@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @fairlanefastback It was intended to be a little ironical (hence the '...') not a disrespect or lack of compliance to a moderator's request. Anyway you're right, it is better to ignore the trolls. I have a GM script to get ride of the attention trolls on some other boards. As the number is increasing over there, it should probably be not too much work to adapt it to AW.net. Bye, TMTisFree

Cool

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

And from the tinfoilhat department i have these news for you:

THERE IS a secret AGENDA for a global government, with a global taxation system and "CARBON taxes" and taxes on the very CO2 we exhale, so I DONT believe this global warming thing is as they (the powers that be) TELL US ! I rather think its a clever plot. I dont know what the REAL truth IS. But I smell a rat !

Global warming fans - The matrix has you !

@Mr_DBUG

Quote:

THERE IS a secret AGENDA for a global government

It is not secret: it is called Agenda 21 (Division For Sustainable Development) and its English TOC is here.

Quote:

"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

- UN Agenda 21

Quote:

"Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate 'a Local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies."

- UN Agenda 21

Sound familiar?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Polarcat has ended a two year long research on how pollution travels to North Pole.

http://www.polarcat.no/

The result in a short summary:
The soot that landed on North Pole originated from farmland practice where you burn the vegetation in order to get a more fertile regeneration of it.

I did not find an equivalent in English for the Swedish "svedjebruk" or the Finnish "kaskiviljelys", but here is a
definition from here, the suggested "shifting cultivation" doesn't feel quite right, since it does not mention the use of fire.
Quote:

Agricultural practice using the rotation of fields rather than crops, short cropping periods followed by long fallows and the maintenance of fertility by the regeneration of vegetation. (Source: PHC)

The soot originated mainly from Southern Russia, Kazakstan and China, and has a greater impact than the use of fossile fuels when it comes to the melt down of the Arctic Ice cap.

Last edited by tomazkid on 28-May-2009 at 03:36 AM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@Interesting

Quote:

Well the media posted the material under "smog" & I have heard the same on the TV news. If the media no longer does its homework, well

The US mainstream press failing science news is nothing new. In the last 30-40 years the media has moved the news room under the entertainment divisions. The goal is to get viewers more so than be accurate. For example, US mainstream news spends about equal time on evolution and creationism. Creationsim isn't a scientific hypothesis let alone a theory. But, nearly 50% of the US population think we're here due to some form of creationism.

If I may suggest start with a subscription to SEED Magazine. I find it a good starting point.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-May-2009 at 05:06 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 28-May-2009 at 05:03 AM.

@tomazkid

Quote:

I did not find an equivalent in English for the Swedish "svedjebruk" or the Finnish "kaskiviljelys", but here is a definition from here, the suggested "shifting cultivation" doesn't feel quite right, since it does not mention the use of fire.

It is called slash and burn farming when field is left after some years of cropping. It is called sartage [in French "essartage" or "essartement"] when field is burned but kept farmed year after year (corresponds to the Finnish "svedjande"). It is/was an important agricultural and ancestral practice in many part of the world.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@tomazkid

Quote:

The soot originated mainly from Southern Russia, Kazakstan and China, and has a greater impact than the use of fossile fuels when it comes to the melt down of the Arctic Ice cap.

It reminds me of a paper by Hansen dealing with soot (full of assumptions, plausible forcing numbers and modelling IIRC). Anyway Pr Pielke Sr has long recognized the influence of land use changes as a first order factor in climate (see for example Pielke Sr. et al. 2002 The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system - relevance to climate change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Phil. Trans. A. Special Theme Issue, 360, 1705-1719, available here).

Edit: the assumption-based paper by Hansen is available here

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 28-May-2009 at 07:38 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

For those who like real (and fun) Science, or how to rebut climatic models with satellite data: a PPT file (or here in PDF) by Pr Richard Lindzen at the 3rd ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree
Quote:

Pr Richard Lindzen at the 3rd ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change).

Does the Pr stand for Public Relations?

Heck even John Christy ran away from the Political Event. LINK "he (Christy) had skipped both Heartland conferences to avoid the potential for “guilt by association.” "

While Richard Lindzen is at MIT he does realize the scientific consensus is against his view. LINK "Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming,” Lindzen said. And while the head climatologist at MIT. MIT recently revised their #s with even more dire CO2 and GW predictions. "Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model ...projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study" LINK

You've decried the politicalization in the Climate debate. What a great example of such an event!

@BrianK

Evidently in my post, the only interesting point is the 3rd ICCC: who is politicizing here to try to skip the Science ?

The MIT model-based pseudo-result is like all model-based pseudo studies: it proves nothing except the current intellectual laziness, flaw and disconnection of climate research from usual Science, Physics and real world data and as such is just an embarrassment for their supporters.

Anyway the very presentation by Pr Lindzen (of the ERBE data) discredits such non-science/sense at the root by showing why: the real world data exhibit a low sensitivity (the 2 down arrows at 0.4-0.5°C) when compared with models (>2°C and constrained to always be >1.3°C):



Quote:

We see that for the range of sensitivities that characterize the models, the errors in the feedback factors make it impossible to narrow the range of sensitivity, thus explaining why this range has not diminished since 1979. However, for the low sensitivity obtained from the actual climate system, we see that sensitivity is narrowly constrained to about 0.5C, and strongly implies that there is little to be concerned about (due to our emissions). Of course, climate change will always occur and we should be prepared.

Quote:

What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.

What real world data have always shown and reasonable scientists have always said: the climate system is driven by negative feedbacks and a slight positive sensibility explains climate variability. No need of eco-catastro-twisted models.

Edit: additional information

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 03-Jun-2009 at 10:32 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

"The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880. " LINK

@Mr_DBUG

Quote:

THERE IS a secret AGENDA for a global government, with a global taxation system and "CARBON taxes" and taxes on the very CO2 we exhale, so I DONT believe this global warming thing is as they (the powers that be) TELL US ! I rather think its a clever plot. I dont know what the REAL truth IS. But I smell a rat !

well it looks like the powers that be have renamed GW. The new term is "Climate change"

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK
"... based on adjusted records dating back to 1880"
There, I've corrected it for you

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

@ChrisH

Quote:

ChrisH wrote: @BrianK "... based on adjusted records dating back to 1880" There, I've corrected it for you

Do you really think you are doing yourself or your POV a favour by falsifying the quotes of others and by that trying to discredit them?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@ChrisH

The 'adjustment' clearly appears in the "best temperature network" (the US one):



The original article is from here and is entitled "Climate of 2008 - in Historical Perspective Annual Report": it is funny to see NOAA mixing weather and climate...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Evidently in my post, the only interesting point is the 3rd ICCC

If we're looking for Political influences in this debate then clearly the ICCC is strongly in this camp. Here is their invite.
Quote:

The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.

How were the speakers choosen? It came from financial sponsors. AFAIK most presenters are choosen by an independent scientific committee.

This event was put on by the Heartland Institute. This is run not by a mathematician nor by a scientist. It is run by a lobbiest for the tobacco industry.


As for Lindzen's science it has been peer reviewed by whom? As it was early this is going on right now and certainly will go on more. One of the criticisms appears to be that Lindzen used the pre-2002 satellite data. Sattellite data has been adjusted to compensate for drift and other factors. He's not using data with better accuracy. So, as he rejects the more accurate data points he needs to explain either why he's rejecting the more accurate data or go back and do his math again.

Once he uses more accurate data, and if the low impendence still exists, the next question is how is it as far as a predictor of climate change. It's still early there hasn't been time to post observations and see if his predictivity is any better than anything else out there. So, certainly embracing this as the holy grail is a little premature when we've yet to observe that temps match, or not, this new model.

The most I can say here is let the peer review take place, fix the less accurate data problems, fix other issues identified, and then let's see if the actual events fall into or out of this model.

"Are Record Temperatures Abnormal?

Consider a hypothetical country with 1,000 top notch weather stations and the perfect unchanging climate (which our AGW friends imagine used to exist before they were born). During the first year of operations, every station will necessarily set a high and a low temperature record on every day of the year.

That is a total of 365,000 high temperature records and 365,000 low temperature records. During the second year of operation, each day and each station has a 50/50 chance of breaking a high and/or low record on that date – so we would expect about 182,500 high temperature records and about 182,500 low temperature records during the year.

In the third year of the record, the odds drop to 1/3 and the number of expected records would be about 121,667 high and low temperature records.

In a normal Gaussian distribution of 100 numbers (representing years in this case,) the odds of any given number being the highest are 1 out of 100, and the odds of that number being the lowest are also 1 out of 100. So by the 100th year of operation, the odds of breaking a record at any given station on any given day drop to 1/100. This mean we would expect approximately 1000 stations X 365 days / 100 years = 3,650 high and 3,650 low temperature records to be set during the year – or about ten record highs per day and ten record lows per day.

This provides the news media lots opportunity to get hysterical about global warming every single day – even in a completely stable temperature regime. The distribution of temperatures is Gaussian, so it won’t be exactly ten per day, but will average out to ten per day over the course of the year. In a warming climate, we would expect to see more than 10 record highs per day, and fewer than 10 record lows per day.

In a cooling climate, we would expect to see more than 10 record lows per day, and fewer than 10 record highs per day. The USHCN record consists of more than 1000 stations, so we should expect to see more than 10 record highs per day. Throw in the UHI effects that Anthony [Watts] and team have documented, and we would expect to see many more than that. So no, record high temperatures are not unusual and should be expected to occur somewhere nearly every day of the year. They don’t prove global warming – rather they prove that the temperature record is inadequate.

No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974. This is not even remotely consistent with claims that current temperatures are unusually high. Quite the contrary.
"

End of scare. Full article here.

Edit: forgot a line

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Jun-2009 at 01:57 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

If we're looking for Political influences in this debate then clearly the ICCC is strongly in this camp. Here is their invite.

You are. I was/am not. Thus the rest is irrelevant political trolling.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK Quote: If we're looking for Political influences in this debate then clearly the ICCC is strongly in this camp. Here is their invite. You are. I was/am not. Thus the rest is irrelevant political trolling.

If you feel that discussing the political influence in the debate is trolling then you may want to contact the AW Authorities and request they remove hundreds of posts of your own discussing such things. Afterall trolling is against the rules here.

@TMTisFree & BrianK

Instead of accusing each other in public of trolling lets try to keep this in mind from the TOS (from the Troll section):

Quote:

Ignore them, and report the posts immediately to an Amigaworld Team Member.

I see no reports to staff and I see accusations of trolling in public instead of the ignoring of trolling.

So I would ask that you both reconsider your approach on this. If full civility is not possible I really need you guys to at least follow what the above quote asks of you as a member. Fair enough?

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200