The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

[hutch]

Cheer up......

 

[Sheather]

Cheer up......

 

 

Haha! Love the vid Hutch.

[hutch]

I'm quite happy to go on the record as believing that the current catastrophic Queensland flooding has been made much worse than it might otherwise have been, by the warming that we've had even just to date. The oceans temperatures off Australia are an enormous heat engine that is driving the evaporation of the water in the present El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation cycle responsible for the rain. If we keep warming the planet, ocean temperaures with themselves warm even further, and instead of this type of flooding happening evern century or so, it could happen every decade or two. Can we really deal with that?

 

From the BoM's own website......Seems it does flood often but you are so quick to blame man....

http://www.bom.gov.a...e_history.shtml

Thanks for the nudge...I'm really enjoying doing this research.....the more I read the more wrong I think you are...was the industrial age around in the 1840's...think not but I do think it a big call from you to link this flooding to your religion...The beauty of all this is I plan on being around in the next 5 or so year's and I predict in that time your science will be junked and ridiculed by the whole of man kind. You can apologize to me then

I now plan on starting my own thread for skeptics to post links to this fraud as it is uncovered..

Thanks again mate you have really motivated me to get off my arse and help save man kind....

[WoodDragon]

Hutch, the fact that you use Tim Ball as a source of information is absolutely hilarious to anyone with some understanding of climatology. Find out here why he is such a laughing stock in science. It's going to take you about two hours of reading, but he has been so consistently stupid in even basic science that I couldn't begin to summarise his idiocy here. It would instantly double the size of this thread just for the executive summary.

One point on Ball though - his link to Charles Anderson's piece at Michigan State University is spurious. All that Anderson is saying is that the general undergraduate population these days is clueless, and does not have a grasp of scientific basics, including in carbon chenistry. I completely agree. There is a small percentage that do have a clue, but most come in from high school as completely scientifically-illiterate as are you. Some improve before they finish, some don't, and many drop out or change to a non-science degree.

This fact of the poor education of high school leavers doesn't disprove climate change. How could it?

On your link to the site where John O'Sullivan said that the UK government gagged the press about the forecasts for this norther winter, well, two points. First, that's politics, not science, even if the allegations are true. Second, the cold winter over Europe is not evidence against global warming, as

. Watch, and learn. You might need to watch several times.

On your post at #123:

1) Read it and weep

2) Read it and weep some more

3) Keep weeping and weeping... and weeping and weeping

4) The statement:

The observation that a global warming or cooling trend can be discerned from seasonal weather patterns seems to be unique to me and will be dealt with in more detail in my next article

is meaningless drivel without any specifics or evidence, and it is simply chest-beating. On CO2 and its forcing of climate - better get the box of tissues out.

In the post after that you mention Heinz Thieme. Bad move. His nonsense has also been soundly refuted. Thieme's mates Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who promote basically the same pseudoscientific misunderstandings of thermodynamics, have been also been completely debunked.

If you don't have calculus under your belt you might be in trouble understanding why. If your algebra is rusty, you're stuffed. If you can't remember your high school logarithms, you shouldn't even be pretending that the garbage that you're dredging up is actually mathematically correct. You might think that you're being clever posting this seemingly smart load of pig's bollocks, but to any scientist who has actually completed first year undergrad maths your challenges to the science are purile and ignorant babblings.

The only reason that Thieme, Gerlich and Tscheuschner get away with it is that the people who believe their crap are more clueless still.

Seems it does flood often but you are so quick to blame man....

You are one of the most amazingly willing people I know to demonstrate his own cluelessness. Look at the peaks on those graphs and consider when the various dams upstream of Brisbane were installed. I'll give you some input into this - the Wivenhoe dam was constructed after the 1974 flood in order to stop flooding events damaging Brisbane again. The reason that there has been a tailing off of flood peaks in Brisbane since that time is the collective action of Wivenhoe and other dams and flood controls. This week's water volume is roughly twice that of 1974 though - the only reason that the peak isn't going to be metres higher than 1974 is that a huge amount of the extra water is sitting behind the Wivenhoe dam, waiting to be released when the rest of the flood waters go out into Morton Bay.

And if you had any familiarity with the issue, you'd understand that the issue is to do with the intensity of flood events, more than their frequency. This summer's rains are extraordinary in their intensity. Ask a Queenslander.

Idiot.

Learn how to correctly analyse data.

I now plan on starting my own thread for skeptics to post links to this fraud as it is uncovered..

Go for it. * If you manage to collect enough nonsense on it I'll be using it on sites outside of the Corroborree as an example of concentrated Stupidity.

In all of your blather I note that you don't actually ever put forward any defensible physics. Your link to Thieme does not unfortunately count as physics, because as the many links that I have provided to you for your learning pleasure show, his paper and Gerlich's and Tscheuschner's are the physics equivalent of 2 + 2 = 7.

Why is it that you can't actually say why it is that the physics of climate change is wrong? Why is is that you steadfastly refuse to answer my challenge to you on the reliability of the US temperature record? Why is it that you cannot simply state your case for why it is that there is no human-caused global warming?

[Edit:

* Perhaps out of respect for Torsten you should start your own blog instead - or better yet, why don't you just save everyone some effort and just take residence on one of the many numpty denialist sites that infest the internet? You see, you'll be posting your links for years without any actual scientific point ever being made (in all likelihood you'll be recycling the same tropes over and over), and it'll just make the Corroborree look stupid to be hosting your idiocy.]

Edited January 12, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

OMG did I hit some hot buttons... careful you don't add to climate change with your raging temper.. why do you think everybody else but your small group of scientist's is fucking stupid? Anyway, check out my new thread coming soon...it will get your blood really boiling....careful now...don't pop

[hutch]

"You are one of the most amazingly willing people I know to demonstrate his own cluelessness. Look at the peaks on those graphs and consider when the various dams upstream of Brisbane were installed".

The flood plains are now covered in houses, roadways, concrete and steel.....no dams and this would have been a way worse tragedy yes? But that does not mean to say we have had more rain than we have had 200 years ago....NO!

We built houses over our most productive land...smart hey?

[WoodDragon]

We built houses over our most productive land...smart hey?

Hutch, for once your opinion coincides with mine, and I've just made a similar point on the population thread.

I've always said that flood plains should be for farming - Sydney is another (huge) example of a criminal loss of scarce productive Australian soil.

You'll get no argument from me on this.

[hutch]

[Edit:

* Perhaps out of respect for Torsten you should start your own blog instead - or better yet, why don't you just save everyone some effort and just take residence on one of the many numpty denialist sites that infest the internet? You see, you'll be posting your links for years without any actual scientific point ever being made (in all likelihood you'll be recycling the same tropes over and over), and it'll just make the Corroborree look stupid to be hosting your idiocy.]

 

Your kidding! Doesn't conform to your view of the world so I should be shut down ....Is Nazi Germany that close to being reserected from the ashes? How dare you use Torsten as a weapon to silence me. You and your like are the very reason there is so much doubt on this subject and why the science may be floored...

Sorry pal but I have tried to be straight up and only ad to the topic of discussion since last nights crap, hence my links and they were relevant to topic. Just cause you disagree doesn't mean I should go away and it just proves to me how shallow your argument is.....It's just insultsand thats how you want to win..make me look foolish and discredit every one who doesn't conform...straight out of your hand book. Maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong but I want to know the truth and I don't care much for people who brag...I mean, how do we know you are even a scientist and not some naughty little boy with too much time on his hands who has been brain washed by some way left wing teacher? Your responses are starting to make me think so...Smart words on the internet don't make a smart man

[WoodDragon]

How dare you use Torsten as a weapon to silence me.

I wasn't trying to silence you. I was trying to save the Corroborree the embarassment of being a repository for scientific nonsense.

Maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong but I want to know the truth

Then start reading the links that I've provided. You haven't let anything in to your mind so far, so how do you possibly image that you might actually fnd "the truth"?

thats how you want to win..make me look foolish

I don't have to make you do anything. You're doing it all by yourself.

And I don't want to win. I just want people, who might otherwise be taken in by your guff, to know that the truth is rather different to you take on matters.

I mean, how do we know you are even a scientist...

Oh, you're right. I am really a burger-flipper.

Go and read the "Getting high off HIV" thread. It might help to give you a clue. For your info, Hutch, I've done a decade and a half of biomedical research in addition to more than a decade of ecology. It even says "Biologist" on my tax returns and census forms. It might piss you off to hear it, but I am a scientist.

Smart words on the internet don't make a smart man

No, they don't.

But a smart man should know smart words when they're presented to him, and how to figure out that those words really do give an indication of the truth.

[WoodDragon]

On denialism.

All you could ever want on deconstructing denialism. Go away, spend a month reading it and it's blogroll, and try to let some enlightenment enter your mind.

[hutch]

On denialism.

All you could ever want on deconstructing denialism. Go away, spend a month reading it and it's blogroll, and try to let some enlightenment enter your mind.

 

Attack attack attack....sorry but I want to look at all the science not just what you say is right..... lets bring on some debate

[WoodDragon]

Hutch, seriously... just for a second.

I am not trying to brainwash you, or to just bitch-slap you for my own jollies, or to show off in front of everyone, or whatever else it is that you seem to think that I am doing.

I know this stuff. I've spend more time doing various uni degrees and diplomas that you've spent in both primary and high school (unless you repeated years a lot), and as I indicated above I've worked for decades in science. I know the underlying principles of climate physics as they pertain to human-caused global warming, and I know what the biological and the ecological effects will be of the rapid warming the we are responsible for. I especially know what the biological and the ecological effects will be of the rapid warming the we are responsible for...

I simply want to try to make the world a slightly better place for my kids, and for the kids of my friends and of everyone else on this planet, that it will otherwise be if we do not grab the bull by the horns and do somthing about our emissions.

Humans managed to do something about acid rain caused by sulphate emissions, and about ozone depletion caused by halocarbon emissions. We should be able to do something about our carbon emissions too, but because it challenges the pockets and/or the ideologies of so many people more ancompared with the previous two examples, we're probably going to be far too late in doing anything useful.

If you can live with that, then that's cool for you. If you truly do not want to see the sort of action that it would take to fix the emissions problem, then just admit itd work from that position. Please note though that when acid rain and ozone depletion were each identified, there were many (libertarians and vested interests) who said that we'd be rooned, and we'd lose all of our freedoms. In fact, industry profited from both forms of emissions control, and no-one'sfreedoms were lost.

Don't pretend though that you're concerned about some scientific fraud or conspiracy, because it just isn't the case. If you truly believe that it is, you should be talking to more real scientists to discover the truth, and not reading the ravings of tabloid hacks, of retired emeriti who are slipping into dotage, of partisan and/or religious ideologues, or of transnational vested interests. If there's a real problem with the science, teh way to find it is to interrogate the science. You can even keep your own opinion whilst you do so (no-one will demand that you submit to the mind-meld before they answer your questions).

If you're fair dinkum about learning, you'll discover that nasty sciency-types like me won't even call you names.

And not calling you names would probably make me happier than it would you.

[WoodDragon]

Attack attack attack....sorry but I want to look at all the science not just what you say is right..... lets bring on some debate

Debate? Your own statement is internally inconsistent, for goodness' sake!

You want to debate, but you don't want to look at the science that I say is right?!

For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I say that the vast body of mainstream climate science is "right", or at least as right as objective people are currently able to ascertain. That means just about "all" science - what doesn't fall into that category fits into the garbage bin in the corner that's filled with 'quantum healing' and 'perpetual motion' machines.

So what you're saying is that you'll debate me, but not using science?

Do you realise how silly you're making yourself appear?

[WoodDragon]

Hutch, I'm curious.

What percentage of the links that I've supplied have you actually attempted to read and understand?

If you have tried to read them, how much time did you spend doing so?

[synchromesh]

On denialism.

All you could ever want on deconstructing denialism. Go away, spend a month reading it and it's blogroll, and try to let some enlightenment enter your mind.

 

Pretty lame dude...

[WoodDragon]

Pretty lame dude..

Why?

[Slybacon]

WD - You never addressed my question on page 5?

[hutch]

UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims'

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

http://www.timesonli...icle6999975.ece

This is fraud...clear and simple and again reinforces those doubts that this is all a con...money money money...

[hutch]

[hutch]

. I have posted the original plan for HAARP in another thread that I will find when I get home from work. In this "executive Summary" all possible uses Military, Public and GOVT are disclosed and some of them are quite frankly alarming.

 

Just did a bit of reading now on this HAARP...I would imagine the power to destroy a countries food crops at the flick of a switch would be a very powerful tool to have in your arsenal. Communications they say hey....

Love to see the "executive Summary" when you can post it...

[Slybacon]

Love to see the "executive Summary" when you can post it...

 

HAARP Official Executive Summary

Extracts from the above link.....

- Oblique heating to produce effects on radio wave propagation at great distances from a HF heater, thus broadening the potential military applications of ionospheric enhancement technology.

- One gigawatt of effective-radiated-power represents an important threshold power level, over which significant wave generation and electron acceleration efficiencies can be achieved, and other significant heating effects can be expected.

- The program will be jointly managed by the Navy and the Air Force. However, because of the wide variety of issues to be addressed, active participation of the government agencies, universities, and private contractors is envisioned.

- The heart of the program will be the development of a unique ionospheric heating capability to conduct the pioneering experiments required to adequately assess the potential for exploiting ionospheric enhancement technology for DOD (Dept. of Defense) purposes.

- the most exciting and challenging aspect of ionospheric enhancement is its potential to control ionospheric processes

- A key ingredient of the DOD program is the goal of identifying and investigating those ionospheric processes and phenomena that can be exploited for such purposes.

- In addition to its potential application to long range, survivable, DOD communications, there is another potentially attractive application of strong ELF/VLF waves generated in the ionosphere by ground-based heaters. It is known that ELF/VLF signals generated by lightning strokes propagate through the ionosphere and interact with charged Particles trapped along geomagnetic field lines, causing them, from time to time, to precipitate into the lower ionosphere.

Nikola Tesla anyone???

Further more to the discussion on "global Warming" I have yet to see methane come into the equation, Of which most of the methane gas in the atmosphere comes from under the ocean, it lends to the theory of Global Warming being a natural process..... just some food for thought is all.....

Edited January 13, 2011 by Slybacon

[hutch]

HAARP Official Executive Summary

Extracts from the above link.....

Nikola Tesla anyone???

Further more to the discussion on "global Warming" I have yet to see methane come into the equation, Of which most of the methane gas in the atmosphere comes from under the ocean, it lends to the theory of Global Warming being a natural process..... just some food for thought is all.....

 

Yes you could be right... they have taken over his work on his directed energy weapon.....

[WoodDragon]

Bacon.

I first read about harp in the 90s, when I still used to bother with Nexus. It's one of those things that is actually used for (atmospheric) research, but I suspect that it has at least some of the capabilities ascribed to it. Whether it has as much power to do what the most extreme conspiracy theories claim, I'm not sure - I suspect thtat the truth is somewhere between "it can't warm a cup od tea" and "it'll boil all the oceans dry".

It isn't responsible for the warming that's been observed though.

On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US, Russia and China will all have projects to try to control the weather. Whether any of them will actually work, only time will tell, I guess.

But even if they do, I doubt that anything can prevent the warming that's happened and that's in the pipeline - to do that the planet's albedo would need to be increased, and no weather-modificiation weaponisation techniques seem to be designed to do this. Alteration of albedo would probably be extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to do with energy-based instrumentation anyway: basically it means that we need to whiten the planet, so a paint-brush works far better than a ray gun.

[Slybacon]

Thanks WD.

I'm pretty sure if the "official reason" for Global warming that is spoon fed to the public was due to the 1 mega watt of energy directed into the ionosphere to ultra heat this belt and produce a plasma state instead of the 0.038% (?) of CO2 this would be lapped up by the scientific community as well.

There just seems to be WAY to many variables for you wood dragon to give an accurate scientific explanation that it is plausible enough to satisfy the majority of people who simply don't believe. In my opinion WD you have tried to label many who have opposed you as "denialists" which leads to another similar label of "conspiracy theorist". Labeling does little to help facilitate a credible debate and will only further the heat and add more belittling to the thread. Its fine for you to add your scientific input as this is obviosly an area you excel in, but just remember people aren't so quick to trust scientific methods as the only way to draw an opinion and belief on a subject. Its not like the worlds "best " science hasn't got it wrong before. And its not like scientists to write a paper, back it with undeniable knowledge and emmit important details just to get in front. A famous scientist once said, they only way to get enough money to support your own research is to write a paper to help prove someone elses theories..... or something like that, you may or may not get the point.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Slybacon

[WoodDragon]

Further more to the discussion on "global Warming" I have yet to see methane come into the equation, Of which most of the methane gas in the atmosphere comes from under the ocean, it lends to the theory of Global Warming being a natural process..... just some food for thought is all.....

Actually, prior to the warming over the last few decades, most methane came from the arses of our livestock. The methane clathrates on the ocean floors, and the methane in the permafrost, are both locked in by the relative cold of the planet. Unfortunately, with the atmospheric warming that humans have caused by emitting CO2, both the oceans and the terrestrial Arctic have also warmed, to the point where undersea clathrates are approaching the temperature where they could turn from solid to gas, and the permafrost will release its methane.

In fact, the permafrost is already melting and releasing methane, with a significant spike occurring after the previous link was published .

The methane held in permafrost and in clathrates are vast stores of 'fossil' carbon in a greenhouse gas form - in fact, methane is 20 times as effective a greenhouse gas as is CO2, so when it's released it initially really boosts warming compared with CO2. However, methane is oxidised to CO2 within about 7 years or so following release, so the warming from methane isn't as horrendous as it might appear at first.

However, if we warm the planet to the point where most of the ice in the Arctic melts, we'll release enough methane to add at least as much as humans do, and perhaps double, to the overall global warming, even after the methane has been oxidised to CO2. The problem starts long before it's all released though, because at some point in the Arctic melt process the released methane begins to contribute significantly to a positive feedback loop, and nothing we can do then will stop the process. But by then we'll probably have emitted enough CO2 ourselvevs that the planet will be stuffed for future human civilisation to have much fun.

[Edit:

it lends to the theory of Global Warming being a natural process

Didn't touch on this above, so I'll do it now.

The natural release of methane from the Arctic does not lend to the theory that warming is a natural process, because over thousands to tens of thousands of years oxidation and fixation processes are roughly in balance with releases. In fact, the recent increases in methane release are indications that warming is coming from somewhere else, and feeding back to enhance the natural release process.

So no relief there unfortunately. Quite the opposite in fact, and one of many reasons why climatologists are chewing their fingernails to the quick.]

Edited January 13, 2011 by WoodDragon