Go Back  

DIY Electric Car Forums > General Forum > Chit Chat

Register Blogs FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-05-2009, 06:44 AM
mattW's Avatar
mattW mattW is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 882
Blog Entries: 18
mattW is a glorious beacon of lightmattW is a glorious beacon of lightmattW is a glorious beacon of lightmattW is a glorious beacon of lightmattW is a glorious beacon of light
Default The Climate Change Debate Thread

If you would like to debate the various tenants of Climate Change, here is the only place to do so. If you are easily offended then you should probably avoid this thread but we urge all members to civil and respectful. DIY Electric car doesn't have an official stance on this issue but please limit discussion to this thread only so that we can all get on with the job of building EVs. Both sides of the debate are here to build electric cars, so don't forget what unites us here.
__________________
If I was giving a kWh for every suggested idea of perpetual motion I read, I would probably ironically be able to travel perpetually...
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-04-2009, 11:18 PM
david85's Avatar
david85 david85 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Campbell River, Canada
Posts: 4,727
david85 will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

I guess the first think We could do is pin down what exactly we mean by debating "climate change" or "global warming".

For me the definition of the debate is really about anthropological climate change. This implies that we are somehow responsible for changes in climate by way of CO2 emissions (and other so called "green house gasses", like methane, etc).

This theory can then be contrasted against recorded data over the last few decades, since the theory of anthropological climate change has been around long enough to be able to start testing it.

Any objections or thoughts?
__________________
I knew what kind of vehicle I wanted to drive since before I was old enough to drive,

All I had to do was build it.. http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums...ion-26587.html

Garage: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/garage/cars/206

Forum Rules and terms of service:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/faq.php
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-05-2009, 12:23 AM
david85's Avatar
david85 david85 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Campbell River, Canada
Posts: 4,727
david85 will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

To kick things off, I found a rare public debate on the issue between two well known scientists on opposing sides of the issue.

http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/....html?id=18946

1 hour and 15 minutes.
__________________
I knew what kind of vehicle I wanted to drive since before I was old enough to drive,

All I had to do was build it.. http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums...ion-26587.html

Garage: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/garage/cars/206

Forum Rules and terms of service:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/faq.php
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-08-2009, 07:26 PM
the Brutus the Brutus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
the Brutus is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Hi, don't wish to be a smart arse but the word you're looking for is
"anthropogenic"-caused by man.

"Anthropological" climate change could be research into the culture and habits of climate change committees. It could be fun: "these fascinating creatures...spend most of their time speaking in a strange dialect...while wearing polyester suits...and consuming astonishing amounts of Free Trade coffee..." (in the voice of David Attenbourough)

Let it roll!

Brett
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-29-2012, 02:41 AM
Duncan Duncan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southland New Zealand
Posts: 1,702
Duncan is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Va76ug2h1n View Post
This implies that we are somehow responsible for changes in climate by way of CO2 emissions (and other so called "green house gasses", like methane, etc)
Where else did they come from - the tooth fairy?

Seriously - a simple comparison of isotope ratios points the finger at (drumbeat) Fossil fuels

so called "green house gasses",

So called because they provide a greenhouse effect - simple physics - been known for over 100 years
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-09-2012, 01:57 PM
IamIan's Avatar
IamIan IamIan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: RI, U.S.
Posts: 1,025
IamIan is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomPholly View Post
Belongs in the Climate Debate thread guys...

Don't forget to hide the decline!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

Amusing video.

I'm curious ... What is your take on the back story explanation behind the 'hide the decline' refereed to in the video??

Link1
Link2
Quote:
Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics
- - - - - - - - -

And sense my only comment in that thread was about being proactive vs reactive ... I didn't see it needing to be in this thread ... but sense you asked , I copied it bellow for reference as well ... Do you disagree with some part of the proactive vs reactive comment I made?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
Quote:
Originally Posted by PStechPaul
The problem is that we have become reactive rather than proactive
As a species ... Humans seem to me ... to have a long history of being more reactive than proactive ... So I don't think it is something we've "become" ... instead I think it is something we have always been ... the proactive part I think is newer to us as a species ... something we still struggle with at times.

Also ... just to make it a bit more complicated ... there are advantages to both / either side.

Reactive has advantages.
#1> Less resistance to action.
#2> No chance of wasted finite resources on a incorrect prediction.

Proactive also has advantages.
#1> Ultimately less resources to address the same issue.
#2> Reduced impact of that issue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-09-2012, 02:17 PM
Beemer Beemer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 296
Beemer is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

lolol, @ "Hide the decline".
That court case has cost the taxpayer into five figures so far. To hide what ought to be public information. After the horse has already bolted!
Tree ring growth depends on many factors, not merely temperature.
The "scientists" who upheld Manns paper as fact have found themselves totally put to pasture when real dendrochronologists pointed out there are missing rings from zero growth years making the tree much older.
The Dendro guys hold no awe for Mann whatsoever.


From the journal Holocene:

Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

Thomas M Melvin University of East Anglia, UK
Håkan Grudd Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Keith R Briffa University of East Anglia, UK

Abstract

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.

Here’s the money quote from the paper:

If the good fit between these tree-growth and temperature data is reflected at the longer timescales indicated by the smoothed chronologies (Figures 5c and S20d, available online), we can infer the existence of generally warm summers in the 10th and 11th centuries, similar to the level of those in the 20th century.

Conclusions

• The RCS method generates long-timescale variance from
the absolute values of measurements but it is important to
test that data from different sources are compatible in
order to avoid systematic bias in chronologies.

• It was found in the Torneträsk region of Sweden that there were systematic differences in the density measurements from different analytical procedures and laboratory conditions and that an RCS chronology created from a simple combination of these MXD data contained systematic bias.

• Both the known systematic variation of measurement values (both TRW and MXD) by ring age and the varying effect of common forcing on tree growth over time must
be taken into account when assessing the need to adjust subpopulations of tree-growth measurements for use with RCS.

• It was necessary to rescale the ‘update’ density measurements from Torneträsk to match the earlier measurements over their common period, after accounting for ring-age decay, in order to remove this systematic bias.

• The use of two RCS curves, separately processing fastand slow-growing trees, has reduced the effect of modern sample bias which appears to have produced some artificial inflation of chronology values in the late 20th century in previously published Torneträsk TRW chronologies.

• A ‘signal-free’ implementation of a multiple RCS approach to remove the tree age-related trends, while retaining trends associated with climate, has produced
new 1500-year long MXD and TRW chronologies which show similar evidence of long-timescale changes over
their full length.

• The new chronologies presented here provide mutually consistent evidence, contradicting a previously published conclusion (Grudd, 2008), that medieval summers (between 900 and 1100 ce) were much warmer than those
in the 20th century.

• The method described here to test for and remove systematic bias from RCS chronologies is recommended for further studies where it is necessary to identify and mitigate systematic bias in RCS chronologies composed of nonhomogeneous samples.

So basically in Science speak, they are calling him a liar.
We've had no warming on the Earth for 16 years now. Don't you think you'll have more chance proving Bigfoot?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-10-2012, 05:54 PM
IamIan's Avatar
IamIan IamIan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: RI, U.S.
Posts: 1,025
IamIan is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemer View Post
So basically in Science speak, they are calling him a liar.
I disagree with your 'translation' ... if we want to call it that ... and if that is what you think ... I would suggest you take some more science classes , to better learn the "Science speak".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemer View Post
We've had no warming on the Earth for 16 years now. Don't you think you'll have more chance proving Bigfoot?


I am not trying to prove a warming earth ... I asked a question ... despite everything you wrote about 'hide the decline' ... you did not answer the question asked.

Do you want to answer the question asked?
Even if I didn't direct it toward you initially.

There are several problems with your claim about warming as you wrote it ... but that's a different issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemer View Post
It follows the heating and cooling of the ocean surface.
Can't have it both ways ... if there has been no warming as you claim ... sense in this part you claim the CO2 follows the ocean surface temperature ... than 1+1=2 ... there should be no change in CO2 over the last 16 years of your claim ... do you have evidence of that on a global scale that you are making claims about?

Last edited by IamIan; 12-10-2012 at 06:08 PM. Reason: no warming + CO2 follows ocean surface temp
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-09-2012, 02:32 PM
Beemer Beemer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 296
Beemer is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post
Where else did they come from - the tooth fairy?

Seriously - a simple comparison of isotope ratios points the finger at (drumbeat) Fossil fuels

so called "green house gasses",

So called because they provide a greenhouse effect - simple physics - been known for over 100 years
Absolutely! A living Earth!
However, the yearly C02 sawtooth does not climb according to the energy demands of man. It follows the heating and cooling of the ocean surface. After all, there is 40x more C02 per volume in sea than in air at sea level. Same when the C02 drops. Yet underneath This inexorable climb back to C02 normality Are variances. the most notable is the developing nations. The other is Solar.
C02/Solar/Earth temp variations. All smoothed
Avoid using the initial quarter waves each end of this graph. An artifact of calculation.

This is the link for the ultimate proof temperature drives C02
I could download the numbers and crunch them to give a ratio of how long and how perfectly. Its there for you if you want.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-10-2012, 05:52 AM
Salty9 Salty9 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 42.596N 122.688W
Posts: 743
Salty9 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemer View Post

This is the link for the ultimate proof temperature drives C02
I could download the numbers and crunch them to give a ratio of how long and how perfectly. Its there for you if you want.
Sounds like Captain Queeg's testimony in the Caine mutiny trial

"But the strawberries, that's where I had them. I proved with geometric logic that a duplicate key to the icebox existed."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Share or Bookmark this

Tags
climate change, global warming

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2009 Green Web Publishing LLC
Ad Management by RedTyger