Global warming report hushed up...

[Guigsy]

Lets see what you make of this.

Basicly as far as i can tell...

 

Researcher makes report on global warming.

Report suggests earth is cooling not warming.

Agency dont use/hush up the report as it is "inconvienient"

 

KLYTYnO9KZ4

 

As always - Its fox news so take it with a pinch of salt (these guys chopped obamas speach in half to make it look like he supported terrorism)

[Gaz6002]

I'm going to pre-empt a lot of arguing and say the plane will take off.

 

(Sorry)

 

It's an interesting situation we have here. Fox News can't legally be told not to air a program (as far as I know), so this shows what most youtubers will see as another attempt by the US government to suppress their constitutional rights.

 

It seems weird and slightly concerning that any organisation should suppress information like this.

 

We need our resident GW expert, Martini, to comment.

[Guigsy]

Well if the plannet is cooling down and burning fossil fuels does it were gonna need to go set fire to some stuff. These past few days have been insanly hot.

[Gaz6002]

Well if the plannet is cooling down and burning fossil fuels does it were gonna need to go set fire to some stuff. These past few days have been insanly hot.

 

I like fire.

[Nick]

He's not the only 'unhelpful' scientist out there.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

[tbourner]

I thought it was pretty well accepted in the scientific community that the Earth warms and cools in cycles, and we've just come out of a warming cycle and are now cooling (for the last 5-10 years or so)?

 

I can't remember where I read it now though, it was something along the lines of global warming was happening in the 30s as well, and it would have been top of the list of to-dos if the war hadn't taken over, then when the war ended we were cooling again. It seems to happen all the time (at least since we've had decent records of global temperatures), and there's no reason to think anything's different this time.

[Wez]

Interesting

[martini]

That was painful to watch. How slowly do they talk on Fox news?? Must describe the target demographic! Anyway:

 

Alan Carlin is an EPA economist. I've never heard of him before. That's not bad (nobody has heard of me yet as I haven't published my data yet), but he isn't a scientist and Fox have clearly marketed him as such to gain respect.

 

He's talking about the jurisdiction of the American emissions, not showing any evidence what-so-ever for or against global warming.

 

For an alternative argument against him specifically, read here. There's spin for and against Global Warming wherever you look.

 

So, is Global Warming real? Yes, the Earth is getting warmer. Since we started burning things to get energy (large scale industrial revolution style), Temperatures have increased:

 

http://idisk.me.com/martinirwin/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Instrumental_Temperature_Record-20090701-094444-20090701-100055.jpg

 

However, there is clearly a cycle going back thousands of years:

 

http://idisk.me.com/martinirwin/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Ice_Age_Temperature-20090701-095049.jpg

 

However, we're nowhere near as hot as when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth:

 

http://idisk.me.com/martinirwin/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide-20090701-095121.jpg

 

I went to a mini-meet on Monday evening, and was fatefully asked what I did for a living. So I bored them with a bit of this and now it's your turn (maybe again) if you're reading this.

 

Global warming is only really a "problem" for the human race. The fact that we might have to limit emissions harms the economy. That fact that it's getting warmer and we're running out of food and water for the developed countries is only really a problem to us. The planet is just a rock and the animals come and go with arguably no opinion on the matter.

 

Real scientists only have one agenda. To better understand. That's why there's a Large Hardon Collider. That's why the International Space Station exists. That's why I do what I do.

 

My specific role in all of this is to take measurements of the water uptake ability of particulate air matter (aerosols - dust etc). They go on to form clouds - more clouds keep radiation in, yet more cloud reflect more out to space. We can measure the particle number quite well, but how the different compositions of particle affect the ability to take up water and turn into clouds is relatively poorly characterised. This means large error bars are associated with certain global warming effects.

 

CO2 levels are increasing, and average temperatures around the world are increasing. Those are simple measurements and are fact. Because there is so much potential for this topic to upset politics and economy, there are many hidden agendas.

 

The only agenda seen by true scientists (like myself) is that for increased understanding. If all of the fluctuations do indeed turn out to be within a total natural scope that we haven't parametrised yet... awesome. That means I can drive my Supra around with even less guilt than I currently do

 

Sorry for the long post!

[Wez]

Sorry for the long post!

 

Why, was an interesting read

[MrRalphMan]

So give it another thousand years or so, we'll be taxed on global cooling.

[Lbm]

That was painful to watch. How slowly do they talk on Fox news?? Must describe the target demographic! Anyway:

 

Alan Carlin is an EPA economist. I've never heard of him before. That's not bad (nobody has heard of me yet as I haven't published my data yet), but he isn't a scientist and Fox have clearly marketed him as such to gain respect.

 

He's talking about the jurisdiction of the American emissions, not showing any evidence what-so-ever for or against global warming.

 

For an alternative argument against him specifically, read here. There's spin for and against Global Warming wherever you look.

 

So, is Global Warming real? Yes, the Earth is getting warmer. Since we started burning things to get energy (large scale industrial revolution style), Temperatures have increased:

 

http://idisk.me.com/martinirwin/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Instrumental_Temperature_Record-20090701-094444-20090701-100055.jpg

 

However, there is clearly a cycle going back thousands of years:

 

http://idisk.me.com/martinirwin/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Ice_Age_Temperature-20090701-095049.jpg

 

However, we're nowhere near as hot as when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth:

 

http://idisk.me.com/martinirwin/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide-20090701-095121.jpg

 

I went to a mini-meet on Monday evening, and was fatefully asked what I did for a living. So I bored them with a bit of this and now it's your turn (maybe again) if you're reading this.

 

Global warming is only really a "problem" for the human race. The fact that we might have to limit emissions harms the economy. That fact that it's getting warmer and we're running out of food and water for the developed countries is only really a problem to us. The planet is just a rock and the animals come and go with arguably no opinion on the matter.

 

Real scientists only have one agenda. To better understand. That's why there's a Large Hardon Collider. That's why the International Space Station exists. That's why I do what I do.

 

My specific role in all of this is to take measurements of the water uptake ability of particulate air matter (aerosols - dust etc). They go on to form clouds - more clouds keep radiation in, yet more cloud reflect more out to space. We can measure the particle number quite well, but how the different compositions of particle affect the ability to take up water and turn into clouds is relatively poorly characterised. This means large error bars are associated with certain global warming effects.

 

CO2 levels are increasing, and average temperatures around the world are increasing. Those are simple measurements and are fact. Because there is so much potential for this topic to upset politics and economy, there are many hidden agendas.

 

The only agenda seen by true scientists (like myself) is that for increased understanding. If all of the fluctuations do indeed turn out to be within a total natural scope that we haven't parametrised yet... awesome. That means I can drive my Supra around with even less guilt than I currently do

 

Sorry for the long post!

 

 

That was a good read

[Multics]

Martini, I'm no scientist and I do not have a personal opinion on global warming for many reasons. I guess you know that flick called "the global warming swindle". I'd be interested to know what's your take on it?

 

As you mention in your post, global warming is a problem for the western world and perhaps as the abovementioned flick suggests it's been used as a political weapon to help undeveloped countries remain undeveloped. Also look at all the green taxes that have been introduced and all the industries and companies depending on "global warming"... We surely can't go back now.

 

Again I do not have a personal opinion on it but my mind tells me that human induced warming is like pissing in an ocean.

 

I'm sure that your graphs tells us something but my belief is that we live in an chaotic system and that there could be other factors having influence in graphs that are simply not understood or not discovered yet.

 

If science is open-ended and constantly changing/evolving and if we seem to be unable to create weather prediction models for more that a few days even with the most powerful supercomputers, how accurate is the global warming science?

[Matt H]

You have to be a fool to not believe that climate change is an issue and human activity is significantly to blame.

[Matt H]

Very good post Martin!

 

My specific role in all of this is to take measurements of the water uptake ability of particulate air matter (aerosols - dust etc)

 

Athough perhaps keep the above out of the first date conversations!

[Paul372]

I thought it was pretty well accepted in the scientific community that the Earth warms and cools in cycles, and we've just come out of a warming cycle and are now cooling (for the last 5-10 years or so)?

 

I can't remember where I read it now though, it was something along the lines of global warming was happening in the 30s as well, and it would have been top of the list of to-dos if the war hadn't taken over, then when the war ended we were cooling again. It seems to happen all the time (at least since we've had decent records of global temperatures), and there's no reason to think anything's different this time.

 

i read that some where to and watched a program on it very interesting i thought

[AlexM]

That... *snip*

 

Good read, thanks.

[Angarak]

I saw an interesting documentary on Sky the other day about a scientist who was burning salt flares over the sea, the salt particles within these falres then rose accumulating moisture, it formed a cloud that was more reflective of the suns rays than 'normal less salty' clouds.

 

Quite interesting, his aim once proving his theory was to create ships that basically put salt particles in the air to make the clouds more reflective and thus cooling down the planet.

 

However, it had its drawbacks - such as less rays for crop growths, etc.

[AJI]

I have followed the MMGW theory for and against camps for a number of years now and there still isn't any real definitive facts that can give a clear statement as to what is going on.

 

Each camp brings to light some evidence only then for the other camp to shoot it down with 'scientific facts'.....which in most cases are not facts but interpretations of readings, or computer models designed to produce certain results.

 

 

The fact to date that is accepted is that the earth fluctuates in temperature over the years.... we have currently seen a VERY SMALL period of temperature increase (when compared to the history of the earth).

 

And I think that is about it..... anything else you hear spouted by the governments, media, scientists etc. etc. are points of view or hypothesis which nobody can agree on (and more importantly 'proove').

 

 

IMO all these "millions will die in the future" claims made by 'leading scientists' are scare tactics purely used to generate an excuse to tax and are much more to do with the REAL PROBLEM of the out of control global population increase which no government apart from China seem to be doing anything about. (Even China with its one-child policy is too overcrowded and food chains are struggling).

I'd say that even if the globe was cooling or no change, there would still be the threat of 'millions will die'.....but its got nothing to do with climate change....the world's government should really be looking how to address the extra 2.5billion increase in people over the next 45 years.

[Tony]

You have to be a fool to not believe that climate change is an issue and human activity is significantly to blame.

Crap big con to ring more tax money out us mugs , any way i like hot weather:D

[Abz]

Very detailed post Martini!

Looks like it will be our Grandchildren's children who be paying the price of what we have done now!

[MrRalphMan]

tbh, it looks more like we haven't done anything, just the world natural cycle.. Not to say we won't all die, but at least it's not the Soop doing it.

[R Black]

Martini good read, you have an interesting job.

 

just the world natural cycle.. QUOTE]

 

From what i have read i tend to agree with the above, we may have sped it up a tad, I wait for definitive proof either way however.

We need other forms of power regardless, so this is the stick to get that ball rolling ever quicker.

[tbourner]

I'd say that even if the globe was cooling or no change, there would still be the threat of 'millions will die'.....but its got nothing to do with climate change....the world's government should really be looking how to address the extra 2.5billion increase in people over the next 45 years.

 

Did you miss the decimal point there? I'd say it's closer to 4.5 years than 45, it seems to be an exponential growth at the moment, unfortunately nothing can be done that doesn't impinge on human rights! The simplest way would be to tax every second child rather than dish out more benefits - that'd make people think more before popping another one out.

[R Black]

Did you miss the decimal point there? I'd say it's closer to 4.5 years than 45, it seems to be an exponential growth at the moment, unfortunately nothing can be done that doesn't impinge on human rights! The simplest way would be to tax every second child rather than dish out more benefits - that'd make people think more before popping another one out.

 

Where is this population boom? mostly the 3rd world i assume, don't think they can be taxed as they have no money. Our child born rate here has reduced, so average age rises, causing a reduced coffers for the NHS, pensions etc.

Im not saying the automatic answer here is to have more kids as this Isle is rather packed.

[tbourner]

Where is this population boom? mostly the 3rd world i assume, don't think they can be taxed as they have no money. Our child born rate here has reduced, so average age rises, causing a reduced coffers for the NHS, pensions etc.

Im not saying the automatic answer here is to have more kids as this Isle is rather packed.

 

I don't know the only charts I've seen are of world population, like this one:

 

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/W/WorldBank.gif

 

 

And this one:

 

 

 

 

Whatever is decided to stop population growth (and something will NEED to be decided at some point, unless we terrorform Mars pretty quick!) will undoubtedly cause problems in other areas, as you say average age increasing putting pressure on several groups etc.

I still think every human should be allowed 0.75 children in their lifetime (until the problem is resolved), so couples can have 1.5 children, creating a market for their 'other halves' whereby people who have more money can buy the right to have a 2nd child, and poorer people can sell their right to half a child to support child #1.