* Posts by Ranmn

6 posts • joined 31 Mar 2014

Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees


Re: The heat is on?

The questions isn't whether our planet is warming, anyone can see that over the past 40/50/75 years we have seen variations in temperature on a global level with a general trend upwards.

The question is whether CO2 emissions are the primary driving factor in that temperature increase. Since this is one of the things that governments can tax this is what they have focused on. But there are obviously other factors involved, which are not taxable.

This whole debate then becomes a political debate over taxes rather than a scientific debate. In that case the panel discussed in this article is actually made up of the right mix, with the majority being politically minded members rather than scientific.

In this current debate, its not what you can prove scientifically, its what you can convince the tax base to believe, and therefore how much you can tax them.


Re: Serious (maths) question ...

Serious (maths) Question...

As you look at statistical data, small samples are very prone to error, as you increase your data samples your error rate decreases.

One of the problems with the Climate Change debate is the entire data set is quite small in the grand scheme of things. Climate Change is measured over long periods of time, ie.. centuries. So taking a 15 year sampling, or 30 year, 40 year, you are prone to statistical errors due to the small data sample. Even if you expand your range to say 150 years, (problem here is that noone has been collecting all of the data, and there are serious questions about the measurement methods used in the 1800's).

You simply cannot get accurate temperature measurements from tree rings. And the sea temperature measurements in the 1800's were done by dropping a thermometer over the side on a rope, no adjustments were made for currents and/or movement of the ship etc.. So a 100 foot rope did not actually measure the temperature 100 ft below the surface.

NASA: Satellite which will end man-made CO2 debate in orbit at last


Re: Debate settler?

"Ok, past climate data points to natural cycles, but what we're seeing at the moment is a rate of temperature change that is about 100 times faster than these natural cycles. Climate change deniers need to find an explanation for this accelerated rate of change that doesn't involve carbon dioxide. So far they've failed."

You know it would be nice to actually discuss facts rather than fiction when you're debating something. The rate of temperature increase has not increased by a factor of 100, yes there was a period from the late 70's to mid 90's where there was a sharp increase in temperature increase, from a cyclic low in the early to mid 70's to the temperatures seen in the 90's. Maybe you're referring to the doctored data that was debunked from the IPCC manipulating data, not sure.

What I know is that there has been a temperature increase since the 1950's and the IPCC had to adjust their forecasts because real temperature increases were significantly less than what they had been forecasting.

The other thing to keep in mind is that as CO2 levels increase, the impact to temperature decreases on a logarithmic scale. So I'm not convinced that this satellite will end any debate, but I'm hoping we can get things in real terms instead of the current crisis mode alarmist forecasts.

here's a site to back up my statements, check it out. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

Report: Climate change has already hit USA - and time is RUNNING OUT


I look at the chart included in this article, and I see that we've experienced a 2.5 degree F increase in global temps since 1880. I'm wondering how this constitutes a crisis, as this is a nice steady rate of increase, over 130 years.

I don't see the crisis here.

New IPCC report: 8 ways climate change will throw world into peril


Re: Things are even far worse than what people really think - even when wearing rose tinted glasses

Lets see, there was Y2K, that was a bust.

There was 2012 - that turned out to be a bust.

And we have Climate Change with no specific date, just massive dire predictions of doom and gloom.

We 'may' see an increase of x degrees over the next y years, therefore we must act now to stop it.

And the solution? Buy my green energy solutions, cap and trade to charge people for using carbon burning solutions that don't otherwise give me and mine money.


What's an AC?

Sorry for not following your acronym, but I just cannot fathom what you're talking about.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021