+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 62 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 613
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts

    Default The great green con

    A great article from yesterday's dailymail.

    Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ONG-along.html

    It is disappointing that the Australian media is very quite about the actual state of 'global warming'. I hope some Australian newspapers can follow suit and report on some actual facts rather than the standard scarey predictions from the team Flannery.
    Soon, they may not even be allowed to, if Comrade Conroy gets his way.

    No warming for at least 16 years, yet, the media is silent whilst our government continues to throw good money after bad.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    26,930
    Thanks
    2,736
    Thanked
    6,743
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Going to the Daily Mail for quality info is like going to McDonalds for 5-star dining.

  3. The Following 32 Users Say Thank You to SassyMummy For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (17-03-2013),Atropos  (18-03-2013),babybabycakes  (18-03-2013),babycake  (06-04-2013),beebs  (17-03-2013),Benji  (18-03-2013),Blossompossumxxxx  (19-06-2013),Boobycino  (04-04-2013),Busy-Bee  (18-03-2013),callmedragon22  (04-04-2013),Clementine Grace  (18-03-2013),Cue  (04-04-2013),FearlessLeader  (17-03-2013),Funchu  (06-04-2013),Gentoo  (18-03-2013),happy wanderer  (18-03-2013),LaDiDah  (18-03-2013),lambjam  (04-04-2013),Lauzy83  (28-05-2013),MamaNurture  (17-03-2013),Maybelline  (18-03-2013),Mellybel  (26-04-2013),misskittyfantastico  (17-03-2013),MonsterMoosMum  (03-04-2013),oozzle  (26-04-2013),orlyon  (26-04-2013),Pusheen The Cat  (03-04-2013),rainbow road  (18-03-2013),RobinSparkles  (18-03-2013),snowqu33n  (18-04-2013),wrena  (18-03-2013),~ElectricPink~  (07-04-2013)

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Ad hom attacks. What to do when you don't have an argument.
    The data was from the UK met office by the way.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I would be very interested to see where you go for your 'data' SassyMummy.
    Which temperature dataset do you find the most accurate?

    I am personally a fan of NOAA's UAH satellite based temperature readings.
    Roy Spencer (PhD, meteorologist, climatologist, ex NASA scientist.... just to prepare for your next ad hom) updates the data each month. You can find it here if you are interested.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked
    143
    Reviews
    0
    Call this an ad hom if you want, but this is by the same author whose article in January prompted this response from the Met:

    "Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

    This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

    Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997."

    It goes on to say:

    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

    And anyone wanting some background on Roy Spencer before they bother following the link Father provided might want to check this link first, which contains a detailed critique of his methods and findings:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

    For example:

    "Ouch. The short version is that Spencer and Braswell plugged in some unrealistic values of the main variables into their model, and automagically got answers that confirmed their hypothesis that standard climate models might be greatly overestimating climate sensitivity. When someone else plugged in realistic values, it turned out that Spencer and Braswell’s hypothesis was not confirmed in any significant sense. We’ll see in a future installment of this review that this kind of sloppy modeling work is one of Roy Spencer’s hallmarks."

    And this page pretty much sums things up on the 'controversy':

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

    Out of 39,500 peer reviewed journal articles on climate change and global warming published between 1991 and 2012, 24 reject global warming. Yep, two dozen out of nearly 40,000.

    I have far better things to do with my time than debate climate science with a non-climate scientist on BH so this will be my first and last contribution to this thread.

  7. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Northerly For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (03-04-2013),babybabycakes  (18-03-2013),beebs  (18-03-2013),Busy-Bee  (18-03-2013),Funchu  (06-04-2013),Gentoo  (18-03-2013),happy wanderer  (18-03-2013),missie_mackxxxx  (04-04-2013),orlyon  (26-04-2013),penguinbaby  (18-03-2013),sweetsugardumplin'  (06-04-2013),twotrunks  (18-03-2013),wrena  (18-03-2013)

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Thanks for contributing a post that has some content. I am about to leave for work, but look forward to discussing the points that you raise.

    Unfortunate that you will not make any further comment though.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Northerly View Post
    Call this an ad hom if you want, but this is by the same author whose article in January prompted this response from the Met:

    "Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

    This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
    That statement from the Met Office is not misleading. It is false. The least-squares-linear-regression trends of global temperatures show that there has been no statistically significant (indistiquishable from 0) warming for at least 15 years. HadCrut4 shows no warming for 18 years. HadCrut3 shows none for 19 years. And RSS shows none for 23 years. I do not know how the Met Office can accurately say that Rose's comment is misleading. It is factually accurate according to the observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northerly View Post
    Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997."
    The Met Offices response contained numerous factual errors, so I can understand why he did not fully include their answers, as they were either false or misleading. Examples:


    1. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming..."
    The justification for this is using the "each decade has been warmer than the previous". This is misleading. An analogy = I got taller the first 2 decades of my life, but stopped growing in the third. I have been taller on average each decade when compared to the previous. But I have not grown for over 10 years. It is wrong to say that I am still growing.

    2. "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina)" is false. In August 1997, the temperatures were in transition - around half way between La Nina and El Nino. They were also in transition in August 2012.

    3. "Each of the top ten warmist years have occured in the last decade".
    On most datasets, 1998 was the warmist year. And besides, each of my tallest years have been in the last 10. I must still be getting taller!

    4. "....such a period [15 years of no warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely".
    So they are admitting that we haven't warmed for 15 years.... in a round about way. It shows that their models are not very good. They did not 'expect' that there was going to be a pause for 15 years, yet they said that it was "not unexpected"???? NOAA's State of the Climate report in 2008 stated -
    "Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
    Well, 15 years has been and gone. But yet, the goalposts shift.

    My question to you (or NOAA, or the Met Office) - How long a time period is now required before you admit that the models are seriously flawed?



    Quote Originally Posted by Northerly View Post
    It goes on to say:

    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
    Discussed before.


    From the Met Office in Jan 2013.
    “The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction,” the Met Office said late yesterday in a statement “Temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record” back to 1850. "


    I hope I don't get too much taller at this rate!


    Quote Originally Posted by Northerly View Post
    And anyone wanting some background on Roy Spencer before they bother following the link Father provided might want to check this link first, which contains a detailed critique of his methods and findings:
    I say again - ad hom attack when there is no argument. Why not stick to the facts rather than go straight for a google search of a person's history?

    I provided a link to the temperature data that he regularly updates - but you then rebut with a review of his book???

    Quote Originally Posted by Northerly View Post
    For example:

    "Ouch. The short version is that Spencer and Braswell plugged in some unrealistic values of the main variables into their model, and automagically got answers that confirmed their hypothesis that standard climate models might be greatly overestimating climate sensitivity. When someone else plugged in realistic values, it turned out that Spencer and Braswell’s hypothesis was not confirmed in any significant sense. We’ll see in a future installment of this review that this kind of sloppy modeling work is one of Roy Spencer’s hallmarks."
    Whose owns the definition of "unrealistic" and "realistic"? Your quote was from the blog, not from Murphy and Forster. They changed 3 different inputs and got a different result!!! Amazing.
    What was their definition of a more "realistic value for the ocean mixed layer depth"? Who is right?

    Is an article from SkepicalScience (which name I find ridiculous considering that they tow the party line and are in no way skeptical) about Dr. Spencer's book meant to show that the global temperature has not paused for the last 15 years or so?



    Quote Originally Posted by Northerly View Post
    And this page pretty much sums things up on the 'controversy':

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

    Out of 39,500 peer reviewed journal articles on climate change and global warming published between 1991 and 2012, 24 reject global warming. Yep, two dozen out of nearly 40,000.
    Maybe if you don't really understand the argument that is put forward.

    Here is a list of over 1100.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

    Argumentum ad populum. Science is not conducted through consensus, it is through proof. It only takes one scientist to prove the other thousands wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by Northerly View Post
    I have far better things to do with my time than debate climate science with a non-climate scientist on BH so this will be my first and last contribution to this thread.
    It's been a pleasure.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,431
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked
    2,081
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    A great article from yesterday's dailymail.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ONG-along.htmlIt is disappointing that the Australian media is very quite about the actual state of 'global warming'. I hope some Australian newspapers can follow suit and report on some actual facts rather than the standard scarey predictions from the team Flannery.Soon, they may not even be allowed to, if Comrade Conroy gets his way.No warming for at least 16 years, yet, the media is silent whilst our government continues to throw good money after bad.
    The daily mail is not really the place to get accurate fact's on climate change. If you are interested in the topic do you actually know any climate change scientists? I know quite a few and have listened to a lot of the world renowned speak, you'd probably be better of having a robust discussion with an actual scientist, rather than quoting the media. You are kind of having a discussion on here with yourself.

    There are a handful of australian species who are close to extinction as a direct result of climate change i.e. their habitat is almost underwater or the weather patterns have altered their habitat so much over the past 20 years it's no longer viable. If you discuss these issues with scientists, on the ground, working in the field who see it happening first hand it might be a more reliable source of information that purely looking at data sets or picking up the newspaper. The "government" is actually underpinned by many policy makers and scientists who have 20+ years of knowledge and experience in the field.

    If you really are interested, get out there and talk to land managers, marine scientists and environmental scientists who have watched the landscape change over the last 10-20 years and have the data to back it up. Talk to people who are watching the landscape change with their own eyes rather than just quoting data sets.

    Almost every article in the newspaper on climate change currently is about one thing and thats securing votes in the federal election.
    Last edited by Clementine Grace; 18-03-2013 at 13:51.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Clementine Grace For This Useful Post:

    Busy-Bee  (18-03-2013),Funchu  (06-04-2013),Kirst33  (18-03-2013),wrena  (18-03-2013)

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Clementine Grace View Post
    Talk to people who are watching the landscape change with their own eyes rather than just quoting data sets.

    Almost every article in the newspaper on climate change currently is about one thing and thats securing votes in the federal election.
    Any facts in your post? I didn't see any.
    If I watch the landscape 'change' with my own eyes, will that count? Or does it need to be from someone who has the same opinion as you?

    So the article from the UK is about securing votes in the Australian election?

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Give me a break. Wherever your facts come from, I believe it's naive to think our wasteful lifestyles are doing nothing to the planet. No matter where you are getting your stats, what is the harm in trying to change the course now and live a more green and conscious lifestyle? I'd rather follow Al Gore than the Daily Mail.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    Funchu  (06-04-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Vanuatu - Great or not so great?
    By Clarabelle in forum Destination Suggestions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-10-2012, 10:56
  2. Green poop
    By Alphabetsoup in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-05-2012, 20:02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Bamboo Lulu
Super soft, fun prints & basics for baby, made from bamboo & organic cotton plus non-toxic wooden toys. • Hypoallergenic - perfect for eczema relief • Everything needed to shop for a baby shower • 10% off + FREE gift with purchase. Use code BUBHUB
sales & new stuffsee all
The Health Hub
Give a new mum a fitness boost for Christmas & New Year. Studio-based, small group training sessions - cardio, strength, core, Pilates & boxing. Choice of 16 hrs per week, flexible-arrival feature - bubs & kids welcome! Gift vouchers available.
featured supporter
Swim Australia
Swim Australia are the leading learn-to-swim experts, and national swim school authority. With over 600 Registered Swim Schools located across the country, through our aquatic education, we aim to build a Safer, Smarter, Stronger nation of swimmers.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!