Global Warming or Cooling

General tips, questions and answers about going green in your home and business. Achieve a more environmentally friendly lifestyle!

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby greg c » Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:36 pm

I came across this the other day. I think it speaks for itself.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/11/ ... -ipcc.html

Greg
User avatar
greg c
Solar Evangelist
Solar Evangelist
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:36 am

Well the obvious comment would be "well it would say that, wouldn't it"...... Like I said, if one doesn't believe in climate change, it is very easy to suggest that for any number of reasons, political, financial and other, you are unlikely to find much mainstream media that doesn't say exactly what this article says. Just out of interest, I know a number of people who have written to various newspapers to point out various errors and omissions in articles about climate change or the environment. The press is simply not interested in hearing them, never mind publishing them.

With regard to this particular blog, perhaps you should also try researching the other side of the subject. Maybe investigate the authors of the IPCC report who have distanced themselves from the process, and why. There seem to be a number of people who will no longer be involved, or who have complained about the editing of their data.

We all tend to assume that bodies such as the UN and it's off-shoots are above reproach. The reality is that they are simply a bunch of individuals with motives as diverse as any other bunch, and therefore the output of that group will reflect what the group wants to say. The panel was formed for a purpose, and the members were selected to suit that purpose. This is not a conspiracy, this is the simple truth. In jury service (at least where I come from) people are randomly selected to serve. The IPCC are not a random selection, they are picked specifically. The data they publish is selected and edited. When a selected group of people select and edit the data they publish, the result can never be seen to be unbiased.

Under those conditions, it is very easy to suggest that their output is biased. Even easier when there are a growing number of scientists who refute their finding, or even claim that their own "contributions" have been edited by others.

At the end of the day, it is all a matter of faith. I have (personally) seen enough "science" manipulated to suit political or marketing purposes that I do not automatically believe anything. I have (personally) seen enough organisations (including groups within the UN) who's actions and statements can only be explained adequately when one learns of their ulterior motives.

As far as "science" goes, I hope we have all realised that these days "science" reflects the views of whoever is paying the bills. As a recent example of this, it has been stated (and even "generally accepted") that ruminants are bad for the environment. The "science" has shown that it takes up to 100,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef, and the Australian Greenhouse Office has rated beefs methane emissions intensity at 55kg CO2 equivalents per kg of beef. Now, however, a study by the Universty of NSW has shown that the emissions intensity of beef is only 8 to 11kg CO2 equivalents, and that in fact it takes only 18L (grass fed) to 540L (feedlot) of water to produce 1kg of beef. So two groups of scientists produced numbers that differ by a factor of 7 for CO2 equivalents, and 5555 (thats 18:100,000) for water usage. Where can such a large difference occur? Well, for example in the water usage numbers, the NSW University study only included directly used water (i.e. reticulated) that could have been used for something else. The other study included all the rain that fell on all the land that was used. Which is correct? Logically, rainfall (even if it grew the grass the cattle ate) would have fallen anyway, and would simply have been "wasted" (in production terms) if the cattle were not there, so it should not be included. [Note also that the sequestering of CO2 in the soil and by the pasture plants is excluded from the emissions profile of cattle, so it would seem a double standard to include the rainfall on that pasture in the water usage.]

However, the reality of why the numbers are so different is much more simple. The 55kgCO2e and 100,000L of water come (originally) from a study funded by and presented to a vegetarian conference. On the other hand, the 18L water and 8kg CO2e figures come from the University of NSW study funded by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA). Both studies reflect what their sponsors wanted to hear.

Given enough "funding", any study will prove exactly what you want it to prove. Given enough selection and editing, any data can be made to reflect any desired view. Given enough time, any organisation, no matter how noble it's intentions, can be diverted to any cause desired (look for Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore). Given enough persuasive marketing talk, any organisation can explain it's actions, even if they fly in the face of it's original intentions (look for Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore!).

I am not convinced about mans influence on cimate change, I do not think we know enough to make a sensible conclusion (though we are prone to thinking we know everything). I do, however, firmly believe that the entire issue has been taken over by people who's motives have nothing to do with climate change, and that those same peope and groups are using a hyped up fear to manipulate people to their own ends.
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Tracker » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:56 am

But there are literally thousands that support the conclusions of the IPCC


And as possibly as great a number that DON'T, and they too belong to esteemed organisations, but when they open their mouths, they lose their jobs, so they shut up and blog, privately

When is science valid?
A valuable reference here is a short, sharp guide published by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. It's worth a look.

In part, it provides a checklist to see whether a scientific idea has been validated:
* Has it been published in the peer-reviewed literature in that field of science?
* Have other scientists cited that publication as being valid (as opposed to citing it to show that it is wrong?)
* Have other scientists conducted additional tests that show the idea to be valid?
* Has the idea been built upon to create new understanding, i.e., has the idea become useful?


Catch 22 - If you disagree with the preferred hypothesis, the one that attracts research finance, then Peer-Review will hardly go your way.

we know the climate has been fairly constant since that time until about 150 years ago. Can you think of anything that happened in the last 150 years to cause this. I can tell you one thing it is not,and that is the Sun.


Wow - So the sun has nothing to do with heating the earth and there is no such thing as Solar-Cycles..
and climate change really started 150 years ago.. Is that not about 100 years prior to all the OIL burning..

How I wish that we could Jump-Forward 50 years and see just who was right. All the OIL will be gone ! and we will surviving on renewable energy, because the OIL-Companies will have no choice but diversify, instead of limiting..

We can still do everything necessary to limit Human-Impact on Climate-Change, without a World-Government, led by "Friend-of-the-chair" Mr. C.Rudd .
Retired Engineer and keen PV experimenter - Always ready to learn and share.
2 x CMS2000 (fan cooled) GCI and SE 170W panels
1.7kW First Solar/Outback Island circuit - Peak Replacement Power
Governments won't save the world :-) They will just TAX it :-(
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:50 pm

I must say I'm quite surprised that no-one has yet commented on the emails hacked/leaked from the University of East Anglia a few days ago. In this very thread we have been debating the pressures on scientists to follow the "accepted" line, and here we have a bunch of emails being publicised that appear to absolutely confirm that such pressures exist. In fact comments in those emails go as far as;

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Xxx and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is"

Various comments are made about ways of "hiding" data that doesn't fit the story being told, and various methods (described as "tricks", but I'll let that go) to massage data. Other points of interest include instructions to delete messages on a particular subject, discussions on how to avoid releasing data requested under the Freedom of Information act and treatment (punishment?) of journals that publish papers that do not toe the line.

Now I appreciate that informal discussion can involved shorthand, and is perhaps more frank than what is presented to the public, but some of these statements do seem disturbing. Why would anyone need to delete all emails about a particular subject, or avoid releasing information? This is not (or shouldn't be) sensitive data!

I also understand that, as with any leaked/hacked information, it is not necessarily genuine. Though when the response from the hackee is "due to the volume of data, we can't be sure it's all genuine" (or words to that effect) and not an outright denial, perhaps one has to think they are, in fact, legitimate?

The emails do not at any point suggest that man-made global warming is not real by the way, but they do show very clearly that people and processes are very much tailored to maintain the correct story. They also show that a great deal of effort is put in to ensuring that the correct story is publicised and that anything or anyone that doesn't agree is stifled.

To me (as someone with a scientific background) they do suggest that "science" as I know it is no longer the driving force, even behind the "scientists" involved. That the people involved have been paid large amounts (I have seen figures of US16million+ quoted for one pro-warming individual) for their research has always worried me. The pro-warming camp always accuses the anti's of being paid by the petrochemical industry, but I'm sure $16million from anywhere would "secure a vote". These emails (if genuine) do nothing to reassure me!
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Tracker » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:24 pm

I must say I'm quite surprised that no-one has yet commented on the emails hacked/leaked from the University of East Anglia a few days ago.


Did I miss something --- Is there a link to these leaked emails?
. .
.
Retired Engineer and keen PV experimenter - Always ready to learn and share.
2 x CMS2000 (fan cooled) GCI and SE 170W panels
1.7kW First Solar/Outback Island circuit - Peak Replacement Power
Governments won't save the world :-) They will just TAX it :-(
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:28 pm

Just do a quick Google search for "climate emails".

There are a number of sites with the archive (it's about 170mb of data when uncompressed), together with the many "anti" websites saying it proves it's all nonsense, and the pro's saying it just shows there is rigorous debate.......

It's also in at least one of the major Australian newspapers today, albeit in the column of a known anti.

I feel that the content of these emails certainly doesn't prove (or even suggest) the theory is wrong, but it does indicate that there is a high degree of manipulation of data and facts, together with pressure being applied to ensure the right story gets the press and anything else is trashed or not published. Nothing to prove the theory is right or wrong, just that the scientists are not necessarily carrying out objective research - in my day a discussion would have been about how to modify the theory to fit the data, not (as in these emails) how to modify the data to fit the theory. It also indicates that "peer review" has been diluted, with various references to not only hand picking the reviewers, but also collaberation on the reviews. Way back when I was involved in science, you didn't pick your own reviewers and reviews were not the result of any collaberation.......

One comment that I have read on the subject, and tend to agree with, is that "the thousands of scientists" involved in the IPCC are in fact steered by a far smaller core group, who's "science" has taken second place to an almost religious belief and fervour. It would seem that these emails, if shown to be genuine, have certainly demonstrated this fact.

Still, have a look and let me know what you think!
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Tracker » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:21 pm

You neglected to mention that the sun has dramatically increased it’s energy output over the past 500 million years, which nearly exactly matched the decrease in C02 (the sun is a youngish to middle aged star. It is still getting warmer, and will continue to do so for the rest of its hydrogen burning life). It looks like there is some very long-term mechanism that decreases CO2 levels to counter the ever so slow temperature increase caused by the warming sun. This is probably caused by plant evolution over long periods of time. As the climate gets too hot, plants suck more C02 out of the atmosphere (lowering the temperature slightly), and then they (slowly) evolve increased efficiency to live in that newly C02 starved environment.

Due to the sun’s increased energy output, pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels had recently (over the past few million years) been forced low enough that current plant design is at the limits of how little CO2 they can handle. They’ve evolved about as far in their current CO2 starved direction as they can; any less CO2 and they won’t be able to adapt, so they’re asphyxiate. But, due to the sun’s significant increase in energy output over the past 1/2 billion years, CO2 levels cannot be returned to their historic highs without increasing the greenhouse effect to excessive levels. Because of this Earth probably only has a few million years of habitability left before it (mostly) dies (barring a totally new type of plant design evolving that can handle.

To put it more basically: the sun has warmed up to the point where Earth is at the interior edge of the habitable zone around it’s star. (Course, that’s a very, very, very long term problem;).)


Post # 38
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-emails-conspiracy-or-tempest-in-a-teapot/

.. An interesting Post !

..
Retired Engineer and keen PV experimenter - Always ready to learn and share.
2 x CMS2000 (fan cooled) GCI and SE 170W panels
1.7kW First Solar/Outback Island circuit - Peak Replacement Power
Governments won't save the world :-) They will just TAX it :-(
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby taggertycyclist » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:40 pm

As interesting is the last bit in this news.com.au link about the previous global warming episode and the role so-called greenhouse gases has in that...

I had to read it three times to make sure I knew what I was reading.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26 ... 09,00.html
taggertycyclist
Solar Evangelist
Solar Evangelist
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:43 pm

Now that is an interesting article, for two reasons.

1/ It states that the margin of error in the the estimate of the rate of ice loss is almost as large as the rate of loss itself.

2/ It says that a second report has upped the estimate of temperatures in the area in the last interglacial period, to about 6C warmer than today, and that at that time sea level was five to seven meters higher than today. It also says that we are in an interglacial period at present.

The first point would indicate to me that the numbers are little more than complete guesswork.

The second is much more interesting in a number of ways. It quite clearly states that we are currently in an antiglacial period, and during the previous such event (which, I assume, was utterly devoid of man-made CO2) the antarctic temperature was 6C higher than it is now, and sea levels were 5 to seven meters higher. So apparently the ice sheets melting is in fact utterly expected in an interglacial period and not in fact "evidence" of mans impact at all. Moreover the sea level is likely to rise a good deal further whether or not we give the banks some more money in the form of carbon trading or not. By extension, we remove the entire basis of compensation claims by all those living on low lying areas (and thus a fair chunk of the Copenhagen proposal), as it has all happened before with no help from man, and is simply (as the article states) part of the 100,000 year glacial cycle.

The bit I don't understand is the statement "The findings suggest that the region may be more sensitive than scientists thought to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that were roughly equivalent to present day levels."

The article states the previous interglacial period had higher antarctic temperatures, higher sea levels but the same CO2 levels. Why does that suggest any sensitivity at all? Surely it simply suggests that the area is naturally warming up (as it did in that last interglacial period) and has yet to reach the previous temperatures?

I still love the anomalies. We are told that CO2 has never been this high, then an article states that it was this high a mere 128,000 years ago. We are told that sea level is rising and the ice is melting because of mans CO2 emissions, then an article states that the sea was higher and antarctic temperatures higher at the same point in the last cycle, where man had no influence at all. Then, in answer to my own question in the paragraph above, the article makes a desperate attempt to link what it has shown to be a natural phenomonem to "man-made" global warming by a seemingly unfounded and illogical jump.
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby taggertycyclist » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:15 pm

Or a leap of faith....

I agree that there are some significant anomolies in the article. But that error of the equivalent of the ice sheet disappearing was a real corker. The error on the other reading also hugely significant at around 20%. And the period under review was only seven years, with no reference to what might have happened in previous eons. Of course, there were no orbitting satellites then.

The emergence of the sort of data discussed in that aspect of the story is all well-timed for the Copenhagen meeting. The public has been totally primed on why Copenhagen will present certain outcomes...

My wife and I have just been discussing the "dreamtime" stories handed down from generation to generation to generation over thousands of years by various indigenous populations (Australian and Canadian Aboriginal). There is a very strong clue in what the climate changes were when these stories originated. She quoted me some examples from "Native American Lore -- Legends from Various Tribes", including one from the Algonquin tribe from Eastern Canada and the far north-east of the USA; the climate landscape was hugely different as the story unfolded, corresponding to a receding cold age. And there is mention of another cold age prior to that.

There is another story about drought and the departure of animals and the deaths of many among two neighbouring tribes. The cyclical nature of the climate brought the two tribes together, and the rains came, the drought broke and the animals returned.

The thing about these stories is that they seem to be handed down with pride and accuracy. There was no embelishment by each generation through marketing hype or "spin". The language was simple, uneffusive and unconfused. There is more fact in their stories than we perhaps might like to think.
taggertycyclist
Solar Evangelist
Solar Evangelist
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

new solar power specials