Tue, 19 Dec 2023 05:54:35 +0000 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223108#Comment_223108 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223108#Comment_223108 Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:37:53 +0100 bella
Eddo the only references I recognise (1,4,6,8) in your list were about lack of efficacy not ill effects and fit with inactive vaccine or decline in immunity over time or effects of immuno-deficiency due to other factors (e.g. poor nutrition). Your Mr Classen was new to me. At risk of appearing obvious I note he has a potential financial interest and draws his net very wide.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223112#Comment_223112 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223112#Comment_223112 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:33:40 +0100 wookey
To get back to the subject:

Tony: "Very interesting to hear such a lot of talk about global warming again. For a long while now the term has hardly been used, "climate change" being the preferred description."

Both remain in heavy use, although I agree that there has been some trend since 2007 for more usage of CC than GW:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=global%20warming&cmpt=q&tz=
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=climate%20change&cmpt=q&tz=

Note that they are not exactly the same thing: GW causes CC, although many people use them interchangeably.

Tony: We used to have hockey sticks which I criticised.

We still have hockey sticks. At least 11 studies have replicated that work. The shape has changed somewhat since Mann et al 1998, but not the substance. Here's a modern hockey-stick:
http://southwind.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/286Marcott-Temp1.jpg]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223115#Comment_223115 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223115#Comment_223115 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:59:47 +0100 fostertom So much for the hockey stick theory - straight from the machine's mouth!]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223116#Comment_223116 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223116#Comment_223116 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:06:34 +0100 SteamyTea http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223117#Comment_223117 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223117#Comment_223117 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:13:41 +0100 marktime ]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223118#Comment_223118 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223118#Comment_223118 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:13:55 +0100 atomicbisf
Now of course global warming and climate change are actually two slightly different but closely linked things. The Earth is undoubtedly warming as a whole (atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere etc) and this is changing the climate, because climate is more than just the Earths heat content.

I'm glad Tamino's demolition of claims of a 'pause' has been posted because I think it demonstrates the so called pause is just a political/media talking point created by cherry picking rather than anything real. It may play well in the Mail or Telegraph, but it doesn't have any scientific reality.

Ed]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223120#Comment_223120 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223120#Comment_223120 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:48:35 +0100 marktime http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223121#Comment_223121 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223121#Comment_223121 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:49:48 +0100 Ed Davies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223122#Comment_223122 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223122#Comment_223122 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:50:27 +0100 bot de paille http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223123#Comment_223123 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223123#Comment_223123 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:51:11 +0100 marktime http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223124#Comment_223124 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223124#Comment_223124 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:04:28 +0100 SteamyTea Bill Bryson said this about our weather:
"Sometimes it rained, but mostly it was just dull, a land without shadows. It was like living inside Tupperware." (Notes from a Small Island, 1995).
Tacitus, the Roman historian said in 49:
"The sky is overcast with continual rain and cloud"

So little change in 1946 years.

This is why we need to be less subjective and more objective to global temperatures, we cannot rely on our own feelings about weather, let alone climate.
The British still hark on about 'the summer of 76', 39 years ago.
But how good was it really.
Just looking at mean UK temperatures, 1975 was warmer, as was 83, 89, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09. 2010 was colder.
Looking back in time to 1910, 1911 was warmer, as was 21, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45, 49, 53, 57, 59
So over this 100 year period (a long lifetime, my Grandmother saw most of it) and using 'the summer of 76' as a base, then in the years between 1910 and 1976, we had 13 hotter years in 66 years, since 1976 we have had 16 hotter years in 34 years.

What people remember about '76 is the dryness and sunniness, not the temperature. They have confused themselves.
Moral of this is to not trust opinion, just go look at the data for yourself, it is pretty easy to do.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223125#Comment_223125 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223125#Comment_223125 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:40:00 +0100 Ed Davies Posted By: bot de pailleAh, the echo chamber alive and wellWell, yes, lots of people are saying the same sorts of thing so this is not a terribly astute observation. Maybe you could contribute something useful (or even just interesting) on whether those things are true or not rather than only making oblique snide remarks that don't move the conversation forwards.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223126#Comment_223126 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223126#Comment_223126 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:49:53 +0100 Ed Davies http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223131#Comment_223131 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223131#Comment_223131 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:48:18 +0100 marktime Posted By: SteamyTeaI think that the problem is that over a human lifespan we see little change.

I think that may have been true for the past, it may not be true for the future.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223136#Comment_223136 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223136#Comment_223136 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:13:10 +0100 Seret Posted By: EddoFor example, is light a wave or a particle? It behaves either way depending on the intention of the observer. Does this mean some part of consciousness is creative? In which case we are God, whatever that means?

Hear this one a lot, and it bugs me. The double slit experiment gets abused a lot by hippies. The only thing the wave-particle duality tells us is that the wave model and the particle model only accurately represent some properties of the real world. Light doesn't change form between waves and particles; in reality it's never a wave and never a particle. They're inaccurate models that we use because they're accurate enough in certain circumstances and are simple to understand.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223172#Comment_223172 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223172#Comment_223172 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:53:41 +0100 SteamyTea Posted By: SeretThey're inaccurate models that we use because they're accurate enough in certain circumstances and are simple to understand.Certainly simpler than collapsing a statistical wave function. You either know the position, or the momentum, not both.
This is not so odd though as any photographer knows about this.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223187#Comment_223187 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223187#Comment_223187 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:48:45 +0100 fostertom Posted By: marktimeMy laptop displays the graph perfectly, it's in "science is good" mode, whilst yours is in "advances come through cultural shifts" mode and is saying fiddlesticks to hockey sticks.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223302#Comment_223302 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13294&Focus=223302#Comment_223302 Sat, 25 Apr 2015 22:09:45 +0100 wookey
Come on Bot, I know it's hard to give up on an idea you've invested a lot in, but you must see that global warming is real, is controlled largely by atmospheric CO2 levels, is almost entirely anthropogenic, and is corroborated by paleohistory as well as models. What do you gain by ignoring reality? How about trying the University of Queensland's 'MOOC' online course 'Making sense of Climate Denial' https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x

If you still don't believe a word of it after sitting through that lot then fair enough.

Richard Alley is very good if you want a neutral summary of the various possible climate control knobs, and what paleo records (rocks, icecores) tell us about which knobs control what and which effects are most significant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g (42 mins for quick run-through of 4.6 billions years). That's from 2009, but is still a very interesting and relevant watch.]]>