World may not be warming, say scientists

[richaron]

Newton did. He claimed it was for the Universe. He even claimed gravity is transmitted to all other objects in the universe instantaneously and undiminished.

I said modern. Newton's ideas a still very much useful these days. And we stated over and over, nobody claims every theory works all the time

 

[cybrsage]

Yes. Sure

Excellent, thank you. OK, repost your questions.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Excellent, thank you. OK, repost your questions.

Well, now you admit that you have read almost nothing of any previous post because you are simply unable to cope with truth.


"Does relativity work for quantum scales? No. Does quantum mechanics work for general relativity scales? No. My god, physical theories that are wrong outside their frame of reference and becoming meaningless in these different frame of references and being completely wrong about how they think that the universe works? THEY ARE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG. STOP THE PRESSES. SCIENTISTS AND PHYSICISTS ARE DOING EVERYTHING WRONG. Gps, atomic clocks, spacecraft flight, and many others ARE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG because they are not using THEORIES THAT ARE ALWAYS CORRECT NO MATTER WHAT. Decades of computing, in research quantum computers, astronomy, fusion reactors, quantum teleportation are all completely wrong because their theories simply don't function in all places in the universe."

""Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories because they have exceptions where these theories do not work because the equations cannot explain certain universal phenomena "

You claim that Newtonian gravity has been disproven and so cannot be used and is an example of how scientists are completely wrong about climate science because they happened to believe this "crackpot" theory which was peer reviewed, if you agree with this question, it just makes you dumb. Really really dumb.

If you disagree with this statement, it just shows that the premise of the argument "newtonian gravity is wrong and so peer review does not work" does not in fact, have an accurate premise and that you admit that newtonian gravity is theory that works perfectly for certain situations and that it is in fact not "bad science" because as a science, it is extremely useful.,, and so your argument claiming that global warming science is another example of "bad science" is extremely extremely unfounded.

Don't even attempt to somehow make up some weird bullshit about how my answer to your question somehow is an answer for you.

You have lost this argument sir

After you have answered this, I will work on the backlog of arguments that you have completely ignored because you "moved the goal post" to your side

 

[cybrsage]

I said modern. Newton's ideas a still very much useful these days. And we stated over and over, nobody claims every theory works all the time

Newton did. That is the topic under discussion, the one you joined into.

You are correct, modern theories have built in limitations. Newton's limitation was the entirety of the universe. That is not why it has been disproven, though. It is because he was wrong in his assumptions as to how gravity propogates. That is why it is not fixable...the very foundation of the theory is completely wrong.

It is still quite useful, just like saying 1.5 km is a mile is very useful. Being useful and being right are not the same thing.

 

[cybrsage]

Well, now you admit that you have read almost nothing of any previous post because you are simply unable to cope with truth.

Not at all true. I very clearly said we would get to your questions once we were done discussing the first one. Why should I read the questions we are not yet going to discuss? Seems a waste of time.

""Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

No, I do not.

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories because they have exceptions where these theories do not work because the equations cannot explain certain universal phenomena "

Yes, Hawking and I both are in agreement and we both realize this.

You claim that Newtonian gravity has been disproven and so cannot be used

Here is where you disconnect yourself. I have never claimed this. I have, in fact, claimed it is still quite useful even though it is wrong. I have, at least twice, used the 1.5km = 1 mile as an easy to understand example of something being wrong and yet still useful.

My claim was that people like you will fight tooth and nail to attempt to say that something which was created by a pillar of science, yet easily proven to be wrong, is not actually wrong. You showed I was correct very nicely. It took a myriad of posts before you finally admitted what was obvious from the get go.

 

[Paul98]

Newton did. That is the topic under discussion, the one you joined into.

You are correct, modern theories have built in limitations. Newton's limitation was the entirety of the universe. That is not why it has been disproven, though. It is because he was wrong in his assumptions as to how gravity propogates. That is why it is not fixable...the very foundation of the theory is completely wrong.

It is still quite useful, just like saying 1.5 km is a mile is very useful. Being useful and being right are not the same thing.

Newton wasn't worried about how or why gravity worked the way it did. He basically just said he wasn't going to bother to think about it since his equations worked the way that they did.

 

[Jaskalas]

The article may be based on outdated information just going by the date of the original post.

Just last October a major skeptic of Climate Change discovered that temperatures are in fact changing even if he doesn't buy the cause of it.

Oh, so you're a propagandist, eh?

Muller has always been on your side, as we've covered before.

Got any more lies?

 

[Jaskalas]

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

A better question is whether this decade will end up warmer, overall, than the one before it. That remains to be seen. Any shorter trend than that may not be relevant to the big picture.

Hell, even trends spanning multiple decades are suspect to natural variation. If we stop warming you can bet that the warmists will claim the natural cycles are hiding the heat, and that once those flip back our gooses are cooked.

 

[cybrsage]

Newton wasn't worried about how or why gravity worked the way it did. He basically just said he wasn't going to bother to think about it since his equations worked the way that they did.

Yeah, he said it always bothered him that he could not figure it out, so he made an assumption. Assumptions are needed for without them not much can be done. In his case, his assumption turned out to be wrong. Still useful for everyday things, though.

Pretty good work for a guy from his era.

 

[monovillage]

Oh, so you're a propagandist, eh?

Muller has always been on your side, as we've covered before.

Got any more lies?

Much the same as the shark hybrid story that was in the forums a couple of weeks back. The actual scientist that did the paper never mentioned climate change in the story. The whole link to global warming was invented by a journalist (Amy Coopes) and included in the article. When the scientist (Jessica Morgan) became aware of the fabrication she refuted the misquote and said she'd never connected climate change to the hybrid sharks.

 

[cybrsage]

A better question is whether this decade will end up warmer, overall, than the one before it. That remains to be seen. Any shorter trend than that may not be relevant to the big picture.

Hell, even trends spanning multiple decades are suspect to natural variation. If we stop warming you can bet that the warmists will claim the natural cycles are hiding the heat, and that once those flip back our gooses are cooked.

I think it is interesting that when it is said "this was the warmest summer since 1936" AGW people say "see, it is warming up!". What they do not realize is that it also means winters have been colder between then and now.

Same goes for the other direction. We need to look at far longer lengths of time.

 

[desy]

I hate when people try to use weather as evidence of climate.

 

[richaron]

My claim was that people like you will fight tooth and nail to attempt to say that something which was created by a pillar of science, yet easily proven to be wrong, is not actually wrong. You showed I was correct very nicely. It took a myriad of posts before you finally admitted what was obvious from the get go.

As I have stated: modern theories are accepted to be incomplete & also accepted to be the most accurate theory we have.

To show something is "wrong": you have to show something else is more accurate.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

And ice keeps melting. Strange ... it's more than warming, it is polution.

 

[monovillage]

And ice keeps melting. Strange ... it's more than warming, it is polution.

Actually the Antarctic is at record levels for sea ice extent and the arctic is close to normal level. "Normal levels" being from 1979 satellite records.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png

 

[peonyu]

Um, duh!

It's about time this world-wide hoax and scam be put to rest.

Already trillions have been wasted, and the standard of living for millions of people lowered because of this fake "emergency."

For decades the radical arm of the green movement has been looking for a way to turn back the clock on industrialized society and this is the closest they have come.

AGW and ACC is dead.

World may not be warming, say scientists

Jonathan Leake
The Sunday Times

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

I dont know for a fact if Global warming is true or not [nobody knows one way or the other right now], but you cannot deny that the impact of people on the planet is immense, we are a parasite to the planet if there ever was one.

My gut feeling is that yes the planet is heating up due to human activity, on the one hand we have some folks saying the planet is not warming up...But outside of their cozy offices there are very real examples of the opposite. The Arctic has been freezing over less and less since the 1950's and today its possible to use the Arctic as a trade route from Asia to Europe and North America...That was NEVER possible before in recorded history, yet its possible today.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

"Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.[4][5][6][7] However, the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters,[8] but the United States and various European countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.[9][10]"


Effects of climate change

"In the summer of 2000, two Canadian ships took advantage of thinning summer ice cover on the Arctic Ocean to make the crossing.[65] It is thought that climate change is likely to open the passage for increasing periods of time, making it attractive as a major shipping route. However the passage through the Arctic Ocean would require significant investment in escort vessels and staging ports. Therefore the Canadian commercial marine transport industry does not anticipate the route as a viable alternative to the Panama Canal even within the next 10 to 20 years.[66]

On September 14, 2007, the European Space Agency stated that, based on satellite images, ice loss had opened up the passage "for the first time since records began in 1978". According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the latter part of the 20th century and the start of the 21st had seen marked shrinkage of ice cover. The extreme loss in 2007 rendered the passage "fully navigable".

 

[Paul98]

Actually the Antarctic is at record levels for sea ice extent and the arctic is close to normal level. "Normal levels" being from 1979 satellite records.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png

Sea ice extent is not the same as ice volume. You can have sea ice extent go up and still be losing ice volume.

 

[cybrsage]

As I have stated: modern theories are accepted to be incomplete & also accepted to be the most accurate theory we have.

To show something is "wrong": you have to show something else is more accurate.

No, you certainly do not have to show something else more accurate to show something as being wrong. To disprove a theory, all you need to do is show one observation which does not match the predicted results. The theory is then either altered so the predicted results will predict the observation and it continues or it is simply disproved forever if you cannot.

We keep a disproven theory until a better one replaces it, for having something is better than nothing, and it can be used as a foundation for the new theory. It is still disproven, though.

I recommend you read a bit more about how scientific theories work. I would start with the simple quote from Hawking I posted several times.

 

[Paul98]

Yeah, he said it always bothered him that he could not figure it out, so he made an assumption. Assumptions are needed for without them not much can be done. In his case, his assumption turned out to be wrong. Still useful for everyday things, though.

Pretty good work for a guy from his era.

I would go farther that "Preety good", what Newton did with what he started off with in mathematics and science is astounding. Especially when you look at the state of math and science in his era. It would have been interesting to see what sort of impact he could have had if he knew everything we know today and lived in current times.

 

[cybrsage]

I would go farther that "Preety good", what Newton did with what he started off with in mathematics and science is astounding. Especially when you look at the state of math and science in his era. It would have been interesting to see what sort of impact he could have had if he knew everything we know today and lived in current times.

Oh my yes. The guy was a genius. His work was foundational. Like most foundational work, some of it is wrong. That is to be expected.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I find that most of the GW deniers are like the Evolution deniers, they don't believe it hence it cannot be true, that the entire scientific data is settled on the issue doesn't even make them pause, they are full steam ahead stupid.

How about we let the people who know better speak their mind rather than have oil companies representatives hire people to tell us?

This is like the tobacco companies hired "scientists" telling people how it's healthy to smoke.

And the same kind of retarded people are buying it yet again.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No, you certainly do not have to show something else more accurate to show something as being wrong. To disprove a theory, all you need to do is show one observation which does not match the predicted results.

LOL, no, you would have to produce results that would falsify the theory and you would have to be able to wait until others reproduce the same results, then you'd have to wait for it to be published and within a few years from that the peer review would have taken care of the issue for you.

You can't just pretend to show something is wrong and not expect others to call you on it, that is NOT science nor will it ever be.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Oh my yes. The guy was a genius. His work was foundational. Like most foundational work, some of it is wrong. That is to be expected.

And he was wrong, not a bit, completely WRONG.

That is the beauty of science, no matter how much respect you have amongst people and your peers, if you are wrong, you're WRONG.

That's why science works.

 

[woolfe9999]

I find that most of the GW deniers are like the Evolution deniers, they don't believe it hence it cannot be true, that the entire scientific data is settled on the issue doesn't even make them pause, they are full steam ahead stupid.

How about we let the people who know better speak their mind rather than have oil companies representatives hire people to tell us?

This is like the tobacco companies hired "scientists" telling people how it's healthy to smoke.

And the same kind of retarded people are buying it yet again.

Indeed, some of the same people who lobbied against the scientific consensus on tobacco are now involved with GW denial.

 

[jhbball]

it's obvious that all of these denier morons arrived at their conclusions before they had any "evidence".