If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the persistent contrails filled the southern sky. Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US West Coast airports. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 23, 10:38*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote: Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the persistent contrails filled the southern sky. Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US West Coast airports. -- In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night
about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2. Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting skeptics into hardened deniers. Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon enough! tuno |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
there is essential unanimity among the scientists who study this full
time. Dissenting opinions are always a good thing but in this case are less than 1%. (someone somewhere is still not convinced of relativity). unless you are a climatologist, your opinion is just that. the people who know what they are talking about should make the call. there is no conspiracy and all of us are know nothings. Mark Jardini 1AC |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 23, 2:34*pm, Tuno wrote:
I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2. Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting skeptics into hardened deniers. Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon enough! tuno I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it. Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and discussed their results with them. Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at night. Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for the past century. I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are professional skeptics. The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to predict the future, they know the result is imperfect. Even the most professional among them are still human beings passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind. The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant. Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the most recent data seeming to confirm them. The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the 1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher, no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous public 'debate'. Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists' to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words 'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still get wide publicity. In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for the Russian oil industry. The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format. The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential election. So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief - it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is extremely alarming. Bill Daniels |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Mark Jardini wrote:
there is essential unanimity among the scientists who study this full time. Dissenting opinions are always a good thing but in this case are less than 1%. (someone somewhere is still not convinced of relativity). unless you are a climatologist, your opinion is just that. the people who know what they are talking about should make the call. there is no conspiracy and all of us are know nothings. Mark Jardini 1AC Leave it up to the people who know something about the subject? That isn't any fun! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 23, 6:16*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
Leave it up to the people who know something about the subject? That isn't any fun! And it would certainly be contrary to the spirit of R.A.S. ! See ya, Dave* "YO electric" * who's published thesis was titled: "Data Flow Computer Performance for the GISS Weather Model" |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 2:59*am, T8 wrote:
Happily, even some of the true believers are starting to wake up. Here's one environmentalist's summary: *http://davidcrowe.ca/GlobalWarming.html This guy seems like a very sensible chap. I disagree with him on two points ("fair" trade vs free trade, and the safety of nuclear power) but I'm sure we could have a good clean healthy debate on those subjects. On the rest I'm with him 100%. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 4:31*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote: If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves fraud, you're quite wrong. Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released. That may or may not be true. What is without question true is that if the data can't be practically reproduced by others or made available then you can't base science on it. The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats precisely what they should be doing. It's been done. I haven't been totally keeping track, but it seems that at least the raw data for NZ, Australia (e.g. Darwin), and Russia looks quite different to what the CRU has been using, via one or both of using only the subset of stations that show warming, or the raw and published data showing a long series of unexplained adjustments with the effect of lowering old temperatures and raising recent ones. This is even before you get into the discovery that you can feed totally random data into Mann's program and it still produces a "hockey stick". |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Refreshing response-
No paranoia, no political agenda. Just thoughtful insight. Thanks Bill- Dan Thirkill "bildan" wrote in message ... I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it. Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and discussed their results with them. Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at night. Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for the past century. I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are professional skeptics. The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to predict the future, they know the result is imperfect. Even the most professional among them are still human beings passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind. The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant. Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the most recent data seeming to confirm them. The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the 1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher, no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous public 'debate'. Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists' to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words 'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still get wide publicity. In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for the Russian oil industry. The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format. The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential election. So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief - it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is extremely alarming. Bill Daniels |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |