Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 141600	2016-01-18 20:02:00	The top 10 biggest climate alarmist predictions gone spectacularly wrong:	CliveM (6007)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1414666	2016-01-20 07:22:00	Very sad about your mate (and others like him) but the reason Y2K basically went unnoticed was because a lot of work went into fixing the problems before hand. There are always scaremongers on every subject but often there is that grain of truth in the background. Well yes and no. For instance, Microsoft were involved with all their programmes, but the problem was recognised, and fixed with a patch, like so many since, and there was no need for panic. I've still got a cutting from the Herald somewhere, about a Video Store in America loosing its Database. :eek: Turned out the programme was written by a local school kid who popped down and fixed it. Time for an Open Season on Politicians and Media. :)	B.M. (505)
1414667	2016-01-20 08:40:00	Can't wear that dugi . The real reason is you can argue "Global Warming" and beat them, but you can't argue "Climate Change" because of course it is changing and has always been . Remember they tried to change "Climate Change" to "Global Climatic Disruption" to make it less definitive, but that doesn't seem to have caught on . However, the fact that bugger all is happening, and hasn't been for years has now, introduced an explanation called "The Pause Period" . It's a sad state of affairs when "Scientists" need "Spin Doctors" to justify their existence . :rolleyes: I was only explaining the phrasing, and as I said they are still claiming an upwards trend so they have not changed their position in regards to that . It's clear that prediction models are not accurate and the trend may be exaggerated, but it's still there . I really don't want to start the whole is it or isn't it happening debate again, we did that one to death and it's clear you are firmly entrenched in your position on that . I will say this much, the only thing you can "beat" them on is the extent of the change and how significant our contribution to it is . The planet is warming up and has been for centuries, which is to be expected as we are still in the tail end of the last ice age . The so called "pause" is a very short amount of time over all and temperature trends have not reversed . It's not used as an explanation of anything it's just an observation of some measurements . In any case your arguments are equally valid (or otherwise) whatever name they use, if it suddenly gets cold rover the next decade they are still wrong .	dugimodo (138)
1414668	2016-01-20 09:37:00	We've been through all of this before and I have stated my view a number of times in this forum, here once more is my summation: zqwerty 28-11-2009, 08:06 AM So it is your opinion that the feverish economic activities of more than 6 billion individuals, who in the past have been not present on the scene, actually have no significant impact on the overall climate? I suggest that given the evidence all around us of drastic change the onus is on you to prove that it is not so. In the absence of that proof I'll trust in common sense and my gut feeling that we seeing the start of huge changes precipitated by vast and increasing overpopulation coupled with tragic mismanagement of precious limited resources and furthermore that the tipping point has already been reached and we are past the point of no return. Trusting in external metaphysical forces not allowed, we are on our own, sorry. zqwerty 30-11-2009, 04:39 PM I posted this years ago on another site and also here I believe, here it is again: Actually, a simple model of what is going on is this. We are in a system with negative feedback applied, as the system is disrupted by internal or external forces the feedback loop acts to hold the system in stability, the bigger the changes the bigger the fluctuations within the control loop which normally have a sine wave shape. As the stability of the system is tested in our case by more energy in the system ie global warming, as the feedback loop loses control the sine wave shape will tend to become a square wave as the limits of control are reached. In this case the world's weather is kept in some form of stability by the sharing of the heat at the Equator with the cold at the poles and vice-versa. See: Gulf Stream and Atlantic Conveyor - our feedback loop. The melting of the North Pole (fact) is allowing more fresh water into the North Atlantic which is disrupting the process in ways not fully understood as yet. As this system is disrupted by whatever, we would expect to see more energy at the equator ie more hurricanes and less energy at the poles ie colder Winters on average. The predictions are that there will be wilder weather for a while as the Global warming is exacerbated by our activities then as the feedback loop loses control completely we will go into an ice age for a few thousand years in as little time as 100 years as has happened many times before in the history of the earth. Think of a bi-state circuit which temporarily is maintained as a sine wave oscillator by feedback but has now flopped into one or other of the two states possible for a while to get a more accurate picture, I think. FWIW zqwerty 30-11-2009, 08:19 PM Sine waves are everywhere in nature, look at tidal changes for instance, gradual repeating change over a period in time (in continuous cycles) is what equitable climate is all about. When it is flip flopping (square waves) it won't do it many times before it locks into one of the extreme states, ie ice age round the poles and overheating at the Equator. This has happened a number of times before, it's in the geological records, if we succeed in precipitating an new ice age we won't go out of it for longer than civilization has existed. The danger is in taking the analogy too far B.M. but I certainly don't think a square wave generator fits the bill even with pulse width variation except in the last stages when it is game over, remember with a flip flop if it was not limited by power supply rails you would have transitions between minus and plus infinity with a very high slew (tending to infinite rate of change at cross-over) rate and under normal conditions on Earth we clearly do not have that, so I really don't know what you mean.	zqwerty (97)
1414669	2016-01-20 16:55:00	zqwerty So what is your view - in one sentence. I did like your paragraph on the Atlantic Conveyor, I have read and heard about this before. So if the Arctic ice and Greenland ice melts, it puts more fresh (not salt) water into the North Atlantic. This then affects the Gulf Stream current and the Atlantic Conveyor as the fresh water behaves differently from Salt water (one sinks, the other does not)	Digby (677)
1414670	2016-01-20 18:12:00	I was only explaining the phrasing, and as I said they are still claiming an upwards trend so they have not changed their position in regards to that . It's clear that prediction models are not accurate and the trend may be exaggerated, but it's still there . I really don't want to start the whole is it or isn't it happening debate again, we did that one to death and it's clear you are firmly entrenched in your position on that . I will say this much, the only thing you can "beat" them on is the extent of the change and how significant our contribution to it is . The planet is warming up and has been for centuries, which is to be expected as we are still in the tail end of the last ice age . The so called "pause" is a very short amount of time over all and temperature trends have not reversed . It's not used as an explanation of anything it's just an observation of some measurements . In any case your arguments are equally valid (or otherwise) whatever name they use, if it suddenly gets cold rover the next decade they are still wrong . Well according to NASA we have experienced a massive 0 . 8°C global temperature rise in the last 136 years, and who knows what the margin of error is there? Then we have the "Pause", since 1998 when there hasn't been any rise . But to top it all off we have all those Eminent Scientists predicting an Ice Age . Where will it all end . :lol:	B.M. (505)
1414671	2016-01-20 18:53:00	So it is your opinion that the feverish economic activities of more than 6 billion individuals, who in the past have been not present on the scene, actually have no significant impact on the overall climate? . I'm not so sure. We do in that we are cutting down trees at an accelerated arte and things like that. However go back far enough..... en.wikipedia.org eo.ucar.edu However we certainly are screwing up - we've bred like flies and the population continues to compound, we are killing off loads of other species. Not just the tigers etc but the bees. All of it adds up to an unhealthy environment for ourselves. Of course, once we're extinct the planet will continue on, new species will happily take over, we just won't be here to see.	pctek (84)
1414672	2016-01-20 19:31:00	Can't wear that dugi . It's a sad state of affairs when "Scientists" need "Spin Doctors" to justify their existence . :rolleyes: They also use wordiness to hide the facts, dugi is good at that too . !	Cicero (40)
1414673	2016-01-20 19:54:00	Zqwerty: So it is your opinion that the feverish economic activities of more than 6 billion individuals, who in the past have been not present on the scene, actually have no significant impact on the overall climate? Hmmm, how does a population explosion relate to the burning of fossil fuels causing Climate Change . The danger is in taking the analogy too far B . M . but I certainly don't think a square wave generator fits the bill even with pulse width variation except in the last stages when it is game over, remember with a flip flop if it was not limited by power supply rails you would have transitions between minus and plus infinity with a very high slew (tending to infinite rate of change at cross-over) rate and under normal conditions on Earth we clearly do not have that, so I really don't know what you mean . Well how does an asymmetrical freerunning flip flop fit into your analogy zqwerty?	B.M. (505)
1414674	2016-01-20 21:27:00	Hmmm, how does a population explosion relate to the burning of fossil fuels causing Climate Change. Ummmm...??? There's an article in this morning's Herald, from NASA, that's worth reading. It even has a quote from Michael Mann, B.M. Among other things, there is this point "For the first time Earth is 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was in pre-industrial times, NOAA and NASA said.	rumpty (2863)
1414675	2016-01-20 21:51:00	Ummmm . . . ??? There's an article in this morning's Herald, from NASA, that's worth reading . It even has a quote from Michael Mann, B . M . Among other things, there is this point "For the first time Earth is 1 degree Celsius (1 . 8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was in pre-industrial times, NOAA and NASA said . Well that is really earth shattering stuff rumpty . They haven't updated their website yet but if what they say is correct they have somehow found another 0 . 2°C which means the Earths temperature has risen a whole 1°C since 1880, 136 years . And they didn't even bother to report that the temperature swung 10°C in a day at my place yesterday . :( 6921	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4