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 Gordon-Loomberah » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:29 am

Time to dredge up an old topic, given the goings on in Copenhagen ATM. That, and its too bloody hot ;) Yesterday in Tamworth (41.4C) another highest temp ever recorded for the month, we had 3 of them last month as well, which was the hottest November recorded ~ 6 deg above average. Yes I know, weather, not climate...
However, this year is looking like being in the top 5 hottest since 1850 when instrumental climate records began. The Sun was in a very deep *minimum* of activity, we were in a La Nina weather event, so that would mean a cool year, right? Wrong! Its looking like being in the top 5 warmest on record. The past decade is also the warmest on record according to the just released WMO report.

A couple of articles in today's SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... -kcyy.html

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... -khqv.html

Gordon
http://gunagulla.com Loomberah weather and astronomy including live solar radiation intensity and UV + Gunagulla aquaponics, organic eggs and cherries
User avatar
Gordon-Loomberah
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 5760
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:16 pm

And this is why it's so hard to draw any conclusions. Everybody is cherry picking the data and denouncing everybody else for doing the same thing. The numbers keep going up - the SMH article is talking about a "5 degree increase in a century", where 2 years ago Al Gore was talking about 0.7 degrees since 1900.... The second article say that it's likely 2009 will rank in the top 10 years for recorded sea temperature. How many years are recorded? When were the 9 that were hotter?

It's easy for either side to make statements, and even easier for the press to blow them out of all proportion.

"I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of drought and flooding rains."

SMH 2009 or D. MacKellar 1908?

As an aside, and I have no idea where this information came from or how true it is, but I was told a few days ago that one university (I can't even remember which one but I think it was Australian) has questioned whether meteorology is even a science, and moved the department to the arts faculty...............
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:46 am

And now I read that the Federal Science Minister has said he will defy a senate order to release a paper written by a CSIRO economist that criticises the proposed ETS. Apparently the CSIRO senior managers prevented publication of the report initially, but the senate decreed it should be released.

So, we (the Australian public) have paid for the report to be written, but becuase it didn't agree with our leaders political view they have tried to ban it, and continue to refuse to release it even after the senate have told them to......

Of course, it's only the "deniers" who cherry pick data!
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Gordon-Loomberah » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:01 pm

You know whats in it?

From what I have read, the governemnt is giving too much of a free ride to big polluters, letting them get away with an almost business as usual approach. Maybe that being exposed in the report is what the minister objects to?

Who knows, its all speculation until it gets leaked...

Gordon
http://gunagulla.com Loomberah weather and astronomy including live solar radiation intensity and UV + Gunagulla aquaponics, organic eggs and cherries
User avatar
Gordon-Loomberah
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 5760
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:19 pm

Exactly. The entire entire subject is driven by money and politics, rather than science! Sadly this means that we really can't believe ANY of what we are told, no matter whether it's for or against climate change, the ETS, Copenhagen or any related subject.

Too many vested interests!
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby taggertycyclist » Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:55 pm

From my reading, the CSIRO issue is a lot more serious than first appears. The censorship issue goes right to the top, as in the head of the CSIRO, Megan Clark. The author of the critical report was headhunted by the organisation, but now has resigned his position as a result of the censorship.

There are some critical issues of credibility in the whole thing, and when Australia's top scientific research organisation is involved in underhanded tactics to avoid criticism of any policy -- its own or government -- then there needs to be a huge clean-out.

Sadly, we have become so innured to the spin that is put on everything, that finding any sort of truth will be almost impossible, and the situation is just as likely to continue deteriorating.

It's also interesting that the cracks have already started to appear in the Copenhagen talkfest, with the tiny Pacifc nation of Tuvalu driving in the wedge. There won't be any substantial outcomes emerge... China, India, et al, along with the US will, I suspect, all back away from any treaty that ties them to major reductions in so-called carbon pollution.

I did like that crack, Z, about the voodoo science of meteorlogy being demoted to the arts faculty. Goes with the weather site we use here saying there was 10.2mm of rain yesterday when the skies were cloudless for well over 24 hours. And goes with those articles on how we have had the hottest decade/first half-year which is thenm forecast to make this year initially the fifth hottest... oh hang on, the second article on the same news servicw says the third hottest.

Really, what is it meant to be????

People are just falling all over themselves to justify Copenhagen's outcomes, but tripping up on their own fundamentalist zeal.
taggertycyclist
Solar Evangelist
Solar Evangelist
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:00 pm

I'm not sure the CSIRO has much credibility left.....

I know of one man who has been involved in various "earth friendly" farming methods that have apparently produced some excellent results. He approached the CSIRO for funding to continue and expand his research, because as a farmer (not a scientist) he understood his methods and analysis needed refining. The CSIRO refused on the grounds that his work had not been correctly published and peer reviewed. When someone approaches you for help to put their ideas and techniques in to a proper scientific format, it seems rather harsh to refuse on the basis that their work is not in a proper scientific format..........

We must, after this ETS report ban, perhaps assume that his work did not agree with their political stance?

Regarding weather forecasting, as evidence of the accuracy of modern forecasting I would like to share the 28 day rainfall forecast for my area from 21 November (albeit in less pretty form than when published).

A high (H) chance of rain is more than 75%, medium (M) is 50-75%, Low (L) 25-50% and there were no days that were forecast a zero chance of rain:

Nov
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
M H L L L L L H H H H H H H H M H H H H H H H M H H M M

(It won't line up, this forum takes out extra spaces in text)

As you can see, we are now drowning! In fact we got one small shower out of that (so far) which was on the 26 November - a day 5 days earlier being forecast as having a "low" chance of rain....

As of this evening few remaining days are all low (less than 25%) or zero chance of rain.

If there was any degree of "forecasting" involved in this process, you would surely have thought that 12 consecutive days of greater than 75% chance of rain would have yielded some rain?

My own forecast, which is a big sign that says "DRY", was accurate for 18 days of the 19 that have elapsed. The BOM (costing millions of dollars each year) was accurate for 1 day.......

But if they say they can predict what the weather will be doing in 50 years, who am I to argue?
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Icarus » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:58 pm

Hi ,
to start ive been running a climate prediction programe at home useing BOINC http://climateprediction.net/ , its aim is to repeat weather patterns from past periods and see how there stack up agianst the real world IE : see if the input actually works , not just to get a desired out come IE ; prove gobal warming .
these models take into account the radiative forcing of water vapor , the sun , CO2 , CH4 , N2O , CFC-11 and CFC-12 also cosmic rays for the effects on cloud formation .
You seemed interested in calculating the effects of these gases so heres some help .
Table 1. Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing*
Trace Gas Simplified Expression
Radiative Forcing, ΔF (Wm-2) Constant
CO2 ΔF = αln(C/Co) α = 5.35
CH4 ΔF = β(M½ - Mo½) - [f(M,No) - f(Mo,No)] β = 0.036
N2O ΔF = ε(N½ - No½) - [f(Mo,N) - f(Mo,No)] ε = 0.12
CFC-11 ΔF = λ(X - Xo) λ = 0.25
CFC-12 ΔF = ω(X - Xo) ω = 0.32

*IPCC (2001)

The subscript "o" denotes the unperturbed (1750) concentration

f(M,N) = 0.47ln[1 + 2.01x10-5 (MN)0.75 + 5.31x10-15M(MN)1.52]

C is CO2 in ppm, M is CH4 in ppb
N is N2O in ppb, X is CFC in ppb

Co = 278 ppm, Mo = 700 ppb, No = 270 ppb, Xo = 0
from www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
i left one out water vapor , water vapor is considered a feedback not a forcing , one reason is more water vapor equals more clouds , clouds reflect the sun and actually have a cooling effect and so tend to even out .

what i dont understand is how if its all a con how so many and i guess its at least 90% of scientist , reserchers could al be be so wrong , i know people talk as thou it s religion but religions dont need facts or data , science does otherwise it just doesnt work , it has to deal in the real world .

oh and Gordan for a stir , how can the moon affect the tides think about it the sun has a much stronger gavitational field its only logical thats what moves the oceans , lol

Icarus
Icarus
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Woy Woy NSW

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Gordon-Loomberah » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:55 pm

Icarus wrote:oh and Gordan for a stir , how can the moon affect the tides think about it the sun has a much stronger gavitational field its only logical thats what moves the oceans , lol


Just ask Isaac Newton, he came up with a few laws about the subject ;)
Gravitational pull being inversely proportional to the square of the distance is the clue...

Gordon
http://gunagulla.com Loomberah weather and astronomy including live solar radiation intensity and UV + Gunagulla aquaponics, organic eggs and cherries
User avatar
Gordon-Loomberah
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 5760
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:17 am

Icarus wrote:what i dont understand is how if its all a con how so many and i guess its at least 90% of scientist , reserchers could al be be so wrong , i know people talk as thou it s religion but religions dont need facts or data , science does otherwise it just doesnt work , it has to deal in the real world .


1/ 90% of scientists? Or 90% of the scientists that are quoted in the media? Or 90% of scientists that are quoted in a media environment that will not publish anything that doesn't agree with the current "belief"?

2/ Science used to need data, and when I was actively involved in science if your theory did not fit the data you went back and reworked that theory. In the case of mans impact on the climate, these rules seem to have changed. If the data does not agree with the theory, these days it is seen as OK to edit the data to fit - historical records have been altered, data is abridged etc. Or to ignore the data that doesn't fit. Much of the "data" is actually "estimates". Now whilst I understand that some of our measurement techniques are new and therefore historial data may not exist, "estimates" are only "best guesses". And who is making the guesses? If you were asked to "estimate" your earnings last year (or the speed of your car) in a "bravado" conversation in the local pub, would those numbers be the same as the estimates you gave to the tax office (or the cop that pulled you over in your car!)?

This is not to say that the theory is wrong, but simply that when people have so much to gain (US$16million to one researcher) there will always be motives other than science.
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

new solar power specials