Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

geezer466

Global Warming? No We Are Actually Cooling.

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph...scientists.html

A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling

http://igloo.atmos.u...9&sd=01&sy=2013

Sea Ice Coverage at North Pole September 1st 2012 and September 1st 2013.

Slight problem for the Cultists, who were planning to launch their Fifth doom mongering report later this month claiming "the world is defrosting" based on loss of sea ice and snow fields between 2002 and 2011.

Sadly reality is impacting on theory, so now there is a bit of a problem for them. How to explain to an increasingly dubious public that

(a) there could actually be warming/cooling cycle at work that has been constantly denied

(b)all currently accepted models, on which an entire political and economic framework has been expensively built, are bullshite.

"There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles.

In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after it was predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013."

The picture speaks a thousand words.

Meanwhile the dash (and costs) for renewables sets the UK at a distinct disadvantage (industry and economically) to the places like the USA who have no such qualms.

http://www.telegraph...ergy-costs.html

sea ice.JPG

post-13816-0-05365800-1378917652_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is called climate change and it is the changing of the climate which is the problem. The planet cooling will cause just as many problems as it would warming.

Don't believe anything you read in the Daily Telegraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is called climate change and it is the changing of the climate which is the problem. The planet cooling will cause just as many problems as it would warming.

Don't believe anything you read in the Daily Telegraph.

it won't be as cold as it would have been without global warming though

and that is the point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is called climate change and it is the changing of the climate which is the problem. The planet cooling will cause just as many problems as it would warming.

Don't believe anything you read in the Daily Telegraph.

The climate has always changed warmer or colder. We all accept as fact that the UK at one time not so long ago was in permanent ice age and under a sheet of ice.

It is reasonable to assume that at some point in the future it will be again.

As and when it does change there will be feck all we can do about it.

So!!

Why do we need models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Investing in renewable resources of energy might be a start.

When nearly all the UK covered by over a KILOMETRE of ice ?

That's some pretty tall wind farms we are gonna need :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1980 - 2013? 33 years.

Hardly a large enough sample for an overall picture is it?

Statistically, yes it is, but what do all those mathematics professors know compared to the intellectual might of the Daily Telegraph?

Never mind the fact that you've declared global warming wrong based on a year to year comparison.. and 2 years is, you may be surprised to know, less than 33.

So, on with the worldwide program of closing all the coal plants, living in yurts and burning tories to keep warm, what what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically, yes it is, but what do all those mathematics professors know compared to the intellectual might of the Daily Telegraph?

Never mind the fact that you've declared global warming wrong based on a year to year comparison.. and 2 years is, you may be surprised to know, less than 33.

So, on with the worldwide program of closing all the coal plants, living in yurts and burning tories to keep warm, what what.

Where exactly did he 'declare global warming wrong'

That's a rhetorical question btw. This is a rather good example of someone with such a strong and one sided view on a subject - that they actually imagine things that aren't there.

Two sides to every story and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To understand how we are influencing it under a given set of natural conditions. Tipping points etc

With regard to that I thought that this was a well written piece on the 'deniers' side:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/strange-new-attractors-strong-evidence-against-both-positive-feedback-and-catastrophe/

I don't offer this as my opinion just something worth reading. The site above does have an agenda (anti-warmist) and a bad track record of allowing balanced debate on its own site, but with that warning in place I think the article is worth a read. To some extent the argument can be reversed in favour of a pro-warmist view.

Anyway, I think it nicely outlines the problems of 'prediction' when it comes to climate.

I also think exactly the same argument about attractors apply to the economy. Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to that I thought that this was a well written piece on the 'deniers' side:

http://wattsupwithth...nd-catastrophe/

I don't offer this as my opinion just something worth reading. The site above does have an agenda (anti-warmist) and a bad track record of allowing balanced debate on its own site, but with that warning in place I think the article is worth a read. To some extent the argument can be reversed in favour of a pro-warmist view.

Anyway, I think it nicely outlines the problems of 'prediction' when it comes to climate.

I also think exactly the same argument about attractors apply to the economy. Food for thought.

Thanks, that was hilarious. It did concern me somewhat though. Since the solar system is also chaotic and unpredictable, I'm scared the sun won't rise tomorrow.

It will be all right, won't it?

Never mind, here's something complicated and irrelevant to distract you:

quantumchaos_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to that I thought that this was a well written piece on the 'deniers' side:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/strange-new-attractors-strong-evidence-against-both-positive-feedback-and-catastrophe/

I don't offer this as my opinion just something worth reading. The site above does have an agenda (anti-warmist) and a bad track record of allowing balanced debate on its own site, but with that warning in place I think the article is worth a read. To some extent the argument can be reversed in favour of a pro-warmist view.

Anyway, I think it nicely outlines the problems of 'prediction' when it comes to climate.

I also think exactly the same argument about attractors apply to the economy. Food for thought.

i) Global warming doesn't mean it will never get cold again,

ii) There is a huge amount of reactive biology in the system called phytoplankton,

iii) I am always puzzled why financial chartists who are also 'climate change' deniers, can't see trends in any graph other than one referring to assets - or maybe they read the markets poorly too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

iii) I am always puzzled why financial chartists who are also 'climate change' deniers, can't see trends in any graph other than one referring to assets - or maybe they read the markets poorly too.

financial markets are 100% man made.

Global climate change was around from the day the Earth cooled...and before. The trend is towards a couple fo degrees above absolute zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

financial markets are 100% man made.

I was forgetting we are unnatural

Global climate change was around from the day the Earth cooled...and before. The trend is towards a couple fo degrees above absolute zero.

In the absence of life or an atmosphere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was forgetting we are unnatural

In the absence of life or an atmosphere

money doesnt exist in nature. In fact, it doesnt exist in reality...its a function of a delusion we call value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that was hilarious. It did concern me somewhat though. Since the solar system is also chaotic and unpredictable, I'm scared the sun won't rise tomorrow.

It will be all right, won't it?

Never mind, here's something complicated and irrelevant to distract you:

quantumchaos_1.jpg

A chaotic system is not always completely unpredictable, the orbits around attractors are usually (I believe) inside a known envelope. Provided, of course, that the governing parameters of the system stay unchanged. The solar system is a chaotic multiple-body problem, there's no feedback effects, so it differs from the climate.

However, the climate and the economy are multiple, non-linear feedback systems. These are inherently chaotic, and worse, you cannot model a system where you do not know all the feedback paths, their magnitudes and phase relationships. I have yet to be convinced that any economist or climatologist has a complete set of the feedback paths and associated parameters to even begin to attempt to model those systems.

I write this as an engineer who in the past has wrestled with many marginally-stable analogue systems. We used to have a saying around our design lab - if it doesn't oscle now, it will oscillator. Our wonderful, clean, linear designs usually did too, or otherwise malfunction because of "stray" couplings we had never considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that was hilarious. It did concern me somewhat though. Since the solar system is also chaotic and unpredictable, I'm scared the sun won't rise tomorrow.

It will be all right, won't it?

Never mind, here's something complicated and irrelevant to distract you:

Here's something complicated and irrelevant(?) to distract you:

2jcdkzq.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the climate and the economy are multiple, non-linear feedback systems. These are inherently chaotic, and worse, you cannot model a system where you do not know all the feedback paths, their magnitudes and phase relationships. I have yet to be convinced that any economist or climatologist has a complete set of the feedback paths and associated parameters to even begin to attempt to model those systems.

The nice thing about our climate, and I've mentioned it before on one of these threads, is that it has been homeostatic for at least 600 million years. In spite of varying solar output, the occasional meteor strike, and other catastrophes, this planet was resilient enough not to be turned into a giant snowball or be boiled off, to a point where Life would have been effectively reset.

Of course, that's no guarantee that the Earth's climate will still be as resilient tomorrow morning.

James Hansen appears to reckon we're on the brink of going the way of Venus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other creatures trade value

show me the mechanism of trade made by a conscious action and I will concede.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.