

If the paper wasn't such dog-w@nk it would be accepted elsewhere, even when you take account of the global conspiracy.

dog-w@nk

Wow, thats a phrase you don't hear very often.

Zulu - are you now agreeing the sea level is rising or not? You seemed to be denying it earlier or at least quoted people who denied it.

Sorry, first phrase that came to mind 😉

You [b]seemed[/b] to be denying it earlier or [i][b]at least [/b]quoted people who denied it.
[/i]

What's that TJ - are you tripping over your own straw man?

Sorry, first phrase that came to mind

No no, wasn't critisising, was just wondering how you came up with such uniqueness?

It was actually a phrase that I learnt from my bank manager whilst at uni! I was begging for money as usual and, whilst I was doing chemistry he was reasonably happy to sort out an overdraft assuming I'd get a job, eventually. However, he then went into a tirade about 'certain' degree courses, which he described using that colourful phrase, and how it would make them less likely to loan money.

That was 20 years ago so I must have logged it in the memory banks as a potentially useful phrase.

Zulu - you quote people who deny sea levels are rising then you quote people who say they are. Which do you believe? its a really simple question.

I'm not the one playing debating tricks or setting up straw men.

TJ - i've reached the opinion that people like Epicyclo, Hainey, and Mr 11 are actually plants - sent here to encourage a greater understanding of science... i for one am finding the process very educational.

thanks guys!

Skepticism is essential for good science, unless it tips over into denial that is.

".......individual actions are based upon the beliefs of the person acting and if the beliefs are unsupported by evidence then such beliefs can lead to destructive actions........."

I agree with that ... I think?

I said:

It is not just as simple as a few millimeters of average rise that we have to worry about. In some places there is a much bigger change to the tidal range, so high tides are much higher (like tens of cm) higher than they have been. Combined with increased storms due to more frequent El Nino years this is having devastating effects in areas like Bangladesh.

and Z11 said:

Peer reviewed source please! There's no proven causal link between weather and extreme climate events

Anyway, we all know that sea levels ARE rising (don't we Z11?), and we all know that there have been more El Nino years than la Nina years lately (don't we Z11?) And higher sea levels + more storms = more damage. So I'm not really sure what you are asking for? I've simply stated a few FACTS (nothing to do with models or projections - actual observed events).

A better definition is

Scientific skepticism uses critical thinking and inductive reasoning while attempting to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis

It would be rude not to get to 1000 now 🙂

hope that helped!

Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental!

😆

don't let this thread die - it deserves 1000 posts purely for being the most ridiculous argument ever seen on here.
surely you can find a few more bits of bobbins to post?

[i]When 100 say white and 10 say black and the 100 have rigorous reliable and valid research and the ten do not its easy to see where the truth lies.[/i]

But it isn't. Science advances in various ways but it's often the guy/girl that makes a pataphysical intellectual leap that takes science forward. Scientific "truth" is simply the theory that is the best fit hypothesis of those currently available.

Wishing the polluters suffer the consequences of their actions is not allowed on this forum and insulting my adversaries intelligence would reveal a lack of it bei mir so I'm stuck with supporting the hypothesis I see as best fit. You never know, of all the people that follow this thread a few may decide to do something, with what was written here as one of the factors influencing their choice.

Thats what I'm hoping.

Would hate to think that the many hours (!) I've put into this thread were a complete waste of time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm

Why withhold information?

raw data is at best totally meaningless, at worst it can be misleading.

and handing over raw data to people with an agenda would be careless - we can all hazard a guess at how climatesceptic.com would 'process' the data...

raw data is at best totally meaningless, at worst it can be misleading.

I'm glad we agree!

I presume you'd also agree that adjusted raw data is totally meaningless unless all adjustments are recorded, justified and explained - otherwise its impossible to repeat the process.

and handing over raw data to people with an agenda would be careless

You mean people like Phil Jones and the CRU? 😆

😆

After almost 1000 posts, I remain unconvinced that our accelerated output of CO2 has had any significant impact on the weather, climate, whatever you want to call it.

There is no actual scientific proof of this, merely speculation.

I do not advocate wasteful behaviour however!

I maintain that we should all conserve natural resources where possible as fuel will not last forever, but I detest the thought police who tell us that recklessly wasting fossil fuels will kill the planet. This is a lie designed to relieve us of money, but I doubly detest the selfish numbskulls who barrel round in huge engined vehicles just to massage their inflated egos. Then add all the other people who pointlessly waste energy.

We really need to cut out this stupid behaviour. I'm talking about turning the heating down and switching it off earlier, putting on extra clothes. Insulating and draught proofing our homes to the highest standards. Walking/cycling more often. Driving sedately and at reduced speeds, deferring journeys until several needs arise to travel to one place. Considering commuting distances when changing jobs. Taking a short shower and not a bath. Not washing everyday (if you have been sedentary and haven't been sweating). Reducing the washing and ironing by wearing clothes more than once. Filling the kettle with just the water you require, not full to the brim every time. Cutting down on foreign travel. Buying products that won't end up as landfill in a short period of time, but spending more on tangible high quality products and buying much less often. Buying more foods that are locally produced and avoiding excessive packaging etc etc....

There are loads if things we can all do which collectively would add up to a big reduction in consumption, but it all takes effort and consideration and the selfish people will greedily consume because they arrogantly feel they are above considering anyone else! It takes a lot of self control not to cave in to the slick marleting campaigns. You just have to ask yourself, "do I really need this new item". The answer is most often no. It's about self-discipline, self-control.

Forget this "save the planet" nonsense, it's our existence that we need to worry about as the planet will still be here long after we wipe ourselves out.

The main issue is population control. We need to arrest the increase in the world's population immediately. If left unchecked, we'll be so overpopulated that we'll eventually run out of food. If one thing is going to accelerate the consumption of precious resources, it's going to be having lots more people around to do this! We need a world population growth summit.

There is no actual scientific proof of this, merely speculation.

but I detest the thought police who tell us that recklessly wasting fossil fuels will kill the planet. This is a lie designed to relieve us of money

Genuinely what would convince you or Hainey or Z-11 can you all answer I am intrigued what would be enough to persuade - one answer each helps us get to 1000