Climate Change Affecting Hops Quality?

[Phoney]

How much fuel will a prius use towing half a tonne of dirt in a trailer? My V8 only goes up 1 or 2L / 100k because it has the torque to handle it and i dont have to push down on the pedal much more than normal.

Will a prius tow half a tonne up hill?...... i doubt the VW would either.... so whats better for me?

Edit: speeling

Oh I agree. I read somewhere that around 90% of driving done by cars on the road are short trips. ie: commuting, driving to the shops, etc. And for that the prius is great. Not excellent, but great. I would love to see electric cars eventually take the place of fuel driven cars for this (90%) purpose... But for everything else, ie: towing, 4wd'ing etc... you're right, you need power that unfortunately doesnt have a viable fossil free alternative yet..

Here's what im buying & decking out as a camper... as soon as I get back from o/s B)

 

[marlow_coates]

Thats a fair point Benny. Good link by the way, cheers.

8 years of cooling, as represented by the first link is a pretty small time frame when looking back to 1880 (second link). But if we look at temps from 1950's (as you say - the mean global temp has been rising since then) then 8 years in 59 is a decent chunk.
IMO it is not insignificant, and may well represent the start of a downward trend.

Also, a lot of the groups on both sides of the argument use data from 1000's of years ago, to make their point. So one could argue that 130 years of measurements are insignificant (just as 8 years may be insignificant).
Not trying to be niggly, just that depending on which side you argue, different graphs, time frames, measurements, scales etc.... can help make a point look good or bad.

On another note - Brisbane has just been engulfed in the eery dust storm that seems to also have gotten Sydney this morning.
Looking very apocolytic out there.
Not sure if I will be riding the motorbike this arvo.
Poor omen for the Belgian Pale Ale I just pitched yeast into???
I hope not. Smells great :icon_cheers:

Marlow

 

[Jonez]

Jonez,

If you do have the time to read a little more of the page (and it is in interesting read), they say that there has been a period of global warming up until 2001, after which global temperatures have been dropping.

They agree that the planet has been warming, but only until 2001.
But from the graph of temperature readings taken from a satelite system (apparently quite accurate but who knows), it appears that this warming period is over and begining to reverse.
This would mean that global warming is not currently occuring (if the evidence is correct of course, and I am aware there is evidence from other sources that contradicts this)

This is the basis of why I asked, and why I added the information I had read.

I don't disagree with the term global warming, as it obviously happens. But so does global cooling, and if we are at the start of a global cooling cycle then it really debunks all the political agenda targeted at reducing emmisions etc...

I don't believe human activity is reponsible for the temperature variations around the globe either.

Again, I don't know any of this for sure, and I am only going off what information I have read (the reason I like these posts and hearing other sides of the story), so all this is really just my opinion.

Marlow

Well Marlow,
there are a few different links on that site. So I read the pdf Ditch the Global Warming Fiasco and downloaded the power point presentation by Leon Ashby.

There is a lot of info, mainly in the presentation, which I think are valid. And I would agree, if the data they are using is true, the ETS would not solve anything. However I find inconsistencies in their info and can easily see manipulation of the graphics, missing values, units not specified, important periods being omitted and so on. Something I don't notice from the other group. I am being open minded here.


In general it looks very convincing that our contribution is not as important as some claim. But the on the claim the world is cooling they fail to convince me. I appreciate there are other point of views and am open to explore them but the vagueness of this presentation puts me off.


One example is when they show a graphic saying there have been period warmer than NOW, but their graphic only shows temps up to year 2000 when the claim is the interesting part is the last ten years. Obviously NOW is not year 2000. I saw this same claim, supported by similar graphic (if not the same), being debated on an ABC show where they had people from both sides. When the sceptics were asked why not showing the last ten years, they said the existing data they had was not accurate and could not be trusted. (and this is the data which has been taken with more accurate and modern equipment than it was 20 or 30 years ago)



On the day of the debate the sceptics did not have a graphic showing a decrease in temp from year 2001. They seem to have one now (although it appears a bit vague)

They claim the 19% unemployment in Spain is due to their renewable energy plans. This can not be claimed. Plus absolutely a joke that in 5 years we are not going to know what a table is. At that point I felt the presentation loses seriousness.

Other big thing I can't come to believe is that the Australian economy will be similar to Cambodian in 10 years time....an exaggeration to me.

It is interesting their count of scientists that agree/ disagree with the theory. The other party claim exactly the opposite. Someone must be laying about that.

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

...Also, a lot of the groups on both sides of the argument ....

This is what shits me (nothing personal of course, Marlow).

There aren't two sides of the argument. The scientific community - at least all of the legitimate scientific community directly involved in atmospheric science and related disciplines are in agreement. Sure there is a lot of debate over micro level details, but mostly everyone who knows anything about the issue agrees that the world IS warming, and that warming is anthropogenic.

Anyone who claims otherwise is a) out of touch, B) a crackpot c)in bed with pro-business lobby movements like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

edit: f'ing emoticon replaced my b )

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

It is interesting their count of scientists that agree/ disagree with the theory. The other party claim exactly the opposite. Someone must be laying about that.

Yup, and thanks to google it has become EXTREMELY to check up on people's publication histories and peer esteem within the academy. Look at the IPCC members credentials vs. those of any climate change denialists.

I recon these pro-polluting-business climate change denial groups and lobby orginisations are on par with 9/11 conspiricy theorists and aids and holocaust deniers.

 

[marlow_coates]

Haha, Jonez, I completely agree with you on the doomsday economical prediction.
I think they're sadly overdoing it and I agree that it undermines their credibility.

And you are right about graphs taken in or out of context, with parameters missing or ommited etc...
The point is, it is obviously a very heated debate, and I reckon both 'sides' do this fudging to some degree, and both sides have something to gain or lose.

Without something irrefutable, I doubt I can be swayed on the argument regarding cooling or heating (currently) of the earth. If that makes me naive, or a crackpot, then so be it.
Time will of course tell, and I don't know if I will be happy or sad, to be right or wrong.

JohnAnchovy, to say there aren't two sides to an argument is IMO inherently wrong. There are always two sides, and each should be given some respect unless one side can prove without doubt they are correct.
Also, it is a broad statement to say that all legitimate scientists in the field agree.
The same goes for saying that 'mostly' everyone who knows anything about the issue agrees the world is warming and that it is anthropogenic.

On the topic of 'is the world warming currently' I will have to agree to disagree with the both of you :icon_cheers:
On the topic of 'is global temp related to human activities' I remain a non-believer h34r:

Marlow

 

[LLoyd]

CO2 only absorbs light from a very small part of the spectrum. Most of that light is absorbed by the first 20 ppm CO2. Every 20ppm increase after that matters less and less. From 280ppm before the industrial revolution to 380ppm today, the POSSIBLE effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming is in the realm of 0.02-0.03 degreesC. There's a hell of alot more to climate changes on the planet than our piddly CO2 emissions. We're just not as important as we like to think we are.. PROVING that the planet is warming or cooling abnormally in our short lifetimes is crazy enough a concept, but suggesting WE could affect it?? That's just arrogant.

 

[jonocarroll]

Anyone who claims otherwise is a ) out of touch, b ) a crackpot c ) in bed with pro-business lobby movements like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

This is always a good sign of a fair, even-handed debate, yeah? Nice way to use evidence to prove your point... :huh:

Didn't you say earlier that you didn't feel qualified enough to judge the validity of claims?

There aren't two sides of the argument. The scientific community - at least all of the legitimate scientific community directly involved in atmospheric science and related disciplines are in agreement. Sure there is a lot of debate over micro level details, but mostly everyone who knows anything about the issue agrees that the world IS warming, and that warming is anthropogenic.

Oh, I see what you did there - consensus makes something true, doesn't it? If you can just force-feed enough people an answer, we won't have to worry about scientific criticism of ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

I'm not going to weed out the non-climate scientists for you - they are there - but there are genuine researchers who still have concerns. This doesn't need to go as far as 'it's got issues, therefore it's wrong', but it means not taking your approach of 'they say it's right, so it must be right'.

I like this quote (helps that he's a well renowned physicist);

"The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models... They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models." "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

Now, back to my Dyson's Equations.

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

Without something irrefutable, I doubt I can be swayed on the argument regarding cooling or heating (currently) of the earth. If that makes me naive, or a crackpot, then so be it.
Time will of course tell, and I don't know if I will be happy or sad, to be right or wrong.

On the topic of 'is global temp related to human activities' I remain a non-believer h34r:

This mode of epistemology is called "faith". I don't want to undermine the legitimacy of this kind of belief, or somehow suggest you are a fool for believing in it, but it has nothing to do with science.

If you want to base your decisions on what ever you "recokn", or on faith, or reveled knowledge or whatever that is fine, but I don't think it leads to productive debate and isn't really compatible with a democratic decision making based on informed and rational debate.

JohnAnchovy, to say there aren't two sides to an argument is IMO inherently wrong. There are always two sides, and each should be given some respect unless one side can prove without doubt they are correct.

zzzzzzz

Of course there are always two sides. Its like Holocaust denial - there are plenty of people out there who will tell you nothing too bad happened at Belsen, but they are all assholes.

Also, it is a broad statement to say that all legitimate scientists in the field agree.

*the majority of legitamate scientists*, at least the ones whose disciplines are related to studying climate. I totally stand by this, and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

On the topic of 'is the world warming currently' I will have to agree to disagree with the both of you :icon_cheers:

I don't want to get tripped up on semantic bullshit. 'Currently' was a bad choice of words - I obviously didn't mean at 1.08pm on Wednesday the 22nd, 2009.

 

[jonocarroll]

*the majority of legitamate scientists*, at least the ones whose disciplines are related to studying climate. I totally stand by this, and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Refer to my link above. This includes:

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology

just to name a few (see the link for the context in which they are listed).

Your definition of 'majority' indicates that if enough people believe in it, it must be true. I can't help but imagine you would have been a fundamental religious, medically unsound, flat-worlder in a previous life.

 

[marlow_coates]

JohnAnchovy,

To say that I will not be convinced without something irrefutable convincing me, is not faith.
It is in fact the opposite.
It is saying that I require more than what has been provided scientifically so far. And if research emerges that is irrefutable, and proves one way or the other, then I will of course have to agree.

And to say that I am a 'non-believer' in human activities being the cause of global temperature changes was perhaps the wrong term. Would have been more clear for me to say that I 'disagree' with some of the (questionable) evidence linking human activity and global temps, and therefore do not think human activity is related to global temperatures.

And in terms of 'currently' cooling, I have said since the start of my posts that I am refering to a graph I have linked, that goes from 2002 (stated 2001 at the beginning but was accidental as I took that year from the speech, not the graph).
So I am clearly not refering to day by day, or minute by minute, changes. I was refering to a 7 year period, which I have said IMO could be the start of a longer cooling period.

To say that groups who don't subscribe to the global warming theory, are the same as holocaust deniers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists is a bit strong.
Having a different point of view on something that is not yet scientifically proven one way or the other is fair go IMO.

Marlow

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

Oh, I see what you did there - consensus makes something true, doesn't it? If you can just force-feed enough people an answer, we won't have to worry about scientific criticism of ideas.

zzzzzzz. You're twisting my logic. I obviously don't think consensus makes something true. The central point I want to get across is that the people who know what they are talking about generally agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

I'm not going to weed out the non-climate scientists for you - they are there - but there are genuine researchers who still have concerns. This doesn't need to go as far as 'it's got issues, therefore it's wrong', but it means not taking your approach of 'they say it's right, so it must be right'.

This list is pretty piss poor - most of the scientists cited (including your man Dyson) agree in principle to the big-picture issues. There are few climate scientists on the list, and when you compare this to the researchers and author lists of IPCC reports its....well....not really a comparison.

the 'they say it's right, so it must be right' logic is a complete reduction of what I'm trying to say - and this isn't how peer review process work.


We can, however agree that Dyson is one cool motherfunker. I love physicists who are happy to speculate on sci-fi type stuff!

 

[jonocarroll]

zzzzzzz. You're twisting my logic. I obviously don't think consensus makes something true. The central point I want to get across is that the people who know what they are talking about generally agree.

Would the same result occur if the people who generally agree were the only people who were heard?

This list is pretty piss poor - most of the scientists cited (including your man Dyson) agree in principle to the big-picture issues. There are few climate scientists on the list, and when you compare this to the researchers and author lists of IPCC reports its....well....not really a comparison.

Unless the bigger picture omits 'the cause of global warming is anthropogenic', then no.

Why does the list of dissidents need to outweight the list of proponents? Surely only one correct dissident outweighs a mass body of incorrect work. I'm not saying that this is the case, but I don't think you can compare the list-lengths to get an idea of the validity. Ideas get challenged. An idea that seems perfectly correct needs to be challenged harder, not accepted, sealed up and filed away. General Relativity has been around for quite some time now. It's taught thoroughly at Universities around the world. It works to the best of experimental constraints. Do scientists then reach a consensus that it is correct? Hell no. We push the limits further and further to try to find cracks in the theory. We do more precise measurements. What have they told us: it works really really well ... up to a point! We are now finding anomalies that can't be explained using GR, so we need to make adjustments to the theory. That's the way these things work.

Scientific theories work like this: If it explains your data, then it's a good theory. If you can find a single example where it doesn't work when it should - either you qualify where and when the theory can and can't be used, or you throw it out like yesterdays rubbish and start again. If the arguments from the dissidents can't be explained away using the theory/models, then the theory/models is/are useless. Pretending that the dissidents don't count just hides the problem.

I would be most pleased to accept the review if it systematically adressed each of the criticisms. These could in turn, be criticised.

 

[Jonez]

Someone must be laying about that.

I meant lying. Sorry, wrong verb.

 

[LLoyd]

There aren't two sides of the argument. The scientific community - at least all of the legitimate scientific community directly involved in atmospheric science and related disciplines are in agreement. Sure there is a lot of debate over micro level details

Exactly who are ALL of these legitimate scientists? This is a perfect example of a non-legitimate scientist completely ignoring contrary evidence to support a dogmatic opinion.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm


Micro details I think not. The IPCC, a group of political types and scientists that they have appointed to prove an already decided position, relies mainly upon computer models that can't accurately predict tomorrow's rain, to generate political reports telling us what will happen in 20 years time. Is this your "All of the legitimate scientific community"?

 

[jonocarroll]

Exactly who are ALL of these legitimate scientists? This is a perfect example of a non-legitimate scientist completely ignoring contrary evidence to support a dogmatic opinion.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

From the update to the above link:

The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

If you're going to rely on list-sizes, you're screwed.

Of course, if you're going about it correctly, you'll ignore the cherry-picked reviews on both sides, and look at the research.

 

[glaab]

Some people just need something to worry about. I read a few weeks back that of 3000 people surveyed recently over 800 believed the Millenium bug was a real threat. No surprise there but in 1999 the number was around 70% so some are lying or forgot their stance. The interesting bit was that of the 800, over 700 also believed in "global warming" when only about 50% of the general pop believes in it. If I can find the report I'll post it here, it was from some USA Uni. I never believed in either but the same guys I know who preached about the Millenium bug are now on the global warming bandwagon. No death threats please,...

Mars

The planet Mars is also exhibiting a warming trend. A 2007 National Geographic article states: Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturaland not a human-inducedcause. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.




http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm

 

[LLoyd]

If you're going to rely on list-sizes, you're screwed.

Of course, if you're going about it correctly, you'll ignore the cherry-picked reviews on both sides, and look at the research.

That link was was posted only to show that "All of the legitimate scientific community agreed" was blatantly untrue.Unless the whole report, and all the attached reports, were completely fabricated of course. List size is unimportant. The fact that there IS a list, simply calls into question the statement above that that there ISN"T. No more no less.

Lloydie

 

[jonocarroll]

That link was was posted only to show that "All of the legitimate scientific community agreed" was blatantly untrue.Unless the whole report, and all the attached reports, were completely fabricated of course. List size is unimportant. The fact that there IS a list, simply calls into question the statement above that that there ISN"T. No more no less.

My apologies - my statement above (although I quoted you) was directed to JonnyAnchovy.

I wholeheartedly agree.

@glaab: Very interesting if true. I wonder how old (and for that matter, precise) the mars temperature measurements are?

 

[jonocarroll]

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm

That's some pretty interesting reading there. @JonnyAnchovy: this appears to be a good example of a counter-argument to the IPCC report that I have been looking for. Particularly this graph, which counter-indicates that something abnormal is going on...

Of course, criticism of this source is most welcome too - it wouldn't be science without it.