It's global cooling, not warming!

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 seemed to be denying it earlier or at least quoted people who denied it.

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

I doubt anyone disagrees with that –
As a pointless aside skeptism is inconsistent as ultimately you must also be skeptical about the claim you should be skeptical – that is doubt that also as an axiom- and we kind of end up nowhere but that would be an epistomological matter- hope that helped!
Are we just trying to get to get to 1000 now

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?

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.

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.

no scientific proof of anything is there have you read your thread 😯
It is more than speculation though there is plenty of data on one side and a reasonable explantion versus denial and it all being a natural cycle[despite the new varaible of man made C02 not being part of the previous natural cycles]on the other side.

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

Yes it is the lizard people what done it as governments stuggle to come up with reasons to tax us – I mean it is not for schools, health, roads, army, social services, police prison is it 🙄 – thanks for clearing that one up.

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

It is more than speculation though there is plenty of data on one side and a reasonable explantion versus denial

I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

Genuinely what would convince you

A time machine, because in our lifetime we won't find out.

… and while we're at it.

Man landing on the moon? WTF is all that about??? I'd like to see some evidence of that too 😉

edit,sorry

and I will cherish you insulting the qualified scientist on here for their inabilty to understand science whilst refusing to give your qualification on the subject..it is up there with you posting a graph from a paper that disagreed with your interpretation of it.
However my favourite is you challenging me to use special maths to show that the 11 years between 1998 – 2008 were not the last ten years. Spectacular
yes and those doctors , cancer and smoking
I mean we did have cancer before we smoked didn't we …it is just a natural cycle and them seeing a pattern where there is none. I mean can you prove smoking causes cancer well can YOU!

ahwiles said:

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…

Very true, except that, there never was any destroyed data. It doesn't take much searching to find out that all of the "lost" data was in fact still available from the original sources. It was only the CRU paper copies of the data that was thrown out.

I can totally understand why the CRU experts wouldn't want to hand over their work to the likes of hainey for interpretation.

But wasn't it convenient that this whole thing blew up just before Copenhagen? At any other time it would have been a storm in a tea-cup and the story would have been corrected before it got out of hand, but when half the world's media were on the look out for a "climategate" type story it was a gift for them. A brilliant (and I mean that in a Dr Moriarty type way) bit of propaganda by someone, who of course remains unknown. (why isn't anyone looking into who actually leaked all that stuff?)

I'm fully expecting similar "revelations" before the next climate conference.

Cancer and smoking is actually a really interesting parallel Junkyard, because I've done some of the research 🙂

First, there was a trend identified within the population, with higher cancer amongst smokers.

this theory was explored through use of an animal model, that allowed them to remove all variables -randomisation of groups, varying dose levels, control groups, multiple species – scientifically recorded data, GLP regulations, annotation of data, signatures, internal and external Quality Assurance, data and facilities audits, etc. etc.

The key factor is this – after the removal of all variables, in a multi level dose study with control groups – cigarette smoke causes higher cancer rates for selected cancer types. The animal research model, without variables, reflected the real world human results.

Thats how you get around all the problems with correlation and causality – you test it, in a controlled fashion, with a scientific control group removing all variables

Do you see the problem here with your comparison!

Do you get the fooking idea yet? do you get where your interpretation of how science works has failed?

Do you understand how poor your understanding of how we do climate research is?

A computer model trying to recreate and add in all variables in a climate system we do not fully understand, is not the same as a model removing all variables and running with a known, randomised control group.

If I suggested that the next drug that came on the market could be tested on a computer model of the human system (a system so complex that we really, really don't understand how everything works) without any final validation against animal models and finally healthy human volunteers, and I told you that it the model was completely reliable, and the drug wouldn't give you cancer (a disease so complex that we really. really don't understand how everything works) – would you accept my "science" as reliable or not!

Do you see the problem here with your comparison!

I see the problem.

The problem is that we don't have several Earths that we can monitor as we eliminate various unknowns (maybe trees on one, plankton on another, geological activity on another etc.) to finally get a definitive answer re' CO2.

Of course this might also take a bit more time as well as the cycle times of some processes on earth, such as flushing CO2 from the deep oceans, takes around 800 years, which I believe is longer than the lifecycle of a rat?

Here's an interesting question for you. How many fewer people would have died of lung cancer if the authorities had decided to start acting on smoking when the levels of confidence re' cancer were only 95% rather than virtually certainty?

Junkyard, I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

Yes it is the lizard people what done it as governments stuggle to come up with reasons to tax us – I mean it is not for schools, health, roads, army, social services, police prison is it – thanks for clearing that one up.

No, it's not! Most is wasted on people who sit on their backsides claiming every benefit available from the stupidly soft benefit system we operate in this country. And then there are MP's! Civil servants bonuses etc etc etc.

Then there is the jaw dropping waste and inefficiency on government projects.

What about the £4Bn that Gordon has pledged to aid developing countries to adopt green practices? That was a dumb move seeing as we have an enourmous "out of control" public deficit.

1K 🙂