Ship of Fools: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real

Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000676

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Post your old and new postings here! This is my vigilante attempt to clear up the many climate change threads. This is the place to argue about whether or not man-induced climate change (or anthropogenic climate change, or ACC) is real.

The IPCC say that there is a 90% or greater chance that the current climate change is man-induced. Temperatures are most likely to rise between 1.8 and 4 degrees celsius between now and 2099. The IPCC represents the top 2,500 climate scientists in the world, and thus this represents a consensus of the entire field. The findings have been endorsed by (AFAIK) all governments worldwide, including America, whose right wing Bush administration called the science now "beyond doubt".

So sceptics, doubters, conspiracy theorists and David Bellamy come on down! Try and convince the ship that the consensus is wrong - but you'll need to explain away all the above facts to be in with a chance. We're in for a bumpy ride!!!! Good luck!!!!! Whooooooaaaa!!!!!!

[You should know that there are no "official" threads in Purgatory]

[ 14. August 2008, 12:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Which Shipmate do we suppose is David Bellamy?

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

Okay, I cut and pasted my last comment (of skepticism):

Few of us are denying that there is global warming. But the beef is with the numbers. When the IPCC (was this there? I think it was) marks an 18th century methane output at "zero" then increases from there to now, I think the numbers are screwy: what happened to all those cows back then? No methane? Right... so what are they saying with the numbers? Seems like they are playing a numbers game to make a scary point, to convince the credulous.

Speaking for myself, what we have here is not denial, but suspicion that the skewed numbers are a deliberate scare tactic to make a power grab via the U. N. It hurts America because we get nothing in return for our sacrifices. Oh, we already have too much, I forgot. We should be glad to cut back and become like everyone else, become a third-rate nation and join the rest of the U. N. which carps about how we are ruining the planet with our careless lifestyle. I have a couple of things to say about that:

America has always led the rest of the world in conservation awareness: we instituted national parks, now other nations have copied that to a limited extent: we have always been the first to announce the dangers of exploiting resources, to point out where this is occurring. Our cities are cleaner, air and water, than they have ever been during the industrial era, despite a vastly increased population.

If the largest conservation movements began and reside still in America, it is also true that the largest money interests are here: the very people who rape the planet to get rich. That's the irony. And another irony is, that the "Greens" who are not Americans look only at the latter and seem to have forgotten the former.

America will continue to be conservation conscious and proactive. What most Americans will not volunteer for, is submitting to some ingenious power grab, which is apparently trying to create a new "monetary" system out of "carbon debt." So, we are refusing to restrict our CPUs enough, and because we are putting out more than our allowed assessment, we OWE the complying nations "carbon debt." We can pay that off by sending them stuff that they want/need: thus encouraging them to underdevelop even more, and suck their conveniences and commodities from the USA, the most carbon indebted nation in the world. Anyone see this as impossible to set up? Looney? Then you're the ones in denial, because that's EXACTLY how coalitions work together in the modern world to try and get a cheap or free piece of the action. Wake up. This whole thing is a political power grab, and Americans are going to pay for most of it.

Here's the main reason why I distrust the whole bag of carp: the news is, "Do something now before the planet is ruined for the next thousands of years." This is backed up by scientists speaking for the U. N. If they were sincere in the disseminating of these findings, they would be addressing what we should be doing to adapt to the projected changes, not telling everyone to stop living the way we have grown accustomed. As if the proposed demands for changed living style is going to keep the climate the same, or preserve the ecosystem in its present state somehow (when in reality, all we can do is slow down, at best, what the earth is doing anyway). But what makes this climate, this ecosystem so special? Warming and cooling have occurred many times, and will do so in the future: with the earth slowly getting more cold. Adaption of species is the norm: we can't save the earth from itself: and we can't have a permanent impact that threatens the earth's capacity to support life: life will change, with or without us. This sounds unacceptable to "Greens" I am sure. But telling everyone to stop eating oranges where they don't grow (i.e. stop importing one calorie of food per 36 calories of energy to get it on the shelf, i.e. support only your local farmers markets), and to stop driving, and to move in close to town into a small house, sharing a turbine windmill with nine other houses, and to stop using cheap fossil fuels (but expensive alternatives instead), and stop traveling except by rail or other public transit, to walk, take the bus or ride a bike, etc., is falling on deaf ears. People will not move, give up or change what they want to keep. And to institute taxes, to discourage the buying and use of commodities that are deemed to exacerbate CPU output, is something I don't want to give the slightest credence to. Power grab, and that means someone gets more of my money. To hell with that sort of "fix" says I.

None of this climatic change is going to happen faster than we can make changes to meet it. If we are treated like free adults and not working plebs. When we see the oceans rising, we will build dikes for the early onset, and relocate to higher ground as the century moves on. If the growing seasons shorten in some spots, if the growing areas shift, we will adjust and keep going. If we are intent on developing alternative energy sources, we won't require further inducements. I don't know anyone who wants to keep using fossil fuels till they run dry, THEN worry about how we are going to keep warm after that. We are doing something about it now. But making a power grab out of the supposed looming disaster (should be spelled, c.h.a.n.g.e.) is surely counter productive: because too many people are not buying the rhetoric and game being played with the numbers….

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

Merlin the Mad said

quote:
When the IPCC (was this there? I think it was) marks an 18th century methane output at "zero" then increases from there to now, I think the numbers are screwy: what happened to all those cows back then? No methane?

If you are talking of the graph on page 6 of the IPCC summary report then the graph shows the atmospheric methane concentration starting at 750ppb 100 years ago, which has a radiative forcing effect of 0 W per m2. By the year 2000 the concentration has increased to 1500ppb or so, with a radiative forcing 0.5 W per m2. So the zero is not the concentration of methane but the effect of the methane that was being produced by all those cows on the global temperature. Feel free to post a link to a different graph showing what you state, if there is one. Otherwise it might be prudent to check your facts before posting if there is to be a sensible debate.

America is proactive at conservation - great! Very important. But this is not the same as taking care of the whole environment. Conservation is irrelevant if the climate changes enough. Americans also happen to consume on average 50 times that of a Nigerian (Europe isn't much better - about 20 times). And generate about 5 x the global average amount of CO2. See this US site for an example Thus they are responsible for a much greater amount of climate change than their 'fair share' (and even more than a sustainable level).

The reason why the scientists (many of whom are American) are saying that amongst other things we need to change our way of life is that is not sustainable to carry on like that much longer. We cannot keep spending carbon at the rate we are without serious consequences. Technological fixes will not be sufficient. And it is up to the people having the most impact to do something about it instead of selfishly refusing to move out of their comfort zone.

MerlintheMad also says

quote:
Adaption of species is the norm: we can't save the earth from itself: and we can't have a permanent impact that threatens the earth's capacity to support life: life will change, with or without us.

Quite true. Personally I would prefer life on earth to include humans (though recognising that other species might prefer the opposite), but even if we totally wreck the environment, there will still be life. I'd like my children and their descendants to have somewhere to live - selfish I admit.

I also quite agree that on the whole that individuals will not make decisions sufficient to reverse climate change. That's why we need governments to pass laws and international agreements to ensure the action is sufficient because people have a choice. Taxes are one instrument, carbon trading possibly another (I am also rather sceptical about how this would work as it happens, it seems ripe for corruption to me), other incentives, research into better 'green' techologies are others.

I would be very happy for the US to carry on destroying the environment as much as it likes, and sort out the problems technologically as you suggest. Unfortunately the US is not a closed system. What the US does impacts on the rest of the world. You need to be mindful of that, particularly as the countries most affected by the likely effects of global warming are not the countries causing most of the problems. Guess which countries will suffer most from droughts, floods, extreme weather etc?

Obviously research into renewable energy is vitally important. But it isn't enough on its own. Changes in lifestyle are also needed.

If you want to have a genuine debate about what the best thing to do about climate change, then lets do it. There is plenty to discuss. But I have to say I found the overall tone of your post hysterical and, in places, frankly bizarre. I'm sure you're not really like that, so let's have a sensible discussion instead - more productive in the long run.

Jonah

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
................. Oh, we already have too much, I forgot. We should be glad to cut back and become like everyone else, become a third-rate nation and join the rest of the U. N. which carps about how we are ruining the planet with our careless lifestyle. I have a couple of things to say about that.................

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Americans also happen to consume on average 50 times that of a Nigerian (Europe isn't much better - about 20 times). And generate about 5 x the global average amount of CO2.

So America consumes 2.5 times European consumption. That seems to give plenty of potential for cutting back without becoming a '3rd rate nation' - unless MerlintheMad is trying to tell us something of what he thinks of us.

IMHO in Europe we have a very good standard of living, rich culture and, for most people, plenty. We have room to cut waste. However, surely it must be easier to make cuts if you are consuming 2.5 the European figure.

I love going to te U.S. both on business and to see very close friends. However, built in waste in transportation (e.g. excessive use of very big cars for 5 min journeys), airconditioning/heating, packaging, the selling of food in big packs (waste and refrigeration) etc etc are all very obvious and freely admitted by just about every U.S. friend we have. I admit that on our last holiday trip we enjoyed 'easy living' but would generally contend that a more European approach does offer an alternative with little or no sacrifice in overall quality of life. Even then there would be a fair way to go,

Posted by The Atheist (# 12067) on :

Well, you can put me in the AGW camp.

When the Y2K business was in full swing, I told people not to worry, nothing would happen.

When H5N1 was going to strike, I warned people against spending money on Tamiflu.

I battle against 9/11 CTists.

As the happy recipient of the Ozone Hole above our sunny shores, the whole pollution/AGW subject is an area of high interest to Kiwis. We didn't create the bloody ozone hole, but it's giving us skin cancer!

Despite such names as David Bellamy being a non-believer, I have found that the credible evidence lies with AGW. Sure, the jury is still out to a large degree, climatic science is new and fast-evolving, but all logic says that we can't be pumping the amount of shit we do into the atmosphere without doing some damage.

Doing nothing doesn't look like a smart option.

Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :

Though this thread has been sanctioned by the hosts, I'll make a firm request that posts stick closely to the main topic here, keeping tangents on their own threads.

Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host

[Edited to fix my mistaken closing.]

[ 08. February 2007, 04:24: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I haven't been following the argument in other threads, so I'm not sure how helpful this overview will be. It may be obvious to you all.

The understanding I left school with (some 45 years ago) was that in between Ice Ages, the earth did get warmer and there was evidence for this. There were plenty of theories about this natural global warming, but no definitive explanations. So to some extent I expect global warming to be a natural phenomenon on the basis of previous geleological evidence. Now this is "old science" but I had understood that more detailed research into the cyclical effects was intended to find explanations, and had not invalidated the general thesis that natural global warming was to be expected.

From that perspective, it would seem that the man-made effects (measured from say a base point of the 19th century Industrial Revolution) would be real if they can be demonstrated to be "over and above" any expected natural global warming trend. My guess is that, from the geological evidence alone, it is not that easy to produce a definitive trend line. One which says "if it happens this time like its happened in the past, this will be the mean increase in temperature over time".

So in essence, at least a part of the argument must be whether it is possible to be sure enough about the natural trend line to say for sure that man-made effects are driving it off-trend. The settled view of the majority of the scientific community appears to be that the line is "off trend" as a result of man-made effects. That is good enough for me.

But even if that were wrong it does not invalidate arguments which say we might mitigate short term (in geological terms hundreds of years) effects by changing behaviour. There are "micro" and a "macro" levels to this argument which I confess I do not fully understand.

A bit tangentially, my opinion is as follows. In principle, whatever the science says, I'm in favour of "stewardship" versus "cowboy" approaches to environmental issues. That seems morally and ethically right.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
argue about whether or not man-induced climate change (or anthropogenic climate change, or ACC) is real.

Pointless. No-one really doubts that climate change is real. And arguing about whodunnit is irrelevant. If its our fault I'm sure God will let us know about it at the last judgement.

But whether it is our fault or not we still need to do the same things. So talking about what to do is more relevant thatn whether or not we made it happen.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
[qb] argue about whether or not man-induced climate change (or anthropogenic climate change, or ACC) is real.

Pointless. No-one really doubts that climate change is real.

Sadly, this isn't entirely true, even though the evidence is staring people in the face.

quote:
And arguing about whodunnit is irrelevant. If its our fault I'm sure God will let us know about it at the last judgement.

But whether it is our fault or not we still need to do the same things. So talking about what to do is more relevant thatn whether or not we made it happen.

It is relevant to the extent that it helps you decide what to do. If you know what and who is causing the problem, that tells you something about what you need to do to counteract it.

If ACC was coming from natural causes then the actions we would need to take would be rather different than if the cause is excessive CO2 production by humans. Well, not quite true, thinking about it - even if the temperature rise was 10% anthropogenic and 90% natural cutting that 10% would see be worthwhile - but it is a more compelling argument that we need to cut CO2 emissions when we know it is these which are the real cause. In practice I find people who say that they agree that global warming is happening but don't think it's caused by humans have selfish motives (maintaining their standard of living or their way of making money, usually )rather than because they have actually studied the issue and have a credible scientific explanation for their views.

Anyway, people should know The Truth™ [Two face]

Jonah

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

So sceptics, doubters, conspiracy theorists and David Bellamy come on down!

David Bellamy has now admitted that his arguments were misplaced, and will remain silent on the matter henceforth.

His contention was that increased CO2 would just be assimilated by increased plant-growth, but the small-scale studies performed to test this have suggested this is not the case.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Given that we're cutting the trees down, there's that problem too. At least when we were using wood for fuel, the burning of it only released back the CO2 taken in by the trees. That's the problem with fossil fuels, we're realising Carbon stored for millenia!

Carys

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
His contention was that increased CO2 would just be assimilated by increased plant-growth

This is what I expect to happen. But I'm not so sure of it that I would want us to take the risk of not cutting CO2 output. When in hole stop digging.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
His contention was that increased CO2 would just be assimilated by increased plant-growth
This is what I expect to happen. But I'm not so sure of it that I would want us to take the risk of not cutting CO2 output. When in hole stop digging.

I'm not so sure about that... in most parts of the world, carbon isn't limiting for plant growth - in the absence of additional nitrogen, phosphorus, or water (or iron in the case of phytoplankton), I'd be surprised to see much of our additional carbon being soaked up in that way.

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

quote:
JonahMan:

If you are talking of the graph on page 6 of the IPCC summary report then the graph shows the atmospheric methane concentration starting at 750ppb 100 years ago, which has a radiative forcing effect of 0 W per m2. By the year 2000 the concentration has increased to 1500ppb or so, with a radiative forcing 0.5 W per m2. So the zero is not the concentration of methane but the effect of the methane that was being produced by all those cows on the global temperature. Feel free to post a link to a different graph showing what you state, if there is one. Otherwise it might be prudent to check your facts before posting if there is to be a sensible debate.

Nope. I wasn't that. Sorry. I don't have the magazine in front of me, but look in the current issue of SciAm; there's an article which shows in the first graph, how 300 years ago there was zero methane. Bad chart, I suspect. Or deliberate fudge of the numbers? Anytime you read where "since the mini iceage", or similar, you are seeing someone fudge the numbers; because the climate change window is much larger than that. Starting out showing zero methane 300 years ago, and comparing that to now, is not being honest.

Many doubt that thousands of scientists could be in cahoots with the U. N. in a conspiratorial power grab. But it isn't the information which is conspiratorial; it is the way it is being taken advantage of. Scientists that discovered nuclear power did not want the Bomb. And scientists who forecast doom if we continue on our present way of life most likely do not want greater governmental controls to become abusive; but the fear of that is not going to make them shut up. The U. N. powers will take the veracity of scientific consensus and twist it to gain advantages on the United States. That isn't being "hysterical." It is being realistic....

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

quote:
Merchant Trader:

So America consumes 2.5 times European consumption. That seems to give plenty of potential for cutting back without becoming a '3rd rate nation' - unless MerlintheMad is trying to tell us something of what he thinks of us.

No. Sorry for the inclusive tone. Most U. N. members are NOT Europeans, but "genuine" underdeveloped, oppressive, even backward regimes, pretending to be around a table with real democracies discussing human civil rights advancement. ::pfffthbt::

quote:
IMHO in Europe we have a very good standard of living, rich culture and, for most people, plenty. We have room to cut waste. However, surely it must be easier to make cuts if you are consuming 2.5 the European figure.

Nothing in my attitude targets European cultures. I have a disagreement with the amount and type of controls governments "over there" have. Way of life is certainly second only to the U. S. of A., imho: based solely upon opportunity and lack of "red tape" types of hassles in daily life. We don't have near the socialistic infrastructure that much of Europe has in place. We have more resources and wide open spaces, still. Room to move, literally, without getting in someone else's way. It affects the way we think and live enormously. So there are clear differences in lifestyle based on origins. I don't know any emigrants who have any intention of ever returning to their motherlands, despite how much complaining they do about conditions over here: missing the atmosphere of home is never replacable with better living standards: but in this imperfect world, to get the latter you have to give up the former. Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Funnily enough the Americans I know who immigrated here mostly don't want to go back there either...

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Funnily enough the Americans I know who immigrated here mostly don't want to go back there either...

Most of the ex-pat Americans I know, including myself, could be described as "born-again Canadians". Some still visit and have family in the US, but laugh if you even suggest going back to live there. OliviaG

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
This is my vigilante attempt to clear up the many climate change threads.

Good luck.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.

I'm not quite sure I get where you are coming from, MerlintheMad (except America, obviously!) Are you suggesting that the American Way Of Life (TM) is the way that the rest of the world should aspire to?

If so, how exactly does that square with the fact that, per person, American's emit double the amount of CO2 of their nearest competitor and 50 times that of the poorest? So presumably this prescription for the world would accelerate the CO2 in the atmosphere much faster than even the current most gloomy predictions. The only two rational arguments I can think of that would back this up are:

a) Any link between CO2 level and rising global temperatures is false, and the world's scientists (including Amercian) are involved in a giant conspiracy, or

b) You couldn't care less.

Give us a heads up as to which is correct, and if it is a), some actual alternate scientific evidence might help elevate your case...

[ 08. February 2007, 19:11: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.
I'm not quite sure I get where you are coming from, MerlintheMad (except America, obviously!) Are you suggesting that the American Way Of Life (TM) is the way that the rest of the world should aspire to?

Whereas I read it to mean that people emigrate to the States to live a better life from the one they felt they had 'at home'. In much the same way as people emigrate to the UK for a better life. Isn't that why people emigrate? To find a better life for themselves?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Pointless. No-one really doubts that climate change is real. And arguing about whodunnit is irrelevant. If its our fault I'm sure God will let us know about it at the last judgement.

I couldn't agree more. But what worries me is that the biggest political parties we have here in the UK, Labour and Conservative, have jumped on the bandwagon of "green taxes" to help the environment. Forgive my cinicism after almost 53 years of living under both parties, but I think that green taxes are just another way of putting our hard earned cash into government coffers, not of protecting the environment. An example, using this modern idea of the carbon footprint, though I am approximating as I can't remember the exact figures.

Low cost airlines are a joy to the modern traveler. My wife, who is Irish, can visit her folks in the West of Ireland every 2-3 months for a hopover, because, if you book in advance, the flights can cost from 99 pence to £5.99 plus taxes. Its possible to fly from London to Edinburgh for less than £20. Yet a return ticket on a train can cost up to £200. The carbon footprint of a flight to Edinburgh compared to a train journey is astronomical. So what do these politicians propose? They propose to tax cheap flights out of existence. They never contemplate doing something to make train travel reasonable and competitive, just freeze out the competition with more punitive bureaucratic nightmare.

It only when China, India and the US do something about their carbon emissions that there is any hope for a benefit to the world. Small countries like the UK contribute minimally to any emmission problem and when our cherished politicians come up with ideas which involve the word "tax" we can be sure that all they have in mind is to fleece us further.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

One of the somewhat unwelcome things we have to face is that we will have to change our lifestyles. If we believe that global warming is a) real and b) caused by humans then some sort of change in how we behave is essential. The question becomes, what's the best way of achieving the necessary changes (and what the changes need to be). Cheap air travel like this is clearly unsustainable, as you say. At the very least aviation fuel should be taxed at the same rate as other fuel, so that the playing field is level to that extent.

Your comparison with train travel is a reasonable question, why on earth is there such a price difference? Though I would note that you can often get cheap train tickets too if you book in advance - I've certainly done Manchester London for £18 (and you arrive in central London, not miles away). If you're going to compare you should use the equivalents ie cheapest vs cheapest or typical vs typical - you've used cheapest vs most expensive which is scarcely fair!

I would agree that simply pricing cheap flights out of existence is not the way to go. It only works as an environmental strategy if the money raised is used to promote positive actions. Also, given that people do have the need to travel and aren't going to give it up in the near future, money needs to be put into making greener transport better and cheaper. In the UK I would renationalise the railways so they can be run coherently and with the public in mind, not railway company profits. I would tax aviation fuel at a fair level, and ban further airport expansion. I would invest in good, fast train and tram links. I would, if necessary, subsidise railways. I woudl certainly fund research into making renewable energy more cost effective and efficient, if this was used to power public transport (and it is feasible for trains at least, if not buses as yet) then one problem would be solved.

I am uneasy about the 'we're only small, it's not up to us' argument.

Firstly, it's essential that everyone takes appropriate action. The richest countries use the most resources, emit the most CO2 and create the most problems. The UK emits far more than its 'fair share' per head of population. At the least we should reduce our contribution to the problem to a fair share.

Why shouldn't the UK take a lead in this area? Someone has to - let's be positive and proactive. Being selfish, there are great economic rewards for the countries which develop green technologies (which are part of the solution, though not all of it).

I agree though, that taxes alone are not the only solution - there is a mixture of actions governments need to take. And I agree that politicians are usually overkeen to tax. If they just use this to raise money or discourage people from doing particular things, it's not good enough (apart from anything else, it's inequitable as it stops poor people doing them, but not richer people).

Jonah

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

MerlintheMad said

quote:

Many doubt that thousands of scientists could be in cahoots with the U. N. in a conspiratorial power grab. But it isn't the information which is conspiratorial; it is the way it is being taken advantage of. Scientists that discovered nuclear power did not want the Bomb. And scientists who forecast doom if we continue on our present way of life most likely do not want greater governmental controls to become abusive; but the fear of that is not going to make them shut up. The U. N. powers will take the veracity of scientific consensus and twist it to gain advantages on the United States. That isn't being "hysterical." It is being realistic....

OK, I see what you are saying - but I fail to see any evidence for your viewpoint. What makes you think your viewpoint is 'realistic'? Equally there is no evidence against it, but it is hard to prove a negative.

However I would point out that the most powerful country in the UN is the USA. If the USA decides not to go along with what the rest of the world, it doesn't. Which UN powers do you mean in your comment about twisting the scientific concensus? And how would this work? The scientists (which includes many Americans) would be the first to complain if their findings were misrepresented.

If you don't think the UN (which comes to decisions democratically, as far as I am aware) should make decisions for the US, could you outline how you think the US should reduce its CO2 emissions to a sustainable level (at which they don't cause climate change)? I'd be interested to hear your suggestions.

Jonah

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

As an addition to JonahMan's comments to MerlintheMad - if the UN is one big realistic conspiracy to do-in the US out of sheer bloody-minded envy, why do the current US administration say that the science is now "beyond doubt" with regard to climate change? Is the Bush administration now a bunch of pinko lefty wimps or something? You're gonna need a REALLY right wing government to stand up to the evil, envious UN now! There's something for the world to look forward too...

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Low cost airlines are a joy to the modern traveler. My wife, who is Irish, can visit her folks in the West of Ireland every 2-3 months for a hopover, because, if you book in advance, the flights can cost from 99 pence to £5.99 plus taxes. Its possible to fly from London to Edinburgh for less than £20.

That's not a low-cost airline, that's an airline with a pricing policy that offers a few absurdly cheap seats at a loss and a whole lot more seats at realistic prices. I'm quite certain that the actual operating cost per passenger per flight is a bit higher than 99p. It's actually the other passengers who paid for most of the cost of your wife's flight because they didn't book in advance / don't want to stay Saturday night / whatever. OliviaG

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
That's not a low-cost airline, that's an airline with a pricing policy that offers a few absurdly cheap seats at a loss and a whole lot more seats at realistic prices. I'm quite certain that the actual operating cost per passenger per flight is a bit higher than 99p.

Paul could have been referring to what we call 'no frills' airlines here: they do short haul flights for very low cost. They make savings by flying out of our smaller airports, they don't include meals in the cost (you take your own sandwiches/buy something on board), etc. It's perfectly possible to fly for a ridiculous price to Europe, the cheapest flights usually happening during the night/very early morning. Ryanair is one example. They seriously undercut the major airlines on routes to Europe. I think they've been a blessing for people who aren't well off but who want to catch some sun for their vacation.

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

quote:
Noiseboy:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not quite sure I get where you are coming from, MerlintheMad (except America, obviously!) Are you suggesting that the American Way Of Life (TM) is the way that the rest of the world should aspire to?

Yes. The amount of freedom (only more so, as we have some regaining of our liberty to attend to). The good life. But at the same time, we all need to be conservationists. The energy we power our lifestyle with must be clean and non destructive. The materials we use to manufacture most of our goods must be reusable: and the balance that we take which is natural (e.g. wood), must be less than the natural resources we get it from.

I don't think we are that far off from being largely this way, world-wide. It seems like we have a huge amount of changing to do, but really, it is dependant on cooperation and shared vision more than anything else. And forums like this one, in their multiples of thousands and increasing all the time, encourage me to believe that this century is seeing the birth of a united world: and it will be largely a freedom loving one.

quote:
JonahMan:

MerlintheMad said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many doubt that thousands of scientists could be in cahoots with the U. N. in a conspiratorial power grab. But it isn't the information which is conspiratorial; it is the way it is being taken advantage of. Scientists that discovered nuclear power did not want the Bomb. And scientists who forecast doom if we continue on our present way of life most likely do not want greater governmental controls to become abusive; but the fear of that is not going to make them shut up. The U. N. powers will take the veracity of scientific consensus and twist it to gain advantages on the United States. That isn't being "hysterical." It is being realistic....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, I see what you are saying - but I fail to see any evidence for your viewpoint. What makes you think your viewpoint is 'realistic'? Equally there is no evidence against it, but it is hard to prove a negative.

quote:
Noiseboy:

As an addition to JonahMan's comments to MerlintheMad - if the UN is one big realistic conspiracy to do-in the US out of sheer bloody-minded envy, why do the current US administration say that the science is now "beyond doubt" with regard to climate change? Is the Bush administration now a bunch of pinko lefty wimps or something? You're gonna need a REALLY right wing government to stand up to the evil, envious UN now! There's something for the world to look forward too...

Denying the evidence of human contribution to global warming: and denying the main U. N. attitude toward the U. S. of A., are two different things. The Bush admin admit (I like that), they admit that global warming is a scientific fact. At the same time, they won't play along with the Kyoto Accords, et al., because they deliberately target us and take and don't give anything back. The "evil" that America does is a constant litany from most U. N. spokespersons. At the same time, they are more than willing to have us continue to send food and other stuff to help them out. So in effect, they are demanding that the American people agree to become like they are (reduce their ecological footprint a lot), and yet the US government is supposed to continue to send the aid to the countries that need it. So they cook up stupid ideas like "carbon dept", and expect it to fly with Americans.

There isn't a secret conspiracy going on here. No meetings between the majority of U. N. members behind closed doors, to plot the downfall of the U. S. of A. They simply agree, without saying a word to each other, that America is too big, too rich, too powerful, too scary, to take us as we are. Kids on the same block don't have to talk to each other, to all be in silent agreement about the bully. And sadly, lately, America has thrown her weight around sort of like a bully. That hasn't helped the situation, the trust, at all. We have some air to clear, before the U. N. can get on with the real business of addressing what to do to meet the changing climate of the future.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Cheers MerlintheMad, that helps a lot, actually.

So the issue comes down to what to do, rather than the view of ACC per se. It should be noted, however, that the US are really very recent converts to accepting the science - The Kyoto treaty was from an age before this. Well, the Clinton administration went with it, but as we all know Dubya had a different view. So the view of Kyoto might well be different now - the US opposed it partly because they did not agree with the consensus view on ACC.

There is also the issue of what the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans is that you cherish. You value conservation, which is great, so clearly you don't advocate the wastefulness that is inherant in the contemporary US way of life. So what is wrong with Europe, from your perspective, that America betters?

Also, I'd like to make the point that America sees itself as the world's policemen, and how we (the world) wants it to be. Well, I don't. I don't want America to unilaterally invade countries when they feel like it. If any invading really has to be done, it is the job of the UN, and no other country. Including the US. I'd guess that this view is shared by the UN and most of its member countries.

Anyway, hopefully the US will have a more constructive role in the negotiations for the replacement of Kyoto. Blair has said he is optimistic on this - let's wait and see (and pray!)

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The amount of freedom ... The good life.

And if everyone agreed on what the good life is, and exactly how to balance personal freedom with responsibility and the rights of others, that might mean something. News flash: Not everyone all over the world wants the same kinds of "freedoms" or the same kind of "good life". And in case you weren't aware, sometimes Americans move to other countries and discover they are really happy with their life outside the USA.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I don't think we are that far off from being largely this way, world-wide. It seems like we have a huge amount of changing to do, but really, it is dependant on cooperation and shared vision more than anything else.

(italics mine)
Based on its recent record, it doesn't appear the US is interested in being a role model for international / global cooperation and shared vision. Kyoto? International Criminal Court? Ottawa Treaty? "You're with us or you're against us"? UN arrears? OliviaG

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

quote:
Noiseboy:

There is also the issue of what the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans is that you cherish. You value conservation, which is great, so clearly you don't advocate the wastefulness that is inherant in the contemporary US way of life. So what is wrong with Europe, from your perspective, that America betters?

European nations have a legacy of control that was deliberately excised out of our system of government in the beginning. So individual liberty (a lack of "cradle to grave" socialistic care mentality) is the fundamental difference that I value the most.

America has a policy of allowing other nations the same privilege, even if they don't exercise it: it isn't our job to make them behave inside their own borders as we would prefer. That is the main beef Americans have with the U. N. It threatens to take over the world and institute a U. N. "constitution" binding all nations to the same international laws, making the world one empire. That sort of direction must stop. Americans will not sell our Consitution out for some U. N. superiority. The E. U. is a good thing, as long as each nation retains its sovereignty. Our ranks are currently divided on this perspective: far too many Americans don't appreciate what national sovereignty means in a united world government.

quote:
Also, I'd like to make the point that America sees itself as the world's policemen, and how we (the world) wants it to be. Well, I don't. I don't want America to unilaterally invade countries when they feel like it. If any invading really has to be done, it is the job of the UN, and no other country. Including the US. I'd guess that this view is shared by the UN and most of its member countries.

Anyway, hopefully the US will have a more constructive role in the negotiations for the replacement of Kyoto. Blair has said he is optimistic on this - let's wait and see (and pray!)

Surely, when Bush and his admin decided to invade Iraq, I was aghast at the way it happened. The U. N. balked, and we said that Britain and the U. S. of A. would do it then. That was dividing the U. N. Part of it supported the invasion, the rest didn't. It all has rather the feel of early US division of the States; this resulted in Civil War, and even today we feel echoes of that division. Nothing is perfect!

To meet climate change, it will take a united effort of all nations, a U. N., not a divided one. We do indeed need to pray, and work hard, and not be selfish....

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

1. I still think the global warming scare campaign is a plot to destroy America. Nothing more. Nothing less. (That does not mean I deny global warming.)

2. What really creeps me are the calls starting to be heard to criminalize those who deny it. Proves that the eco-leftists are the new Nazis.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
2. What really creeps me are the calls starting to be heard to criminalize those who deny it. Proves that the eco-leftists are the new Nazis.

If that creeps you out, why not stop listening to whack-o right-wing talk radio that says that it is happening?

--Tom Clune

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That is the main beef Americans have with the U. N. It threatens to take over the world and institute a U. N. "constitution" binding all nations to the same international laws, making the world one empire.

Which is why I have lined my hoodie with aluminum foil, so the UN cannot monitor my thought waves.

quote:
Surely, when Bush and his admin decided to invade Iraq, I was aghast at the way it happened. The U. N. balked, and we said that Britain and the U. S. of A. would do it then. That was dividing the U. N. Part of it supported the invasion, the rest didn't.

So any country that doesn't go along with whatever the USA - oh, sorry, cooperate with a shared vision - is being divisive?

quote:

To meet climate change, it will take a united effort of all nations, a U. N., not a divided one. We do indeed need to pray, and work hard, and not be selfish....

MerlintheMad, is there any evidence that the US - a country fixated on individual liberty and national sovereignty - is culturally or politically ready to sacrifice some of that liberty and sovereignty in order cooperate internationally on this (or any) issue? OliviaG

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I'm quite certain that the actual operating cost per passenger per flight is a bit higher than 99p. It's actually the other passengers who paid for most of the cost of your wife's flight because they didn't book in advance / don't want to stay Saturday night / whatever. OliviaG

Dear OliviaG

You may well be right, but you're missing the point. Someone who wants to travel frequently from London to the West of Ireland will pick and choose times when they can go for next to nothing. This has been made possible by the no frills airlines, mainly Ryanair ans easy jet. I go to Italy most years as I have family there. 20 years ago I paid £200 pounds for a ticket. Nowadays if I book at the right time the total cost comes to no more than £50.

My point is that these airlines have revolutionised travel and made it accessible to people who could never have afforded it before. Good on them. They broke the monopoly of the price fixing cartels of the established national airlines such as BA, Alitalia and Aer Lingus. Internal air travel within the US has always been relatively cheap and where is the morality in paying more for a flight from London to Milan than a flight from New York to San Francisco?

For the government to tax away these freedoms which took so long in coming is immoral. And I reiterate my point that on a small island like Britain, it would be much more sensible to take a train rather than fly, especially for the environment. But its a no brainer whether anyone is going to pay £200 return from London to Edinburgh when they can fly both ways for £50. Instead of taxing away the airlines the government should concentrate on pressurising the train operators to offer competitive fares.

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

quote:
OliviaG:

MerlintheMad quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To meet climate change, it will take a united effort of all nations, a U. N., not a divided one. We do indeed need to pray, and work hard, and not be selfish....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MerlintheMad, is there any evidence that the US - a country fixated on individual liberty and national sovereignty - is culturally or politically ready to sacrifice some of that liberty and sovereignty in order cooperate internationally on this (or any) issue? OliviaG

Is there any reason why the US should sacrifice any of that which we believe is what made us "top nation?" That would be stupid. That does not mean that we can't work toward the common good. Perhaps other nations need to increase their prosperity by giving up some of their oligarchy: because that is how the US got great in the first place: by holding as few controls over free commerce and ownership of property as necessary to make the general peace and national defense hold up. The strength of the nation came from within. It was not imposed by controls from the top down. That is a lesson the American people often do not appreciate themselves. But it is the lesson which, if the U. N. were to follow the same path in its relationship with the nations of the earth, would produce a similar realtionship which the federal government holds over the states in the US: where the sovereign states govern within their borders the fed has no say; where the states must interact with each other or the whole, the fed exercises the controls. On a planetary scale, the U. N. would not control a sovereign nation within its borders, but would hold authority to impose sanctions and membership requirements upon that nation. This approach is what the US as top U. N. member has tried to inculcate into the general body of member nations. It has had frustrating results, i.e. gone nowhere in the main. Perhaps we need more time. Perhaps too many people are losing patience. And perhaps this global crisis of impending doom from the changing climate is increasing that impatience: and allowing too much credence to those voices who advocate quick, expedient measures, which ride roughshod over national interests. That should not happen.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is there any reason why the US should sacrifice any of that which we believe is what made us "top nation?" That would be stupid.

How about because that which you believe includes a lifestyle that is unsustainable and would consume the planet?

To New Yorker - are you serious?

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

MerlintheMad - there does seem to be a bit of circular logic here. The US has the most unsustainable carbon emissions, per person, by a mile. Carbon emissions (and other greenhouse gasses) cause global warming, so these need to be reduced. Since America has the worst record, it logically has the biggest challenge. If you predetermine that there is a UN hatred of America (and I'd agree to a point because of how abysmally America has behaved with not a shred of contrition in the light of the horrific events), how should the UN require America - and every other nation - to reduce their CO2 output?

I think the fear of the UN taking over the planet is (largely) a paranoid American one. Here in the UK, we've had the same fears peddled at us regarding the EU for a couple of decades, but everyone is thoroughly bored of it now, especially since European nations rejected a charter of closer harmonisation. There seems to me no evidence that a global government is wanted on a significant scale, still less acheivable (the US? China? North Korea? Really?!!). As an excuse to avoid responisibily on global warming, it seems paper thin.

However, I very much welcome your sentiment, MerlintheMad, regarding new efforts to get emissions down. Hopefully as better dialogue emerges between the US and the UN, some of these unfounded fears between Americans and the UN will be put to rest.

On a general point - it's interesting that the vast majority of people here now apparently accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So far on this thread, there has been very little attempt to challenge this.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
For the government to tax away these freedoms which took so long in coming is immoral. And I reiterate my point that on a small island like Britain, it would be much more sensible to take a train rather than fly, especially for the environment. But its a no brainer whether anyone is going to pay £200 return from London to Edinburgh when they can fly both ways for £50. Instead of taxing away the airlines the government should concentrate on pressurising the train operators to offer competitive fares.

PaulTH (and anyone else interested) - I've replied to this on the "Is our energy use sustainable" thread as it looks off topic here to me.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
On a general point - it's interesting that the vast majority of people here now apparently accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So far on this thread, there has been very little attempt to challenge this.

That may be because this is the third thread on the subject in recent days. Those of us skeptical of humanity being the reason for climate change have said what we had to say already. No point in saying it all again just coz you started a new thread about it.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Fair enough, Littlelady! Just to clarify, putting the thread here was an attempt to free up the others to discuss what they are actually meant to be about.

Anyone got any arguments that they could summarise or repost here for clarity?

[ 10. February 2007, 09:00: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

In this week's science [Disappointed]

, cosmic rays may be play a larger role in GW than CO2 emissions:

quote:
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

Link.

And this just in from The Economist on the IPCC report:

quote:
As understanding grows, predications may become less, rather than more, certain. Thus the IPCC's range of predictions of the rise of temperature by 2100 has increased from 1.4-2.5°C in the 2001 report to 1.1-6.4°C in this report... [this leaves] plenty of scope for argument about whether it is worth trying to do anything about climate change.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

I can't be bothered to read what the Telegraph or the Econimist opinions are on the matter. Or their reports of "controversial new research". Was it peer reviewed by people who actually know? Or is that why it's labelled controversial?

Can someone who can be bothered say whether it's worth the time to read it (or just the last failing attempts of the terminally unconvinved to regain some shreds of credibility) ?

Actual studies by real, unbiased scientists are worth paying attention to.
.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Eutychus - on the Telegraph article, I'm not quite sure what is new here, apart from the controversial author, Svensmark, having a book out. He published a paper on this in 1998, and another last year. The community of climate scientists seem extremely unimpressed, pointing to seemingly fatal flaws in the theory as regarding such a large effect. Solar activity is known to affect the climate, and the IPCC included its effects in its findings. Svensmark (and others) are mavericks with a book to sell - maybe he is right, but the vast majority of scientists do not apparently think so. For more on this from climate scientists (rather than the Telegraph), try this link.

The Economist's quote seems mad - so manifestly wrong it hardly dignifies a response, but in brief the range of possibilities considered by the IPCC has actually narrowed in the past 5 years. Further, the IPCC has actually disregarded many other positive feedback effects that would make all scenrios worse, since the science is still too young to be accepted as consensus. Many reputable bodies, such as the British Antarctic Survey for example, are very unhappy that they have been so conservative, but I guess it is a price to pay for such a solid consensus. The Economist appear to simply be making stuff up - I've no idea how they can arrive at those figures without massively misinterpreting the reports.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
unbiased scientists

No such thing. It's a question of choosing your bias.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The Economist's quote seems mad - so manifestly wrong it hardly dignifies a response, but in brief the range of possibilities considered by the IPCC has actually narrowed in the past 5 years. [...] The Economist appear to simply be making stuff up - I've no idea how they can arrive at those figures without massively misinterpreting the reports.

I believe the quote from the Economist is based on table SPM-3 (which does give a likely range of 1.1°C-6.4°C for temperature change to 2100) and this passage from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers :

quote:
Best estimates and likely ranges for globally average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM-3. [...] Although these projections are broadly consistent with the span quoted in the TAR (1.4 to 5.8°C), they are not directly comparable (see Figure SPM-5). The AR4 is more advanced as it provides best estimates and an assessed likelihood range for each of the marker scenarios. The new assessment of the likely ranges now relies on a larger number of climate models of increasing complexity and realism, as well as new information regarding the nature of feedbacks from the carbon cycle and constraints on climate response from observations.

So not "mad" or "making stuff up." Though the SPM does say that the ranges "are not directly comparable" their explanation isn't exactly a model of clarity - perhaps a better one will be included in the full report to be released in May.

It may be worth noting a few additional points:

The quoted ranges cover six scenarios with widely varying assumptions about future GHG emissions associated with different possible future demographic and technological developments. These are things that can't really be "predicted" by climate scientists, and the variation from looking at different scenarios shouldn't be interpreted as uncertainty in the underlying science.
For a given scenario, the range is smaller than for all scenarios taken together (of course), but varies depending on the emission levels assumed. For example, the most environmentally friendly scenario has a predicted temperature rise of 1.1 to 2.9 (most likely 1.8), while the least friendly predicts 2.4 to 6.4 (most likely 4.0).
I think Eutychus' quote from the Economist may give an inaccurate impression of the content of the entire article. The Economist accepts the reality of AGW and doesn't raise doubts about the new IPCC report. I think a slightly longer quote of the end of the article would give a better flavor:

quote:
So, as understanding grows, predictions may become less, rather than more, certain. Thus the IPCC's range of predictions of the rise in the temperature by 2100 has increased from 1.4-5.8°C in the 2001 report to 1.1-6.4°C in this report.

That the IPCC should end up with a range that vast is not surprising given the climate's complexity. But it does leave plenty of scope for argument about whether it is worth trying to do anything about climate change.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think Eutychus' quote from the Economist may give an inaccurate impression of the content of the entire article. The Economist accepts the reality of AGW and doesn't raise doubts about the new IPCC report.

I didn't mean to conceal that. My point was that they appear to conclude that given the range in the scenarios, it's difficult to know if it's economically worth trying to do anything about climate change.

I actually started to post on another of the multiple threads and then decided this one was the most appropriate. I may have been mistaken.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My point was that they appear to conclude that given the range in the scenarios, it's difficult to know if it's economically worth trying to do anything about climate change.

I actually started to post on another of the multiple threads and then decided this one was the most appropriate. I may have been mistaken.

This would seem like the best thread to me.

The Economist has not interpreted the report as the scientific community has. The latest report has been able to narrow the range, although they cannot rule out more extreme positions, these are thought very unlikely (although there is a wide body of scientific opinion which consider the high end figure conservate due to the possibility of positive feedbacks). I think the received wisdom is that closest comparison is between the two "most likely" figures - in the TAR this was 1.4-5.8, wheras the FAR is has been narrowed to 1.8-4.0.

A 1.8 degree rise - the most likely best-case scenario - is a very serious problem, hence the need for policy makers to address the issue. The likelihood of a scenario as low as 1.1 - still moderately serious - is very slim.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I think the received wisdom is that closest comparison is between the two "most likely" figures - in the TAR this was 1.4-5.8, wheras the FAR is has been narrowed to 1.8-4.0.

As in the case of the full span of "likely range" numbers from the new SPM (1.1-6.4), I don't think there are numbers from the TAR that can be directly compared with the new "best estimate" numbers (1.8-4.0).

According to the new SPM, the estimates and ranges "are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a simple climate model, several Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), and a large number of Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulaion Models (AOGCMs)." In the TAR, they weren't as sophisticated - for each of the six emissions scenarios, they ran a simple model seven times, each time tuning it to reflect the behavior of a different AOGCM. Then they reported the range of the seven results, as well as the simple average. The closest TAR comparison to the new "best estimate" span (1.8-4.0) is probably the span of those averages, which was 2.0-4.5. (See text and figure 9.14 from this page of the TAR.)

I expect there will be a more complete discussion of the improvements in understanding of the ranges of uncertainty in the full report due out in May.

More directly to the main thread topic - I've found the IPCC reports pretty convincing on the reality of AGW, what with the measurements of atmospheric temperature and CO2 increases, the isotopic content of the CO2, and the long-understood role of CO2 as a GHG. But I claim no expertise, and sometimes suspect I'm overly pessimistic about many things. So perhaps even more convincing have been reports (in such publications as the Economist) of serious concerns expressed by ... insurance companies. It's their business to assess risks with an unsentimental eye, and I figure that, unlike scientists, they can't have any personal or professional investment in the correctness of one theory over another.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this week's science , cosmic rays may be play a larger role in GW than CO2 emissions:

quote:
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.
Link.

Just to follow up this point, partly in response to questions from Clint Boggis and responses from Noiseboy.

The research in question is only labelled "contraversial" by the media, because it makes it seem more newsworthy. And, only then because it seemingly contradicts the recent IPCC report (personally, there seems to be less of a contradiction than the editors of certain newspapers seem to want to imply).

As I understand it from what I've read, the research (which is all published in peer reviewed journals and would have been available to the IPCC, and for all I know is referenced in the full report that's not yet available online) basically follows the following line:

Cosmic rays generate cascades of ionised particles in the atmosphere (nothing contraversial there, the earliest particle physics experiments in the early 20th century basically studied and used these same particle cascades).
These charged particle cascades in theory could form the nucleation sites for cloud formation. This is one point of contention - it's known that in air with lots of water vapour charged particles form nucleation sites, it's how bubble chambers work for detecting and tracking charged particles (not that they're really ever used any more outwith teaching), but it's not clear whether this occurs in the thin and relatively dry upper atmosphere. There are some experiments currently under way at particle accelerators to see if, and if so at what rate, charged particles create nucleation sites in such atmospheres.
It's well known that clouds in the upper atmosphere reduce global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space before it has a chance to heat the lower atmosphere. Clouds at lower altitudes have both cooling (by reflecting sunlight) and warming (by "blanketing" the lower atmosphere) effects.
If cosmic rays cause some cloud formation it would presumably happen throughout the atmosphere, but the effect would be negligable at lower altitudes where there are loads of nucleation sites available anyway. So, only the upper atmosphere clouds would be important, where the clouds would cool the earth.
Cosmic ray influx depends, in part, on the strength of the solar magnetic field and how it interacts with the earth. We do actually have some pretty decent measurements of the historic changes in the cosmic ray influx from cosmogenic isotope production rates (principally 14C) ... but, 14C concentrations are anthropologically influenced by the influx of fossil carbon from burning fossil fuels, and since 1950s from the influx on non-cosmogenic 14C through nuclear industry and weapons testing so the record on cosmic ray influx for the last 2-300 years is fairly poor (though, there are other less ideal records in ice cores and other cosmogenic isotopes like 32Si).
The thesis is that over the last couple of centuries the cosmic ray influx has dropped, reducing stratospheric cloud formation and allowing more sunlight to reach the lower atmosphere, hence contributing to global warming.

The problems I see are that it depends on some speculation, that may be well-founded but not yet clearly demonstrated.

First, that cosmic rays cause stratospheric cloud formation (my money is that they probably do, given that cloud chambers work). Second, that they cause a significant amount of stratospheric cloud formation (in this case, my money is that they probably don't as there are several other methods of stratospheric cloud formation), because if the clouds they form are only a small proportion of all stratospheric clouds then any variation in cosmic-ray produced clouds will have very small effects if all else is equal. And, finally it requires there to have been a significant reduction in cosmic-ray influx (which, though there appears to have been a reduction it doesn't seem to be that great).

And, of course, the researchers in question aren't doubting anthropogenic climate change. Just that they have a potential natural mechanism to account for a small proportion of recent global warming.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, of course, the researchers in question aren't doubting anthropogenic climate change. Just that they have a potential natural mechanism to account for a small proportion of recent global warming.

Isn't the controversy that Svensmark actually suggests the above is responsible for the greater part of climate change, whereas the consensus otherwise is that it is a very small part?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

That is what the Telegraph article said. It seems our library doesn't have a subscription to any electronic version of the Proceedings of the Royal Society (assuming it even exists electronically), so I can't check what the paper actually says. But, the abstract for the 1997 paper says "It is found that the observed variation of 3-4% of the global cloud cover during the recent solar cycle is strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux." I'm not sure if he's claiming 3-4% variation in cloud cover equates with a sufficiently significant effect to be "responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing"

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Re-reading the Climate Scientists' blog (earlier ref), it isn't too clear exactly who over-hyped these results. The implication on the blog is that it was the Danish National Space Center that put out a press release that over-sold the ideas, I guess leading to a wildly innacurate headline from the Telegraph.

It's fascinating to see how easily a little bit of science gets conflated to a headline along the lines of "Climate Change nothing to do with us after all".

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Re-reading the Climate Scientists' blog (earlier ref), it isn't too clear exactly who over-hyped these results. The implication on the blog is that it was the Danish National Space Center that put out a press release that over-sold the ideas, I guess leading to a wildly innacurate headline from the Telegraph.

Without reading the actual report produced by the researchers, how do you know that the Telegraph has produced a 'wildly inaccurate headline'? I'm not saying they haven't, but asking you how do you know that they have? You have consistently advocated that me and other skeptics read the 'actual science' yet you are coming to a conclusion without having done so yourself.

quote:
It's fascinating to see how easily a little bit of science gets conflated to a headline along the lines of "Climate Change nothing to do with us after all".

Aren't you assuming here that science is stagnant? Say what this team claim actually has worth, are you saying it should be ignored simply because it might not fit with the present political message? Isn't the idea to be flexible where science is concerned? Science makes new discoveries, adapts what it has claimed previously in the light of new data, etc. If this reported research has actually hit on something, isn't it worth keeping an open mind to wait and see what further work may produce?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Without reading the actual report produced by the researchers, how do you know that the Telegraph has produced a 'wildly inaccurate headline'? I'm not saying they haven't, but asking you how do you know that they have?

OK, I've managed to access the article referenced in the Telegraph. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 463, 385-396 (2007) . The link should take you to the abstract, you may need to be subscribed to read the full text. There is no way that you can get from that article, which is a report of experimental studies of nucleation following ionisation of gases, to the Telegraph headline. The article doesn't mention global warming once.

Of course, the Telegraph article could be drawn largely from the book rather than this specific article.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The link should take you to the abstract, you may need to be subscribed to read the full text.

Yes, it does and yes, you do! Pretty much the only bit of the abstract I understood was: 'concentrations relevant for the Earth's atmosphere'! Perhaps that was a subtle signal ...

quote:
Of course, the Telegraph article could be drawn largely from the book rather than this specific article.

That was the impression I got from reading the Telegraph article since the third paragraph begins 'In a book, to be published this week ...' [Biased]

.

I was simply pulling Noiseboy up for doing exactly what he has fairly roundly criticised me for doing, namely: not reading 'the science' before reaching a conclusion.

PS: I've received the book you recommended to me Alan. It may or may not convince me but either way, from the looks of it, I'll be more informed by the time I've worked my way through it!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The Telegraph obviously thinks this is a hot [Biased]

topic. Do your bit by not sending flowers to your Valentine (and feel guilty about hindering third world development just as you feel good about reducing carbon emissions...).

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Telegraph obviously thinks this is a hot topic. Do your bit by not sending flowers to your Valentine (and feel guilty about hindering third world development just as you feel good about reducing carbon emissions...).

This reminds me of a moment I had last week.

I was drying my hands in the bathroom at work when I noticed the hand dryer I was using had a label on it telling me that by using this hand dryer I was saving the rainforest. But I realised that while I might be saving the rainforest by not using paper towels, I was using electricity which was burning fossil fuels which meant I was (according to some) contributing to global warming.

Caring for the environment seemed so simple once upon a time.

[ 12. February 2007, 17:26: Message edited by: Littlelady ]

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Littlelady:

quote:
are you saying it should be ignored simply because it might not fit with the present political message?

Was this a slip? Is this what you really think: that we're not really talking about science but looking to scientists to endorse our political prejudices?
.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Littlelady:

quote:
are you saying it should be ignored simply because it might not fit with the present political message?
Was this a slip? Is this what you really think: that we're not really talking about science but looking to scientists to endorse our political prejudices?
.

No, that is not what I meant.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Little lady - if you follow the whole thread on this report, you'll hopefully see that having read the summaries, I've reffed the author back into the 90's, and his science is happily part of the climate change whole. However, with a book out, these reports are now wildly inflating the original science, which Alan has filled us in on some of the details of. That's it, really - don't think there's any need to jump up and down and point at me!

This part of the science is not new, and does not change anything which the IPCC report recently affirmed. As ever, it is the mainstream media that gets things wrong in misrepresenting it (and yes, the fact that it is the Telegraph is no great surprise).

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Excuse the double post, but felt the urge to write a little more on this last point. Littlelady is seemingly very suspicious of my motives (or perhaps just me!) so thought I'd elaborate a tad on my logic on this.

I am not a climate scientist, and so will never be qualified enough to sift through each individual piece of science and evaluate each on its own merits. I need those much more qualified than I to do this, then I listen to them. The problem comes with contradictory advice. Happily, in the case of ACC, this is pretty thin on the ground. The IPCC is an extraordinary collection of climate scientists, and they have put aside various dramatic possibilities and speculations to arrive at a definitive conservative consensus. Also happily for me (and other interested lay folk), the scientists themselves keep a blog where they can raise issues from all sides as they appear in the media, and try to correct embelishments and misunderstandings (which seem to come as often from hysterical environmentalists as right wing lobbyists).

So when a new (to me) thing pops up in the media, I just search their archive to see what the story is. I am hopelessly ill-qualified to judge it on its own merits, I'd be quite deluded if I believed I could objectively come to a conclusion on each piece of science. In this case I found a good deal of discussion on the subject, found the general view was that it was perfectly valid as scientific enquiry, but had only a relatively small consequence. Attempts to conflate the argument to something along the lines of the Telegraph headline were roundly trounced. Being as they - as the world's leading experts in their field - know what they are talking about and have an open forum to debate the issues, in the absence of any further info I'll stick to following their general view.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Sheesh, where to start?

I am a new “believer” to Global Warming after having been a long time-disbeliever. I think the preponderance of scientific papers and other evidence (no IPCC report needed, thanks) shows that humans are having an effect. Not ALL the papers mind you, but most. I truly understand people’s global warming skepticism because they are possibly getting their science filtered through the crappy media, or worse, politicians etc. My advice to those that are skeptics is to have an open mind and check sciencedaily.com or Scientific American or New Scientist or other science sources for stories that support or refute global warming and look at all kinds of articles, not merely the ones labeled global warming. Look at the natural world globally, do you like what you see going on? I don’t.

I have the following other thoughts/opinions:

Cutting back on hydrocarbons is a joke, it is almost certain to be too little too late at best or a feel-good band aid solution that costs money at worst. Only draconian measures would actually affect changes and few governments would allow it.

Anything with “Kyoto” in the sentence needs a punch line to the joke. Many of the countries that signed it couldn’t keep the Kyoto Protocol, and merely used it as a publicity stunt. NEXT!

Saying America is the problem is also a joke, with the exception that we need to get involved to help slow this global warming down. The stuff that America uses is jobs in our country and other countries. If we stopped our “unsustainable lifestyle” we all would go broke as the world economy collapsed. And if you live in the UK/EU, your lifestyle is almost certainly also “Unsustainable” by environmental standards. Don’t throw stones in your glass church.

IMO, large scale geo-engineering is the way this will be solved. While we develop our inevitable alternative sources of energy, especially nuclear, we will need to slow down the heating through engineering technologies. Of course, this will have to get a lot worse before states will want to build those kinds of huge projects.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
don't think there's any need to jump up and down and point at me!

Oh, I aint jumping up and down! I haven't the energy to do that. I just couldn't resist making the point. After all, you've been fairly vocal on other threads in making a similar point! I would still recommend you read the book, which is what the Telegraph article was referring to, before you assume the Telegraph is over-egging things. Me, as I've said elsewhere, well I'm a skeptic when it comes to all things reported in the media. But I'm consistent in that approach. My point was that you don't seem to be. [Biased]

quote:
Saying America is the problem is also a joke
<snip>
And if you live in the UK/EU, your lifestyle is almost certainly also “Unsustainable” by environmental standards. Don’t throw stones in your glass church.

I couldn't agree more with both these statements. It seems to me that the world needs a scapegoat, as usual, and America happens to be it at present. Your point about the UK is totally valid. Even within the EU we are totally crappy when it comes to being environmentally aware as a nation, so I don't think any Brit (of any variety) has any grounds to point the finger Pondways.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Has anyone correlated the demise of rain forest in S.America and deforestation in the Far East against rising levels of CO2 in recent years?

And how do volcano eruptions figure in this?

[Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html ]

Somewhere in the original thread, possibly the IPCC report, I recall that 670,000 years was given as a marker date, that CO2 emissions are greater now than any other time in this period - but how have they risen since the beginning of that marker date? I can't see any data relating to the whole period of increased global warming which has been contributing to the end of the last ice age. (Which makes the first graphs in the IPCC report appear to fault modern man's contribution but which could be an insignificant blip in a larger time scale).

Is all the high concentration now due to man alone or to other factors such as increased volcanic activity which I assume has been the main factor in bringing the ice age to an end?

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Has anyone correlated the demise of rain forest in S.America and deforestation in the Far East against rising levels of CO2 in recent years?

I'm sure they have. And, deforestation certainly hasn't helped slow the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

quote:
And how do volcano eruptions figure in this?

[Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html ]

Totally irrelevant. In the 2000-2005 period fossil carbon emissions (ie: that due to burning of fossil fuels and ignoring other human activity such as deforestation) is estimated to be around 25Gt of CO2 per year. That's about 200 times the amount of CO2 from volcanoes. Besides, volcanoes also emit lots of other stuff such as sulphates and aerosols that tend to cool the earth. Large volcanic eruptions have been shown to have a net cooling effect for several years - ie: the aerosols etc cool the earth more than the extra CO2 heats it.

quote:
Somewhere in the original thread, possibly the IPCC report, I recall that 670,000 years was given as a marker date, that CO2 emissions are greater now than any other time in this period - but how have they risen since the beginning of that marker date? I can't see any data relating to the whole period of increased global warming which has been contributing to the end of the last ice age.

The figure is 650000 years, which is the extent of ice-core data from the Antarctic. The ice-core data gives CO2 concentrations of between 180 and 300ppm for most of that period, currently CO2 concentrations stand at over 380ppm. If you want data for the period since the last ice-age, figure SPM-1 from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy makers gives atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and NO over the last 10000 years.

quote:
Is all the high concentration now due to man alone or to other factors such as increased volcanic activity which I assume has been the main factor in bringing the ice age to an end?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Volcano Information. Volcanoes actually help cool the planet temporarily. But as Alan said, their net contribution is comparitively minor in the overall scheme of things.

Much of these things are studied, debated, estimates derived, plugged into models, and projections derived. What makes me more nervous is the actual observations of the natural world and the changes we are seeing.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Somewhere in the original thread, possibly the IPCC report, I recall that 670,000 years was given as a marker date, that CO2 emissions are greater now than any other time in this period - but how have they risen since the beginning of that marker date? I can't see any data relating to the whole period of increased global warming which has been contributing to the end of the last ice age.
The figure is 650000 years, which is the extent of ice-core data from the Antarctic. The ice-core data gives CO2 concentrations of between 180 and 300ppm for most of that period, currently CO2 concentrations stand at over 380ppm. If you want data for the period since the last ice-age, figure SPM-1 from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy makers gives atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and NO over the last 10000 years.

For most of that period? Does that mean at times it was even closer or equal to what it is now? (since they say it hasn't been higher).

quote:
Is all the high concentration now due to man alone or to other factors such as increased volcanic activity which I assume has been the main factor in bringing the ice age to an end?

Volcanic activity is a very minor effect, as pointed out above. Plus, it's not been implicated with the end of the ice age (the generally accepted explanation of the recent ice-age cycles is that it's linked to orbital variations which changes the amount of solar energy impacting the earth coupled with CO2 related feedback cycles). The main question raised by the sceptics isn't "is the increased CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity?" because there's no real doubt that it is - all that coal we burn and all those forests we cut down can't do anything else but increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The question they ask is "are those increased greenhouse gases enough, on their own, to account for the observed warming?" often citing increases in solar energy input or changes in cosmic ray flux as other (entirely natural) causes. [/qb][/QUOTE]I'm tending towards agreeing with this. It's obvious we're contributing something, and surely it's a good thing to stop adding poisons to our atmosphere and organic cycle, but it doesn't quite gel that the added 80ppm of CO2 is the real cause of global warming - these cycles have been going on for rather a long time and what industry was there 10,000 years ago which caused the ice to melt and the sea levels to rise so dramatically?

Myrrh

[ 13. February 2007, 17:12: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

..not terribly well edited.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
The figure is 650000 years, which is the extent of ice-core data from the Antarctic. The ice-core data gives CO2 concentrations of between 180 and 300ppm for most of that period, currently CO2 concentrations stand at over 380ppm. If you want data for the period since the last ice-age, figure SPM-1 from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy makers gives atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and NO over the last 10000 years.
For most of that period? Does that mean at times it was even closer or equal to what it is now? (since they say it hasn't been higher).

No - the current value of 380 is much higher than anything in the ice core record. You can see a plot of CO2 from an ice core going back 650,000 years before present here, courtesy of this article from RealClimate.

quote:
[...] these cycles have been going on for rather a long time and what industry was there 10,000 years ago which caused the ice to melt and the sea levels to rise so dramatically?

The ice age/inter-ice age cycles observed are believed to be associated with Milankovitch cycles; slow changes in the earth's orbit, axis tilt, etc. result in changes to the pattern of solar heating (e.g. more or less heating of poles vs. tropics) which, when combined with ice sheet and/or CO2 feedback mechanisms, cause large changes in temperature and climate.

But the fact that there are also non-anthropogenic causes of climate variation doesn't mean that our GHG emissions aren't causing the current warming. (It's true that murder is sometimes committed with arsenic - but that seems an unlikely cause of death in a case where you have a recently fired pistol and a corpse with a sudden case of acute lead poisoning...)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
The figure is 650000 years, which is the extent of ice-core data from the Antarctic. The ice-core data gives CO2 concentrations of between 180 and 300ppm for most of that period, currently CO2 concentrations stand at over 380ppm. If you want data for the period since the last ice-age, figure SPM-1 from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy makers gives atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and NO over the last 10000 years.
For most of that period? Does that mean at times it was even closer or equal to what it is now? (since they say it hasn't been higher).
No - the current value of 380 is much higher than anything in the ice core record.

Yeah, my "most of that period" was basically to say "all of the period except the last 200 years". If you compare the plot Dave just linked to (for the last 650000 years) with the one I mentioned in the IPCC report (for the last 10000 years) you'll see that on the long time scale there was a "rapid" (in geological terms) increase in CO2 concentration from 180 to 260ppm in 10ky, starting 20ky ago - which marks the start of the end of the last ice age. In comparison, for the shorter time scale data presented in the IPCC report shows an increase from 300 to 380ppm over the last 50 years - that is the same amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere in 50 years as nature managed in 10 thousand.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
]Yeah, my "most of that period" was basically to say "all of the period except the last 200 years". If you compare the plot Dave just linked to (for the last 650000 years) with the one I mentioned in the IPCC report (for the last 10000 years) you'll see that on the long time scale there was a "rapid" (in geological terms) increase in CO2 concentration from 180 to 260ppm in 10ky, starting 20ky ago - which marks the start of the end of the last ice age. In comparison, for the shorter time scale data presented in the IPCC report shows an increase from 300 to 380ppm over the last 50 years - that is the same amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere in 50 years as nature managed in 10 thousand.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
.

But the fact that there are also non-anthropogenic causes of climate variation doesn't mean that our GHG emissions aren't causing the current warming. (It's true that murder is sometimes committed with arsenic - but that seems an unlikely cause of death in a case where you have a recently fired pistol and a corpse with a sudden case of acute lead poisoning...)

Not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a dying body in the library with a fired pistol and the body actually dying from arsenic poisoning, no bullet wound at all.

A rise in CO2 levels is not proven to be correlated to global warming as cause - all the latest figures show that this is an unusual blip and ice ages have been coming and going during the majority of the periods of low Co2. CO2 could just as well be a product of global warming.

We are actually at the end period of an ice age which rather dramatically changed northern Europe around 10-12 thousand years ago raising sea levels to what we have now, Ireland and Britain separated and France a tunnel away.

Where were the CO2 emissions contributing to this actually coming from when there was no industry 10,000 years ago to produce such a dramatic effect? What exactly is this rise of 80ppm supposed to prove over 20thousand years? Since in the last 50 years we have a comparable rise, also 80ppm, shouldn't we be seeing a equal amount of effects as that supposedly produced by the earlier extra 80ppm C02? Why aren't we all huddled together on our mountains?

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
A rise in CO2 levels is not proven to be correlated to global warming as cause - all the latest figures show that this is an unusual blip and ice ages have been coming and going during the majority of the periods of low Co2. CO2 could just as well be a product of global warming.

It's difficult to see how, as there is good physics proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that's partly responsible (there are other greenhouse gases) for blanketting the earth and keeping it warm, rises in CO2 can do anything other than increase global temperatures. Unless, other feedback mechanisms (eg: cloud cover) that would tend to cool the earth compensate entirely for the extra greenhouse effect. Most of the work examined by bodies like the IPCC is actually mostly concerned with how different mechanisms interact - eg: to answer the question "hotter seas=more evaporation=more cloud ... does that extra cloud cool the earth enough to compensate for the extra CO2?".

As for describing the current CO2 concentration as an "unusual blip", that's possibly the understatement of the century. We're talking about the highest CO2 concentration for the last million years, probably for the last 20 million years. Which follows a rate of increase 200 times faster than any known natural increase of comparable size (eg: the post-glacial warmings of the last 650ky). Yep, that's a highly unusual blip.

quote:
We are actually at the end period of an ice age which rather dramatically changed northern Europe around 10-12 thousand years ago raising sea levels to what we have now, Ireland and Britain separated and France a tunnel away.

Where were the CO2 emissions contributing to this actually coming from when there was no industry 10,000 years ago to produce such a dramatic effect?

If natural cycles were being followed we should be well past the mid point of an inter-glacial (a warm period between large scale glacial coverage of the earth). If natural cycles were being followed, there's no reason to expect anything other than a general reduction in CO2 levels and a cooling of the earth. That's clearly not happening.

The CO2 that drove the warming at the end of the last glacial period 10ky ago came from many natural sources. I'm not an expert on the subject. But, changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth (via the Milankovitch cycles in the earths orbit that moves us further and closer to the Sun over 100ky periods) change the temperature balance, which changes the ecosystem and physical processes that results in less (or more, depending on which way the cycle is going) CO2 capture which results in a feedback that drives the climate further than the change in sunlight would do alone. Generally, it's the physical processes, rather than the biosphere, that are thought to be most important. The oceans, in particular, are hugh reservoirs of dissolved CO2. Cold water stores more CO2 than warm, and ice over the surface would further prevent CO2 leaving the oceans into the air (and, ice itself traps gases, including CO2). As the ice melts, CO2 is released from the ice and underlying sea, which raises the temperature, warming the oceans and letting more CO2 out. Plus, you get methane released from defrosting permafrost to add to the feedback.

quote:
What exactly is this rise of 80ppm supposed to prove over 20thousand years? Since in the last 50 years we have a comparable rise, also 80ppm, shouldn't we be seeing a equal amount of effects as that supposedly produced by the earlier extra 80ppm C02?

The climate is a (relatively) slow moving system. It takes time for the effect of that extra CO2 to feed through to increased temperatures. Think of a cold night and you're shivering in bed - putting an extra blanket on the bed doesn't warm the bed instantly, it takes time for that extra insulation to take effect.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's difficult to see how, as there is good physics proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that's partly responsible (there are other greenhouse gases) for blanketting the earth and keeping it warm, rises in CO2 can do anything other than increase global temperatures. Unless, other feedback mechanisms (eg: cloud cover) that would tend to cool the earth compensate entirely for the extra greenhouse effect.

I still don't see the bullet hole. I can't see anything on any chart to show real facts proving that a high CO2 reading is an actual cause, the blip could still be showing that it's an effect, we could simply be adding to the effect of a natural cycle, which is still not answered. What actually caused the ice to melt 12k years ago? There was no industry. There was more CO2 around. There was an equal volume of extra blip.

quote:
Most of the work examined by bodies like the IPCC is actually mostly concerned with how different mechanisms interact - eg: to answer the question "hotter seas=more evaporation=more cloud ... does that extra cloud cool the earth enough to compensate for the extra CO2?".

And talking of the data, I haven't been able to make a lot of sense from it. Charts of figures don't relate to each other. It's just disparate bits of information with no overall comparison over time, and ice ages have been coming and going for millions of years - where's the overall picture?

quote:
As for describing the current CO2 concentration as an "unusual blip", that's possibly the understatement of the century. We're talking about the highest CO2 concentration for the last million years, probably for the last 20 million years. Which follows a rate of increase 200 times faster than any known natural increase of comparable size (eg: the post-glacial warmings of the last 650ky). Yep, that's a highly unusual blip.

OK, maybe I'm being immensely thick here and I've missed it (or, to be kind to myself, have missed it in the abundance of data), but where does this come from? The figure is 'highest in the last 650,000 years'.

quote:
MyrrhWe are actually at the end period of an ice age which rather dramatically changed northern Europe around 10-12 thousand years ago raising sea levels to what we have now, Ireland and Britain separated and France a tunnel away.

Where were the CO2 emissions contributing to this actually coming from when there was no industry 10,000 years ago to produce such a dramatic effect?

quote:
MyrrhWhat exactly is this rise of 80ppm supposed to prove over 20thousand years? Since in the last 50 years we have a comparable rise, also 80ppm, shouldn't we be seeing a equal amount of effects as that supposedly produced by the earlier extra 80ppm C02?

quote:
The climate is a (relatively) slow moving system. It takes time for the effect of that extra CO2 to feed through to increased temperatures. Think of a cold night and you're shivering in bed - putting an extra blanket on the bed doesn't warm the bed instantly, it takes time for that extra insulation to take effect.

OK, but this is back to my gripe (and I accept that it could be me not seeing it), where do I find a chart that gives me accurate data re rise of CO2 correlated to the effects of even of one ending of an ice age. At the moment all I've got is there was equal 80ppm blip more around 10,000 years ago in an end of ice age cycle that began 20,000 years ago.

Myrrh

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Myrrh -

If you're interested in learning about the consensus explanation for paleoclimate changes (like ice age cycles) and why it is thought that what we're seeing now is different, you might try the last IPCC report, available on-line here. Chapter 2 is titled Observed Climate Variability and Change, and section 2.4 specifically addresses the question "how rapidly did climate change in the distant past?" There you can find a figure comparing plots of temperature (over Antarctica) with CO2 and methane concentrations over the last 400,000 years. (Since it's from the 2001 report, it doesn't reach as far back as some more recent results, but it does show how things varied during the last 4 ice ages.)

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Thanks Dave, yes I'm interested I'll take a look. I'm struggling a bit coming to a subject I really know nothing about, like walking into a library having just read the first Janet and John book. [Smile]

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If coming at it with virtually no background, you may also find Chapter One: The Climate System, an Overview helpful.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Some general thoughts having caught up on another few days posts (OK, I was bored at work!). Both in life and on these hallowed boards, I think I'm seeing a pattern emerging regarding people's response to ACC. It's a bit like the famous stages of grief, and it goes something like this.

1. Climate change isn't real. Anyone who looks into this for a few minutes realises that the science can't support this, so they usually quickly move on to:

2. Man-induced climate change isn't real. "How do we know man causes this? What about 200 years ago - it was much colder then anyway. What about volcanos / sunspots / cosmic rays / little ice age / badgers?" etc. Eventually people realise that, amazing though it may seem, the world's climate scientists have actually thought about all these things, and factored them in already. And the conclusion is that overall we did, in fact, do it. Perhaps it is no suprise, therefore, that every country on Earth has now accepted the science that man-induced climate change is real. But where next? At this point, the beleagured person often moves to either:

3a. There's nothing we can do about it anyway, or:

3b. Technology will bail us out somehow.

Al Gore has said that the 3a response is very common, that faced with all the available evidence, people simply switch from denial to despair. It seems to me that this simply replaces one form of science denial for another - the denial that having got us in this mess, mankind is now utterly powerless to change the future outcome. There are some scientists who would actually agree with this since we may have already passed the point of no return, but they are in a minority. This is in contrast to the consensus view that characterises the reality of ACC. The consensus position (as much as there is one) is very simple - by reducing our collective output of greenhouse gas emissions, we will reduce the net effect of their damage to the planet. By contrast, if left unchecked, the effects will be increasingly severe. Ultimately, the possibility exists of a runaway positive feedback effect on the climate, eventually leading to the apocalyptic end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it (I know some will swtich off at this point for scare-mongering, but this is nevertheless the scientific long-term worst case scenario, and thus can't be brushed under the carpet without examining the case).

Proponents of either the 3a or 3b view often say that to imagine reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is living in cloud cuckoo land, that people need to "wake up", "get real" etc etc, assuming that any action whatsoever spells cataclysmic doom for any country's economy. There seems little evidence to me to support this view, but quite a bit to support the opposite. The UK government's Stern report spells out the potential disasterous economic effects of inaction - massively more damaging to the global economy of action. Even more inexplicably, the technology actually exists right now to massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions without a negative effect to the world economy - nuclear power (useless UK government consultations notwithstanding), hybrid / electric cars, renewable energy sources, better building design etc. Even the rising and incresingly polluting China and India have signalled they are moving towards change.

There is more evidence that we have the potential and capability to act. We have faced huge global threats before - twice in the last century. During WWII, for example, people accepted that in order to preserve our civilisation, sacrifices would have to be made. Conscription and rationing were both drastic measures - but we did them and they worked. A reduction in personal freedoms was willingly accepted in order to preserve a greater freedom. In comparison to those sacrifices, the proposed climate change solutions are a walk in the park.

Since all governments in the world from communist China to neo-con America now accept the reality of the threat of global warming, what evidence is there that we will remain paralysed by inaction? There is no sound logical, technological or practical reason why global emissions cannot be significantly reduced. So why has progress not been quicker? The only significant negative factor is political will. This, fortunately, is changing - not least because it is us, the electorate, that is the driver. And the electorate is finally waking up.

It seems that some - including many in the Bush administration who have already moved from 1 to 2 - prefer the 3b scenario. In stark contrast to the relative ease of acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some say we should carry on as we are wait for some shiny new technology to save us from ourselves. Richard Branson is currently offerring $25m to anyone who can come up with a way to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and do something with it. The US government have even suggested a literally shiny idea of putting giant mirrors in space to reflect the sun (at best this technology is thought to be 100 years away, if feasable at all, with potentially disasterous side effects). Well, let's hope Branson does find someone. But it is only that - a hope. Currently no technology exists which reduces current greenhouse gas levels on a significant scale. It seems to replace one type of denial with another (that we cannot reduce gas emissions with currently available technology), and wishful thinking. The search for new technology should be stepped up - but not at the cost of inaction otherwise.

Each denial stage will I guess always have its supporters - even 1 and 2, against all evidence and global governmental and scientific consensus. But the science is so overwhelming that once word spreads and people start finding out for themselves, my hunch is that many more will join the throng that have already eventually arrived at:

4. Acceptance. Changes are both essential and possible. We can sustain current lifestyles up to a point, better using existing technology such as nuclear, renweables, electric cars etc, designing new houses and buildings that do not need air-con or even central heating. Indeed, on these measures, it's even easy to imagine quality of life improving. Unfortunately however, it is difficult to envisage that these factors alone will be enough. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that more serious changes will be needed, and these will impact on our lives more directly. Limitless personal car use and cheap-flights-for-all both look vulnerable.

Sure, it's my own pop-psychology, but this, perhaps, is how the comparison with grief works - we are afraid of the death of our very easy, obscenely comfortable consequence-free existence. My own view on a good day is that technology and (with more difficulty) gradual population reduction will enable a transition from unsustainable to sustainable to be moderately painless in the west. As a bonus, we will probably end up more healthy - all assuming that governents around the world embrace the ideology of essential change, and work to make it is attractive as possible.

There is a big but to temper this optimism however. As ever, it will be the world's poorest who will suffer the most, no matter what the future. IMHO, if we have to mourn a minor reduction in convenience of our extravagent western lifestyles to limit this as far as possible, than so be it.

(final PS to Littlelady - I've alreasy explained why reading Svensmark's book is not perhaps the best use of my time. I've already explained how I as a lay person can best evaluate the available science in my last post - wishful thinking that the lone voices are right and the overwhelming consensus is wrong doesn't help).

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Wow.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Wow.

Where's the power coming from? Wouldn't be fossil fuels would it?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Nuclear.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

That's ok then. [Smile]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Hey, and it's not just the rock stars...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Hey, and it's not just the rock stars...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm

Rock stars just jump on bandwagons. It wasn't so long ago they were all concerned about Africa. What happened to concern for Africa anyway?

Noiseboy, didn't you notice in your link that the agreement was non-binding? In other words, it's meaningless.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Some general thoughts having caught up on another few days posts (OK, I was bored at work!). Both in life and on these hallowed boards, I think I'm seeing a pattern emerging regarding people's response to ACC. It's a bit like the famous stages of grief, and it goes something like this.

1. Climate change isn't real. Anyone who looks into this for a few minutes realises that the science can't support this, so they usually quickly move on to:

2. Man-induced climate change isn't real. "How do we know man causes this? What about 200 years ago - it was much colder then anyway. What about volcanos / sunspots / cosmic rays / little ice age / badgers?" etc. Eventually people realise that, amazing though it may seem, the world's climate scientists have actually thought about all these things, and factored them in already. And the conclusion is that overall we did, in fact, do it. Perhaps it is no suprise, therefore, that every country on Earth has now accepted the science that man-induced climate change is real.

I'm finding it increasingly ludicrous to think that anyone can believe that +80ppm CO2 in the last century is the driving force behind the earth's climate changes we're seeing now except that 'someone' is relying on the majority to do precisely what you and I have done - take it on trust that the figures aren't being manipulated because the data available are so complex, but manipulated we are. Temperature changes are given regardless of the patterns of extreme cold even in the last couple of millenniums (the 'mini-ice ages') and CO2 concentrations have been thousands of times greater than now in the millions of years earth's climate has been changing.

CO2 is practically insignificant in percentage terms of atmospheric gases, around 0.03%, compared with around 77% Nitrogen and 21% oxygen (and of the 'greenhouse gases' it's the majority water vapour, 1.95%, which is taken out of figures to give an inflated reading for CO2).

There have been times in our prehistoric past when C02 levels were well over 7000 ppm and one period of low level CO2 much as we have today it was also an ice age.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html & http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

And talking of ice ages, let me begin with the one we began coming out of around 20 thousand years ago.

quote:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/073.htm

As more detailed information becomes available, the timing of the Holocene maximum warmth is seen to differ across the globe. There appears to be a south to north pattern, with southern latitudes displaying maximum warming a few millennia before the Northern Hemisphere regions. Interestingly, the Holocene appears by far the longest warm “stable” period (as far as seen from the Antarctic climate record) over the last 400 ky, with profound implications for the development of civilisation (Petit et al., 1999).

Which means that global warming especially during the last 10 thousand years is why we have the abundance of plant and animal forms we have today, and generally life as we know it.

The Holocene http://www.jamestown-ri.info/holocene.htm

Ice Ages are the norm for planet earth - we're still in one now and coming to the end of a small 10ky window of opportunity of global warming within this.

Ice Ages:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_02.shtml

Temperature
John Baez October 1, 2006

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

What we're actually in at the moment, coming to end of one 20,000 year cycle, is cooling - the temperature trend has been downwards, back to colder conditions from a high peak between 8-6 thousand years ago (average around 2 degrees Centigrade higher than now).
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/figures/5_18.html

And since this 20,000 year cycle comes between longer 100,000 year cycles what we're heading for in around a thousand years time is another 100,000 years of bitter cold ice age which will kill off the majority of life forms which are unable to adapt.

That's the real scenario here, global cooling. If it were only so simple to produce more CO2 to warm the place up...

These changes can happen with a rapidity that is truly astonishing:

quote:
2.4.3 How Fast did Climate Change during the Glacial Period?

The most extreme manifestation of climate change in the geological record is the transition from full glacial to full inter-glacial conditions. During the most recent glacial cycle, peak glacial conditions prevailed from about 25 to 18 ky BP. Temperatures close to those of today were restored by approximately 10 ky BP. However, warming was not continuous. The deglaciation was accomplished in two main stages, with a return to colder conditions (Younger Dryas/Antarctic Cold Reversal) or, at the least, a pause in the deglaciation.

The central Greenland ice core record (GRIP and GISP2) has a near annual resolution across the entire glacial to Holocene transition, and reveals episodes of very rapid change. The return to the cold conditions of the Younger Dryas from the incipient inter-glacial warming 13,000 years ago took place within a few decades or less (Alley et al., 1993). The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades... continued on:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/074.htm

quote:
2.4.4 How Stable was the Previous Inter-glacial?...

2.4.5. Summary....

During the Holocene smaller but locally quite large climate changes occurred sporadically; similar changes may have occurred in the last inter-glacial. Evidence is increasing, therefore, that a rapid reorganisation of atmospheric and ocean circulation (time-scales of several decades or more) can occur during inter-glacial periods without human interference.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/075.htm

Without human interference dramatic changes can take place in a matter of decades. In other words, we're not in control. Our imput is even more inconsequential than the piddling amount of CO2 floating around.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm finding it increasingly ludicrous to think that anyone can believe that +80ppm CO2 in the last century is the driving force behind the earth's climate changes we're seeing now

Of course, it depends what you mean by "driving force". CO2 is one of the main atmospheric gases responsible for maintaining the temperature of the earth at a reasonable level (mean temperature of 14°C rather then -10°C, and with much less day-night variation). But, it's probably pushing it to call CO2 the "driving force" behind the climate - the Sun is a much stronger contender for that title.

Though, it's probably probably not inaccurate to say that the source of that extra CO2 (ie: people burning fossil fuels) is the driving force for recent changes in the climate. People will certainly know what you mean by that.

quote:
take it on trust that the figures aren't being manipulated because the data available are so complex, but manipulated we are.

Do you have any evidence that the data has been manipulated? Or, have you found any credible climate scientist or atmospheric physicist (or any other moderately qualified scientist) that can support a claim that the work of 1000s of scientists published in peer reviewed journals over the last 20 years or so is misrepresenting that data? (I'd accept that some newspaper, and similar, presentations of the findings probably are misrepresenting the data. Some may even be setting out to deliberately manipulate people).

quote:
Temperature changes are given regardless of the patterns of extreme cold even in the last couple of millenniums (the 'mini-ice ages')

Generally, they're given simply relative to the mean temperature of the period 1990-2000, sometimes relative to the mean "predindustrial" temperature (something like mean 1700-1800 temperature). How else would you present temperature change, apart from relative to a baseline? Even if you chose a different basepoint, the plots would be the same - just moved up or down relative to the time axis depending on what base point chosen.

If there were "extreme cold" events in the past they would appears as negative blips in the plots of temperature. And, indeed, if you get plots of norht western european temperatures (eg: the UK historic temperatures) then you will see the blips for the 'mini-ice age'. But if you look at global mean temperatures that simply disappears because it was a small, localised event that had no substantial impact beyond our little bit of the planet.

quote:
and CO2 concentrations have been thousands of times greater than now in the millions of years earth's climate has been changing.

No one's disputing that. And, when CO2 levels were much higher most life as we know it would struggle to survive. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
CO2 is practically insignificant in percentage terms of atmospheric gases

Now, that's one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard. Perhaps I should put 200mg of arsenic in your dinner. That'll be OK, after all it's an insignificant percentage of the total mass of your dinner. Sometimes, things have an impact above and beyond the actual amount present.

Besides, in relationship to the greenhouse effect you need to consider those gases that interact with infra-red radiation; the others may as well not be there. That's carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3) which make up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere in total, and water vapour which is about 1% (though highly variable).

quote:
(and of the 'greenhouse gases' it's the majority water vapour, 1.95%, which is taken out of figures to give an inflated reading for CO2).

Actually, water vapour is taken out mainly because it's so variable and non-persistant in the atmosphere (increase water vapour and you'll rapidly get more clouds and rainfall bringing the concentration back down again). And, it's hardly as though CO2 is the only greenhouse gas discussed. Most plots will give methane and N2O data as well.

quote:
There have been times in our prehistoric past when C02 levels were well over 7000 ppm and one period of low level CO2 much as we have today it was also an ice age.

And your point is that lower CO2 = lower temperatures? Well, d'uh. That's what scientists have been saying for decades.

quote:
And talking of ice ages, let me begin with the one we began coming out of around 20 thousand years ago.

quote:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/073.htm

As more detailed information becomes available, the timing of the Holocene maximum warmth is seen to differ across the globe. There appears to be a south to north pattern, with southern latitudes displaying maximum warming a few millennia before the Northern Hemisphere regions. Interestingly, the Holocene appears by far the longest warm “stable” period (as far as seen from the Antarctic climate record) over the last 400 ky, with profound implications for the development of civilisation (Petit et al., 1999).
Which means that global warming especially during the last 10 thousand years is why we have the abundance of plant and animal forms we have today, and generally life as we know it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We know that the greenhouse effect gives us the planet we have, suitable for the life that's here. We know that life as we know it is adapted to the climate we have, but would probably struggle if we increase temperatures significantly. Life as we know it evolved in response to a climatic change (mostly the entire ice-age of cold and warmer cycles of the last million years or so) with the climate cooling distinctly from earlier times. That life will survive a change back to significantly warmer conditions isn't in doubt. Whether the plants and animals we depend upon for our food supplies will cope well, even with help from us, is a different question. That's even assuming we don't have some concern for the natural biosphere, and are only concerned with human survival or civilisation.

quote:
Ice Ages are the norm for planet earth

Actually, they aren't the norm. If they were then your entire previous argument is meaningless. Either ice age conditions are the norm, or warmer conditions than now. You can't have it both ways and form an argument that's anything other than bollocks. As it is, the ice age conditions on the last million years or so are particularly abnormal; albeit fortuitously abnormal as far as we're concerned as it allowed human beings to evolve and human civilisation to be founded.

quote:
we're still in one now and coming to the end of a small 10ky window of opportunity of global warming within this.

You're right that we're still in an ice age. Colloquially, 'ice-age' is used for the periods of time of widespread glaciation, hence "last ice age" being used for the colder period that ended abou 10-15ky ago. Technically, with the abnormal conditions of large scale glaciation (currently about 10% of the earths surface under permanent ice) having persisted for the last million years it's all one single ice-age. I'm not quite sure what a "window of opportunity of global warming" is - are you suggesting that this is the only chance we'll get of screwing up our climate by artificially forcing the climate to much warmer conditions?

quote:
What we're actually in at the moment, coming to end of one 20,000 year cycle, is cooling - the temperature trend has been downwards, back to colder conditions from a high peak between 8-6 thousand years ago (average around 2 degrees Centigrade higher than now).

Then, if the trend has been towards cooling the present sudden and rapid increase in temperature is bucking the trend. Even more so than the climate scientists suggest, based on a more static trend. And, of course, contrary to the climate change skeptics who suggest that the current temperature rise is natural - if it was natural the trend would have been towards warmer conditions.

quote:
And since this 20,000 year cycle comes between longer 100,000 year cycles what we're heading for in around a thousand years time is another 100,000 years of bitter cold ice age which will kill off the majority of life forms which are unable to adapt.

Which is what climatologists were saying 40 years ago, before the impact of CO2 was fully appreciated. If things follow the natural cycle, then we should be in line for another period of glaciation in 5-10ky. That's a big if given the huge impact humanity has had in the last 100 years or so. Whether that would really impact the life forms on earth is a different question, most life is actually fairly well cold-adjusted (cold in relative terms compared to temperatures 20 million years ago). The 10-15ky since the last glaciation isn't long enough for evolution to remove the genes needed to survive a new glaciation. Many species of plants and animals survived the sequence of warm and cold from previous cycles in the current ice-age. There's little reason to think anything would have been different this time around, except for the impact of human activity.

quote:
That's the real scenario here, global cooling. If it were only so simple to produce more CO2 to warm the place up...

Well, as I said, if things were following a natural trend you might be right. But, if you're going to accept that the natural trend is to cool the earth then you must also accept that human impact has been more significant than even the most pessimistic climate scientists are saying.

What really confuses me about your argument is that your last post seems to be saying two entirely contradictory things.

1) the natural state of the earth is much warmer, with much higher CO2 concentrations than today. And, therefore the increases in temperature and CO2 observed in the last 200 years are restoring the natural position and, presumably, the fact that it coincides with intense human industrial activity is coincidental.

2) the natural state of the earth is ice-age conditions, colder than today and that that's where we're heading so all this extra CO2 is, at best, delaying the inevitable freeze.

I don't see how you can have it both ways [Confused]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm finding it increasingly ludicrous to think that anyone can believe that +80ppm CO2 in the last century is the driving force behind the earth's climate changes we're seeing now
Of course, it depends what you mean by "driving force". CO2 is one of the main atmospheric gases responsible for maintaining the temperature of the earth at a reasonable level (mean temperature of 14°C rather then -10°C, and with much less day-night variation). But, it's probably pushing it to call CO2 the "driving force" behind the climate - the Sun is a much stronger contender for that title.

But Alan, this is what we're being told, that C02 is the driving force and it's all our fault for driving up the levels since the Industrial Age and our fault for the continuing pollution of the atmosphere and this, precisely, is what is causing global warming - you yourself keep stressing this is down to our responsibility because of the extra 80ppm of CO2. Whole countries are looking to change laws because of this claim, millions of pound sterling has probably already been spent to change to new industrial standards and whatever associated costs. The whole campaign is deliberately generating fear that we are destroying the balance of our world and when our children and grandchildren are all dying for lack of water for crops in the rising temperature and the ice melts and obliterates billions of acres of land destroying major cities and drowning countless millons people it is because we've been irresponsible.

But, it doesn't even have the benefit of being logical enough to stake a claim as a theory. All evidence points to it being as insignificant in the scheme of things as you and I if we look at the earth's climate changes through millions of years. We might well think we're important and awfully clever, but for people who for the most part thought that mankind began with Adam and Eve 6 thousand years ago and have only recently begun to think differently I'm not too keen on taking their tentative steps into knowledge as Gospel...

I began this not knowing more than the average news savvy Westerner and until the subject became a discussion here hadn't taken any interest in exploring it and in the last few days I've become progressively more appalled at the singular lack of any real data to back this up.

quote:
Though, it's probably probably not inaccurate to say that the source of that extra CO2 (ie: people burning fossil fuels) is the driving force for recent changes in the climate. People will certainly know what you mean by that.

That's exactly the message we're being sold and as I've said above and besides the fear generated by saying this increase is the driving force many are also being made to feel ignorant/stupid/unfeeling for even questioning it.

quote:
take it on trust that the figures aren't being manipulated because the data available are so complex, but manipulated we are.

quote:
Do you have any evidence that the data has been manipulated? Or, have you found any credible climate scientist or atmospheric physicist (or any other moderately qualified scientist) that can support a claim that the work of 1000s of scientists published in peer reviewed journals over the last 20 years or so is misrepresenting that data? (I'd accept that some newspaper, and similar, presentations of the findings probably are misrepresenting the data. Some may even be setting out to deliberately manipulate people).

We're being manipulated because the data doesn't exist. If the theory was proved it wouldn't be so dense a jungle of disparate views and there are scientists questioning it (I'm sorry, I haven't had time to make a note of everything I've read and can only give the gist of what I've been finding). Not only is there no such theory proved, i.e. it isn't fact, but the theory can't show any clear correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, let alone show this increasing is the driving force to changing the climate.

quote:
Temperature changes are given regardless of the patterns of extreme cold even in the last couple of millenniums (the 'mini-ice ages')

quote:
Generally, they're given simply relative to the mean temperature of the period 1990-2000, sometimes relative to the mean "predindustrial" temperature (something like mean 1700-1800 temperature). How else would you present temperature change, apart from relative to a baseline? Even if you chose a different basepoint, the plots would be the same - just moved up or down relative to the time axis depending on what base point chosen.

We're told our acts since the beginning of the Industrial are the cause of global warming and the perilous state we're in now, it is simply disingenous to present this as a base line when well known longer base lines show we're in a general cooling phase which is part of a much longer global climate pattern. It is simply unconscionable to present it as a fact when it's not even a very good theory.

[I've just taken time out to read some more from other sites and in one discussion I found pro global warmers very rude and derogatory about those that dare question their facts. One poster asked about the man whose data contradict the accuracy of using the Industrial as a base line and the comment was, 'oh, he's been discredited by peer review' and later when asked by whom discredited and why, was not given any names of peers but told 'he has the nutty theory that we're heading for an ice age' - well, that obviously piqued my interest since that's what I'm getting from the data so here's his page of explanation re the use of Industrial as base line, what do you think? http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

quote:
If there were "extreme cold" events in the past they would appears as negative blips in the plots of temperature. And, indeed, if you get plots of norht western european temperatures (eg: the UK historic temperatures) then you will see the blips for the 'mini-ice age'. But if you look at global mean temperatures that simply disappears because it was a small, localised event that had no substantial impact beyond our little bit of the planet.

That's not what I've found - the longer temperature patterns clearly show we're in a progressively downward movement and this rise (if there actually is a rise which itself hasn't been proved, global atmospheric readings don't show it, the rise claims themselves appear based on localised variations) is itself a blip of no importance in this slide which is the end of an interglacial. And as I pointed out (IPCC report), the last such came and went without the confusion of our possible involvement.

And the real problem remains what are we to do about global cooling? We're heading for another ice age. (The BBC link to ice ages, I posted above, presented this as a fact).

quote:
and CO2 concentrations have been thousands of times greater than now in the millions of years earth's climate has been changing.

quote:
No one's disputing that. And, when CO2 levels were much higher most life as we know it would struggle to survive.

And CO2 levels around what we have now have been in an ice age. Where's the data to show actual correlation?

quote:
CO2 is practically insignificant in percentage terms of atmospheric gases

quote:
Now, that's one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard. Perhaps I should put 200mg of arsenic in your dinner. That'll be OK, after all it's an insignificant percentage of the total mass of your dinner. Sometimes, things have an impact above and beyond the actual amount present.

How is it stupid? I gave it as background information. We know the effects of arsenic, it's not a theory, but you haven't yet shown me any proof that the rise of such an insignificant amount of gas is the driving cause of global warming - which has had really huge effects on the world's climate in the past, bringing millions year ice ages to an end.

I've no doubt that an insignificant number can have massive effects out of all proportion to its size, the still tiny percentage out of the world's population rallying behind the man who first proposed global warming shows this too...

quote:
Besides, in relationship to the greenhouse effect you need to consider those gases that interact with infra-red radiation; the others may as well not be there. That's carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3) which make up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere in total, and water vapour which is about 1% (though highly variable).

Oh and the throwaway, water vapour, which is the majority component (some 95% from memory) of the greenhouse gases. Someone's just come up with that being the real cause in the global warming theory.

quote:
(and of the 'greenhouse gases' it's the majority water vapour, 1.95%, which is taken out of figures to give an inflated reading for CO2).

quote:
Actually, water vapour is taken out mainly because it's so variable and non-persistant in the atmosphere (increase water vapour and you'll rapidly get more clouds and rainfall bringing the concentration back down again). And, it's hardly as though CO2 is the only greenhouse gas discussed. Most plots will give methane and N2O data as well.

And another scientist has proposed that increased methane levels is the real main driving force to global warming. Methane breaks down to form C02 which in turn was rather detrimental to the life forms around before the dramatic changes at the start of the Eocene; which was the beginning of a c 80-200,000 year warm period in which conditions were generated the ancestors of the animals we have now, and when the CO2 levels were around 3,000 ppm ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

quote:
There have been times in our prehistoric past when C02 levels were well over 7000 ppm and one period of low level CO2 much as we have today it was also an ice age.

quote:
And your point is that lower CO2 = lower temperatures? Well, d'uh. That's what scientists have been saying for decades.

No, what I'm saying, and the chart linked expanded on, was that CO2 levels don't correlate to actual temperature - the lower, in comparison with the 7000 high, C02 was the level we have now and was an ice age.

To be continued

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But Alan, this is what we're being told, that C02 is the driving force and it's all our fault for driving up the levels since the Industrial Age and our fault for the continuing pollution of the atmosphere and this, precisely, is what is causing global warming - you yourself keep stressing this is down to our responsibility because of the extra 80ppm of CO2.

OK, let's just clarify something. The climate is a complex system involving several feedback mechanisms. About the only thing that acts from outside the system without being affected by those feedback mechanisms is the Sun. Therefore, the Sun is the only real candidate as the driving force behind the climate, everything else is derivative of that power supply (there's also a small input from geothermal energy, a combination of heat from radioactive decay and the left over energy from the original gravitational collapse of matter to form the earth, and some tidal energy from the moon).

But, we can put a finger on the driving force for recent climatic changes on human activity. That finger points firmly, clearly and unambiguously at human activity that has pumped greenhouse gases (not just CO2) into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. That extra 80ppm CO2, plus the extra 1000ppb of methane (from 750 to 1750 ppb) and 40ppb NO2 (from 270 to 310 ppb) all contribute to the recent increases in global temperatures. CO2 isn't the driving force, it's a significant part of the mechanism by which the driving force produces higher temperatures.

quote:
in the last few days I've become progressively more appalled at the singular lack of any real data to back this up.

...

We're being manipulated because the data doesn't exist.

The scientific literature is packed full of data. The IPCC reports present the most conservative selection of that data (conservative in the sense of it's the data there's virtually no doubting, there's plenty of other data supporting all views that is much more dubious). If you've the inclination you can go out and collect your own data, or set up an experiment to demonstrate some provable facts. For example, if you doubt the mechanism of the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 you can run an experiment - it's just basic physics. Get an infra-red lamp and one or more IR sensors, a glass vessel, a thermometer and a supply of CO2. Set up the lamp on one side of the apparatus, with a detector on the other side and fill the tube with air with different concentrations of CO2. Let the system equilibrate a while, and measure how much IR gets through the tube (if you have a second detector you can measure how much is reflected back towards the IR lamp) and the temperature. Plot IR transmission and temperature as a function of CO2 concentration and then tell me that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

quote:
We're told our acts since the beginning of the Industrial are the cause of global warming and the perilous state we're in now, it is simply disingenous to present this as a base line when well known longer base lines show we're in a general cooling phase which is part of a much longer global climate pattern.

There's nothing disingenous about plotting temperature changes relative to a base line. You have no choice but to plot temperature changes relative to a base line, you have a choice about which baseline to use. But, a plot of temperature relative to the mean for 1961-1990, relative to the mean for 1700-1800, relative to the minimum during the last glaciation, relative to the freezing point of distilled water at 1bar pressure, or anything else will present you exactly the same shaped graph just shifted relative to the zero relative change point. If we're bucking the trend of a cooling period you'll see it. If we're enhancing a natural warming trend, you'll see it. And, without a doubt the earth has warmed to the tune of 0.6±0.2°C in the last 20 years.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Alan: I appreciate and applaud your patient explaination.

If you do stop though, no-one will think you have given up or changed your mind about the facts.
.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

And talking of ice ages, let me begin with the one we began coming out of around 20 thousand years ago.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/073.htm
Which means that global warming especially during the last 10 thousand years is why we have the abundance of plant and animal forms we have today, and generally life as we know it.

quote:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We know that the greenhouse effect gives us the planet we have, suitable for the life that's here. We know that life as we know it is adapted to the climate we have, but would probably struggle if we increase temperatures significantly. Life as we know it evolved in response to a climatic change (mostly the entire ice-age of cold and warmer cycles of the last million years or so) with the climate cooling distinctly from earlier times. That life will survive a change back to significantly warmer conditions isn't in doubt. Whether the plants and animals we depend upon for our food supplies will cope well, even with help from us, is a different question. That's even assuming we don't have some concern for the natural biosphere, and are only concerned with human survival or civilisation.

The point I'm making is that we have an abundance of life because of global warming and higher temperatures do not automatically warrant an apocalypse tag..., we had it significantly hotter 6,000 years ago - what was our planet like then? Our whole history has been of life coming and going, of change and it seems to me it's those global warmers giving disaster scenarios who are trying to hold onto control of 'their' world.

What I'm getting at in setting the scene here is that the abundance of life as we know it in the northern hemisphere is due to us coming to an end of an ice age because, hooray, we had global warming. This seems to be ignored in the rather biased news reports from information provided by proponents of the global warming theory who give us sound bites as in the BBC newslink a couple of posts up: "The UN's panel on climate change said earlier this month that higher global temperatures caused by man-made pollution would melt polar ice, worsen floods and droughts and cause more devastating storms."

I don't see this as objective information from these so called experts, but rather as bias driven bull from supporting a flawed theory which refuses to acknowledge any data contradicting it.

quote:
Ice Ages are the norm for planet earth

quote:
Actually, they aren't the norm. If they were then your entire previous argument is meaningless. Either ice age conditions are the norm, or warmer conditions than now. You can't have it both ways and form an argument that's anything other than bollocks. As it is, the ice age conditions on the last million years or so are particularly abnormal; albeit fortuitously abnormal as far as we're concerned as it allowed human beings to evolve and human civilisation to be founded.

Well yes, but they are norm, they're called ages because there are many of them. They come and go over millions of years and, here I've found terms are used differently, the current ice epoch/Ice Age began some 40 millions of years ago and is set to continue for many more millions of years. I think it's reasonable to say that at the moment the world in this Ice Epoch/Ice Age is our norm.

quote:
we're still in one now and coming to the end of a small 10ky window of opportunity of global warming within this.

quote:
You're right that we're still in an ice age. Colloquially, 'ice-age' is used for the periods of time of widespread glaciation, hence "last ice age" being used for the colder period that ended abou 10-15ky ago. Technically, with the abnormal conditions of large scale glaciation (currently about 10% of the earths surface under permanent ice) having persisted for the last million years it's all one single ice-age. I'm not quite sure what a "window of opportunity of global warming" is - are you suggesting that this is the only chance we'll get of screwing up our climate by artificially forcing the climate to much warmer conditions?

Tut, tut. Still holding on to that theory..

The ice ages/glacial periods within millions of year Ice Epoch/Ice Age we're in have come and gone and at the moment we're in a global warmed inter glacial period which lasts about 20,000 years - which means the window of opportunity presented by global warming has given us the abundant life forms we know and love now.

And it's coming to an end. Inter glacials describe exactly that, periods in between glacials, periods in between ice ages/glacials.

Globally the earth's temperature is in a downward slide because we're at the end of one such interglacial.

Since your global warming theory says that increased CO2 levels increase warming then you should be encouraging it to stave off the encroaching cold, to maintain this mythical equilibrium global warmists think the norm.

quote:
What we're actually in at the moment, coming to end of one 20,000 year cycle, is cooling - the temperature trend has been downwards, back to colder conditions from a high peak between 8-6 thousand years ago (average around 2 degrees Centigrade higher than now).

quote:
Then, if the trend has been towards cooling the present sudden and rapid increase in temperature is bucking the trend. Even more so than the climate scientists suggest, based on a more static trend. And, of course, contrary to the climate change skeptics who suggest that the current temperature rise is natural - if it was natural the trend would have been towards warmer conditions.

As I posted several times already, this global warming theory contradicts the real event happening now, that since the peak around 6,000 years ago we're into the downward slide into cold which is natural for the end of an interglacial. Warm periods are blips in the continuing slide into cold - see the charts I've posted.

And, you have yet to prove that there is such as thing as global warming. It is not even a good theory.

quote:
And since this 20,000 year cycle comes between longer 100,000 year cycles what we're heading for in around a thousand years time is another 100,000 years of bitter cold ice age which will kill off the majority of life forms which are unable to adapt.

quote:
Which is what climatologists were saying 40 years ago, before the impact of CO2 was fully appreciated. If things follow the natural cycle, then we should be in line for another period of glaciation in 5-10ky. That's a big if given the huge impact humanity has had in the last 100 years or so.

It's still the true scenario here. And as before, you have yet to prove the global warming theory.

Some say this next period of glaciation is due to begin in earnest in a thousand years time. Life in the abundance of forms we know it now will dramatically change.

quote:
Whether that would really impact the life forms on earth is a different question, most life is actually fairly well cold-adjusted (cold in relative terms compared to temperatures 20 million years ago). The 10-15ky since the last glaciation isn't long enough for evolution to remove the genes needed to survive a new glaciation. Many species of plants and animals survived the sequence of warm and cold from previous cycles in the current ice-age. There's little reason to think anything would have been different this time around, except for the impact of human activity.

Major glacials/ice ages like the one we're going into will certainly affect life forms in a major way, the polar bears will rule in a land devoid of plants. A description of Europe as it will be again:

quote:
.. A tundra with Ice Age flora and fauna stretched across middle Europe from Asia to the Atlantic Ocean. Such was the case during the Last Glacial Maximum, ca. 22,000-14,000 yr BP, when ice covered Scandinavia and the Baltic, Britain and the Alps, but left the space between as open tundra. The loess, or wind-blown dust over that tundra settled in and around the Rhine Valley, contributing to its current agricultural usefulness.

These events were well within the residence of man. Meltwater adding to the ocean and land subsidence drowned the former coasts of Europe. The water is still rising, at the rate of about 1-3 mm per year. Further drowning is to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine

Note the 'water is still rising and further drowning is to come' because what I'm really finding objectionable to the arguments from global warming theorists is their denial of this cycle we're in, the interglacial now coming to an end, which far better explains the events of today (we're still in a melt from the initial rise of temperature which is now in an actual slide into cold).

As more wet is available and the global temperature continues to descend that wet will turn into snow and the window of opportunity we're basking in will come to a close, buried under miles of the stuff.

quote:
That's the real scenario here, global cooling. If it were only so simple to produce more CO2 to warm the place up...

quote:
Well, as I said, if things were following a natural trend you might be right. But, if you're going to accept that the natural trend is to cool the earth then you must also accept that human impact has been more significant than even the most pessimistic climate scientists are saying.

You still haven't proved the theory. All I see is that we adapted and no doubt what is left of us will continue to adapt in cycles that are greater than our capacity to change. We, like the pre-human and human species before us, are in the same position as the rest of the vast populations of animals that have come and gone over the millenniums through the millions year cycles of heat and cold.

quote:
What really confuses me about your argument is that your last post seems to be saying two entirely contradictory things.

1) the natural state of the earth is much warmer, with much higher CO2 concentrations than today. And, therefore the increases in temperature and CO2 observed in the last 200 years are restoring the natural position and, presumably, the fact that it coincides with intense human industrial activity is coincidental.

In the part of the interglacial we're in, the last 10,000 years since the big melt, temperature rose to a peak around 6,000 years ago; since then it has continued to drop, there is no global warming.

quote:
2) the natural state of the earth is ice-age conditions, colder than today and that that's where we're heading so all this extra CO2 is, at best, delaying the inevitable freeze.

I don't see how you can have it both ways

The natural state of the earth as we "know" it, the last 40 millions years, is ice age conditions interspersed with short periods of interglacials and this pattern is set to continue for millions more years.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And, you have yet to prove that there is such as thing as global warming. It is not even a good theory.

What more do you want to make the theory 'good'? You want it to explain the recent changes in the climate? Well, you've got it ... it does. Do you want it to be able to model the climate such that if you run the model backwards you get something close to the observed past climates? Good, because there are plenty of models that do that too. Do you want a good physical mechanism based on properties of gases measured in the laboratory? Good, because that's there too.

As for proof that there's such a thing as global warming, what more do you want?

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Myrrh - I'm going to try a different tack here. For those who think that a plane never crashed into the Pentagon, the most crucial questions are: a) what happened to the plane? b) what happened to the passengers and, factoring in the World Trade Center and United 93 c) how many tens of thousands of people participated in the most complex and secretive mass murder in human history without a single leak or pang of conscience?

Actually, these questions are a breeze next to ACC. ACC is now accepted by all the governments of the world, no matter what their politics. Since you - stunningly - have shown how easy it is for any one of us to debunk ACC via the help of a few websites, a ball of string and some sticky-backed plastic, why is every governmental advisor - and government - on the planet wrong? What is the common motive between China, America and France to keep all this screamingly obvious analysis away from their citizens? And how could an entire branch of science (climate) be so risible that they have missed a comprehensive debunking easily acheivable by any one of their practicioners in about 15 minutes?

PS - Alan, you have a truly humbling patience of a saint.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But Alan, this is what we're being told, that C02 is the driving force and it's all our fault for driving up the levels since the Industrial Age and our fault for the continuing pollution of the atmosphere and this, precisely, is what is causing global warming - you yourself keep stressing this is down to our responsibility because of the extra 80ppm of CO2.
OK, let's just clarify something. The climate is a complex system involving several feedback mechanisms. About the only thing that acts from outside the system without being affected by those feedback mechanisms is the Sun. Therefore, the Sun is the only real candidate as the driving force behind the climate, everything else is derivative of that power supply (there's also a small input from geothermal energy, a combination of heat from radioactive decay and the left over energy from the original gravitational collapse of matter to form the earth, and some tidal energy from the moon).

This page from wiki is as good a start as any: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

quote:
But, we can put a finger on the driving force for recent climatic changes on human activity. That finger points firmly, clearly and unambiguously at human activity that has pumped greenhouse gases (not just CO2) into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. That extra 80ppm CO2, plus the extra 1000ppb of methane (from 750 to 1750 ppb) and 40ppb NO2 (from 270 to 310 ppb) all contribute to the recent increases in global temperatures. CO2 isn't the driving force, it's a significant part of the mechanism by which the driving force produces higher temperatures.

A theory is only good until a) it is proved and becomes fact or b) until it is contradicted.

Global warming is immediately discredited as a theory because what we are in is an interglacial and the data all confirm that the events taking place are par for the course. This shows that we are in the normal end of interglacial as global temperature is in the continuing slide into cold from its peak 6,000 years ago, from beginning of the mid point big melt which began 10,000 years ago (a mid point of a 20 ky cycle).

Note, the big melt came some 2,000 years before the peak temperature when you say CO2 levels were consistently lower than now.

Within that slide into cold we have periods of hot and cold, mini global warms and mini ice ages. The Medieval Warm Period is basic indisputable fact, although degree of heat vary from 1.5 to 4/5 degrees warmer than now, and this was followed by the indisputable fact of the mini ice age around 1200-1700. Temperature comparisons against the end of this mini ice age are nonsensical.

quote:
in the last few days I've become progressively more appalled at the singular lack of any real data to back this up.

...

We're being manipulated because the data doesn't exist.

quote:
The scientific literature is packed full of data. The IPCC reports present the most conservative selection of that data (conservative in the sense of it's the data there's virtually no doubting, there's plenty of other data supporting all views that is much more dubious). If you've the inclination you can go out and collect your own data, or set up an experiment to demonstrate some provable facts. For example, if you doubt the mechanism of the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 you can run an experiment - it's just basic physics. Get an infra-red lamp and one or more IR sensors, a glass vessel, a thermometer and a supply of CO2. Set up the lamp on one side of the apparatus, with a detector on the other side and fill the tube with air with different concentrations of CO2. Let the system equilibrate a while, and measure how much IR gets through the tube (if you have a second detector you can measure how much is reflected back towards the IR lamp) and the temperature. Plot IR transmission and temperature as a function of CO2 concentration and then tell me that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Oh please, Alan. I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I'm saying that a)it isn't proved that it is a driving force to massive global temperature changes and b) data do not support this view, but contradict it. There is, therefore, no actual data to support this view.

And, c) I'm also saying that measurements given by the global warming theorists are corrupt. We can see that for a start because they use the end of a mini ice age from which to promote scare tactics ignoring the earlier hotter Medieval Warm and by ignoring the considerable amount of data showing that there was no increase in C02 as they describe.

At the very least this shows global warming theorists aren't at all interested in true scientific study of climate, but are cherry picking to prove their pet theory or political driven.

quote:
We're told our acts since the beginning of the Industrial are the cause of global warming and the perilous state we're in now, it is simply disingenous to present this as a base line when well known longer base lines show we're in a general cooling phase which is part of a much longer global climate pattern.

quote:
There's nothing disingenous about plotting temperature changes relative to a base line. You have no choice but to plot temperature changes relative to a base line, you have a choice about which baseline to use. But, a plot of temperature relative to the mean for 1961-1990, relative to the mean for 1700-1800, relative to the minimum during the last glaciation, relative to the freezing point of distilled water at 1bar pressure, or anything else will present you exactly the same shaped graph just shifted relative to the zero relative change point. If we're bucking the trend of a cooling period you'll see it. If we're enhancing a natural warming trend, you'll see it. And, without a doubt the earth has warmed to the tune of 0.6±0.2°C in the last 20 years.

See above, first choose your base line.

Measuring present temperature change against the end of a mini ice age while ignoring the much hotter previous Medieval Warm is disingenuous. It is not science.

Why would want to align yourself with such people?

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Myrrh - I'm going to try a different tack here. For those who think that a plane never crashed into the Pentagon, the most crucial questions are: a) what happened to the plane? b) what happened to the passengers and, factoring in the World Trade Center and United 93 c) how many tens of thousands of people participated in the most complex and secretive mass murder in human history without a single leak or pang of conscience?

Noiseboy, it is ad hominem to make personal attacks and bearing false witness to imply I have such a view.

However, let me give you two stories, the first from personal experience.

I was in Laos when the US was secretly flying around 500 missions a day over the North with the express purpose of committing genocide 'to target the specific fish it was determined to dry up the whole pond', see Pilger. The US was bombing into oblivion a nation it was not at war with and the world's press gathered in its watering hole in the capital was unable to get the story printed - all told us how their editors wouldn't run the story of this US policy. At the same time the US was secretly bombing Cambodia, also illegally and not printed by the 'world's press'. The following month from my visit to Laos I went to Cambodia and found one of my travelling companions to have been of those pilots committing genocide in Laos. He eventually realised the enormity of what he was part of and left. We spent a few days in Cambodia as his guests and after dinner would sit on the roof watching the bomb attacks around Phnom Penn - these were American planes which the US was deploying with Cambodian government connivance to make it appear that the Cambodians were under attack and so keep the population under control. Messy and downright evil and not yet generally known even after the press broke ranks a few years later and began publishing the illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia.

There was a world wide protest before the invasion of Iraq from those who could see quite clearly that data was being manipulated and downright lies told to provide excuses for the invasion. History confirms we were right.

quote:
Actually, these questions are a breeze next to ACC. ACC is now accepted by all the governments of the world, no matter what their politics. Since you - stunningly - have shown how easy it is for any one of us to debunk ACC via the help of a few websites, a ball of string and some sticky-backed plastic, why is every governmental advisor - and government - on the planet wrong? What is the common motive between China, America and France to keep all this screamingly obvious analysis away from their citizens? And how could an entire branch of science (climate) be so risible that they have missed a comprehensive debunking easily acheivable by any one of their practicioners in about 15 minutes?

See my posts and follow the logic.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And, you have yet to prove that there is such as thing as global warming. It is not even a good theory.
What more do you want to make the theory 'good'? You want it to explain the recent changes in the climate? Well, you've got it ... it does. Do you want it to be able to model the climate such that if you run the model backwards you get something close to the observed past climates? Good, because there are plenty of models that do that too. Do you want a good physical mechanism based on properties of gases measured in the laboratory? Good, because that's there too.

As for proof that there's such a thing as global warming, what more do you want?

Proves my point. It ignores the Medieval Warm.

You are being manipulated.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And, you have yet to prove that there is such as thing as global warming. It is not even a good theory.
What more do you want to make the theory 'good'? You want it to explain the recent changes in the climate? Well, you've got it ... it does. Do you want it to be able to model the climate such that if you run the model backwards you get something close to the observed past climates? Good, because there are plenty of models that do that too. Do you want a good physical mechanism based on properties of gases measured in the laboratory? Good, because that's there too.

As for proof that there's such a thing as global warming, what more do you want?
Proves my point. It ignores the Medieval Warm.

You are being manipulated.

Myrrh

P.S. Just found this:

quote:
At this point of their paper, the international team of scientists had pretty much verified a number of things we have regularly reported on our website over the past several years, i.e., that in spite of the contrary claims of a host of climate alarmists, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were (1) real, (2) global, (3) solar-induced, and (4) but the latest examples of uninterrupted alternating intervals of relative cold and warmth that stretch back in time through glacial and interglacial periods alike. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.jsp

I rest my valise. Thank you for the opportunity to explore this, until you mentioned it I had no idea what an interglacial was.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
A theory is only good until a) it is proved and becomes fact or b) until it is contradicted.

You really need to have a look at a bit of basic philosophy of science. Because you're statement there makes no sense at all. No theory is 'proved', much less 'becomes fact'. And, if a theory is contradicted it is, by definition, not a good theory. A good theory fits and explains known data, and makes testable predictions for new measurements. The climate models currently in use do a very good job of explaining how the climate works, and fit existing data fairly well (and, a good deal better than might naively be assumed considering the complexity of the system being modelled). If you doubt they fit the data, look at figure SPM-7 on the last page of the summary for policy makers, which though it only shows the 20th century gives model fits that match the historic record very well (with increasing uncertainties at the earlier dates). Climate models also make predictions about future measurements, though I do admit we'd actually need to wait to see if they're right. Climate modelling is in everyone's book (except yours, apparently) good science.

quote:
Global warming is immediately discredited as a theory because what we are in is an interglacial and the data all confirm that the events taking place are par for the course.

I don't see why the science is discredited just by where we are in a glacial-interglacial cycle. Especially as the measurements show we're very much not par for the course. In which other interglacial do you see rapid CO2 concentration rises of similar magnitude to the end of the previous glaciation in the middle of that interglacial? Answer, none of them. But, that's exactly what we have seen in the last 50 years. What is happening in the middle of the interglacial is of similar magnitude as the start of an interglacial, and at a far faster rate. That is just not par for the course.

quote:
I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I'm saying that a)it isn't proved that it is a driving force to massive global temperature changes

Well, I'm just confused then. If you're accepting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it's concentration in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly, what do you expect that increase in CO2 to do? Are you expecting CO2 to suddenly absorb and re-irradiate IR radiation differently? More CO2 can do nothing else but drive temperature higher. That's simple physics. What's a bit more complex, and therefore makes climate modelling more challenging, is how that temperature rise interacts with other parameters such as cloud formation that may amplify or suppress the drive to higher temperatures resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

quote:
b) data do not support this view, but contradict it. There is, therefore, no actual data to support this view.

And, c) I'm also saying that measurements given by the global warming theorists are corrupt.

And, I've seen no data that contradict the simple physics. Nor any data that contradict the more complex climate models that account for other influences. And, to call the worlds greatest climate scientists and atmospheric physicists (not to mention meteorologists and members of other relevant disciplines) corrupt beggers belief.

quote:
We can see that for a start because they use the end of a mini ice age from which to promote scare tactics ignoring the earlier hotter Medieval Warm and by ignoring the considerable amount of data showing that there was no increase in C02 as they describe.

Except that no serious scientist is doing what you're claiming. The so-called "mini-ice age" is well known, as is the Medievel warm period. What we're currently seeing is way above the changes observed in western europe then, even if those events had been global (they probably had wider effects in the northern hemisphere, maybe even south of the equator, but the most extreme changes were in western europe). Just so I'm not giving IPPC graphics, Wikipedia plots the temperatures associated with these events. That plot shows that at most, the warm period was 0.5°C warmer than the preceding period, with the little ice age less than 1°C cooler. That compares to current temperatures about 0.5°C warmer than the hottest part of the medieval warm period, and still rising. These older changes weren't, as you point out, associated with significant changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, instead being driven more directly by changes in solar activity and volcanism.

quote:
See above, first choose your base line.

Measuring present temperature change against the end of a mini ice age while ignoring the much hotter previous Medieval Warm is disingenuous.

You still don't seem to be getting the point. Whatever you plot temperature against involves the selection of a baseline. Even if you just plotted actual temperature in °C you've still chosen the freezing point of water as a baseline. And, whatever baseline you chose doesn't affect the data you present. The plots of the past temperature presented by the IPCC and other scientific bodies include the Medieval warm period and little ice age (at least, those that cover that time period do). What's disengenuous about that?

quote:
Why would want to align yourself with such people?

Because I'm a scientist. I align myself with good science. And, I try my best to patiently correct people who are spouting bollocks.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Noiseboy, it is ad hominem to make personal attacks and bearing false witness to imply I have such a view.

Huh? What personal attacks? What false witness? Have you or have you not attempted to debunk ACC? Huh?!

quote:
See my posts and follow the logic.

The logic, I'm afraid, eludes me completely.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You really need to have a look at a bit of basic philosophy of science. Because you're statement there makes no sense at all. No theory is 'proved', much less 'becomes fact'. And, if a theory is contradicted it is, by definition, not a good theory. A good theory fits and explains known data, and makes testable predictions for new measurements. The climate models currently in use do a very good job of explaining how the climate works, and fit existing data fairly well (and, a good deal better than might naively be assumed considering the complexity of the system being modelled). If you doubt they fit the data, look at figure SPM-7 on the last page of the summary for policy makers, which though it only shows the 20th century gives model fits that match the historic record very well (with increasing uncertainties at the earlier dates). Climate models also make predictions about future measurements, though I do admit we'd actually need to wait to see if they're right. Climate modelling is in everyone's book (except yours, apparently) good science.

I was using 'theory' in a more general sense, no need to be quite so picky.

I'm not disputing climate modelling is good science, I'm certainly beginning to argue that science driven by an agenda which deliberately disregards available data can ever produce anything but garbage out.

quote:
Global warming is immediately discredited as a theory because what we are in is an interglacial and the data all confirm that the events taking place are par for the course.

quote:
I don't see why the science is discredited just by where we are in a glacial-interglacial cycle. Especially as the measurements show we're very much not par for the course. In which other interglacial do you see rapid CO2 concentration rises of similar magnitude to the end of the previous glaciation in the middle of that interglacial? Answer, none of them. But, that's exactly what we have seen in the last 50 years. What is happening in the middle of the interglacial is of similar magnitude as the start of an interglacial, and at a far faster rate. That is just not par for the course.

As before you cannot prove that your version of CO2 levels is correct, because there is a wealth of conflicting data out there. Above I linked a page for you to read asking for your comments
Here it is again: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

This very clearly contradicts the IPCC claim. The man's credentials are impressive, why should I believe he is wrong in his conclusions?

Why didn't the IPCC take this into consideration?

The IPCC claim that we now have the highest temperatures for two millenniums is also strongly disputed. I noticed on a wiki page that Mann wrote a letter in 2006 in which he brought attention to the title of his paper, is this backtracking now?

Mann's protagonist duo, McIntyre and McKitrick, have a web page here on the history of this argument: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Why should I believe the IPCC reports when the consensus pre the global warming theory from many and varied sources showed distinct variations in temperature, distinctive enough to be called the Medieval Warm followed by a mini ice age which only finished in the 1800's?. Ice age! What does that conjour up? Skating on the Thames? Why should I believe the IPCC and disbelieve the following:

quote:
We begin our investigation with a brief synopsis of the findings of Naurzbaev and Vaganov (2000), who developed a 2200-year proxy temperature record using cores obtained from 118 trees near the upper timberline in Siberia for the period 212 BC to AD 1996. This record revealed a cool period in the first two centuries AD, a warm period from AD 200 to 600, cooling again from AD 600 to 800, followed by the Medieval Warm Period from about AD 850 to 1150, the cooling of the Little Ice Age from AD 1200 though 1800, followed by the temperature rise that led to the development of the Modern Warm Period.

With respect to the late 20th-century portion of this latter warming (which must be truly unprecedented to provide any support at all for the climate-alarmist contention that it was CO2-induced), Naurzbaev and Vaganov state that it was "not extraordinary" and that "the warming at the border of the first and second millennia [AD 1000] was longer in time and similar in amplitude." What is more, they note that fluctuations in average annual temperature from the Siberian record agree well with air temperature variations reconstructed from Greenland ice cores, suggesting, in their words, that "the tree ring chronology of [the Siberian] region can be used to analyze both regional peculiarities and global temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere," http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/r/summaries/russiatemptrends.jsp

So now the "par for the course" of our interglacial, it's an interglacial. It's of limited duration and will end with a glacial, i.e. it will get progressively colder and information we have about it shows it reached its peak of warmth around 6000 years ago and the temperature has been dropping since notwithstanding the hiccups of hot and cold on its inevitable way down to freezing for another long time. This scenario appears to have been well thought of until it became an uncomfortable fact for those claiming global warming, and I've read many who are now trying to deny the temperature rises and falls in the last two thousand years and even to deny the peak ever existed in their mad scramble to prove hockey stick and CO2 rises fueling it, as if it's a problem. If there's more CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and it really is capable of making our climate warmer then it is helping to delay our inevitable move into another major ice age. So why the panic?

An alternative to headless chicken: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/g/summaries/asiagreen.jsp

I caught a news item last night about Australia, not sure if all or one state, but they have decided to ban all electric light bulbs except fluorescent by 2009, because they emit CO2. I worked in an office with no light except fluorescent for seven years, ugh.

You keep mentioning this "last 50 years" - if there is anything of minute proportion in our atmosphere to be concerned about I think we should be wondering what atom bombs and nuclear testing and the casual use of such in conventional war heads as in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and Iraq has had on us, the earth and its inhabitants - and, any idea how much of the CO2 was created by wars over the last century?

quote:
I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I'm saying that a)it isn't proved that it is a driving force to massive global temperature changes

quote:
Well, I'm just confused then. If you're accepting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it's concentration in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly, what do you expect that increase in CO2 to do? Are you expecting CO2 to suddenly absorb and re-irradiate IR radiation differently? More CO2 can do nothing else but drive temperature higher. That's simple physics. What's a bit more complex, and therefore makes climate modelling more challenging, is how that temperature rise interacts with other parameters such as cloud formation that may amplify or suppress the drive to higher temperatures resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

I'm really sorry, I thought I'd explained it, I'm not agreeing that the levels have been increasing rapidly - that's your argument. Besides it not being proved to be a driving cause (it seems to me the sun, movement of the earth around it and geological events in it more important in the general fact of global warming and cooling over billions of years and in the more localised surface temperatures water vapour seems to play a much bigger part in changes), it could be an effect, that is coming mainly as a result of what the whole earth is going through (which then starts a cycle of plant and oxygen and giving back CO2 and so on), for example, methane (which breaks down into CO2) coming from natural geological activity appears to me more significant as a driving cause and CO2 then an affect; and of course, as before, I have yet to see any real correlation between CO2 levels and periods of warm only.

Anyway, my basic argument as it's developed here is that climate change is our norm, and our contribution no different in category than breathing out and farting of other animals populating the earth in the past and now gone forever after being a small blip in a very long period of time...

quote:
b) data do not support this view, but contradict it. There is, therefore, no actual data to support this view.

And, c) I'm also saying that measurements given by the global warming theorists are corrupt.

quote:
And, I've seen no data that contradict the simple physics. Nor any data that contradict the more complex climate models that account for other influences. And, to call the worlds greatest climate scientists and atmospheric physicists (not to mention meteorologists and members of other relevant disciplines) corrupt beggers belief.

Why? Pro global warming campaigners say very nasty things about other great climate scientists and such whenever they produce data contradicting their pet theory..

But I meant corrupt in a specific sense, corrupt because those like the IPCC have brushed aside all producing contradictory data, that is corrupt science.

quote:
We can see that for a start because they use the end of a mini ice age from which to promote scare tactics ignoring the earlier hotter Medieval Warm and by ignoring the considerable amount of data showing that there was no increase in C02 as they describe.

quote:
Except that no serious scientist is doing what you're claiming. The so-called "mini-ice age" is well known, as is the Medievel warm period. What we're currently seeing is way above the changes observed in western europe then, even if those events had been global (they probably had wider effects in the northern hemisphere, maybe even south of the equator, but the most extreme changes were in western europe). Just so I'm not giving IPPC graphics, Wikipedia plots the temperatures associated with these events. That plot shows that at most, the warm period was 0.5°C warmer than the preceding period, with the little ice age less than 1°C cooler. That compares to current temperatures about 0.5°C warmer than the hottest part of the medieval warm period, and still rising. These older changes weren't, as you point out, associated with significant changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, instead being driven more directly by changes in solar activity and volcanism.

Shrug, depends on who you listen to...

quote:
Warmer Days and Longer Lives
Thomas Gale Moore
Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University

History demonstrates that warmer is healthier. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. Archaeological evidence shows that people lived longer, enjoyed better nutrition, and multiplied more rapidly than during epochs of cold.

...

From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably and civilization prospered. This warm era displays, although less distinctly, many of the same characteristics as the earlier period of clement weather. Virtually all of northern Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present. http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

But then, what does he know?

quote:
See above, first choose your base line.

Measuring present temperature change against the end of a mini ice age while ignoring the much hotter previous Medieval Warm is disingenuous.

quote:
You still don't seem to be getting the point. Whatever you plot temperature against involves the selection of a baseline. Even if you just plotted actual temperature in °C you've still chosen the freezing point of water as a baseline. And, whatever baseline you chose doesn't affect the data you present. The plots of the past temperature presented by the IPCC and other scientific bodies include the Medieval warm period and little ice age (at least, those that cover that time period do). What's disengenuous about that?

The point is that if one's base line is the Medieval Warm which many others show to have been much warmer than today then the IPCC chosen data is a different base line.

quote:
Why would want to align yourself with such people?

quote:
Because I'm a scientist. I align myself with good science. And, I try my best to patiently correct people who are spouting bollocks.

And I've learned something else new here, that scientists are prepared to ignore all conflicting data to prove their pet theory and that the current bandwagon based on IPCC data has drowned out all other voices in its desire to control the world...

I think that's bollocks.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

P.S. http://www.warriorssociety.org/voices/?m=200607

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, to call the worlds greatest climate scientists and atmospheric physicists (not to mention meteorologists and members of other relevant disciplines) corrupt beggers belief.

quote:
“To capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Climate scientist, global warming activist and former global cooling prophet Stephen Schneider (”Our fragile Earth,” Discover, October 1987, page 47) -

quote:
Because I'm a scientist. I align myself with good science. And, I try my best to patiently correct people who are spouting bollocks.

The last scary movie, er, movement:

quote:
- The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. — Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971) -

- This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century — Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976 -

- There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. — Newsweek, April 28, (1975) -

- This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976 -

- If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970) -

- In “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek proclaimed that scientists are “almost unanimous” in their concern that an “ominous” cooling trend “will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century” and the world might be heading into another “little ice age.” -

So where's all the data supporting this gone now?

Did they say anything about CO2 levels? Why were they so sure that temperatures had actually dropped in the twentieth century? Etc.

Myrrh

[ 21. February 2007, 08:18: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I was using 'theory' in a more general sense, no need to be quite so picky.

Well, if you use a phrase lack "poor science" in describing a theory, I assumed you were using 'theory' in the sense of scientific theory. And, for that matter 'poor science' in relation to standard assessments of the quality of scientific work. I'm not sure how anyone reading your posts could have assumed anything different.

quote:
I'm not disputing climate modelling is good science, I'm certainly beginning to argue that science driven by an agenda which deliberately disregards available data can ever produce anything but garbage out.

But, by definition, science driven by any agenda other than seeking to understand the nature of physical reality isn't good science. If you're right that climate modelling is driven by some political agenda (or, indeed philosophical or religious) then you can't claim it to be good science. And, by definition, good science will consider all relevant data (that data may then be rejected for various reasons that relate to how well founded it is). If you're right that climate scientists deliberately disregard available data then, again, you can't claim that climate modelling is good science.

quote:
Above I linked a page for you to read asking for your comments
Here it is again: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Sorry, I didn't have time to look over that yesterday, which is why I didn't reply to it. My first thoughts on that paper are that he doesn't seem to be saying anything that any half-decent glaciologist would already know. It quite often happens when someone outwith a particular discipline (though he does have extensive glaciology experience, he's primarily a radiological protection scientist) starts looking at published data from that discipline, as he hasn't spent years studying the field he doesn't realise that the obvious problems with data analysis haven't already been addressed and incorporated into the analysis, or at least into the uncertainties associated with the analysis. Second, I notice his one citation for "glaciologists attempting to prove the correction" is for his own individual work without any comment on whether others have tried to replicate his work.

quote:
Why didn't the IPCC take this into consideration?

How do you know they didn't? It's old work, and as it presents apparently serious problems with the way ice-core data is analysed relevant to many different fields of study using that data must surely be known by scientists in the relevant disciplines. It's not my field and I don't have time to do any literature search to find out how it's been addressed by the glaciology community (and, doing a search outwith one's own discipline is difficult anyway), but I assume it has been addressed.

quote:
The IPCC claim that we now have the highest temperatures for two millenniums is also strongly disputed. I noticed on a wiki page that Mann wrote a letter in 2006 in which he brought attention to the title of his paper, is this backtracking now?

Mann's protagonist duo, McIntyre and McKitrick, have a web page here on the history of this argument: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

The discussion about the "hockey stick" has been ongoing and lively since the publication of the 2001 IPCC reports (and, indeed, before that). I've not got time to got through recent IPCC publications just now, but I did read somewhere following the release of the summary a few weeks ago that the report includes considerable discussion of the "hockey stick", precisely because it has been so heavily investigated. The conclusion is that the evidence for the "hockey stick" is far stronger than against.

quote:
Why should I believe the IPCC reports when the consensus pre the global warming theory from many and varied sources showed distinct variations in temperature, distinctive enough to be called the Medieval Warm followed by a mini ice age which only finished in the 1800's?.

Yes, there were such variations in temperature. The IPCC acknowledges that. I still don't see why they're relevant. They're relatively small, and slow changing, climatic variations largely limited to one part of the global. The more recent changes are
a) larger: recent temperature increases are approximately 1°C above a long term average I just estimated from this plot compared to the MWP of about 0.3°C above that and LIA about 0.5°C below.
b) much more rapid: the WMP peaked after about 400 years, the recent increase has only been going for about 100 years and is already twice the increase above that long-term mean.
c) global in extent: we're seeing definite warming in all parts of the world (with small parts bucking that trend due to particular geographical circumstances), the MWP and LIE were almost exclusively associated with Europe.
d) associated with a substantial increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, with associated mechanism for further warming, that were largely absent in the earlier MWP.

I'm going to skip over a set of quotes and links to CO2science.org. Why? Because I can't be bothered to read stuff on a website for an organisation that well known to be neither objective nor impartial, nor even one that draws expertise from relevant disciplines. I guess I'd better justify that. CO2science is funded, in part at least, by oil companies; that certainly puts a big question mark over their impartiality and objectivity. Their scientific advisors include soil scientists, plant biologists, consultants to "energy and natural resource companies", plasma physicists, agriculturalists - but only one climatologist (and, he's basically just the guy that collects meteorological data for Oregon). Hardly the sort of expertise one would expect for an organisation that claims to speak authoritatively on the subject of climate change.

quote:

You keep mentioning this "last 50 years" - if there is anything of minute proportion in our atmosphere to be concerned about I think we should be wondering what atom bombs and nuclear testing and the casual use of such in conventional war heads as in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and Iraq has had on us, the earth and its inhabitants - and, any idea how much of the CO2 was created by wars over the last century?

Those all sound like anthropological inputs to the environment to me. For the sake of this discussion I'm not sure if it makes that much difference why we're burning fossil fuels and otherwise polluting the globe. As it happens, I'm all in favour of taking steps to reduce the chances of wars - if that reduces fossil fuel use int he process then it's a bonus.

quote:
Anyway, my basic argument as it's developed here is that climate change is our norm, and our contribution no different in category than breathing out and farting of other animals populating the earth in the past and now gone forever after being a small blip in a very long period of time...

Well, certainly climate change is the norm. The climate is a complex system of feedback loops subject to non-linear dynamics. As such, change is pretty much inevitable. The question is, are the current changes similar to other changes (such as the MWP and LIA) that have natural causes or not? The answer is clearly "not" - they're much larger than anything other than the end of a glaciation, much more rapid and at the wrong time to be associated with a natural process (a change of similar magnitude to the end of a glaciation when we're not in a glaciation is just not normal for the climate over the last several million years).

quote:
The point is that if one's base line is the Medieval Warm which many others show to have been much warmer than today then the IPCC chosen data is a different base line.

OK, this is my very last comment about baselines. Because I simply don't have the time to keep banging my head against a brick wall. Go back to the plot from wikipedia I just linked to again. We could follow the IPCC and state that current temperatures are 0.4°C above the 1961-1990 mean. That in my mind is reasonable - it's a period for which we have good global coverage of instrumental measurements so don't need to rely on proxies, it's a period within the memory of most people (the "we don't get as much snow as when I were a lad" argument) and so is readily understandable to most people, and it's a period when the global climate was relatively stable.

But, we could just as easily say the current temperature is 1.2°C above the coldest part of the LIE. Or, 0.5°C above the warmest part of the MWP. Or, 14°C above the freezing point of water. It makes no difference, it's still the same temperature, still the same rate of increase.

[got my coding a bit wrong]

[ 21. February 2007, 11:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Following a selection of 1970's quotes about global cooling ...

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So where's all the data supporting this gone now?

Did they say anything about CO2 levels? Why were they so sure that temperatures had actually dropped in the twentieth century? Etc.

The data is still there on record. What has happened is that as more data was collected what at first appeared to be an increase in temperature through the late 1960s well within the uncertainties of the very slow downward trend turned out to be the first stages of a significant upward trend. In the early 70's that wouldn't have been obvious without a crystal ball. Even in the 1970's, good instrumental data on the global climate only went back a few decades so they were working with a less than perfect data set for the assessment of long-term changes.

And, yes, even then scientists were aware of CO2. Many of the scientific papers predicting further cooling had phrases like "in the absense of large increases in CO2 atmospheric concentrations". There were definite uncertainties about how CO2 was going to change at the time. The rate of future CO2 emissions from human activity was assumed to be low by todays standards - it was a time when it wasn't clear how long cheap fossil fuels would be available, coal was predicted to run out quickly and oil was suddenly unreliable (remember the fuel crises?) and it was the halcyon days of nuclear power that was going to be "too cheap to meter". And, it was even less clear how the biosphere would respond to fossil carbon in the atmosphere - was photosynthesis going to increase and simply mop it all up?

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

On the 70's cooling quotes, none of these are from peer-reviewed science journals (if you want to read how Newsweek by its own admission got it's facts hopelessly wrong, read here and here). Peer reviewed science never advocated a dramatic near-future global cooling theory. If you are serious about investigating ACC - or any science for that matter - you have to disregard the popular media and stick to peer-reviewed papers and peer-reviewed scientists' discussion.

Meanwhile, you still haven't attempted to answer the question of why every government in the world is now convinced by the science, despite in some cases spending many years denying ACC (and having strong motives to do so). A conspiracy theory only works if there is a motive - you have to provide one that includes the USA, China and France.

Doesn't it occur to you that you may - just may - have missed something that all the governments of the world and all the climate scientists of the world haven't?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, if you use a phrase lack "poor science" in describing a theory, I assumed you were using 'theory' in the sense of scientific theory. And, for that matter 'poor science' in relation to standard assessments of the quality of scientific work. I'm not sure how anyone reading your posts could have assumed anything different.

OK, let me rephrase that. The Global Warming theory based on Mann's data is not even a theory constructed as it is on flawed data and altogether bad science for disregarding data contradicting the global warming scare fantasy.

quote:
But, by definition, science driven by any agenda other than seeking to understand the nature of physical reality isn't good science. If you're right that climate modelling is driven by some political agenda (or, indeed philosophical or religious) then you can't claim it to be good science. And, by definition, good science will consider all relevant data (that data may then be rejected for various reasons that relate to how well founded it is). If you're right that climate scientists deliberately disregard available data then, again, you can't claim that climate modelling is good science.

Well then there's an awful lot of bad science going on in this field.

I think climate modelling is still very much in its infancy and so an exciting time to be working on it, but it seems to me rather a lot of scientists think they are walking when actually they haven't yet got out of the pram.

quote:
[Re http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/Why didn't the IPCC take this into consideration?

quote:
How do you know they didn't? It's old work, and as it presents apparently serious problems with the way ice-core data is analysed relevant to many different fields of study using that data must surely be known by scientists in the relevant disciplines. It's not my field and I don't have time to do any literature search to find out how it's been addressed by the glaciology community (and, doing a search outwith one's own discipline is difficult anyway), but I assume it has been addressed.

Er, 1997 old for such a 40 year study?! This conclusion utterly destroys the one thing you've been using here to brow beat me into accepting CO2 as the gun and man as the culprit pulling the trigger! ...I think it bad science to continue promoting your view without answering it since this contradicts the basic premise of an unprecedented rise of 80ppm etc., etc.

quote:
The discussion about the "hockey stick" has been ongoing and lively since the publication of the 2001 IPCC reports (and, indeed, before that). I've not got time to got through recent IPCC publications just now, but I did read somewhere following the release of the summary a few weeks ago that the report includes considerable discussion of the "hockey stick", precisely because it has been so heavily investigated. The conclusion is that the evidence for the "hockey stick" is far stronger than against.

Not what I've been reading, I think it's so far from off course from common findings from field data as to be thoroughly discredited, pretty obvious really when you compare his time line with already well established and continually being affirmed data, from tree, ice core samples and so on.

http://www.lavacap.com/climate1.htm

quote:
Why should I believe the IPCC reports when the consensus pre the global warming theory from many and varied sources showed distinct variations in temperature, distinctive enough to be called the Medieval Warm followed by a mini ice age which only finished in the 1800's?.

quote:
Yes, there were such variations in temperature. The IPCC acknowledges that. I still don't see why they're relevant. They're relatively small, and slow changing, climatic variations largely limited to one part of the global.

As above, this is so far off beam it's ridiculous. These changes were dramatic, the Medieval Warm Periiod created a considerably different climate in the Northern hemisphere to what we have now, it was hotter than now - stuff grew in the north where it doesn't grow today. It was followed by the Mini Ice Age which again radically changed the northern climate. We are still in the warm up coming out of the MIA and haven't yet reached the temperature of the MWP.

quote:
The more recent changes are
a) larger: recent temperature increases are approximately 1°C above a long term average I just estimated from this plot compared to the MWP of about 0.3°C above that and LIA about 0.5°C below.
b) much more rapid: the WMP peaked after about 400 years, the recent increase has only been going for about 100 years and is already twice the increase above that long-term mean.
c) global in extent: we're seeing definite warming in all parts of the world (with small parts bucking that trend due to particular geographical circumstances), the MWP and LIE were almost exclusively associated with Europe.
d) associated with a substantial increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, with associated mechanism for further warming, that were largely absent in the earlier MWP.

Interesting graph, would you re-do the calculation taking out the disputed Mann line?

Ah, forget it, (just been looking up Hughes and Diaz as a start to finding out about the others), too complicated I think as the data contains IPCC biased contributors, and one has shown he is prepared to tailor his science to his agenda.

From a presentation given on the Hockey Stick Debate:

quote:
D. Deming, Science 1995“With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

quote:
An uninformed reader would be forgiven for interpreting the similarity between the 1000-year temperature curve of Mann et al.and a variety of others also representing either temperature change over the NH as a whole or a large part of it (see the figure) as strong corroboration of their general validity …. Unfortunately, very few of the series are truly independent: There is a degree of common input to virtually every one, because there are still only a small number of long, well-dated, high-resolution proxy records. Briffa and Osborn, Science [1999]

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:-ZAQ_O_siyEJ:www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/316.pdf+hughes+and+Diaz&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

[www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/316.pdf]

Anyway, back to your "C" - I'm beginning to wonder if the fear about global warming isn't 'caucasian' led - but I'll come back to that when I can get to answer your next post.

Re "D" - As before, you have yet to show me actual data about rises in CO2.

But: Of interest is an observation on CO2 in Antartic data, where CO2 is shown to decrease slowly as temperatures fall and to rise rapidly when warming begins. See posts 108 and 110 on http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/

quote:
I'm going to skip over a set of quotes and links to CO2science.org. Why? Because I can't be bothered to read stuff on a website for an organisation that well known to be neither objective nor impartial, nor even one that draws expertise from relevant disciplines. I guess I'd better justify that. CO2science is funded, in part at least, by oil companies; that certainly puts a big question mark over their impartiality and objectivity. Their scientific advisors include soil scientists, plant biologists, consultants to "energy and natural resource companies", plasma physicists, agriculturalists - but only one climatologist (and, he's basically just the guy that collects meteorological data for Oregon). Hardly the sort of expertise one would expect for an organisation that claims to speak authoritatively on the subject of climate change.

Strange attitude for a scientist. There's a wealth of information on that site - surely if there are genuine studies of interest to climatologists and they're not being taken into consideration then one needs to ask, why not?

Hmm, I wrote the above before exploring Hughes and Diaz et al as a start to finding out more about the other timelines, see above. So, why should I trust IPCC not to be biased? The more I explore this subject the less impressed I am with their work and the integrity of their contributors, and I'm rapidly thinking that "corrupt data" might be more than simply ignoring conflicting evidence...

quote:

Those all sound like anthropological inputs to the environment to me. For the sake of this discussion I'm not sure if it makes that much difference why we're burning fossil fuels and otherwise polluting the globe. As it happens, I'm all in favour of taking steps to reduce the chances of wars - if that reduces fossil fuel use int he process then it's a bonus.[qb][quote]

But how much have wars contributed to the rise of CO2?

[QUOTE][qb]Well, certainly climate change is the norm. The climate is a complex system of feedback loops subject to non-linear dynamics. As such, change is pretty much inevitable. The question is, are the current changes similar to other changes (such as the MWP and LIA) that have natural causes or not? The answer is clearly "not" - they're much larger than anything other than the end of a glaciation, much more rapid and at the wrong time to be associated with a natural process (a change of similar magnitude to the end of a glaciation when we're not in a glaciation is just not normal for the climate over the last several million years).

Seems to me from what I've read on glaciation that such rises and drops are normal and what we're in now is the end of an interglacial in a continuing temperature drop from the peak it reached from its mid term (10ky), and this I'll also add to when I get to reply to your last post.

quote:
OK, this is my very last comment about baselines. Because I simply don't have the time to keep banging my head against a brick wall. Go back to the plot from wikipedia I just linked to again. We could follow the IPCC and state that current temperatures are 0.4°C above the 1961-1990 mean. That in my mind is reasonable - it's a period for which we have good global coverage of instrumental measurements so don't need to rely on proxies, it's a period within the memory of most people (the "we don't get as much snow as when I were a lad" argument) and so is readily understandable to most people, and it's a period when the global climate was relatively stable.

But, we could just as easily say the current temperature is 1.2°C above the coldest part of the LIE. Or, 0.5°C above the warmest part of the MWP. Or, 14°C above the freezing point of water. It makes no difference, it's still the same temperature, still the same rate of increase.

OK, and my last comment on baselines. Firstly, the general public is presented with the scare tactic of greatly increased temperatures since the Industrial Revolution and this is against a period which was dramatically colder in the major industrialised nations BECAUSE it was a MINI ICE AGE. If it had been insignificantly colder why would it have come to be called such a thing? Of course it is hotter now because we're still coming out of it.

Secondly, a base line which contrary to the mass of field observations and presenting a practically non existent change in what are well known to be dramatically different climates of the MWP and MIA is a different base line, measuring present temperatures against such claimed non events makes no sense at all.

I'm disputing the accuracy of your base line.

What are you interested in here? To understand our climate or to prove a theory regardless of the supposed objectivity scientists claim to have?

Myrrh

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Myrrh, earlier on this thread I used to read all the wacko sites you quoted but I can't be bothered any more. Your silly assertions that the massed climate scientists of the world are ignoring the truth, discarding real data and perpetrating some conspiracy (to what purpose we can only wonder) and we're all being conned seems... well (I'm bending over backwards to be civil) ... rather unlikely.

I think now anyone reading this thread just scrolls past your clearly deluded assertions and waits for Alan who is someone who really does know a little bit (understatement) about science to utterly destroy your arguments and pisses all over you intellectually. It's become entertainment.

Thank God you don't have any influence in the real world.
.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

-> pisses all over your arguments
too late!

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Again, Myrrh has ignored the central and most crucial question of why we - the humble laypeople - should believe the analysis of someone who starting looking into this subject a week ago rather than the thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the science.

Myrrh - I'll assume that your persistence in refusing to answer the point of any conspiracy between all the world's governments and scientists is because you have no answer. My suspicion is that - for whatever reason - you believe because you want to believe. For anyone to take you seriously, you need to demonstrate why the peer-review process is terminally faulty - if you do so, you qualify for the bonus of bringing down all science. Over to you.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, let me rephrase that. The Global Warming theory based on Mann's data is not even a theory constructed as it is on flawed data and altogether bad science for disregarding data contradicting the global warming scare fantasy.

The observations of recent anomalous global warming is based on more than the findings of a single scientist. It's based on the observations of 1000s of scientists in many different countries, using different methods. Some of that data shows the recent warming to be stronger, other data shows it to be weaker. Some data shows features like the LIA and MWP more clearly than other data. All of that data is included in the assessments of what's happening - to do otherwise makes the whole exercise meaningless. To quote the IPCC SPM,

quote:
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the [2001 report], particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12 to 14th, 17th, and 19th centuries.

Does that sound like they're ignoring data that shows cooler periods for the LIA?

quote:
Well then there's an awful lot of bad science going on in this field.

I quite agree. But, which science is bad - the science that takes all the available data into consideration, or the oil-producer funded research that seeks to do little more than rubbish the majority of the data that shows an anomalous rise in global temperatures in recent years?

quote:
Er, 1997 old for such a 40 year study?! This conclusion utterly destroys the one thing you've been using here to brow beat me into accepting CO2 as the gun and man as the culprit pulling the trigger!

Ten year old studies are fairly old in a rapidly moving field. Especially studies that purport to demonstrate major procedural problems with the collection of primary data - such studies are always examined carefully by good scientists in the field. And, everything I've seen of the work of bodies such as the IPCC is that they're careful to assess all data, especially that data which contradicts their findings. The main criticism I've seen of the IPCC from climate scientists is that the recent report cuts out data that shows that the changes observed or predicted are going to be more extreme, rather than less.

quote:

quote:
The discussion about the "hockey stick" has been ongoing and lively since the publication of the 2001 IPCC reports (and, indeed, before that). I've not got time to got through recent IPCC publications just now, but I did read somewhere following the release of the summary a few weeks ago that the report includes considerable discussion of the "hockey stick", precisely because it has been so heavily investigated. The conclusion is that the evidence for the "hockey stick" is far stronger than against.
Not what I've been reading

Then you really need to read some more. Try this Nature article about how the US NAS last year affirmed that the "hockey stick" is an accurate description of recent climate (even though it criticizes the way the graph has sometimes been used. Note that it says the hockey stick "has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade". It really has been discussed to death. The way that the IPCC SPM puts it is "Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years." ... ie: the hockey stick still holds true.

quote:

quote:
I'm going to skip over a set of quotes and links to CO2science.org. Why? Because I can't be bothered to read stuff on a website for an organisation that well known to be neither objective nor impartial, nor even one that draws expertise from relevant disciplines.
Strange attitude for a scientist. There's a wealth of information on that site - surely if there are genuine studies of interest to climatologists and they're not being taken into consideration then one needs to ask, why not?

Why do you think that that's strange? Scientists are inundated with information. We simply can't read and assimilate everything, and apply common-sense filters to make the task manageable. The first filter is relevance - if you can't cope with papers in your own field, don't start trying to read tons of stuff from other fields. The second is the source - papers in peer reviewed journals are more likely to be good than other stuff, and some journals are better than others. In the case of the website in question, if their data is any good it'll be published in the peer reviewed journals that the top researchers in the field contribute to and read. If the studies there aren't being taken into consideration (and, it's quite possible that they are being considered) it's going to be largely because they're not good enough science to get into the top peer reviewed publications.

quote:

What are you interested in here? To understand our climate or to prove a theory regardless of the supposed objectivity scientists claim to have?

Here, I'm interested in discussing the causes of climate change. I don't have to prove a theory, that's more than adequately done (to the extent that any theory can be 'proved') by 1000s of scientists in more relevant fields of study than mine.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
you have yet to show me actual data about rises in CO2.

For the long term record, this plot from the 2001 IPCC Scientific Basis report shows the correlation between temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations over several glaciations and interglacials.

For more recent periods, this plot shows CO2 concentrations, in particular note (b) which shows the CO2 concentrations since 800AD from ice cores. Now, compare that to this plot of northern hemisphere temperatures. I couldn't find a plot with both together, but put the two side by side and you'll see a remarkable correspondance. Exactly as you'd expect from the physics that says "more CO2 = more heating".

Incidentally, you'll see that the temperature plot (yes, that's the famous 'hockey stick') shows the very downward general trend to 1900 that you were earlier claiming proved global cooling. Just so you know that the IPCC didn't ignore that data either.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why do you think that that's strange? Scientists are inundated with information. We simply can't read and assimilate everything, and apply common-sense filters to make the task manageable. The first filter is relevance - if you can't cope with papers in your own field, don't start trying to read tons of stuff from other fields. The second is the source - papers in peer reviewed journals are more likely to be good than other stuff, and some journals are better than others. In the case of the website in question, if their data is any good it'll be published in the peer reviewed journals that the top researchers in the field contribute to and read. If the studies there aren't being taken into consideration (and, it's quite possible that they are being considered) it's going to be largely because they're not good enough science to get into the top peer reviewed publications.

I think that goes right to the heart of not only public confusion/misinformation about climiate change, but on many other scientific subjects that are politically charged--embryonic stem cells research comes to mind. The general public has a poor understanding of both the scientific method and the peer review process. Thus, when you have one or two people with PhD after their name on a talking heads show going off about ignored research, the Joe Public doesn't understand why that may be the case.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
The general public has a poor understanding of both the scientific method and the peer review process.

Sometimes even practicing scientists have a poor understanding of the scientific method. You can succeed quite well in science working under an illusion that totally objective empirical data exist, or that a piece of data that contradicts a theory automatically falsifies that theory. Though, the peer review process is much more clearly understood by scientists - once you've had a paper rejected, or even accepted but subject to major correction, then you know how hard getting stuff published can be.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Again, Myrrh has ignored the central and most crucial question of why we - the humble laypeople - should believe the analysis of someone who starting looking into this subject a week ago rather than the thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the science.

Myrrh - I'll assume that your persistence in refusing to answer the point of any conspiracy between all the world's governments and scientists is because you have no answer. My suspicion is that - for whatever reason - you believe because you want to believe. For anyone to take you seriously, you need to demonstrate why the peer-review process is terminally faulty - if you do so, you qualify for the bonus of bringing down all science. Over to you.

Noiseboy - I haven't been deliberately avoiding answering anything, I have had a problem with finding the time to work on this and organise the wealth of material I've found which shows the real cause of 'global warming' - the general human proclivity to jump onto bandwagons to promote themselves or their pet causes, not that I'm disparaging pet causes per se, but it takes only a few to become the loudest voices moving whole populations into irrational and, our history is proof enough, often very evil acts - your assertion that world wide government participation is proof that global warming is a reality is tempting the use of examples which might encourage some to invoke Godwin's law, but, I haven't seen any real proof of such a creature as would fit 'conspiracy theory', which assumes some intelligence directing and manipulating everyone for its own purpose, but rather the more prosaic dumb and dumber scenario of various interests making use of an idea which in turn has generated its own energy in gathering momentum and still producing high levels of CO2 in the hot air promoting fear of the wrong threat which itself could be only farting in the wind of change which may rather be bringing global cooling.

As a 'humble lay person' I take umbrage with your implication that makes us incapable of analysing the situation for ourselves, it's become very clear even after so short a foray into this murky world that there are also "thousands who have dedicated their lives to studying this" who give a completly different picture. This could only not matter to you if you have your own interest prompting the use of ear plugs every time you hear them.

The common error in such arguments is to attribute, as has been done here, falsity to conflicting information if the source is one that might obviously be thought of as biased by those claiming their own view correct - try and resist doing that, as I hope you will in future resist the urge to insult me by equating neophyte with stupidity and I will resist thinking false any data you produce as the product of gullible wagon pushers, because this tends to block objectivity. Certainly, if it can be shown that any particular bias is affecting an actual change to the data then it should be noted, but learning is best done in maintaining an attitude of open inquiry, and I joined in this discussion to learn, as I said. In other words, I prefer information rather than insults to support any position in this.

What is this mythical beast "peer review" you claim supports your position? Saying one's data has such a thing isn't proof that one has it.

There are many who say the IPCC's bias has taken it over the edge into deceit. This if true could be evidence that the promotion of their view overrides real science and consequently their data should be discounted entirely if wanting to understand climate.

Some accusations here: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm United Nations' Experts Doctor Evidence
'Hot Politics' by James M. Sheehan (July 1996)

And the example as given by Chris Landsea in his letter of resignation from the IPCC posted to 45 of his colleagues.

You of course are at perfect liberty to believe that the IPCC data are true and not produced driven by its own agenda, but Chris Landsea resigned because his work was discounted in the IPCC's interest to promote its hobby horse and worse, shows complete disregard for the integrity of a contributor - that is not objective science, but manipulative deceit.

Since this is proof the IPCC has shown itself willing to pervert truth for its agenda it is only sensible to be wary of taking at face value information coming from it, if one's interest is in understanding climate, as mine is.

Myrrh

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, the peer review process is much more clearly understood by scientists

The misery, the tyranny, the abject failure... yes, I understand it well.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Myrrh - if my last posting was indeed offensive I apologise. It came from frustration that you persistently ignored the fundamental questions I put to you, and drawing inference from the refusal to engage. Since you have now answered some of these questions, we can now continue a debate.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As a 'humble lay person' I take umbrage with your implication that makes us incapable of analysing the situation for ourselves, it's become very clear even after so short a foray into this murky world that there are also "thousands who have dedicated their lives to studying this" who give a completly different picture. This could only not matter to you if you have your own interest prompting the use of ear plugs every time you hear them.

I'll ignore the jibes here, and focus on our mutual roles as lay people in the science. We can indeed look up the science ourselves, but (unless you are far more qualified in this field than I am) we must tread with care. It is possible that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and unanimity of governmental advisors have got their collective intellectual knickers in a twist. But being that you and I have studied this subject for a few hours and others have for many thousands, I have to adopt a base position of intellectual humility until I see strong evidence of a systematic weakness.

You cite the IPCC process as systematic weakness. Again, if this is true I have to ask the question - why are countries such as America not shouting this blatant ploticization from the rooftops? By contrast, they now say the argument is "beyond debate" and accept the IPCC's conclusions. You have still not addressed this central question, unless your answer really is "dumb and dumber". At this point, we are left with the notion that the overwhelming majority of scientists and every single world government from every political ideology is stupid. Hmm.

BTW, your example of Chris Landsea concerns Hurricane strength which the IPCC still acknowleges is nowhere near as certain as ACC (see Wikipedia summary).

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What is this mythical beast "peer review" you claim supports your position?

Here is how peer review works.

Here is Science Journal's meta analysis of 928 peer reviewed journals on climate change. The number who contradict ACC - 0. Even if you reject everything the IPCC does, this still lies in your path. And even if you ever find one subsequently supporting your view, that would make it at the most 0.1% of peer reviewed journals. The summary Science article also helpfully points out all other other organisations that have backed ACC.

Hope this helps.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Being as it seems so obviously relevent to this thread, I Thought I'd get in first before a documentary is shown on UK Channel 4 on Thursday 8th March. It is called The Great Climate Change Swindle, and as the title suggests, puts forward the theory that the whole ACC thing is a load of old tosh.

It might be helpful ahead of time to know the background of the film's director, Martin Durkin. Durkin has a somewhat dubious track record with Channel 4 documentaries. In 1999, he made one about breast implants which claimed that they actually reduced the risk of breast cancer (in the face of all the available science, the BBC already rejected the idea, unsurprisingly). One of the programme's researchers resigned in protest during pre-production at Durkin's ignorance. After transmission, two contributors Sally Kirkland and Ilena Rosenthal from the Humantics Foundation for Women Breast Implants, wrote to the Guardian "...it appears that the American silicone manufacturers' highly financed PR campaign to hide the real dangers of breast implants of all kinds has now been exported to Britain and broadcast by C4/Equinox."

In 2000 he made a documentary on genetic engineering (Modified Truth) for the Equinox strand - one of the participants (a geneticist called Dr Mae-Wan Ho) said “I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.” Perhaps Perhaps Durkin's piece de resistance (well, until now, that is) was 1997's Against Nature - again for the ever-Durkin-tolerant Channel 4. The programme put forward the idea that environmentalists in general were bad for science. After an investigation by the Independent Television Commission, Channel 4 had to broadcast a prime-time apology, which stated: 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'

Following his stellar track record, Channel 4 has decided to give Durkin some more money. The result - "The Great Climate Change Swindle" - is broadcast next week. I hope the ITC (or rather Ofcom as they are now) are ready.

So what can we expect from the documentary? Well, for one thing it conatins an interview with Paul Reiter. Reiter is an "eminent scientist" who was involved with the IPCC, but he reports that he resigned after they ignored his input which contradicted the so-called consensus. He scoffs "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science" - an odd statement that puts the theory of evolution in apparent jeapordy, among thousands of others. He goes on to claim that he forced the IPCC to remove his name after he threated legal action - "that's how they make it seem like all the top scientists agreed. It's not true". Pretty damning stuff. It would, however, be slightly more damning if Reiter was not involved with no less than four separate organisations that receive funding from ExxonMobil.

The central claim of the documentary, apparently, regards the famous Hockey Stick graph showing a dramatic recent rise in global temperatures. The claim is that original paper which produced the graph contained an error in the data - so therefore ACC doesn't exist. Unfortunately, numerous other independent researchers have all subsequently come to exactly the same hockey stick conclusion, and the source of their claim was debunked 18 months ago (source) .The documentary will also claim that the sun's rays are causing global warming, despite this actually only accounting for a tiny percentage of the actual change according to the consensus of genuine climate scientists.

No doubt those who have motives for denying ACC will lap up this documentary anyway, despite the track record of the director (already censured by the ITC for misrepresentation) and the participants (funded by the oil lobby). No doubt they will still ignore the actual work of genuine, independent science. But I thought I'd write this for anyone else who might see the film and get confused by what appears to be conflicting information against the consensus. After all, It's always worth knowing in advance if you think you are going to be lied to.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

While I'm hesitant to re-open the debate, UK readers of this thread may be interested in a programme on Channel 4 tonight called the The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I'll be watching with interest.
.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
While I'm hesitant to re-open the debate, UK readers of this thread may be interested in a programme on Channel 4 tonight called the The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I'll be watching with interest.
.

Indeed... and excuse the lack of modesty, but do make sure you read the preceeding post!

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

No, just reminding people.

Oh alright. It's embarassing to have one's stupidity pointed out in public. I thought I'd read the end the thread last time I was here but clearly not.

Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :

The C4 prog. The bit that got my attention was the african guy near the close talking about the misery of 2 billion people living without electrical power; and that the climate change agenda was effectively pressuring their governments to keep things that way. Cheap electricity for all: lets start a campaign.

FWIW, it is not my field but I don't believe the man-induced climate change story. Not that I think it is a good idea to needlessly pollute or be wasteful, simply that mankind's efforts are not on a scale large enough to seriously upset the environment. Who remembers Milankovitch cycles; remains the best explanation for large scale fluctuations in global climate purely from natural causes. We are currently in an ice age: permanent polar ice is unusual in the Earth's geological history; normally the climate is significantly warmer.

As for 'the scientific consensus'. During my schooldays the orthodoxy on geomorphology was a theory known as 'orogenic uplift'. Large and authoratative tomes on this subject were in print, and this was taught as doctrine. Poor Alfred Wegener with his idea of 'continental drift' was laughed at. Midway through an examination course, the doctrine changed, the old books were literally thrown out, new texts were introduced; and the instruction was: forget it all, revision to 'the truth'. Incidentally, the mechanism of plate tectonics has much to say on long term variation in climate...

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Apologies in advance - I think this will be a long one.

The Great Climate Change Swindle was a stunning piece of television - persuasive and compelling. It brilliantly anticipated all the obvious - and correct - charges which would be levelled at it, and even more brilliantly turned the tables to make it seem that the mainstream view is not only corrupt, but unethical. The average punter had absolutely no hope of deciphering the spin from the substance, and will doubtless conclude that, at the very least, there is no smoke without fire.

This film will be talked about in the same revered tones that made Loose Change, the 9/11 documentary claiming a US government conspiracy was at the heart of the atrocities, such a phenomenon. With it, it shares the beautiful illusion that we all want to hear - "it's OK, you're not mad, everything you have been told is wrong. The world is not chaotic and disordered, it is in fact being manipulated by a small group of people for machievellian ends". It represents the lone voice of reason in a world that appears to be horribly lurching out of control. There will be many who will forever cite The Great Climate Change Swindle as their turning point, when they stopped listening to any "official" line.

There are three main elements to the film's compelling argument:

1 - the science behind anthropogenic climate change is fatally flawed;
2 - the apparent consensus in scientific opinion has been manipulated by money interests to systematically marginalise any views of discontent, and
3 - the effect of this will be to wreak devastation on the most vulnerable people in the world.

The clever trick that writer / director Martin Durkin has pulled off with a flourish that would make Derran Brown sick with jealousy, is that he has hijacked the three genuine elements of anthropogenic climate change:

1 - the science behind the denial of anthropogenic climate change is fatally flawed;
2 - the consensus in scientific opinion has come about despite phenomenal money interests (mainly from the oil industry) to alter it, and
3 - the effect of anthropogenic climate change will be to wreak devastation on the most vulnerable people in the world.

It is a perfect fit. And the only truly genuine line in the film comes at the beginning, a major clue when the narrator intones "you are being told lies".

So, a few notes on those three planks to Durkin's argument. On point one, the science, the GCCS presented a view so breathtakingly simple that it's a wonder no-one has thought of it before - it's all because of sunspots. Oddly enough, people have thought of it before. It has been studied, analysed, and built into the climate models used widely today. Despite what the graphs appeared to show in the programme, Cosmic rays are nothing like a match with experimental data (the final chart on this page shows the actual data from the last 30 years, inconveniently showing no rise in cosmic ray activity at all). There is a sound scientific reason behind why CO2 often lags behind temperature rise. Climate models factor in sun activity, the earth's varying orbit, ocean activity, greenhouse gasses and many other factors besides.

The really clever stuff starts around part 2 though, when they put forward a bizarre theory that - of all people - Margaret Thatcher put down a bung to get funding for research on climate change so she could push through her plans for nuclear power. This (somehow) translated to every government in the world pushing for evidence - no matter how dodgy - despite any public proclamations to the contrary, or business interests that were against environmental action. Then the GCCS pulled off its coup de grace by laughing at how absurd it was to think that the programme's own contributors are paid by the oil industry.

Well, I haven't had much time to dig too far, but the majority of names that came through have indeed been involved in the oil industry. John Christy, the "lead IPCC author" is involved in no less than 4 organisations that are funded by ExxonMobil (one could be unfortunate, but 4 is surely careless). Frederick Seitz, the other whistleblower for the corrupt IPCC, can teach Christy a thing or two, as he is involved in a staggering 8 ExxonMobil funded organisations. Frederick Singer has another 4. Roy spencer has a couple, and adds one (The Heartland Institute) that receives tobacco sposorship - and to this day claim that threats to health of smoking are exaggerated. Time forbids me from checking out any more of the contributors.

Of course, they risked being rumbled by then going for the big one - fighting anthropogenic climate change is unethical. We were shown impoverished Africans given paltry solar panels and told to lump it. So rather than question why this specific provision was inadequate, it was cited as evidence that they needed more oil. Which, given the interests of the contributors, is perhaps not too surprising.

The Union of Concerned Scientists produced a report a couple of months ago at the extent of the company's reach, and their ability to manipulate. This - whether overtly or covertly - is surely their finest hour. It's a shame that Channel 4 were their willing accomplices. And, to my mind, an even greater shame that an argument that had been won on merit has now been needlessly knocked back, potentially futher jeapordising the world's future.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

Just to add to the above, today's New Scientist magazine has an article reporting claims that the Climate Change report was 'watered down' in between the version that the scientists wrote and the final version that was agreed by the representatives of more than 100 governments. The text of the article is on on the New Scientist website
though you can only read the whole thing if you are a subscriber.
The document analysing the changes made between the two versions is at this site

In other words, if there was political interference (which has not been confirmed but does not seem improbable) it was not to promote the IPCC conclusions but to dilute and minimise them (as you'd imagine with oil interests etc being heavily involved with the governments of some of the countries). It seems hard to believe that governments would invent something like climate change and simultaneously try to minimise the predicted effects - unless of course this is all part of an even more cunning global conspiracy [Big Grin]

Jonah

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

Here's my take on the programme as a skeptic (and I agree with Noiseboy, it was compelling television).

There was so much information offered in this programme that it is difficult to encapsulate it. The following broad issues were covered (aside from the science, which I'll come to last).

The history of the movement. This section opened by referring to a BBC TV programme aired in 1974 called The Weather Machine. At that time, global cooling was the mainstream imminent disaster story. Nigel Calder, who was responsible for this programme, included in it the apparently lone voice of Bert Bolain (sp?), a Swedish scientist who suggested that manmade CO2 could help warm up the climate and thus divert the imminent catastrophe. Calder claimed on the programme that he was critised for allowing this lone voice to be heard (Noiseboy - perhaps lone voices can be good predictors!). Five years later Thatcher was in power and she was the first in the UK to offer government money to investigate manmade global warming. She wanted to promote the nuclear option (I already knew this) due to her distrust of coal (thanks to the miners strikes) and oil (due to instability in the Middle East - does that sound familiar?). The programme was essentially a British view of the rise of the manmade global warming lobby.

The politics of the movement. From the 1990s onwards, manmade global warming has become the position to take. A quote from one of the contributing scientists (I missed his name): "All [scientists are] competing for funds and if your field is the focus of concern you'll have less work in rationalising why your field should be funded". Huge sums of government money apparently go into manmade global warming research. Additionally, Professor Writer (sp?) (credentials include WHO expert advisory) claimed that 15 key statements were removed from the IPCC report which all expressed skepticism of one facet of manmade global warming or another. His own related to the claim that manmade global warming will see tropical diseases spreading northwards. However, mosquitos, for example, have all along been present in temperate climates and even the arctic. His statement to this effect was not included in the IPCC report yet his name remained as an author suggesting he approved the mainstream view. He had to threaten legal action to get it removed. I have to confess that such comments as his fed into my skepticsm concerning the objectivity of the IPCC report.

The media attitude towards the movement. I probably don't need to say much about this since I think most thinking people are skeptical about how the media presents manmade global warming (or most other subjects!), but Nigel Calder's comments were interesting, including his claim that the media reports are getting "shriller and shriller", possibly to ensure environmental journalists keep their jobs!

The environmentalists attitude towards the movement. The programme suggested that environmentalists claimed a huge victory when George Bush turned. Environmentalists are, of course, thrilled about the success of the manmade global warming position: they have been advocating anti-industrialisation and anti-globalisation for a long time. These claims were made by Patrick Moore, a former Chair of Greenpeace. He stated that when he left Greenpeace they were advocating a worldwide ban on chlorine. He figured they were going too far.

The effect of the manmade global warming movement upon the developing world. This was the part of the programme which affected me the strongest. I have been a long-time carer for the continent of Africa, not in a colonial, paternalistic context but as a Westerner who often feels helpless amidst the catastrophes (natural and otherwise) that often befall the peoples of this vast continent. Patrick Moore and others pointed out that the West is now pressurising developing nations not to use their coal and oil resources to create (cheaper) electricity but instead to look to (more expensive and less efficient) alternatives such as solar and wind power. An example was given of the practice whereby poor families would burn wood or animal dung in their homes in order to heat them and cook food. Yet indoor smoke causes cancer and lung disease. No cheap electricity means no safe heating or cooking, no refrigeration for food, no lighting, etc.

In addition, a hospital was featured which used two solar panels to power a fridge and lighting. They could not use both at the same time and the expense of more solar panels was too great for the hospital. As one contributor stated "The developing world is coming under intense pressure not to develop". Yet the African dream (as opposed to the Western one) is to develop. An African contributor suggested that they are being told they must have expensive solar/wind power but not the cheaper electricity and gas, while Europe and the USA enjoy the benefits of cheaper electricity and gas, and have done for years.

For a while now I have believed the UK appears to have 'forgotten' Africa's present needs in favour of its obsession with manmade global warming. This part of the progamme fed into that and also left me with the uneasy feeling that, once again, the West is attempting to dictate to Africa (and others in the developing world) what they should and shouldn't do in yet another round of cultural colonialism.

And as for the science ... . As I have openly stated already, I'm not a scientist. So I don't claim to know who is a 'real' expert and who isn't, or what the science actually means.

Contrary to what Noiseboy seemed to imply in an earlier thread, there was a diversity of expert opinion referred to in the programme (with credentials cited) - climate scientists, geologists, oceanographers, physicists (from Harvard and otherwise), former environmentalists, the Head of the International Arctic Research Centre. Three of them made clear they were not funded by either the gas or oil sectors! To a non-scientist like me, they appeared to be as valid a list of experts as those produced by the pro-manmade climate change lobby.

So far as the science was concerned, as suggested by Noiseboy the sun was given as a reason for climate change (along with solar wind, the sun's effect on the ocean, natural sources of CO2, etc - the point being that there are many factors to consider when projecting climate change). There was also examination of how models were used and the reliability of models generally. In addition, the notion of CO2 causing global warming was debunked. Instead, the reverse was proposed: that global warming produced a rise in CO2.

As I said earlier, there was so much in this programme - it's spread was huge - that it is very hard to give it credit. It was a superb programme and had me hooked from beginning to end. Not least because I found it refreshing to actually hear the other side of the debate at last!

Whether the pro-lobby have got it right or not I don't know. What I do know, however, is that the programme simply confirmed what I already believed about the political issues, the media hysteria and the potential impact on the developing world. As I think I said earlier on this thread (or maybe on another of the climate change threads), I really do think that science needs to detach itself from politics. I think its credibility, regardless of the issue, is undermined by its link (either obvious or overt) to politics and lobby groups. I would agree with something Noiseboy cited in an earlier post: consensus is about politics, not science.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

Hmmm. Who to believe?

[cross-posted with Littlelady]

[ 08. March 2007, 23:39: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by John Spears (# 11694) on :

I thought the interview with Patrick Moore was probably the most interesting part of the programme. It obviously is "holy writ" for some people and closely tied in with a lot of other anti-industrial ideas.

After being completely shown up when I started ascting like an authority on the subject after watching "Bowling for Columbine" (only to find out that a great deal of it was bunk) I'm rather wary of the power of documentaries to teach. It has always seemed unlikely to me that if humans produce so little of the co2 in the environement (As a percentage) that this would have any effect on the climate at all but frankly I don't know. It seems to me that climate science is one of the most open and speculative fields of science about.......

It is worth considering that both sides have 'something to gain' however.

Posted by John Spears (# 11694) on :

Good post little lady.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Littlelady - we've disagreed violently in the past and of course I disagree with your conclusions here, but that was a really well put together post. Fair dinkum.

With the cold light of day, some things have hit me with greater force that are patently absurd. When it comes down to it, the programme said that the science comes down to one thing - sunspots. It plotted a graph so obvious that a 10 year old could see the correlation. Doesn't it strike anybody as, well, a bit odd that information this old and a conclusion this obvious has somehow eluded the thousands of professionals in the field?

The only answer - of course - is that it is a giant conspiracy. Again, I think of Loose Change (the notorious 9/11 conspiracy documentary). It all sounds very convincing until you start asking the big questions - what DID happen to the plane and passengers that didn't hit the Pentagon? If Bush & Co can blow up the WTC with immaculate precision, how come they failed to plant a single WMD in Iraq? It is, of course, nonsense.

So now we are faced with the proposition that the IPCC and indeed an entire branch of science involving every country in the world are in on a grand conspiracy to keep us from the truth. Why? To put up taxes, stupid! It's great that China, the USA and France all settled their differences to scheme together on this brilliant conspiracy.

Or... just maybe... does this strike anyone else as being as ludicrous as Loose Change?

Littlelady's comments were excellent, so I will steal her headings for a few extra comments:

The History Of The Movement. Once again, we retread the myth that the scientific community thought there was an impending ice age in the 1970s (and we have a daft Horizon documentary, as innacrute then as they frequently are now, to illustrate). No peer reviewed publication ever asserted this, it was simply popular press distortions. Real Climate has an excellent summary - if anyone has any evidence that any of that is incorrect, then they must say so. I challenged this weeks ago, and thus far no-one has come forward.

The Politics Of The Movement. There has been a marked transition in the last couple of years on this. Until then - certainly during the 1990s - to call yourself green was to be unelectable. Since in more recent years politicians of every persuasion now back the theory of ACC, isn't it likely that the arguments themselves have been persusasive?

The Media Attitude Towards The Movement. Again, this has consistently been hostile to ACC. While the famous 2003 Science Journal meta-analysis of 928 peer-reveiwed papers showing that 0% contradicted ACC, a similar meta-analysis of popular media reports showed that 50% of them were hostile. The media (again, until very very recently) have been actively hostile whereas the science is consensus.

The Environmentalists Attitude Towards The Movement. Not much to say here, so:

The effect of the manmade global warming movement upon the developing world. This was unquestionably the programme's greatest gall. To not merely dismiss the arguments of those who accept ACC but actually say that only to deny is ethical shows breathtaking ambition. Funnily enough, the oil industry - who throughout the debates on ACC have consistently denigrated the arguments - stand to benefit from this position.

In summary, in a fight between independent scientists and the world's largest corporation, I have a hunch where any genuine conspiracy is likely to lie.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
In summary, in a fight between independent scientists and the world's largest corporation, I have a hunch where any genuine conspiracy is likely to lie.

We all have hunches, though.

Yours may be right, but from the evidence you've given I'm unable to verify that because either a) I don't have the expertese to interpret your links, or b) your claims don't necessarily show what you say they do. An example of a) would be this and this. An example of b) would be your characterisation of Martin Durkin. If you're presenting a fair picture of his track record, that does not necessarily mean this particular program is not fair or accurate.

I'm not as naive as to think that political shennigans and undue influence aren't likely to or don't in fact occur wherever there's serious money. Of course the oil industry wields enormous influence. But what exactly would you expect them to do in the face world-wide efforts to demonise use of the resource from which they make their money? I'd have thought, even if they were scrupulously honest, they would be investing whatever it takes to ensure that the case against oil was not overstated. Which would mean recruiting the most and the best scientists around.

The fact that contributors to the GCCS program work for oil industry funded organisations does not show those people are corrupt or that their science is wrong. It's just where the money is. Yes, it's important to know that, but then to watch out for bias and recognise what their science will not be showing, not assume their work has no value.

As far as I can tell the whole industry funding of science is seriously problematic. I'm not sure the best way to address that. But you sound like a lobbyist, or a campaigner with an agenda, not an impartial source of information. I appreciate the background you provide, but I find you're efforts to discredit this particular program unconvincing.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

Noiseboy, there are just three things in your post I'd like to pick up on.

Firstly, this:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The only answer - of course - is that it is a giant conspiracy.

Yet you keep linking the skeptical scientists with the oil industry! Is that not a sign of a conspiracy theorist at work? [Biased]

Princess Diana died because her driver was pissed and driving too fast on a French road. 9/11 happened because some bastard extremists wanted to kill Westerners. Climate change has become part of the populist environmental lobby, a movement that has been growing since the 1990s. That bit I don't need any TV programme to tell me - like you, I've watched it develop. The difference between us is that you've been convinced of its validity somewhere down the line and I haven't. But I remember just a couple of years ago when we were all supposed to be making poverty history or before then saving rainforests. In a few years' time it may be that only the die-hard environmentalists care about their carbon footprints (I'm still trying to figure out in practical terms what that slogan actually means!). The rest of the Western world might have moved on to some other obsession.

Secondly, this:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Since in more recent years politicians of every persuasion now back the theory of ACC, isn't it likely that the arguments themselves have been persusasive?

Totally not! You seem to have this somewhat naive view that if politicians are backing something, the something they are backing must actually be persuasive. Methinks you may forget that politicians are plugged into the mood of the electorate. They have votes to win. Granted, some politicians will be genuinely convinced of manmade global warming. Others will not but they don't want to signal their own political death.

I am naturally suspicious of anything the politicians appear to universally back. Something simply does not ring true when politicians of all political shades and nationalities are speaking with one voice. It means that somewhere, someone is not being entirely honest. And that's no conspiracy theory: it's basic political awareness.

Thirdly, this:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Funnily enough, the oil industry - who throughout the debates on ACC have consistently denigrated the arguments - stand to benefit from this position.

So what? What's the concern here for you? That the oil industry is squashed at all costs or that the people of Africa are lifted out of their tough and painful lives in the way that they themselves see fit?

And if the African people all buy wind turbines and solar panels, do you think they are home made? Of course not. There is this growing industry - with all that brings - encouraging all this environmental awareness: the wind turbine and solar panel producing companies. Industry will always benefit; it's just a question of which one. Personally, I couldn't care less. I care more about people being given an opportunity to live without extreme hardship. What about you?

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

I think there are two different arguments going on here, and it's important that they aren't confused.

One is about whether climate change is caused by humans, or rather to what extent it is. Note that no-one is denying that global warming/climate change is actually happening, the diagreements (within the IPCC and amongst climate change scientists and others).

The second is what you do about it. It is obviously possible to come up with solutions to man-made climate change which increase equity in the world and decrease poverty, just as it is possible to come up with solutions which are inequitable and unjust (such as preventing poor countries developing). Equally it is possible to believe that climate change isn't caused by humans but act in ways which either harm or help people in poverty.

Personally I believe that the evidence for man-made climate change is too strong to ignore, and that we (collectively) need to deal with it effectively. However it is also important to make sure that solutions help poor people help themselves, and enable them to use the natural resources of their countries to improve the quality of their lives. This might mean, for example, helpign them develop solar power industries which are affordable for ordinary people. I certainly wouldn't agree with forcing expensive foreign/western techonology on them which would increase both dependency and debt.

But that is a different argument, and an important one. I think that in spite of odd bits of climate change scepticism that argument has been settled (though alternative viewpoints should certainly be heard and argued with properly - where the arguers are honest useful points come out). How we try to reach the millenium development goals and combat poverty given the reality of climate change is the issue of real importance now.

Jonah

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

LittleLady. They just don't have the wiring for it, the gene. Or we don't. They do not give a damn that Rachel Carson killed 50 million Africans and counting. They are utterly unmoved by that. It's unreal. Abstract. Ah well. They are not to blame. We don't understand. We ARE to blame. We drive blithely! Don't we KNOW? I'm causing drought in Niger by typing this!

There's a corner of my office that's sacred because it has RECYLING scrawled on the pile of garbage there.

They are utterly incapable of doing any dialectical work, whether on overwhelming biblical sexual ethics with a superior antithesis or noticing that sunspots correlate with temperature via cosmic ray induced cloud formation in a far more convincing way than a rise in the tiny fraction of a percent of the atmosphere represented by anthropogenic CO2.

There's no soundness in them LittleLady. Hippies, Marxists, anti-Americans, hypocrites. Any morality other than a personal one will do. You know the sort. It's all very eschatological.

It has NOTHING to do with science. This has very thing to do with the decline of the West, of Christianity, Satan's wrath as his hour glass drains. Of our faithless dispositions. The sermon on the mount scares me far more than global warming.

Global warming? It's the SUN wot done it.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They do not give a damn that Rachel Carson killed 50 million Africans and counting.

Because she didn't.

quote:
However, DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics. In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Efforts were shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides. ...

Although the publication of Silent Spring undoubtedly influenced the U.S. ban on DDT in 1972, the reduced usage of DDT in malaria eradication began the decade before because of the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. ...

One old study that attempts to quantify the lives saved due to banning agricultural use of DDT, and thereby the spread of DDT resistance, has been published in the scientific literature: "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[67]

DDT
Screaming something repeatedly does not make it true. OliviaG

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Oh, they didn't die then? And things are a tad more complicated in reality than here? If we kill a billion people in the name of the precautionary principle can we comfort our selves that we SAVED two billion? Denying something because we're nice doesn't make it go away. Liking spectacled owls as much as people doesn't make us sane.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If we kill a billion people in the name of the precautionary principle can we comfort our selves that we SAVED two billion?

Yes, prescisely.

The precautionary principle was referred to on the C4 programme. It seems to be applied quite a lot in the UK at the moment. It's a good tool of control: no-one can deny that something bad might happen if we do (or don't do) this or that or the other.

But meanwhile, what about the things happening now?

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I think there are two different arguments going on here, and it's important that they aren't confused.

I disagree. The argument is whether climate change is manmade in origin or not. The C4 programme was extremely good at highlighting the role various players have taken in communicating the message that it's all humanity's fault. It's not the first time a lobby has gained momentum and it won't be the last. But without the central tenet of the lobby, that climate change is manmade, the whole thing falls apart and there is no actual point in discussing 'what can be done' because there is nothing that can be done. If climate change is a solely natural phenomenon then my guess is we're helpless to stop it (assuming, of course, that stopping it would be a good idea - and 'only' scientific models tell us that it is).

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

OK OG. One must defer to science. To the truth. And I apologise. It seems that nothing damnwell works. Which doesn't surprise me. I'm talking DDT here, not AGW. I'm open to reason on that too, but it will have to be superior: not to mine but to astrophysics'.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Having watched C4 program and gotten angered by it's desperate attempt to confuse and mislead the viewer, I almost went over to the dark side and supported the green evangelists.

It took several cups of tea to calm me down. What is so difficult about the globe is getting hotter, the temp rise is corespondent with rises in co2, we are the main source of the extra co2 in the last hundred years, what should we do about it?

Why do we wast time pushing our agendas "hurray for our side". Peak Oil will end the co2 thingy real soon. The tech exists to deal with any problem the warming produces, Why are we auguring instead of doing something. Reducing emissions is not what needs to be done, were past that already and it'll happen anyway as oil becomes more expensive. We need to get on with safeguarding fresh water, building dams and levies against the rise in sea leavel. Did we learn nothing from New Orleans?

I'm sick of the argument and see no hope of anything worthwhile being done until a few million people die. This is like a bad bend on the road, everybody knows the danger but until someone dies nothing will be done.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
The tech exists to deal with any problem the warming produces

It does? Where is it?

And, even if it does exist, how much will it cost? A whole lot more than some modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions now I'll bet. In many cases we can reduce CO2 emissions and save money at the same time, it's just more convenient not to turn the TV off completely.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
... everybody knows the danger ...

This is where you are mistaken.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

JonahMan - wise words indeed. It is, however, rather difficult to have a measured, reasonable debate. Fair enough, as Dave Marshall points out, just because the director has made a slew of discredited documentaries and fallen foul of the ITC for misrepresentation in the past, he
won't necessarily do so again (however suspicious one might be).

But alas, it does look like he is up to his old tricks again. A graph of 20th Century global temperatures used in the programme and sourced as "NASA" appears to be a fabrication, and certainly not from NASA. Likewise the sunspot graphs have been altered to fit the polemic, and crucial recent data that totally contradicts the theory omitted. So it is no exaggeration that the science case of the programme appears to be built on verifiable lies. Fair enough, Dave Marshall, that the science involved in the relationship between CO2 and temperature is complicated (ironically exactly as Al Gore said in his film), but the temperature lag has been understood since at least 2004 and it entirely consistent with how CO2 warming is thought to occur.

The least surprising development of the year is that some of the contributors are now disowning the programme. Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography and contributor to the GCCS:
posted on a climate forum yesterday

quote:
Carl Wunsch:
...the context was not at all what we had agreed on. Was billed as a balanced discussion of the threat of global warming As I began to see ads for the program, I realized I'd been duped.

As to what he really thinks, from a column for the Royal Society he wrote in 2006:

quote:
Carl Wunsch:
It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

So Dave Marshall, I think the time for benefit of the doubt for Martin Durkin has passed.

Littlelady, unless I missed it, you don't suggest how a conspiracy between all the world's governments might work. Being suspicious in a vague sense isn't really enough is it? Sorry to repeat the question yet again, but what on Earth would make the governments and journalists of the entire world unite to tell a lie? Does China really need green public votes? By the way, you are right that I might have a propensity towards a smaller and demonstrable conspiracy of my own in ExxonMobil, but this is the subject of extensive public record and the focus of a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, so it at least has some substance (and motive). Meanwhile. if anyone fancies a genuine laugh at the patenly absurd idea of the biggest and most nonsensical conspiracy of all time, Adam Smith in the Oh My God Guardian has a very funny op-ed piece today.

By contrast, allegations that the IPCC exists merely to create its own branch of science and surpresses contrary information is not even substantial enough to be called thin. As this week's New Scientist reports, evidence HAS emerged of governemental interferece in the IPCC 4th assessment report summary for policymakers, but it goes the other way. In comparisons between the final draft composed entirely by the scientific community and the final released version vetted by the world governments, a large number of subtle but significant alterations were made to remove some of the specific science that pointed towards feedbacks and sea level rises, resulting in higher temperature rises. The released document, the IPCC lead authors maintain, does not compromise the science, but IPCC referee Peter Wadhams of Cambridge Univerity disagrees and is openly critical of politicisation of the scientific process. A story unresolved but worth watching... at the very least it is clear that some climate scientists are still under presssure from their own governments to be as conservative as possible.

As to the African issue, this is complex. In the example used in the GCCS, how much would it cost to connect a remote community to their national grid? I've no doubt that some conventional fuel sources will, for now, be essential in African development. But in remote communities, renewable sources could be a lifesaver. The crucial point in the specific example in the programme, as I made in the original review, is that their current solar provision is hoplessly inadequate. Why not increase their renewable provision to a realistic level? (BTW - since a small fridge consumes about 400w and a low energy lightbulb about 11W, I think the whole illustration was extremely fishy.... why could the fridge always run OK but not with another 11W added on? Comments please...)

Oh, and one other salient point that the GCCS failed to mention is that the Kyoto protocol excludes developing countries, so they've built a straw man anyway.

It's worth pointing out a few more areas where the GCCS deceived its audience. It claimed that the troposphere was not warming - in fact it is
(apparently there was a debate about this in the last decade based on faulty data, now resolved). They also said that the upper atmosphere should be warming too - er, no it shouldn't since the whole point is that
greenhouse gasses reflect heat back to Earth. Then there's volcanos, which we were told counted for way more than man's CO2 emissions. In the last 50 years, this is false. Etcetera, etcetera, blah, blah, blah.

Much was made in the programme (and in subsequent discussion) of the argument "great scott, just look how big the sun is / isn't it arrogant to think lil' ol' man can affect the environment". Well, well done us cos we can. Smog and aerosols (and the ozone layer) are examples. As an aside, in one remarkable study, US temperatures on September 12th 2001 were affected by the abscence of skyborne airlines following the previous day's atroctities. The climate (note - not merely the temperature on that particular day which would be silly) increased by 1 degree, a figure without parallel since measurements began. Airlines appear to have a dramatic appreciable effect on the climate. ( Link to Nature journal, but subscription needed.)

The Great Global Warming Swindle was so persuasive, yet so riddled with demonstrable falsehoods (never mind subjective personal opinion), that I've really got to write to Ofcom to look at all this. I hope Carl Wunsch does also. No doubt some would see any ruling as supression of the truth. In fact, yet again (after breast cancer, GM crops and - oh, the environment), Martin Durkin has demonstrated that he is the master of deception.

[ 10. March 2007, 15:21: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I'm an ex total skeptic and now a mild skeptic. so here's my take on the C4 programme.

A lot of the program was balls. They had 90 minutes to examine the scientific arguments and spent almost half of it on weird conspiracy theories, and the assertion that scientists were trying to fuck Africa by selling them clunky solar panels and stopping them getting at their oil. I don't think I'm exaggerating the nastiness of the accusation.

Now it may well be that some politicians may be using the bandwagon to screw the third world and to raise taxes, and we need to watch them. But that has zero to do with the value of the science. So why spend so much time on it? You can't believably claim that the scientific establishment is hoodwinking us and hiding the science, and then spend half your time dredging up the odd loony who used to believe in an incipient ice-age, and creating risible conspiracy theories about an unholy alliance between Maggie Thatcher and Greenpeace. And the arguments were so black and white, that the programme is really asking us to believe that the majority of practising climate scientists are fools or knaves, or both. Not easy to accept.

The main hole is the scientific argument was the lack of recent detailed data on sun-spots, since I think it is admitted on all sides that the very recent warming has been excessive. Is there a corresponding recent surge in sun-spot activity? I doubt it, since it was not mentioned.

Even so, I think some valid points were made, and it is obvious that there are some scientists of genuine eminence in the contrarian camp. These were far more creidlbe than the odd Lecturer in Geology at East Cheam Poly who is occasionally dragged out by the young-earth creationists. And on a recent news item, a fully paid-up member of the Orthodox Scientific Community explained that the actual certainty level was nearer 80% than 100%. Many scientists are pissed off about the media hype, and I've heard several of them say so.

Just concentrate on the question: Is it right that the west should greatly reduce it's dependence on fossil fuels? If yes, go do it. What the Chinese, Indians and Africans do is up to them, and doesn't define our ethical duty.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We're ALL mistaken. Always have been. Always will be. I remember the '70s global cooling scare. The utter nonsense I was fed by Gordon Rattray-Taylor and above all Paul Ehrlich about pollution, resources, population. Malthusian, linear nonsense all of it.

I'm wrong. I think Iraq is the turning point. I think the morally collapsing, meaningless, purposeless, materialist West is going to force an Islamic response in to the vacuum to eschatological proportions. I'm bound to be wrong. Hope so.

Yeah global warming's happening, probably. Accelerated anthropogenically? Possibly. CFCs and the ozone hole WAS pretty eye-brow raising. Sorted. Whatever we think, we're wrong. All of us. The scientists, the politicians. Us plebs. Wrong. Deceived. Seduced. Distracted. To any thing but the truth. Our truths, our realities are lying illusions. If the globe is warming there is NOTHING we can do about it that will help. Nothing. Any thing we do will harm. Any thing we don't do will harm. This is a true Devil's alternative. Just like being sucked in to Iraq, which I was stupid enough to endorse, fully, proudly, in my name.

NOTHING will change until we we come off the end of the rope and cry out to God with no agenda but utter desperation as we fall to our death.

These are the end of days kiddies and because we don't like the way veal is raised and the church is abandoning the nasty bits of the faith once delivered isn't going to spare us. It's accelerating the process.

His kingdom come.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Well, I watched it but it didn't really work for me. I smiled a couple of times but it didn't really make me laugh at all though it sort of had the 'feel' of a real documentary.

Poor stuff.
.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Littlelady, unless I missed it, you don't suggest how a conspiracy between all the world's governments might work. Being suspicious in a vague sense isn't really enough is it?

You missed it because it wasn't there: it's you who keeps talking about conspiracy, not me! I've just mentioned a healthy suspicion of apparent political consensus. And yes, that's plenty enough, though possibly not for fundamentalists.

quote:
Sorry to repeat the question yet again, but what on Earth would make the governments and journalists of the entire world unite to tell a lie? Does China really need green public votes?

"The entire world" [Big Grin]

C'mon Noiseboy. That's a bit melodramatic! China needs to be pals with the West - it's doing very well thanks to all that Western investment. Self-interest is usually a good motivator when forming alliances.

quote:
It's worth pointing out a few more areas where the GCCS deceived its audience. It claimed that the troposphere was not warming - in fact it is

By you're own admission you're not a scientist, Noiseboy. Therefore, how can you possibly say 'in fact' about the science? You simply believe one interpretation of the science, that's all. Same with your politicians, who largely are not scientists either, and the media nuts, and the majority of the UK population I should think as well.

quote:
The Great Global Warming Swindle was so persuasive, yet so riddled with demonstrable falsehoods (never mind subjective personal opinion), that I've really got to write to Ofcom to look at all this.

Go Noiseboy!

Maybe C4 will do what the Telegraph did a few years ago when they were naughty boys and girls by suggesting that secondhand smoke wasn't quite as dangerous as it was being portrayed, ie words to the effect of "Sorry kids, we were so irresponsible in today's Nanny State to dare suggest there was an alternative view. Sorry. We'll stay in our rooms now and say nothing more."

However, I hope C4 have got more balls than that. It is C4 after all; being controversial was its original reason for being. I'd hate this awful culture which seems to have afflicted my country lately to change that. If it does, I'll emigrate.

PS: Do you seriously believe that someone who knew they were contributing to a programme called 'The Great Climate Change Swindle' would for one minute believe they were contributing to a balanced programme? I suspect a case of covering one's ass going on. Perhaps things got a little hot for Carl Wunsch on his forum. [Biased]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
But alas, it does look like [director Martin Durkin] is up to his old tricks again. A graph of 20th Century global temperatures used in the programme and sourced as "NASA" appears to be a fabrication, and certainly not from NASA.

Fair enough.

quote:
Likewise the sunspot graphs have been altered to fit the polemic, and crucial recent data that totally contradicts the theory omitted.

Again, fair enough.

quote:
So it is no exaggeration that the science case of the programme appears to be built on verifiable lies.

You may be right. My point is, how can I find out for myself without having to take your word for it? Why should I believe you rather than someone who's created what you've acknowledged was a compelling TV programme for a national TV station?

quote:
Fair enough, Dave Marshall, that the science involved in the relationship between CO2 and temperature is complicated (ironically exactly as Al Gore said in his film), but the temperature lag has been understood since at least 2004 and it entirely consistent with how CO2 warming is thought to occur.

Understood for a whole two years, huh? Great, then can you explain it in terms I can understand? What I picked up from the programme was that there's agreement about an 800 year lag between increased CO2 levels and global temperature rise. How then can we say that the current rise is down to increased CO2 resulting from human activity in the last, what shall we say for arguments sake, 200 years?

quote:
The least surprising development of the year is that some of the contributors are now disowning the programme. Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography and contributor to the GCCS:

[snipped one contributor's reservations and comments]

So Dave Marshall, I think the time for benefit of the doubt for Martin Durkin has passed.

Noiseboy, you're making unsubstantiated and inflated claims. As I've said before, I don't know if you're right, only that you seem to very much want me and others to believe you because... you say so?

To keep this a reasonable length I won't go through your whole post. But if the first link in your next section is anything to go by, you're only quoting others who are doing exactly the same as you - mounting a propaganda campaign.

quote:
The Great Global Warming Swindle was so persuasive, yet so riddled with demonstrable falsehoods (never mind subjective personal opinion), that I've really got to write to Ofcom to look at all this.

I'll be very interested in their response. Because as far as I've worked through this last post of yours, you have not demonstrated any falsehood and have offered nothing more by way of evidence than personal opinion you happen to agree with.

quote:
yet again (after breast cancer, GM crops and - oh, the environment), Martin Durkin has demonstrated that he is the master of deception.

Remind me again. How exactly is anyone here supposed to know that for example Martin Durkin hasn't sacked you in the past for poor research work and you're not simply involved in a personal feud with him?

[cross-posted - again - with Littlelady]

[ 10. March 2007, 22:55: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
But alas, it does look like [director Martin Durkin] is up to his old tricks again. A graph of 20th Century global temperatures used in the programme and sourced as "NASA" appears to be a fabrication, and certainly not from NASA.
Fair enough.

Actually, is this fair enough? If a TV programme clearly identifies a source for data when in fact it is not the source, aren't there legal implications? Just wondering ...

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

The fair enough was meant as a kind of 'OK, you've said that' marker as a lead in to my complaint a bit further down.

But you're right. I didn't mean to endorse what he was complaining about.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

No time for anything other than the briefest of responses. Dave Marshall - are you saying you won't believe Carl Wunsch's own words because you can't verify them? And v v v v v briefly - CO2 is a feedback agent that works in tandem with other warming. So if general warming begins through other sources (the ocean, say), CO2 amplifies.

Little Lady - again, you dodge the point. No, sayin "the whole world" is not melodramatic, it is entirely accurate. The programme called itself a "swindle", and said we are being told lies? What on Earth is that if not conspiracy? Forgive, but a certain amount of waking up and coffee smelling is called for.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
No, sayin "the whole world" is not melodramatic, it is entirely accurate.

I doubt you could ever verify that. I haven't heard any opinion from Lichstenstein for instance or Lesotho ...

quote:
The programme called itself a "swindle", and said we are being told lies? What on Earth is that if not conspiracy?

An opinion?

We're talking about a movement here, a lobby, not a conspiracy. There is a manmade global warming movement/lobby. Movements begin (often in obscurity) and gain momentum (or not). They can become mainstream - for a while anyway. As they make this transition, different players become involved: politicians, the media, interest groups, individual activists, bandwagon jumpers, whatever. It's not exactly a new phenomenon. Someone suggested on the 'Wilberfarce' thread that the anti-slave trade/slavery movement was the first example of such in the UK. Had that movement taken place today there would have been all the same players involved.

The difference between that movement and this for me is that I believe the slave trade/slavery to be utterly wrong, so I'd be a total fundamentalist in favour of abolishing it. I don't happen to believe that humankind causes global warming. I have no idea what causes global warming, since I can't verify any of the science as I'm not a scientist.

It's you who keeps thinking and talking conspiracy, not me. I just think movement or lobby, and I respond accordingly.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The quote (which I knew, I knew, me, me, me) is "Religion: Man's attempt to communicate with the weather" (graffito, London), I attributed it to Huxley (T.H.) or Russell (B.). But I can't establish that.

Any more than AGW can be established. Oh yes it can. Oh no it can't. You're talking gibberish. Your research is invalid/lawed/superceded. Those astrophysicists at Harvard are wrong/right and stupid/brilliant and bad/good and agendaist/objective and do/n't love their grandchildren. The documentary is full of lies and made up pictures because I say so. It's obvious.

Really.

It's the SUN wot dun it.

Someone PLEASE do the intellectual work of overturning the earlier and therefore valid synthesis that temperature and sunspots and solar wind and cosmic radiation and cloud formation and albedo explain it all by orders of magnitude more credibly than CO2. Please. Or just point me to a man who can or who has.

And dare I say Milankovitch cycles? Longer term I realise. But testable. Over 20-50,000 years or so.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I don't happen to believe that humankind causes global warming. I have no idea what causes global warming, since I can't verify any of the science as I'm not a scientist.

An agnostic position on the subject because "I'm not a scientist, and can't verify the science" has some logic to it. Though, the logical corollary to that is to trust those who can verify the science (in this case that'll be the IPCC and similar national bodies advising national governments).

To admit to not being able to assess the science, but then still take a position against that science seems somewhat strange.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the logical corollary to that is to trust those who can verify the science (in this case that'll be the IPCC and similar national bodies advising national governments).

The problem is that governments (or at least this UK government) don't as far as I can tell have a good track record when it comes to making objective, best-science based decisions. For understandable if no less unwelcome reasons, pretty much all policy is heavily influenced by short-term political considerations. Will this, as part of our whole package, get us elected next time.

If government is relying on the IPCC, it's hard not to suspect that at least to some degree it's because the IPCC are providing support for their policies rather than the other way round. So I and I guess others tend to rely on what filters through the media and make a broad judgement based on a balance of credibility in what's presented.

This particular programme addressed questions I was actually asking. Noiseboy asserts the programme maker is "a master of deception" and mostly sidelines the actual scientific issues. I'm asking why I should agree with his take on all this. So far, his answer has really only been 'because I say so'.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

Here's a critique of the programme by John Houghton, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Oxford (1976-83), Director General and Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office (1983-91), Chairman of Scientific Assessment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988-2002) and of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1992-1998) Critique

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I don't happen to believe that humankind causes global warming. I have no idea what causes global warming, since I can't verify any of the science as I'm not a scientist.

An agnostic position on the subject because "I'm not a scientist, and can't verify the science" has some logic to it. Though, the logical corollary to that is to trust those who can verify the science (in this case that'll be the IPCC and similar national bodies advising national governments).

To admit to not being able to assess the science, but then still take a position against that science seems somewhat strange.

But I was answering Noiseboy on his particular point there, Alan, so of course my statement seems a little strange when taken out of its broader context.

I hold an 'agnostic position' on the science and that's been my stand all along. But you're telling me I must trust the IPCC. Why? Why can't I trust the C4 programme instead? No-one can give a reason why I must trust the IPCC. I feel disinclined to do so give its involvement with politics (or policy making or whichever term anyone wishes to use).

And what Dave Marshall said.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

The tech dose exist and it's not rocket science. Holland has existed below sea level for some time now. Electricity can be generated without co2 emissions, it's called nuclear. Cuba has survived a peak oil crisis when the Soviet Union collapsed.
It can be done.

As to not realising the danger, don't kid your self, they know and they have known for some time. Any confusion is deliberate and designed to confuse.Cod is disappearing from Irish waters, it's getting too warm for them. Don't tell me I'm the only one who makes the connection.

What's not helping the debate is the moral tone adopted by the green side, this is not a moral issue, it's a problem to be dealt with. Blame is all very well for the "I told you so" brigade. It's no use to any practical solution.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
What's not helping the debate is the moral tone adopted by the green side, this is not a moral issue, it's a problem to be dealt with.

Amen and amen.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Here's a critique of the programme by John Houghton, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Oxford (1976-83), Director General and Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office (1983-91), Chairman of Scientific Assessment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988-2002) and of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1992-1998) Critique

Thanks for this. It looks helpful.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Here's a critique of the programme by John Houghton,

It isn't a critique, Mr Clingford, it's a rebuttal (a critique is objective).

John Houghton is a pro-manmade global warming scientist and therefore he isn't going to agree with much in the programme, is he?

His statements of 'true' or 'not true' in relation to the science are as valid to me as those made by the experts cited on the programme (many of whom had credentials equally impressive to those of John Houghton).

I thought this was interesting:

quote:
Climate modelling has developed enormously since then. Modern models include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and ocean and detailed descriptions of the interactions between all components of the climate system including ice and the biosphere. They have been tested thoroughly in their ability to reconstruct current and past climates.

Is this supposed to convince us that modelling is actually more reliable a predictor of future events or to inform us that modelling has become more complex? How does more sophisticated technology make projections any more reliable? I think it's a fairly crucial point, in terms of the science, because the whole lobby is based on what continued global warming might do to the planet which is, in turn, based upon scientific modelling.

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
What's not helping the debate is the moral tone adopted by the green side, this is not a moral issue, it's a problem to be dealt with. Blame is all very well for the "I told you so" brigade. It's no use to any practical solution.

I'd agree with your sentiments there lapsed heathen. But on your point about cod disappearing ... hasn't it disappeared because we all over-fished it?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Electricity can be generated without co2 emissions, it's called nuclear.

I missed this. It's a fine example of how things change!

I was brought up to be deeply suspicious of nuclear energy because of the terrible consequences of meltdown and leaks, and the problem of storing the waste. In fact, the beach near to the Cumbrian station is still radioactive thanks to the earlier days when scientists/the nuclear industry were unaware of the danger/not caring enough to avoid risk.

Add to the danger of meltdown/leakage and storage issues the heightened terrorist risk we now have (which wasn't around when the nuclear industry got going) and I get very nervous when nuclear is spoken of as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

To Little Lady; No it's not because of overfishing, the cod aren't disappearing from colder northern waters in the same proportions, in fact their increasing. i.e. their migrating northward.

I mentioned nuclear as an alternative to carbon based fuels but think it's important to consider the limitations of nuclear as well. It's not renewable, it's expensive and dangerous. Nun the less it must be considered as part of any solution.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Modern models ... have been tested thoroughly in their ability to reconstruct current and past climates.
Is this supposed to convince us that modelling is actually more reliable a predictor of future events or to inform us that modelling has become more complex? How does more sophisticated technology make projections any more reliable?

The crucial part of the quote is "ability to reconstruct current and past climates". That is, we can't test models against future climates because we only know those possible futures from the models themselves. We can, however, run the models with contemporary or recent solar energy influxes, atmospheric concentrations of gases etc and watch them predict the way the climate should work and compare that with actual observations. If a model reasonably accurately reproduces the current climate, and if run backwards reproduces past climates, then we can be fairly confident that they'll accurately model future climates. And, it's "climates" because they're run for different scenarios - eg: maintain current CO2 emissions, increase of decrease them by 20% in ten years etc.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
This particular programme addressed questions I was actually asking. Noiseboy asserts the programme maker is "a master of deception" and mostly sidelines the actual scientific issues. I'm asking why I should agree with his take on all this. So far, his answer has really only been 'because I say so'.

I honestly don't know how you can fairly say this. I have researched a great many credible sources of peer-reviewed scientists and provided links and yet am rewarded with "it's too difficult". I even give a very simple potted precis of one particular issue. Is it really fair to THEN claim all I am saying is "believe me because I say so"? Even when, in this recent case, I quote the programme's own contributors when they say they have been duped by the programme makers it apparently does not count. And yet - somehow - it is me who is apparently being unfair.

Read back over my detailed post and tell me what more, exactly, you want me to do, and why my detailed answer is so apparently hopelessly inadequate (despite about 2 hours research).

I don't know if it is too much or too little information, but someone has overlaid the programme's bogus global temperature graph claimed to be from NASA with NASA's real temperature graph (note - not only is the Y axis dataset manipulated, but the highlighted years in little white boxes don't even line up with the X axis). Littlelady, you apparently think it is hilarious that Ofcom would take fabrication of data and duping of interview suspects seriously, but call me naieve - I have hope.

By way of conclusion for the moment, Carl Wunsch has now written to the head of WAG TV about his appearance in the programme. I suggest everyone reads this, and reflects on exactly what swindle has been accomplished here.

quote:
Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change--- in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[Note - if the text of the original correspondance between WAG and Carl enters the public domain, I'll post it here.]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Littlelady, you apparently think it is hilarious that Ofcom would take fabrication of data and duping of interview suspects seriously, but call me naieve - I have hope.

Well, I'd be surprised if C4 totally misrepresented anyone on their programme simply because there would be legal ramifications to doing so. However, maybe the director/producer/whoever was daft enough to risk that, I don't know. Besides, the programme didn't claim what the alleged letter you copied out suggests it claimed. Reference to the oceans was just one part of a bigger picture it painted.

Where did you find the alleged letter you copied out by the way? Is it in the public domain? (copyright?) If so, maybe you could share the site or source? He doesn't get the name of the programme right, if it's Wunsch who has written it.

I don't know what you meant to show by the link to the map? That could be any map, really, from someone's blog for all I know. Can you provide a source site?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If a model reasonably accurately reproduces the current climate, and if run backwards reproduces past climates, then we can be fairly confident that they'll accurately model future climates.

Ok, I've got that. However, I am still struggling with this. I know in extremely basic terms how models work. Data is inputted, people do some fancy IT stuff, and out come some graphs showing, well, whatever it is the model is supposed to show. (As I said, extremely basic terms!)

I can understand and accept running models based on contemporary data because we have the means of collecting that data. However, how long have we had such means? I know about weather balloons, for example. But satellites have not been around very long at all. Yet it would seem to me that when viewed from the perspective of however long the earth has been around, we are relying upon a very tiny timeframe of observable data upon which to build models and then produce future projections. Yet huge claims are being made and politicians are attempting to control their citizens based on these claims (ie, trying to stop them from flying or driving their cars or whatever). I am struggling to appreciate the validity of the claims made on the basis of models which appear to be built upon such limited data (relative to the length of time the climate has been in existence, I mean).

Does that make sense? It's hard trying to type out scientific ideas when I'm so not a scientist. I just know I won't be using the right language!

quote:
And, it's "climates" because they're run for different scenarios - eg: maintain current CO2 emissions, increase of decrease them by 20% in ten years etc.

Yes, this was usefully explained in the C4 programme.

What did you think of the programme by the way? Or didn't you watch it?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
What's not helping the debate is the moral tone adopted by the green side, this is not a moral issue, it's a problem to be dealt with.

Amen and amen.

Huh???

If we really are bequeathing disastrous climate change to subsequent generations, how is it not a moral issue?

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I have researched a great many credible sources of peer-reviewed scientists and provided links and yet am rewarded with "it's too difficult".

As I've said before, I appreciate the background you provide. Yet in this instance, your post did not link, with one possible exception, to anything that supported your assertions.

quote:
I even give a very simple potted precis of one particular issue.

Yes, this is what you posted:

quote:
CO2 is a feedback agent that works in tandem with other warming. So if general warming begins through other sources (the ocean, say), CO2 amplifies.

You acknowledged it was brief, but it's hardly anything useful. I still don't know what is supposed to be initiating this warming process, given the 800 year lag before the CO2 we're producing now kicks in.

quote:
Is it really fair to THEN claim all I am saying is "believe me because I say so"?

Yes, I think it is. That you believe it passionately does not mean it makes good sense to count the unsupported opinion of a poster on an internet discussion board as fact.

quote:
Even when, in this recent case, I quote the programme's own contributors when they say they have been duped by the programme makers it apparently does not count. And yet - somehow - it is me who is apparently being unfair.

Well, you haven't quoted contributors. You've only quoted one contributor, who apparently allows you to post his emails on the internet.

quote:
I don't know if it is too much or too little information, but someone has overlaid the programme's bogus global temperature graph claimed to be from NASA with NASA's real temperature graph (note - not only is the Y axis dataset manipulated, but the highlighted years in little white boxes don't even line up with the X axis).

You may be right - I'm not an expert. But to my untrained eye those discrepancies, while perhaps technically significant, do not look like any drastic misrepresentation when used to display what it purports to show. Particularly given the non-technical audience and the length of time it will be visible.

quote:
By way of conclusion for the moment, Carl Wunsch has now written to the head of WAG TV about his appearance in the programme. I suggest everyone reads this, and reflects on exactly what swindle has been accomplished here.

I see no 'swindle'. If Wunsch took this job without checking Durkin's track record, he was taking a risk. It seems from Mr Clingford's link at the top of the page that Martin Durkin's past is no secret. That's not to excuse deception, if that's what occurred, but I'd have thought it was a little idealistic to assume a programme-maker's priorities will coincide with those of a scientist.

Whatever it's faults, this programme presented a side to the debate that has been missing. Yes, I hope any flaws will be exposed, and that if Martin Durkin is not a nice person, people are not nice to him back. But for me, he's earned his money here.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I'll post a very long, and very full reply to a number of outstanding issues here tomorrow when I have more time. For today I'll just post the link to the Carl Wunsch letter which is here on posting 109. You may be horrified to realise that this is the forum of climate scientists thus has probably geen generated by a governement robot or something, but the poster (who knows Wunsch) had permission from Wunsch to post the correspondence and put it in the public domain.

Dave Marshall, I absolutely agree that Carl Wunsch was naieve in assuming Martin Durkin's credibility, something he clearly now also feels and is of acute embarrasment to him. He'd obviously never been burned in this way before. But how this justified the director "earning his money" I have no idea.

Littlelady, source graphs are found on the NASA site here

and screen capture from the GCCS is here (obviously there is no other source of this data since it appears not to exist).

As to the motives of C4 broadcasting this... as post 1 explains, they have had to publicly aplogise for showing Durkin's fine work before, under censure from the then ITC. They appear not to care. After all, who will notice one broadcast short apology when the bogus documentary is on YouTube?

Posted by The Atheist (# 12067) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

By way of conclusion for the moment, Carl Wunsch has now written to the head of WAG TV about his appearance in the programme. I suggest everyone reads this, and reflects on exactly what swindle has been accomplished here.

Excellent work, thanks Noiseboy, I wasn't aware of that letter.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
For today I'll just post the link to the Carl Wunsch letter which is here on posting 109.

But that wasn't a link to the letter but a link to the blog where the letter was quoted - it could be a letter written by anyone!

PS: The actual title of the programme was 'The Great Climate Change Swindle'. No-one seemed to be able to get that right. [Biased]

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
What's not helping the debate is the moral tone adopted by the green side, this is not a moral issue, it's a problem to be dealt with.

Amen and amen.
Huh???

If we really are bequeathing disastrous climate change to subsequent generations, how is it not a moral issue?

Yeah well the morality of the issue one thing, if we want to debate the moral responsibility of how we treat the earth, go ahead, debate till the cows come home. It won't do anything to alleviate the disaster facing us tho.
TBH I just got sick of the holler than thow attitude expressed by some people (not on this thread, just in the general debate).
Also no if. We are bequeathing disastrous climate change to subsequent generations. Unless we do something. The time for moral argument is not now, we can play the blame game when we have a solution and more importantly, hopefully learn from our mistakes.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I absolutely agree that Carl Wunsch was naieve in assuming Martin Durkin's credibility, something he clearly now also feels and is of acute embarrasment to him. He'd obviously never been burned in this way before. But how this justified the director "earning his money" I have no idea.

As I thought was clear from the paragraph break in my post, I was not linking "earning his money" to Martin Durkin's dealings with Carl Wunsch.

This was a 'compelling TV' programme from a point of view that you disagree with. If you show where the programme was significantly wrong, I'll be grateful and disregard those aspects. But the slurs and nitpicking that seem to be the most accurate description of most of your complaints do not impact on the broad content. Without this kind of perspective effectively presented, we're in danger of running headlong into mass hysteria about global warming.

I'm not saying global warning is not happening, or that human activity is not at least a contributing factor. But so far I've seen no credible explanation of how that works that does not amount to informed speculation. That leaves it vulnerable to manipulation for political, and yes commercial, ends. So I'm going to be very wary of anyone who demands I agree with their interpretation simply because they shout the loudest or the longest or have political or commercial interests on their side.

[ 12. March 2007, 14:06: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Whether or not man is burning the planet this on the BBC reports one of the daftest uses of fossils fuel yet. I can't believe this is the only example of airlines operating empty planes to retain airport take-off & landing slots.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I can't believe this is the only example of airlines operating empty planes to retain airport take-off & landing slots.

That sounds like a problem with the system rather than the airline companies though, doesn't it? If airlines weren't forced to actively maintain their slot then they wouldn't need to fly empty planes.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I can't believe this is the only example of airlines operating empty planes to retain airport take-off & landing slots.
That sounds like a problem with the system rather than the airline companies though, doesn't it? If airlines weren't forced to actively maintain their slot then they wouldn't need to fly empty planes.

I agree - it's the sort of thing governments (or the airports at their behest) can and should do to solve if they are serious about reducing CO2 emissions. In this case the airlines are acting rationally within the system they find themselves in - even though objectively it's utterly mad.

Jonah

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

I've just watched it again on More4 and I paid a little more attention this time.

I don't think Wunsch has too much to complain about. He may feel he's been used and misled by Durkin into thinking that this was to be a balanced programme, and embarassed by association but his contribution wasn't that significant IMO.

My position up to now has been that if the overwhelming body of scientists with knowledge of the subject are in broad agreement, they are probably largely correct. Assuming that scientists overall are about as honest and trustworthy as clergy and the Swiss police, it seems pretty unlikely that there is a mass conspiracy either.

I was wavering a bit though. I started to wonder whether there just might be some reason to doubt the current majority view as I lost track of the reasoning which links temperature and CO2 and which leads which.

I was disgusted at the end by them bringing in the development issues, with the accusation that 'believers' in ACC want to kill poor Africans. Trying to infer that people having to choose between the fridge and the light was anything to do with the subject was misleading but might sway those who accepted it without any further thought. AIUI, solar panels in places like that are used mostly because there is no mains power and limited by the cost of the equipment, not by climat issues. In raising this, they probably thought they were playing their trump card but at that point they lost the sympathy I was starting to feel.
.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Apologies for the delay..

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, let me rephrase that. The Global Warming theory based on Mann's data is not even a theory constructed as it is on flawed data and altogether bad science for disregarding data contradicting the global warming scare fantasy.
The observations of recent anomalous global warming is based on more than the findings of a single scientist. It's based on the observations of 1000s of scientists in many different countries, using different methods. Some of that data shows the recent warming to be stronger, other data shows it to be weaker. Some data shows features like the LIA and MWP more clearly than other data. All of that data is included in the assessments of what's happening - to do otherwise makes the whole exercise meaningless. To quote the IPCC SPM,
quote:
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the [2001 report], particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12 to 14th, 17th, and 19th centuries.
Does that sound like they're ignoring data that shows cooler periods for the LIA?

What it shows is the IPCC driving the Global Warming Hoax by getting rid of the MWP...

If it is 'likely that it's hotter now than anytime in the last 1300 years, where's proof? This goes against all known field research and is simply disingenuous, as is its failure to make specifically obvious the great difference in climate of the LIA and present in the Northern hemisphere.

quote:
http://www.lavacap.com/climate1.htm 3. New reconstructions of climatic changes over the last millennium based on tree-ring data have been greatly improved and now demonstrate much greater climatic variability during this period than did the reconstruction used to construct the Kyoto protocols. Data summarized by Jan Esper from the Swiss Federal Research Institute, and others show that during historical events such as the “Medieval Warm Interval” and the “Little ice Age”, temperatures were warmer and colder, respectively, than they are today. This indicates that current temperatures remain within normal ranges experienced during past climatic cycles. The figure below shows the difference between the climate reconstruction of Jan Esper and M. E. Mann ( University of Virginia ). Mann’s data, utilized by the IPCC working group, specifically failed to identify the well-known climatic episodes mentioned above, and therefore, are inadequate to demonstrate the nature of climate change, either during the past millennium or over the last 150 years.

The IPCC's goal is to promote the idea that anthropogenic causes of CO2 are driving a climate change that is unusual and disastrous for mankind so actually admitting that the dramatic changes of the MWP and LIA existed, as shown in the Esper chart, destroys the foundational premise of the Global Warming Theory.

What real data, and historically well known information, show, is that our current high temperatures are nothing unusual and that the previous high of the MWP was at the lower CO2 ppm reading than at present which recent increase of 80ppm is being hyped as the cause of Global Warming. The extended period of the Medieval Warm shows no correlation with C02, neither does the extended period of cold of the Little Ice Age which was also at the same C02 level as in the MWP.

It's junk science. Rather a lot of years ago now I worked in press advertising and marketing, one of the first books newbies were given to read was called How to Lie with Statistics - I may be a little rusty, but I can still spot the tricks of the trade.

quote:
Well then there's an awful lot of bad science going on in this field.

quote:
I quite agree. But, which science is bad - the science that takes all the available data into consideration, or the oil-producer funded research that seeks to do little more than rubbish the majority of the data that shows an anomalous rise in global temperatures in recent years?

But the IPCC is shown to not take all available data into consideration.. Has in fact been shown to deliberately falsify data by exclusion while still claiming the scientists excluded contributed to its base. It's been proved to be dishonest, so what's its agenda?

A poster in another discussion commented that one surprising effect of this campaign was the emergence of 'environmentalists' backing the use of nuclear powered energy and I was reminded of the background given by Lord Lawson of Blaby, that Maggie was so p*ssed off with the miners and the oil crises that when she heard about the idea that CO2 might be driving the weather she immediately ordered an investigation.

quote:
Er, 1997 old for such a 40 year study?! This conclusion utterly destroys the one thing you've been using here to brow beat me into accepting CO2 as the gun and man as the culprit pulling the trigger!

quote:
Ten year old studies are fairly old in a rapidly moving field. Especially studies that purport to demonstrate major procedural problems with the collection of primary data - such studies are always examined carefully by good scientists in the field. And, everything I've seen of the work of bodies such as the IPCC is that they're careful to assess all data, especially that data which contradicts their findings.

Yeah right, you mean like Prof Reiter et al?

This is core data, so to speak, it doesn't go out of fashion. Can you show where the IPCC has taken this into consideration and/or refuted it?

I doubt you'll be able to do this, the IPCC has quite a reputation for not showing source data. See also 24 on this page rebutting Al Gore's contribution to the subject: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

quote:
The main criticism I've seen of the IPCC from climate scientists is that the recent report cuts out data that shows that the changes observed or predicted are going to be more extreme, rather than less.

"None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the observed climate changes to man-made causes."

Two of the omissions from the revised 1995 report as mentioned by Seitz, oh, but of course, that's an old report, over ten years now and not at all relevant in this rapidly moving field which is the creation of weather models regardless of physical facts.. [Smile]

Instead, once the IPCC revised it's conclusion by these omissions, it proclaimed: "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

Who pointed the gun? Why should I believe the IPCC is objective and scientific consensus?

quote:

quote:
The discussion about the "hockey stick" has been ongoing and lively since the publication of the 2001 IPCC reports (and, indeed, before that). I've not got time to got through recent IPCC publications just now, but I did read somewhere following the release of the summary a few weeks ago that the report includes considerable discussion of the "hockey stick", precisely because it has been so heavily investigated. The conclusion is that the evidence for the "hockey stick" is far stronger than against.
Not what I've been reading

quote:
Then you really need to read some more. Try this Nature article about how the US NAS last year affirmed that the "hockey stick" is an accurate description of recent climate (even though it criticizes the way the graph has sometimes been used. Note that it says the hockey stick "has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade". It really has been discussed to death. The way that the IPCC SPM puts it is "Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years." ... ie: the hockey stick still holds true.

Again, you're using Mann's graph to argue this and he is obviously wrong, no Medieval Warm and no Mini Ice Age. So, as above re MWP and LIA, the hockey stick gives an unreal picture of the known climate during this 1300 year period. It can't be correct because actual facts contradict it.

Think horseshoe not hockey stick from the Medieval Warm.

Know anyone living in Yorkshire? If this current warm persists as long as in the MWP they could be planting vineyards again.

Oh, and to add to this, as a scientist you might be better served by those who don't revise data regardless that this causes known periods of dramatic temperature to 'disappear' as has the US NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) which is in the process of erasing the dustbowl.. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139#comments]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139#comments

quote:

quote:
I'm going to skip over a set of quotes and links to CO2science.org. Why? Because I can't be bothered to read stuff on a website for an organisation that well known to be neither objective nor impartial, nor even one that draws expertise from relevant disciplines.

quote:
MyrrhStrange attitude for a scientist. There's a wealth of information on that site - surely if there are genuine studies of interest to climatologists and they're not being taken into consideration then one needs to ask, why not?

quote:
Why do you think that that's strange? Scientists are inundated with information. We simply can't read and assimilate everything, and apply common-sense filters to make the task manageable. The first filter is relevance - if you can't cope with papers in your own field, don't start trying to read tons of stuff from other fields. The second is the source - papers in peer reviewed journals are more likely to be good than other stuff, and some journals are better than others. In the case of the website in question, if their data is any good it'll be published in the peer reviewed journals that the top researchers in the field contribute to and read. If the studies there aren't being taken into consideration (and, it's quite possible that they are being considered) it's going to be largely because they're not good enough science to get into the top peer reviewed publications.

I think it's strange because I specifically referenced something for you to read as part of my argument.

As for your comments generally, you haven't shown that the IPCC is objective or impartial though you claim it is, and there are many examples proving it is agenda driven to the extent of falsifying data (Prof Reiter's experience re malaria is a particularly striking example of the IPCC dishonesty).

quote:

What are you interested in here? To understand our climate or to prove a theory regardless of the supposed objectivity scientists claim to have?

quote:
Here, I'm interested in discussing the causes of climate change. I don't have to prove a theory, that's more than adequately done (to the extent that any theory can be 'proved') by 1000s of scientists in more relevant fields of study than mine.

You keep mentioning these thousands of scientists and this supposed consensus, but you're simply repeating the IPCC propaganda which has been shown to ignore even the contributing scientists when they disagree with the IPCC agenda's misuse of their work.

There has been much dissent including the 17,000 atmospheric scientists who signed the Oregon petition in 1998. Perhaps I should just let you look up Leipzig and the Heidelberg Appeal, but, and at the risk of you again dismissing my argument because you might find fault with the source, for your convenience I point you to a page where this has been collated:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674[/url]

Well, anyway, I thought Prof. Tim Bell (Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg) summed it up:

"The analogy I use is 'like my car is not running very well so I'm going to ignore the engine which is the sun and I'm going to ignore the transmission which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2'. It's that, the science is that bad."

Myrrh

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
AIUI, solar panels in places like that are used mostly because there is no mains power and limited by the cost of the equipment, not by climat issues.

I think you missed the point Clint. The point in the programme was that the West is now pressurising those in the developing world to opt for the more expensive solar and wind power rather than cheaper fossil fuel based power because the West are linking the use fossil fuels to climate change. Yet meanwhile the West has been enjoying the benefits of cheap fossil fuel based power for years. The point concerned the hypocrisy of the West's position and the resulting pressure it placed upon developing nations. I thought that point was made very clearly. Of course it is a criticism of the pro-manmade climate change lobby, but it's a justifiable one imo and certainly one that needed making.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Faulty link. Try http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674

Global Warming: The Other Side of the Story
by Tom DeWeese (May 19, 2006)

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I was going to sit down today to write a 4 hour compilation on all the faulty logic in GCCS and the science and politics behind ACC, but on re-reading the last few day's postings this would clearly be a futile waste of my time. There seems little point in referencing peer-reviewed science to examine the scientific issues when it will be met with the reply of "they are government funded and are just trying to keep their jobs".

Instead I'll try and focus on the two or three issues that keep coming up which act as stumbling blocks to any other discussion. Although they cover much territory previously discussed (sometimes at length), they remain the key to how ordinary lay people such as ourselves (in the main) can navigate science.

1. The Peer Review Process. Anyone can put a paper on the web, so there needs to be a mechanism by which only people who know their subject are treated seriously. This is the peer review process, whereby some journals contain only articles which have been vetted by other professionals in the field. Some popular magazines (such as New Scientist) report, among other things, on the publications in these journals and try to make them more accessible to the general public.

Sometimes distorions on all sides appear in the views of the scientific community even in specialist magazines such as New Scientist, however. In the mainstream press and media, the science is often distorted beyond recognition.

The community of peer-reviewed climate scientists became frustrated at the innacurate reporting of their work, so they launched a blog site called Real Climate This would be the scientists' own interface between their academic work and the general public. 11 prolific peer-reviewed primary contributors from across the field pen most articles, while an open discussion section follows each article.

Meanwhile, peer reviewed journals sometimes publish Meta analysis on other peer-reviewed articles, which provide a statistical overview of a large amount of the peer-reviewed data. On the subject of ACC, peer-reviewed Science Magazine published a meta-analysis in December 2004. It analysied 928 papers and found 0% contradicted the view that mankind was the primary driver of recent global warming.

The Global Climate Change Swindle featured no peer-reviewed contributors who explained this position of science orthodoxy within the documentary. At least one, Carl Wunsch, did hold this mainstream view, but comments which reflected this were edited out. Yesterday he wrote a new article which reflects his actual views, in the light of his appearance on the programme. He has also written to production company, Wag TV, to complain at misrepresention. As reported in The Observor (registration required), he describes the programme 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

The lack of representation of the mainstream view, plus the views of one of its senoir contributors, raises two possibilities. Either that the programme was extremely shoddy, or:

2. Has the objectivity of peer-reviewed climate scientists been compromised? One theory advanced by the GCCS is that the community of climate scientists has grown so phenomenally in the past 15-20 years, it has become self-perpetuating. Scientists could not get government funding, or be published in the normal peer-review process, if they adopted a contrary position to the orthodoxy. This further extends to wider science journalists - if they reported the science accurately, they would reveal that ACC is a hoax, and they would therefore be out of a job.

In fact, despite the findings of the meta-analysis cited above, there have been a number of peer-reviewed articles that have been used to advance theories contradicting the reality of ACC. These were featured in the GCCS. Perhaps an example will test the theory that orthodoxy is a self-perpetuating myth.

John Christy is a climate scientist that has contributed to severl IPCC reports (the intergovernmental panel of climate change). He published peer-reviewed material which questioned discrepancies between the Earth's surface and the troposphere (lower atmosphere). Christy was interviewed in the GCCS, and this theory was cited as evidence that the theory behind ACC was not reflected in reality, and was one of the central planks in the programme's argument that the science was faulty.

However, Christy himself published a paper in 2005 in which he admits the conclusion of a discrepancy was incorrect. Along with the other authors of the paper, he writes:

quote:
John Christy: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.

So it is not true that contrary data is repressed. What appears to happen is that, when it meets the same rigourous academic standards as any other, it is published. Then, under examination, it falls.

3. Is the IPCC an organisation that can be trusted? As has been much reported, the IPCC's most recent assessment report summary concluded that there is a greater than 89% probability that mankind is the primary driver behind recent global warming. The IPCC is said to be made up of 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists. But it is also affiliated with the world's govermnets, who have input in the final draft documents. Is the IPCC fatally compromised as an institution, perpetuating the myth of ACC for self or government interest?

The operations of the IPCC are covered in Wikipedia. Delegates are appointed by governments and organisations.

Some parties were apparently concerned that a bias was indeed creeping into the process. In November 2006, concered by an apparent overstatement of evidence shown in the legendary Hockey Stick graph showing a dramatic rise in recent temperatures, a panel set up by the US government issued their report. However, the National Academy's report affirmed the conclusions of the Hockey Stick graph.

There is evidence that political interference in the process led to a watering-down of conclusions in the recent IPCC report. Interestingly, prior to the release of the 2007 report, a study was published in the Science journal that compared previous projections by the IPCC to actual measurements. It found that the results were in the upper 10% of their possible ranges.

There have been a number of spats over the years with individual scientists. One, Christopher Landsea, resigned in 2005 over alleged misuse of data on hurricane strength (a possible consequence of ACC). A discussion on the consequences of the controversy is led by Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published Landsea's resignation letter. Pielke writes "Kudos to the scientists involved. Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts."

There appears to be a general feeling from all sides that the IPCC is not perfect, and has made some mistakes over the years. But thus far under close examination, its conclusions, even by those who have been critical, appear to be broadly supported.

A final footnote - I'm glad that all three UK policital parties in the country are less gullible than the public. I'd have thought the Tories would have a ready made audience for a climate sceptic tone and - given the hostility to the notion in the general public and reflected here - electorially clean up.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Hopefully not too tangential, but has anyone read The Long Emergency by James Kunstler and what did you think about it (should I start a new thread about it)?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One quick point, just because you should read the stuff you reference first

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If it is 'likely that it's hotter now than anytime in the last 1300 years, where's proof? ...

quote:
http://www.lavacap.com/climate1.htm

You ask for proof and then link to an article written by David L Jones (who? not even a mention of where he works) publised on the website of a winery, of all places. Nevertheless, that article contains the proof you want. The first figure shows N Atlantic sediment over the last 12000 years, with more sediment corresponding to warmer weather (at least, warmer weather in the Arctic, the extent to which that corresponds to globally warmer weather is a seperate question). That show contemporary sedimentation to be higher than any time in the last 12000 years, ie: it's warmer than it has been for 12000 years. Then the second figure shows temperature anomalies, comparing Esper and Mann, over the last 1000 years or so. You'll notice that the contemporary temperature has an anomaly of +0.2°C. Esper has a peak at 1000AD (the MWP) with a temperature anomaly of approximately 0°C. ie: current temperatures are 0.2°C warmer than any other time in the last 1000 years, even using the data of Esper rather than Mann.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

An article from the New York Times (may require free registration):

quote:
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

quote:
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

And I keep thinking 'An Inconvenient Theory' would have been a more 'scientific' title.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
An article from the New York Times (may require free registration):

quote:
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

quote:
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
And I keep thinking 'An Inconvenient Theory' would have been a more 'scientific' title.

The reason that Gore doesn't 'mention' this is that it's irrelevant. The data points are within the natural range, but the rate of change in them isn't.

If your car worked fine at sea level, and fine at 1000 feet up, would you drive it at a cliff?

T.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

quote:
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

Yes he dose, right at the beginning, even I got the thrust of his argument, 'this is the data so far, if we project things this is what is facing us'

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The lack of representation of the mainstream view

Noiseboy, didn't you watch the programme? It was never billed as an objective programme. It was billed as the alternative view. I have no idea why you keep going on about it as if it was biased - of course it was! That was the whole point of the programme! It was a rebuttal of the pro-manmade climate science lobby. That is what it was billed as and it fulfilled its promise in that respect.

PS: your link to Wunsch's article didn't work.

I'd be seriously shocked if professors at Harvard and the other scientists who contributed (with their credentials listed) did not involve themselves in the peer review process. Just because they don't agree with an aspect of the mainstream view does not mean they have not been subject to the same critical processes of other scientists. It's just that they don't agree Noiseboy. Why not simply accept that not all scientists actually agree? What's the problem with accepting that?

Alan- I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be interested in hearing your view on the programme, if you watched it, since you are actually a scientist and you have (for your sins!) contributed to this thread.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Noiseboy, didn't you watch the programme? It was never billed as an objective programme. It was billed as the alternative view. I have no idea why you keep going on about it as if it was biased - of course it was! That was the whole point of the programme! It was a rebuttal of the pro-manmade climate science lobby. That is what it was billed as and it fulfilled its promise in that respect.

Indeed. So with no voice for an alternate view (well, none that weren't edited out), Wunsch is quite right - it was propaganda. As long as it is understood as such, no problem. I do have a feeling though that some have taken it rather more seriously than that. Also, unless you heard the advance warnings, it certainly was not clear that this was propaganda within the programme itself - it masqueraded as a regular documentary, which IMHO was deceiving.

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

PS: your link to Wunsch's article didn't work.

Apologies, try this.

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I'd be seriously shocked if professors at Harvard and the other scientists who contributed (with their credentials listed) did not involve themselves in the peer review process. Just because they don't agree with an aspect of the mainstream view does not mean they have not been subject to the same critical processes of other scientists. It's just that they don't agree Noiseboy. Why not simply accept that not all scientists actually agree? What's the problem with accepting that?

Because the number of peer-reviewed scientists that disagree with the broad conclusions of ACC are infitessimal, as I pointed out. Of the contributors in the programme, some have never been peer-reviewed climate scientists (Nigel Calder, Nigel Lawson etc). Wunsch was deceived, and his views were not represented accurately. John Christy contradicted his own paper for who knows what reason. The remaining handful (if that) contrasts with the many hundreds of others who hold a different view.

It might superficially sound fair to say "well, some think one thing and some another". I don't know what the exact number would be, but given the meta-analysis quoted above, it might be reasonable to guess a figure of 0.1% disagree with the conclusions.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
So with no voice for an alternate view (well, none that weren't edited out), Wunsch is quite right - it was propaganda.

What on earth are you talking about Noiseboy? On a programme that was billed as offering the alternative view you wanted the mainstream view included? We hear the bloody mainstream view every day! Why the fuck would anyone want to hear it on a programme billed as offering the alternative view? Some of us found it refreshing to finally hear the alternative view at last!

The programme represented propaganda no more or less than the reports we hear almost daily in the media of the so-called mainstream view. The mainstream view is never presented with any alternative theory or interpretation. Perhaps if it had been there would have been no need for a programme like The Great Climate Change Swindle.

There were plenty of scientists on the programme, Noiseboy, and all of them will have been peer reviewed. That you quoted two contributors who are well known non-scientists doesn't prove that the scientists weren't peer reviewed.

quote:
I don't know what the exact number would be, but given the meta-analysis quoted above, it might be reasonable to guess a figure of 0.1% disagree with the conclusions.

So what? Who cares how many or how few disagree? So long as they are allowed the freedom to express their view without censure or any other consequence not befitting a democracy valuing freedom of speech and press then I can't see why you get so riled about real, peer-reviewed scientists supporting another view.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
There were plenty of scientists on the programme, Noiseboy, and all of them will have been peer reviewed.

Individuals aren't peer reviewed. Journal reports, reviews, letters, grant applications and occasionally books might get peer reviewed - but individuals don't get stamped "reviewed and passed" - and I've not heard of contributions to TV programmes getting reviewed either.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
There were plenty of scientists on the programme, Noiseboy, and all of them will have been peer reviewed.
Individuals aren't peer reviewed. Journal reports, reviews, letters, grant applications and occasionally books might get peer reviewed - but individuals don't get stamped "reviewed and passed" - and I've not heard of contributions to TV programmes getting reviewed either.

Nah, really mdijon?

Gosh, you got me there! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Maybe you're right Little Lady - we should have more propaganda films from extreme minority positions on prime-time TV.

I just looked up The Flat Earth Society. Not only are they still going but they have an entire page of scientific arguments to back up their theory. Martin Durkin has already told us that breast implants are good for women's health, and the whole world's governments and science journalists are in a giant conspiracy, so roll on the Great Earth-Is-A-Globe swindle!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Alan- I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be interested in hearing your view on the programme, if you watched it, since you are actually a scientist and you have (for your sins!) contributed to this thread.

Sorry, I didn't watch the programme. And, I know you asked that earlier, I just didn't get round to saying I had nothing to say.

[ 13. March 2007, 20:58: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Maybe you're right Little Lady - we should have more propaganda films from extreme minority positions on prime-time TV.

It was you who said it was propaganda, not me.

I was simply interested to hear what the other side said, as I clearly indicated in the post I wrote about the programme.

I think it is a good thing that people get to hear both sides of any argument. If you aren't in favour of that approach then I'm glad you don't run this country! (Or perhaps do you? Perhaps you are Tony Bliar in disguise! [Biased]

)

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What's natural little devil? What's un~? I'm getting deja vu all over again. The '60s, the '70s, we're all doomed. It's called chilialism kiddies. You're still doing it. Obsession with thousands. Millenialism. In my generation cold-war paranoia sequed nicely in to Malthusian nonsense. 't'is against nature, we'd cry. It's them bleedin' Russians. It's capitalism man.

My money says we we bring CO2 down to pre-industrial levels within a 100 years by destroying the global economy, wiping out Christianity in the 'developing' world and most other places as a side effect and still cook. Sun spots. Milankovitch. Astrophysics.

That's without it getting really eschatological. Which it will. Cos I'm a millenialist too.

Henny Penny the globe is warming!

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

Noiseboy, what are you hoping to achieve here? You've brought your views to our attention, you've raised the profile of the global warning debate. But I don't think you've posted anything that's helped my understanding of the issues. Other contributors have, and some links have been useful, but you seem set on pushing and pushing... for what?

You seem unwilling to concede that you're as biased on this issue (more so it appears than Carl Wunsch) as some of those you criticise. The scientists who for me carry most weight are those who are trying to separate what they know, what they suspect, and what is mostly speculation. And they speak with great care, or don't speak at all, except within one or other of these carefully defined areas.

The reality as far as I can see is that global temperatures have increased at an unusual rate over the last 50 years, during which time industrialised humanity has been polluting the planet something rotten, but that no-one is yet sure how one is causing the other.

Most significantly for me, this thread has shown that the more alarmist predictions of the effects of global warming are entirely speculative. Yet the green lobby appears to have acquired a semi-religious following for whom anyone questioning their orthodoxy must be denounced. That I find worrying, and is why like others I welcomed the Great Global Warming Swindle's presentation of an opposing point of view. By all means point out errors of fact, but give up on telling us what terrible people the makers are.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Noiseboy, what are you hoping to achieve here? You've brought your views to our attention, you've raised the profile of the global warning debate. But I don't think you've posted anything that's helped my understanding of the issues. Other contributors have, and some links have been useful, but you seem set on pushing and pushing... for what?

Well, I have pointed out that Carl Wunsch has disowned the programme, and that John Christy contradicted his own research. I have pointed out that the programme appeared to fabricate critical data and attribute it to NASA. I have pointed out that the director was previously censured for misrepresentaion by the ITC. All these points are factual. Sorry that you consider that none of this adds anything to the debate - I disagree. Please tell me why none of this counts and I have wasted hours of my life.

I have linked all the science arguments that mainstream scientists have debunked. Although this is opinion, it is the opinion of an estimated 99-100% of climate scientists. I have consistently pointed out that the IPCC report has ACC at greater that 89% probablility, not fact. You assert I state facts whereas scientists don't - prove it. I merely point out, again and again and again, that the balance of probabilities from every perspective is massively weighted in favour against the programme. Why have I given up linking more science? Because when I do, either I am told everyone is working for the government so it's all lies, or that "it's too difficult to understand". What am I supposed to do, then? I have chosen to concentrate on stuff that everyone CAN understand.

I keep doing it because it pisses me off that despite the overwhelming evidence, a great deal of people seem to believe that there is huge disagreement in the scientific community. The result is that genuine action on climate change will be much harder to acheive. People are absolutely free to believe whatever they like to comfort them, but they shouldn't delude themselves that science backs them up. Only propaganda will do that - as I believe I have demonstrated the GCCS was.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

An investigation into The Global Climate Change Swindle

If any sceptics can bear to click on a link leading to The Independent (and to be fair I do understand that the paper does have a terribly alarmist record on the environment), there is nevertheless a worthwhile investigation into the faulty data featured in the GCCS upon which the science was based. They interview and challenge director Durkin on why the data is so erroneous. It looks like a good, readable summary of what has been spinning around the climate scientists' discussion boards in the past few days.

At this point it is now abundently clear - the progamme has deceived its audience on the most basic science, at the root of all the other arguments. Whether or not this deception was intentional or just shoddy programme-making will be for Ofcom to decide, I guess.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Nah, really mdijon?

You did seem to have the misconception that an individual could be peer reviewed from what you said - perhaps you didn't literally think that, but the implication was that an individual who'd experienced peer review was broadly qualified in some way. They aren't, and I thought that worth correcting.

Clearly you meant something else entirely. If it's still important, you could point out what that was.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If you have two scientists giving interviews for TV. One has recently had some work published in a peer reviewed journal. The other has done some work that apparently refutes the first scientist, but hasn't had it accepted in a peer reviewed journal. Assuming both scientist stick to talking about the specific work (the published piece and the rebuttal), which has the greater scientific credibility? Clearly the one with the work published.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Yes, I have to accept that.

Although there is an important "if" in that statement - that recognises the scientist hasn't got any sort of personal approval - the approval is for the work.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Indeed, it's the work that's important. So, the same scientific credibility is extended to a third scientist (or, indeed a journalist or other populariser of science) who understands the work that's been peer-reviewed and accurately describes that work to others.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Agreed - with the focus of credibility quite narrowly fixed on the work, rather than the individual.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

OK, so peer review says I should have believed that Global Warming Theory was a fact because a self-collection of scientists 20 years ago decided it was and got themselves printed? Eh? Isn't that the realm of faith?

quote:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388Allegre's second thoughts
The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 02, 2007
Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

Such a profoundly societal changing conclusion based on what? That's the whole damn theory. Where was the proof?

That the temperature rise in the last the fifty years coincided with increased anthropogenic C02, and that's it.

quote:
With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

To his surprise? What, he didn't notice that the greater rise of the last hundred years was in the first half when there was minimal global industrialisation and that rise itself was measured against the Mini Ice Age preceding it and no data at the time showed evidence that C02 levels drove temperature? Etc., etc.

And that theory has been peer reviewed and therefore fact for the last twenty years while still unable to show that C02 drives temperature.

Well, I'm glad to see he at least is willing to change his mind by the acquisition of actual facts which contradict his pet theory, but what is he going do now about the mass hysteria peer review driven resulting global religion he and his coterie of 1500 scientists initiated?

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, so peer review says I should have believed that Global Warming Theory was a fact because a self-collection of scientists 20 years ago decided it was and got themselves printed? Eh? Isn't that the realm of faith?

..the Sola Scriptura argument.

Myrrh

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

What an interesting definition of "peer reviewed" you are working with there, Myrrh.

Mind if the rest of us use the definition established by common consensus?

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Myrrh - Dr Allegre wrote an article last year expressing his views in the French Press. Now a politician, he was immediately denounced by the French climate science community (try a Babel Fish translation of their letter), having made basic errors in his arguments that the wider climate science community refutes here. Not sure why this has come up again now...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What an interesting definition of "peer reviewed" you are working with there, Myrrh.

I'm not sure which post he was reading, either.

I'm as aware of the pitfalls of peer review as anyone. All those idiots who just can't quite seem to grasp the importance of my work....

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I have pointed out that Carl Wunsch has disowned the programme, and that John Christy contradicted his own research. I have pointed out that the programme appeared to fabricate critical data and attribute it to NASA. I have pointed out that the director was previously censured for misrepresentaion by the ITC. All these points are factual ... Please tell me why none of this counts and I have wasted hours of my life.

What I said was you haven't helped my understanding of the issues. What you've done (and continue to do) is lift errors out of an opposing view and infer from them that you view must be right.

quote:
I have linked all the science arguments that mainstream scientists have debunked. Although this is opinion, it is the opinion of an estimated 99-100% of climate scientists.

Um, that's quite a claim. Are you sure 99-100% of climate scientists hold this opinion? You're not just associating a very big percentage with a very broad category to give the impression that your view must be right? Oh, and what exactly is the opinion you're referring to?

quote:
I have consistently pointed out that the IPCC report has ACC at greater that 89% probablility, not fact.

What does that mean? If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.

quote:
a great deal of people seem to believe that there is huge disagreement in the scientific community. The result is that genuine action on climate change will be much harder to acheive.

Huge disagreement about what? As far as I can tell, there is no broad agreement in the scientific community about what action to take because the processes of ACC are complex and still being worked out.

Any 'genuine action' now is going to be based at best on informed guesswork and at worst on commercially or politically inspired speculation. Hardly good grounds for taking far-reaching decisions unless the outcomes will have positive value in other ways. Which for me, for example, minimising environmental pollution would have.

The question is how high a priority decision-making in this area should give climate change. Your approach seems to be stuff any other considerations. That to my mind is a stupid view, and one that perhaps more people than you realise recognise as such.

quote:
People are absolutely free to believe whatever they like to comfort them, but they shouldn't delude themselves that science backs them up. Only propaganda will do that

But of course it's only everyone else's arguments and reservations that are 'propaganda', never your own.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What I said was you haven't helped my understanding of the issues. What you've done (and continue to do) is lift errors out of an opposing view and infer from them that you view must be right.

No, the mainstream view is (almost certainly) right. Which is...

quote:
Are you sure 99-100% of climate scientists hold this opinion? You're not just associating a very big percentage with a very broad category to give the impression that your view must be right? Oh, and what exactly is the opinion you're referring to?

...that mankind is the primary driver of Anthropogenic (man induced) climate change (ACC). I base the guesswork stat on 0% of 928 papers not contradicting the view that ACC is correct. (just to be clear, we are talking about actual bone fide climate scientists here).

quote:
If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.

No, the A in ACC is anthropogenic. Otherwise dealt with above. Within the science, there is a consensus. Science will always improve and modify, but I refer you to all the earlier quoted statistics to assess the degree of certainty. As Carl Wunsch said, policy must be directed by probability, not certainty which is rarely (if ever) possible with science. ACC is extremely probable.

quote:
As far as I can tell, there is no broad agreement in the scientific community about what action to take because the processes of ACC are complex and still being worked out.

Any 'genuine action' now is going to be based at best on informed guesswork and at worst on commercially or politically inspired speculation. Hardly good grounds for taking far-reaching decisions unless the outcomes will have positive value in other ways. Which for me, for example, minimising environmental pollution would have.

The question is how high a priority decision-making in this area should give climate change. Your approach seems to be stuff any other considerations. That to my mind is a stupid view, and one that perhaps more people than you realise recognise as such.

I've provided data on meta-analysis of climate science peer reviewed paper to support my position. Do you have anything to support yours that there is actually a much larger number of contrarian climate scientists? There are a few (and more than a few bogus lists), but as a percentage they appear to be minute.

Also, have still yet to hear a theory from ANYONE as to why all world governments now have, in your view, a stupid view. Isn't it a bit odd if everyone else is stupid and you are not?

quote:
But of course it's only everyone else's arguments and reservations that are 'propaganda', never your own.

Peer reviewed science is not propaganda.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Now THAT'S stupid. It's called politics. I'm so glad that the US and North Korean and Iranian and Pakistani governments all agree on something. Citation please.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Now THAT'S stupid. It's called politics. I'm so glad that the US and North Korean and Iranian and Pakistani governments all agree on something. Citation please.

I guess you mean all world governemnts agreeing with ACC. Each country sends delegates to the IPCC. On publication of the FAR, all governments endorsed the conclusion that ACC is very likely.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Every state government on Earth? Wow! If you say so. Saudi Arabia eh? Iran? Dubai? Kuwait? Bahrain? Venezuela? Nigeria? Turkeys all signing up for Xmas eh? Do you remember when Libya was on some UN committee for human rights, or was it Iraq? I think the latter was on another one for disarmament. Really credible these global organizations.

But as for runaway greenhouse effect, ACC, AGW being caused by trace gas drivers, I couldn't give a CO2, CH4, N2, H2S, CH3SH, H2 cocktail what they say any more than the majority 'Christian' opinions on this web site. Not until the astrophysical synthesis is overturned by a superior antithesis.

They made MONEY on it. Peer review that.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
the mainstream view is (almost certainly) right.

Oh right.

quote:
I base the guesswork stat on 0% of 928 papers not contradicting the view that ACC is correct.

And you don't see any problem with translating 'not contradicting' as 'agrees with'. If I remember correctly, that report breaks down the figure in a way that presents a somewhat more nuanced, and to my mind fairer, interpretation.

If you slowed down for half a second and read my post, you'll notice that I'm not disputing anthropogenic climate change is happening. But don't worry about it...

quote:
As Carl Wunsch said, policy must be directed by probability, not certainty which is rarely (if ever) possible with science.

'Policy' is a matter for public debate in which such probabilities are reflected in scientific input. But scientists (hopefully) inform that debate; they should never direct it. That in a democracy is the remit of elected government who I hope will take all relevent factors into consideration.

quote:
have still yet to hear a theory from ANYONE as to why all world governments now have, in your view, a stupid view. Isn't it a bit odd if everyone else is stupid and you are not?

Unbelievable. You seriously think 'stuff any consideration other than climate change' (what you've quoted me as saying) is not a stupid view? That any world government is going to ignore for example cost implications? Get real.

quote:
Peer reviewed science is not propaganda.

No, I was referring to your posts here. But that's my lot for now on this.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

You'll find a list of countries in this document.

Saudi Arabia - yes
Iran - yes
Dubai - yes (UAE)
Kuwait - yes
Bahrain - yes
Venezuela - yes
Nigeria - yes

And why not add North Korea as well?

Or... er... sorry, were you being sarcastic?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I wouldn't know Noiseboy, I wouldn't know.

Noiseboy, baby, would you like to place a WAGER? Would you like to put your money where your mouth is? Could get messy I realise. Filthy lucre indeed. But really, would you like to put a quid on the astrophysicists' forecast or North Korea's?

I mean, hey, they're on the side of the 89% probability angels, yeah? Any thing these paragons of truth endorse I gotta buy. I mean, WOW, how could I be so shtewpid not to?

89% of all known scientists use AGW (probably - sponsored by Carlsberg)! You know it makes sense.

Who said, "88.2% of Statistics are made up on the spot"? I know, but do YOU? Eh? Without looking it up on Wikipedia, eh?

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

I am going to stick my hand up here and say that the enormous consensus of scientists doing climate research state that it is very likely that greenhouse gases produced by mankind are more responsible than Milankovich cycles and solar cycles for global warming. If in 40 years times it appears that this is not the case I will admit that I was wrong and was duped.

I am not a betting man but will £10 do as a bet Martin?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Mr C. You will have to take that up with my heirs, I'll be 92 then. But done. I might have been twinkled by then, but don't know if I want to stoop to Hell to collect or pay up.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mr C. You will have to take that up with my heirs, I'll be 92 then. But done. I might have been twinkled by then, but don't know if I want to stoop to Hell to collect or pay up.

Don't you have a daughter knocking around here? Maybe I misremember?

I suggested 40 years as that is a good amount of time for data collection and development of the science but if there are other ways to get to the bottom of this then I would certainly like to know, but I don't think there are.

I'm not sure what Hell might have to do with things but if it gets hot enough here soon then maybe it will be a hell on Earth, or perhaps a Benidorm in Britain? We could grow lovely Mediterranean fruit.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ah HA! Is here Liverpool or Northampton? I was just thinking last night, and today, I wonder if that person who knows me but I don't know who they are is still about. And should I give a damn, my dear? I mean it's all very well being anonymously outspoken in my loony fundy con-evo faith, but if it got back tut missus! Never mind the gay-moslem brigade. They can only cut my throat and out-me after all. And as for getting money out of her, you MUST be bleedin jokin. She'll still be paying off her student loan AND poncing off me, as I do my mother, beyond the grave.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

'Here' is SOF; I thought I remembered a poster (can't remember who) about 3 years ago saying that you were her dad.

I've just looked at your profile and you are exactly 18 years older than me as I too am a 10th July child. Not startling but of note!

I was just thinking earlier today that this issue is important to me and although I am usually cautious I do believe what the IPCC is saying and look forward to the full report later in the year.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Nah, really mdijon?
You did seem to have the misconception that an individual could be peer reviewed from what you said

I looked at what I said and all I saw was the same lazy language others have used. I assumed everyone contributing here knew what was meant by the peer review process; I didn't think I'd have to be pedantic about it. I can't remember a time when I didn't know what it meant.

Your correction came across as patronising. It was certainly unnecessary. I'd suggest maybe you ascertain what someone means before you decide to correct them.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
89% of all known scientists use AGW (probably - sponsored by Carlsberg)! You know it makes sense.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

DaveLarge, when I read

quote:
What does that mean? If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.

I also thought this meant that you felt that there was little scientific agreement on the causes of climate change, so I don't think you should be too hard on NoiseBoy for thinking the same. I would also say that in general the causes of Climate Change in general are pretty well understood - with uncertainty round the edges (hence the rather large range for the predicted figure for temperature rise if we carry on as we are, for example).

I would agree that it's important to separate out the causes of climate change from what we do about it in detail. As LittleLady said earlier on, if humans are causing the bulk of the change (as the IPCC report claims) then effective policies are different than if not. However, given that ACC (where A = Anthropogenic) is a reality, clearly one of the options is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are entering the atmosphere in order to reduce the effects as much as possible. There are also other things you can do, some with known technology like building sea defences, others more speculative like launching loads of silver balloons to reflect sunlight. However, it is not for the scientists to decide which of these policies should be used - though their contribution about the effectiveness of each should clearly be taken into account. There are other considerations including cost, equity etc. Ultimately people and governments have to decide what to do.

As far as developing countries are concerned, the argument that believing in ACC means you think they shouldn't develop is not correct. Though it is obviously one possible viewpoint, it is certainly not one that I hold. Nor could I say that development through industrialisation using a high-carbon economy has actually happened or worked in most of the developing world. I would in fact argue that in most cases, development needs to follow similiar paths using appropriate technology whether or not you believe in ACC. For many people, solar panels or microhydro or geothermal energy is a better bet than being connected to a national grid powered by coal or oil. What we should do is help those countries build their own capacity to develop and use these rather than just selling them our tech). For poor countries with a low carbon footprint ACC is not particularly relevant as far as their development goes (though sadly they are generally most at risk from the effects even though they are not the cause). A response to ACC must be led by the rich countries who are much more responsible for the problem in the first place and have more capacity to do something about it. This initially means reducing our greenhouse gas emissions - though not necessarily our quality of life.

Jonah

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
DaveLarge, when I read
quote:
What does that mean? If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.
I also thought this meant that you felt that there was little scientific agreement on the causes of climate change, so I don't think you should be too hard on NoiseBoy for thinking the same.

That was me, JonahMan, not DaveLarge, but yes, I was getting a little short and could have been clearer. I only joined the thread when the Great Global Warming Swindle discussion began, so I had the ACC acronym wrong and have no doubt missed informative contributions from Noiseboy and others.

I think I've made the points I wanted to, but apologies if my late arrival has meant I've undervalued anyone's earlier posts.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I looked at what I said and all I saw was the same lazy language others have used.

Actually, I don't think it was just a language issue. Pointing to a television programme and saying "plenty of those scientists will have been peer reviewed" seems to take too much on faith, to me, and to take too broad a view of the credibility generated by the process.

And I'm puzzled by your view of "correction" - you post an idea - I post a response - if you feel it was unnecessary you can explain why - if you find I've misunderstood you can tell me how - or ignore me completely. But now you want me to check with you before posting? Should I PM you before responding to any of your posts?

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

Here's an article from The Times which has more on this debate.

quote:
Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

quote:
Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Thanks for your posting JonahMan, I agree that this is probably where some of the confusion comes from. I also have a feeling that I've been a bit of a bull in a china shop in this debate at times. Wheras I stand by the actual content and arguments of everything I've written, I'm sure I could have been a good deal more helpful in the way I presented it, so sorry to you Dave Marshall and Little Lady that I've not always exactly been the paragon of good grace.

Thanks for the link, Mr Clingford. I think a lot of people have written to Ofcom (not just me!) so we'll have to wait and see how it all resolves.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I mean, what are we s'posed to do now? Now you've gone all gracious on us? I reckon platinum dust in between us and the sun. The solar wind will probably disperse it too quickly tho.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

Dave M., many apologies for getting myself confused over who said what. I will try to differentiate between Dave's from now on. This is what comes of posting when I should be asleep!

Also, thanks for the clarification on your thinking - it really is so easy to misrepresent oneself, never mind anyone else, that a gracious acknowledgement ,like yours, of possible unclearness is the electronic equivalent of gold dust.

[Overused]

Now to return to our regular scheduling of lies, damn lies and statistics! (oh, and the odd inconvenient truth).

Jonah

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
Now to return to our regular scheduling of lies, damn lies and statistics! (oh, and the odd inconvenient truth).

I'm increasingly inclined to believe subtlety and skepticism aren't properly valued on this thread.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Here's an article from The Times which has more on this debate.

But you didn't post the best bit, Mr Clingford! The best bit just has to be this from Durkin:

quote:
“You’re a big daft cock.”

Great line! [Big Grin]

Not very original though. But never mind. It made me giggle for some unknown reason.

I love the 'facts' in the Times article. They seem to be just rebuttals of previous 'facts'. Oh well. Whatever the 'facts' maybe (and God knows what they are, coz I sure don't), I'm still skeptical and content to remain so.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Actually, I don't think it was just a language issue.

I don't care what you think. It was a language issue, period.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
Now to return to our regular scheduling of lies, damn lies and statistics! (oh, and the odd inconvenient truth).
I'm increasingly inclined to believe subtlety and skepticism aren't properly valued on this thread.

Depends what value you assign to them doesn't it? And how you then measure them.

Me, I like sceptism. But I dislike stupidity, or sceptism taken to extremes.

As for subtlety, too often it's just hypocrisy and dishonesty in disguise. Also, I am as subtle as a half brick between the eyes, so am ill-qualified to spot it!

Jonah

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

So, if one doesn't know much about a particular subject, and is of a skeptical bent, and is also of a cynical bent and therefore mistrusts information from any source, how the heck does one ever make an informed decision? OliviaG

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
As for subtlety, too often it's just hypocrisy and dishonesty in disguise. Also, I am as subtle as a half brick between the eyes, so am ill-qualified to spot it!

Now that's a disclaimer: you get to say people who value something you don't comprehend are lying hypocrites.

Well done.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
As for subtlety, too often it's just hypocrisy and dishonesty in disguise. Also, I am as subtle as a half brick between the eyes, so am ill-qualified to spot it!
Now that's a disclaimer: you get to say people who value something you don't comprehend are lying hypocrites.

Well done.

I'm sorry you misunderstood my jokey attempt at gentle self-mockery there, 206. Was it too subtle for you?

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
I'm sorry you misunderstood my jokey attempt at gentle self-mockery there, 206. Was it too subtle for you?

Could be; could be it was too crude.

How can you assign a value to something like that?

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
I'm sorry you misunderstood my jokey attempt at gentle self-mockery there, 206. Was it too subtle for you?
Could be; could be it was too crude.

How can you assign a value to something like that?

Ah, I think you comprehend the point I made initially.

Returning to the original subject, it seems to me that a lot of the uncertainty around what people believe to be the causes of climate change does come down to the value you put on different opinions or different facts. Whom do you trust the most, and which processes of arriving at a reasonable position? Given that CC is complicated, with many inputs and complex interactions between inputs and effects, (not to mention a range of possible outcomes) how should people decide who is right?

Jonah

Posted by fredwa (# 12401) on :

Wow, my first ever post!

I've just been reading the thread and wanted to thank you Noiseboy for your posts which were clear, intelligent, well researched, and supported by good references. They have been a great help as I have looked again at the issues that surfaae from the C4 programme.

Thanks also for a couple of pieces of wonderful humour to...

Mr Clingford for leading me to the Times article and Durkin's wonderful incisive reply to a critic "You're a big daft cock" It just speaks volumes..

and to Littlelady for this gem

quote:
I don't happen to believe that humankind causes global warming. I have no idea what causes global warming, since I can't verify any of the science as I'm not a scientist.

peronally I don't happen to believe that 2+2=4. I have no idea 2+2=, since I'm not a mathematician.

Fred

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
Given that CC is complicated, with many inputs and complex interactions between inputs and effects, (not to mention a range of possible outcomes) how should people decide who is right?

As you've pointed out it is impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point in time; it may remain impossible even decades from now.

Which is all I've ever tried to say regarding this debate and which, I maintain, is continually inadequately acknowledged by many of the 'proponents' of ACC who are perfectly willing to restrict human freedom on the off chance they're 'correct' both in their diagnosis and prescription of the 'problem'.

My concern remains a metaphysical libertarian one much more so than a 'scientific' one and the remarkable allegiance to 'science' some demonstrate continues to surprise and frighten me.

Yeah, science is a wonderful thing overall but it remains about 'theory', not 'fact', no matter how many internet links someone dredges up.

That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
As you've pointed out it is impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point in time; it may remain impossible even decades from now.

Which is all I've ever tried to say regarding this debate and which, I maintain, is continually inadequately acknowledged by many of the 'proponents' of ACC who are perfectly willing to restrict human freedom on the off chance they're 'correct' both in their diagnosis and prescription of the 'problem'.

My concern remains a metaphysical libertarian one much more so than a 'scientific' one and the remarkable allegiance to 'science' some demonstrate continues to surprise and frighten me.

Yeah, science is a wonderful thing overall but it remains about 'theory', not 'fact', no matter how many internet links someone dredges up.

That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.

206, do you ascribe this view to Creationism also? Evolution is, of course, only a theory. Also, are you arguing that science should never inform political policy? Are you against, for example, the restriction of human freedom that is entailed by having to wear seatbelts in cars? In some accidents, of course, you would be safer without one as you could be flung clear of wreckage. It is a matter only of probability that they might save your life.

A point that has been made numerous times (including by GCCS contributor Carl Wunsch) is that science can rarely deal with absolute certainty, but it can with probability. The peer-review process has resulted in us having a high degree of probability of ACC. So while anyone is entirely free to believe whatever they want, it is not accurate to suggest that science has this issue as 50/50, or anything close. So it is entirely innacurate to call this an "off chance". Further, as the governments of the world from every political persuasion are looking to take action based on these high probabilites, this is a rational response to all the availaible evidence. I personally feel that the civil liberites of my children will be more infringed by a much more dangerous world caused by ACC that my own liberties are right now if I am not allowed to buy conventional light bulbs.

I do understand cynicism when it comes to governments and motives, but I'd argue that the science itself and the breadth of worldwide political acceptance would counter any parochial factors of short term gain. Also, when it comes to the UK, it is the far more libertarian opposition that are proposing the higher environmental taxes, not the current government.

Fredwa - you are too kind! And welcome to the Ship.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
As you've pointed out it is impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point in time; it may remain impossible even decades from now.

You are either misunderstanding or misquoting me, 206. I do not think it is impossible to tell who is 'right' about ACC, in the broadest sense of the two camps which are 1) Humans emitting greenhouse gases are the main cause of the rapid changes in climate we are seeing at the moment 2) it isn't humans, it's something else.

All the evidence points to it being the former.

Note that this is not saying that there are other causes of changes in the climate, both in the long and short term. However, the main influence recently is the activity of people. The uncertainty does not lie in this broad area, but in the exact impact, and the interplay of the different effects.

quote:
Which is all I've ever tried to say regarding this debate and which, I maintain, is continually inadequately acknowledged by many of the 'proponents' of ACC who are perfectly willing to restrict human freedom on the off chance they're 'correct' both in their diagnosis and prescription of the 'problem'.

My concern remains a metaphysical libertarian one much more so than a 'scientific' one and the remarkable allegiance to 'science' some demonstrate continues to surprise and frighten me.

Human freedoms are not being restricted on the 'off-chance' that climate scientists are right. It is only now, when the evidence is so clear that even the USA (not noted in the past for its allegiance to green issues) has been forced to admit it that any really significant action is being proposed. I would also question which freedoms being restricted? Are they privileges or freedoms anyway? And what about the freedom of others (for example the freedom not to have your country inundated by floods due to the actions of others)? Of course there has to be a debate about what should be done to minimise the effects and if possible reverse climate change; and of course there needs to be further work done to develop even better models of how the climate works, including investigating all the possible causes of climate change in as much detail as possible.

quote:
Yeah, science is a wonderful thing overall but it remains about 'theory', not 'fact', no matter how many internet links someone dredges up.

That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.

I don't think this comment is accurate. You do understand that theories are not just ethereal things floating about in scientists' heads but are checked against facts and measurements don't you? And if the theory isn't borne out by these facts, the theory is junked or modified. I quite agree that science (or truth) is not about internet links - heck, anyone can generate a web page with any content they like - but it is about the provenance behind them.

For example, you do understand that people have measured the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and have noted that it has increased? And that the greenhouse effect works (try standing in a greenhouse to demonstrate this for yourself). And that CO2 in air acts in the same fashion as the glass in the greenhouse. And so on. All facts, with with a theory which explains existing observations and predicts others in the future. Not very subtle, no. But science, in the broadest sense, doesn't need to be.

Jonah

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
For example, you do understand that people have measured the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and have noted that it has increased?

But as I understand it the actual change as a percentage of gas in the atmosphere is a very small number.

quote:
CO2 in air acts in the same fashion as the glass in the greenhouse.

But in terms of actual temperature difference on an infinitessimaly smaller scale.

quote:
All facts, with with a theory which explains existing observations and predicts others in the future.

There may well be broad agreement about these 'facts' as far as they go. What I, and perhaps others, are concerned about is that when presented like this, they give the impression of an effect that is massively disproportionate to the facts because of the illustrations you use.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
do you ascribe this view to Creationism also? Evolution is, of course, only a theory.

Yes, 'evolution' is only a theory. My understanding is that the hypothesis is very well supported and provides much hueristic value regarding natural selection of entities already in existence but doesn't speak at all to what might be called the 'creation'.

quote:
Also, are you arguing that science should never inform political policy?

No. Dude, I'll give you this much: you are utterly relentless.

quote:
Are you against, for example, the restriction of human freedom that is entailed by having to wear seatbelts in cars? In some accidents, of course, you would be safer without one as you could be flung clear of wreckage. It is a matter only of probability that they might save your life.

Yes. I understand the odds and it's my business whether I wear one or not, not some do-gooder's.

In this example, I believe the evidence is stronger than predictions about what will happen to the earth decades from now but it still remains my business as to how I act.

quote:
So it is entirely innacurate to call this an "off chance".

Whatever.

quote:

I personally feel that the civil liberites of my children will be more infringed by a much more dangerous world caused by ACC that my own liberties are right now if I am not allowed to buy conventional light bulbs.

'not allowed to buy conventional light bulbs' is a ridiculously simplistic strawman but you're certainly entitled to your opinion about your children's civil liberties.

I think we've determined we'll need to agree to disagree.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I understand the odds and it's my business whether I wear one or not, not some do-gooder's.

Actually there is a major cultural difference here between the US and the UK - here it has been the law for many many years to wear seatbelts.

ACC is a more complex issue that this of course since, like passive smoking but far more serious, the actions of others affects the individual (with seatbelts only the individual concerned suffers, excepting the issue of kids).

Actually the example of lightbulbs is not a straw man - here in the UK this is one of the few concrete proposals outlined so far that will affect ordinary people.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.

I think you have a new meaning for the word "subtlety" here.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Yes. I understand the odds and it's my business whether I wear one or not, not some do-gooder's.

What about speeding?

That's a better analogy - you doign somethign that endangers others rather then yourself.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But as I understand it the actual change as a percentage of gas in the atmosphere is a very small number.

This is one of the many areas where the GCCS did not tell anything like the whole story.

It is true that the greatest greenhouse gas is water vapour, but this comes and goes very quickly - the average residence time for a molecule of water is 9 days. By contrast, CO2 hangs around for about 200 years. When the total effect of each greenhouse gas is evaluated, it (unsurprisingly) gets very complex, as the Wikipedia article shows. But it has been studied since the end of the 19th century, and the significant effect of CO2 is demonstrable by easy experiment (here's a simple example I found).

All round, it's a good example of where GCCS deceives its audience - present one true fact out of context to totally change the meaning.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

While what you say may well be right, by not quantifying all the factors involved, the impression you give is at best unclear (but in the context obviously somehow 'bad'), and at worst unjustified cause for alarm.

In this example, unless you include (as the GGWS did) the fact that the percentage of CO2 in air is around 0.0314 (source), and that changes due to global warming are percentages of that, you're not giving the whole picture.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Dave M - sorry, I genuinely thought this was enough info for the purposes of the point, but I've had another trawl for more specific info and found a good, detailed article here (along with some explanations of why some other figures you may hear are innacurate and where the errors come from). The broadest summary is that CO2 accounts for between 3-8% of the entire greenhouse effect. This may not sound like much, but don't forget that with no greenhouse effect at all, we'd be the moon. Within the range that we humans can live, this is big stuff. Hope this helps a little more.

BTW, your pub quiz link was to surface concentrations, not the troposphere.

[ 16. March 2007, 18:55: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
For example, you do understand that people have measured the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and have noted that it has increased?
But as I understand it the actual change as a percentage of gas in the atmosphere is a very small number.

It's an increase of about 25-30%, hardly a small number.

quote:

quote:
CO2 in air acts in the same fashion as the glass in the greenhouse.
But in terms of actual temperature difference on an infinitessimaly smaller scale.

The total net anthropogenic greenhouse effect has, at present, a radiative forcing of +1.5W/m². Given that the natural greenhouse effect is about 150 W/m², that's an increase in of about 1% in the amount of solar energy trapped by the atmosphere. That energy is going to increase air, sea and land temperatures, melt ice and provide extra power to weather systems.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
That energy is going to increase air, sea and land temperatures, melt ice and provide extra power to weather systems.

Alan,

In your estimation, how much of a rise in sea levels can be expected?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fredwa:
and to Littlelady for this gem

quote:
I don't happen to believe that humankind causes global warming. I have no idea what causes global warming, since I can't verify any of the science as I'm not a scientist.

peronally I don't happen to believe that 2+2=4. I have no idea 2+2=, since I'm not a mathematician.

Fred

Ah, well, Fred, if you're going to use your very first post to mock someone, it might be wise to do it properly. I'm sure we can all see the link between basic numeracy and, what, advanced physics?

My mental maths is fine, but I'll never understand this in a million years:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The total net anthropogenic greenhouse effect has, at present, a radiative forcing of +1.5W/m². Given that the natural greenhouse effect is about 150 W/m², that's an increase in of about 1% in the amount of solar energy trapped by the atmosphere.

But I'm sure you understand it perfectly.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
That energy is going to increase air, sea and land temperatures, melt ice and provide extra power to weather systems.
Alan,

In your estimation, how much of a rise in sea levels can be expected?

During the 20th century sea-levels rose by approximately 15cm (6 inches), most of that rise being in the last quarter of the century. Further rises of an additional 20-30cm in the 21st century are almost certain, 40-50cm are possible. These are estimates based on thermal expansion of the oceans and slow melting of continental ice sheets (for good reasons known by Archimedes, melting ice floating on water doesn't raise sea levels - try it with an ice cube or two in a glass of water). If the continental ice sheets break apart and melt more rapidly (eg: water getting under the glaciers allowing them to flow more quickly) then they could melt much more quickly and all bets are off - several metres of sea level rise are then possible.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
If the continental ice sheets break apart and melt more rapidly (eg: water getting under the glaciers allowing them to flow more quickly) then they could melt much more quickly and all bets are off - several metres of sea level rise are then possible.

Is it possible to assign a level of probability to that happening?

And thanks once again for your contribution to my comprehension of this issue.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
science can rarely deal with absolute certainty, but it can with probability.

Now, this is the kind of talk that has often been lacking in this whole debate (everywhere, not just on here). According to my bro (himself a scientist of the published, peer reviewed, Phd variety) science is very often about probabilities. If only people spoke in probabilities on this particular subject then personally I could listen to them. Alas, it just doesn't seem to happen. There seems to be so much dogma about.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
science can rarely deal with absolute certainty, but it can with probability.
Now, this is the kind of talk that has often been lacking in this whole debate (everywhere, not just on here). According to my bro (himself a scientist of the published, peer reviewed, Phd variety) science is very often about probabilities. If only people spoke in probabilities on this particular subject then personally I could listen to them. Alas, it just doesn't seem to happen. There seems to be so much dogma about.

But the IPCC report does talk in probabilities.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
My mental maths is fine, but I'll never understand this in a million years: {followed by difficult Alan Cresswell quote}

Littlelady, please please believe me when I say I have absolutely every sympathy with you on this. But as I was thinking about it, I wonder if this doesn't hit exactly on a lot of the disagreements on this thread.

What do we do about stuff we don't understand? I like to think I'm fairly bright - I passed A level physics and everything. But I am under no illusions - I appear to reach the limits of my intellect on an hourly basis, nowehere more so than reading about climate science.

Now I may read you wrong, but I sort of get the impression that if you hear two apparently qualified people telling you different things about something you personally can't understand, you will conclude that any reasonable adjudication by yourself is impossible. Until everyone agrees on everything, there is nothing more to be done.

But here is where I bow to the peer-review process. I hope to follow the thrust of the broad arguments, even though I can't hope to fairly adjudicate on the science itself (as well as pure intellectual ability, there is also the issue of specific knowledge which would take me years to try and learn, and even then I'm sure I wouldn't be of peer-review standard myself). But what I do hope to do is to be able to analyse the positions of climate scientists and try to understand if there is a consensus and if so, what it says.

Of course it won't surprise you to learn that my view is that there is a consensus. All of the arguments that are cited as problems with the mainstream view seem to have been satisfactorially dealt with by the wider community (although it must be stressed that science is fluid and our knowledge is a very long way from being complete).

So the question is this - is mine a reasonable approach? Can I reasonably come to such conclusions despite not having the intellectual capacity to make a truly objective decision?

Posted by fredwa (# 12401) on :

Littlelady

I hope you will forgive my improper mocking. I was going to try to elaborate on what I was trying to get at, but then I find that Noiseboy has done it so much more coherently and graciously than I would ever manage.

Fred

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
What do we do about stuff we don't understand?

Good question.

quote:
I like to think I'm fairly bright - I passed A level physics and everything.

In terms of academic education, I'm fairly bright too: achieved A grades at both English A Levels, graduated 2:1 Honours in English Language & Literature from a very well respected redbrick university. However: physics lasted two years at school, as did chemistry. Biology managed four years, abandoned because back then it was O Levels and dissection was still required (I was just too damn squeamish). As for maths. Numeracy is fine, but I wasn't even entered for maths O Level and I only kept it up for the whole of my time at high school because it was mandatory. The only science subject I came close to being good at was biology and that is because biology talks in solid terms. A rat's giblets are a rat's giblets. You don't need some three foot long meaningless formula to understand that. Abstract thinking is not in my skill set.

quote:
Now I may read you wrong, but I sort of get the impression that if you hear two apparently qualified people telling you different things about something you personally can't understand, you will conclude that any reasonable adjudication by yourself is impossible.

You read me correctly here.

quote:
Until everyone agrees on everything, there is nothing more to be done.

This isn't correct. I think you might be projecting. [Biased]

As you may gather from my posts here, consensus doesn't impress me. In fact, it can often make me suspicious. The key to switching on my ears is honesty and talking in solid terms. My degree specialism was stylistics - effectively, the power of language. I go deaf once people start promoting their agendas or yelling at me or whatever. In addition, although I'll never be a scientist, I know enough about science to be put off by talk of certainties.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Marvellous. I suppose a one line summing up of everything I've written over the last 6 pages would be - there is a broad consensus among climate scientists that there is a high probability that mankind is the primary driver behind recent global warming. How does that sound?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
How does that sound?

Sarcastic?

[ 16. March 2007, 22:42: Message edited by: Littlelady ]

Posted by PeteB (# 2357) on :

Dissenting from a different direction der Spiegel has "Hans von Storch ... one of Germany's leading researchers on climate change" telling us to learn to stop worrying and love Global Warming.
To boldly summarise: he says it will take decades and we'll adjust and anyway there will be ups as well as downs. Oh, and he blames religion for the overreaction. (And the 60s).

Pete

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Marvellous. I suppose a one line summing up of everything I've written over the last 6 pages would be - there is a broad consensus among climate scientists that there is a high probability that mankind is the primary driver behind recent global warming. How does that sound?

I think the problem is you want us to say we agree with you. For what I'm not quite sure, but it feels a bit like being doorstepped by JWs - my usual response is 'so what do you want from me?' I've appreciated both your's and Alan's last few posts, but I don't think it's in your power to provide what would make me respond in the way you seem to want.

I don't think this is about lack of evidence. It's more the nature and scope of the problem. I don't see I need to agree with you, so I want to stay agnostic. When I need to make a decision about something climate change related, I'll make it on the basis of what I know then, not before.

When the (good) science is still new, when techniques for measuring and interpreting are likely changing at an unprecedented rate, when political systems for absorbing and evaluating results are still being developed, this does not seem the time to commit to a position if I don't need to. And right now, I don't think I do.

[ 17. March 2007, 00:12: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
How does that sound?
Sarcastic?

Littlelady, this honestly, honestly is not my intention. I'd be seriously interested to know your thoughts on the statement though. My point was that I for one have always tried to put this debate within the context of strong probability, not certainty.

Dave Marshall, this also applies. Perhaps you think I am trying to trap you - not so. What is perhaps a little frustrating for me and others who share this view is that our position has been rather caracactured as blind certainty, however, and I am curious to test whether I have this perception of your perception correct!

An interesting lead BBC story this morning for the sceptical. The headline looks like it affirms denial of the basic tenents of ACC, but reading the text I agree with pretty much every word (essentially 2 leading UK climate scientists say that the certainties have been overplayed). They caution against declaring certainties of outcomes whereas the science isn't there yet, whilst emphasising that such outcomes are still entirely possible and that ACC is absolutely real.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
My point was that I for one have always tried to put this debate within the context of strong probability, not certainty.

I think you've forgotten your own OP, Noiseboy. Here's a quote from it:

quote:
The IPCC represents the top 2,500 climate scientists in the world, and thus this represents a consensus of the entire field. The findings have been endorsed by (AFAIK) all governments worldwide, including America, whose right wing Bush administration called the science now "beyond doubt".

That sounds pretty much like a statement of certainty to me! And you (and others) have made plenty more on this thread and on its predecessors.

quote:
An interesting lead BBC story this morning for the sceptical.

Yes, this lead the TV news this morning also (which is where I first learned of it). My first thought was "At last! Some honesty!" I read the link on the Beeb's website and there were a number of points made in the report that I've made on these boards. Such as:

quote:
They think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

and

quote:
They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

and indeed

quote:
Professor Hardaker also believes that overblown statements play into the hands of those who say that scientists are wrong on climate change - that global warming is a myth.

and of course this

quote:
They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science. The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

[my bold] It is interesting to note also that the two scientists criticise the strength of the claims made by the AAAS which reference the IPCC in its statement. Perhaps I've been right to be cautious about the IPCC as well.

Good job Profs Hardaker and Collier for having the balls to speak up loud and clear.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
That sounds pretty much like a statement of certainty to me! And you (and others) have made plenty more on this thread and on its predecessors.

I think you misunderstand, Littlelady. What is beyond doubt is the high probability of ACC (also affirmed by the two climatologists in the BBC story). This has been affirmed by all governments of the world etc etc. With the probability has high as it is (and that figure having increased significantly over the past five years), many including the US government shorthand that to the science being beyond doubt (as I quoted accurately in the OP). As the debate has continued, I've been careful to expand on this idea and explain that this is not literal certainty, but is certainty regarding climate scientists according it a high probability (greater than 89%). Others have claimed that this isn't certain at all (including GCCS), but I strongly disagree with that view.

Can I be cheeky and ask once more what you think of that one sentence statement?

What the climatologists were saying is that some of the specific and more alarmist outcomes are not yet known as certainties. Note that they say this the extreme outcomes "may well turn out to be true", but we can't be certain.

So to summarise:

1. It is beyond doubt that there is a very high probability of ACC

2. The specifics of exactly how bad the effects will be are still not certain.

Is it only me, or is there some optimisim to be taken that we both at least agree with what the two climatologists are saying? I'd argue that it was prudent to seriously consider the more extreme scerios and you may not, but on the basics I think we're pretty eye-to-eye... aren't we?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I find the statement "beyond doubt that there is a high probability" quite difficult.

And it all depends on the definition of high probability.

In more simple biological studies, one would say the probability is x - and the 95% confidence interval on that probability is y-z.

So one could say the probability estimate of ACC is 89% - and the 95% range on that is 70-99% (or whatever).

I don't suppose anyone has a confidence interval on that 89% though...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
It is interesting to note also that the two scientists criticise the strength of the claims made by the AAAS which reference the IPCC in its statement. Perhaps I've been right to be cautious about the IPCC as well.

It's interesting to note that the comment they criticised in the BBC article isn't supported by the recent IPCC WGI summary. Here's the AAAS comment

quote:
As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.

And, here's the IPCC SPM

quote:
There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.

And, in the summary table the IPCC list the likelihood of different phenomena being a) real, b) caused by human activity and c) continuing or worsening in the next century. For some of the things referenced in the AAAS statement these are:

Warm spells / heat waves. Frequency increases over most land areas. Likely to have occured, more likely than not caused by human activity, very likely to continue into the next century
Heavy precipitation events. Frequency (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) increases over most areas. Likely to have occured, more likely than not caused by human activity, very likely to continue into the next century
Area affected by droughts increases. Likely to have occured in many regions, more likely than not caused by human activity, likely to continue into the next century
Intense tropical cyclone activity increases. Likely to have occured in some regions, more likely than not caused by human activity, likely to continue into the next century

(where in IPCC usage "very likely" corresponds to >90% probability, "likely" >66% probability and "more likely than not" >50% probability). Also note that some of those phenomena have regional distributions for likilihood.

The AAAS statement, or at least the bit quoted on the BBC, is significantly stronger than the IPCC summary.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Yes, I think the likely stuff is what is at issue here. I think it is just that - likely.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Yes, I think the likely stuff is what is at issue here. I think it is just that - likely.

Noiseboy, I don't think that's what the IPCC reference Alan cited actually said. According to Alan's post, the probability of those particular events occurring as a result of human activity is 'more likely than not' where 'more likely than not' = >50% probability. That could mean anything between a 51% probability or a 66% probability. It sounds to me a bit like a scientific version of hedging bets.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
It is interesting to note also that the two scientists criticise the strength of the claims made by the AAAS which reference the IPCC in its statement. Perhaps I've been right to be cautious about the IPCC as well.
It's interesting to note that the comment they criticised in the BBC article isn't supported by the recent IPCC WGI summary.

I do irritate you don't I?

But thanks for the response. It was very helpful.

The BBC report was a good one: it made the Profs' point very well.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

aside: Did anyone else hear the Now Show yesterday on radio 4? I think it was Marcus Brigstocke mocking the Durkin 'documentary', in the second 15mins of the prog. I enjoyed it. [Smile]

Of course there's no reason to accept what a comedian says (except that the overwhelming body of scientific opinion is of the same overall view).

If you want have a laugh at Durkin and his version of science, the Now Show is repeated today at 12:30 and can be heard again online.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
2. The specifics of exactly how bad the effects will be are still not certain.

Pardon the tangent:

even though you assume the opposite in your statement, isn't it 'reasonable' to expect some 'effects' will be 'good'?

For instance: won't increased precipitation in some places be beneficial there and offset somewhat the issues in places where precip decreases?

[remove verbiage]

[ 17. March 2007, 12:44: Message edited by: 206 ]

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

I believe that there are places which may become warmer but more pleasant, so if Scotland gets the climate now normal in central France they may be happy and grow grapes. If that also means that France becomes like the Sahara, they won't be so pleased.

If the climate does change significantly and the 'zones of comfort' move nearer the poles and to higher altitudes, it will mean major upheaval for most of mankind.

I think logistical problems would be immense, particularly re-establishing appropriate agriculture in new areas to feed us all and providing enough water and energy.

As always, the rich and powerful will get the best while the poor and powerless will do badly.

The most positive I can think of is that it shouldn't happen very quickly so we can plan (to keep out position at the top of the heap. [Frown]

)
.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:

If the climate does change significantly and the 'zones of comfort' move nearer the poles and to higher altitudes, it will mean major upheaval for most of mankind.

I think logistical problems would be immense, particularly re-establishing appropriate agriculture in new areas to feed us all and providing enough water and energy.

Could be. However, humans display astonishing ingenuity in overcoming obstacles and given the relatively slow processes which are theorized may largely take all this in stride.

There seems little doubt water is going to be a big deal sooner rather than later but that may be more a function of population than climate.

And this is relevant to this discussion:

quote:

Two leading UK climate researchers say some of their peers are "overplaying" the global warming message and risk confusing the public about the threat.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What staggers me is that CO2 rising from 280 to 360 parts per million (ppm), 30% in 150 years = 80 / 1,000,000 - 0.008 % - can increase energy trapping by 1% - 1.5 W/m^2. A factor of 125 from that particular cause to that particular effect, assuming they are causally related.

I'm asking for trouble here, but do we have the evidentiary, forensic, chain of events even in a laboratory that can explain this? I'm CERTAIN we don't. Unless I'm missing something. Which is QUITE likely. Are there even analagous lab experiments, with simple materials exhibiting physical (NON-chemical: non-exothermic, non-catalytic), thermodynamic effects of this magnitude?

OR is it a fact. A repeatable experiment. And how long is the causal chain? And if it ISN'T, where do we get 89% scientiST confidence from? Why should I be confident in their confidence? Is that the same as scientific confidence?

What questions SHOULD I be asking?

Is it really as simple as that and I'm being technically naive, CO2 absorbs solar radiation 125 times more effectively than the other atmospheric gases taken together? If it doesn't, what are the figures?

And how do we get from them to a 1% increase in atmospheric thermal energy?

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
there is a broad consensus among climate scientists that there is a high probability that mankind is the primary driver behind recent global warming.
...
I'd be seriously interested to know your thoughts on [this] statement

Sounds reasonable. [Smile]

I suppose my underlying thought, though, is that you want to keep this thread alive by restating your case. That's OK - this is a discussion board, and there's new stuff being published on this all the time. But having made a fairly clear statement of my position in this post, and not having your particular commitment to this single issue, I don't really have anything more I want to add at this point.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What staggers me is that CO2 rising from 280 to 360 parts per million (ppm), 30% in 150 years = 80 / 1,000,000 - 0.008 % - can increase energy trapping by 1% - 1.5 W/m^2. A factor of 125 from that particular cause to that particular effect, assuming they are causally related.

I'm asking for trouble here, but do we have the evidentiary, forensic, chain of events even in a laboratory that can explain this? I'm CERTAIN we don't. Unless I'm missing something. Which is QUITE likely. Are there even analagous lab experiments, with simple materials exhibiting physical (NON-chemical: non-exothermic, non-catalytic), thermodynamic effects of this magnitude?

OR is it a fact. A repeatable experiment. And how long is the causal chain? And if it ISN'T, where do we get 89% scientiST confidence from? Why should I be confident in their confidence? Is that the same as scientific confidence?

What questions SHOULD I be asking?

Is it really as simple as that and I'm being technically naive, CO2 absorbs solar radiation 125 times more effectively than the other atmospheric gases taken together? If it doesn't, what are the figures?

And how do we get from them to a 1% increase in atmospheric thermal energy?

My understanding, Martin, is that the issue is CO2's efficiency at absorbing and re-radiating terrestrial radiation.

The sun, being very hot, radiates mostly at shorter wavelengths - visual and UV - to which the gases in the atmosphere are largely transparent. When the solar radiation strikes the earth, some is reflected and some is absorbed; the energy absorbed causes the earth to be warm and radiate as well.

But the earth, being much cooler than the sun, radiates at longer wavelengths (infrared) to which most of the atmosphere is (again) transparent - with the notable exception of (among other things) CO2. When some of this upwelling longwave radiation from the earth's surface is intercepted by CO2, the CO2 absorbs it and then re-radiates it, but the re-radiation is omnidirectional; some is sent on upward, but some is sent back to the earth, causing additional heating.

In order to reach equilibrium, the total radiated energy escaping upward from the earth's atmosphere has to equal the amount absorbed from the sun; to make up for the scattering effects of CO2 on upwelling longwave radiation, the temperature of the earth's surface has to increase above the value it would have in the absence of CO2.

This is a description of the basic "greenhouse effect," and as such is (I believe) fairly uncontroversial. The concept is about 180 years old, and was quantitatively described 100 years ago; without it, the earth's surface would be about 30C colder than it is. (Wikipedia has a more detailed account here.) The radiation absorption characteristics of the various atmospheric gases are well known from laboratory measurements.

I think it's also probably fair to say that a rise in the average global temperature over the last century is generally acknowledged, as is a rise in CO2. It seems to me that most of the remaining dispute is to whether the temperature rise is or is not within the range of natural variability of the climate.

If you want to read more about the support for the standard explanation of the present climate change, you might try the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (2001). For something more recent but less detailed, there's the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2007).

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Good questions Martin. The science should be questioned, as long as the answers aren't rejected out of hand if they don't accord with the presuppositions of those who ask.

Very many people have doubts the ability of such small quantities of CO2 to affect the temperature. It does seem unlikely to start with and is easy to ridicule the idea and mislead people, as Durkin's programme showed. But Dave W has given some excellent clear answers which accord with my understanding and clarified a couple of things for me.

If there is a greater greenhouse effect (like a thicker blanket) the temperature will rise until equilibrium is reached again. I would compare the rise in global average temperature being caused by a small (~30%) atmospheric CO2 increase, to a greenhouse temperature being affected by the door being slightly open, and then being completely closed. It can heat up quickly. A change in rate of heat loss can have a disproportionately large effect.
.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
The science should be questioned, as long as the answers aren't rejected out of hand if they don't accord with the presuppositions of those who ask.

I want to go on record I don't reject out of hand 'science' because of presuppositions.

I do reject predictions about events decades in the future unless what I subjectively call 'appropriate' qualifications are included.

Such as: given we 'know' virtually nothing about how this will play out the 'doom and gloom' scenarios ought to be considered in that light.

For all anyone 'knows' 'scientifically', we're just now turning the corner on a new age of prosperity and enlightenment worldwide because of new and now unseen opportunities which will soon present themselves in the form of unanticipated consequences.

Stranger things have happened.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I do reject predictions about events decades in the future unless what I subjectively call 'appropriate' qualifications are included.

What sort of qualification would you consider appropriate? I assume you know that the predictions are based on a number of carefully stated scenarios defined by IPCC about 10 years ago (the IPCC defined them as the most appropriate body to do so such that all models were run on an equal footing to allow them to be compared). They are summarised on the last page of the IPCC SPM. Note that all of these are variations on a "business as usual" approach - ie: they explicitely exclude climate initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol emissions targets.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
What sort of qualification would you consider appropriate?

I note the IPCC left themselves substantial wiggle room by stating 'All (their scenarios) should be considered equally sound'.

For instance: is it possible other scenarios could be sound, or is that such a low probability event it doesn't warrant consideration?

And you never did answer my question about the likelihood of the ice sheets breaking up and flooding the world with many meters of seawater.

Sorry to be so relentless but I rely on you for even-handed scientific assessments.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
What sort of qualification would you consider appropriate?
I note the IPCC left themselves substantial wiggle room by stating 'All (their scenarios) should be considered equally sound'.

For instance: is it possible other scenarios could be sound, or is that such a low probability event it doesn't warrant consideration?

I think the idea is that the various scenarios they give cover all likely "business as usual" possibilities for population growth, economic development, technological development and transfer etc. They deliberately exclude "disaster scenarios" or other "surprise scenarios" that are very difficult to quantify the chances of. The scenarios were taken from a comprehensive review of the literature in the late 1990s, so weren't just dreampt up by a bunch of climate scientists (who aren't really qualified in the relevant fields of economics etc anyway). If you want to know more about them, the SPM for the 2000 report is available on the IPCC website.

quote:
And you never did answer my question about the likelihood of the ice sheets breaking up and flooding the world with many meters of seawater.

Sorry, it's not something I can actually comment on. I've come across discussion of the possibility, but where it falls on any scale of possibility is something I've no idea about.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

Dave Marshall said

quote:
... but I don't think it's in your power to provide what would make me respond in the way you seem to want.

I don't think this is about lack of evidence. It's more the nature and scope of the problem. I don't see I need to agree with you, so I want to stay agnostic. When I need to make a decision about something climate change related, I'll make it on the basis of what I know then, not before.

Forgive me, but in that case I don't understand why you are posting on this thread or even reading it. Surely the point of a discussion is to have an open mind to learn something new, sharpen up your own arguments, see other perspectives even if you disagree with them.

And how will you know when you need to make a decision about climate change or not? Given that governments are currently making policy decisions based on ACC, surely now would be a very good time to 'make a decision' about it, so you can influence what happens (granted, any individual's influence is rather small), one way or the other - if you think ACC is false then it would be logical to oppose potentially expensive policies to reduce CO2 for example . Also of course if you believe the case to be sufficiently proven, then you can act on an individual basis too.

Jonah - at least I got the right Dave this time [Smile]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

A few interesting things in this morning's Independent. Sir John Houghton (a prominent UK climatologist and FWIW a Christian too) has added his comments to those yesterday who said that there was a danger in over-dramatising the risks of ACC:

quote:
Sir John says he agrees "we must not exaggerate the evidence, and if anything must underplay it". But he adds the evidence of serious climate change is now "very substantial".

Sceptics charge that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exaggerates the dangers. But Sir John, as one of the founders of the panel, says that it had "deliberately underestimated the problem".

He says the latest projections of the floods and droughts that will result from the heating of the globe are "frightening". And he adds that the 20,000 deaths caused by the 2003 heatwave in Europe justify the view that it is more dangerous than terrorism.

Some confusion surrounded the views of the RMS scientists yesterday after Prof Hardaker told the IoS that he could not think of a case where a scientist had overstated the position. He did however mention a statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science that described an "intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires and severe storms" as "early warning signs of yet more devastating damage to come".

He said he did not disagree with any of this, but thought the AAAS should have made it clear what could be justified by the scientific evidence and what was based on judgement. He pointed out that he and his colleague were not experts on climate change.

I'm not sure anyone is seriously disagreeing with anyone here, myself, it just looks like a difference in emphasis.

One other footnote from the article, it appears that Carl Wunsch has now formally complained to Ofcom re the GCCS.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
A few interesting things in this morning's Independent. ...

quote:
Sceptics charge that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exaggerates the dangers. But Sir John, as one of the founders of the panel, says that it had "deliberately underestimated the problem".

By coincidence, just a few minutes ago I was sitting in our coffee lounge waiting for the microwave to be free to re-heat my lunch, flicking through a recent New Scientist. And, there was a short article about someone complaining that the IPCC SPM had been significantly cut by politicians to remove, or underplay, several positive feedback mechanisms that would make the predictions there out to be best case scenarios. ie: he was complaining that the IPCC was deliberately underestimating the problem. What particularly caught my eye was that the New Scientist article focussed on accelerated ice-sheet flows - exactly the area I was asked about by 206.

If anyone's interested in what someone with a gripe has to say about the IPCC, there's a few pages here, with comments about ice-sheets here.

[ 19. March 2007, 13:18: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

I think Noiseboy's conclusion that no one is substantially disagreeing is correct.

quote:
exactly the area I was asked about by 206.

Thanks, Alan. If I understood all that they said what you said which is no one has enough data to accurately predict what will happen to the ice sheets.

Interestingly enough I stumbled onto this yesterday:

quote:
The discovery of the rich source of energy in fossil fuels drove the industrial revolution; and our economy, if it continues with business-as-usual, is on a path to burn all our fossil fuel reserves in a few centuries. This will return to the atmosphere fossil carbon that has been locked in the earth for hundreds of millions of years and propel us to a future with a transformed planet with no ice caps and a sea level 200 feet higher. We don't know all the details, just the broad outlines, but we know enough (and every year the diligent work of tens of thousands of scientists fills in more of the map).

Alan Betts is a 'real' climate scientist and this perhaps underscores we laymen's confusion about, and resulting distrust of, much of what we hear.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

Whoops: forgot this link.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Forgive me, but in that case I don't understand why you are posting on this thread or even reading it. Surely the point of a discussion is to have an open mind to learn something new, sharpen up your own arguments, see other perspectives even if you disagree with them.

I only said I don't have anything I want to add for now. I (obviously) still read this thread - Dave W's explanation of the greenhouse effect was the first time I've felt I understand it. I spend too much time here anyway, and don't have any special expertese in this area, so - for now - I'm leaving active participation to those of you with this particular interest.

Is that OK? [Smile]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Interesting article, 206. It raises a big question that is rarely mentioned even in this discussion - what will happen in a few centuries? All the forecasts limit themselves to 2099 in terms of projections. The liklihood of sea-level rises of many metres this century may be extremely remote, but in another few centuries?...

Needless to say, the further you look, the more uncertain the prediction. But the most alarmist doom-mongers may have a point - if (and it is a big if) we do ever pass a climate tipping point, it may begin an unstoppable process ending in something as extreme as Alan Betts mentions. I know this sort of talk is a major turn-off for some (and is exactly what the scientists at the weekend were cautioning against), but IMHO it can't be easily dismissed.

BTW, I liked Alan Betts' tone very much, pretty much chimes with where I am I think.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

To all concerned - thanks for the discussion. Whilst I haven't contributed I have found it fascinating to read.

Alan, in particular, has moved my thinking on.

Alan have you seen any of the repeats of the programme - on more4. I can see the plausibility (or otherwise) of a number of the political arguments - I feel I am more knowledgeable in this area than in science. However, a number of assertions are made that have not been tackled here and wondered if you had any further comments.

Luigi

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Interesting article, 206. It raises a big question that is rarely mentioned even in this discussion - what will happen in a few centuries? All the forecasts limit themselves to 2099 in terms of projections. The liklihood of sea-level rises of many metres this century may be extremely remote, but in another few centuries?...

Is there enough ice to do this even if it all melted? I found one quote that the maximum would be 75m, though this wasn't from a source I would particularly trust (a blog) - though I've no particular reason to doubt it either. [Just found another site, the USGS which says 80m and which I would view as more authoratitive]. However this led me onto another interesting site showing how the UK (and the rest of the world if you zoom out) would be affected by different sea level rises. Gives an interesting visual summary; the UK doesn't do too badly (unless you live in East Anglia) for even quite large sea level rises, whereas Bangladesh is swamped.

My feelings on the issue of how much to talk about the possibility of more extreme consequences are mixed. On the one hand, if these consequences are likely then people need to know the truth; but of course it's counterproductive if it makes people either disbelieve the whole concept or give up because the problem is too large. As for events in the distant future, doubt it's worth talking about them too much. For my money the immediate future, with even the mildest out of the range of likely consequences actually happening, is scary enough to want to change things!

Jonah

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I missed this a couple of days ago, but New Scientist has a story regarding US congressional hearings on governmental suppression of climate scientists. The committee has reported that documents...

quote:
...appear to portray a systematic White House effort to minimise the significance of climate change.

Of all of Martin Durkin's claims, perhaps the one where climate scientists can only get government money if they toe the line with regard to ACC is the most far-fetched (although it does have stiff competition...)

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
. However this led me onto another interesting site showing how the UK (and the rest of the world if you zoom out) would be affected by different sea level rises. Gives an interesting visual summary; the UK doesn't do too badly (unless you live in East Anglia) for even quite large sea level rises, whereas Bangladesh is swamped.

Or just north of Liverpool -- the mosses behind Southport flood fairly early and by 10m my old house is flooded. I might not have liked the place much but I don't wish that on anyone! It doesn't show up very well on the UK sized map as it's only a thin strip

By 8m a friend's house in Cam is in danger. Amusingly, Landbeach is drowned before Waterbeach.

Carys

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
(unless you live in East Anglia)

And why would one want to live anywhere else? [Frown]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Alan have you seen any of the repeats of the programme - on more4.

I still haven't seen it. But, I have been asked to provide "expert input" (and, yes I've already told the minister it's not my field of expertise) to a discussion on the programme at a local church at the end of April. So, I'm trying to see it sometime before then, and at least get through the website associated with the programme.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Will Melvyn be there, Alan, will he, Alan, Alan, will he?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

In the Al Gore thread in Hell, Lynn MagdalenCollege wrote:

quote:
I can't tell you how many false prophets asserted we'd never make it through the end of the previous millenium

I replied:

quote:
Fair enough. But it wasn't the overwhelming majority of mainstream climate scientists saying there was a big problem then.

TomOfTarsus picked me up on this, and so I've moved it to this thread. (Being nervous of Hell denizens had nothing to do with the decision, naturally.)

My reasons for the statement are:
(i) The peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports global warming as being anthropogenic. (A 2004 review of 928 research papers found that none disputed it.)
(i) Virtually all scientific institutions believe global warming is largely anthropogenic.
(ii) Many of these institutions believe that the effects may be extremely severe. There is lots of uncertainty about the rates of warming etc., but the potential risks of inaction are very high.

Typical statements are:-
Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. [...] The dangers posed by climate change are no longer merely possible and long-term. They are probable, imminent, and global in scope.
- The Geological Society of London

Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). [...]. We call on world leaders to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
- A joint statement written by – wait for it - the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)

Similar statements have been made by The American Meteorological Society, The American Institute of Physics, The American Geophysical Union, and countless others. The only notable dissenter is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who “urge that any actions to implement or to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and any future declarations of climate policy be delayed”

This is what the scientists are saying, if their own professional bodies reflect their views at all. If anything, I’d guess the joint statements tend to be conservative – many prominent researchers (with impeccable credentials) are much more pessimistic of our chances.

It's why the comparison to 'global cooling' is so frustrating - there were virtually no references to that in the peer-reviewed journals, and what references that there were were pretty non-commital. (Basically "It might be a problem. We need more research to find out.")

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Hiro's Leap - hear hear. I'd actually add that from my reading of the 70's cooling, no peer-reviewed journal said anything more than "on a geological timescale (ie tens or hundreds of thousands of years) we might be heading towards another ice age."

Incidentally, for anyone left who remotely cares about the ongoing GCCS fracas, the source of the mysterious "NASA" global temperature data graph has been found. It appeared on the website of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which is run from a farm in rural Oregon with a paid staff of one. Sourcewatch has a captivating history of this particular outfit. And even using a source this dodgy with libellous attribution, Durkin still managed to fabricate the axis labelling...

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Hiya, Hiro!

I got taken out of town, and I'm cooling my heels in a hotel in Kentucky waiting for my customer to get ready for me to test.

So I spent all that time listening to GCCS and it's all been debunked?

Goes to show how gullible I am. It seemed to make good sense. YouTube also had a 5 part set by some freindsofscience.org that had some of the same people saying the same thing.

But I gotta wonder, from a man-on-the street POV, are both sides somewhat correct? As I mentioned on the Hell thread, when I fly I pretty much universally see a clear demarkation on climb-out at roughy 10,000 ft, below which the air looks hazy and "dirty" and above which it is remarkably blue and pretty. That haze can be a remarkably good heat trapper, as I've experienced on many a hazy, hot and humid day here in Pittsburgh.

So I ask, is it really C02, or is it C02 and/or water vapor (the other chief by-product of burning hydorcarbons, identified as the "main" greenhouse gas in the GCCS thing), and perhaps particulates, that is trapping a lot of heat close to the surface? I mean, if true the answer is still the same, I think: greater energy efficency and do something about what does escape the stack, tailpipe, or whatever(entrap/condense, etc).

Back in the heyday of anti-nuke protesting and the beginning of the geen movement (the "Silent Spring" days), both coal and nuke stations along rivers had to construct cooling towers so that all the waste heat didn't go into the rivers. Now both the waste heat and water vapor go into the lowest parts of the atmosphere. (I then remember the discussion shifting to the cooling caused by these plumes...) And at that, have all the climate change folks even looked at that aspect? All energy use ends up as heat, no matter how efficient. It's that entropy thing catching up with us again. The more people, the more we'll have, up to the thermodynamic limits of efficency. (There is a web site advocating the voluntary extinction of the human race as "the right thing to do" for the environment [Big Grin]

)

So from my POV we actually have several possible culprits:

Haze-causing pollutants (unburned hydrocarbons, cow farts & methane emmisions from volcanoes, rotting carcasses, etc... ), particulates, including dust storms, etc. (not to mention toxins, etc. that we're trying to eliminate)
Water vapor as a by-product of any form of hydrocabon combustion (biofuel or fossil) -also adds to haze.
CO2 (same source, although supposedly our contibution is incremental compared to natural sources- don't forget that people and animals emit CO2 and water vapor as well!)
the waste heat of all these processes, right down to the friction heating of your car tires or the electrical heating in your toasters & miorowaves & esp those 400 W computers we all game on! TV's, the whole lot - your electric bill is mostly a heat bill.

All these hit the atmosphere from the bottom up and may explain why some in the GCCS documentary were taking exception to the greehouse gas GW scenaio because it should be happening from the top down by "common" thinking (in their field, I suppose).

I'm not so naive as to think I've stumbled on to the whole issue when a whole lot of smarter folks than I have devoted careers to this single subject, but then, neither is this thread the be-all and end-all, with scientists flocking to be sure they keep up wih our ground-breaking dicussions! [Big Grin]

But the thread has been languishing, and I'm still curious, and I think as a "Christian unrest" website, it behooves us to ask, "OK, now what do we do?" Yes, I'm suggesting another thread and anyone who wants to can source from here if they'd like.

If Britian (as Alan Creswell has said) is well on the way to a 20% C02 reduction from 1990 levels, how did they do this? More nuke? Greater efficiency? Because I'd imagine they have more people on the fair isle since 1990, and they all need their cars, and toaters, microwaves, stoves, and furnaces-not to mention these hot-shot computers raising the entropy - so therefore the per capita rate of CO2 generation has gone down even more than that. I guess global warming could help in tha regard - you don't need your furnace as much! [Cool]

But other than that, it still gets dark at the same time, the kids have to go to school & folks to work, and the beef still has to be heated to 176 deg. F.

And I ask as well, are we holding back third-world development, prolonging suffering and causing death? The GCCS scenario, portraying the African GW meeting as elitist, was an effective illustration, if true (and yes, I understand the little clinic they trotted out was expressly for creating the hardest contrast possible, but the point was this doctor should've used a portable generator if you need to save lives, and GW types are saying to Africa "don't go that route -stay green").

I'd also like to think (since I really like to flatter myself into thinking I'm all wordly wise & what not [Biased]

) that one of my other points still stands: that no matter how you cut it, if we have to go into some sort of privation because of this, we as Christians better be darned sure about it, because it will hit "the least of these" the hardest. And as Christians, we should take the lead in self-sacrifice, to minimize the impact on the poor. But it has to be a real effect, not imagined (like Al Gore's carbon credits), hence the need to really thrash it out.

I have a mixed bag of reasons for conserving, as I've said on the Hell thread. One, it's godly to not squander resources. Two, I can't afford the bills if I do. But now add that when the lights go out, we'd better be able to do without them. Maybe the Amish were right after all!

Sorry if all this has been discussed before. But I really do think that We need to discuss where we go from here, both in a humanitarian way and technically. I hope any readers enjoy this long-winded tome, I hate typing on laptops!

Blessings,

Tom

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
CO2 (same source, although supposedly our contibution is incremental compared to natural sources- don't forget that people and animals emit CO2 and water vapor as well!

Well, it is true that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are very small compared to natural sources, if you only count sources but not sinks. Vegetation and soils (including decomposition of plant matter) produce 60GtC per annum, but absorb 61GtC; 90GtC are released from the ocean per annum, but the oceans absorb 92GtC. Fossil fuels and cement production releases 5.5GtC per annum, and changes in land use produce a further 1GtC net per annum. So, yes, human activity produces 4% the amount of carbon as natural processes - but in terms on net contribution to carbon in the atmosphere the sums are: human +6.5GtC, natural -3GtC.

quote:
If Britian (as Alan Creswell has said) is well on the way to a 20% C02 reduction from 1990 levels, how did they do this? More nuke? Greater efficiency?

This DTI document has a fairly accessible summary of UK reductions in carbon emission - currently 15% below 1990 levels. The cuts have come about partly through efficiencies (the current government campaign is aimed at domestic users to do their 20%), helped in part by warmer winters reducing heating use, and changes in generation; increased gas over coal (which produces less CO2 per kWh production) and more efficient coal power stations, an increase in nuclear through the completion of Sizewell B and increasing the output from other stations (note that in 1990 some nuclear stations were temporarily closed or at reduced capacity for safety checks following the Chernobyl accident) and an increase in renewables. In fact electricity production has increased with less CO2 production. Though, as nuclear power production is decreasing as existing plants close down there's going to be a big gap in capacity. And, without additional government measures (which would include a decision to build more nuclear) the prediction is to return to 1990 emission levels in 2050.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Thanks again, Alan, the CO2 stuff makes sense, and confirms a suspcion I felt watching the GCCS thing- when mentioning the volcanoes, etc belching CO2, it didn't mention how much of that was in turn reabsorbed by our ever-faihful vegetation. I guess I should just quit being lazy and wade thru this whole thread for the GCCS discussion.

Hope you get your nuke program back on track!

Blessings,

Tom

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I've seen the bit of the GCCS about natural vs anthropogenic CO2. They're disengenuous about emissions from plants and oceans by omitting the natural absorbtion rates. On the volcano thing they're totally wrong. Volcanoes produce about 150MtC per year, that is about 2% of the amount produced by burning fossil fuels.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Maybe the chose the year Mt. St. Helens blew her stack! Hey, there's more than one way to find the number you need!

Thanks again, I don't mean to make you rehash the whole thing...

Blessings,

Tom

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Actually, an individual volcano simply isn't that big. The total planetary volcanism on the planet (everything from the eruptions of Old Faithful to catastrophic explosions) averages about 150MtC. The maximum CO2 production rate measured at Mt St Helens was 22kT/d - even if that was sustained during over several months that's less than 1Mt (<1% of the annual total volcanic CO2 production).

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Maybe the chose the year Mt. St. Helens blew her stack! Hey, there's more than one way to find the number you need!

Thanks again, I don't mean to make you rehash the whole thing...

Blessings,

Tom

On the volcano thing I thought that the claim that they produced more CO2 than humans sounded odd, and a swift google revealed that the first site I came across, The US Geological Survey stated :"Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)! "

I have some thoughts on the claim that people who believe that climate change is real are condemning developing countries to continuing poverty but I won't post them until I've got time to get my thoughts in slightly greater order. Suffice to say for now that this is a 'what should we do about climate change' rather than a 'is climate changed caused by humans' question.

Jonah

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Suffice to say for now that this is a 'what should we do about climate change' rather than a 'is climate changed caused by humans' question.

Well, being of a practical bent myself, that's where I'm at (see my long-winded blather near the end of the previous page).

Start with the assumption that it's happeneing and that we're part of it. Now what?

I ain't much for starting threads, I'm trying to do other things here (ah, but the boards pull me back!), So be my guest!

Later,

Tom

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I've just bumped the "It's happening: what should we do?" thread for anyone who wants to carry on that discussion (it's been inactive for over a month, so well worth reviving imho).

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

By the way, sorry if my previous post sounded a bit snarky. The snarkiness wasn't aimed at you Tom! I should have said that I did the google on volcanos after the Climate Change Swindle Programme made that claim and came up with those figures in about 5 seconds - which rather put the research skills of the people behind the programme into question!

Jonah

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's a claim that regularly gets aired in such discussions, so I didn't even bother Googling it. I did Google to find the releases from Mt St Helens though. This is sometimes the sort of discussion that can raise as many PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) as some other subjects where a claim is made without (or even against the) evidence and circulated among those who wish to believe such things and routinely brought out even though it's total rubbish. Wasn't there a thread on similarities between Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptics and YECs?

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Sorry, everyone, I was out of town and then my mother injured herself, and everything went to that place in a handbasket and now I'm back in the office but shouldn't be doing this, so JonahMan, no offence taken, and Alan, sorry for the PRATT's! Your patience is admirable.

Later all,

Tom

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

For those as interested as I am in the ongoing debacle of The Global Climate Change Swindle (if there is anyone!), there is some fascinating correspondance between Hamish Mykura, commissioning editor of History, Science and Religion at Channel 4 television and environmentalist George Monbiot. Mykura cited Monbiot's "Greenwash" edition of Despatches, aired the same week as the GCCS, as part of the same series of programmes on the environment from the channel to demonstrate balance in their coverage. The whole correspondance is fascinating - needless to say, in my eyes C4's case is wafer thin and collapses under the weight of even an modicum of reason.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
For those as interested as I am in the ongoing debacle of The Global Climate Change Swindle (if there is anyone!),

Not me ... [Big Grin]

I would imagine the people interested in any controversy are either (a) those like yourself who already believed what was said was wrong, or (b) those who don't understand/aren't interested in/aren't convinced by the science. There were other issues raised by the programme that you have hardly mentioned, nor has any other pro-manmade global warming person on here so far as I can see. That was one of the attractive aspects of the programme: it had many dimensions and was very good at introducing and outlining the various issues involved. It also represented the 'alternative view', which was needed and welcome to the skeptical and/or confused among us.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
It also represented the 'alternative view', which was needed and welcome to the skeptical and/or confused among us.

And the programme helped by lying (volcano emissions, for instance) and misrepresenting?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
It also represented the 'alternative view', which was needed and welcome to the skeptical and/or confused among us.
And the programme helped by lying (volcano emissions, for instance) and misrepresenting?

Well, you see, the programme didn't refer to volcano emissions alone. It simply referred to them as one of many things that naturally occur which all contribute to global warming (the natural contributions seem to have completely disappeared from the pro-manmade lobby position so it was useful to be reminded of them).

The programme also discussed issues like the politics surrounding the debate, the affects of those politics on the developing world, etc, yet the focus on this thread since the programme was shown has been on specific issues of science, which in itself is a reflection of the politics surrounding the debate of course, along with the much-wished-for ticking off of Channel 4 of course.

As for you accusing the programme of lying and misleading ... you mocked it when it was first shown; you came to it with a kind of "it's all bollocks" attitude so you are bound to think it was all lies, lies and more lies, aren't you?

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
As for you accusing the programme of lying and misleading ... you mocked it when it was first shown; you came to it with a kind of "it's all bollocks" attitude so you are bound to think it was all lies, lies and more lies, aren't you?

When simple facts like volcanic emissions are very easy to check, and the programme got them wrong, I don't need to do anything as complicated as "thinking".

I have checked over my posts and I don't think I have mocked it - I posted a critique and later I stated this in post 212:

"I am going to stick my hand up here and say that the enormous consensus of scientists doing climate research state that it is very likely that greenhouse gases produced by mankind are more responsible than Milankovich cycles and solar cycles for global warming. If in 40 years times it appears that this is not the case I will admit that I was wrong and was duped."

I mention other possible factors affecting climate change.

Credible evidence is worth considering, lies and distortions are not.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
[qb] As for you accusing the programme of lying and misleading ... you mocked it when it was first shown; you came to it with a kind of "it's all bollocks" attitude so you are bound to think it was all lies, lies and more lies, aren't you?
When simple facts like volcanic emissions are very easy to check, and the programme got them wrong, I don't need to do anything as complicated as "thinking".

You say this yet who can check on what you are saying? How do I know exactly that what you say is correct and not what the programme says? How do I know where to go to check on the data presented by the programme? It's always the case when any specialist area is referred to in any medium (TV, radio, the lecture hall ...). Without prior knowledge of the field, or at least a related field, it is almost impossible to know who is accurate and who is not, which is why I watched the programme as a whole production rather than solely for the science. It was simply interesting to hear 'the other side' from the science POV, but I was no more enlightened by it. The most helpful post on here in terms of science is the one Alan Cresswell wrote about probabilities: a concept and some stats I could actually understand and relate to.

quote:
I have checked over my posts and I don't think I have mocked it

Yes, you are right. My apologies. It was Clint Boggis whose post was mocking.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Imagine a programme called The Great Evolution Swindle. It features some scientists who are creationists. It also features an eminent scientist that isn't, but the programme edits his contributions to make it look like he is. Being as there is no genuine data that supports their argument, they instead choose to fabricate scientific data instead, and present basic facts incorrectly. Having lied to make a scientific case, it proceeds to then tell us that there is a great conspiracy among the scientific community to prevent the truth from getting out. And it boldy concludes that "you are being told lies".

Hyperbole? Not a bit of it. Acutally the real world is far more serious, since decisions based on the programme will have real world consequences. Carl Wunsch, a contributor to the real GCCS, has described the Channel 4 programme as "the closest thing to pure propaganda since World War II". And he has a strong case. The level of attention to scientific detail is revealed when we discover that the programme sourced its "NASA world temperature" graph from a one-man farm in Oregon. And then changed the axis to make it more dramatic.

Littlelady - read Monbiot's correspondance to see the unexhaustive list of basic scientific errors in the programme (not just volcanoes by any means), none refuted by the programme's own commissioner. You often say - "yes, but how do we know who to believe"? The answer has been said time and again - published science (but if you don't believe Alan on these boards whom you do respect I don't know who you do believe). Monbiot's own programme was opinionated (the lone defence of the GCCS to justtify it - "it is only an opinion") but crucially it IS factually accurate. Also unlike the GCCS it is not full of straw men - although some media focuses solely on CO2, the scientific community never has (although, crucially, CO2 is an extremely important contributor), while developing nations are exempt from Kyoto.

Do you really expect us to take the GCCS's almost insane political conspiracies (eg Margaret Thatcher is responsible for world surpression of open science) seriously after its scientific content has been totally demolished? This was not a programme remotely interested in genuine debate. We were not presented with views of a significant minority, we were presented with verifiable lies. Funnily enough, I've never found verifiable lies to be particularly refreshing.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
The programme also discussed issues like the politics surrounding the debate, the affects of those politics on the developing world, etc, yet the focus on this thread since the programme was shown has been on specific issues of science, which in itself is a reflection of the politics surrounding the debate of course, along with the much-wished-for ticking off of Channel 4 of course.

I've still not had a chance to watch the whole of the programme, though I have found the UTube copy. I have, however sat through a few bits of it.

From what I've seen, it's in raising issues about how policies regarding greenhouse gas reduction could affect the development of poorer nations that the programme is at it's strongest. There is clearly a question of justice here. There's good evidence (according to the scientific consensus, rather than the programme) that the climate is being significantly altered mostly by the past and present activities of humans in the rich countries of the world. There's good evidence that the poorer countries of the world are going to be worst affected by those alterations to the climate system. And, yet international politics may result in restrictions on the development of those same countries who are a) not as responsible for the problem as the rich and b) already facing the worst of the problems. The challenge to those of us who are a) convinced that we have altered the climate and b) convinced that we need to do something about it, is how do we do something the mitigate the problems while trying to be fair to those countries who haven't done much to cause the problem? And, it is quite a challenge with no immediately easy solution.

I think the reason this discussion has concentrated on the science presented in the programme is because that's the theme of the thread. We're discussing whether human activity has contributed to climate change, which is the science bit of the programme. The "what can we do about it?" question is being addressed elsewhere.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Alan, excuse the slightly off-topic diversion, but did you see the bit with the small African community, the solar panel, the fridge and the lightbulb? The programme said that they had enough power only for one and not the other. The provision seemed inadequate to be sure but, I can't understand this specific scenario, since the average fridge needs about 400w, and the low energy lightbulb needs 11w. Is it believable to have a system this low in tolerance? Given the dubious nature of the science portrayed in the programme generally, I am rather suspicious of this scenario also...

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Imagine a programme called The Great Evolution Swindle. It features some scientists who are creationists.

Some are, in that they see God as the creator behind it all (rather than God as creating individual creatures). My brother is one such: he has a Phd too, and studies the little things in life (viruses, bacteria, etc - he's the family 'poo doc' [Big Grin]

). I don't make assumptions about scientists, but that's possibly because I've got one in the family.

I've actually no idea how people came about and I'm quite sure any respectable scientist will confess that evolution is actually a theory, not a proven fact or even a fact. It's a theory they find more plausible than any other (creationist theory among them).

quote:
The answer has been said time and again - published science (but if you don't believe Alan on these boards whom you do respect I don't know who you do believe).

Well, I respect Alan as much as I can respect anyone who isn't an expert in the field and whom I have never met! Sometimes Alan could have been talking Greek for all I understood him! But I could say the same for someone discussing car mechanics or the intricacies of high fashion. As I said earlier, the post of Alan's I fully understood was the one on probabilities. Not only did I understand it but it also seemed far more plausible than much of what I have read on here. I can deal in probabilities when we are talking about something that hasn't happened yet (and may never happen), but I cannot deal in certainties when we are talking about those same things. So any dogmatic statements or persistent assertions sail right over my head. Either that or they annoy me and make me more determined to stick to my guns!

Since Alan's post, incidentally, I have felt far happier in conceding that we might well have something to do with what is happening on the global climate scene. I don't believe it's all our fault, as many are claiming, but I've begun to notice just how much polution and how much energy is being used up around me (I've always been an energy saver, but only because my parents brought me up to dislike waste and recycle whenever possible).

It's all about understanding one's audience, Noiseboy. [Biased]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've still not had a chance to watch the whole of the programme, though I have found the UTube copy. I have, however sat through a few bits of it.

Actually, I think to really appreciate the programme's impact it is best to sit through it from beginning to end. As a piece of TV it is pretty compelling and there is sequence to it.

quote:
From what I've seen, it's in raising issues about how policies regarding greenhouse gas reduction could affect the development of poorer nations that the programme is at it's strongest.

That and the politics surrounding the current lobby (which include the impact on Africa). I think the issue of Africa hit me hardest because (a) I'm sensitive to cultural colonialism, and (b) I hadn't actually realised African countries might be feeling such pressure in this regard. On the one hand they are under pressure to grow economically - pay back debts, not accrue more debt, etc - yet on the other they are now being told they must do so without (where appropriate) using their natural resources in such a way that would most benefit their country economically. This is especially difficult given that those in the West responsible for the pressure have enjoyed their economic boom times as a result of those same 'wrong' natural resources.

quote:
The "what can we do about it?" question is being addressed elsewhere.

I agree, though I wasn't really thinking of solutions at the time I wrote my post; more like exploring the issues. But nonetheless, I take your point.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Cheers littlelady. I'll leave the creation issue for the mo as I don't think there's anything constructive I can say about it!

So if the question is about probabilities (which I think we'd all agree it is), I suppose I have two questions - 1) whose figures would you accept and 2) at what level of probability do you think action should be taken?

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Double post sinner here - a very good Reuters article today ahead of tomorrows detailed IPCC report on the likely specific effects of climate change. It discusses the terminology used in media reports vs the carefully considered scientific terms, and when dramtic language is or isn't justified.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Whoa, triple post sinner. Today the IPCC has published the first of its three detailed reports on the current status of climate change. First impressions are that there is a level of detail and specific regional information that is both surprising and new. They analysed over 29,000 datasets of recorded information across the world, finding that over 90% were consistent with the scenarios that the models have projected. They also say that, as a result, for the first time there are impirically observed effects of climate change across the whole world.

They also had more information on who will be hit hardest by future climate change, and top of the list is sub-Saharan Africa (which was grimly predictable). Also interesting is that they forecast some short-medium term benefits in some aspects in some areas - increased growing seasons in parts of the northern hemisphere, for example. However, this breaks down when, and if, warming of greater than 3 degrees celsius above late 20th century base level is acheived. On this point, it's worth pointing out that the northern hemisphere will suffer other effects of climate change. For example, between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the effect of the Northern European heatwave in 2003 is attributable to anthropogenic climate change (which killed between 35,000 and 50,000 people) with the rest down to natural climate variablity.

[ 06. April 2007, 10:32: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Committee on Energy and Commerce Report
These are the findings of the ad hoc commitee report [27] authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University in July 2006:
* MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b were found to be valid and compelling.
* It is noted that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
* A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction of at least 43 authors having direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him is described. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus â€˜independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
* It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.
* Overall, the committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/te/temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years.htm

As someone who didn't know the arguments until this discussion I've become increasingly irritated by the myth that a) the current warming is 'unprecedented' and b) it's all our fault.

Let's start at the beginning, the reason the earth has the climate it has and not that of Mars or Venus is primarily its position relative to the sun and a magnetic field which gives us the climate we have - and the sun is a effin big star that is half way through its 10 billion year life. One day the earth will get so hot that it will burn up completely, quite regardless of our existence or what we do. We're insignificant in the scheme of things and like the dinosaurs we could well have our day and then be gone forever in a similar mass extinction event when only 5% of living creatures survived, and those the smallest or burrowing.

It is not proved that a) there is now unprecedented global warming and b) that this is driven by higher levels of CO2 and c) that this is caused by our increased levels of CO2 production.

It is simply not proved.

Interesting and real scientific data even when presented accurately is spoiled by such unsubstantiated claims as on this page's parting shot in an otherwise rational look at the Milkanovich data. http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/milankovitch.htm

And I've become so fed up with reading the myth presented in sound bites such as this:

Sami Solanki of the Max Planck institute for Solar Research: "Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

When the previous decades showed distinct global cooling (against which he measures this) and the greatest rise was up to the thirties when there wasn't the great industrial generation of CO2 of today. But he's taking this myth as proven, not his line of research.

This, finally, is what has turned me off the subject - the use/abuse of scientific data to present man made global warming as a proven theory regardless, and most of the the time in spite of, contradictory data which immediately disproves it.

There's no science here, the driving force for this theory is man made wind.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Let's start at the beginning, the reason the earth has the climate it has and not that of Mars or Venus is primarily its position relative to the sun and a magnetic field which gives us the climate we have

That and the chemistry of the atmosphere of the earth that includes small quantities of potent greenhouse gases sufficient to keep the earth relatively warm (cf the temperature of the Moon, which shares the same solar energy input but has a significantly lower mean temperature - the greater lunar temperature variation is simply an effect of having no atmosphere, an atmosphere of any sort will act as a heat reservoir evening out the temperature extremes). The effect of the magnetic field on the earths climate is minor; though it is significant in terms of reduction in harder radiation levels on the surface, and hence on the evolution and survival of life as we know it.

quote:
the sun is a effin big star that is half way through its 10 billion year life. One day the earth will get so hot that it will burn up completely, quite regardless of our existence or what we do.

Yeah, cos the sun will burn us up in 5 billion years (give or take a few years) that means we don't have to worry about what we're doing that will impact the next few decades and centuries? Let's just screw most of humanity for our own comfort now, after all it doesn't matter cos we'll all be dead in 5 billion years. What a load of bollocks. I've more respect for Martin PC Not's "Jesus'll fix it" argument than that.

quote:
It is not proved that a) there is now unprecedented global warming and b) that this is driven by higher levels of CO2 and c) that this is caused by our increased levels of CO2 production.

What more proof do you want? I recall you brought out a load of temperature data to "disprove" Mann - and that data still showed that recent temperature rises have been unprecedented. And, that those temperature rises correlate with unprecedented levels of CO2 in the last 20 million years. And, the physics of how CO2 behaves show conclusively that it acts as a greenhouse gas. Oh, and there's tons of evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result of fossil fuel burning - not just the temporal correlation that as we burn more fossil fuel CO2 increases, but also things like 14C:12C ratios proving that the mean age of atmospheric carbon is getting older (well, it was until we let off a load of nukes and pumped more 14C back into the atmosphere).

quote:
Interesting and real scientific data even when presented accurately is spoiled by such unsubstantiated claims as on this page's parting shot in an otherwise rational look at the Milkanovich data. http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/milankovitch.htm

Hmmm, if you think that summary of the orbital dynamics of the earth constitutes "real scientific data" I'm really concerned about your understanding of science. It is, of course, a summary of real data. And, a pretty good and accesible one at that. I'm not quite sure what you mean aboput the parting shot. Do you mean this?

quote:
Though Milankovitch cycles do explain long-term climate change, they can't account for changes being made by humans, which appear to have an even greater effect than variations in earth-sun interaction.

That seems to be an equally good summary of scientific data. If recent warming is driven by Milankovitch cycles then our understanding of orbital dynamics is up a creek without a paddle - because in relation to Milankovitch cycles we should be at the warmest part of an interglacial, in fact we've been there for centuries, and if the cycle is driving anything it should be getting colder. There's a consistent increase in temperature at the end of each glaciation that's driven by Milankovitch cycles, then an approximatley constant temperature before the cycle sends us into a cooling period leading to another glaciation. We've already had that temperature increase for this interglacial, and we've just had the same level of increase on top of that. That simply can not be explained by the Milankovitch cycle.

quote:
There's no science here, the driving force for this theory is man made wind.

Yep, I agree. Your pontifications on this thread reveal no science at all, simply Mryhh made wind.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I've become increasingly irritated by the myth that a) the current warming is 'unprecedented' and b) it's all our fault.

So what? It's happening, and we have to deal with it whether or not it is our fault or it happened before.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I've become increasingly irritated by the myth that a) the current warming is 'unprecedented' and b) it's all our fault.
So what? It's happening, and we have to deal with it whether or not it is our fault or it happened before.

Or not - apparently, if we all just sit tight for the next 5 billion years it will all be much of a muchness anyway. Or something.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That and the chemistry of the atmosphere of the earth that includes small quantities of potent greenhouse gases sufficient to keep the earth relatively warm (cf the temperature of the Moon, which shares the same solar energy input but has a significantly lower mean temperature - the greater lunar temperature variation is simply an effect of having no atmosphere, an atmosphere of any sort will act as a heat reservoir evening out the temperature extremes). The effect of the magnetic field on the earths climate is minor; though it is significant in terms of reduction in harder radiation levels on the surface, and hence on the evolution and survival of life as we know it.

Er, minor? But of course, the mininmal amount of C02 in the atmosphere isn't minor when its rising levels are driving global warming.. The Moon and Mars lost their magnetic fields and so lost all their atmosphere, the magnetic field is the main line of defence against solar radiation. The earth's magnetic field has been losing strenghth since measurements began in the 1840's and some say we could be in for one of the periodic polar reversals. Seems to me this is far more significant in 'global warming' than rising CO2 levels which by all sensible accounts show an 800 year time lag between periods of warming and playing catch-up CO2 levels.

quote:
Yeah, cos the sun will burn us up in 5 billion years (give or take a few years) that means we don't have to worry about what we're doing that will impact the next few decades and centuries? Let's just screw most of humanity for our own comfort now, after all it doesn't matter cos we'll all be dead in 5 billion years. What a load of bollocks. I've more respect for Martin PC Not's "Jesus'll fix it" argument than that.

You keep missing my point. Our climate is bigger than us.

Certainly we should make all attempts to be responsible for what we do, cleaning up our air and stopping the pollution of our rivers for examples is a GOOD THING. But I see the ideology leading the conclusions in this argument, the science really doesn't back it up. The correlation shown between solar flares and CO2 levels is discounted as 'minor', the movement of the earth and magnetic fields are discounted as minor, everything is discounted as minor except the UNPROVEN theory that man made CO2 levels are driving global warming. Everything and anything that shows detrimental change is used as a proof of global warming, everything and anything that would cause a real scientist to stop and think is discounted as irrelevant.

I'm interested in the science not someone's pet ideology.

quote:
It is not proved that a) there is now unprecedented global warming and b) that this is driven by higher levels of CO2 and c) that this is caused by our increased levels of CO2 production.

quote:
What more proof do you want? I recall you brought out a load of temperature data to "disprove" Mann - and that data still showed that recent temperature rises have been unprecedented.

I've also shown data which disproves Mann and in my last post showed conclusions by peer review which says that Mann's claim that this temperature rise is unprecedented is UNPROVEN by his, very reluctantly given, work.

quote:
And, that those temperature rises correlate with unprecedented levels of CO2 in the last 20 million years.

Look at the bigger picture. Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

quote:
And, the physics of how CO2 behaves show conclusively that it acts as a greenhouse gas.

A truly minor part of the greater whole of greenhouses gases and, actually, in the broader picture showing increased levels are effects, not causes in themselves. That is, temperature rises precede CO2 rises. Past high CO2 levels don't always show high temperatures. That the chemistry proves it has an effect on temperature isn't enough here when we are constantly bombarded by accusations of being irresponsibly driving global warming. Which, global warming, is itself shown to be not a fact by past data.

quote:
Oh, and there's tons of evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result of fossil fuel burning - not just the temporal correlation that as we burn more fossil fuel CO2 increases, but also things like 14C:12C ratios proving that the mean age of atmospheric carbon is getting older (well, it was until we let off a load of nukes and pumped more 14C back into the atmosphere).

This is what p*s me off. Off course fossil fuel burning produces CO2, so does the increase in world animal population farts.

But there is no proof that it's this extra amount we're contributing that is driving global warming - and this is the ideology we're being victimised into believing.

What are we told first? That the temperature increase of today is measured against the temperature "since records began". Er, duh. That these records began as we were coming out of a mini ice age isn't mentioned..

This isn't what I think of as scientific proof to a theory.

That our contribution to the rising levels of CO2 is the cause regardless that this recent rise in temperature began in a majority pre-industrial society, that the steepest rise occurred pre WWII and that global temperatures actually showed a significant decrease in the decades following when industrial man made CO2 was increasing exponentially (poetic) across the globe all goes to show that that the theory is not proven.

I'm really sorry Alan, but I find the arguments of the global warmers to be increasingly and stridently irrational.

quote:
http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/milankovitch.htm

quote:
Hmmm, if you think that summary of the orbital dynamics of the earth constitutes "real scientific data" I'm really concerned about your understanding of science.

It's a page showing and explaining real scientific data, by a real scientist. The Milkanovitch cycles are proven and relevant.

quote:
It is, of course, a summary of real data. And, a pretty good and accesible one at that.

Exactly.

quote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean aboput the parting shot. Do you mean this?
quote:
Though Milankovitch cycles do explain long-term climate change, they can't account for changes being made by humans, which appear to have an even greater effect than variations in earth-sun interaction.
That seems to be an equally good summary of scientific data.

But the changes made by humans isn't PROVEN to be the cause of the recent global warming - and to say that these appear to have an even greater effect than earth-sun interactions is, quite frankly, a ridiculously un-scientific statement as nothing of the kind has been shown. Which was my point, a page of sensible scientific information is degraded by such unsubstantiated claims.

quote:
If recent warming is driven by Milankovitch cycles then our understanding of orbital dynamics is up a creek without a paddle - because in relation to Milankovitch cycles we should be at the warmest part of an interglacial, in fact we've been there for centuries,

But we are in the change from the warmest part and in the slide into cold again if we go for a 20,000 year interglacial. The interglacial began 18,000 years ago, the warmest point was 10,000 years ago and the slide down into cold from that is shown since then, the hiccups of warming and cooling such as the MWP and MIA are still in the general and progressive slide down to colder temperatures.

quote:
and if the cycle is driving anything it should be getting colder. There's a consistent increase in temperature at the end of each glaciation that's driven by Milankovitch cycles, then an approximatley constant temperature before the cycle sends us into a cooling period leading to another glaciation. We've already had that temperature increase for this interglacial, and we've just had the same level of increase on top of that. That simply can not be explained by the Milankovitch cycle.

This same level of increase you claim isn't proven, see above about Mann. I think I posted a graph earlier showing the current interglacial temperatures slide which showed this, but, and please try looking at this without all the hype, the (now squashed) last 10ky pattern also shows on the longer timescale graph on ice/temperature changes. Interglacials and the future

But overall, just how significant do you think our current presence is in this graph?

quote:
There's no science here, the driving force for this theory is man made wind.

quote:
Yep, I agree. Your pontifications on this thread reveal no science at all, simply Mryhh made wind.

Again, I'm really sorry Alan, but all I see is unsubstantiated claims, rejection of any contrary data and explanations and, sadly, an awful lot of manipulation from the IPCC which is proved to be dishonest in use of data, there's more than one scientist who has objected strongly to gross misrepresentation and abuse of his work. I found particularly disquieting the obvious conclusion change of the '95 report which new version totally contradicted its original conclusion - and it's been that ever since, the conclusion driving the presentation of data. There reports are simply not scientific protocol.

In conclusion, I think there's enough contradictory evidence to show that the man made global warming theory is entirely disproved, when even one example would be enough.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Er, minor? But of course, the mininmal amount of C02 in the atmosphere isn't minor when its rising levels are driving global warming.. The Moon and Mars lost their magnetic fields and so lost all their atmosphere, the magnetic field is the main line of defence against solar radiation.

Yes, CO2 is a minor constituent of the atmosphere as a percentage of the whole. But, that it's only 380ppm doesn't reflect it's importance in the global scheme of things. It's something that's common in many areas; most vitamins are very small proportions of our total food intake, yet we'd be very unwell without them. I take it you're not advocating ignoring the advice of nutritionists because they keep harking on about very small parts of our diets. I'm sure I've made that point before.

As for the magnetic field. I admitted that it has vital importance in shielding the surface from cosmic radiation. The lack of a magnetic field on the Moon is irrelevant - the Moon never had an atmosphere, it's too small to have sufficient gravity. The lack of a magnetic field would result in a small increase in the loss of the upper atmosphere to the solar wind, but the part of our atmosphere most prone to that, the lighter gases of helium and hydrogen, has gone anyway.

quote:
rising CO2 levels which by all sensible accounts show an 800 year time lag between periods of warming and playing catch-up CO2 levels.

I think I've said this before too. But, at the risk of repeating myself I'll try again.

In the natural system CO2 is in approximate equilibrium between several reservoirs - the atmosphere (where it acts as a greenhouse gas), plants and animals, the surface of the oceans and the ocean depths. The ocean depths is far and away the biggest CO2 reservoir. If there's a small disturbance to the climate (eg: a slight increase or decrease in solar radiation due to orbital differences) this may result in a slight shift in that equilibrium, a shift that may act to either suppress the disturbance (negative feedback) or enhance it (positive feedback). Small changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations can occur rapidly in response to such disturbances by shifting the equilibrium between the atmosphere and the biosphere and upper oceans. But, for a really big change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (such as those associated with the onset of glaciations and interglacials) there also needs to be a change in the equilibrium with the deep oceans. Because the deep oceans are, by definition, deep below the surface it takes centuries for CO2 to move between this reservoir and the atmosphere - carried by oceanic circulations.

But, in our present situation, something new is happening. There's no largish disturbance of the climate as a result of solar changes resulting in changing CO2 equilibriums. We're directly changing the CO2 concentrations by introducing a new source of CO2 - burning the fossil fuel carbon reservoir. Instead of a small temperature rise resulting in a small release of CO2 from the upper oceans with a few centuries of lag before the deep ocean releases some of its CO2, we're releasing the same amount of CO2 that the deep ocean typically releases during the onset of an interglacial. That's rapidly driving temperature upwards as the atmosphere responds quickly to that increased CO2 by trapping more heat through the greenhouse effect.

Is that clear? Here's the summary:

Natural System: slow release of CO2 from deep oceans in response to a temperature rise, due to the several centuries it takes for ocean circulation patterns to bring deep water to the surface.
Anthropogenic System: rapid release of CO2 from fossil fuels through burning said fuels, with increased temperature in reponse to this.

[ 13. April 2007, 22:48: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, CO2 is a minor constituent of the atmosphere as a percentage of the whole. But, that it's only 380ppm doesn't reflect it's importance in the global scheme of things. It's something that's common in many areas; most vitamins are very small proportions of our total food intake, yet we'd be very unwell without them. I take it you're not advocating ignoring the advice of nutritionists because they keep harking on about very small parts of our diets. I'm sure I've made that point before.

Oh please, we've both covered this point before...

The level of CO2 is minor in the the greater constitution of greenhouse gases, water vapour being the greatest. Which other consituents are conveniently ignored by global warming cranks in their modelling to prove it's CO2 the culprit. Just as they conveniently ignore all the other reasons for climate changes.

- I was being mildly sarcastic because you dismiss all the other very real factors which have been actually shown to correlate to global warming by calling them minor, such as the obvious sunspot activity and warming, (*) while continue to push, as below, CO2 levels as the driving force regardless that no direct evidence exists for this, and all evidence points to it being for all practical purposes, quite irrelevant.

quote:
rising CO2 levels which by all sensible accounts show an 800 year time lag between periods of warming and playing catch-up CO2 levels.

quote:
I think I've said this before too. But, at the risk of repeating myself I'll try again.

The problem here is you're not listening to the examples I've given which contradict CO2 as the driving force of which the 800 year time lag is the in your face evidence that the theory doesn't work.

quote:
But, in our present situation, something new is happening. There's no largish disturbance of the climate as a result of solar changes resulting in changing CO2 equilibriums.

My bad typo or your use of it to write more gibberish to confuse (do you work for the IPCC?) - I meant to write the obvious correlation between sunspot activity and global warming (CO2 being shown to be an effect of global warming not a cause).

How can you seriously call minor the cycles of the sun?

quote:
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research

How can you ignore this? (*)more on this.

The only new thing happening here is that certain vociferous and political backed scientists are creating a theory out of non-existent data.. (I would have thought you'd have made an effort to look at the Durkin programme since we were discussing this, if you had you'd have learned that Maggie was the first who pushed for this idea and her reasons were political, the miners strike and access to oil resources and promotion of nuclear energy).

Nothing new really happening - the various historic records graphs show this clearly - look at this one again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

quote:
We're directly changing the CO2 concentrations by introducing a new source of CO2 - burning the fossil fuel carbon reservoir. Instead of a small temperature rise resulting in a small release of CO2 from the upper oceans with a few centuries of lag before the deep ocean releases some of its CO2, we're releasing the same amount of CO2 that the deep ocean typically releases during the onset of an interglacial. That's rapidly driving temperature upwards as the atmosphere responds quickly to that increased CO2 by trapping more heat through the greenhouse effect.

Enough of this unsubstantiated nonsense given as fact. YOU HAVE NOT PROVED THIS. Nor can you prove it's rising CO2 levels which are driving warming.
Firstly, the rise in temperature over the last 150 years is in direct comparison with the previous centuries of Mini Ice Age - it is bullshit not science to continue to use this as the IPCC does to make a claim that there is such a thing as global warming attributable to current anthropogenic imput. YOU HAVE NOT PROVED THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL PATTERN OF CENTURIES. (and that pattern shows we're in the declining temperature part of an interglacial, global warming peaks are decreasing in intensity).

AND, the greatest rise was pre-WWII when there was little extra man made industrial imput compared with post-WWII when this went really global and temperatures went down for several decades. That's quite apart from the 800 year time lag which should have led you to look for a cause around the 13th century. But of course you can't do that because it fucks up your theory.

quote:
Is that clear? Here's the summary:
[list]
...

What's clear is that you a pushing a theory that has already been shown to be false. This makes it null and void. Like all your arguments for it.

I think you're a part of spin doctoring on this subject since I find it inconceivable that a true scientist would simply refuse to look at contradictory evidence presented by other scientists.

Enjoy by all means, but what I'm seeing is a supposedly scientific tool (modelling) which has only just been born acting as if it knows everything when it is still unable to focus properly, hasn't yet been able to take in all the information available. But worse, has become truly tantrum infantile in its disregard of available evidence on climate in its rush promote its own agenda/pet theory, the dishonesty of the IPCC a case in point, and your failure to account for it, as is the belief that it is so powerful that it can overcome our position in the cosmic scheme of things when it barely understands it. (*) You global warming cranks need to take a leaf out of King Canute's philosophy - the tide didn't recede because he ordered it, which he did to show his limitations.

I actually began replying to this a while ago, but couldn't get back to it, and in researching a bit more to get into the swing of it again came across a mention that the Canadian government had put CO2, the very stuff of life, on its official Toxic list! Reminding me from the Durkin programme that the ex head of Greenpeace said this organisation was going off the rails, at one point they wanted to ban Chlorine until the absurdity of trying to ban an element on the periodic table was pointed out to them..

(*) Please see next post.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

The Sun

Beginning at the beginning. This page has a good variety of factors that need to be taken into consideration:

http://www.ees.nmt.edu/~ranck/hot.html

And, it also has what could be the graph shown on the Durkin programme:

Frederick Seitz http://www.msu.edu/~ranckjoh/sunny.gif

The very obvious correlation between global warming and the sun's activity, it seems to me, is a good place to start.

...

quote:
a really long url

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

...

quote:
another long url

Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Sun’s surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.

...

quote:
yet another long url

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer
20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

...

quote:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html John Carlisle

The evidence for future cooling is supported by considerable scientific research that has only recently begun to come to light. It wasn't until 1980, with the aid of NASA satellites, that scientists definitively proved that the sun's brightness - or radiance - varies in intensity, and that these variations occur in predictable cyclical patterns. This was a crucial discovery because the climate models used by greenhouse theory proponents always assumed that the sun's radiance was constant. With that assumption in hand, they could ignore solar influences and focus on other influences, including human.

That turned out to be a reckless assumption. Further investigation revealed that there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.

The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling.

Continued HERE

...

Myrrh

[edited to fix long scroll-lock breaking urls]

[ 21. April 2007, 14:06: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Oh please, we've both covered this point before...

Yes, and one of us seems to be totally ignoring what the other is saying. So, one last fucking time engage your brain and read what I'm saying because I just seem to be speaking to a moron without any ability to comprehend some relatively simple science.

quote:
The level of CO2 is minor in the the greater constitution of greenhouse gases, water vapour being the greatest. Which other consituents are conveniently ignored by global warming cranks in their modelling to prove it's CO2 the culprit.

Except that climate scientists do not ignore other atmospheric gases. I'll repeat that incase you missed it; other atmospheric gases are not ignored by climate scientists. Do I need to say it again? I'll accept that out of convenience the various greenhouse gases are lumped together as "CO2 equivalent", which is a long way from ignoring the other gases. Anyone who says otherwise has either misunderstood the science, or is being deliberately untruthful.

quote:
The problem here is you're not listening to the examples I've given which contradict CO2 as the driving force of which the 800 year time lag is the in your face evidence that the theory doesn't work.

No, the problem is that you're failing to read what I said. I never said CO2 is the driving force of the 800 year time lag. The 800 year time lag is a simple reflection of the time it takes deep ocean waters to circulate to the surface. At the end of the glaciations, CO2 is not primarily driving the temperature change but is driven by the temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration only starts to significantly rise when the vast reservoir of CO2 in the deep oceans comes to the surface. That is how the natural system works.

And, as I said today we're not experiencing a natural system. The very fact that temperature and CO2 are in step shouts that fact loud and clear - in a natural system they shouldn't be in step but show a lag with CO2 levels several centuries behind the temperature. The reason is because the reservoir supplying the CO2 to the atmosphere isn't the deep ocean by fossil carbon being burnt.

Now, do you still find that "gibberish to confuse"? Because that's not my intention, and I've no idea how I can make things clearer.

quote:
I would have thought you'd have made an effort to look at the Durkin programme

Well, I've had a look at the webpages on the C4 site, but they're not very informative. I've not seen it on the schedules for a rerun, and until they put it back on I'm stuffed.

quote:
I think you're a part of spin doctoring on this subject since I find it inconceivable that a true scientist would simply refuse to look at contradictory evidence presented by other scientists.

Well, I've seen some contradictory evidence. Probably not all of it, but a fair bit. And, most of it isn't anywhere near as convincing as that which proves beyond any reasonable doubt/ that human activity is a significant contribution to the recent observed changes in the global climate. There are a few questions around the edges about just how much of a contribution and the extent to which other factors such as changes in solar activity are also contributing. But the basic science is IMO totally compelling.

Your next post simply seems to prove the point at the end of that paragraph. There are factors in addition to human activity that may be contributing to global warming. Which is something noone, not even the IPCC, is denying.

Now, are you going to contribute anything sensible? Or are you going to keep pushing a theory that has already been shown to be false? The theory that human activity isn't influencing the climate and contributing to global warming is scientifically tenable as the theory that the earth is a flat disk supported by turtles all the way down.

Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :

Hosting

Alan, direct and personal name calling is, as you know, outside the bounds of Purgatory. If you need to get personal with Myrrh, go ahead and call her to Hell. At any rate, you both could stand to walk away and cool down a bit.

Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host

[ 21. April 2007, 03:53: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

Good on you, Alan, for your continued efforts - I'm not at all surprised that a gasket has blown. I think that Myrrh has sailed very close to the wind.

Those who deny that AGW is the most likely reading of the data are very good at ignoring Global Dimming and the understanding that the 800 year lag has occurred without mankind's influence.

PS The scroll lock on my screen is broken by Myrrh.

[ 21. April 2007, 06:50: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Except that climate scientists do not ignore other atmospheric gases. I'll repeat that incase you missed it; other atmospheric gases are not ignored by climate scientists. Do I need to say it again? I'll accept that out of convenience the various greenhouse gases are lumped together as "CO2 equivalent", which is a long way from ignoring the other gases. Anyone who says otherwise has either misunderstood the science, or is being deliberately untruthful.

What, and you think referring to greehouse gases by its least constituent is truthful?

Interesting research on cosmic rays on water vapour and it's another super long url

And who is really being untruthful in this campaign if not the global warming cranks? Within the limits of this discussion it's not possible to go into all the examples of deliberate misrepresentation, but I thought I and others had given enough to show that the IPCC and supporters can't be trusted not to manipulate data and that's quite apart from the more and more obvious junk science that comes out of artifical modelling which disregards reality and then by manipulating CO2 levels at will uses this to predict dire consequences.

That of course begs the question, dire consequences for whom? Would global warming improve the lot of millions others now desperate for rain for their crops? If so, by what right do you put our interests above theirs?

But back to dishonesty. Besides the deliberate policy decision of dishonesty as managed by the IPCC, which organisation decision makers rely on, we are bombarded with press articles of this ilk: http://www.john-daly.com/media/index.htm

But it still comes back to the IPCC and those with shared political interests who produce manipulated data to back up their policy driven agendas - take a look at this section from the main John Daly page:

`Global Mean Temperature' - Disputed Data

This is where it begins, with disputed temperature data. Garbage data in garbage data out, in any modelling system.

The examples are too numerous to continue producing here, but collections can be found as an antidote to the insidious political irrationality pretending to be science, such as -

Friends of Science: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

CO2 Science: the URL button is easy to use, it really is

Pity you missed it, Fred Singer one of the contributors to Durkin's programme:

quote:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
March 19, 2007
S. Fred Singer

Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. In spite of its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof at all that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activities, such as the generation of energy from the burning of fuels.

continued on: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945

The bottom line is that anyone looking into this for themselves as I've done has to logical conclude that we are being manipulated because the science itself is actually junk; because they have understood enough of the science to agree with those scientists who are also frustrated by this irrational campaign masquerading as science fact when it is based solely on science fiction perpetuated by modellers who refuse to even look at any data from reality which soundly contradicts their imagined models.

Back to your post:

quote:
The problem here is you're not listening to the examples I've given which contradict CO2 as the driving force of which the 800 year time lag is the in your face evidence that the theory doesn't work.

quote:
No, the problem is that you're failing to read what I said. I never said CO2 is the driving force of the 800 year time lag. The 800 year time lag is a simple reflection of the time it takes deep ocean waters to circulate to the surface. At the end of the glaciations, CO2 is not primarily driving the temperature change but is driven by the temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration only starts to significantly rise when the vast reservoir of CO2 in the deep oceans comes to the surface. That is how the natural system works.

I'm not saying you said that. I'm saying that a) you're not listening to the many examples showing CO2 is not a driving force and b) the 800 year time lag of CO2 levels following global warming is the historical pattern.

quote:
I think you're a part of spin doctoring on this subject since I find it inconceivable that a true scientist would simply refuse to look at contradictory evidence presented by other scientists.

quote:
Well, I've seen some contradictory evidence. Probably not all of it, but a fair bit. And, most of it isn't anywhere near as convincing as that which proves beyond any reasonable doubt/ that human activity is a significant contribution to the recent observed changes in the global climate. There are a few questions around the edges about just how much of a contribution and the extent to which other factors such as changes in solar activity are also contributing. But the basic science is IMO totally compelling.

Please, you have not proved this and I have shown many examples which contradict not least of which is that the steep rise in global warming in the last 150 years since the end of the Mini Ice Age began well before any industrial human imput was on a scale that was anything more than insignificant.

You and your ilk keep making this unsubstantiated claim, saying it is compelling evidence, but you consistently fail to produce this evidence

You said:

quote:
And, most of it isn't anywhere near as convincing as that which proves beyond any reasonable doubt/ that human activity is a significant contribution to the recent observed changes in the global climate.

Show me this proof beyond reasonable doubt that has convinced you.

quote:
Your next post simply seems to prove the point at the end of that paragraph. There are factors in addition to human activity that may be contributing to global warming. Which is something noone, not even the IPCC, is denying.

What the IPCC is denying is basic reason and you continue to parrot their line that you have compelling evidence to prove that it is human activity CO2 driving global warming but do not produce it. Neither do they. Verbiage designed to mitigate the impact of natural causes is not evidence to suggest they are anything but disingenous in their continuing campaign to promote this untenable human driven global warming theory, but most of all it shows they are ridiculous in discounting the brilliant star which our sun and our historical climate from our relationship with it. Which shows nothing amiss, but following the pattern of the last 450,000 years for example.

quote:
Now, are you going to contribute anything sensible? Or are you going to keep pushing a theory that has already been shown to be false? The theory that human activity isn't influencing the climate and contributing to global warming is scientifically tenable as the theory that the earth is a flat disk supported by turtles all the way down.

So, for the last time. You have shown no proof of this whatsoever.

quote:
Alan And, most of it isn't anywhere near as convincing as that which proves beyond any reasonable doubt/ that human activity is a significant contribution to the recent observed changes in the global climate.

Prove it.

Show me this proof beyond reasonable doubt which convinces you.

Myrrh

[edited to fix long urls again]

[ 21. April 2007, 14:08: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

I tried to add this, but ran out of editing time.

"by its least constituent" - by one of its least constituents when water vapour has some estimates of being around 95% of the total.

And to this, the reason I ran out of editing time, I found an interesting page on the subject:Science Notes by TJ Nelson

quote:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Cold Facts on Global Warming
Introduction
What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. In this article, we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high.

.....
CO2 is more evenly distributed than water, so if CO2 caused warming it would have a proportionately greater effect in areas where there is little water vapor (such as deserts and in very cold regions), while in areas with a lot of water, the effect of CO2 may be insignificant compared to the effect of water vapor. This is one of many factors that mitigate against the idea of a "climate catastrophe."

....

The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.

The analogy with a greenhouse would be that the glass in the roof becomes slightly thicker. The effect of warming also depends on the conditions inside the greenhouse. If the greenhouse were full of ice at exactly -0.01 degrees Celsius, making the glass slightly thicker just might be enough to melt all the ice and flood the greenhouse. But if the greenhouse had some regions that were hot and some that were very cold (as the planet Earth does), it would have a very small overall effect.

As an aside, the term "greenhouse effect" is actually a misnomer. In greenhouses, most of the warming that is observed is not caused by carbon dioxide, or by absorption of infrared radiation by the glass as many people think, but by reduction in convection [11].

Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :

Hosting again

Myrrh,

You obviously know how to use the URL button for Instant UBB code, or at least how to code a URL yourself, because you do it every so often. Please make a consistent habit of coding URLs so that they do not break the scroll-lock for others.

Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host

[ 21. April 2007, 14:11: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I've actually kept off this one for a while, as I know I'd have lost my rag far earlier than the usually patient Alan with Myrrh. Rather than unpick the obscure links and tenuous arguments, I thought it might be worth remembering some of the bodies and assosciations who have agreed with the consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. So in one corner we have:

Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Also:

Every peer-reviewed scientific paper that experessed a view in a meta-analysis of 928 climate change papers in the Science journal.

And:

Every government on Earth (IPCC)

While in the other corner we have:

Myrrh.

It's just so hard to know who to believe...

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
Hosting again

Myrrh,

You obviously know how to use the URL button for Instant UBB code, or at least how to code a URL yourself, because you do it every so often. Please make a consistent habit of coding URLs so that they do not break the scroll-lock for others.

Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host

Sorry Prof, don't know what you mean by that. What am I doing that breaks the scroll-lock?

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Alan, re Durkin programme. An analysis of the 2007 IPCC report by Christopher Monckton
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, one of the contributors.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

[I've put it in without coding 'cos I don't know what I'm doing wrong here.]

Myrrh

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

Scroll lock allows browsers on different screen resolutions to "wrap-around" the text in a post so that it's not necessary to scroll right and left to see the entire message.

A very long series of characters with no spaces will over-ride the scroll lock and display a post that extends beyond the right-hand screen side (thus necessitating a scroll to the right).

[ 22. April 2007, 02:52: Message edited by: Gort ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Alan, re Durkin programme. An analysis of the 2007 IPCC report by Christopher Monckton
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, one of the contributors.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

Quelle surprise. Christopher Monkton is an ex-editor of the London Evening Standard, after spending time as Margaret Thatcher's policy advisor. He now writes for the Daily Telegraph. He is completely ignorant of climate science. To see what actual climate scientists make of his nonsense, try this.

Fear not Myrrh - I don't feel the need to debunk every spurious link you post, but this was too easy to resist. In the end, my previous list of organisations supporting the consensus - and your inability to counter with a single reputable source - speaks for itself.

If anyone is really interested in how far science can be manipulated by quacks to make it say absolutely anything they want to say, I thoroughly reccomend this stunning page, which makes Monkton look like the amateur that he is.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Thanks Gort, and Prof for fixing. How can I know if the URL link is too long, is there a character maximum?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

p.s. I didn't know there was a problem because it hasn't affected my layout (windows xp).

Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :

Hosting

Myrrh,

If you always use the URL button to paste URLs into your posts you should be fine. It gives people a better idea of what's on the other end of the link, too.

Any further discussion of coding, UBB, etc. should be via PM or posted on Heaven's Question Thread or the Styx UBB Practice Thread.

Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Absolutely brilliant article about the burgeoning betting industry growing around global warming. Hysterical. Best bit is that Richard Linzden - a well known MIT climate sceptic - put a wager down 2 years ago that global warming wouldn't happen. The wager fell apart because Linzden wanted odds of 50-1 against! So in other words, although he says the chances of global warming are only 50%, his own financial assessment is 98%. Talk is indeed cheap...

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Alan, re Durkin programme. An analysis of the 2007 IPCC report by Christopher Monckton
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, one of the contributors.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

Quelle surprise. Christopher Monkton is an ex-editor of the London Evening Standard, after spending time as Margaret Thatcher's policy advisor. He now writes for the Daily Telegraph. He is completely ignorant of climate science. To see what actual climate scientists make of his nonsense, try this.

Apologies for delay in responding - have been away without access to a computer.

You've missed the point, it's precisely because he was Maggie's advisor on this that he knows the origins of the campaign, as covered in Durkin's programme. Maggie heard about CO2 and global warming musings (which was originally thought of as a good thing and a benefit for mankind) and asked him to head an investigation to see if this could be used in her political problems of the time: against the anti nuclear energy lobby and the vagaries of oil supply (limited North Sea oil and why do you think Britain went in with the US to Iraq?), but especially against the coal miners hold on this source of energy (70% of Britain's electricity was produced by coal) as it affected not only our shivering selves but steel production - maybe you're too young to remember the coal miners strike brought down the Heath government?

quote:
Fear not Myrrh - I don't feel the need to debunk every spurious link you post, but this was too easy to resist. In the end, my previous list of organisations supporting the consensus - and your inability to counter with a single reputable source - speaks for itself.

You've debunked nothing, only put forward a rather frightening view that consensus of goverments equals truth.

quote:
If anyone is really interested in how far science can be manipulated by quacks to make it say absolutely anything they want to say, I thoroughly reccomend this stunning page, which makes Monkton look like the amateur that he is.

But this and your reliance on such as RealClimate above is your own method. You consistently refuse to look at the what real scientists are saying.

I realise this takes time, but I found it useful to look at both sides of the argument and the available research from real data. Take any one of the claims and do some reading, for example, the RealClimate angst about melting ice caps and dire warnings of flooding against sciences knowledge of the arctic and antarctic and you too might spot the flaws.

But back to basics and I ask you too. The whole of this global warming hypothesis rests on the claim that CO2 drives global warming.

Prove it.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The whole of this global warming hypothesis rests on the claim that CO2 drives global warming.

Prove it.

Physics.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The whole of this global warming hypothesis rests on the claim that CO2 drives global warming.

Prove it.
Physics.

OK, so spell it out.

Prove it.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The Sun produces light.

Sunlight heats the atmosphere and surface of the earth.

Warm bodies radiate energy, at the sort of temperatures the sun heats the earth to this energy is in the infra-red part of the spectrum.

CO2 and other atmospheric gases absorb IR radiation. This is then re-radiated in all directions.

The effect of these gases is to slow the rate at which the atmosphere of the earth radiates energy into space.

This is called the Greenhouse Effect, and keeps the lower atmosphere of the earth (and the seas, oceans and other surfaces) warmer than they'd be in the absense of these greenhouse gases.

Increased quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase the amount of IR radiation absorbed, and slow the rate of energy radiation into space further.

Thus, the surface temperature of the earth increases as less energy escapes. This is called Global Warming and is directly caused by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

I asked you to prove that CO2 drives global warming which is the hypothesis we're continually bashed on the head with.

All you're saying is that CO2 is part (and actually a minor part) of the greehouse effect which tends to raise local temperature. You have to show that CO2 in and of itself directly alters the global temperature of the earth. If you can't show that it drives the warming of the earth to the extent of melting thousand year ice ages and conversely its lack bringing on thousand year ice ages then you've shown absolutely nothing.

This is a specific theory being used to change our way of thinking and all the scenarios are doom laden global catastrophes brought on by specifically man's involvement.

Show me actual proof that CO2 drives global warming and show me proof that this present spell of hot weather is man made.

You can do neither.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
All you're saying is that CO2 is part (and actually a minor part) of the greehouse effect which tends to raise local temperature.

No, I'm saying that CO2 is a one of a number of gases that act to raise the global temperature. The mixing of atmospheric gases over the residence time for most greenhouse gases means that theire effects are always going to be global (water vapour is the only one where regional variations can be a factor, because it cycles so quickly in and out of the lower atmosphere).

And, CO2 isn't a minor part of the greenhouse effect. It accounts for almost 25% of the greenhouse warming (actually generating numbers for the relative effects of greenhouse gases is practically impossible as the absorbtion characteristics interfere with each other). About 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour (with some regional variation just to add to the difficulties of calculating the importance of water vapour). The rest is made up of the contribution of other gases (principally methane, a bit under 10%, NO2 about 2%, CFCs about 5%). I know that doesn't quite add upto 100% - that's just because of the difficulties with assigning relative importance to the different gases as I just mentioned, mostly with regard to water vapour.

quote:
Show me actual proof that CO2 drives global warming and show me proof that this present spell of hot weather is man made.

Well, if by the "present spell of hot weather" you mean the current early spring, or even the lack of winter (it's just not right to go from Oct-Apr without any snow), then I can't prove it's due to global warming as it's within the range of natural variations. But, the models all predict that global warming will increase the number of warm winters, so if you mean the string of record temperatures over the last 10 years or so, then yes the evidence is very strongly indicative that that's caused by global warming.

I'm not sure what I can do to prove the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases if you're not willing to accept relatively simple physics.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Re Monkton - no Myrrh, you have missed the point. Monkton (not a scientist) makes scientific claims, which actual scientists have comprehensively debunked. End of story.

The Maggie Thatcher nonsense currently resides somewhere below the fake moon landings and the 9/11 government conspiracies as a credible theory (may I remind you that this explanation was given to us by the same programme that got its "NASA" temperature graphs from a one-man farm in Oregon). Even if you reject the position of every government on Earth from every political persuasion as being conspiratorially "frightening" , you still manage to ignore all those other political stooges at NASA, the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences and every other relevent body of scientists that exists throughout the world. And yet again you fail to counter with one single, credible body of scientists who have a different opinion (and please don't quote a spurious internet petition - the crucial word here is credible). So I'm afraid this:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You consistently refuse to look at the what real scientists are saying.

is comtemptable (sorry for the harsh word used, but it is chosen deliberately given my list of genuine sources versus your non-existent ones).

As for CO2 driving global warming - it doesn't. It is, however, a critically important amplifier, something that has been understood for many years. The basic principle can be demonstrated with a simple school science experiment, which has been known for over 100 years. Not that you listen to any actual climate scientists, but for anyone else who is interested, there is a very good summary of the science of the role of CO2 in the overall complex process of global warmingthis recent Real Climate article.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Back in the real world, this rather worrying BBC story reports that since 1979, Arctic sea ice has been melting faster than ANY climate model has thus far predicted, and double the rate of the models' average. Maybe James Lovelock is right after all and there already is nothing we can do...

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Show me actual proof that CO2 drives global warming and show me proof that this present spell of hot weather is man made.
Well, if by the "present spell of hot weather" you mean the current early spring, or even the lack of winter (it's just not right to go from Oct-Apr without any snow), then I can't prove it's due to global warming as it's within the range of natural variations. But, the models all predict that global warming will increase the number of warm winters, so if you mean the string of record temperatures over the last 10 years or so, then yes the evidence is very strongly indicative that that's caused by global warming.

But not unexpected global warming - these temperatures are measured against a MINI ICE AGE, which indicates a drop from a previous much higher temperature..

..and the global temperature since the peak 10k years ago shows a continuing drop into cold in exactly the same general pattern as for the last 450 years - what you're doing is taking natural variation and pretending that it's unusual, it isn't.

quote:
I'm not sure what I can do to prove the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases if you're not willing to accept relatively simple physics.

It's not the simple physics that floors me - it's your interpretation.

You said: "And, most of it isn't anywhere near as convincing as that which proves beyond any reasonable doubt/ that human activity is a significant contribution to the recent observed changes in the global climate."

I'm still waiting for you to actually produce this information which proves beyong any reasonable doubt that human activity is driving global warming. It's immediately disproved because the greatest temperature rise out of the MINI ICE AGE (since when records began) shows insignificant global human imput of CO2 and post WWII much greater global human imput shows several decades of falling temperatures.

Your statement here is what I take issue with, this is the club used by you and your ilk to beat us senseless and YOU HAVE NOT PROVED THIS.

Convince me.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Re Monkton - no Myrrh, you have missed the point. Monkton (not a scientist) makes scientific claims, which actual scientists have comprehensively debunked. End of story.

Noiseboy, there are a great many scientists debunking global warming. There's not much difference in the political pressures used to promote and that used to debunk it.

If you want to really find out what it's all about you have to go back to the actual data and make up your own mind, you cannot discount all those scientists whose research shows no such thing and it is unconscionable for anyone in this debate, scientist or not, to ignore these or the sites which collate them.

As for Monkton, the point is still that he was personally privy to the political machinations which began promoting global warming as man-made CO2. Arguments that anti-global warmists are politically driven are non starters because the global warming bandwagon was itself politically driven from its conception. A clever twist to the hypothesis which at the time was thought of a being beneficial in increasing warmth - and still if actually proved could be seen as beneficial since all genuine data show we're in an interglacial and in the normal slide back into the cold of an ice age.

quote:
John Christy, an IPCC lead author and global warming skeptic, said that "Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality." [43]Global Warming Controversy

You are strongly influenced by the spin that this theory is supported by actual scientists, but the IPCC is not composed of them and many who did contribute have objected to the crass misuse of their work. And you can't have it both ways, objecting to contradictory views because they are non-scientists or not specifically climate scientists while using such as these to prove your view.

Simple logic shows that global warming itself is not proved and man driven global warming is the emperor's new clothes. Quite frankly, I'm tired of being told there are convincing arguments beyond any reasonable doubt and not having them actually produced.

Note the three steps in this theory: [quote]Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

The temperature was rising anyway, coming out of the Mini Ice Age, and there are other reasons for global warming, not least the sunspot activity which shows a remarkable correlation between activity and temperature rise.

Can you show the, any, correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming?

The above points come from this article The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Re:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Show me actual proof that CO2 drives global warming and show me proof that this present spell of hot weather is man made.
Well, if by the "present spell of hot weather" you mean the current early spring, or even the lack of winter (it's just not right to go from Oct-Apr without any snow), then I can't prove it's due to global warming as it's within the range of natural variations. But, the models all predict that global warming will increase the number of warm winters, so if you mean the string of record temperatures over the last 10 years or so, then yes the evidence is very strongly indicative that that's caused by global warming.
But not unexpected global warming - these temperatures are measured against a MINI ICE AGE, which indicates a drop from a previous much higher temperature..

..and the global temperature since the peak 10k years ago shows a continuing drop into cold in exactly the same general pattern as for the last 450 years - what you're doing is taking natural variation and pretending that it's unusual, it isn't.

Oops, missed of the k. Should be "the same general pattern as for the last 450 thousand years"

As posted previously: Image:Ice Age Temperature.png

Myrrh

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Noiseboy, there are a great many scientists debunking global warming.

Not true of climate scientists. Christy is one of a very tiny handful, whom I cannot take seriously since his own peer reviewed recent research discredits his earlier theories about the troposphere. In 2005, he wrote:

quote:
John Christy: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.

And yet he went on camera on the GCCS to espouse his earlier theory - which he himself has admitted was false and based on erroneous data. This is contemptable.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you want to really find out what it's all about you have to go back to the actual data and make up your own mind, you cannot discount all those scientists whose research shows no such thing and it is unconscionable for anyone in this debate, scientist or not, to ignore these or the sites which collate them.

Wrong on every level.

1. I am not qualified to interpret the climate science data any more than, say, Monkton is. For that, one needs to be a climate scientist. Your or my own interpretations are worthless - we have to listen to those who are qualified.

2. The number climate scientists who disagree with the basic contention that anthropogenic climate change and global warming are related are infitessimally small. There is no credible organisation in the world that supports their theories, any more than there are credible biologists' organisations who support young earth creationism. And as evidenced by John Christy above, when they are credible scientists they do not even listen to their own research. As an outsider, I therefore have to conclude that their pronouncements are not driven by science, but by another agenda.

3. Why should I - or anyone - bother with sites (often funded by the oil lobby) who collate data which has been debunked? Where there is genuine scientific debate, it happens within the community. A good recent example is some data which appeared to show the northern oceans are not warming as expected. The skeptics all pounced on this, while the rest of the community said "this is anomoulous, we should investigate". It was eventually shown that the new data set was incorrect, and has now been discounted and accepted as such by all sides ( a good summary of what happened can be found here). This is how scientific debate works, not by oil-funded sources spreading disinformation.

Oh, and I can only assume you didn't bother to read the link I posted earlier which is a good, patient eplanation of the role of C02 (to save you the bother, here it is again). To hide behind a word like "proof" in this scientific context is on the same level (again) as those who claim that evolution has not been "proved". Both are technically correct, but fail to understand what science is and how it works.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Convince me.

Myrrh, based on the evidence on this thread, I would say that it is reasonably proved that there is no connection between the provability of a proposition and your likelihood of being convinced of it.

In other words, scientifically driven Myrrh-change does not exist.

T.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Noiseboy, there are a great many scientists debunking global warming.
Not true of climate scientists. Christy is one of a very tiny handful, whom I cannot take seriously since his own peer reviewed recent research discredits his earlier theories about the troposphere. In 2005, he wrote:

quote:
John Christy: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.
And yet he went on camera on the GCCS to espouse his earlier theory - which he himself has admitted was false and based on erroneous data. This is contemptable.

Sigh. And it's not contempible to say "First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature."?

Which comes from the RealClimate bullshit page you recommend for enlightenment on this subject.

IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN PROVED THAT CO2 DEFINITELY LED TEMPERATURE

Please, this is the whole of the theory. YOU show me the actual data and reasoning to reach this conclusion and show me the scientists who have produced reasoned arguments from scientific data to make this specific claim.

Myrrh

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN PROVED THAT CO2 DEFINITELY LED TEMPERATURE

Well, in the strictly deductive sense this may be true -- we may not have sufficient data to deduce the relationship.

But from the data we do have, it seems a sufficiently compelling working hypothesis that it ought at least to be followed up.

Your argument seems to me to be along the same lines as that of the Victorian slum landlords who argued that, since it couldn't be proven that shit-infested drinking water was the cause of cholera, it was unnecessary to improve sanitation.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN PROVED THAT CO2 DEFINITELY LED TEMPERATURE
Well, in the strictly deductive sense this may be true -- we may not have sufficient data to deduce the relationship.

We don't have any.

quote:
But from the data we do have, it seems a sufficiently compelling working hypothesis that it ought at least to be followed up.

Show me what we actually "do have"..

"At least to be followed up" is not the message here - it's already a proven theory and you'd better believe it or else message.

quote:
Your argument seems to me to be along the same lines as that of the Victorian slum landlords who argued that, since it couldn't be proven that shit-infested drinking water was the cause of cholera, it was unnecessary to improve sanitation.

Oh please, give me a break. Actual historical data show that CO2 lags behind global warming, through the ups and downs of temperature change. Actual significant global rises of man-made CO2 show decline in temperature.

All I'm asking is for reasonable data and arguments to show that this base hypothesis has any reality - if I thought this was a "sufficiently compelling hypothesis" I wouldn't waste my time arguing with you here.

I haven't found anything of the sort. What I have found is actual physical data showing no such thing and directly contradicting this hypothesis. What I have found is spin doctoring taking data out of context and creating ridiculous scenarios. What I have found is global warming models not taking into consideration vital information, such as the sun.

What I have found, in short, is the whole of this based on junk science.

What I have found, as I detailed earlier, is that the IPCC's original conclusion was changed in '95 without there being any change in data, and since 'all the governments of the world and all the real scientists agreeing to the truth of global warming' have come from that extraordinary change in IPCC conclusion, I can only conclude that the whole shebbang is political.

Please, show me the data and reasoning by real scientists to inspire confidence in this theory. Is that really too much to ask?

Myrrh

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN PROVED THAT CO2 DEFINITELY LED TEMPERATURE

Please, this is the whole of the theory.

You are never ever ever going to get it, are you?

The whole point of that "bullshit" article from an actual peer-reviewed climate scientist that contains oh-my-god-real-science is that historically, CO2 has NOT led temperature. It is an amplifier. A feedback agent. It makes it worse. It amplifies what is already going on. It exacerbates it. It contiunes an upward trend. It warms further. My thesorous is not to hand, so that will have to do.

It has always done so, it is provable in simple experiments. Historically, CO2 has lagged temperature. This time, uniquely, we have added extra CO2 to the atmosphere by human intervention, making it warmer in accordance with the laws of physics. It doesn't matter if it comes 1st or 2nd - it just makes the world wamer. It really isn't that hard to understand, as the rest of the non-Myrrh world realises.

Teufelchen - [Overused]

[ 03. May 2007, 13:58: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

General musing - I wonder at what point people like Myrrh will finally concede? My guess is never - people believe what they want to believe. As the BBC link a few posts up shows, the measured effects of global warming are now exceeding every single computer model that has been used to predict what will happen. Far from the IPCC being somehow building "ridiculous" scenarios, there is every evidence that political interference makes them too conservative (as I type, this is happening again with China threatening to veto the latest paper because the latest science shows that things are worse than we'd all like to admit). What, I wonder, does it take for people wake up and smell the warming?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN PROVED THAT CO2 DEFINITELY LED TEMPERATURE

Please, this is the whole of the theory.
You are never ever ever going to get it, are you?

The whole point of that "bullshit" article from an actual peer-reviewed climate scientist that contains oh-my-god-real-science is that historically, CO2 has NOT led temperature. It is an amplifier. A feedback agent. It makes it worse. It amplifies what is already going on. It exacerbates it. It contiunes an upward trend. It warms further. My thesorous is not to hand, so that will have to do.

It has always done so, it is provable in simple experiments. Historically, CO2 has lagged temperature. This time, uniquely, we have added extra CO2 to the atmosphere by human intervention, making it warmer in accordance with the laws of physics. It doesn't matter if it comes 1st or 2nd - it just makes the world wamer. It really isn't that hard to understand, as the rest of the non-Myrrh world realises.

Teufelchen -

Hopefully for the last time. None of you has proved in any way that man-made CO2 has contributed in any significant way to the warming experienced from the end of the Mini Ice Age.

Which itself is but one of several in the rise and fall of temperature since the peak around 8k years ago in our particular interglacial and which shows it's of the kind in the consistently obvious pattern of global warming and cooling of the earth in the last 450 thousand years whether or not humans were around and in the general pattern regardless of any local events such as for example volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, or forest clearing by hunter/gatherers and farmers burning them; local human imput is not unique to our time. In other words, local events of which anthropogenic imput is one have no obvious, no significant effect, in the longer and consistent pattern of global warming and cooling as the graph on ice covering shows. Ice covering has come and gone in this same pattern regardless of the many and varied local events during the period.

Uncomfortable as it may be for some, in this particular debate man's ego is the driving force of the theory because in reality man's imput can't be shown to be statistically significant.

Back to the logic. The argument goes as follows:

"the earth got warmer since records began and this coincided with an increase in industrial CO2 production therefore CO2 caused the warming."

It's rather scary that this is now considered by 'all governments and global scientists' as scientific proof.

But even if you think it actually matters that we're contributing to the "greenhouse effect" and this is a bad thing (bad thing for whom? There could be billions who get a better climate and don't much care if this drowns New York..) can you show me a climate model that includes the historical pattern of ice covering, the CO2 time lag of 800 years, solar variation, El Nino, water vapour etc. and which shows statistical significance of anthropogenic CO2 in the scheme of things? You can? Please do so.

For example, why is water vapour excluded from such an important model as the US produced?

Water Vapour

quote:
1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

If you seriously believe that such a table has anything to do with real science then there's little point in continuing this discussion.

I feel terribly sad for the real scientists who devote years to a small area of this climate subject such as ice core and tree ring analysis in the hope that they can come together with other specialists to actually understand our climate while prominence is given to the charlatans who are willing to produce such corrupt tables to create this imaginary "beyond reasonable doubt" that man-made CO2 is significantly driving global warming.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
For example, why is water vapour excluded from such an important model as the US produced?

Water Vapour

I've not checked your link, the URL looks like another one-man-in-his-shed type sites. So, I don't know what he's working from when he cites "US DOE data" - most descriptions of the chemical composition of the atmosphere give the composition of dry air for the very good reason that that's effectively uniform across the earths surface, whereas water vapour content is highly variable both regionally and temporally. That doesn't mean that the scientist composing the table has been negligent in omitting water vapour, it's just that including it would make the table impossible to comprehend or relevant to a very specific situation ("on the average June day in Washington DC, at noon, the atmospheric composition is ...", fat lot of good that'll be for a January night in Glasgow).

It's certainly not true that climate scientists ignore water vapour. Here's a quote from the recently released IPCC WG1 report, from the FAQs pages because I haven't had time to read the rest yet

quote:
Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect.

as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Don't know if you read it Alan, but there was some comments in the news this past week about scientists trying to block the release of the DVD of the Great Global Warming Swindle. Their argument was that the places where there were demonstrably false claims should be corrected. My own view is that they should release it as it is then all can see how laughable the whole programme was. I'm sorry, for those of found it impressive, I was distinctly underwhelmed by most of its ridiculous claims.

So there may well be a chance for you to see it in its entirety. The whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts in this case. There are several sections where you need very little scientific knowledge to realise how stupid they think the British public is. Favourites of mine were the speeded up film of the (seasonal!) expanding and shrinking of the ice cap, and the claim that a solar panel won't solve Africa's problems. A bit like I suppose a lump of coal or a canister of gas won't solve them either.

Then of course there are all the issues that have been covered by yourself and noiseboy.

It is probably one of the funniest TV documentaries ever. Do see it if you can.

Luigi

[ 03. May 2007, 21:45: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I no longer have any clue what planet you are talking about, Myrrh, or indeed are on. There are now so many straw men heaped up on top of you that you that, with global warming and all, the whole lot could go up at any moment. You keep inventing arguments such as "the entire theory comes down to CO2 leading temperature" or "everyone ignores water vapour" or "no-one has proved CO2 has a warming effect" which are patently total complete and utter worthless baseless nonsensical mindless scientific-less drivel. No matter how many times the rest of us wearily point this out with credible references, there you are assembling the next straw man. A kind of Straw Man Terminator - "He will not stop. Ever." In the remaining micron of constructive spirit I have left, however, I'll just link this one page which simply answers pretty much every straw man argument you have thus far raised and the next 47 that you will raise. It may not be definitive, but it least bears a passing resemblance to science.

Forgive for yet again restating the blindingly obvious - you are asking us to believe you and your veritable army of straw men (without any climate science credentials among the lot of you) armed only with Google and a brace of one-man-in-a-farm websites. Rather than listen to the global scientific community which is subject to rigorous, peer-review - which for some reason terrifies you. Possibly this is because you believe the entire community was created in a laboratory by Margaret Thatcher with a bolt through her neck which, to be fair, would be quite scary. If it wasn't complete bollocks.

Before I get a hell warning, I think for my own sanity I think I better skip Myrrh's posts from here on in...

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
and the claim that a solar panel won't solve Africa's problems. A bit like I suppose a lump of coal or a canister of gas won't solve them either.

On this point I must jump as you are misrepresenting something yourself here. The point being made on that occasion was that the West - where cheap, carbon producing fuel has been enjoyed without so much as the bat of an eyelid for how long? - is now dictating to the developing world that because of global warming deposits of things like coal and oil should not be used but instead more expensive and less effective means such as solar panels should be adopted.

The point was very clearly about Western cultural imperialism and not about solving Africa's problems. And the point was one I agreed with wholeheartedly.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Also, in some cases at least, the installation of solar panels etc in developing countries is being done in part with funding from "carbon offsetting" schemes. If we're to tackle global warming as a global problem, then sooner or later Kyoto-like agreements on reducing CO2 emissions will have to be agreed between all nations rather than just those currently producing most of that CO2. Many developing nations may have already found that many of the easy and inexpensive options for CO2 reduction have already been implemented by the rich countries seeking to avoid reducing their own emissions.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Luigi's point re the solar panel in Africa was entirely fair. We were shown one ridiculous setup, and asked to deduce from this that all attempts to reduce carbon emissions in developing countries are evil. It was pretty risible.

I asked the question before on this specific example which no-one responded to. How on earth was the demonstrated setup even possible? We had a fridge (average power consumption 400w) and a lightbulb (typical power consumption 11w). We were asked to believe that the system was so delicately balanced that one could only have one or the other. The relative numbers involved are ridiculous - the lightbulb adds an extra 3% of power consumption.

Given that we know that director Durkin misrepresents his subjects, uses and misappropriates fraudulent data all the while accusing everyone else of "lying", is it too much to suggest that the African example used was also faked to make a point? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Luigi suggested that to draw any conclusions from this extremely dodgy example is ridiculous, and I'm with him all the way. Africa's greatest natural resource is the sun - in some cases they have very little else. Compare and contrast the rubbish single panel used in GCCS with a BBC report this week about an amazing-looking new solar tower in Spain (do click the link, the picture is incredible). In the TV report on this, there was breathless speculation that loads of these towers could be built in Africa - brilliant. But guess what it would be for - to supply power to Europe! (An aside - the Australians are building one too).

So why not build these towers near major African cities? Smaller rural solar parks near villages? It makes best use of their greatest natural resource, the fuel is free and has zero carbon emissions. Ramped up to an appropriate scale, it could be a huge component in driving Africa's development. Call me naieve, but that doesn't sound too evil to me.

The latest IPCC paper advocates a worldwide cut of 85% carbon emissions, starting now. The developed world has to act first by example, but there is little point if the devloping world does not follow (China overtakes the US this year as the greatest single emitter). The IPCC estimates that this will cost 3% of global GDP. Since America's space program in the 60s cost 4% of GDP, using less to keep our planet habitable for future generations doesn't seem like too much of a sacrifice to me.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
For example, why is water vapour excluded from such an important model as the US produced?

Water Vapour
I've not checked your link, the URL looks like another one-man-in-his-shed type sites. So, I don't know what he's working from when he cites "US DOE data" - most descriptions of the chemical composition of the atmosphere give the composition of dry air for the very good reason that that's effectively uniform across the earths surface, whereas water vapour content is highly variable both regionally and temporally. That doesn't mean that the scientist composing the table has been negligent in omitting water vapour, it's just that including it would make the table impossible to comprehend or relevant to a very specific situation ("on the average June day in Washington DC, at noon, the atmospheric composition is ...", fat lot of good that'll be for a January night in Glasgow).

It's certainly not true that climate scientists ignore water vapour. Here's a quote from the recently released IPCC WG1 report, from the FAQs pages because I haven't had time to read the rest yet
quote:
Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect.

as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

Called a milk-sop to deflect the vast amount of adverse publicity of contradictory evidence to its original (er, revised 1995 conclusion without change in data) that man-made CO2 emissions are the real driving force of global warming and the whole of mankind should therefore reduce it, hence Kyoto.

This means not a lot since it hasn't established that CO2 drives global warming, or as it says here 'that rising levels of greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming'.

Let's just admit that this imaginary consensus among climate scientists doesn't exist and leaving aside the political/vested interest (including ego) of both sides let us continue to explore what science offers to our understanding of climate.

The subject of the weather has always been a common denominator among humans and as has been often pointed out to me here, the science is simple enough for anyone to understand..

As the astrophysicist Dr Shariv points out in the Real Deal linked above, it's now obvious from the mass of data available that it's the earth's relationship to the sun which is the driving force of our climate change and goes on: "The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant." (Real Deal)

What is significant is that statistical significance is ignored by the vociferous global warming lobby.

Bearing the remarkable correlation of the sun's activity to temperature changes in mind and back to local events interacting with this. On the subject of water vapour (Greenhouse data) the point being made is that this is the most potent of the greenhouse gases and the emphasis on CO2 and from this the emphasis of industrial CO2 in models excluding water vapour are not scientifically realistic. Water vapour is by far the largest component of greenhouse gases, to ignore the importance of this makes nonsense of climate models which do, however difficult this is to measure.

An interesting view is the recent one proposed by Shaidurov:

quote:
(The Tunguska Event and Ice Crystals)

However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius

How accurate this 4 degree rise is for others to confirm or refute, but as the majority component of the greehouse gases its exclusion from actual climate models used in this argument doesn't make any sense, it's 95-98% of the subject matter.

Water Vapour

quote:
Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap
in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases

If one pursues the question of how much of the greenhouse effect is due to each of the various greenhouse gases one finds a perplexing variety of answers in the literature. One source says that 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, another 98 percent. These figures may be referring to the proportion, by weight or volume, of water vapor among the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere. Another source says that proportion water vapor is responsible for is between 36 and 70 percent. Water droplets in clouds account for another 10 to 15 percent so water as liquid or vapor accounts for between 46 and 85 percent of the greenhouse effect. The same source attributes 9 to 26 percent of the greenhouse effect to carbon dioxide (CO2).

The perplexingly wide range is explained by the source as being due to the nonlinearity of the response of the atmosphere to greenhouse gases and the overlap of the absorption spectra of the various greenhouse gases. The phenomenon is explained no further than evoking the terms nonlinearity and overlap. This material below is an attempt to clarify the situation.

.....

Climate Change 2001 gives a figure for the radiative efficiency of CO2 of 0.01548 W/m²/ppmv but emphasizes this figure is to be used only for the computation of global warming potentials. It is incredible how the scientific works on global warming can leave H2O entirely out of the picture. A diligent search of source other than Climate Change 2001 reveals that the radiative efficiency of water vapor is fifty to sixty percent greater than that of CO2. For more on the role of water, in liquid and vapor forms, on the climate see Water.

The climate modelers of course presume that the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of the global temperature and is therefore a derived effect. Even if this were strictly true it would not hurt to have the data on water vapor displayed for comparison. However those modelers, despite the criticality of the assumption, never display a graph showing the data in which global humidity is a function of the level of global temperature. There is a crucial conceptual error involved in those models. It is one thing for water vapor concentration to be a function of global temperature, but an entirely different matter for water vapor concentration to be a function only of temperature. For more on this topic see Water Vapor.

"Crucial conceptual error" sums up what I've concluded from this discussion.

Myrrh

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Pertinent to the African question, Desmond Tutu writes an excellent article in today's UK Guardian.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Luigi's point re the solar panel in Africa was entirely fair. We were shown one ridiculous setup, and asked to deduce from this that all attempts to reduce carbon emissions in developing countries are evil.

Wrong.

It was about telling African people what to do when they are trying to crawl out of poverty. That kind of western arrogance makes me puke.

It was a good point well made. You're bound to be derisive as you wrote off the programme before you even watched it!

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

It's an excellent example of the fear generated among those who actually care about the human condition and who base their fears on the IPCC and global warming charlatans as can be seen by his use of Katrina as if true.

quote:
Chris Lansea, former research meteorologist, NOAA, Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center, said on PBS, "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."

Landsea explains his resignation from the IPCC in 2005.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclo nes more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading trans cripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

continued on:(Global Warmer believer who resigned from the IPCC)

The actual reason that global warming theorists are against the distribution of the Durkin dvd is that it contains damning evidence of scientific fraud such as this and the mosquito desception.

Chris Landsea ends: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.Sincerely,
Chris Landsea 17 January 2005"

Noiseboy, you may truly believe that the consensus for global warming is global and accurate and apolitical, but examples such as this and the mosquito deception mentioned on the Durkin programme and discussed earlier destroy the IPCC's credibility to scientific accuracy. Doesn't any of this bother you?

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Before I get a hell warning, I think for my own sanity I think I better skip Myrrh's posts from here on in...

Tough on you, but you began this to thread to deal with this.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Noiseboy, ..and moreover, your dismissal of all contradictory information is insulting to those who you've called to participate in the argument in a thread you specifically set up to answer them.

Referring me to this page (How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic) because "In the remaining micron of constructive spirit I have left, however, I'll just link this one page which simply answers pretty much every straw man argument you have thus far raised and the next 47 that you will raise. It may not be definitive, but it least bears a passing resemblance to science." as if it is all I need to see the error of my conclusion is not going to work - you'll have to do better.

The very first link I went to - b) Contradictory evidence: Antarctic sea ice is increasing - took me to a page deriding contradictory evidence of the global warming scenario that we're already causing the ice to thin and providing a report which it claims shows that the contrary evidence is not true. Please note the last post on that page by DaveR

"You've misunderstood the report you linked to, which is referring to total Antarctic ice mass, rather than to sea ice."

Er, passing resemblance to science is not shown here, do I think I'd be more impressed by the other pages?

This melting ice nail hammered into the objectors is one I would like to have explored further because on my trawl through earlier I found it to be a good example of corrupt data produced by global warming protagonists.

I really don't have the time to produce a paper on this, but perhaps we could take it as a topic to work through here?

Let me begin with the size of the problem:

Alan Titchmarch said in his programme on Britain that the end of the ice age happened rather quickly, over a period of 50years, and raised the sea level by 300 ft.

Nasa page says: "The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries." (Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today By Vivien Gornitz — January 2007)

This is the first problem I've found here, my bold, that doomsday scenarios of manmade CO2 melting the ice caps and flooding the world are taking figures which relate to sea level rises over centuries and present them as if they are due next week.

However, what this report assumes is that sea ice is thinning - but this isn't the case if other studies show not only that they're not, but that they're actually thickening.

quote:
Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.

Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago. (Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global Warming Theories
by James M. Taylor (December 16, 2001))

Myrrh

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Wrong.

It was about telling African people what to do when they are trying to crawl out of poverty. That kind of western arrogance makes me puke.

It was a good point well made. You're bound to be derisive as you wrote off the programme before you even watched it!

Littlelady - I know you don't accept the IPCC, but if you did (as the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world does) you'd know that action has to be global - the latest document calls for an 85% carbon emission reduction. It may make you personally puke, but what it amounts to is that, unless every country signs up to drastic changes, hundreds of millions more in Africa will probably die. So no offence, but I'd rather have you puke than that. And as I pointed out, African development is perfectly possible without futher buggering up the climate and making their dire situation even worse.

Yes I did write off the programme before I watched it - based on the proven track record of the director (ruled against by the ITC and on record as misprepresenting subjects, and making programmes that tried to convince women that breast implants are good for them). His final programme has been shown to be demonstrably false in almost every aspect (false and misappropriated data, misprepresenting subjects, critial data omission etc), and Ofcom are investigating 250 complaints. IMHO, my early judgement was vindicated.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
unless every country signs up to drastic changes, hundreds of millions more in Africa will probably die.

Right. Yeah. So you say. But even if such melodrama proves to be correct, it is up to Africans to decide for themselves whether they want to do this. It isn't up to hypocritical self-righteous colonialist westerners to start ordering Africans around or depriving them of the means to crawl out of poverty and deprivation. The West doesn't have a God-given right to dictate what other nations do. They only have the right to ask. Politely.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
It was about telling African people what to do when they are trying to crawl out of poverty. That kind of western arrogance makes me puke.
It was a good point well made.

Except it failed to mention that:

(a) In rural parts of Africa, solar panels can be far more cost effective than building an entire transmission network of pylons etc.
(b) The problems could have been solved with an extra solar panel...Africa has a resources problem that is nothing to do with Evil Greens.
(c) Africa is likely to be one of the places hardest (and soonest) hit by global warming.
(d) Africa (and the rest of the developing world) is acknowledged to be a different case to the West, and so the Annex II countries are specifically exempt from Kyoto obligations.

Failing to mention the last point seemed a very big omission.

The "Western Imperialism crushing the African dream" idea also runs contrary to one of the main objections many people in the West seem to have - that global warming is a UN scam engineered by third world countries to rob the industrial nations of their hard-earned wealth. Remarkably, some people seem to be able believe both ideas, provided it gives them cause to doubt AGW.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Could somebody comment on this please.

Thanks

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Except it failed to mention that:
(a) In rural parts of Africa, solar panels can be far more cost effective than building an entire transmission network of pylons etc.
(b) The problems could have been solved with an extra solar panel...Africa has a resources problem that is nothing to do with Evil Greens.
(c) Africa is likely to be one of the places hardest (and soonest) hit by global warming.
(d) Africa (and the rest of the developing world) is acknowledged to be a different case to the West, and so the Annex II countries are specifically exempt from Kyoto obligations.

Failing to mention the last point seemed a very big omission.

It failed to omit a thousand and one things. So does every programme. So what? Just because the nations of the developing world were exempt (how gracious of us!) from signing up to a (Western initiated) document - which, from media reports anyway, seems not to be worth the paper it is written on - does not mean African nations are not coming under pressure to avoid developing any [carbon producing] resources they may have available.

As I've said before, the point being made was the pressure being applied by Western nations to use only certain forms of power, not that all solar energy was bad or the use of other energy sources was always the best option.

quote:
The "Western Imperialism crushing the African dream" idea also runs contrary to one of the main objections many people in the West seem to have - that global warming is a UN scam engineered by third world countries to rob the industrial nations of their hard-earned wealth. Remarkably, some people seem to be able believe both ideas, provided it gives them cause to doubt AGW.

Not me. I've no idea what the UN is up to. I just get tired of hearing westerners (governments and individuals) pontificate about African nations. I do wish we'd stop thinking of the continent as somehow available to 'our' interference.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Mudfrog - maybe it was me, but the article seemed pretty incoherent, interspersed fairly random quotes. Could you tell me what "human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment" actually means? Or the relevance that "energy sent by the sun and volcanic activity that spits out lava and enormous quantities of substances in the atmosphere"?

That's not a critism of Zichichi btw. He's a well-respected nuclear physicist, and I'm sure the original speech made more sense than those out-of-context quotes. It's hard to comment more without seeing a transcript.

But ultimately he's talking about an area outside his expertise, and so his opinions are largely irrelevant to actual science (where experts in an area critique each other's work, i.e. peer-reviewing). Why should his views be particularly newsworthy?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Littlelady wrote:
It failed to omit a thousand and one things. So does every programme. So what?

It matters because if Durkin is making the case that Africa is specifically being "interfered with" then he needs to show (a) that this is happening, and (b) how it is happening.

Being declared exempt from the only legislation available for regulating CO2 emissions implies to me that Africa had fewer restrictions placed on them than the developed world. It also means the mechanism must be something else - why didn't he explain how it was done?

After all, the only evidence shown in the programme that there was any pressure at all was the hospital with its strange (and as Noiseboy pointed out, slightly suspicious) fridge/light bulb dilemma.

Btw I do agree with you that the way Africa has often been interfered with is vile. I just don't see any evidence to think this is necessarily one of those times.

[ 05. May 2007, 19:06: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Littlelady wrote:
It failed to omit a thousand and one things. So does every programme. So what?
It matters because if Durkin is making the case that Africa is specifically being "interfered with" then he needs to show (a) that this is happening, and (b) how it is happening.

Well, that's what he did within the context of the programme. You are looking for an entirely different programme to justify your own skepticism. If he had wanted to make a dull documentary then that is what he would have done. But his intention appeared to be to counter the party line with a different viewpoint. The way the programme was constructed and the numerous aspects to the debate that were presented made it compelling viewing to someone who watched it with an open mind, as I did.

Incidentally, it is not the first time I have seen images on TV of 'strange lightbulb dilemmas' in Africa. Even Nairobi, a city of considerable size, has lightbulb dilemmas. The hotel I'm staying in there has a back-up generator in case of power failure, apparently a fairly common feature of Kenyan life. Stick that scenario in a poor rural environment and you have your lightbulb dilemma.

quote:
Btw I do agree with you that the way Africa has often been interfered with is vile. I just don't see any evidence to think this is necessarily one of those times.

So African nations are free to develop any natural gas or oil or coal reserves they may have? No-one will object?

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

My memory of the African part of the Durkin programme was of a young man looking sad because he had to choose between running a fridge and a light. There was only the most tenuous link with the global warming debate that I could see: that if we all have to reduce our energy use, there may be difficult choices.

In this case, why did the person who specified the components of the solar panel system not do so with regard to the expected load? I have 'designed' (as an exercise on a development course) an identical system to run a vaccine fridge and lighting for use in a location in Africa where there was no local power supply. 'Design' consists of selecting components appropriate to the expected load.

GW will affect us all but why choose an example where CO2 is irrevelent to try to show the 'wrongness' of the link between CO2 and global warming? Very odd logic.

The thing that annoyed me more than the irrelevance, was that it ignored the fact that GW effects will impact the poor most of all, while trying to suggest that the best chance we have to solve the problem is just naughty people wanting to stop this poor man having enough electricity!
.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
In this case, why did the person who specified the components of the solar panel system not do so with regard to the expected load?

Who knows?

What did people expect of this programme? A degree in physics or electrical engineering or something? It wasn't supposed to be Open University, you know! And with all the elements that people on here have suggested should have been included, the programme would have been about three days long!

quote:
The thing that annoyed me more than the irrelevance, was that it ignored the fact that GW effects will impact the poor most of all, while trying to suggest that the best chance we have to solve the problem is just naughty people wanting to stop this poor man having enough electricity!

Well, at least you sort of got the point that was being put across, even if you appear defensive about it. You missed the implication of hypocrisy, however. For it is hypocritical of Western nations (or organisations within them) to pressurise African nations not to do something those same Western nations have been happily doing for decades just because those same Western nations (according to the pro-manmade lobby) have fucked it all up.

Another issue that the whole programme raised by implication rather than overtly was that of the now -v- future aspect of the global warming debate. How that relates to Africa is what matters more? The relief of poverty, starvation and fatal sickness now (which may mean using fossil burning fuels, if a country has such available to them) or of death by another means (which is not yet tangible) at some point in the future? Which is more important - to the African?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
You are looking for an entirely different programme to justify your own skepticism. If he had wanted to make a dull documentary then that is what he would have done. But his intention appeared to be to counter the party line with a different viewpoint. The way the programme was constructed and the numerous aspects to the debate that were presented made it compelling viewing to someone who watched it with an open mind, as I did.

You're right, it was compelling viewing, as well as being beautifully filmed. It's caused a massive stir, and doubtless will continue to do so - I just wish that Monbiot's crappy "Greenwash" programme the previous week had been a fraction as good.

However, as compelling as it was emotionally, it didn't seem to offer much in the way of rational argument. I'm not asking for pages of statistics, just some sort of plausible reasoning.

quote:
It isn't up to hypocritical self-righteous colonialist westerners to start ordering Africans around or depriving them of the means to crawl out of poverty and deprivation. The West doesn't have a God-given right to dictate what other nations do.

Those are strong words. Do you have evidence to show that environmental concerns are currently depriving Africans to this extent? Or any extent?

The programme didn't show anything of the sort, and it neglected to mention the huge piece of evidence that demonstrated the reverse.

quote:
So African nations are free to develop any natural gas or oil or coal reserves they may have? No-one will object?

No idea. I haven't heard of any restrictions though.

quote:
[...] it is hypocritical of Western nations (or organisations within them) to pressurise African nations not to do something those same Western nations have been happily doing for decades just because those same Western nations (according to the pro-manmade lobby) have fucked it all up.

Definately. But are they doing that?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
You're right, it was compelling viewing, as well as being beautifully filmed. It's caused a massive stir, and doubtless will continue to do so

I have to say, that's encouraging. I don't feel quite as [brick wall]

now because someone does seem to have grasped the context of the programme: it was intended to stir.

quote:
However, as compelling as it was emotionally, it didn't seem to offer much in the way of rational argument. I'm not asking for pages of statistics, just some sort of plausible reasoning.

But why do you ask that? Think of the last year and all that you have heard about the pro-manmade lobby position. How much of it has been based on 'plausible reasoning'? Just think of almost any media mention of global warming and what do we get? Squillions will die within the next X years if we don't all switch off our lightbulbs NOW! The world will be flooded in ten years time if we don't pay huge taxes to stop everyone from flying NOW!

Plausible reasoning? Maybe in the labs or corridors of scientific debate, but not out here in the ordinary person's world. It's been melodrama after melodrama. The point of this programme was to counteract that at every point. I would have thought that was obvious?

quote:

quote:
It isn't up to hypocritical self-righteous colonialist westerners to start ordering Africans around or depriving them of the means to crawl out of poverty and deprivation. The West doesn't have a God-given right to dictate what other nations do.
Those are strong words.

I know. I get like that sometimes. [Smile]

quote:

quote:
[...] it is hypocritical of Western nations (or organisations within them) to pressurise African nations not to do something those same Western nations have been happily doing for decades just because those same Western nations (according to the pro-manmade lobby) have fucked it all up.
Definately. But are they doing that?

No idea. We've all just been arguing about a programme which suggested that might just be the case. It wouldn't surprise me. Our government or environmental organisations within the UK are bound to be saying and/or doing something to 'change the behaviour' of African nations. God knows is the theme of the moment just now. But if I get the chance, when I visit Tanzania in June, I'll ask. I'd love to hear what Africans themselves have to say about it.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Little Lady - is it fair to assume you would also approve of slavery or cannibalism if any African nations were to favour it? Don't want to impose our imperialism after all, so each to their own (literally, if they fancy it). Or perhaps it is not so vomitous to have a few necessary global standards in our global village...

The point about hypocrisy is rather unfair, also. You, famously, still are unconvinced about the reality of ACC. Every government in the world now disagrees with you, but this is only a very recent thing - even 10 years ago you'd have had the majority on your side. While the developed world may well have been aware of causing environmental damage, it was certainly unaware (or at least not convinced) it was leading to a potential global catastrophe. Ignorance is bliss, indeed - but we can claim ignorance no longer.

Of course, if NOW the developed world failed to act, having signed up to the IPCC documents, this would indeed be hypocrisy. But since our knowledge is so recent, it does not make our position now hypocritical if we ask for communal global action.

A final point, Littlelady. You consistently fail to address the points that I and others have made that future economic African development need not to be linked to high-emissions. You seem to believe that it is either / or - any development must necessarily go hand in hand with increasing emissions. But this is not the reality of the world today. Also you seem to believe that we in the west are imposing some dreadful new form of slavery by advocating a greener economy - but this is certainly not the view of African leaders like Desmond Tutu (who wrote so eloquently in today's Guardian). So I'm genuinely curious - what exactly is your problem with sustainable African development built on maximum use of local resources (eg. solar) which costs next to nothing to maintain? What is your problem with Africa being liberated from the crippling financial tie to oil?

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
In this case, why did the person who specified the components of the solar panel system not do so with regard to the expected load?
Who knows?

What did people expect of this programme? A degree in physics or electrical engineering or something? It wasn't supposed to be Open University, you know! And with all the elements that people on here have suggested should have been included, the programme would have been about three days long!

I wasn't wanting the programme to answer technical questions, just not to mislead people by raising spurious arguments. I was pointing out the lack of connection between a poorly designed solar panel system and Global Warming. Many people will have watched and just accepted that the African man's problem is due to nasty environmental scare people.

quote:

quote:
The thing that annoyed me more than the irrelevance, was that it ignored the fact that GW effects will impact the poor most of all, while trying to suggest that the best chance we have to solve the problem is just naughty people wanting to stop this poor man having enough electricity!
Well, at least you sort of got the point that was being put across, even if you appear defensive about it.

So you agree with me? I'm saying that he argues against the proposed solution to the problem and suggests that the people with the most plausible explanation and solution just want to make things worse!

quote:
You missed the implication of hypocrisy, however. For it is hypocritical of Western nations (or organisations within them) to pressurise African nations not to do something those same Western nations have been happily doing for decades just because those same Western nations (according to the pro-manmade lobby) have fucked it all up.

I'm not aware of any demands that Africa should make any changes, in fact someone above suggested that Africa is exempted. I assume Africa can't make much of a contribution to CO2 compared with heavily industrialised countries and those with lots of planes, cars and coal or gas power stations. Lots of wood fires can't help but tha's not the main problem.

quote:
Another issue that the whole programme raised by implication rather than overtly was that of the now -v- future aspect of the global warming debate. How that relates to Africa is what matters more? The relief of poverty, starvation and fatal sickness now (which may mean using fossil burning fuels, if a country has such available to them) or of death by another means (which is not yet tangible) at some point in the future? Which is more important - to the African?

I agree with you here; people who live in very poor conditions cannot be expected to continue in them unnecessarily. My choice would be for the rich west to reduce our CO2 output just a bit more (we've caused it, not them) so the poorest can carry on whatever they have to do (with our help if they want it) to survive and develop, until they start to pollute significantly (or the climate gets unbearable!)

As Alan has pointed out numerous times, lots of energy-saving measures also save money and someone here said that our carbon taxes could be spent in helping poorer countries develop in less environmentally damaging ways.
.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Little Lady - is it fair to assume you would also approve of slavery or cannibalism if any African nations were to favour it? Don't want to impose our imperialism after all, so each to their own (literally, if they fancy it). Or perhaps it is not so vomitous to have a few necessary global standards in our global village...

Oh, here we go ...

quote:
The point about hypocrisy is rather unfair, also. You, famously, still are unconvinced about the reality of ACC. Every government in the world now disagrees with you, but this is only a very recent thing - even 10 years ago you'd have had the majority on your side.

Well, I've never been one to jump on bandwagons, Noiseboy. And believe me, you don't insult me by saying that 'every government in the world' disagrees with me! I take that as a compliment! I'm happy not to be in the same league as politicians. Much as I'm sure there are some honest, decent ones out there.

quote:
What is your problem with Africa being liberated from the crippling financial tie to oil?

Because what I want to know is this. Is the liberation you speak of Africa's own idea of liberation (not that a whole continent can share the same opinion of course) or is it the West's version of it? My suspicion is that it may be the West's, not because Africans are somehow ignorant or unaware or have a desire to destroy the world, but because they may have other, more immediately pressing concerns that could actually represent more clearly a sense of liberation to them. It is not our business to determine what liberates Africa. That is Africa's business. Even if we don't like it.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Littlelady wrote:
[...] what matters more? The relief of poverty, starvation and fatal sickness now (which may mean using fossil burning fuels, if a country has such available to them) or of death by another means (which is not yet tangible) at some point in the future? Which is more important - to the African?

Well, that assumes Africans ARE being asked to cut their carbon emissions. Most contraction and convergence proposals allow them to increase - the idea is that ultimately everyone on the planet gets the same carbon allowance.

As for whether the future is more important than the present: it depends how bad the future is likely to be. "Very very bad" seems one realistic outcome at the moment, if we continue business as usual.

I admit it's not a certainty - the (almost) unanimous opinion of the world's climate scientists might be mistaken - some kind of group-think. But hundreds of scientists have pored over the various peer-reviewed journals for YEARS, and frankly I wouldn't want to bet on them being wrong.

It always seems odd to me that people demand the science be proved 100%. (That's not aimed at you Littlelady - just a general observation.) If there's even a 70% chance of it being true (or hell - just a 10% chance), isn't it worth us doing everything possible to avoid potential disaster?

Then if in a few years if it turns out all the experts are wrong (as unlikely as it is), we can all be annoyed but shrug and think "well, oil was running out anyway".

The alternative is to make no meaningful changes and then discover that the scientists were right all along, and the tundra melts, the methane gets released and every nightmare positive feedback kicks in.

I just don't get why the UK spends billions and billions on the Olympics, Millennium Dome, Trident etc, when the chance of catastrophe is looming.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

Clint, let me take two of your statements above:

quote:
I assume Africa can't make much of a contribution to CO2 compared with heavily industrialised countries and those with lots of planes, cars and coal or gas power stations. Lots of wood fires can't help but tha's not the main problem.

and

quote:
My choice would be for the rich west to reduce our CO2 output just a bit more (we've caused it, not them) so the poorest can carry on whatever they have to do (with our help if they want it) to survive and develop, until they start to pollute significantly (or the climate gets unbearable!)

The point the programme was making was that the "until" bit in your second statement could stop Africans from enjoying the content of your first statement: things we have been enjoying for a long time. In other words, what right have we to determine just how far they could develop before they became 'naughty boys and girls' given our track record?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It always seems odd to me that people demand the science be proved 100%.

It doesn't seem odd to me. Science makes some enormous claims. It's making one in this context. If science wants to claim it's virtually certain we're all going to die soon from drowning or heatstroke (depending on where we live) if we don't do this or that then it has to be held accountable to a very high standard for such a life-changing claim. If it can't stand the heat of resistence, it shouldn't make the claim in the first place. I've no sympathy for scientists here. They think they know it then they have to show it. Or not, if they don't feel inclined!

quote:
I just don't get why the UK spends billions and billions on the Olympics, Millennium Dome, Trident etc, when the chance of catastrophe is looming.

You don't? Gosh. I do! It's because we are living now, not 100 years from now. No-one can stop living in the present because of something which may, or may not, happen in the future. Would people have stopped having sex if they knew AIDS was just around the corner? No. I can guarantee that. But they learned (on the whole) to wear condoms when AIDS arrived and after everyone realised you couldn't catch it through touching someone who had contracted it. That's just human nature.

I remember when the food scares started. Back in the 80s I think. One of the earliest statements by scientists was that margarine was better for you than butter. So people started turning to margarine instead of butter. A few years later scientists changed their minds as it turned out both had 'bad fat' in them. Thus the 'low fat spreads' came along. There have been other changes in the scientific mind along the way.

Earlier this week I learned of a scientific study involving babies who suffered with eczema and egg allergies (one of my nephews suffers in this way). I can't remember the specifics of the study, but overall they want to test the hypothesis that stopping children from eating certain things until a certain age avoids allergies. At present the advice is not to allow children to have certain foods, eg nuts, before a certain age because of potential allergy problems. However, a potential change of the scientific mind is afoot. It is now being considered that the avoidance of foods at an early age may in actuality be contributing towards allergies. Hence, the study.

I keep an open mind about scientific claims. I tend to wait and see.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

It seems to me that there is a false pair of alternatives being offered here: on the one hand that the environmentalists are trying to mold (force?) African countries into a particular mode of development; on the other, that otherwise African people would decide on their own, and make up their own minds about what path development should take, and that development along the lines of Western nations historically is the best way.

First of all, all sides (Western governments, NGOs, oil companies, other multinationals....) have constantly interfered with development in Africa. Which is a major reason why so many countries are in such a mess. Even if the environmentalists were not involved (and as others have noted poor countries are exempt from the protocols) there is still huge pressure from many other sources. So advice/pressure to develop more sustainably is just one factor amongst many.

Secondly development along Western lines has not exactly been a resounding success so far has it? The Millenium Development Goals seem as far off success as ever! Given that most countries do not have oil/coal/gas reserves, increasing imports of these to develop along Western lines does not seem likely to improve the situation.

In many cases sustainable energy sources (if we just look at energy - obviously development encompasses many more issues) take advantage of the particular resources in those countries e.g. plenty of sunshine for solar power. Obviously the particular solutions differ according to circumstances. A few years ago I was involved in producing a book about rural energy options in India - given a huge area and limited existing infrastructure a local capacity to generate energy was generally by far the most appropriate - in some cases solar, other place micro-hydro, or geothermal - the key point being that people needed to choose there own best options rather than having something foisted on them from on high (something development projects have often sadly been guilty of).

Of course it's vital that people in developing countries make their own decisions about the future. Many of the most successful developments have actually been about recapturing local knowledge which had been lost or forgotten in the rush to western style development and attempts to match lifestyles. Interestingly these are often the most environmentally and socially sustainable too.

However, I think the issue of development vs climate change is rather a red herring; poor countries would benefit from sustainable development irrespective of climate change or not because it's environmentally, socially and economically better for them. I think we should help them as much as possible e.g. technology transfer to help them become self-sufficient in solar panel production (if that's what they want).
But fundamentally climate change is up to the rich Western nations to solve and do something about, which probably includes reducing our 'standard of living' - which I put in quotes because I think we can improve our quality of life at the same time.

Phew! A long post for this time of night, somehow got carreid away.... hope it makes some sort of sense, I should be asleep!

Jonah

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
The point the programme was making was that the "until" bit in your second statement could stop Africans from enjoying the content of your first statement: things we have been enjoying for a long time. In other words, what right have we to determine just how far they could develop before they became 'naughty boys and girls' given our track record?

Let's say for a moment that we 'generously allow' them to pollute the atmosphere relatively freely for the time being, while they develop move some level of development nearer ours. That will take some years by which time we'll have even more evidence to show whether GW is truly disastrous or not and the extent of humanity's contribution. Maybe this evidence will affect some opinions (or not) In the mean time we fly less, close the most wasteful or polluting power plants and factories, have more efficient homes and transport and try not to pollute or waste things.

Then (say a decade or two) either we agree that AGW was all a storm in a teacup (silly scientists, scaring us all like that!) but we realise we spent less on energy than before and the oil will last a bit longer or we're all (including, especially Africa) buggered and can't even light a fire to keep warm. The only good thing will be that we won't need to! (well, not so often).

I think I now have more of an insight into the minds of those who know very little about science, seeing your reply above.
.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I think Jonahman summed up your response to my last, Littlelady, very well. You are offering two false alternatives - a) let them do what they want and need to to develop (pollute) or b) impose restrictions and not devlop. I've pointed out numerous times that this isn't true, and Jonahman expanded on this with his experience of India.

India is a very good example, actually. They are now one of the fastest developing economies in the world, and now are one of the fastest rising emitters. They weren't part of the problem until very recently, but now they are. This is why sustainable development needs to be encouraged from the beginning, to prevent more huge problems later down the line.

I know we've been over the science / probability question quite a bit on this thread, but it is crucial to the discussion. I had no intention of insulting you littlelady with the reference to you disagreeing with all world governments - it was a simple statement of fact. Of course, you similarly disagree with all major relevent scientific institutions as well, perhaps this is badge of honour too. But science very very rarely deals in absolute certainty.

You keep using the straw man argument of "scientists said margarine is good for you" etc, which is based on usually bad media reporting of single papers. The situation with global warming is totally different, and represents the work of literally thousands of papers and experts, examined to the nth degree.

I read a press release yesterday from the NOAA about recent research that suggests that increased vertical wind shear, under global warming, will have the effect of decreasing the intensity of hurricanes. This is very good news. But the press release was at pains to point out that this is one factor among many in a very complex field. This is science in action - constantly refining our overall knowledge.

As many people have pointed out, there is no serious downside to the extremely unlikely scenario of the world's scientists being wrong about global warming. The GCCS invented one, based on an irrelevant and quite possibly fictitious example and straw men (to date, there has been no international obligation or even pressure on Africa to develop only low-carbon options).

Let's say Nairobi has the option of two new power stations - one oil, the other solar. Both will produce the same output, but solar will cost double to build. The best option for Kenya would be to receive extra funding for solar, because the running costs of the latter will minute compared to oil - the fuel is free. The green choice is the one that will provide Kenya with much more development per dollar spent. If we in the west are serious about helping Africa's development, this is where aid should be targeted - making use of their own resources.

You haven't commented, Littlelady, on Desmond Tutu's article yesterday, where (among other things) he spells out how much Africa has already suffered at the hands of environmental catastrophe, which is increasing alarmingly under global warming. I still have no insight in to why you are so negative about technology that will improve Africa's development which this African leader at the very least also says is a priority.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

The differece between quoting someone like Desmond Tutu on the subject and other non-specialists is the degree of knowledge on the subject, has the good man actually explored the arguments? I don't think so because he's way too general and obviously taking his information from the political spin put out by the global warming cranks as is proved by his reference to Katrina, as I've already gone through, the scenario of our CO2 emissions creating hurricanes as scientific fact is proved to be a deception; not even found in the IPCC report but promoted by its spokesman direct to the press and for which reason Chris Landsea resigned.

I'm at a loss to understand why Noiseboy thinks that global warming must be real because it's supported by 'world governments', but this is science we're talking about and I thought science prided itself on its rational search for real truth about the workings of our world, as long as there are dissenting voices offering contraditions to theories there is no scientific consensus. Truth doesn't depend on how many people agree a theory is true, but on the truth of the theory.

For those who missed Durkin's programme and as a reminder for those who didn't, an interview with a climate expert Tim Ball:

quote:
Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of science.” (The politics of global warming)Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW Saturday, February 10, 2007

The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real »

"The greatest deception in the history of science"

I agree. And the real reason that the global warmists want the dvd banned.

The interview continues (my bold):

quote:
Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?

A: No. It’s absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they’ve reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time.

Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC’s report -- or the summary of the report?

A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down. They couldn’t do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public’s back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that’s the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, “If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control.” Unfortunately, you’ve got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process.

Q: You always hear the argument that the IPCC has several thousand scientists -- how can you not accept what they say?

A: The answer, first of all, is that consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that they get their view in? … You’ve got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on.

Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not “very likely” to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore’s private planes?

A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what’s called “The Little Ice Age” when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn’t fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.

The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’s absolutely rubbish.

quote:
Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it?

A: That’s a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That means the theory is wrong. ... But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a fact right away, and scientists like myself who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies or didn’t care about the children or the future or anything else.

"It's absolutely rubbish", so what proof is there that it isn't?

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Science makes some enormous claims. It's making one in this context. If science wants to claim it's virtually certain we're all going to die soon from drowning or heatstroke (depending on where we live) if we don't do this or that then it has to be held accountable to a very high standard for such a life-changing claim. If it can't stand the heat of resistence, it shouldn't make the claim in the first place. I've no sympathy for scientists here. They think they know it then they have to show it.

Of course, scientists aren't claiming "it's virtually certain we're all going to die soon from drowning or heatstroke". The claim of science is that is't virtually certain that the average global temperature is increasing, and a substantial part of that increase is explained by human activity (burning fossil fuels and deforestation). Somewhere below "virtually certain" is the quantitative values - how much the average temperature is increasing and how much of that is due to human activity. These quantitative values have significant uncertainties, but not so significant that in either case "none" is anything other than very unlikely.

Scientists are also saying that there are some effects that increased average global temperatures will produce. Increased average temperatures for one (and hence increased frequency and severity of heat waves, which are known to kill people), though that might be stating the obvious! Increased sea levels are also "virtually certain", the physics of thermal expansion of water as it gets warmer can't be denied. Again, when you try to quantify the values of "how many more heat waves, how hot will they be, how much sea levels will rise" the uncertainties are not insignificant.

Scientists are very capable of defending the claims they're making. I don't expect any scientist to try and defend a claim not supported by the science - eg: that "it's virtually certain we're all going to die soon from drowning or heatstroke". Perhaps you need to get the propogandists to defend those statements. And, yes, I admit there are propogandists on my side of the fence - to be honest, what I've seen of Gore's film looks much more like propoganda than hard science.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Tim Ball

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Tim Ball's "“If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control.” Unfortunately, you’ve got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process."

This reminds me of another such political/personal agenda driving opinion contrary to scientific fact.

I don't recall when I read this, sometime in the late eighties, early nineties perhaps, but anyway there was an interview in The Times (London) with the doctor who first said that secondary smoking caused cancer in non-smokers. He explained in this interview that there were two kinds of cancers, one always consistent with smokers and the other with non-smokers. He said that he had deliberately created the misattribution of the cancer of the first to the second group because he didn't like smoking.

After all these years of the anti-smoking lobby bludgeoning everyone with false science and changing society by introducing laws against smoking..

quote:
(Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official)
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Of course, regardless that world governments were coming on board the anti-smoking bandwagon and the claim of the anti-smoking lobby that passive smokers got tobacco related cancer, it is still junk science as is the global warming theory that man-made CO2 is driving us to all to destruction.

I'm still waiting for scientific proof that it isn't.

Myrrh

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
to be honest, what I've seen of Gore's film looks much more like propoganda than hard science.

Gore is certainly no climate scientist - but of course they would probably make boring films. What matters surely is - is the science accurate? In the case of An Inconvenient Truth, the general opinion of climate scientists (see here for article and discussion) is that it is pretty good. There are some errors, but these are pretty minor. There are plenty of details that are skated over, such as the relationship between CO2 and temperature, but the broad thrust is correct (again, see here for article and discussion).

Given that the film has to be entertaining and appeal to old and young across the board, I thought it was a very good balance. Certainly, next to the GCCS where pretty much every utterance has been debunked, it is a masterpiece.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Gore is certainly no climate scientist - but of course they would probably make boring films. What matters surely is - is the science accurate? In the case of An Inconvenient Truth, the general opinion of climate scientists (see here for article and discussion) is that it is pretty good. There are some errors, but these are pretty minor. There are plenty of details that are skated over, such as the relationship between CO2 and temperature, but the broad thrust is correct (again, see here for article and discussion).

Given that the film has to be entertaining and appeal to old and young across the board, I thought it was a very good balance. Certainly, next to the GCCS where pretty much every utterance has been debunked, it is a masterpiece.

(my emphasis)

Oh Noiseboy. You are so obvious! [Big Grin]

The errors in the Great Global Warming Swindle were positively heinous according to you and Ofcom must immediately be informed, but Gore's are 'pretty minor'. That the Swindle skated over some issues is positively deceitful in your eyes, but that Gore did it? Well, bless. It doesn't matter really. And because Gore's movie has to be entertaining then any discrepancies just don't matter. However, that the Swindle set out to stir and be controversial was nothing short of propoganda. Good job I have a strong enough mind to keep it open no matter what the political agendas of some!

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Littlelady - you really do only hear what you want to hear, don't you? That was low, even by your standards. My words were chosen carefully, in the mistaken belief that people had the intelligence to understand them. Let me, then, rephrase - according to climate scientists, all of the main contentions in Gore's film are correct, whereas none are in GCCS.

Is that obvious enough for you?

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Can I just add my tuppenceworth that the reason that guy felt in TGGWS that he was being treated as though his ideas were on an intellectual footing with creationists and holocaust deniers is that they, well, are.

(BTW - I'm not placing AiG on the same moral footing as holocaust deniers, just the same intellectual footing).

[ 06. May 2007, 12:10: Message edited by: Papio ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

OK Myrrh, I'll give you one more reply, as I think I've just clicked. All the references to "Junk Science", a term coined by the smoking lobby, should have tipped me off earlier.

According to Wikipedia, even the tobacco industry doesn't claim anything like what you have. All studies not funded by the tobacco industry say the same thing - that it kills.

I can only speculate at your motives, but - just to reitorate - I am only interested in discussion based on science, not big business in the oil or tobacco lobbies. Your constant use of these sources (such as Tim Ball) speaks for itself.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Why anyone thinks that scientists part-funded by governments are more likely to be unprofessionally biased than "scientists" funded wholly or mainly be oil companies and other polluters still beats me, frankly.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It always seems odd to me that people demand the science be proved 100%.
It doesn't seem odd to me. Science makes some enormous claims. It's making one in this context. If science wants to claim it's virtually certain we're all going to die soon from drowning or heatstroke (depending on where we live) if we don't do this or that then it has to be held accountable to a very high standard for such a life-changing claim. If it can't stand the heat of resistence, it shouldn't make the claim in the first place. I've no sympathy for scientists here.

But do you apply the same attitude to other areas of your life?

If, after a thorough inspection of your car, the mechanic said there was a 95% chance of sudden brakes failure would you risk it because "he wasn't 100% sure"? Would you insist that friends and their families travelled with you? If not, what is the difference?

Science can NEVER be certain - a new theory can always overturn the previous one. But that doesn't stop us making decisions based on it - i.e. based on the best information available at the time. There needs to be a balance between cost of action, consequences of inaction, and certainty level.

You also react with anger in defense of Durkin's claim that environmentalists are holding back Africa's development. But he didn't show any evidence of this, and neither have you. So why the strength of conviction?

Yet when virtually every major scientific institution on the planet expressed serious concern about CO2, your standards for acceptable evidence shift.

It seems that you have very different standards according to who is making the claim. That's perfectly natural - I certainly do the same. But it seems very marked in this instance, and I suspect you might not have approached the subject with quite the open mind you (genuinely) believe you have.

I'm also struggling reconcile the demand for 100% certainty with your comment on page 6:

quote:
Now, this is the kind of talk that has often been lacking in this whole debate (everywhere, not just on here). According to my bro (himself a scientist of the published, peer reviewed, Phd variety) science is very often about probabilities. If only people spoke in probabilities on this particular subject then personally I could listen to them. Alas, it just doesn't seem to happen. There seems to be so much dogma about.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

JonahMan, I thought your post was very good! [Biased]

Personally, I don't think I have at any time promoted Western style development for Africa. My point has consistently been that African nations should be allowed to make their own decisions without Western interference. I would therefore totally agree with this statement in your post:

quote:
Of course it's vital that people in developing countries make their own decisions about the future.

So long as that is what is happening then I would be happy to step off my soapbox.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, scientists aren't claiming "it's virtually certain we're all going to die soon from drowning or heatstroke".

Yes, well, I confess to using a smidgen of hyperbole there Alan. [Razz]

I want to reiterate at this point that at no time have I denied the reality of climate change. A person doesn't need to be a scientist to notice certain local changes, regardless of the global situation. The issue for me has always been humankind's part in climate change and the various issues surrounding that debate as well as the consequences emanating from it. I suppose I have a broader interest than 'only' the science. While there is an ongoing process of re-examination occurring within science, on the outside the impression this process gives is that science is unreliable. That is, what is stated today does not necessarily hold for tomorrow. I accept the principle of scientific enquiry, but because in practice it often results in change of position or advice, the only option I feel I have is to adopt a 'wait and see' policy. Many non-scientists think as I do, not because they are anti-science or anti-scientists, but simply because they have become slightly skeptical.

quote:
Perhaps you need to get the propogandists to defend those statements.

Absolutely. But some scientists are also propogandists, Alan. They are the people who are the hardest for non-scientists to challenge. We don't have the knowledge or language to do so on equal terms and that exclusivity makes it difficult to counter what they say.

quote:
what I've seen of Gore's film looks much more like propoganda than hard science.

I haven't seen the film. No way was I going to pay to listen to the same old stuff I hear on the BBC on a regular basis! (I should demand a refund on my TV licence)

Myrhh: When the Telegraph article you linked to was published, ASH (the anti-smoking lobby group) began a protest against the paper's 'irresponsible reporting' and it was ultimately forced to apologise: much the same kind of scenario Noiseboy would like to see with regard to the Swindle. As is so often the case in this country, we are all treated like children. That retraction spelled a sad day IMO because I firmly believe in the principle of allowing the opposite opinion to be aired so as to provide people with the opportunity to make up their own minds. Not only this but I think that by allowing free debate the temptation for scapegoating and social pressure is lessened. Of course, scapegoating and social pressure is precisely what lobbyists want to encourage.

I found out for myself last week how successful that approach has been here in the UK as I was assaulted for smoking a cigarette in the open air (totally minding my own business). It's open season on smokers these days. There's no countering the lynch mob mentality once it really gets a hold. I also got told off by a colleague last week for not considering my stupid carbon bloody footprint when organising my flights to Tanzania. My safety and health, it seems, was irrelevant. I should have caught the bus (a six hour journey at least) instead of booking a connecting flight from Nairobi. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
That was low, even by your standards.

Charmed, I'm sure. So it's ok for you to imply I should approve of slavery and canabalism just because I passionately believe in the freedom of Africans to choose their future for themselves, but it's not ok for me to point out your obvious bias when it comes to the entertainment version of the global warming debate? Purleese.

In response to your question about Tutu, I actually find him quite patronising so I don't tend to listen to him much. Perhaps, in the article you linked to, it was the phrase 'my friends' which switched me off.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Indeed, one can never be 100% certain of anything. At all.

To dismiss everything on that basis would seem a rather silly thing to do.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
some scientists are also propogandists

Generally speaking, the ones who work for polluting industries and who claim that we aren't harming the enviroment in the face of the dissent of almost all their peers.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Why anyone thinks that scientists part-funded by governments are more likely to be unprofessionally biased than "scientists" funded wholly or mainly be oil companies and other polluters still beats me, frankly.

With governemnt funding, scientists participate in the proces of peer review so there are solid checks and balances. It is also worth pointing out that different governments would have different biases, so one would expect to see this reflected in "government funded" research were this an issue. It is not. In the case of climate change, as I have relentlessly pointed out (and no-one has refuted) all the world's governments have backed it, from hardline communist North Korea to the US of A. Many have - and do - have motives to surpress the conclusions, and yet they happen anyway. Perhaps this is the best illustration - the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

With industry funding, there is a clear motive to make data fit a pre-determined outcome - otherwise, why fund it at all?

It may be imperfect, but I'll go with non-industry every time. Since this is something that keeps coming up, however, I'd be interested to hear Alan's thoughts on it.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Charmed, I'm sure. So it's ok for you to imply I should approve of slavery and canabalism just because I passionately believe in the freedom of Africans to choose their future for themselves, but it's not ok for me to point out your obvious bias when it comes to the entertainment version of the global warming debate? Purleese.

Oh for God's sake...

[ 06. May 2007, 12:49: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
But do you apply the same attitude to other areas of your life?

Yes.

quote:
If, after a thorough inspection of your car, the mechanic said there was a 95% chance of sudden brakes failure would you risk it because "he wasn't 100% sure"?

I would suggest you read my post again, Hiro. Nowhere have I demanded or even requested 100% certainty. I have simply stated that if science makes big claims then it has to expect big accountability. How is that saying I am demanding 100% certainty? [Paranoid]

quote:
You also react with anger in defense of Durkin's claim that environmentalists are holding back Africa's development. But he didn't show any evidence of this, and neither have you. So why the strength of conviction?

I've already responded to you in this regard on the previous page.

quote:
It seems that you have very different standards according to who is making the claim.

I don't see that at all. I argue with anyone, depending on what they say. I'm an equal opportunities arguer. I do, however, acknowledge that Alan*, a scientist, has greater legitimacy to speak on issues of science than has Noiseboy*, who isn't a scientist, and I think my posts reflect that.

*or any other scientist/non-scientist.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
It is also worth pointing out that different governments would have different biases, so one would expect to see this reflected in "government funded" research were this an issue. It is not.

If you dig into the depths of this thread, you'll find an example I cited which refutes your statement here. It is the only scientific report I have studied in depth. It was compiled by a scientist well known for his anti-smoking stance ( Jamrozik) and it was comissioned by SmokeFree London, which is a lobby group comprising a number of London Boroughs. Strangely enough, the conclusions of the report (cited widely in the press not long before the ban in England was passed) agreed with the views of SmokeFree London. It is naive (and possibly even irresponsible) to believe that because something is commissioned by the government (either on a local or national level) it is somehow beyond reproach. In fact, I would suggest, it needs even greater examination because it is the people's money providing the support.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
While there is an ongoing process of re-examination occurring within science, on the outside the impression this process gives is that science is unreliable. That is, what is stated today does not necessarily hold for tomorrow. I accept the principle of scientific enquiry, but because in practice it often results in change of position or advice, the only option I feel I have is to adopt a 'wait and see' policy. Many non-scientists think as I do, not because they are anti-science or anti-scientists, but simply because they have become slightly skeptical.

This is a good point, and I suspect reflects the view of many people. We've got "fear fatigue". Avian flu, AIDS, Y2K, acid rain, ozone layer, meteor strikes. Then there's all the stories from medical science - nutrition, allergies, ideal weight, carcenogenic toast, cot deaths, MMI, etc etc. It's no wonder people get skeptical.

Unfortunately, the media thrives on fear. It's not their fault - fear sells newspapers. But the effect is to take a scientific report and turn it into the scare-de-jour. Some of the stories represent very unlikely events, but with dramatic effects ("Meteor might hit. One day. Eventually"). Others can be about things that just might be true - medical stories seem susceptable to this, since the statistics tend to change.

The trouble is, now we're all used to fear, and have become very cynical about governments (especially after Iraq), the really big story comes out. Global warming is in a different league to everything else, because:
- Huge amounts of scientific research supports it (i.e. it's not a single paper)
- It represents a very likely event.
- The potential consequences are dire.

It's doubly hard to accept because the implications will affect our lifestyles, and runs against very powerful commercial interests.

We're got used to being scared, and so now we struggle to believe the big story. Classic boy crying wolf! But just because the media thrives on fear, it doesn't mean it's untrue.

quote:
I found out for myself last week how successful that approach has been here in the UK as I was assaulted for smoking a cigarette in the open air (totally minding my own business). It's open season on smokers these days.

Assuming "assulted" is metaphorical (hopefully), that's still crappy IMO. I'm quite happy with the forthcoming pub smoking ban (sorry!), but outside too? That's much too far.

Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :

Can I agree with both sides? [Paranoid]

About 15 years ago our national science agency (CSIRO) had a conference in Tasmania to discuss the impact of human created emissions on the global weather patterns, where they presented their latest computer modelling of future climatic conditions.
Some bright spark in the audience got up and asked: "What about clouds?"

Silence

Followed by red faces - somehow, they had omitted to factor in clouds.

My point is that there are too many factors to conclusively predict what effect our actions will have, but...

When I was at Primary School, we went on an excursion to see the coal-fired power stations. Back then (over thirty years ago) I found it disturbing - the acrid black smoke pouring into the atmosphere.

I think it is fair to assume that our actions will have an effect (and it wont be good) and I still find it bizarre that we waste such a wonderful (and limited) product such as petroleum, by burning it to propel us around (I usually ride a bike - and I also smoke).

Livng in a city of over 2 million people where our water storages have fallen below 30% of capacity - I think it may well be too late, but I dont think any of the measures being proposed will do any real harm.

But they may represent the beginning of an understanding of just how fragile the necessary conditions for our life here is.

After all ...Earth

It's the only one we've got.

S-E

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I would suggest you read my post again, Hiro. Nowhere have I demanded or even requested 100% certainty. I have simply stated that if science makes big claims then it has to expect big accountability. How is that saying I am demanding 100% certainty?

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It always seems odd to me that people demand the science be proved 100%.
It doesn't seem odd to me.

I took this to imply agreement. Was I mistaken? And what do you mean by "accountability" in this context?

quote:
I argue with anyone, depending on what they say. I'm an equal opportunities arguer. I do, however, acknowledge that Alan*, a scientist, has greater legitimacy to speak on issues of science than has Noiseboy*, who isn't a scientist, and I think my posts reflect that.

What I meant was that you were far less critical of sources whose conclusions you agreed with, and applied a different standard of proof. Hence my comment that you wholeheartedly accepted Durkin's claims about environmentalists holding back Africa.

I certainly didn't mean to imply you let personal likes or dislikes of individuals sway you, or that you bowed to authority! Sorry that I phrased this badly. [Hot and Hormonal]

(Edited to fix mangled quote code.)

[ 06. May 2007, 13:56: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I took this to imply agreement. Was I mistaken?

Yes. I said that I could understand why people made such demands while you could not (that is what you said anyway), ie that science makes great claims, etc, etc. Personally, I'm happy when scientists just acknowledge that they aren't sure. Like I said earlier in the thread, I can deal in probabilities.

quote:
and what do you mean by "accountability" in this context?

That their word is not simply taken. Scientists should be questioned, not simply deferred to. But I'm not very good at deference, so maybe I'm biased. [Biased]

quote:
What I meant was that you were far less critical of sources whose conclusions you agreed with, and applied a different standard of proof.

Not so. If I am less critical it is because I have already wrestled with it and come to agreement. I don't think that's unusual though, do you? If I agree with someone then all I can really do is nod my head or say "I agree with you". No point in arguing with something I agree with!

quote:
Hence my comment that you wholeheartedly accepted Durkin's claims about environmentalists holding back Africa.

His point was powerfully made at a time when I hadn't even considered it. He put a thought into my head, which is a good thing. My sensitivity over this subject is because of past western interference in Africa: I don't want it to happen again over this issue. I want us to leave Africa alone to decide its own issues for itself.

While thinking more about my upcoming trip to Tanzania, I visited this website. If you were to take a look at the section on Mt Kilimanjaro, you'll see reference there to global warming. I'm hoping, during my brief stay, that I'll get the chance to hear the views of Africans on such subjects, but what my chances are of having such conversations I don't know! My Lonely Planet guide advises me that Tanzanians don't mind discussing politics, but ... [Smile]

quote:
Unfortunately, the media thrives on fear. It's not their fault - fear sells newspapers.

Oh yes, I agree with this (though I disagree that it isn't their fault!). What worries me more than what the media says is the ease with which so many people believe it. I hear on a daily basis people spouting statistics about all sorts of things without even questioning what such statistics actually mean, and I confess that my breath is frequently taken.

quote:
Assuming "assulted" is metaphorical (hopefully), that's still crappy IMO.

No, it wasn't metaphorical. He punched my arm hard, leaving a bruise. He objected to a colleague and I smoking in his general vicinity. When I reported him to the owners of the building his poxy shop is a part of, they advised me that I could bring a charge of assault against him and as I had a witness, the chances are the police would listen. I thought about it overnight and decided against bringing a charge. Hopefully the warning the owners gave him will be sufficient.

Verbal abuse because of smoking is now a fairly regular experience, even though I have always been a polite smoker (I'm changing now: non-smokers can screw themselves for two months). I have my government to thank for that: they have encouraged the lynch mob mentality. However, the incident above is the first time I have experienced physical abuse.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Maybe I can agree to some extent with Littlelady about one thing - I'm not a smoker*, but I don't mind smokers in bars and clubs as long as they don't actually blow smoke in my face, which is something I consider unacceptably rude and deserving of negative attention.

I'm not sure where I stand on the smoking ban. I am torn between thinking it is a bit fascist and bad for small businesses (and there are pubs and a club in my town I support because they are nice places) and thinking it isn't very nice for staff to be constantly bombarded with smoke (Customers can leave if they don't like it).

I still think that arguing that we aren;t hurting our world by our activities is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Like saying Littlelady isn't hurting herself by smoking, or I'm not by drinking most days. Not only crap, but obvious crap IMO. I see Littlelady is ignoring me, though, so maybe this is a waste of a post...

Littlelady - Re: Africa - If they want to do what we did, and if what we did has had very serious negative consequences for our world, then surely to goodness they should be told that we got it wrong - esp as it *doesn't* just affect them. You'd tell your friend if she was about to do something that you had done and then regretted very much, wouldn't you?

[ 06. May 2007, 16:28: Message edited by: Papio ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I do, however, acknowledge that Alan*, a scientist, has greater legitimacy to speak on issues of science than has Noiseboy*, who isn't a scientist, and I think my posts reflect that.

*or any other scientist/non-scientist.

Presumably by the same logic we shouldn't listen too much to anything you say either?

I have often said that no-one should listen to my interpretations on climate science because I am not a climate scientist. In the same way, people shouldn't listen to Nigel Lawson, Monckton et al who are part of the anti-change brigade because they don't have a clue either. My philosophy has always always ALWAYS to defer to those whose knowledge is greatest - the specialists in the field. And has been repeated as nauseum, they speak with virual unanimity. On this thread, Alan is a good example.

Littlelady - I'm not sure where any of this logic falls down, but clearly it does for you somewhere.

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
If you dig into the depths of this thread, you'll find an example I cited which refutes your statement here. It is the only scientific report I have studied in depth. It was compiled by a scientist well known for his anti-smoking stance ( Jamrozik) and it was comissioned by SmokeFree London, which is a lobby group comprising a number of London Boroughs. Strangely enough, the conclusions of the report (cited widely in the press not long before the ban in England was passed) agreed with the views of SmokeFree London. It is naive (and possibly even irresponsible) to believe that because something is commissioned by the government (either on a local or national level) it is somehow beyond reproach. In fact, I would suggest, it needs even greater examination because it is the people's money providing the support.

But what has this example (interesting though it is) to do with government funded institutions? This report was comissioned by a lobby group, so you would be right to be suspicious. The thousands of peer-reviewed papers on climate change that all have the same conclusions are not comissioned by lobby groups, they are the product of institutions of science who in turn receive government money. There is no commissioning going on by lobby groups, and if there is elsewhere then it is not to be regarded with the same seriousness as the genuine neutral academic stuff. Of course, it falls down completely on another level too, in as much as there are contradictory motives on the part of governments - this US administration has been downplaying and surpressing climate change information since day 1, and yet every one of its relevent institutions have endorsed the climate change consensus. (side note - I am apalled that you were assaulted. Hopefully as you say the threat is enough to stop any future behaviour, but if you get any sense that it isn't then sue the bastard).

Socratic Enigma - modelling has come a long way in 15 years! Cloud cover is certainly factored in now, but it is still not as detailed as it needs to be - the numbers involved are still astronomical. No doubt in time the scientific community will get there with ever-increasing computing power.

It is worth pointing out, however, that since clouds have been factored in, it has not changed the basic thrust of the modelling. And as the BBC pointed out last week, empirical data has thus far shown that the effects of climate change in the arctic have thus far exceeded every single computer model simulation. So going on what we know already, there is little reason to be optimistic that things will be better than we currently think.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I do, however, acknowledge that Alan*, a scientist, has greater legitimacy to speak on issues of science than has Noiseboy*, who isn't a scientist, and I think my posts reflect that.

*or any other scientist/non-scientist.
Presumably by the same logic we shouldn't listen too much to anything you say either?

Please read the bit of my post you quoted again, Noiseboy. Where did I say I wasn't listening much to anything you (or Alan) said, exactly? Of course, if you want to ignore what I say then you are perfectly free to do so. I have likewise stated clearly that I am not a scientist; I don't pretend any particular grasp of science at all. As I've shared with you on this thread, I was totally crap at all the science subjects at school. Nothing has changed.

But just because I'm crap at science does not mean I have to submit without question to those who are good at it. To begin with, Alan, for example, is not a microbiologist. My brother is. While I would listen to both on general science issues, if I wanted to know about microbiology I would go to my brother and not Alan. However, I would question my brother even though he's head of a lab doing weird things with poo. Why should his expertise silence me? I wouldn't expect him not to challenge me on English Language & Literature simply because I have a degree and some experience in the subject. Some people wrestle with subjects, some don't. Thank God - we're all different.

quote:
But what has this example (interesting though it is) to do with government funded institutions? This report was comissioned by a lobby group, so you would be right to be suspicious.

A lobby group funded by local government (which is subsidised by central government).

quote:
There is no commissioning going on by lobby groups, and if there is elsewhere then it is not to be regarded with the same seriousness as the genuine neutral academic stuff.

Maybe you didn't hit the link, but Jamrozik was (possibly still is) employed by Imperial College in London and has various publications behind him from his time in Australia. So I would say his report would be academic stuff, though clearly not neutral.

But anyway, that was a tangent. Sorry.

quote:
(side note - I am apalled that you were assaulted. Hopefully as you say the threat is enough to stop any future behaviour, but if you get any sense that it isn't then sue the bastard).

Thank you. I hope he doesn't do it again either. He was very aggressive.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I see Littlelady is ignoring me, though, so maybe this is a waste of a post...

I have no idea where you get this impression from, Papio. I really don't.

quote:
You'd tell your friend if she was about to do something that you had done and then regretted very much, wouldn't you?

I would indeed. However, having told them, I wouldn't then pressurise them into learning a lesson from me. If they chose to go their own way, even if it hurt me, I wouldn't do anything to stop them. That is the risk I take sharing a world with other people. It's a risk we all share.

PS: Whatever you feel about passive smoking, I sincerely hope you wouldn't sanction thumping someone because they lit up in the open air about 3m from your front door.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
With governemnt funding, scientists participate in the proces of peer review so there are solid checks and balances.

...

With industry funding, there is a clear motive to make data fit a pre-determined outcome - otherwise, why fund it at all?

It may be imperfect, but I'll go with non-industry every time. Since this is something that keeps coming up, however, I'd be interested to hear Alan's thoughts on it.

There are generally three sources of funding for scientific research - governments (either directly from individual government departments and agencies, or through some form of research council), industry (which might be a companies own labs, or funding of research conducted elsewhere) and philanthropy (eg: charities). In many cases, scientists may get funding from all three sources, maybe even as a collaboration on a single project (I recently was an RA on a project which had funding from several sources including the European Commission, UK Dept of Environment, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, the Scottish Executive, and British Nuclear Fuels).

Some government funded research results in nothing more than a (non-peer reviewed) report that collects dust on a book shelf in some office. Some industry funded research produces several high-quality peer-reviewed papers. Some government funded research delivers what the government wants to hear in support of proposed policy. Some industry funded research causes embarrassment to the funding companies, and expense in cleaning up their act.

More important than the source of the funding for research is the integrity of the scientists (which might include only taking money which doesn't come with string attached preventing publication of unfavourable findings) and their record in getting research published in the open literature.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
PS: Whatever you feel about passive smoking, I sincerely hope you wouldn't sanction thumping someone because they lit up in the open air about 3m from your front door.

I wouldn't.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Alan - unless I've been labouring under a misaprehension for all these years (and it is entirely possible that I might), I was under that the impression that most institutions such as universities and organisations such as NASA conduct research under their own criteria, receiving only funding as whole. In other words, funding is not sought for each individual paper, but as an institution which typically would undertake a huge variety of research subjects. Is this not correct?

It seems an important distinction in the context of this debate. If funding had to be sought for each and every individual paper, it is much easier to believe that bias can and would creep in depending on whom is funding it and why.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I can only really speak for how research is funded in UK universities. The university has a number of paid staff who are funded from the university directly through the Universities Funding Council - full time academics (who earn their pay by teaching), admin staff and technicians. The additional money needed to actually do research is sought for each project. In these days of "Full Economic Costs" those costs include the wages of University funded staff, the wages of research staff directly employed on the project, overheads (to cover maintenance costs of the building etc), any equipment, travel expenses etc.

Research projects basically come from two routes. One is that the research staff in a university department will think up something they want to do, write up a proposal to a funding agency (almost always a research council) and wait 6 months for the funding body to have the proposal reviewed by other experts in the field to see if a) it's worth funding and b) whether the amount asked for is appropriate. If you're lucky and put in a good proposal the funding agency will give you money to do the work. The other route of funding is that a funding agency (in this case more usually a government department, industrial or charitable body) decides that something needs to be investigated, they'll produce a description of what they want done and open it up for tender. Then research groups will bid to do the work, with the decision on who gets funded based (ideally) on who can do it best within the budget allocated.

Whether or not any peer reviewed papers come from a project, and if so how many, is more strongly related to the nature of the research than the funding source. Though, generally, research councils want a brief summary at the end of the project with peer-reviewed papers at least in preparation (and whether you did what you were paid for is judged on that, with failure to at least make a good effort resulting in black marks that will make getting more funding difficult) and tendered research wanting a full report at the end of the project (with, often interim reports during the project) with peer-reviewed papers being secondary.

Where peer-reviewed papers become really significant is in research assessment excercises by which the University Funding Councils assess where to spend money on staff salaries.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
OK Myrrh, I'll give you one more reply,

Noiseboy, you began this thread specifically to argue whether global warming is real or not. Retreat to your pet thread of believers if you're not up to continuing.

quote:
as I think I've just clicked. All the references to "Junk Science", a term coined by the smoking lobby, should have tipped me off earlier.

Since I haven't followed any of the arguments from the smoking lobby I didn't know this.

Still my opinion, and I've shown enough for you to take this description seriously.

quote:
According to Wikipedia, even the tobacco industry doesn't claim anything like what you have. All studies not funded by the tobacco industry say the same thing - that it kills.

I posted an article on the results of a much awaited and recent UN study on passive smoking.

quote:
I can only speculate at your motives,

You'll have difficulty here as you've misread my post.

quote:
but - just to reitorate - I am only interested in discussion based on science,

Yet you've rejected all arguments based on science.

It seems to me you're far more interested in defending global warming as a cause than in looking at the actual science as your complete disregard for those scientists who are questioning or completely disagree with the theory shows - your stand that there is consensus is not true, therefore your claim that there is is false ...

This is science not democracy.

Peer review for your theory is not proved. As you haven't proved it isn't junk science then peer review is by junk scientists...

quote:
.. not big business in the oil or tobacco lobbies.

...and your one argument that 'world goverments' support your view is as political as those you reject.

quote:
Your constant use of these sources (such as Tim Ball) speaks for itself.

Tim Ball is a climate expert.

He has a PhD on climatology from London University and has taught the subject for nearly 30 years.

Your reliance on RealClimate as a blanket authority on this rather than dealing with the objections yourself istm shows you're not actually interested in looking at the science for yourself. The Mann hockey stick is dicredited completely since he finally made his method available - it's skewed to produce a hockey stick regardless of the numbers punched in. It's a joke.

I joined this discussion with an open mind and with a slight bias to believing the global warming theory because I'd no reason to question it, I didn't know there was such a huge argument about it. Call me ignorant..

..but then, not now.

I've looked at enough data from both sides of the argument to form my own opinion that the global warming theory is junk science, and my own choice in describing this as junk.

I've made an effort to follow through on references to such as RealClimate and found their replies lacking in simple logic. In other words I've actually given it some thought - can you say the same for the arguments of the objectors? Have you thought about any of the points Tim Ball made?

You seem to have a problem with my posts on CO2, I'll come back to this and take you through a RealClimate rebuttal which might help in making myself clear, but the argument is simply this. The whole of the global warming bandwagon is running on the line that claims man-made CO2 emissions have caused the recent global warming.

Back tracking and excuses and er there are other things to take into consideration are not good enough to deflect the solid arguments given against ALL the so called evidence which has been generated in the last few decades to 'prove' this view. Deal with it.

Myrrh

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Research projects basically come from two routes. One is that the research staff in a university department will think up something they want to do, write up a proposal to a funding agency (almost always a research council) and wait 6 months for the funding body to have the proposal reviewed by other experts in the field to see if a) it's worth funding and b) whether the amount asked for is appropriate. If you're lucky and put in a good proposal the funding agency will give you money to do the work.

This is the route my brother follows. His salary, etc, is paid by the university but every three years his boss has to apply to DEFRA for funding to support the project itself. So far he's managed nine years on the project. Also, his papers have all been peer-reviewed: it is a necessary process in order to help secure future funding.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back tracking and excuses and er there are other things to take into consideration are not good enough to deflect the solid arguments given against ALL the so called evidence which has been generated in the last few decades to 'prove' this view. Deal with it.

You know, I rather think that Dr. Alan Cresswell might be onto something, since he is a trained and qualified scientist, and he has repeatedly informed you that your arguements are not real science and that many of your sources are not well regarded by the scientific community.

I'll go with that view, personally.

Dr. Cresswell is very rarely wrong about such matters, IME.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back tracking and excuses and er there are other things to take into consideration are not good enough to deflect the solid arguments given against ALL the so called evidence which has been generated in the last few decades to 'prove' this view. Deal with it.
You know, I rather think that Dr. Alan Cresswell might be onto something, since he is a trained and qualified scientist, and he has repeatedly informed you that your arguements are not real science and that many of your sources are not well regarded by the scientific community.

I'll go with that view, personally.

Dr. Cresswell is very rarely wrong about such matters, IME.

So, this is the thread for the argument - Dr Alan has yet to provide any evidence that man-induced climate change is real.

I have asked.

Myrrh

Posted by Quizmaster (# 1435) on :

If Al Gore is right then the successors to the human race are currently evolving around the undersea vents at 400 degrees celcius.

Let's go quietly.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Cheers, Alan, that has enlightened me no end, and put me right on a few matters.

So (if you can indulge me one further follow up question) have you encountered any evidence that government policy a) dictates which projects are funded and b) can influence their outcomes?

Myrrh - Alan has repeatedly answered your question, you have just chosen not to listen. As, I'm afraid, I am now doing with your posts. As I think Alan himself has said, it takes so much time to wade through all the spurious links to one-man-and-his-dog websites that life is simply too short. This passive smoking report - Littlady has already pointed out that the paper concerned printed a retraction on an innacurate story. This happens again and again and again, so I'm trying to devote my time to discussion which is more fruitful. Others may have more patience than I - this is my failing, for which I apologise. But when even the even-handed Alan loses his rag, at least I know I have company.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
This passive smoking report - Littlady has already pointed out that the paper concerned printed a retraction on an innacurate story.

Well, not quite. They were forced - ie placed under enormous pressure due to complaints - to print an apology for 'irresponsible reporting'. That's a little different to what you suggest, although the outcome is the same.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Noiseboy, please read the whole article to discuss further, some pertinent extracts, my bold, below:

HOCKEY STICK - RIP

The first solid argument against man-induced CO2 being the driving force of recent warming has to begin with the arguments for this relying on the junk temperature model produced by Mann&Co.

The last twitches of this dying temperature chart and its defenders are still around, but commonsense and scientific logic has thankfully prevailed.

quote:
Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P.

The “hockey stick” representation of the temperature behavior of the past 1,000 years is broken, dead. Although already reeling from earlier analyses aimed at its midsection, the knockout punch was just delivered by Nature magazine. Thus the end of this palooka: that the climate of the past millennium was marked by about 900 years of nothing and then 100 years of dramatic temperature rise caused by people. The saga of the “hockey stick” will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become “mainstream” thought overnight.

The “Hockey Stick” is dead. ......

So compelling was 1,000-yr long “hockey stick” graphic, that it quickly became the poster child for anthropogenic global warming. As such, it was prominently displayed as the first figure of the oft-read Summary for Policymakers of 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The “hockey stick” graphic gives the appearance that left to its own devices, nature displays very little in the way of temperature variation, but that during the past century, humans have come along and thrown everything out of kilter. It is thus the perfect representation of the greenhouse alarmists’ message—humans have caused the weather to be like never before (and this is bad).

However, the shape of the “hockey stick” looked strangely out of place against the existing knowledge of the climate of the past millennium. Where was the Little Ice Age (LIA)—a well-documented cold period lasting from about the 16th to the 19th century? And where was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)—a relatively warmer period extending from about 11th to the 13th century? By containing little indication that these climate episodes existed, the “hockey stick” presents a completely new picture of the climate of the past 1,000 years. Natural variability is reduced to little more than annual-to-decadal scale fluctuations superimposed on longer-scale constancy. This is not the same story that is told in countless weather and climate textbooks used in classrooms around the world.

.....
The third dissenting voice was that of Jan Esper and colleagues in 2004. Esper is an expert in climate reconstructions based upon tree-ring records (the primary type of proxy data relied upon by Mann et al. in creating the “hockey stick”). It turns out that one must be careful when using tree rings to reconstruct long-term climate variability because as the tree itself ages, the widths of the annual rings that it produces changes—even absent any climatic variations. This growth trend needs to be taken into account when trying to interpret any climate data contained in the tree-ring records. In most cases, the tree-ring records are first detrended to remove this growth trend, and then the remaining variation in the rings is used to derive a climate signal. The problem with this technique is that by detrending the tree-ring record, long-term climate trends are lost as well. Esper et al. point out that this could be one likely reason why the handle of the “hockey stick” is so flat—it lacks the centennial-scale variations that were lost in the standardization of its primary data source. Using an alternative technique that attempted to preserve as much of the information about long-term climate variations as possible from historical tree-ring records, Esper and colleagues derived their own annual Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction. The result (Figure 2) is a 1,000-yr temperature history in which the LIA and the MWP are much more pronounced than the “hockey stick” reconstruction—more evidence that the “hockey stick” underestimates the true level of natural climate variation.

The chorus of dissent grew louder with the publication of a paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in Science in late-2004. Von Storch was interested in how well the temperature reconstruction methodology used in producing the “hockey stick” actually worked. In order to investigate this, he used a climate model, run with historic changes in solar output and volcanic eruptions to produce a temperature record for the past 1,000 years. For von Storch’s purposes, it was not necessary to produce an accurate temperature record, just one that was reasonably representative of what may have happened. Next, he employed a methodology similar to Mann et al.’s, using “proxy” data derived from the climate model temperature record to see how well the Mann et al. methodology could reconstruct the actual data from which it was drawn. What von Storch’s research team found was that the techniques used to construct the “hockey stick” vastly underestimated the true level of variability in the known (modeled) temperature record (Figure 3). It is thus reasonable to conclude that the same techniques, when applied in the real world, would similarly underestimate the true level of natural variability and thus underplay the importance of the LIA and MWP. Again, the von Storch finding adds further evidence that the handle of the “hockey stick” is too flat.

...

And now, with the publication of a paper in Nature magazine in early 2005 by Anders Moberg and colleagues, it’s all over for the hockey stick. .......

Had the original reconstruction by Mann and colleagues looked like the latest reconstruction by Moberg et al., no one would have paid it much attention, because it would have fit nicely with the expectations given all of the prior research on the climate history of the past millennium. It would have been nothing remarkable.

But, the “hockey stick” was remarkable. And as such, it will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become mainstream thought overnight. The embarrassment that it caused to many scientists working in the field of climatology will not be soon forgotten. Hopefully, new findings to come, as remarkable and enticing as they may first appear, will be greeted with a bit more caution and thorough investigation before they are widely accepted as representing the scientific consensus.

So, what's so special about the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age?

If it is nothing out of the ordinary natural variation then where's the problem?

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
So (if you can indulge me one further follow up question) have you encountered any evidence that government policy a) dictates which projects are funded and b) can influence their outcomes?

Certainly when it comes to research directly funded by government departments then the decision about which projects to pursue is very much influenced by government policy. The basic sequence of events is government feels the need to make policy about something, they consult relevant experts and find that there are some questions that remain unanswered that need to be addressed before sensible policy can be drawn up, and as a result a government agency asks relevant research groups if they can do the work. Generally, government policy has a hard time influencing the outcome of research - after all, the nature of any issue isn't influenced by government policy. In this instance, no change in government policy will affect the facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas emitted in vast quantities from burning fossil fuels.

When it comes to research funding through research councils where scientists submit proposals to do what they want the influence of government policy is less. Though, governments may decide that supporting research in one general subject is likely to be of benefit to the nation and give the relevant parts of the research councils more money for that (often at the expense of other areas) which does influence what research is done.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

I don't particularly want to drag out the passive smoking aside, but I've started looking for what else is available on it and found this comment by Andrew Brown of the Guardian to apply to global warmers against the anties:

quote:

The problem people have with smoking is not just that it's unhealthy, but that it's immoral.

The smoker, if they are violating a moral rule, is threatening everyone who doesn't; and all the fuss about "passive smoking" is merely dramatising this intuition.

Also on that page there's a post from teqjack which begins "I notice the ASH article mentioned above refers to the EPA and WHO reports.

Both have been largely debunked."

And expands on this. Again, reminiscent of global warmers tactics in promoting their moral superiority.

Myrrh

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I don't particularly want to drag out the passive smoking aside, but I've started looking for what else is available on it and found this comment by Andrew Brown of the Guardian to apply to global warmers against the anties:

quote:

The problem people have with smoking is not just that it's unhealthy, but that it's immoral.

That's a good article. Totally spot on in terms of the underlying reason for the whole anti-smoking issue. I also agree with you on its application to the pro-manmade global warming lobby. There is a growing judgmentalism towards those who don't conform. If we're not checking our 'carbon footprint' every five minutes we're definitely the bad guys.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

I don't like people smoking next to me indoors because it is horribly unpleasant, and according to non-myrrh studies that even the industry does not deny, it causes harm. Pretty simple really.

Alan, this is all fascinating stuff. I'm trying to imagine a mechanism by which machieavellian government conspiracists skew all the research in the universities, met office etc to invent a notion like anthropogenic climate change. They can influence funding, so off everyone goes to do their research. However (because for the purposes of this fiction ACC does not exist) they discover that there is no such thing. Presumably the logic would go that they then change their findings to invent ACC, thus receive approval from the funding bodies and get more grants, keeping them in a job? OK, it wouldn't get any papers passed peer review, so that doesn't work. Except... wait a minute... all the peers are in on it too!

That seems logical to me. So if this happened in every country in the world - voila, there's your answer. Totally logical - just wildly paranoid and (like most conspiracy theories) reliant on tens or even hundreds of thousands of people to be complicit without blowing the gaffe. Oh, and the belief that all governments (including China, North Korea and the USA) have a vested interest in spreading the lie that ACC is real. Incidentally, on this last point, none of the sceptics on this forum have even speculated why this might be true, which is significant since their whole conspiracy theory relies on a motive. And before she says is... Littlelady, if this is neither a conspiracy and it is not true, then what exactly IS it?! Remember, that bastion of truth Martin Durkin told us "we are being told lies"... sounds like a conspiracy to me.

But, wow, for the first time I can see that it could be possible - merely infitessimally unlikely!

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I don't like people smoking next to me indoors because it is horribly unpleasant, and according to non-myrrh studies that even the industry does not deny, it causes harm. Pretty simple really.

But Noiseboy, harm to whom? The anti-smoking bandwagon slogan is that Passive Smoking Causes Death to Non-Smokers, not by making their clothes smell, but by causing cancer.

This bandwagon got moving and continues to be sustained to the beat of tin-drummers drumming out fear. But where's the proof? I wasn't lying when I said I'd recalled the interview with the medical scientist who'd initiated this campaign by his deliberate lie, because he too didn't like smelly clothes perhaps. He explained that the cancer of non-smokers was not the same as the cancer of smokers but he conflated the two kinds because he didn't like smoking. This is a scientific lie, a deliberate fraud to promote his own agenda, exactly as the scientifically proved lie that nasty smelly man has driven 'the extraordinary temperature change of the last two centuries' and we're all doomed because of it, even those who use solar panels and cycle to work.

The UN report is still fact even if though the drummers have already begun to drown out the results by having it quietly suppressed while insinuating that it doesn't exist. It showed no statistical significance between non-smoking family members having 'smoking related diseases' and their proximity to members who did.

I don't know who this man is, but worth reading if you're willing to look at the use of data by the anti-smoking lobby.

And then note the significance, statistical and moral, of the test carried out in California which had the largest sample size of all and which conclusively found no correlation whatsoever between passive smoking and smoking related mortality.

quote:
Killing the passive smoking debate
Fraudulent science does not serve the public interest – or end the debate over secondhand smoke by Michael Fumento

The studies behind calls for smoking bans and curbs on secondhand smoke – supposedly to improve human health and save lives – are really little more than smoke and mirrors, argues Michael Fumento. For example, of 48 separate studies of risks from passive or secondhand smoke, only 7 showed a statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer; 41 showed no increased risk. But by looking at the 48 studies all together, the scientists concluded that a significant risk existed. Other studies were similarly questionable or even fraudulent. And yet, the regulations continue to tighten, and headlines continue to scream that “passive smoking kills thousands.”

......

What was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.

We got that in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003. Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook presented results of a 39-year study of 35,561 Californians, which dwarfed in size everything that came before. It found no “causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality”

This study is actually statistically significant in scientific terms, there is no causal relationship between passive smoking and dying of smoking related causes.

But the bandwagon rolls on.

I do hope this helps you in trying to imagine how such a bandwagon got moving in the Man Made Global Warming Dire Warning Theory, as you post to Alan, and got taken up 'by world governments'.

quote:
Alan, this is all fascinating stuff. I'm trying to imagine a mechanism by which machieavellian government conspiracists skew all the research in the universities, met office etc to invent a notion like anthropogenic climate change. They can influence funding, so off everyone goes to do their research. However (because for the purposes of this fiction ACC does not exist) they discover that there is no such thing. Presumably the logic would go that they then change their findings to invent ACC, thus receive approval from the funding bodies and get more grants, keeping them in a job? OK, it wouldn't get any papers passed peer review, so that doesn't work. Except... wait a minute... all the peers are in on it too!

That seems logical to me. So if this happened in every country in the world - voila, there's your answer. Totally logical - just wildly paranoid and (like most conspiracy theories) reliant on tens or even hundreds of thousands of people to be complicit without blowing the gaffe. Oh, and the belief that all governments (including China, North Korea and the USA) have a vested interest in spreading the lie that ACC is real. Incidentally, on this last point, none of the sceptics on this forum have even speculated why this might be true, which is significant since their whole conspiracy theory relies on a motive. And before she says is... Littlelady, if this is neither a conspiracy and it is not true, then what exactly IS it?! Remember, that bastion of truth Martin Durkin told us "we are being told lies"... sounds like a conspiracy to me.

But, wow, for the first time I can see that it could be possible - merely infitessimally unlikely!

You'd err in trying to find one agenda because this wagon is driven and pushed by many disparate ones, from the pro-nuclear energy to the homespun, but the reasons, the agendas, don't actually matter in understanding why 'all world governments' can be wrong.

What matters here is the psychology behind the event. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law the best recent example well-known enough but at an objective distance is Hitler. His charismatic presence and rousing speeches to people drowning in inflation drove his agenda of superiority to gross evil in his desire for domination and for various agendas others joined him, it took the determination of a small island to stand up to him to break free from this. Might does not equal right 'even if the whole universe is in agreement against me'(*).

Back to the Global Warming Theory.

As I brought to your attention earlier in this discussion, in 1995 the IPCC produced a conclusion which claimed there was no indication that manmade global warming existed, but almost immediately retracted and produced another conclusion which claimed that there was. What interest/who caused that change since there was no change in the body of data to warrant it?

From then on the IPCC has not only jumped on the bandwagon but has become its official voice:

quote:
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human activities are responsible for nearly all earth’s recorded warming during the past two centuries. A widely circulated image used by the IPCC dramatically depicting these temperature trends resembles a hockey stick with three distinct parts: a flat “shaft” extending from A.D. 1000 to 1900, a “blade” shooting up from A.D. 1900 to 2000, and a range of uncertainty in temperature estimates that envelops the shaft like a “sheath.” [See the figure.] This image was produced by Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes (Nature, 1998; Geophysical Research Letters, 1999). Last year, Mann and Phil Jones claimed to have extended estimates back to A.D. 200 (Geophysical Research Letters, 2003). However, five independent research groups have uncovered problems with the underlying reconstructions by Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 work that have persisted through his most recent collaborative efforts, calling into question all three components of the “hockey stick.”

...

The Hockey Stick is Broken. Mann wrote the part of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) that proclaims that nearly all of the climate change seen during the last two millennia occurred during the 20th century and that it is due to human activities. The report contends that industrialization put carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, leading to increasing global air temperatures. Furthermore, based on Mann’s work, the IPCC claimed that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last millennium and 1998 was the warmest year. But a review of the data shows that these claims are untenable. Mann’s research is clearly the outlier. (Breaking the “Hockey Stick” by David R. Legates
Brief Analysis No. 478 Monday, July 12, 2004

We might never know which came first, the agenda or Mann's Hockey Stick, but it has been discredited by peer review as I showed in my previous post.

And I ask you again, if there is no indication that the warming we are experiencing is anything out of the natural order of our climate, where is the problem?

Myrrh

(*)St Maximos the Confessor "Even if the whole universe should begin to commune with the patriarch.."

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We might never know which came first, the agenda or Mann's Hockey Stick, but it has been discredited by peer review as I showed in my previous post.

And, as I showed some time back (I can't be bothered to find the links again) Mann's data has been shown to be more-or-less correct in several other peer reviewed papers. Not to mention accepted by a wide number of scientific bodies after careful consideration of all the data. Here's another example ...

quote:
The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies.

followed by several pages of summary of the various papers covering temperature reconstruction for the last 1000+ years. With a conclusion

quote:
The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR [Third Assessment Report, the 2001 IPCC report]. On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr. Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years.

Which, summarised simply, translates to "if you look at all the data now available, Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions are very similar to the 'hockey stick'". And, indeed the new data suggest that the temperature increase in the last century compared to the previous few centuries is even greater than suggested by Mann's data presented in 2001.

But, you're unlikely to want to even consider that as it's from the IPCC report ( chapter 6, starting from page 466).

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Littlelady, if this is neither a conspiracy and it is not true, then what exactly IS it?!

Huh? I was just talking with Myrrh there about people's sense of moral superiority. Like the punch I got for smoking in the open air or the telling I got from someone at work for not watching my stupid carbon footprint.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Littlelady, if this is neither a conspiracy and it is not true, then what exactly IS it?!
Huh? I was just talking with Myrrh there about people's sense of moral superiority. Like the punch I got for smoking in the open air or the telling I got from someone at work for not watching my stupid carbon footprint.

Forgive, I was referring to some of your earlier comments that although I kept referring to the claims made in GGWS et al as a conspiracy, it was only I that was giving it that label and you weren't. If collective action to change the world's science papers and the peer review process to supress the truth ("you are being told lies!") isn't a conspiracy, I don't know what is...

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We might never know which came first, the agenda or Mann's Hockey Stick, but it has been discredited by peer review as I showed in my previous post.
And, as I showed some time back (I can't be bothered to find the links again) Mann's data has been shown to be more-or-less correct in several other peer reviewed papers. Not to mention accepted by a wide number of scientific bodies after careful consideration of all the data. Here's another example ...

quote:
The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies.
followed by several pages of summary of the various papers covering temperature reconstruction for the last 1000+ years. With a conclusion

quote:
The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR [Third Assessment Report, the 2001 IPCC report]. On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr. Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years.
Which, summarised simply, translates to "if you look at all the data now available, Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions are very similar to the 'hockey stick'". And, indeed the new data suggest that the temperature increase in the last century compared to the previous few centuries is even greater than suggested by Mann's data presented in 2001.

But, you're unlikely to want to even consider that as it's from the IPCC report ( chapter 6, starting from page 466).

And I keep drawing your attention to the format of that statement and others like it are nonsense, it does not show Mann & Co vindicated and he and his actual method of modelling have been soundly, reasonably and logically discredited by peer review. Have you even bothered to read why? It is spin to cover up the balls up of Mann's hockey stick by first associating it with more or less uncontroversial data. It's a classic example of how to lie with statistics by associating the arguments against the hockey stick by proximity to it.

I'm really sorry that you think "The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years" vindicates Mann for his junk science which eliminated the MWP and MIA. It's a simple measurement against the temperature in the depths of the Mini Ice Age. The weight of multi-proxy evidence has always said that. It's still in recent historical memory that we held parties on the frozen Thames.

"On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr."

Which previous and four new reconstructions?

They're still trying to eliminate the MWP. by not mentioning that we had several centuries of very hot weather and "it is likely" is actually not the case.

That's not the evidence from real climate science and the evidence of history.

quote:
20th Century Climate Not So Hot CfA Press Release Release No.: 03-10
For Release: March 31, 2003

Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

.....

"Many true research advances in reconstructing ancient climates have occurred over the past two decades," Soon says, "so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of recent studies from the last 5-10 years and look for patterns of variability and change. In fact, clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced the highs of the Medieval Warm Period and lows of the Little Ice Age, and that 20th century temperatures are generally cooler than during the medieval warmth."

You said:

quote:
Which, summarised simply, translates to "if you look at all the data now available, Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions are very similar to the 'hockey stick'".

This is simply not true. The Hockey Stick elimates the MWP and MIA - it's flat. That's what's wrong with it. It doesn't correspond to known reality.

Even if the temperature today is similar to the MWP what it shows is that today is nothing special.

And by looking at the pattern of mini warming and cooling we see exactly this natural variation regardless of man's imput, the normal behaviour of the earth's temperature in this interglacial as in the previous 450,000 years.

This is a scam. At its worst it's deliberate scientific fraud (we are interested in the science aren't we?).

This is politics manipulating science as much as any power has manipulated the belief system of the day.

There really is a Medieval Warm Period of several centuries and today is nothing out of the ordinary.

One such contributing study of tree ring data Climate Change During Medieval Warm Period Very Similar to 20th Century Rise in Temperature

The Hockey Stick is dead.

And CO2 levels have sod all to do with it.

Noiseboy, the following page has Monckton's reply to a criticism from the Guardian of his article published in the Telegraph. Articles on Medieval Warm Period

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
"On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr."

Which previous and four new reconstructions?

I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear. I'd quoted the first sentance, and final concluding sentance of a long section of several pages of summary of studies of the climate of the northern hemisphere over the last 1000+ years. The previous reconstruction was the one published in the 2001 IPCC reports (which includes Mann's data), the four new reconstructions are studies published since then covering that time period. Oh, and those several pages also include quite a bit about the MWP and MIA.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Monkton is not a climate scientist, I am not remotely interested in his own bizarre interpretations of climate science.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
"On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr."

Which previous and four new reconstructions?
I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear. I'd quoted the first sentance, and final concluding sentance of a long section of several pages of summary of studies of the climate of the northern hemisphere over the last 1000+ years. The previous reconstruction was the one published in the 2001 IPCC reports (which includes Mann's data), the four new reconstructions are studies published since then covering that time period. Oh, and those several pages also include quite a bit about the MWP and MIA.

Sorry I hadn't made myself clear. Being more familiar with the material I was asking for more specific information on these. Particularly the four new reconstructions. Who and where can I find them?

Thanks.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Taken from Table 6.1 of the report I linked to:

Moberg A, et al (2005). Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617.
Gives temperature data for the period 1AD-1979.
Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones (2003). Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1820.
Gives temperature data for the period 200-1980.
Hegerl, G.C., T.J. Crowley, W.T. Hyde, and D.J. Frame (2006) Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Nature, 440, 1029–1032.
Gives temperature data for the period 558-1960 (the earlier data are constrained by fitting the last 7 centuries to independant temperature data).
D’Arrigo, R., R. Wilson, and G. Jacoby (2006) On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming. J. Geophys. Res., 111.
Gives temperature data for the period 713-1995.

The IPCC report also includes other data for more recent periods, but as these mostly post-date the LIA and MWP they're less relevant - though they do show whether the longer time series data are consistent with the more recent stuff over the period where they overlap, which is an important consideration. The report also summarises several studies that look at the methods used to reconstruct these temperature records from proxies, including those that criticise and support the early Mann reconstruction (aka the 'hockey stick'). It's a good balanced summary of a decade or more's work, including the most recent work, and well worth taking the time to read.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I know it has been mentioned before on the thread that data suggest that the IPCC's models are actually quite conservative...

This paper, published in the current edition of Science (subscription may be required, but I think you can see the abstract) assesses this and I think their conclusion bears noting -

quote:
Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level.

[ 09. May 2007, 12:57: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

dj_ordinaire - quite. The sea level thing got even more confusing in the last report, because for the first time the IPCC omitted some measurements from ice sheets. The headline projected figure went down, but what that figure meant changed - for a full breakdown of this, the ever-reliable Real Climate have a helpful guide, including a brief summary at the end for those like me who go boggle-eyed when climate scientists go into technical detail. But hey, it's their job.

Most worrying is the report last week that observed changes in the arctic since 1970 exceed every model simulation ever run, which certainly backs up the claim that the IPCC numbers are conservative.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Back briefly to a favourite subject on this thread - the Great Global Warming Swindle, since I've just come across another rebuttal from someone whose work appears in the film.

Nathan Rive and Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen were cited by the programme for their work on suspot activity and the supposed correlation with global temperatures. Yet again, they demonstrate that Durkin has made up data to make up his argument - a whole chunk of missing data has been filled in, and most recent temperatures omitted, which would specifically indicate a correlation with anthropogenic global warming.

Their full rebuttal can be found here. There is also a handy compendium of exactly how much fraudulent data was used in the prorgamme here, complete with original and doctored graphs etc.

To the few supporters of the programme left - so they have provably frigged world tempertures, frigged the correlation with solar rays, frigged CO2 levels and volcanos, miscaptioned seemingly the vast majority of contributors to invent credentials and distorted the views of some of the genuine ones. And we should believe it... why?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Because there's really no rational reason to believe otherwise. There is no 'man made global warming' of the shrill since this club was created by denial of previous high temperatures and the natural variation of the same pattern in the previous two centuries.

I see from your link that they have been struggling very hard to work out how Durkin got his graph, seems pathetic that they didn't simply ask him.

The sun's activity shows remarkable correlation to driving the earth's temperature while CO2 shows nothing of the kind, let alone man-made CO2 as has still not been answered by you, but anyway to take the sun and our relationship to it out of modelling is simply daft.

The historical pattern shows this clearly, as do actual field studies which continue to find dead trees in the arctic as this natural pattern of global warming and cooling explains rationally as coming from burial under a previous icy covering.

As before, you say you're interested in the science, but you'd much rather argue about the bickering.

You have not yet proved that what we are going through is anything unusual in the the last 450,000 years let alone the last two thousand nor disproved that the rise in temperature of the last 200 is not man made.

Myrrh

Posted by Jim Goodfellow (# 12121) on :

I've hesitated to join in this discussion, as I don't possess the detailed knowledge to support a reasoned argument. (Prodnose: Oh, get on with it, man). Well, it seems to me that if global warming is to be laid at humankind's door, then over-population could be a contributory factor. Day and night, more and more of us are exhaling carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. On the other hand,afforested areas are decreasing, so creating a serious imbalance. Other contributory factors would include rear-end methane emissions from farm animals and such, and from humans too, even including me on occasion. (Exits hurriedly, pursued by fart police). Sorry to be flippant, but I do offer this as a serious argument and, for what it's worth, I'm told James Lovelock agrees with me.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

When the IPCC say that global warming is (to a large part) caused by human activity (to better than 90% probability) they also list what human activity they mean - and deforestation is second only to burning fossil fuels. And, deforestation is closely linked to population - forests are cut down to provide fuel and building materials, space for farms to grow food and space for housing.

Our contribution through "biological processes" isn't really significant. There are a lot of us, but we've largely displaced other animals. The total number of creatures breathing out CO2 and emitting methane hasn't really changed that much.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You have not yet proved that what we are going through is anything unusual in the the last 450,000 years let alone the last two thousand nor disproved that the rise in temperature of the last 200 is not man made.

Again, I wonder what planet you are on. Did you read that link? It was written by the people who published the research about solar rays that Durkin and you believe causes all the global warming. They say that anthropogenic causes are behind recent warming, and that Durkin fraudulently used their data. Once again, since this does not suit your indefensible prejudices, this magically translates into "there is no evidence whatsoever". And incidentally, The Independent DID go straight to Durkin for his sources, and received only parital information. His stock reply to helpful enquiry is on record as being "go f**k yourself", so this is the level we are on in serious debate.

I've said a number of times now that I can't be bothered to follow up your posts. Each time they make me angry at their wilful, relentless stupidity in the face of questions that have been repeatedly answered by people on this forum, and much more importantly by the experts in the field. You will no doubt reply with a massive long quote from an irrelevant source and make a ludicrous statement like "no-one has provided ANY evidence" when they so consistently, authoritively and abundantly have. Even when the people you idolise flatly contradict you, it just pings of a titanium skull. In the name of humanity and sanity, enough is enough.

I'm still very interested in the ongoing debates on this thread, but with one exception. So please anyone hold me to this if I fall again, but this is absolutely the last time I respond to anything else on this thread from Planet Myrrh.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Jim Goodfellow - brave soul for posting! I agree, population growth is a huge factor, with some enormous questions which need to be addressed. It should be a global priority to face up to this issue. I don't condone China's ruthless policy on the subject, but it's undeniable that it is effective. On a broad level, birth rates in the affluent west have reduced massively through better education and healthcare, surely the desirable way to go. Easy in theory - much much harder in practice for poor countries to achieve this.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The sun's activity shows remarkable correlation to driving the earth's temperature while CO2 shows nothing of the kind, let alone man-made CO2 as has still not been answered by you, but anyway to take the sun and our relationship to it out of modelling is simply daft.

Myrrh

Actually the argument that solar activity, not humanity, is entirely responsible for global warming has huge problems with the last 20 odd years as the former has not increased but the latter has.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Bastards.

There's no other word, really. At least the contrarians on this forum don't brag about how important climate change is and how they are leading world efforts to combat it, while secretly undermining it. The US is sinking to a new low. I don't know why I am surprised, as they've been at this business for a long time - but to be so bullish publicly all the while knowing what their behind the scenes tactics are is beneath contempt.

Bastards, bastards, bastards, bastards.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It is consistent with US policy though. It's been a long time since anyone in the US Administration actually denied human influence in the climate. But, there's been a very consistent message from the US Administration that they believe that the effects of human activity on the climate can be mitigated without binding commitments to specified reductions in CO2 (equivalent) emissions. And, a touching belief in the ability of technology to come up with a solution.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
It is consistent with US policy though.

There is perhaps another aspect to what the US is doing: for instance, IIRC Canada is not very close to meeting its agreed to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of what I've read suggests much of Europe isn't either: one article said the vast majority of net reductions have come from East bloc countries, although I'd like to hear Alan's take on that.

So maybe we're 'bastards' but we're less disingenuous than some.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
IIRC Canada is not very close to meeting its agreed to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of what I've read suggests much of Europe isn't either: one article said the vast majority of net reductions have come from East bloc countries, although I'd like to hear Alan's take on that.

Canada has a very long way to go, and from what I've read the current Canadian government has effectively said they'll totally ignore the Kyoto Treaty even though it was ratified five years ago. The Canadian target under Kyoto was a 6% reduction*, in 2004 Canadian CO2 emissions were 27% above 1990 levels - where even the US that didn't ratify Kyoto had only increased emissions by 16%. I don't know why this happened - it could be that Canada was starting from a relatively low CO2 emission rate compared to other developed nations.

The EU had a target of 8% reductions, with nations within the EU given different targets to achieve the overall aim. Current projections are a reduction of about 5% will be achieved by 2008. Within the EU, some countries (including the UK) are on target to meet their own targets - though the UK government has unilaterally set a 20% reduction target (in excess of the Kyoto target) that we're probably going to struggle to meet.

The former Soviet Bloc countries have all significantly reduced their CO2 emissions - mostly because of the collapse of heavy industry and the closure of old, inefficient power generating capacity.

quote:
So maybe we're 'bastards' but we're less disingenuous than some.

Well, if you don't sign up for difficult targets you can't be told off when you fail to meet them. It probably is more honest to say "we can't meet those targets" and not sign than sign up and then fail to act to achieve them. But, signing up for a difficult target (or self-imposing a difficult target, where there isn't then international sanction for failure) should focus the political mind on finding ways to meet it.

-------------------------------------------
* note, in all cases the Kyoto Treaty specified reductions relative to 1990 emissions for an average period between 2008-2012.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
But, signing up for a difficult target (or self-imposing a difficult target, where there isn't then international sanction for failure) should focus the political mind on finding ways to meet it.

Fair point. And good on the UK.

It's just the 'bastard bastard bastard bastard' stuff wears me out.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
It's just the 'bastard bastard bastard bastard' stuff wears me out.

Just to be clear, this was referring to the Bush Administration (who so deserve it) in particular not Americans in general. After all, America gave us The Simpsons. And Team America - who in turn also reminded us that America gave the world McDonalds, Wal-Mart, The Gap, Baseball, NFL, Rock and roll, The Internet, Slavery, Starbucks, Disney world, Porno, Valium, Reeboks, Fake Tits, Sushi, Taco Bell, Rodeos, Bed bath and beyond, Liberty, White Slips, The Alamo, Band-aids, Las Vegas, Christmas, Immigrants, Columbine, Democrats, Republicans and Sportsmanship.

Oh, and my personal favourite - Books.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

Oh boy, oh boy. Just when we thought we had enough dead horses, the Surrey School Board has decided that they need "balance" in teaching climate change issues:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2007/05/14/bc-truth.html
This is the same school board that has repeatedly tried to ban children's books dealing with another dead horse issue (GLBT parents). I don't know where they stand on evolution. [Roll Eyes]

And yes, observers are correct in noting that Canada is doing a wretched job of the Kyoto accord, which was neglected by the Liberals and is being disavowed by the Conservatives, despite pretty solid public support. I wrote to Steve a couple of weeks ago, but haven't received an answer. The Conservatives seem to be forgetting that Kyoto has provisions for economic sanctions on signatories who don't meet their targets. Missing Kyoto goals could cost Canada big-time in the long run. OliviaG
ETA The Surrey School Board also banned a school production of "The Laramie Project" - a play about Matthew Shepard - which was eventually mounted in a more enlightened school district.

[ 15. May 2007, 18:12: Message edited by: OliviaG ]

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
Just to be clear, this was referring to the Bush Administration (who so deserve it) in particular not Americans in general. After all, America gave us The Simpsons. And Team America - who in turn also reminded us that America gave the world McDonalds, Wal-Mart, The Gap, Baseball, NFL, Rock and roll, The Internet, Slavery, Starbucks, Disney world, Porno, Valium, Reeboks, Fake Tits, Sushi, Taco Bell, Rodeos, Bed bath and beyond, Liberty, White Slips, The Alamo, Band-aids, Las Vegas, Christmas, Immigrants, Columbine, Democrats, Republicans and Sportsmanship.

Oh, and my personal favourite - Books.

So now what you said is a subtle joke? If you think so.

But I hope you understand there are people of 'good will', trying to hear whatever point you have, who won't because of your flippancy.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
But, signing up for a difficult target (or self-imposing a difficult target, where there isn't then international sanction for failure) should focus the political mind on finding ways to meet it.
Fair point. And good on the UK.

Not necessarily. This government sets itself targets and then changes them when they realise they aren't going to meet them. So don't be fooled by our self-righteous posturing (I'm talking about the government here and not Alan, btw!).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
This government sets itself targets and then changes them when they realise they aren't going to meet them.

They've cahnged them? To the best of my knowledge the 2001 Labour manifesto commitment of a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010 still holds, even though it's becoming increasingly likely we'll miss it.

In addition, the climate change bill currently at draft stage would commit to 60% cuts by 2050 (with an interim 26-32% cut by 2018-2022). Also the EU has a 20% cut by 2020 commitment (30% if there's a wider international agreement). Perhaps it's these other targets that keep getting mentioned that make you think the existing target has changed.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

Alan: I was just speaking generally.

Posted by tfbundy (# 9914) on :

I'm REALLY not convinced by this global warming idea. The green message is long overdue to be adopted, but now it is an ideal way for Governments to add yet further to the burden of tax rather than anything else. The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2. The credibility of science therefore diminishes as time goes by and the global warming message and its insistence we all adopt altered behaviours seems unconvincing. The bigger problem seems to be something we have no control over, namely the destruction of rain forests, something I always understood to be the lungs of the earth.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

What makes you think that governments need the spectre of global warming to justify raising taxes? Normally they just say it's for the health service or defence or bin collection or police and people generally grumble a bit then pay up.

As to the scientific community being divided - no. It isn't. As this thread has quite fulsomely shewn...

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tfbundy:
The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2.

Do you have any evidence whatever for this even split of opinion?

quote:
The credibility of science therefore diminishes as time goes by and the global warming message and its insistence we all adopt altered behaviours seems unconvincing.

Horseshit.

quote:
The bigger problem seems to be something we have no control over, namely the destruction of rain forests, something I always understood to be the lungs of the earth.

That's a simplification. And we can do something about the destruction of the rainforests - we can boycott the industries that promote it, we can lobby businesses and politicians, and we can draw attention to the seriousness of the issue in public forums such as this.

T.

Posted by fredwa (# 12401) on :

tfbundy comments

quote:

The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2.

quote:

As I understand it the science suggests that CO2 increases global warming and global warming increases CO2. That is the really worrying bit.

Fred

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

re:tfbundy

Bugger, this is frustrating.

Where do people get the idea that scientists can't decide about this (so we might as well go on buggering up the planet then)?

No, scientists (real ones) aren't evenly divided. If anyone can find any real evidence please tell us. We'd love it all to be a big mistake so we can avoid the extra effort and worry. Really.

When you ask people who come out with this kind of ill-informed shite, they can't just admit they read it in the Daily Mail or similar lie-sheet (cos we'd all just laugh at them) so they just go all quiet. Or else they quote some bloke living alone in Oregon (or similar hideaway) who has managed to produce a website (no scientific papers, no reputation for research) which claims mysterious new findings which overturn the scientific orthodoxy. No, it F***ing doesn't.

I think I feel slightly better now. Thankyou for listening.
.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What makes you think that governments need the spectre of global warming to justify raising taxes?

They don't. But it's a great opportunity for them to add to their list of excuses. As I found when I booked my flight to Tanzania and the tax had doubled (airport tax plus darling Mr Brown's eco tax).

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
So now what you said is a subtle joke? If you think so.

But I hope you understand there are people of 'good will', trying to hear whatever point you have, who won't because of your flippancy.

Good heavens, 206. I made a serious comment about the Bush administration (about which I am still very angry). I was concerned you'd misinterpreted this as referring to all Americans, so I clarified. I added some - ya Gads - light hearted comments in defence of a couple American things I love, The Simpsons and Team America. So sorry if all this befuddled you.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tfbundy:
I'm REALLY not convinced by this global warming idea. The green message is long overdue to be adopted, but now it is an ideal way for Governments to add yet further to the burden of tax rather than anything else. The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2. The credibility of science therefore diminishes as time goes by and the global warming message and its insistence we all adopt altered behaviours seems unconvincing. The bigger problem seems to be something we have no control over, namely the destruction of rain forests, something I always understood to be the lungs of the earth.

I know it can be very dull to re-read entire long threads when joining late, but tfbundy, it might be a good idea if you'd read at least a little bit of this one before posting.

Oh, and what Teufelchen said. And Clint and... well, pretty much everyone else by the looks of it!

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
So sorry if all this befuddled you.

After all you've done to prolong this thread I feel some obligation to help out: those hundreds of millions of dying Africans have given me pause.

And if I've got the numbers wrong I'm sure you'll point it out.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
After all you've done to prolong this thread I feel some obligation to help out: those hundreds of millions of dying Africans have given me pause.

And if I've got the numbers wrong I'm sure you'll point it out.

My turn to not be quite sure what you mean, 206! I think you are saying that the projected negative consequences for Africa have made you re-evaluate (indeed, wasn't it you that started the "it's happening, what should we do?" thread?) If so, good for you.

In other thread-prolonging news, yet another paper reports that actual measurements have massively exceeded the computer models. This time it is the Southern Oceans, which is absorbing less CO2 than expected. This was forecast, but not for another 40 years.

And in other other news, New Scientist has had a go at rebutting the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions. I've skimmed a few, and while they obviously and expectedly follow science orthodoxy on the subject, they crucially seem to do a good job at criticising the climate change movement too where the science has been inflated. It looks like a readable and fair summary.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
It's just the 'bastard bastard bastard bastard' stuff wears me out.
Just to be clear, this was referring to the Bush Administration (who so deserve it) in particular not Americans in general. After all, America gave us The Simpsons. And Team America - who in turn also reminded us that America gave the world McDonalds, Wal-Mart, The Gap, Baseball, NFL, Rock and roll, The Internet, Slavery, Starbucks, Disney world, Porno, Valium, Reeboks, Fake Tits, Sushi, Taco Bell, Rodeos, Bed bath and beyond, Liberty, White Slips, The Alamo, Band-aids, Las Vegas, Christmas, Immigrants, Columbine, Democrats, Republicans and Sportsmanship.

Oh, and my personal favourite - Books.

There were no immigrants or slavery before America?

[ 17. May 2007, 23:32: Message edited by: Papio ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
There were no immigrants or slavery before America?

Well, not before Team America, anyway.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Canada has a very long way to go, and from what I've read the current Canadian government has effectively said they'll totally ignore the Kyoto Treaty even though it was ratified five years ago. ...

Indeed, the government of the day that signed the accord refused to do anything about meeting the goals, prefering to dither away the years.

Now, it is impossible to meet the targets, and the current government has determined a realistic target. This seems to me to be a reasonable thing.

Also, I can't idle my car now for more than 3 minutes or I will get a fine - unless it is very hot or very cold. So, that would be May and September. [Biased]

[ 18. May 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

This probably belongs on the old "it's happening: what should we do" thread, but since there has been a lot of talk on Africa, development and technology here I thought I'd stick with the one that people have been following. This illustrates in practice what some of us were saying about how renewable energy (mainly solar) could be a Godsend to Africa, implemented properly. It is a BBC story about rural Namibia, and getting electricity and communications to isolated communites. Good stuff.

[ 20. May 2007, 22:52: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

So the worlds religions finally unite?! And what better cause than to unite against the Bush Administration? It gladdens the soul to read that more than 20 religious groups including Christian, Jewish and Muslim, have gone to Capitol Hill to petition for action on climate change.

Altogether now, "we shall overcome..."

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.

quote:
Drake's equation.

Drake's equation is an interesting critter named for Dr. Frank Drake, an astrophysicist who received an "extraterrestrial" radio signal, later discovered to be a false alarm, but who went on to organize several SETI conferences and ultimately to shape a government program around this search. A Drake Equation is generally accepted to be any formidable looking equation that really doesn't mean anything. Why? Because many, if not all, of the variable terms mean nothing or can never be quantified...at best their values can only be guessed. When we have an equation of variables that can't be quantified all we have is meaningless felgercarb.

We're pummeled with Drake Equations when the greenies attempt to prove to us that if we don't do something now about our greenhouse gas emissions, the gasses they proclaim to be greenhouse gases, the planet will be uninhabitable in another hundred years. They give us computer models showing the truth, and proof, of their theories. They give us high sounding speeches by intelligent sounding people using five dollar words proclaiming the debate is over because they've determined their theories to be proven.

But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result. Many of us are taken in, though, because everything looks impressive, and we don't have the background to know or understand that it's all hooey. (Frosty Burrage Jnr)

But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Climate models and weather forecasting models are completely different beasts (even if they share some underlying physical principles). To discount climate models because they can't make weather predictions is akin to rejecting Newtonian mechanics because it can't predict the outcome of the 3.30 at Haydock.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.

Whereas for Myrrh, if the majority of people believe it, it must be a conspiracy.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Canada has a very long way to go, and from what I've read the current Canadian government has effectively said they'll totally ignore the Kyoto Treaty even though it was ratified five years ago. ...
Indeed, the government of the day that signed the accord refused to do anything about meeting the goals, prefering to dither away the years.

Now, it is impossible to meet the targets, and the current government has determined a realistic target. This seems to me to be a reasonable thing.

Also, I can't idle my car now for more than 3 minutes or I will get a fine - unless it is very hot or very cold. So, that would be May and September.

O Canada!

quote:
Dr. Tim Ball,
Former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
“Stopping climate change” may be all the rage with celebrities and environmental lobbyists, but fortunately for the rest of us, the scare’s scientific foundation is rapidly disintegrating.
One of the fundamental pillars of the hypothesis that humanity is causing dangerous climate change is the belief that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas of concern in countries such as Canada, have been rising steadily since the start of the industrial revolution. ....

In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, “The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.” continued on (Continued on Tim Bell)

He ends: "Clearly, the federal government must immediately convene open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as ‘solid’ as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear.
But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history."

Myrrh

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.

quote:
Drake's equation.

Drake's equation is an interesting critter named for Dr. Frank Drake, an astrophysicist who received an "extraterrestrial" radio signal, later discovered to be a false alarm, but who went on to organize several SETI conferences and ultimately to shape a government program around this search. A Drake Equation is generally accepted to be any formidable looking equation that really doesn't mean anything. Why? Because many, if not all, of the variable terms mean nothing or can never be quantified...at best their values can only be guessed. When we have an equation of variables that can't be quantified all we have is meaningless felgercarb.

We're pummeled with Drake Equations when the greenies attempt to prove to us that if we don't do something now about our greenhouse gas emissions, the gasses they proclaim to be greenhouse gases, the planet will be uninhabitable in another hundred years. They give us computer models showing the truth, and proof, of their theories. They give us high sounding speeches by intelligent sounding people using five dollar words proclaiming the debate is over because they've determined their theories to be proven.

But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result. Many of us are taken in, though, because everything looks impressive, and we don't have the background to know or understand that it's all hooey. (Frosty Burrage Jnr)
But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result.

Quoted in full, to exhibit its idiocy.

1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.

T.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.
Whereas for Myrrh, if the majority of people believe it, it must be a conspiracy.

You can fool all of the people some of the time..

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Climate models and weather forecasting models are completely different beasts (even if they share some underlying physical principles). To discount climate models because they can't make weather predictions is akin to rejecting Newtonian mechanics because it can't predict the outcome of the 3.30 at Haydock.

quote:
You state in your section on Climate Change: "Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from an estimated 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution, to 380 ppm today. During the last century, the earth’s surface temperature rose by about 0.6°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that it could rise by between 1.4 and 5.8°C by the end of this century."

Are you not aware of the lack of correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2? The data are clearly uncorrelated during the 20th century record. While correlation cannot PROVE cause and effect, lack of correlation will DISPROVE cause and effect.

Data over the 600,000-year Vostok ice core record show temperature changes LEAD changes in both methane and carbon dioxide by 200-800 years, i.e., temperature changes first, then methane and CO2.

In the scientific method, a theory is shown to be invalid if one can cite a single contrary example. There is a record spanning 500 million years that is contrary to the theory that rising CO2 causes climate change.(Bob Webster)

Garbage in, garbage out.

Myrrh

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?

Who the hell are you?

quote:
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.

The garbage in data for global warming is as arbitrary and deliberately excludes conflicting evidence.

Myrrh

T. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Are you not aware of the lack of correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2? The data are clearly uncorrelated during the 20th century record. While correlation cannot PROVE cause and effect, lack of correlation will DISPROVE cause and effect.

Lack of correlation may indicate lack of cause and effect; it certainly shows a complex system. And, the "lack of correlation" isn't quite as clear in the data as some armchair 'scientists' claim, especially once the effects of particulate pollution and other complicating factors are taken into account.

quote:
Data over the 600,000-year Vostok ice core record show temperature changes LEAD changes in both methane and carbon dioxide by 200-800 years, i.e., temperature changes first, then methane and CO2.

Now, how many times should it need repeating. In the natural system where a temperature rise allows the release of CO2 from oceans there will be a time lag of several centuries because of the time scale of circulation between deep oceans and surface waters. If you get your carbon from another reservoir (eg: fossil carbon in coal, oil and gas) then you're talking about a different system with different dynamics.

quote:
In the scientific method, a theory is shown to be invalid if one can cite a single contrary example.

And, that is such a wildly bizarre description of "scientific method" that it beggars belief. At best it can be described as "Popularised Popperian Falsification", though Popper himself would be the first person to describe it as unscientific.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Garbage in, garbage out.

Absolutely. Now, if perhaps you'd start to take in some decent science rather than the garbage thrown up by sad-gits-in-their-sheds-running-a-website ...

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Climate models and weather forecasting models are completely different beasts (even if they share some underlying physical principles). To discount climate models because they can't make weather predictions is akin to rejecting Newtonian mechanics because it can't predict the outcome of the 3.30 at Haydock.

He could be meaning the Jan Esper and Von Storch work which shows the hockey stick doesn't correspond to the reality of our weather.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The Hockey Stick may not correspond to the realities of our weather. It does a pretty fair job of corresponding to the realities of our climate. And, as I said, weather and climate are different things; anyone who's failed to understand that has no real basis to make pronouncements on subjects such as climatology or meteorology.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Hockey Stick may not correspond to the realities of our weather. It does a pretty fair job of corresponding to the realities of our climate. And, as I said, weather and climate are different things; anyone who's failed to understand that has no real basis to make pronouncements on subjects such as climatology or meteorology.

Picky picky picky, you're beginning to sound weather-beaten.

It was comment, not pronouncement, and everyone has a right to his opinion.

You however who do make pronouncements from your claim to expertise on the subject continue to brush aside conflicting evidence to the data imput used in climate models.

Which is worse, someone who gets the terminology wrong but is still coherent or someone who gets the data wrong and presents a future weather scenario which is gobbledegook?

We touched on this earlier when I was still trying to make sense of the arguments about it. If the CO2 ice core measurements used in climate models is garbage in the whole man-made global warming fear is a storm in a tea-cup, but this coupled with the use of the hockey stick which has been shown to be a flawed representation of our past weather conditions,(*) shows a deliberate unscientific approach to climate analysis.

So we've finally got a soap-opera of global interest, not only one everyone can watch and discuss the next day, but one in which everyone can actually become a bit player - and like all good soap-operas it has to come up with cliff-hangers and angst driven plots.

quote:
Two more global warming false alarms

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted December 18, 2006

The global warming debate has developed a pattern: In part A, a scientist makes a scary claim and gets headlines for himself, and his funding source, across the known world. In part B, a few months later new evidence blows the scary claim away—but with no press coverage of its demise.

Two more global warming scares have just been quietly blown away: the claim that global warming is causing more and bigger hurricanes; and the claim that warming threatens to shut down the great Atlantic Ocean conveyor currents.

....

Keep this "scare-now and discredit-later" pattern of global warming press releases firmly in mind for the future. Weather is highly variable, and the climate's constant changes only reveal trends over long periods—but the global warming scare tactics have wrung $18 billion out of recent federal budgets for climate change research. ([qb]Two more global warming false alarms)

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Sorry, missed the edit window.

(*)(using its methodology to retrospectively predict it showed no relation to the reality of our weather - the model excludes the highs and lows of the actually significant hot and cold periods in the last 2000 years because the model has been designed to do that, any numbers thrown into it will churn out the same hockey stick).

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was comment, not pronouncement, and everyone has a right to his opinion.

OK, so it was a comment rather than a pronouncement. And, Frosty Burrage Jr (who???) has a right to his opinion as much as anyone else. But, you quoted the comment as though it somehow indicated something important for consideration. Why should we consider the opinion of someone who's making comments about climatology without even showing any evidence of recognising the difference between weather and climate?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Oh, and once more into the Hockey Stick discussion. The Hockey Stick is data (albeit data determined from some calculations from primary data), it's not the output of climate models. What's more, since Manns data was included in the 2001 IPCC report it's possibly one of the most intensively studied data in climate science (and, indeed in many other sciences). Experts in the field have raised questions about the methodology Mann employed, his selection of primary data and umpteen other things. Though some criticisms have been shown to have some validity, overall his data has held up well under scrutiny. Several major reviews of the studies into Manns data (I've linked to a couple somewhere in this thread already) have shown that the general picture of the 'Hockey Stick' is a reasonably accurate description of the temperature record over the last 1000 years or so.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

And the data I've posted on the hockey stick show the flaws to completely alter the sense of our historic climate. I've seen nothing in the "revised" hockey stick and excuses to excuse this corruption climate reality.

If it's not bad enough that one set of garbage data is being used (man-made CO2 from all the nonsense CO2 claims) the two together make this a scientific joke.

I'm not sure who is the poorer for it, real scientists or the gullible public.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Data can only "corrupt our sense of climate history" if that sense of climate history was initially wrong. Put simply, the MWP and LIA weren't that significant in global terms, whereas recent climate changes have been a) global in scope b) as large in magnitude as the end of glaciations and c) faster than any other changes we know of. As the data of climate scientists such as Mann have shown. If that's changed our sense of climate history then good; we can't go on living in the lie that we're not impacting the world we live in.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?
Who the hell are you?

I'm a Shipmate, which to the best of my knowledge Mr Burrage Jr is not. I've also studied cosmology, which it appears Mr Burrage Jr has not. I've no idea why you think anyone should take this nonentity's opinion seriously.

Do you have the faintest idea how the Drake Equation is properly used?

quote:

quote:
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.
The garbage in data for global warming is as arbitrary and deliberately excludes conflicting evidence.

There's a saying about two wrongs; it's on the tip of my tongue...

Mr Burrage Jr's article claims that 'greenies' (whatever those are) assert that the Drake Equation predicts an imminent demise for our civilisation. As I've mentioned, it does no such thing, and Mr Burrage Jr fails to cite any actual examples of anyone asserting otherwise. The Drake Equation, in fact, has nothing to do with global warming. So a (probably false) assertion that the Drake Equation is being misused by some anonymous person tells us precisely squat about the accuracy or otherwise of anybody's climatology.

So why on earth did you copy and paste a slab of Burrage's diatribe?

T.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?
Who the hell are you?
I'm a Shipmate, which to the best of my knowledge Mr Burrage Jr is not. I've also studied cosmology, which it appears Mr Burrage Jr has not. I've no idea why you think anyone should take this nonentity's opinion seriously.

Do you have the faintest idea how the Drake Equation is properly used?

quote:

quote:
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.
The garbage in data for global warming is as arbitrary and deliberately excludes conflicting evidence.
There's a saying about two wrongs; it's on the tip of my tongue...

Mr Burrage Jr's article claims that 'greenies' (whatever those are) assert that the Drake Equation predicts an imminent demise for our civilisation. As I've mentioned, it does no such thing, and Mr Burrage Jr fails to cite any actual examples of anyone asserting otherwise. The Drake Equation, in fact, has nothing to do with global warming. So a (probably false) assertion that the Drake Equation is being misused by some anonymous person tells us precisely squat about the accuracy or otherwise of anybody's climatology.

So why on earth did you copy and paste a slab of Burrage's diatribe?

T.

Because he's an ordinary oik just like you and I and I liked what he said. His only credentials being that in a poor school he was taught how to think and teachers put in their own time to give their pupils science lessons not on the curriculum.

" I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done."

He gave it as an example of bad science.

quote:
A Drake Equation is generally accepted to be any formidable looking equation that really doesn't mean anything. Why? Because many, if not all, of the variable terms mean nothing or can never be quantified...at best their values can only be guessed. When we have an equation of variables that can't be quantified all we have is meaningless felgercarb.

"Mr Burrage Jr's article claims that 'greenies' (whatever those are) assert that the Drake Equation predicts an imminent demise for our civilisation. As I've mentioned, it does no such thing, and Mr Burrage Jr fails to cite any actual examples of anyone asserting otherwise."

I suggest you read what he actually wrote, he said no such thing.

quote:
We're pummeled with Drake Equations when the greenies attempt to prove to us that if we don't do something now about our greenhouse gas emissions, the gasses they proclaim to be greenhouse gases, the planet will be uninhabitable in another hundred years.

He's giving the Drake Equation as a type. And I agree with him, I've found nothing scientific in the mishmash of 'supporting evidence' that proves any such thing as global warming let alone anything that proves there's been a dramatic rise in CO2, anything that proves rising CO2 levels are catastrophic for the planet, anything that proves that man-made CO2 levels bear any correlation at all to the global warming of the last couple of hundred years since we've been warming up after the recurring theme in our climate history of a mini-ice age, anything, well, you get my drift. Like the Drake equations, the so called scientific facts produced have a dream like quality of the non-real and the nightmare it's creating for us ordinary oiks bears a remarkable correlation to the effect he produced with his nonsense science.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

re: the Drake Equation. It's not really bad science, the formula is sound - the number of civilizations in the galaxy equals the product of a number of probabilities and the number of stars in the galaxy. That many of those probabilities have large uncertainties means that the answer is consistent with any number of civilisations from one to millions. Which gives us a focus for research - if you want to get a better estimate of the number of civilisations in the galaxy we know which probabilities need to be worked on to reduce uncertainties.

I'm not sure where the Drake Equation is analogous to climate science. The uncertainties in the various parameters in climate modelling come no where near as being a killer as something like "probability of life emerging" in the Drake Equation. ie: whereas current science means we can't get a meaningful answer from the Drake Equation, we can get meaningful answers from climatology. Which is something even most skeptics accept - you can't say "climate science produces answers as meaningful as the Drake Equation" and "there was a LIA and MWP". If you accept the LIA & MWP you've already accepted that the data climate scientists work with is much more strongly constrained than the Drake Equation.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
So why on earth did you copy and paste a slab of Burrage's diatribe?
Because he's an ordinary oik just like you and I and I liked what he said.

One point that strikes me. These are discussion boards, where people are free to share their opinions and ideas. But, in doing so those opinions and ideas are opened to being challenged. When challenged, it's expected that you support your ideas and opinions - either by restating them in a clearer way explaining why you believe that, or by providing some authority beyond yourself to support your position. Many people here have done both on many occasions. Quoting some "ordinary oik like you and I" does neither; it simply shows that others agree with you, which doesn't help take the discussion forward unless they have some reasonable credentials to make their opinion meaningful.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

1. What would happen to me if, say, I cut and pasted vast numbers of enormous random pages from the internet onto these forums to no point whatsoever?

2. Can we be sure that Myrrh isn't actually some kind of ExxonMobil cyberbot that will forever ignore science and generate more random quotes no matter how ludicrous? Someone should research this - if the term "Junk Science" appears in the webpage metatags of Myrrh's last half a dozen quotes, I think Myrrh is a company robot.

3. Oh God, this is the second irritable post I made today that I'll regret later. Can't help myself, sorry.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

OK, one last time of requesting this.

Please show me just one specific line of reasoning in the global warming theory claims, prove that man-made CO2 since the industrial revolution has actually made the earth a hotter place than it was at the end of the mini ice age we came out of, has been driving that rise in temperature - which is what this is all about.

Is that too much to ask?

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

What, other than the physics of greenhouse gases? Because I've gone over that line of evidence repeatedly. And, you consistently fail to see the plain correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures in the 20th century(though not perfectly exact, it's a complex phenomenon afterall so exact is never going to happen). And, you seem to consider models as totally unreliable so the correlation between model outcomes and historical records won't be impressive either.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What, other than the physics of greenhouse gases? Because I've gone over that line of evidence repeatedly. And, you consistently fail to see the plain correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures in the 20th century(though not perfectly exact, it's a complex phenomenon afterall so exact is never going to happen). And, you seem to consider models as totally unreliable so the correlation between model outcomes and historical records won't be impressive either.

No, please, not the bl**dy physics of greenhouse gases again. The claim to disaster by the global warmists is that it is man induced. That the global warming of the last century and a half or two is UNPRECEDENTED in the last 1000 years and it's all the fault of man pumping out extraordinary levels of CO2 since the industrial revolution.

So no more pussyfooting, this is the claim being made, this is why Kyoto, this is why some poor gits are in danger of the thought police if they idle their car engines longer than three minutes and other ridiculous restrictions to the habits of ordinary oiks as well as on international scale, this is why extra taxes loaded and this is probably why you're in a job right now, I'm guessing here.

It takes only one contradictory fact to blow a theory to smithereens, you have simply avoided all of them presented here.

So, if you, and the others here should have a go, cannot show EXACTLY how you come to this conclusion by producing a fact not fantasy backed scientific argument proving that this global warming is the DIRECT result of man's imput, then you have to admit that you can't prove it's real (OP).

Myrrh

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, one last time of requesting this.

Please show me just one specific line of reasoning in the global warming theory claims, prove that man-made CO2 since the industrial revolution has actually made the earth a hotter place than it was at the end of the mini ice age we came out of, has been driving that rise in temperature - which is what this is all about.

Is that too much to ask?

Myrrh

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11647

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11645

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/215043/37

Now for God's sake, please read them, look at the graphs, follow their links where needed. It has been explianed a billion times that absolute proof is impossible so stop asking for it, but the overhwelming evidence is uncontestable.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No, please, not the bl**dy physics of greenhouse gases again.

As I said, there seems little point going through it again. It's just that, for me the physics is the strongest part of the argument (maybe that's because I'm a physicist). The physics says "greenhouse gases warm the planet" with "all else being equal, more greenhouse gases -> a warmer planet". The fact that the models (albeit imperfect because of the complexity of the system) more or less match the observations is the nail in the coffin.

But, others are likely to find other lines of argument more convincing. That there are several lines of argument all pointing in the same direction is, in itself, extremely compelling.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No, please, not the bl**dy physics of greenhouse gases again.
As I said, there seems little point going through it again. It's just that, for me the physics is the strongest part of the argument (maybe that's because I'm a physicist). The physics says "greenhouse gases warm the planet" with "all else being equal, more greenhouse gases -> a warmer planet". The fact that the models (albeit imperfect because of the complexity of the system) more or less match the observations is the nail in the coffin.

But, others are likely to find other lines of argument more convincing. That there are several lines of argument all pointing in the same direction is, in itself, extremely compelling.

It's this "compelling" you've used before that I have a problem with.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute, it's in the physics. What's in dispute is how that plays in your theory of Global Warming which positively says that it is the unprecedented latest rise (in dispute) created by man's industry (in dispute) which has driven (in dispute) the current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years (in dispute) and the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity (in dispute) and we should curtail our production of it to maintain a constant norm of climate (in dispute) which preceded the hockey stick (in dispute) and any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers (in dispute).

What I have found. There is absolutely no data corroborating any of the above, I've looked. I have posted actual real data which contradict all the above.

What I conclude. That there is a similiar correlation to the rise of of man-made CO2 and the global rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age as there is, say, in the rise of education.

None.

But both can produce a lot of hot air.

This is what has really p*ssed me off in this discussion, the basic premise of Global Warming which constantly bombards us and is forcing us to move in specific law enforced directions to change our society and personal way of thinking by imposing a specific belief on all is junk science, it is forcing us to believe that irrational thinking is rational. It is an ideology maybe, but it's not science. It is not proved that man-made CO2 from the industrial age on has driven the warming we are currently experiencing.

Unless you can actually prove that beyond reasonable doubt you have no moral right to even think to impose your belief on anyone else.

All I'm asking for, and I'm now sure what I'm asking for is impossible, is for one or all of you here who so assiduously promote this particular and specific man-made earth shattering conclusion to show your reasoning behind this claim which would inevitably lead us to proof of this claim.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What's in dispute is how that plays in your theory of Global Warming which positively says that it is the unprecedented latest rise (in dispute) created by man's industry (in dispute) which has driven (in dispute) the current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years (in dispute) and the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity (in dispute) and we should curtail our production of it to maintain a constant norm of climate (in dispute) which preceded the hockey stick (in dispute) and any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers (in dispute).

Maybe it'll help if we went through each of your disputed points in turn and see where that gets us.

"unprecedented latest rise". There are good measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration, eg: from Muana Kea, which show a dramatic rise in the last 50 years or so. I can't see how that rise can be in dispute. Which leaves us with the "unprecedented" bit. There are long-term records of atmospheric CO2 concentrations trapped in glacial ice; assuming you accept that these air bubbles are representative of historic atmospheres (there are valid concerns that the gases may leak out, though the scientists doing the work take measures to try and get it right) these show changes associated with the start and end of interglacials of a similar magnitude to that observed in recent times. So, there is precedent for the scale of change. Where there isn't precedent is for such an increase to occur within an interglacial, and the current concentration is higher than at any time in the ice record (though not geological history). And, of course, the concentration is continuing to increase such that if it continues it will be larger than the end of glaciation increases.

"created by man's industry". This one seems totally indisputable. The carbon isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 show a clear fossil source (prior to 1950, when bomb testing confused things, CO2 in the atmosphere had less 14C than it should have. The only source of low 14C CO2 is fossil fuels. The conclusion is unambiguous - burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

"which has driven". If you're not disputing the physics, how can the rise in CO2 not drive temperature increase? There may be other factors that might drive the climate in the opposite direction, but CO2 will drive things towards warmer conditions. It can't do otherwise.

"current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years". Are you actually disputing that the mean global temperatures have been increasing over the period when direct measurements have been available? Or, are you simply disputing these rises are driven by human activity?

"the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity"OK, on this I'd accept that's hype from journalists and propogandists rather than being scientific. I'd say the consequences will probably be dire for many people (especially the poor in poor countries). The consequences may even be "the end of civilisation as we know it", which is a long way short of the end of civilisation (after all, "civilisation as we know it" ends regularly - just compare life now with 50 or 100 years ago). Can we just forget the hype for this discussion and stick with the science?

"we should curtail our production" Well, if the above is true and we're affecting the climate in a way that's quite probably detrimental to many people, and may be highly detrimental to very many people, then taking steps to mitigate those effects is the only reasonable thing to do. Reducing carbon emissions is the easiest and cheapest of the possible steps - in fact, the first steps in carbon emission reduction actually save money and are thus worth doing anyway.

"maintain a constant norm of climate"
Actually, though a very small minority of radical greens do want us to stabilise the climate as though we don't exist, most people are more than happy with slowing the rate of change to something that's maneagable. And, that almost certainly means stabilising our contribution - there's some debate about just what level that stabilisation needs to be at (which balances predictions for the climate at different CO2 levels with estimates of the cost and practicality of stabilising at that level - which is the primary work of the IPCC, to give governments the information they need to make policy).

"the hockey stick". I'm just so not going to go back to that

"any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers". More hype and propoganda that doesn't have any place in discussion of the science.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

What Alan said, plus the need to account for the rate of increase in the average global temperature which has gone up much more rapidly over the last few decades. Previous naturally generated changes in temperature have taken place over much longer periods of time. The only major difference in the situations is the intervention by humans in burning fossil fuels.

Jonah

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What's in dispute is how that plays in your theory of Global Warming which positively says that it is the unprecedented latest rise (in dispute) created by man's industry (in dispute) which has driven (in dispute) the current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years (in dispute) and the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity (in dispute) and we should curtail our production of it to maintain a constant norm of climate (in dispute) which preceded the hockey stick (in dispute) and any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers (in dispute).
Maybe it'll help if we went through each of your disputed points in turn and see where that gets us.

Alan, you've given me a hard time here for using inappropriate terms when discussing this pretence to science theory, so, whether in standard, colloquial or scientic English what don't you understand in the phrase "in dispute"?

As I've noted before, I find your cavalier attitude to contradictory and conflicting data inexplicable, for a scientist that is.

Let's put aside all pretence here. You're a physicist and I'm an oik, neither is an advantage or disadvantage in this argument - it's in dispute, it's a matter of opinion.

In my opinion, the vast amounts of conflicting data and criticism of the Global Warming Theory and Its Methods is cause to have zilch respect for the analysis of anyone who claims this is proved by science.

And that is precisely the claim made by those who promote this junk theory.

I'll come back to the rest of your post later.

Myrrh

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Alan, you've given me a hard time here for using inappropriate terms when discussing this pretence to science theory, so, whether in standard, colloquial or scientic English what don't you understand in the phrase "in dispute"?

As I've noted before, I find your cavalier attitude to contradictory and conflicting data inexplicable, for a scientist that is.

Myrrh, that's just rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish. Alan has patiently explained endlessly that the evidence is overwhelming. It is not watertight proof, which is impossible, but it IS overwhelming. It is the opinion of 99% of an academic discipline versus people in tin hats in sheds. There is no equivalence. If there is a dispute at all in the field, it is the opinion of a tiny minority compared with a huge majority. You seem to equate the two as equal - no wait, that the minority is, for no reason whatsoever, correct (because you can't stay away from that great far-right phrase "Junk Science") Every question you have raised has been answered (and dutifully passed on by Alan), there is no great unknown mystery here.

Stop being so disengenuous about Alan, who has shown more patience than can reasonably be expected from anybody.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Simple question.

How come the temperatures have gone up so much over the last few decades, allegedly because of fossil fule burning, when we have been burning less and less fossil fuels over that same period compared to the first half of the 20th century.

Also, can anyone tell me in words of one syllable, just what the average global temperature rise has been in the last 100 years and how much of that degree rise has been in the last 50 years.

ie, what was the average temperature in 1900 and what was it in 2000?

Please, thank you.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple question.

How come the temperatures have gone up so much over the last few decades, allegedly because of fossil fule burning, when we have been burning less and less fossil fuels over that same period compared to the first half of the 20th century.

Hi Mudfrog,

What makes you think we've been burning less and less fossil fuel? We're burning more and more. The most recent research shows:

quote:

CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y-1 for 1990-1999 to >3% y-1 for 2000-2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s.

We're burning them at a faster rate than the most pessimistic IPCC forecasts. At the same time, the north pole is melting faster than the worst case of their models.

Naysayers try to paint the IPCC as alarmist. Actually, the IPCC is a group of mainstream scientists, and their report represents the stuff virtually all of them agree on - i.e. the most conservative estimates. It seems likely that the actual situation will be worse.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As I've noted before, I find your cavalier attitude to contradictory and conflicting data inexplicable, for a scientist that is.

And, as I'm pretty sure I've said before, there's nothing unusual in science about contradictory and conflicting data - especially in a subject dealing with complex phenomena such as the climate. Scientists routinely build up massive bodies of data and seek to make sense of that data through the processes of drawing up theories, hypotheses and models - which in turn leads to clarity about what new data is needed to test those means of making sense of the data. Whenever a scientist draws up a hypothesis to explain the data available there's practically always some data that doesn't fit. What's not known is whether the hypothesis is wrong or incomplete, or whether the data is wrong. Generally the only wat to proceed if you have a good fit between theory and the vast majority of the data is to examine the data that doesn't fit in intense detail - and, even after that examination you might just have to accept the anomaly. One piece of contradictory data doesn't invalidate a theory. Even a relatively large body of contradictory data doesn't invalidate a theory, though it would almost always result in some minor modification to the theory.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

Mudfrog, a simple question with a reasonably simple answer!

Avg temp in 1900 = about 13.7 C
Avg temp in 2000 = about 14.4 C

Rise in temp = .74 C

The rate of increase has been about twice as much over the last 50 years as in the previous 100.

I got these figures from the IPCC summary report - page 6. The graph wiggles about quite a bit so taking one specific year isn't necessarily that useful if it is a particularly hot or cold one, but the graph clearly shows the trend.

I think Hiro's Leap is right in saying that the world consumption of fossil fuels has not gone down in recent decades - but I'd be interested to know why you thought it had.

Two important points are that 1) there are many factors affecting the global temperature, hence the changes from year to year, but over a reasonably long period these remain the same, whereas man-made CO2 keeps increasing 2) the impact of a change in fossil fuel burning (whether more or less) would not be seen immediately. Even if we stopped all human-caused CO2 production tomorrow, the global temperature would still continue to go up for some years.

Jonah

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

More questions:

What was the average temperature rise between 1800 and 1900?

And why is .7 degree rise over 100 years such a catastrophe?

My point about buring fossil fuels comes from simpl observation. In the last 50 years fewer and fewer households are burning coal. Industries have closed and those that remain are not using the same technology as they once were - pollution has significantly decreased from what it was in the 200 years up until the war.

I simply cannot see how we are polluting the atmosphere no more than we were when pollution was so bad people died in the smogs of London.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

One final question:

What is the overall rise in temperature between 1998 and 2005?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Between 1800 and 1900 there was no significant temperature rise. Between 1900 and 1940 about 0.4°C then a 40 year approximately level period (partly due to economic factors from post-war recovery and the oil crises). Since 1980 temperatures have increased about 0.8°C at a fairly steady 0.3°C per decade. Those are values for the mean global temperature - local variations mean some areas heat up a lot more, others barely change, some areas may even cool. For comparison, the end of the last glaciation was accompanied by a mean temperature increase of about 0.2°C per cuntury - current warming is about 10 times as rapid as the end of the last glaciation.

On the amount of carbon produced. We're not burning coal to heat our homes directly - we burn it in electricity generating plants, and use the electricity to heat our homes. We've introduced clean technology that reduces the amount of particulate pollution from burning fossil fuels, which is good for our lungs, but we still burn a lot of that fuel. Ironically, the cleaner technology means there's less particulate pollution which acts to cool the world, so adding to global warming. Arguably we're slightly reducing carbon emissions in Europe and other developed nations (though still way above the amount we were producing in 1950), the rest of the world is burning loads more.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

My point about buring fossil fuels comes from simpl observation. In the last 50 years fewer and fewer households are burning coal. Industries have closed and those that remain are not using the same technology as they once were - pollution has significantly decreased from what it was in the 200 years up until the war.

I simply cannot see how we are polluting the atmosphere no more than we were when pollution was so bad people died in the smogs of London.

People died because coal was burned directly in cities. As Alan said, now there is much less visible pollution because the power plants are further away, and they extract most of the obviously nasty stuff (particulates, NOx, SOx). The UK's coal use has plummetted over the 20th century - partly because of the discovery of North Sea oil and gas. This hasn't happened in most countries, including the developing world and the US.

Although far less coal is burned in the UK now, oil and gas consumption has increased massively. These tend to be less obviously dirty, but still produce lots of CO2.

As you point out, the UK's manufacturing industries have largely closed - but that only means we're getting other countries to make the goods for us, and so exporting the CO2 emissions. Also, energy use in homes, offices and (especially) shops has gone up hugely.

This shows worldwide energy consumption over the last 40 years. Everything on the graph except nuclear and hydro produces CO2, and it's all rising sharply.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As you point out, the UK's manufacturing industries have largely closed - but that only means we're getting other countries to make the goods for us, and so exporting the CO2 emissions. Also, energy use in homes, offices and (especially) shops has gone up hugely.

Um. We are 'getting other countries' to make goods for us? Were you around in the UK during the 1980s? It isn't a question of us 'getting' others to make stuff; they started to make stuff cheaper than our own manufacturing companies and so we started buying from 'them'. The UK isn't some energy overlord. Like everyone else, we didn't want to pay a fortune for something when we didn't have to.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Between 1800 and 1900 there was no significant temperature rise. Between 1900 and 1940 about 0.4°C then a 40 year approximately level period (partly due to economic factors from post-war recovery and the oil crises). Since 1980 temperatures have increased about 0.8°C at a fairly steady 0.3°C per decade.

How has the development of technology influenced the recording of temperature rises?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
It isn't a question of us 'getting' others to make stuff; they started to make stuff cheaper than our own manufacturing companies and so we started buying from 'them'. The UK isn't some energy overlord. Like everyone else, we didn't want to pay a fortune for something when we didn't have to.

Agreed (and 'energy overlord' is a great phrase). But the result is that we export services which are relatively low energy, and import goods which aren't. This means that we've effectively outsourced CO2 production, and this doesn't show up in the statistics.

Interestingly (to me!) energy consumption per person hasn't changed much in the UK in the last 100 years, apart from the outsourcing above. Coal has declined, oil and gas have grown. The huge improvements in standard of living are largely a result of far more efficient technology, not using more energy. It's pretty optimistic, and shows that living standards can keep improving, even if CO2 emissions have to fall...we don't need to live cod-Medieval lifestyles.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
People died because coal was burned directly in cities. As Alan said, now there is much less visible pollution because the power plants are further away, and they extract most of the obviously nasty stuff (particulates, NOx, SOx). The UK's coal use has plummetted over the 20th century - partly because of the discovery of North Sea oil and gas. This hasn't happened in most countries, including the developing world and the US.

One of the awful double-binds of climate change is that all that nasty stuff (aerosols) used to have an effect in reducing global temperatures. So in order to clean up the atmosphere and save lives, we at the same time (unknowingly) made the global warming problem even worse.

The pheomenon of aerosols cooling is connected to a phenoemenon called Global Dimming, which has been used in the past couple of years to make even more alarmist predictions on the future of climate change (since, arguably, pollution will continue to decrease). However, the phenomenon has been known for a years, and is already factored into the climate change models (more on this here).

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Are we completely buggered, then?

The US rejects all G8 proposals on Climate Change

I wonder what Germany has in mind? The article above ends with:

quote:
The scene is set for a showdown between the US and other G8 countries who want early action on climate change. Germany's environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, said the country was prepared to block decisions on other issues unless the US and other G8 members made concessions on the environment. "America doesn't want to commit to firm goals. We can't put the global future of our children at risk because of the narrow-mindedness of individual negotiating partners."

What other issues? What could they realistically do?

On the issue of carbon markets, I have wondered if only countries who are part of carbon markets can trade with each other, or at least other countries would be subject to a levy on all traded goods. Don't think this is what the Germans have in mind though...

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Are we completely buggered, then?
The US rejects all G8 proposals on Climate Change

Did you expect anything different? This is the government that's effectively blocking California's new vehicle standards, driving Arnie and the Governor of Connecticut to write in the Washington Post:

quote:

It borders on malfeasance for [the federal government] to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare. [...] that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable.

It's high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way.

The only real question is what will the next administration do.

quote:
On the issue of carbon markets, I have wondered if only countries who are part of carbon markets can trade with each other, or at least other countries would be subject to a levy on all traded goods. Don't think this is what the Germans have in mind though...

Yes, I've wondered that too. It seems the best way to stay competitive with countries that aren't tackling emissions, as well as putting political pressure on them. But I bet it'd be hellishly hard to do in the current political climate - lots of free-trade agreements to leave, as well as the possibility of a trade war.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
How has the development of technology influenced the recording of temperature rises?

In most instances, very little. Remember, when you're talking about "global mean temperatures" (or even mean temperatures for a fairly localised area such as "south east England") you're talking about a mean of a wide range of actual temperatures (irrespective of how well they're measured). Technology has improved the precision of individual measurements, but most importantly increased the frequency and geographical distribution of measurements. This has been an enormous benefit to weather forecasting, but except where there are now measurements being taken that formerly were absent from the data (and, that's mostly the oceans where before weather buoys you had to rely on measurements made on passing ships) very little impact on climate science. For weather forecasting, being able to know how the temperature at a given location is varying in realtime to within 0.1°C precisions is useful, for climate studies where you're interested in the mean temperature over an extended area and time period that's just way more data than you need.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Ofcom Complaint

I received this today from Ofcom:

quote:
Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about this programme. We have received a considerable number of complaints raising similar issues to those addressed by you. We have also had notice of a substantial complaint about the programme from a group of scientists. We have been told not to expect this complaint in full before the end of June.

I am writing to let you know that, as the issues to be considered by Ofcom under its Broadcasting Code by this later complaint are likely to be similar to those you have already raised, we have decided - in order to avoid any duplication in our work - to consider all complaints about this programme only once this later complaint has been lodged.

This will clearly lead to some delay in our final response to you and I thought it would be helpful if I could make you aware of this at this stage. I will be in touch with you further when we have completed any investigations into the programme which we may find necessary to carry out.

So there we go, and I am intrigued. A vast collection of eminent scientists (including John Houghton) has already written to Ofcom (and have published their submission here). I wonder if this new submission to Ofcom is more detail from this group, or another group? Anyone know?

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

A few days ago Mudfrog asked

quote:
And why is .7 degree rise over 100 years such a catastrophe?

and I don't think anyone has answered directly yet, but it's a good question.

I think the answer is that a .7 degree rise over 100 years is not a catastrophe in itself. If the temperature stabilised now, there would be only minor problems which would be relatively easily dealt with. Problems which have occured which are probably attributable to climate change (bear in mind you can't categorically say that some specific event was a direct consequence, as it is more a statistical increase than new categories of events happening)include heatwaves in Europe (15,000 extra deaths in France last year wasn't it?), worse droughts in Africa, more hurricanes.

The problem is that if we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the temperature gets higher and the problems get proportionately worse. By projecting the anticipated temperature rise for different scenarios (e.g. current levels of emissions; continued increases in emissions; different levels of reductions in emissions) the impacts of each are estimated.

Basically, under any scenario approximating to business as usual the consequences are pretty disastrous; hence the need to cut emissions in the very near future, to minimise the temperature rise and hence reduce the bad effects.

Jonah

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

This is an alternative take on all this.

quote:
(NASA) Administrator Griffin elaborates on his position on global warming by saying "I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Conversely, those who advocate doing little or nothing to mitigate the effects we're having on our climate are effectively saying that a warmer climate's better for humanity (or, at least the same quality). Isn't that also a rather arrogant position for people to take?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

Alan - thanks for the explanation. Would the availability of more accurate data relating to mean temps of the oceans influence the recording of global climate change to any significant degree? Over the longer term, I mean.

206 - interesting perspective, though it's a shame the link didn't elaborate more on Griffin's comments. I do think he has a point, though I'm not sure it's necessarily arrogance that is at the root of any assumption that today's climate is the best for human beings (in some areas of the world, of course, it isn't: the Sahara maybe or the Arctic). It's hard to know how well we would survive under different climatic conditions and perhaps this fear of the unknown is what motivates many into a need to 'do something' about climate change?

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Alan - thanks for the explanation. Would the availability of more accurate data relating to mean temps of the oceans influence the recording of global climate change to any significant degree? Over the longer term, I mean.

Ooh, measurement and instrumentation! Keep in mind that accuracy and precision are actually two different things. As Alan said, we now have access to more data from more precise instruments. If the measurements are reasonably precise, the average of those measurements won't change significantly whether you take 10 measurements or 10,000. Whether or not the data is accurate is a separate issue, and that's established by calibrating the instrument. A quick and dirty way to do that is to measure the temperature of something that is known to be a particular temperature e.g. ice water (0C) or boiling water (100C). These particular reference points have been used by scientists for more than 200 years. OliviaG

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Where the precision and number of measurements really pays off is inputs to models - whether that be for weather forecasting or climatology. The non-linear nature of weather and climate makes such models very sensitive to initial conditions. Improve those input data and you should get better constrained outputs - though ultimately you still can't account for that darned butterfly except by running the models repeatedly with slightly different input data and look at the spread of outcomes.

[ETA my main point, I should be going to bed I think, better data means that you can run more sophisticated models and get to reasonable outcomes with less runs because you've got better constraints on the inputs]

[ 31. May 2007, 21:47: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
206 - interesting perspective, though it's a shame the link didn't elaborate more on Griffin's comments. I do think he has a point, though I'm not sure it's necessarily arrogance that is at the root of any assumption that today's climate is the best for human beings (in some areas of the world, of course, it isn't: the Sahara maybe or the Arctic). It's hard to know how well we would survive under different climatic conditions and perhaps this fear of the unknown is what motivates many into a need to 'do something' about climate change?

It's not fear of the unknown that drives my concern so much as fear (or alarm) at the projected results from the world's scientists. The figure of a total rise of a 2 degrees rise seems to have been settled on in order to stay within what is manageable (but still very serious). Above that, and there is a very serious risk of the runaway effect. So not so much "unknown" as "predicted" from my perspective.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

Following on from Noiseboy above, a headline in today's Guardian: Bush kills off hopes for G8 climate change plan

quote:
Bush kills off hopes for G8 climate plan US recognises global warming danger but wants to lead response outside UN

It would be nice to think that the US is actually taking a lead, but I remain cynical as it does seem very strange to start a process outside an existing one, and try to tackle a global problem without working with the global organisation already taking action (though I am not a fan of some of the proposals such as carbon permit trading as they seem to me to miss the point and be liable to misuse and corruption, at least the forum for negotiation and discussion is there).

It rather puts paid to the theory that all the governments, including the US, are in cahoots with the environmental lobby in order to provide tehm all with tax revenue and jobs.

Jonah

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not quite sure what the US administration is trying to do. The only thing I can think is that they want to be seen to be taking the lead - a US led "War on Climate Change" rather than a UN or G8 led initiative (which at the moment a G8 initiative could be seen as German led). I could understand a position where the US administration was saying "we don't believe it's as serious a problem and in need of the drastic action some propose, therefore we'll enter negotiations within existing frameworks to fight our case for less severe action" (though I'd probably disagree). But, why try and start a whole new initiative rather than work in the existing ones for a favourable outcome for the US - at the end of the day if they don't get what they want they can do what they did with Kyoto and simply not sign up (which would probably scupper the deal, but I don't see that they're going to get what they want if they chair the system either).

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

At a guess, I'd say that since Kyoto the scientific evidence for AGW has become even more overwhelming, and public opinion has shifted in favour of action. The US was going to be very isolated at the G8 conference, and backing out would have been much harder than it was at Kyoto. By creating an alternative forum they've delayed decisive action, and can count on China/India making negotiations trickier.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

Alan, my hunch is the same as yours. The current US administration clearly intensely dislikes the UN, and sees itself as the world's policeman.

From Bush's speil, it sounds like they don't want to do any of the things that the rest of the world thinks is necessary, instead saying the solution is technology. Whatever that means.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
From Bush's speil, it sounds like they don't want to do any of the things that the rest of the world thinks is necessary, instead saying the solution is technology. Whatever that means.

Here's my theory: the US recognizes the hypocrisy of the political posturing from nations who say they'll do what is 'necessary' but don't and feels a different approach may actually lead to 'practical measures'.

Because IMO very few nations who badmouth the US are practicing what they preach. Further, if the environmental situation is as bad as some allege ONLY measures which will harm economies are going to be effective and there aren't many, if any, national leaders willing to use the power of the state necessary to achieve those measures.

Therefore, the US attempting to rein in the rhetoric may well be the best hope the world has to actually accomplish something even marginally useful.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Because IMO very few nations who badmouth the US are practicing what they preach.

I fear you may be right (interesting commentary on this very subject today on the BBC website). However, I'm far from convinced that the US has the balls to address the shortcomings in other countries either. Ironically perhaps the greatest motivation might come from self-interest - the US is politically determined to reduce reliance on foreign oil, so may well drive through greener alternatives for that reason.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
However, I'm far from convinced that the US has the balls to address the shortcomings in other countries either. Ironically perhaps the greatest motivation might come from self-interest - the US is politically determined to reduce reliance on foreign oil, so may well drive through greener alternatives for that reason.

I'm not suggesting the US is hypocrisy free, by any stretch.

And unfortunately I think you are too optimistic about politics being an adequate motivator: IMO the US and the world will use primarily oil until it either becomes unavailable or something else becomes less expensive.

Posted by Noiseboy (# 11982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
And unfortunately I think you are too optimistic about politics being an adequate motivator: IMO the US and the world will use primarily oil until it either becomes unavailable or something else becomes less expensive.

Yes, indeed. And I think the the politics is driven by the thought that supply is (or will be) unreliable, and will potentially be very expensive too.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Here's my theory: the US recognizes the hypocrisy of the political posturing from nations who say they'll do what is 'necessary' but don't and feels a different approach may actually lead to 'practical measures'.

Because IMO very few nations who badmouth the US are practicing what they preach.

Which seems somewhat strange given that, with the exception of Canada, those nations that have ratified the Kyoto agreement have at least cut their carbon emissions. Even if many are struggling to actually cut them enough to meet the requirements of the Kyoto agreement. Now, one could indeed argue that only those few nations (such as the UK) who are going to reach their Kyoto commitments are practicing what they preach, but I'd extend that to say that those nations which are trying hard. People who are trying to do the right thing, even if they're failing, stand on higher moral ground than those who declare it too hard and don't even attempt it.

And, of course, it doesn't make it easier to try hard if someone else who's in a position to make some relatively easy, yet significant, steps refuses to do anything at all. The UK isn't going to be far off a 20% cut in carbon emissions relative to 1990 in a few years, most of the EU isn't that far behind in making slightly smaller cuts, and all without any significant economic impact. Why isn't it possible for the US to at least try and follow the European example? Even a stabilisation of US carbon emissions at current levels would show some acceptance of the need to do something, and would hardly break the stride of US economic growth.

quote:
Further, if the environmental situation is as bad as some allege ONLY measures which will harm economies are going to be effective and there aren't many, if any, national leaders willing to use the power of the state necessary to achieve those measures.

Well, there's some debate as to exactly how much needs doing. The best estimate for stabilising temperatures at 2°C above the historic mean by 2050 is a cut of carbon emissions to about 50% that of 1990, which is still a long way above carbon emission levels of the 1950s. If 20% cuts can be achieved without any significant economic harm to developed nations (and, the UK is close to that) then 50% shouldn't be too bad either. The UK, incidentally, already has a 60% reduction by 2050 commitment irrespective of any international agreements; if other developed nations took a similar stance it would allow developing nations a chance to increase their emissions slightly while meeting the overall 50%target, which seems only fair to me.

And, of course, the economic effects would be less severe if we all faced them together. It's much harder if other nations aren't playing the same game and so undercut everyone who's picking up the costs of reducing carbon emissions.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

OliviaG and Alan: thanks for the further explanations. I had to read both posts a couple of times - nothing new when I'm tackling the technical! - but I got there in the end.

On the point about America's announcement, I think this quote from the Gruniad link offers some insight into motivation:

quote:
However, he was critical of using emission caps or setting temperature control, the main instruments of Europe's approach, and repeated Washington's opposition to the European goal of limiting climate change to 2C. "We don't think that's a very practical approach," he said. "You can't manage the temperature."

The US culturally isn't keen on such things as caps generally, so far as I can remember from my time there. Such an approach, I would imagine, smacks of too much state (ie federal) control. Aside from any issues America has concerning reliance on external sources of fuel (and the UK potentially has a similar issue to consider viz gas supply from Russia) and assuming the administration are genuine, America appears to be choosing a route most appropriate to their own situation and approach to perceived problems. There does seem to be recognition that, along with China and India, they are the biggest producers of emissions so it does make sense to connect with others who share their position in the first instance rather than with those who do not. I find it perfectly understandable that America are opting to work out their own way of dealing with the issue. Asserting that the approach initiated by European nations is the only and/or best way forward is arrogance on the part of those nations.

[ 01. June 2007, 20:09: Message edited by: Littlelady ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The report I read in another newspaper this morning included one bit that seemed to be common sense to me. That is the US administration in making the announcement of this new initiative also called for a removal of tarrifs on low carbon technology. That would make it easier, and cheaper, for people to access such technology - though economically it would benefit the manufacturers, and the US administration is claiming a lead in such technology (though I'm not sure where; Europe is well ahead in renewable energy systems with the possible exception of concentrated solar power, where mirrors reflect sunlight into a tight focal point to heat water to drive turbines, which has been a feature of parts of the South Western US deserts for decades).

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
Well, there's some debate as to exactly how much needs doing.

Alan Cresswell: Master Of Understatement. [Big Grin]

And I agree the US could be doing a lot more but human nature comes into play: when someone tells you to do something they either can't or aren't willing to do (and there's at least some of that), it rankles.

Whatever. When they elect me Prez I'll immediately start building nuke plants all over creation and incessantly use the bully pulpit to STRONGLY encourage voluntary conservation. But given that part of my platform will be to assert our 'economy' is not the be all and end all of what our nation should be, don't hold your breath waiting for me to appoint you to a cabinet position...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206 on another thread:

quote:
Besides, at present, solar activity is reducing anyway through its own natural cycles (not that it's stopping the earth warming).
Alan,

If you don't mind I'd like to hear you unpack this a bit. I assume the sun's changing cycles causally affect the earth by either heating or cooling it?

If yes, is there a time lag? Any other thoughts on the topic appreciated.

Basically, the solar cycles affect the amount of energy incident on the Earth. There are two groups of cycles.

One is related to the orbit of the Earth - the Milankovich cycles - which operate on thousand year plus time scales with the Earth sometimes slightly further from the Sun (and hence getting less energy) sometimes slightly nearer. At present were near, and slightly past, the closest point of the major cycle which has been driving the sequence of glaciations and and inter-glacials over the last million years or so.

The other set of cycles relates to the activity of the Sun itself. There are sun-spot cycles, with maxima at about every 11 years) that result in changes in solar-flare rates and hard radiation, and slight changes in solar irradiance (the amount of energy reaching the Earth). Peaks of the solar cycle (the last was in about 2000) give an average of 1366.5 W/m², minima (where we are now) of 1365.5 W/m². That's a 0.07% difference. There are longer-term cycles in solar activity that are not clearly understood, though it does appear that we're in a slightly more active phase now than in the past. Though how that affects climate isn't clear - the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" coincided with both the "Oort Minimum" and "Medieval Maximum" periods of solar activity, although both those events appear to be higher solar activity than intervening periods. Longer term still, we've been experiencing a general decline in solar activity over the last 4000 years or so.

This Wikipedia page gives some nice pretty graphs of the various cycles.

The effect on the climate is to impact one side of the equation that determines the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The Earth's temperature is in equilibrium when the energy input from the Sun matches the energy output from the Earth, with the Earth radiating more energy when it's warmer. So, increase the solar energy input and you'll raise the equilibrium temperature; decrease the solar input and you'll decrease the equilibrium temperature - all else being equal*.

The Earth does, however, have a thermal lag. Oceans, land and air all hold onto heat and release (or absorb) it at different rates. Dry air responds quickly (as you'll know if you've ever been in a desert at night), moist air takes longer to respond. The solid land responds slowest of all (as you'll know if you've been down caverns which maintain practically constant temperature regardless of the temperature above ground).

* Of course, all things aren't equal because there are other factors, especially atmospheric chemistry, that are likely to change in response to changing solar irradiance.

[ 04. July 2007, 10:05: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

JonahMan wrote, "Cheap air travel like this is clearly unsustainable[]."

Now your starting to upset the apple cart. Technical and economic progress can largely be tied to increases in mobility, communications, and energy production. Before you start to limit these, you had better have a replacement for them.

No, forcing people wait in long socialist lines and take days to travel across a large country is not going to win friends.

Instead of trying to solve this problem by limiting people, why don't we try empowering them. Nuclear energy is roughly one million times as efficient as burning carbon.

Yet the same type of people who said "No Nukes" are the type saying "Global Warming". The U.S. largely abandoned nuclear power in the '70s on the fears of a few possible future deaths and small amounts of radiation.

Now, with thousands of dead people due to burning coal, they say that burning coal could kill us all. They have cried wolf once to often.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Noiseboy wrote "[M]aybe he is right, but the vast majority of scientists do not apparently think so."

It's been my experience that the universe doesn't care what the vast majority of scientists think.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Wikipedia wrote, "One of the main activities of the IPCC is to publish special reports on topics where it supports the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)[.]"

Please note: The IPCC operates to support a political policy that has already been made. Their research (review) and conclusions are not independent.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Alan Cresswell wrote,

quote:
"You really need to have a look at a bit of basic philosophy of science. Because you're statement there makes no sense at all. No theory is 'proved', much less 'becomes fact'. And, if a theory is contradicted it is, by definition, not a good theory. A good theory fits and explains known data, and makes testable predictions for new measurements."

There is no single "global warming theory". There is a compilation of models.

Suppose; before Columbus:

Scientist A claims the world is round.
Scientist B claims the world is flat.

Can we conclude that the world is pear shaped because it's the average of the two models?

We didn't have the "real" answer until we put satellites in orbit and found out... Oops this argument doesn't work so well does it. [Hot and Hormonal]

Yes the world is pear shaped.

p.s. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I just found this thread and am struggling to catch up.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Noiseboy wrote,

quote:
"Again, Myrrh has ignored the central and most crucial question of why we - the humble laypeople - should believe the analysis of someone who starting looking into this subject a week ago rather than the thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the science."

Show me these people who have "dedicated their lives". Did they take a vow of celibacy? University professors are (well) paid to present a certain world view.

The ones paid to dispute global warming do so, as do the ones paid to support it.

The people whose technical opinions I trust support both sides. I can see the press and the data being manipulated by both sides. My head is about to explode. [brick wall]

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Myrrh wrote, "[About IPCC studies] that is not objective science, but manipulative deceit."

Myrrh, I think your being unfair. The IPCC is clearly a political organization. It's review of literature was specified by UN law to only cover information in support of policy.

This is not deceit, just nativity on the part of those who believe it is unbiased.

Chris Landsea , having studied the data, came to another conclusion and could no longer tow the party line. That doesn't mean Chris is right or wrong; just that Chris is honest.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

1 in 5 people in the UK do NOT believe that man is responsible for global warming.

We are suspicious of the claims, cynical about the money spent to combat climate change and angry that OUR money will be taken and our salaries taxed higher for a cause we don't believe in.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

On the BBC news this evening a scientist was interviewed and he explained that following the discovery of evidence of some ancient forest on Greenland and by applying whatever it is scientists apply in these situations, the 'feeling' (his word) now among scientists (generally or within this study group, I am not sure) is that Greenland's ice is not as unstable as was apparently thought. It is now unlikely that Greenland's ice will melt as fast as originally predicted (he did not give an alternative timescale). It would appear that scientists are investigating other sites, for example the South Pole, to re-examine their stability as the conclusion is that if Greenland is not unstable then somewhere else should be.

Obviously, not being a scientist, I did not get to grips at all with the steps taken between discovering this ancient forest and the conclusion that Greenland's ice is not actually unstable when it previously was considered to be so. However, I was left with the thought that it is changes like this which leave me remaining skeptical. This may or may not be a small adjustment in the broader scheme of things but it is the principle behind it which stop me from simply accepting whatever science is saying at any given time. What else might scientists be wrong about?

I tried finding this item on the BBC's website but it doesn't feature as of this evening, at least not in a way that means I can find it!

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
JonahMan wrote, "Cheap air travel like this is clearly unsustainable[]."

Now your starting to upset the apple cart. Technical and economic progress can largely be tied to increases in mobility, communications, and energy production. Before you start to limit these, you had better have a replacement for them.

No, forcing people wait in long socialist lines and take days to travel across a large country is not going to win friends.

Hi DmplnJeff, and welcome to the never-ending climate change thread!

JonahMan's quote only mentioned air travel - not limiting communications or wanting people to wait in long socialist lines. Air traffic is a problem because of the rate at which it's growing, and because there aren't any realistic alternatives to fossil fuels.

However, this is very much the exception. In most other cases alternatives exist, and we could improve efficiency dramatically without excessive cost. In the UK, building insulation is probably the biggest and easiest target, but there's lots of others.

quote:

Instead of trying to solve this problem by limiting people, why don't we try empowering them. Nuclear energy is roughly one million times as efficient as burning carbon.

Yet the same type of people who said "No Nukes" are the type saying "Global Warming". The U.S. largely abandoned nuclear power in the '70s on the fears of a few possible future deaths and small amounts of radiation.

Now, with thousands of dead people due to burning coal, they say that burning coal could kill us all. They have cried wolf once to often.

From media coverage it's understandable why that view is so common - it's those damn hippy treehuggers, obviously.

The trouble is, it isn't really true. Most mainstream scientists are very concerned with CO2, and these aren't people generally given to panic. On this thread one of the people most passionate about global warming is Alan Cresswell, who can't really be described as "anti-nuke". (He's a nuclear physicist.)

I've been indifferent towards nuclear power most of my life...it seemed like the dangers of meltdown were exaggerated, even if long term waste disposal wasn't addressed well. But now it's clear these risks are vastly outweighed by the potential damage from climate change, and I'd love to see environmental organisations do a u-turn on the issue. James Lovelock is an example of a very prominent (and contraversial) environmentalist who advocates nuclear energy.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Hiro's Leap wrote, "[E]ven if long term waste disposal wasn't addressed well."

The problem may not have been addressed well politically, but technically it's solved. I know of at least two methods to get rid of waste "permanently".

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One is vitrification of waste and long term deep storage. What's the other?

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Alan Cresswell wrote, "One is vitrification of waste and long term deep storage. What's the other?"

That's both of them. I just have two methods of deep storage. One involves a really deep, expensive hole.

The other is to sink an old ship full of the (vitrified) stuff in a subduction zone, then bury it in concrete/mud.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Actually fast trains cost abotu the same as air travel and take up not much mroe than a tenth of the fuel. So no need for long queues.

The hassle is getting it together to build the tracks. Once there its cheaper.

(International trains currenlty more expensive to end user than planes in UL cos planes get more subsudies - the railways are supposed to pay back the cost of the infrastructure but the airlines do not pay for the airports nor the roads to them - also airlines don't pay tax on fuel, railway companies do)

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

In case peeps thought my last post was hogwash, the story has finally made it to the BBC website.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Thanks Littlelady, I hadn't responded before because there were too many ways your summary could be read. Mainly "Greenland's ice is not as unstable as was apparently thought" requires some understanding of how stable others thought the ice sheet is - which ranges from the IPCC (who base their sea-level rise estimates on an assumption of stable ice-sheets that melt slowly - for the simple reason that ice-sheet break up is a very complex process that they had insufficient data to conclude it was likely to happen) to some scientists claiming that the whole Greenland ice-sheet could break apart and melt in a matter of decades. If this research is correct then the IPCC position is bolstered and the worst-case scenarios regarding the future of the ice-sheets is less likely.

The bit in the article I didn't understand where the numbers came from was this statement.

quote:
Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.

I'd not seen any reference to the last interglacial being warmer than today, let alone by as much as 5°C. Though having just looked back at the IPCC report, it does seem there was a temperature peak in Antarctica near the start of the last interglacial warmer than today - though there are big questions about how an Antarctic record relates to the globe generally, that's one reason why they're drilling Greenland to see if the same pattern appears in the northern hemisphere. They should have temperature records for the core corresponding to the levels with the pollen and insects, though it's possible those samples are still being processed.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

This is telling:

"Research by Australian scientists has suggested that a 3C rise in global temperatures would be enough to trigger the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."

So, there needs to be a 3% rise BEFORE the melting is even triggered? Not before then?

Hmmm, seeing that the average temperature has risen by .74 degrees in 100 years, that statistic is slightly less alarmist than what my 12 year old said his geography teacher was spouting at school only last week, namely that in 2030 London will be under water!!

Did anyone hear Al Gore's evangelsitic rally speech last night! And I thought Benny Hinn, Reinhard Bonnke and Morris Cerullo had the market all sown up! Send your cheques to me, Al Gore, so that we can save the world before next Friday or we'll all BURN ON EARTH by the following Tuesday afternoon!

Talk about brainwashing millions of gullible people. It's the old adage that if you shout loud enough and say it often enough everyone will believe it.

I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.

[ 08. July 2007, 11:54: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is telling:

"Research by Australian scientists has suggested that a 3C rise in global temperatures would be enough to trigger the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."

So, there needs to be a 3% rise BEFORE the melting is even triggered? Not before then?

The article is discussing the break up (ie: very rapid melting) of the ice-sheet. At the moment, like all ice sheets, the surface melts slightly in the spring and summer as temperatures rise above freezing. And, in winter as temperatures fall again the ice reaccumulates as snow falls. As temperatures rise the period of time when melting occurs gets longer, and the time for snow to replace melted ice gets shorter. Meaning that the amount of ice slowly decreases, except that warmer seas produce more water vapour and hence more snow when it does actually snow resulting in a thickening of ice inland even though the edges (which are exposed to the warmer air from the sea) are melting. Which makes for a confusing picture, but at the moment it seems that the melt rate is marginally exceeding the build up rate (on average for all ice sheets - though some will be melting much faster and others building up). The warmer it gets the greater that differential will be.

But, there's a second mechanism that can affect ice-sheet melting other than the gradual melting of the surfaces when exposed to air above 0°C. That is ice sheets move. If they start to move faster two things will tend to happen. One is that the amount of ice in contact with the sea will increase, increasing melting rates at that interface. Second, faster moving bits of ice will tend to break away from slower moving bits creating more and larger crevasses, and hence more surface area in contact with the warmer air. Crevasses also provide a conduit for melt water to flow down, getting under the ice and accelerating the ice flow (it acts as a lubricant), and hence accelerating the fracturing process.

It's this second effect that's under discussion in the article Littlelady linked to. The research seems to be showing that for southern Greenland, the ice sheets seem to be stable and not prone to accelerated motion as their surfaces melt. Hence, for these ice sheets, we can expect that they'll remain stable and melt at a predictable rate for a while yet, the research suggesting an extra 3°C which at current rates of warming would be about 300 years (but as the evidence suggests that the rate of temperature increase is accelerating it'll be considerably less than that if we don't do something to reduce our input to that accelerating global warming).

Whether the findings hold true for other ice sheets remains to be seen. Probably it won't be true for many, we know some Antarctic ice-sheets are unstable because large chunks routinely break off, and have done so regularly for many decades when the temperature was lower.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.

Well, I'd be in that 56%. Though I'm convinced human activity is a large factor in global warming, I do think the apocalyptic greens are going to far with their dire warnings of the end of human civilisation.

But, I still believe that global warming is going to seriously affect the lives of billions of people, to their detriment. Most of whom will not be in any position to help themselves out of the problems climate change will throw at them. And, I also believe that changes in human behaviour (especially in the industrialised countries) can slow the rate of global warming allowing time for people to adapt, and maybe even stabilise the climate at a not-too unreasonable state. And, that many of the changes required are inexpensive and practical, and even those that cost a lot are going to be cheap compared with dealing with the effects of global warming.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Talk about brainwashing millions of gullible people. It's the old adage that if you shout loud enough and say it often enough everyone will believe it.

I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.

I do get frustrated by attitudes like this. The science is proven - increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more solar radiation, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and the main cause for the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels and removal of carbon sinks.

And yet, because we've had a crap summer and London hasn't disappeared underwater, it's all a big lie designed to part us from our hard-earned cash.

It's not all or nothing. It's a question of degrees (in some cases, literally). How much of a contribution are we making? What are the effects going to be? Are there natural cycles that will damp or accelerate or even negate the effects?

In the end, it's the excuse to do nothing, not to care about the Earth or our neighbour, not to let it bother us in any way that might cost us something.

Just because 56% of people don't understand something or hope it will go away will only make what they don't want to happen more likely. Sort of a reverse Pascal's wager.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
though there are big questions about how an Antarctic record relates to the globe generally, that's one reason why they're drilling Greenland to see if the same pattern appears in the northern hemisphere.

If I remember correctly from the interview, the scientist commented along the lines that now this new insight into the situation on Greenland has been obtained, similar specific research is going to be undertaken on ice sheets elsewhere around the globe to ascertain whether melting is happening faster in other areas. The impression I gained when listening to the interview (which I just happened upon) was that the conclusion drawn concerning the effects of warming on Greenland's ice sheet was almost incidental: the study appeared to be primarily concerned with something else. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick since I hadn't been watching from the outset of the interview, but that was certainly the impression I got. I don't think that would necessarily be a new phenomenon in science though would it? Looking for one thing but finding something else either instead of or during the process of conducting the original research?

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The science is proven

Which bit?

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I also believe that changes in human behaviour (especially in the industrialised countries) can slow the rate of global warming allowing time for people to adapt

I was having a chat with my parents (both retired) about green issues just last week and we got on to the kind of things that had changed in daily life between their youth and today. During the chat I realised that my parents' generation were, in some ways, greener than now. Ok, so industrialisation was pounding away at a major rate at that time, but in terms of ordinary family life they recycled and reused almost everything in some way or another.

Just take milk for example. We routinely go to the supermarket and buy plastic containers of milk which is transported from who knows where. In my parents' day, locally produced milk was driven by the slowest possible vehicle to their doorstep every morning, just enough for their needs, and it came in glass bottles which, apparently, were reused up to ten times (and today could be recycled). Why don't we go back to using glass bottles for milk? A small thing, but when I then went on to reflect just how many plastic bottles I use each week because I consider milk to be a necessary food (and can’t find anyone selling it in glass bottles), how much crap would not be either pumped into the atmosphere or buried in landfill (given that plastic recycling is not available in my area) if even just milk was packaged differently? I don't actually know the answer to that but if I multiply it by all the households in my town (pop 180,000) who routinely buy milk, surely that change alone could make a difference?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The science is proven
Which bit?

The bit you glossed.

quote:
increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more solar radiation, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and the main cause for the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels and removal of carbon sinks.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Talk about brainwashing millions of gullible people. It's the old adage that if you shout loud enough and say it often enough everyone will believe it.

I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.

Countless scientists have been studying this for decades. They have literally put in tens of thousands of man-years work into researching, debating, attending conferences, and general bickering. It's probably the most examined scientific question ever. And the result?

quote:
American Meteorological Society:
Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases [which will cause] significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.

quote:
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Académie des Sciences (France), Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Russian Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society of Canada, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Science Council of Japan, Academy of Science of South Africa, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico), Royal Society (UK):
The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day ... even [with urgent action] warming would be likely to have some severe impacts.

quote:
American Geophysical Union:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. ... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. ... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. [...These] constitute a real basis for concern."

quote:
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London:
Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. ... We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.

I could include similar quotes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Union of Concerned Scientists (representing its 200,000 members), the American Academy for Advancement of Sciences, National Research Council, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society...and so on. No major scientific body disputes that we are causing it, except (possibly) the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

These are bright people, and it's their job to study this stuff. Thousands of them. For years and years.

And yes, they MIGHT be wrong, as most would acknowledge. Climate is complicated. But you sound extremely confident that they're virtually all wrong and it's not a significant problem. Where do you get that certainty from? And if you're not 100% certain, then how sure are you? Personally, I don't think playing Russian roulette is bright, especially when the gun is pointed at our descendents and the vulnerable, and at least five out of six chambers are loaded.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Thanks for the Greenland link Littlelady - it was interesting stuff. I find the idea of drilling a 2km or 3km deep bore hole in the middle of somewhere as inhospitable as Greenland pretty impressive!

You're right about older generations being greener than us in lots of ways. It's a symptom of how cheap energy is nowadays - the real cost of things like car ownership and domestic heating has fallen markedly, so our expectations are much higher and we don't think twice about using them the whole time.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
The impression I gained when listening to the interview (which I just happened upon) was that the conclusion drawn concerning the effects of warming on Greenland's ice sheet was almost incidental: the study appeared to be primarily concerned with something else.

The primary study would almost certainly be paleoclimatic - studying air bubbles trapped in the ice allows one to determine the temperature when the ice was deposited via the ratios of abundances of different oxygen isotopes, along with other data such as CO2 concentrations. There are cores being drilled through practically every ice sheet on the planet to get such data, which is vital to better understanding the past climate - which in turn further constrains the models used to understand current climate forcing and predict future changes.

quote:
I don't think that would necessarily be a new phenomenon in science though would it? Looking for one thing but finding something else either instead of or during the process of conducting the original research?

No, it certainly wouldn't be unusual. It's safe to say that in many areas of science collecting data is a labourious and expensive process. That means that scientists are going to try and get whatever they can from the data they collect. As an example, I recently developed a new visualisation technique for the sort of data I collect, and have gone through old data to try it out and get some examples for a paper I'm putting together. The data wasn't collected for that, but using old data means I can do the work without applying for any additional funding in spare time - if I was to collect new data to demonstrate it I'd need to get someone to pay about £20k.

When collecting samples (eg: the ice cores) it's usual to collect, if possible, a far larger sample than is actually needed for the immediate project. It doesn't actually cost much more to do that, and then you've got spare material to repeat an analysis if something unexpected comes up, you have material for different labs to work on (ensuring any analytical problems at one lab don't ruin the data), and you have material to do additional work that wasn't conceived of when the sample was taken. The article implied that the last of these happened here - someone had a bright idea of seeing if pollen was trapped in the ice and what that would add to the understanding of the local environment when the ice was deposited. They convinced whoever had collected the core to let them have some of it for a study of the potential of such analysis, which they then did "on the cheap" (ie: without going to the expense of drilling a core for that purpose) without jeapordising the primary research the core was collected for. Having proved they can do it, they're presumably now seeking funds to continue the work on other cores collected elsewhere.

quote:
I was having a chat with my parents (both retired) about green issues just last week and we got on to the kind of things that had changed in daily life between their youth and today. During the chat I realised that my parents' generation were, in some ways, greener than now.

There was an article in the paper a few weeks ago about reducing waste. It was written primarily about the loss of weekly rubbish collection, and how to make a bin last two weeks, rather than specifically about climate change and reducing carbon footprints but it would apply to that. They had a little box of "top tips", included in that were to get hold of house-keeping books from the 1940s when rationing was still inforce, or even produced as recently as the 1970s, because they were stuffed full of ways to make the most of limited resources.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

I'm still undecided on human global warming, but I do know this:

Burning fossil fuels is insane. From an engineering point of view, the things we can make from fossil fuels are far more valuable than the energy.

Nuclear energy is (physically, not politically) much cheaper and more abundant.

I support a steadily increasing tax structure on burning hydrocarbons, along with the massive development of nuclear power.

This will give free markets both the time and incentive to change.

An exception might be made for necessary air travel where fast, cheap alternatives are impossible.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I'm still undecided on human global warming

That's quite understandable, especially considering all the conflicting media coverage we're bombarded with.

I can't follow detailed climate debates...it gets horribly technical very quickly. For me, the key point is that the thousands of people who have studied this are decided. They might be wrong, but at the present time they're the best source of information we've got. And once you admit that there's at least a reasonable chance they're right, not acting is criminally irresponsible. Drunk driving at 100mph is a bad idea even if by luck you don't kill anyone.

If we ignore the scientists' advice, and they're right, the future will be irrevocably different. People will look back at our generation in disbelief and disgust. (Strong words, I know.)

quote:

I support a steadily increasing tax structure on burning hydrocarbons, along with the massive development of nuclear power.

This will give free markets both the time and incentive to change.

An exception might be made for necessary air travel where fast, cheap alternatives are impossible.

All excellent ideas, although I'd probably prefer carbon cap-and-trade. If we went for taxes, we should gradually reduce income tax as carbon taxes were phased in. "Tax pollution, not work."

Carbon taxes/carbon caps are the free market solution, rather than tinkering around with endless individual subsidies and regulations. George Monbiot commented that regulation ultimately leads to the absurd idea of inspectors creeping around houses at night to make sure all the lights are turned off and rechargers unplugged.

That said, there's still a place for legislation to tackle the big areas - e.g. building heating and transport. But for the fiddly stuff, let carbon taxes/caps sort it out.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

Alan,

Here's Al Gore's latest

quote:
The seven-point pledge announced by Al Gore to rally support against global warming:

I pledge

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become ''carbon neutral'';

3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the C02;

4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crises and building a sustainable, just and prosperous world for the 21st century.

It makes me curious again: have scientists been able to determine precisely how much human activity is contributing to climate change?

And IYO is Al fairly representing the science?

(BTW - thanks for your response to my solar cycles question.)

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Hiro's leap wrote, "All excellent ideas, although I'd probably prefer carbon cap-and-trade. If we went for taxes, we should gradually reduce income tax as carbon taxes were phased in. 'Tax pollution, not work.'"

I'm sorry, I meant a punitive tax. The idea was to eliminate wasting a valuable resource, not to make money. Ideally, few would pay the tax, so it wouldn't generate much income.

Encouraging nuclear energy is even more important than the tax. Raising taxes without providing an alternative would be suicidal. (I could posit a scenario where the human race could die out from this.)

Alternative energy sources will not get the job done. The only reason they exist is subsidies. If they really worked, everyone with a backyard would be using them.

With nuclear power, the U.S. military industrial complex, using the threat of nuclear weapons, is limiting development of the resource. Many countries have tried and are trying to develop nuclear power. They are blocked by the nuclear "haves".

Oh, and caps are just taxes with cheating and corruption added in. If they worked honestly, the fuel would be sold with the tradable part attached as an added tax. But with a little bookkeeping magic...

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

[Snipped the seven-point pledge announced by Al Gore to rally support against global warming.]
It makes me curious again: have scientists been able to determine precisely how much human activity is contributing to climate change?

And IYO is Al fairly representing the science?

I know this was addressed to Alan, but until he turns up...

Are you asking whether or not Al Gore is right in saying AGW is largely man-made, or asking if his seven point plan is going to be any use at addressing climate change?

For the first point, the science is fairly clear and aside from a few minor quibbles Al Gore represents it well. Global warming so far has been due to a combination of natural causes - including fluctuating solar activity - and man-made CO2 emissions. The natural effects can be used to model temperature well until 1970-ish but they can't explain rapid late 20th century warming adequately.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time (decades) compared to most other gases and particulates, and so the level keeps rising. (There's no real doubt that CO2 levels are rising, and that this increase is down to human emissions.) This means that as the 21st century continues, the man-made part of the warming will overwhelm the natural variations. Again, there's no question about this - the disagreement is how rapidly it'll happen, and what the effects will be.

The Rough Guide to Climate Change provides a non-partisan and balanced overview of the scientific consensus, and it reached the final six shortlist for the Royal Society's 2007 best science book. It's well worth reading.

As to Gore's seven points, I agree with them all, except:

Carbon offsetting is a bit of a con.
Planting trees at an individual level won't do much.
Carbon capture is a long way off, with very uncertain long-term effects.
We're going to need nuclear power until renewables can fully replace carbon.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
Hiro's leap wrote, "All excellent ideas, although I'd probably prefer carbon cap-and-trade. If we went for taxes, we should gradually reduce income tax as carbon taxes were phased in. 'Tax pollution, not work.'"

I'm sorry, I meant a punitive tax. The idea was to eliminate wasting a valuable resource, not to make money. Ideally, few would pay the tax, so it wouldn't generate much income.

A carbon tax would need to be quite high to alter behaviour, and people will quite naturally resent this. To make it clear that the scheme isn't just another "stealth tax", any revenue can be passed directly back as a reduction in income tax. (Particularly to lower and mid-income families, who spend a greater proportion of their money on energy.)

The idea is to keep the overall tax burden the same, but reward carbon saving behaviour from individuals and companies.

quote:

Encouraging nuclear energy is even more important than the tax. [...]
Alternative energy sources will not get the job done. The only reason they exist is subsidies. If they really worked, everyone with a backyard would be using them.

Alternative energy can fill part of the gap, and aren't THAT expensive. Solar PV technology is expensive, but the cost steadily falling. Wave/wind/tidal power is cheaper, although they suffer from high capital costs (especially tidal).

The oil and gas industries have some huge subsidies, including hidden ones...how much is spent on the military to keep pipelines secure?

quote:

Oh, and caps are just taxes with cheating and corruption added in. If they worked honestly, the fuel would be sold with the tradable part attached as an added tax. But with a little bookkeeping magic... [/QB]

Not sure what you mean by the last part? Caps have the big advantage in that the emissions are...well...capped. It's vague as to exactly how much tax you'd need to levy to reduce fossil fuel use by the required amount, but a cap is much clearer. Then people can bid for the rights, and the price will find its own level. Corruption etc depends on the system that is introduced, which is admittedly tricky.

[ 09. July 2007, 20:11: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
Are you asking whether or not Al Gore is right in saying AGW is largely man-made, or asking if his seven point plan is going to be any use at addressing climate change?

I want someone to say exactly (or as close as you can get given our current knowledge) how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural or cyclical because the second question hinges on the first.

Is 'largely' the answer? Does the science 'prove' it?

And nothing personal but IME Alan is about as even-handed as anyone I've read on the topic: he doesn't have any vested interest other than honesty and a scientist's predilection for sticking to what's demonstrated.

tyop

[ 09. July 2007, 20:12: Message edited by: 206 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
And IYO is Al fairly representing the science?

The science only really comes into the first pledge. The Working Group III report from the IPCC covered "Mitigation of Climate Change". That report has a set of targets politicians may wish to aim for (remember, the role of the IPCC is to provide policy makers with the information such as "if we do this, this is likely to happen" or "what will we need to do to get that to happen?" rather than tell policy makers what to do) and what emissions targets will be needed. To reach an equilibrium mean global temperature less than 3°C warmer than 2000 CO2(equivalent) emissions would need to be cut by 50% or more by 2050. A 3°C rise in temperature would still impact many people considerably, but is still less than most predictions of catastrophe.

So, the pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 50% this generation is in line with the IPCC assessment of what's needed to avoid >3°C temperature rises. And, it's only reasonable that the historic big polluters take a lead in that, so the 90% for the developed countries is OK by me too.

The other points are really expansions on the first. The commitment is to cut CO2, these are specifics towards that goal. On those I'd agree with Hiro's Leap that carbon offsetting is a bit of a con (as I've said before) - but if all steps are taken to reduce CO2 emissions then over-offsetting (ie: buy more offsetting than the supposed actaul offset, because most offsetting won't offset as much as forecast) the rest seems fine, afterall many steps won't be practical all at once and while you're cutting back offsetting is an approach to do some good.

Trees are good, renewables are good, carbon capture is in its infancy and isn't proven to work (or, not proven to work as well as it's sometimes claimed) and carbon storage may just be leaving a legacy for our children as it starts to leak back to the atmosphere, and supporting green and ethical businesses adds consumer power and market forces to the fight. I'd definitely want more nuclear rather than "clean coal", and a radical rethink about transport - there's no way we can do 90% cuts with our current transport models, even with increased efficiency; there's simply too many private cars and too many airline flights.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:

quote:
Are you asking whether or not Al Gore is right in saying AGW is largely man-made, or asking if his seven point plan is going to be any use at addressing climate change?
I want someone to say exactly (or as close as you can get given our current knowledge) how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural or cyclical because the second question hinges on the first.

Is 'largely' the answer? Does the science 'prove' it?

Somewhere I've seen plots of model results for the last couple of centuries compared to measurements, which match almost perfectly until 50 years ago without any anthropogenic input, but significantly underestimate the temperature rises of the last 50 years. These have already been mentioned, but I can't find the plots.

So, I'm going to estimate. If you look at the figure on the top of page 253 of the IPCC WGI report there's a plot of historical temperature records. If my memory of the data I can't find is correct, and temperature rises until about 50 years ago can be modelled without anthropogenic input, then the 150 year average temperature increase of 0.045±0.012°C per decade would be close to the natural contribution. With recent temperature rises at 0.177±0.052°C per decade, that gives an anthropogenic input of 0.132±0.053°C per decade - approximately three times the natural contribution. Or, put another way, with natural processes alone current mean global temperatures would be 14.2°C rather than the 14.6°C they are.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Hi 206,

There's almost 100% agreement amongst scientists that:
(a) The earth is warming.
(b) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
(c) This CO2 increase is mostly due to human industry (fossil fuels plus de-deforestation).
(d) Without major changes CO2 levels will continue to rise, as will temperatures, until CO2 dominates any natural variations.

Where there ISN'T such strong agreement is:
(e) What is a 'safe' level of CO2?
(f) How rapid will the warming be? (The IPCC reports probably play it safe...they explicitly exclude positive feedbacks when the science is too uncertain.)

And expanding on Alan's point about 90% carbon reduction...

This figure represents a "contract and convergence" approach. The idea is that everyone on the planet has fundamentally the same right to emit carbon, and so the developed nations will need to cut back much more to reach the global target of 50% reduction.

This isn't a scientific question, it's about value judgements: if we do decide carbon must be limited, what's a fair way to do so? What is politically feasible?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Somewhere I've seen plots of model results for the last couple of centuries compared to measurements, which match almost perfectly until 50 years ago without any anthropogenic input, but significantly underestimate the temperature rises of the last 50 years. These have already been mentioned, but I can't find the plots.

Is this the page?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Somewhere I've seen plots of model results for the last couple of centuries compared to measurements, which match almost perfectly until 50 years ago without any anthropogenic input, but significantly underestimate the temperature rises of the last 50 years. These have already been mentioned, but I can't find the plots.
Is this the page?

It shows what I was saying. Though the what I've seen recently was a set of plots for each continent plus the oceans, rather than global mean, shown on a map of the earth. But, that was at a seminar rather than online, so it may not even be online (though it was a cool graphic). ... aha, found it. It was at the SAGES launch, in the "Centre for Earth System Dynamics" presentation (there's a Powerpoint file from the link at the bottom of the page).

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Alan -
Are you referring to figure SPM.4 on page 11 in this IPCC summary for policymakers ? (I don't have PowerPoint on this machine.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yep, that's the one. Why couldn't I find that in the full report? I think I'll put it down to not enough time to look last night ...

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

That is a cool graphic.

It's interesting that it shows the post-WWII drop in temperature as being most dramatic in the USA and Europe...i.e. the most industrialised areas. Does that support the idea that the temperature fall was due to pollution causing a global dimming effect?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

This worries me:

here

and

here

Is this the real motive behind Al Gore's Messianic and Apocalyptic diatribes?

[ 10. July 2007, 18:29: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

[Killing me]

Ah, now I see it: environmentalism is how the pagans will destroy Christinity. I'll get the tin foil. OliviaG.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
This isn't a scientific question, it's about value judgements: if we do decide carbon must be limited, what's a fair way to do so? What is politically feasible?

I hear you. If I followed Alan's estimate and it's accurate we're responsible for roughly 3/4 of global warming.

It remains my concern that industrialized nations aren't going to adequately reduce emissions until they're forced to either by running out of oil or something approaching police states. Gore's 90% is IMO wildly optimistic.

It's going to be very interesting to see how all this ends up in a few decades.

[Mudfrog - do you just enjoy painting a target on your forehead?]

[ 10. July 2007, 18:57: Message edited by: 206 ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
You're right about older generations being greener than us in lots of ways. It's a symptom of how cheap energy is nowadays - the real cost of things like car ownership and domestic heating has fallen markedly, so our expectations are much higher and we don't think twice about using them the whole time.

I think the introduction of plastics has also played a major part. Plastic has been so abundant, its use so pervasive and its waste so unrecyclable that a kind of throw-away culture has evolved which causes problems at many levels.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There was an article in the paper a few weeks ago about reducing waste. It was written primarily about the loss of weekly rubbish collection, and how to make a bin last two weeks, rather than specifically about climate change and reducing carbon footprints but it would apply to that. They had a little box of "top tips", included in that were to get hold of house-keeping books from the 1940s when rationing was still inforce, or even produced as recently as the 1970s, because they were stuffed full of ways to make the most of limited resources.

I think this is sad, in a 'look what it's come to' kind of way. But on the other hand I think the only way forward it to go backwards in some respects. I'm not sure fortnightly rubbish collections is the answer though. I certainly hope they aren't introduced where I live. I can imagine what will happen if they are: rubbish dumped on the pavements, possibly set alight, and people stealing wheelie bins so as to have two for themselves.

I still can't do all this with climate change in mind as I'm still not convinced of the degree of influence we have on the climate directly, but I've been raised recycling/reusing where possible and making savings on energy use, and I can do more of that if I just consider the environment generally, as I always have done, as that approach offers a tangible goal rather than effecting change at a climate level, which is way too abstract and 'out there' for me (whatever the science may or may not say!).

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

paganism and ecology.

Not true?
Refute it then.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One word. Stewardship.

"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it an take care of it." All very pagan [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
paganism and ecology.

Not true?
Refute it then.

Even if we assume that Al Gore is a pagan ecologist, it doesn't make the science wrong.

Unfortunately, I've encountered Mudfrog's attitude before. Creation is a dirty word, and those who try to care for it are heathens and heretics. Someone I know argues that recycling and saving energy is pointless because he knows Jesus is coming soon - even to the point that he considers the time it takes to sort the paper from the tins wasted evangelism time.

Part of me wants to reason with him, but another part wants to beat him with the clue stick.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Presumably he lives as though there is almost no future left for us on Earth then.

Has he given up work so he can evangelise for his (and our) final few days. No point in starting to read a book as he'll never get to the end. Why take the time to look after his house, car, his body?

And I assume no savings, no pension, no insurance, no subscriptions to anything, no memberships. Why bother when it all ends so soon? Does he bother shaving, cleaning his teeth and having a shower?

Surely we have to assume there's some future or everything would be pointless and society would collapse.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
It remains my concern that industrialized nations aren't going to adequately reduce emissions until they're forced to either by running out of oil or something approaching police states. Gore's 90% is IMO wildly optimistic.

I think 90% is a good target, but it does assume everyone on the planet ends up with the same carbon allowance. Fair, but as you say, unlikely. Allowing rich countries to buy some carbon from poorer countries is one alternative that might be more acceptable. Some people think that's a cop-out, but as far as I can see...

It'd avoid massive immediate infrastructure changes in industrial countries, while still providing a disincentive to use fossil fuels.
There'd be a major flow of money into the Third World (some of which could be earmarked for renewable power projects or adaptation to climate problems).
Overall CO2 emissions would still be limited.

Allowances could be based on a county's population at a certain date - say 2008. That way there's an incentive for countries to try and limit population growth...otherwise it'll reduce their allowance per capita.

quote:

It's going to be very interesting to see how all this ends up in a few decades.

In the sense of "May you live in interesting times"? But yes, it's grimly fascinating what'll happen.

The situation reminds me of Pharaoh's dreams about the seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. Right now, we're living in a time of unparalleled wealth and resources: it'd be a big project to switch to renewables/nuclear and efficient design, but it's very feasible. The longer we wait the harder that'll become. And within a few decades (at most) the traditional oil will start to run out, which is going to complicate things.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Has he given up work so he can evangelise for his (and our) final few days. No point in starting to read a book as he'll never get to the end. Why take the time to look after his house, car, his body?

And I assume no savings, no pension, no insurance, no subscriptions to anything, no memberships. Why bother when it all ends so soon? Does he bother shaving, cleaning his teeth and having a shower?

As far as I can tell, no.

It's the environmental issues that he sees no reason to attend to - either he genuinely believes he's living in the End Times and environmentalism is all a pagan plot (pace Mudfrog), or he's dressing up his can't-be-bothered attitude in a theology shirt.

The second choice here is actually preferable. Which is scary.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Doc Tor, tell your acquaitance to read Revelation 11:18 . Jesus is coming back, and he's going to destroy those who destroyed the earth.

I too have dealt with this attitude among evangelical Christians and find it frankly scary and disturbing. The above verse is useful as it puts the matter into terms they can relate well to.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

'No Sun link' to climate change

quote:
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Presumably he lives as though there is almost no future left for us on Earth then.

Has he given up work so he can evangelise for his (and our) final few days. No point in starting to read a book as he'll never get to the end. Why take the time to look after his house, car, his body?

And I assume no savings, no pension, no insurance, no subscriptions to anything, no memberships. Why bother when it all ends so soon? Does he bother shaving, cleaning his teeth and having a shower?

Surely we have to assume there's some future or everything would be pointless and society would collapse.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

This is what should have appeared under the above quote:

Very funny. I actually recycle, have those new lightbulb thingies and believe that as far as caring for the environment there i nothing wrong with green concerns whatever. What I worry about is the 'meltdown' scenario of so-called man-made climate change and the rush to believe the almost spiritual doctrine of caring for mother earth - and if you don't do it in the zealous way Al Gore (hypocrite) tells you, then you are akin to a holocaust denier.

So, don't worry - ecology is fine - plant trees, recycle, reduce fishing, be good stewards etc, etc, all that stuff, but don't tell me that if I don't do it enough it's my fault if all the ice melts and floods Nepal. I do not believe the doomsday scenario nor do I believe that we are responsible for its causes - certainly not the Church!!

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is what should have appeared under the above quote:

Very funny. I actually recycle, have those new lightbulb thingies and believe that as far as caring for the environment there i nothing wrong with green concerns whatever. What I worry about is the 'meltdown' scenario of so-called man-made climate change and the rush to believe the almost spiritual doctrine of caring for mother earth - and if you don't do it in the zealous way Al Gore (hypocrite) tells you, then you are akin to a holocaust denier.

So, don't worry - ecology is fine - plant trees, recycle, reduce fishing, be good stewards etc, etc, all that stuff, but don't tell me that if I don't do it enough it's my fault if all the ice melts and floods Nepal. I do not believe the doomsday scenario nor do I believe that we are responsible for its causes - certainly not the Church!!

I note you're happy to accuse another Christian of hypocrisy. Now there's a sense in which all of us are guilty of that, but I rather think you had something more specific in mind.

That's appropriate behaviour (yours I mean) for a Christian pastor just how?

John

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The amount of energy he uses (from 'green' sources or not) and the fact that he encouraged that ridiculous set of concerts last week with rock stars all jetting around the world and 'raising the temperature by 2 degrees' in the process with all the damage they did to the atmoshere in their jets. Oh, and Al Gore uses one too.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog, presumably to explain why he considers Al Gore to be a hypocrite:
The amount of energy he uses (from 'green' sources or not)

Yes, his home is a large user of electricity. But, the other side of the coin is that it's also his (and his wifes) place of business and because of his position as a former US VP he also needs to employ some security measures. So, you can't really compare his 'domestic' energy use with a regular house (even in the US, let alone elsewhere in the world). If you compare his energy use with that of a small business, including the domestic use at the business owners home and travel, then it's a much better comparison. And, all that electricity Gore uses at home comes from low-carbon sources (he buys from green energy suppliers, and is installing renewable power at his home). He does carbon offset, and although I think that carbon offsetting is a bit of a con he's at least consistent in advocating that approach to becoming greener.

quote:
and the fact that he encouraged that ridiculous set of concerts last week with rock stars all jetting around the world

As I understand it, not having seen the concert, most of the performers were already near the venues they performed at - either because they live near them, or were on tour in that part of the world. So, no 'rock stars jetting around the world' to perform - unlike the stunt at the first Live Aid with stars performing in one venue then hopping on Concorde to perform at another one.The venues also installed renewable generating capacity, and carbon-offset the deficit - again, although I personally consider offsetting a con it's consistent with the message Gore preaches.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
paganism and ecology.

Not true?
Refute it then.

You haven't presented anything capable of being rigorously refuted.

Besides which, there's no Law which says pagans can't have good ideas.

T.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unlike the stunt at the first Live Aid with stars performing in one venue then hopping on Concorde to perform at another one.

So are you criticising an amazing, historic event which actually raised money to meet actual and real needs in the developing world just because everyone involved didn't think about something no-one was actually thinking about at the time?

[Disappointed]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unlike the stunt at the first Live Aid with stars performing in one venue then hopping on Concorde to perform at another one.
So are you criticising an amazing, historic event which actually raised money to meet actual and real needs in the developing world just because everyone involved didn't think about something no-one was actually thinking about at the time?

No, I'm comparing a concert to raise awareness and funds for one cause (famine in Africa) with the recent one. What was appropriate for one event would have been inappropriate for the other. For Live Aid it was a cool stunt. It demonstrated very clearly how small the world actually is, and that just because someone's in Africa that doesn't make them distant and their needs none of our concern.

My point was simply that for the Live Earth concerts it didn't happen, so one can't criticise them because of "rock stars jetting off all over the world".

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I actually recycle, have those new lightbulb thingies and believe that as far as caring for the environment there i nothing wrong with green concerns whatever. What I worry about is the 'meltdown' scenario of so-called man-made climate change and the rush to believe the almost spiritual doctrine of caring for mother earth - and if you don't do it in the zealous way Al Gore (hypocrite) tells you, then you are akin to a holocaust denier.

So, don't worry - ecology is fine - plant trees, recycle, reduce fishing, be good stewards etc, etc, all that stuff, but don't tell me that if I don't do it enough it's my fault if all the ice melts and floods Nepal. I do not believe the doomsday scenario nor do I believe that we are responsible for its causes - certainly not the Church!!

Hi Mudfrog,

I suspect most people in the UK feel similarly...a general desire to 'care for the environment', combined with annoyance at being lectured at by (perceived) hypocrites. There's also a good dose of cynicism at media and government spin, and genuine uncertainty about who to trust in a world of information overload.

All of that is perfectly understandable. However, I'd still be interested to hear your response to my comments on the previous page:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Countless scientists have been studying this for decades. They have literally put in tens of thousands of man-years work into researching, debating, attending conferences, and general bickering. It's probably the most examined scientific question ever.

[snip very worried quotes from:
American Meteorological Society
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil)
Académie des Sciences (France)
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Russian Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Royal Society of Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Science Council of Japan
Academy of Science of South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Royal Society (UK)
American Geophysical Union
Stratigraphy Commission (Geological Society of London)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Union of Concerned Scientists
The American Academy for Advancement of Sciences
National Research Council
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society]
These are bright people, and it's their job to study this stuff. Thousands of them. For years and years.

And yes, they MIGHT be wrong, as most would acknowledge. Climate is complicated. But you sound extremely confident that they're virtually all wrong and it's not a significant problem. Where do you get that certainty from? And if you're not 100% certain, then how sure are you?

Doesn't the fact that virtually every relevant scientific body disagrees with you make you pause?

And while we can't know exactly what the effects of global warming will be, the best estimates range from "very serious for some parts of the world, but OK for the rich countries" to "utterly disasterous for everyone".

If there's even a reasonable chance that the scientists are right, aren't the human implications compelling? The Salvation Army seems like an organisation with a strong social conscience - wouldn't it be better for you as one of their representatives to take a lead in these issues? Or at least to look carefully into it to see why the people with knowledge of the field are so concerned.

If you ever do decide to do so, I'm sure Alan or another shipmate you trust could give you a few starting points. As a newcomer my opinions don't carry much weight, but I'd (again) suggest The Rough Guide to Climate Change. Since the UK Royal Society rated it so highly, it at least reflects the current science fairly well.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" is a saying that sometimes comes to mind on these boards. Usually just before people who do care about the facts throw up their hands in despair and give up the discussion.

John

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

You give a whole list of sources that will tell us that global warming is going to be a catastrophe, that it's all man-made and we've got to reverse it by stringent methods.
But what about this list:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Scientist, Russian Academy of Sciences
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, University of Pretoria
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics
Dr. August H. Auer, Former professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming
Dennis Avery, Environment economist, Center for Global Food Issues
Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

and Dr. Timothy Ball, Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor, University of Winnipeg
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Climatologist, Arizona State University
Dr. Jack Barrett, Chemist and Spectroscopist, Formerly with Imperial College London
Dr. David Bellamy, Honorary Professor for Adult and Continuation Education, Durham University
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, University of Hull
Dr. Simon Brassell, Geologist, University of Indiana
Dr. Reid Bryson, Meteorologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mr. Nigel Calder, Former Editor, The New Scientist Magazine
Dr. Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University
Dr. Ian Castles, Fellow, Australian National University
Dr. Petr Chylek, Physics and Atmospheric Science Adjunct Professor, Dalhousie University
Dr. Ian D. Clark, Earth Sciences Professor, University of Ottawa

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

and Dr. Paul Cooper, Professor Emeritus, Laurentian University
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant, Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor and Climate Scientist, The University of Auckland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, Official Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Physicist/Meteorologist, Formerly with Livermore National Laboratory
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, Professor of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Dr. Christopher Essex, Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario
Dr. Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Dr. Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Keith D. Hage, Meteorology Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta
Dr. Howard Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Douglas Hoyt, Retired Scientist, Raytheon Company
Dr. Andrei Illarionov, Chief Economic Adviser, Russian President Vladimir Putin
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Physicist and Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Dr. Ola Johanneseen, Professor, Nasen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, Emeritus Professor, Stockholm University
Dr. Aynsley Kellow, Professor, University of Tasmania
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Former Research Scientist, Environment Canada
Mr. William Kinimonth, Former Head, National Climate Centre
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, Former Advisor to the Executive Board, Clingendael Institute

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Dr. Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Dr. Marcel Leroux, Climatology Professor Emeritus, University of Lyon
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, Hydrology Professor, University of Washington

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Meteorologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Associate Statistics Professor, University of Aarhus
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, International Economist, Downing College
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Associate Economics Professor, University of Guelph
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Fred Michel, Associate Professor, Carleton University
Dr. M.R. Morgan, Climate Consultant, First Minister of Wales
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, Emeritus Professor, Stockholm University
Dr. Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor, University of Ottawa
Mr. David Nowell, Fellow, Royal Meteorological Society
Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, Director, The Cooperative Research Centre for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Dr. Benny Peiser, Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University
Dr. Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Meteorologist, Cooperative Institute of Research
Dr. Ian Plimer, Professor, University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, Emeritus Professor, Utrecht University
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, Adjunct Professor, University of Ottawa
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur
Dr. Art Robinson, Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University
Dr. Rob Scagel, Principal Consultant, Pacific Consultants
Dr. Gary Sharp, Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Dr. Nir J. Shaviv, Astrophysicist, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Fred Singer, Climatologist, The Competitive Enterprise Institute

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Dr. Graham Smith, Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, The University of Alabama
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Climate Scientist, Danish Space Research Institute
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Alberta
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, Retired Director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations
Dr. G. Cornelis van Koten, Environmental and Climate Change Professor, University of Victoria
Dr. Jan Veizer, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Retired Senior Marine Researcher, Geological Survey of Finland
Dr. David E. Wojick, Senior Editor, “Electricity Daily” International Magazine

These are scientific men who are entirely unconvinced about this stuff, say that it's a myth or at the very least say the science is unsafe and that global warming has little to do with man's activities.

Surely you can see the confusion in the minds of the average non-scientific mind. What's a muggle supposed to believe?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

That's what, about 80 names. Some of whom aren't really qualified (at least according to the job titles you've given) - "Applied Mathematics Professor", "Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics", "Associate Economics Professor" etc.

If you're playing numbers then that's a drop in the ocean compared to the number of scientists in relevant fields who contributed work assessed by the IPCC and other scientific bodies.

Besides, some of them have had their work assessed by their peers and found wanting. Dr. Henrik Svensmark (Climate Scientist, Danish Space Research Institute) proposed, if memory serves, that solar activity affecting the earths magnetic field changes the cosmic ray flux on the upper atmosphere and that this results in changes in cloud formation, thus linking solar activity and climate - a link that's only this week been shown not to exist in the current environment dominated by fossil carbon pollution.

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :

Now, you've got these names from here, haven't you? And the page is headed

quote:
These are names of scientists who are questioning the global warming hysteria.

Not a particularly neutral introduction, that. And I can't find any explanation on that website of why, and in what degree, they're sceptical about any or all elements of "the global warming hysteria". And Rhodri Morgan (First Minister of Wales, on your list) hasn't done any scientific research since 1974, because he became a civil servant that year; his actual contribution to the debate was to say:

quote:
"If our climate in Wales is going to be more like Spain's or southern California's in the summer, then Spain will be more like the Sahara.
If that is the kind of climate shift we cannot avoid having by 2050, it will hardly be unhelpful to Wales."

His spokesman later added, in clarification:

quote:
"He was stressing that even if climate change has advantages for Wales it will be catastrophic for other parts of the world."

Can we have facts, please, not ill-conceived, poorly-researched blancmange?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

A couple haven't got the qualifications that you, no expert, think are irrelevant, and one whose theory has been questioned (heaven forbid that anyone question the theory of a man-made climate change 'expert'!)

My point was that all these men have a scientific view that needs to be listened to. I for one would like to hear them alongisde the shrill voice of people like Al Gore. Sorry, what's his peer-reviewed scientific doctorate in again?

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Dr. Art Robinson, Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

OK, this is not a random choice from Mudfrog's list - the word "founder" always triggers alarm bells for me.

quote:
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a small research institute founded in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to improvements in human life — including biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging.

The Institute is supported by donations and the independent earnings of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds.

The Institute has six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally...

ETA link: http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p15.htm

You can learn a lot more about the OISM from reading the SourceWatch entry. Like the fact that none of the current faculty of the institute have any expertise in climate science. They're doctors and biochemists. Art Robinson also produces home-schooling materials and information on how to survive a nuclear war. But here's his real claim to fame in the scientific world:

quote:
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. ...
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

OliviaG

[ 12. July 2007, 22:06: Message edited by: OliviaG ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Actually, most of them are probably have a similar status in the debate to Gore - intelligent, moderately well-informed, non-specialists with a message. But, I'd never put Gore as an expert voice in the debate, he's a propagandist.

Going back to the list I'm wondering if there aren't a few people who might be seriously put out by being named there. For example, I notice Freeman Dyson is there. Dyson considers the phrase "global warming" to be inaccurate, and the emphasis on global mean temperatures to be misleading.
From this article (though I lifted the quote from Wikipedia as I don't subscribe to the journal)

quote:
As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

But what about this list:
<snip list>
What's a muggle supposed to believe?

Many thanks for the reply Mudfrog.

There are certainly individual scientists who dispute AGW - no-one would claim otherwise. But in any recent scientific theory will have opponents...the key thing is to realise what a tiny minority they're in here.

Notice that the site you got the list from doesn't mention a single reputable scientific organisation. Not one. Also notice that many of the names have nothing to do with climate science, even tangentially - and some of them aren't even scientists. Nigel Calder, for instance.

On the other hand, the organisations I gave you are some of the respected in the world. Many of them are Academies - i.e. representing the scientific voice of entire countries, and hundreds of thousands of scientists. The weight of scientific opinion is overwhelmingly one-sided.

But despite this, I'm not claiming that global warming is 100% likely to be predominantly man-made. Maybe it isn't, maybe the vast majority are entirely wrong. It could a huge collective blindspot...stranger things have happened.

What I am claiming is that to the best of our current knowledge mankind is likely to be contributing to global warming, and that as CO2 continues to rise this will get worse.

But suppose we weren't as sure about this, and the evidence wasn't as good as it is. Suppose we were only 50% certain, rather than 95%. Considering what's at stake if the climate scientists are right, wouldn't you consider it worth taking serious action even then?

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

But what about this list:
<snip list>
What's a muggle supposed to believe?
Many thanks for the reply Mudfrog.

There are certainly individual scientists who dispute AGW - no-one would claim otherwise. But in any recent scientific theory will have opponents...the key thing is to realise what a tiny minority they're in here.

Maybe instead of a comelete list of those vaguely connected with science who are uncomfortable to some degree with the "hysteria" as presented by Mudfrog, (where listing those on the pro-AGW side is not really feasible due to the numbers), we need a histogram to show the balance of opinion.
how about:

code:

--------------------  (pro AGW)
.                     (anti AGW)

as my first crap attempt at graphical representation? (Yes, Mudfrog's impressive list of those who aren't convinced and have little or no knowledge of climate science but still feel their opinion should be heard, is represented by a dot).

Actually a pie chart would be better if anyone can find one, just to really bring it home.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

..you can fool all of the people some of the time..

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

It's quite perverse to hear what the majority of experts say on a subject and then apparently on a whim to believe the contrary.

If a hundred neurosurgeons mostly agreed on a diagnosis of a member of your family, while four dentists, a chiropodist, an architect, a professor of media studies and two general-purpose journalists felt in their bones that the experts were wrong but couldn't quite put their finger on why, who would you believe?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

On a whim? On the contrary, I spent a great many hours over several weeks comparing data and very soon concluded that the recent rise in hot air was due to political spin and not man-made CO2.

Really sad, that some now think Carbon Dioxide a toxic gas because of all the hype...

And Maggie must be smirking now that even the environmentalist lobby is backing the building of nuclear energy plants.. (see some pages back for the background).

This an example of where spin which passes for your "consensus of scientists" turns into farce:

quote:
On January 31, ‘07 the National Geographic Channel presented a special on global climate change. The first half-hour was a good representation of paleoclimate variation. The program then devolved into a Al Goresk type anthropogenic global-warming tirade. With the Vostok ice core record presented graphically, it was claimed that the temperature curve follows carbon dioxide, despite the obvious fact that didn’t. (CARBON DIOXIDE DOESN’T CAUSE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES TO RISE:)

And, I wish some of that global warming would come my way..

Myrrh

[ 14. July 2007, 00:19: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
On a whim? On the contrary, I spent a great many hours over several weeks comparing data and very soon concluded that the recent rise in hot air was due to political spin and not man-made CO2.

Really sad, that some now think Carbon Dioxide a toxic gas because of all the hype...

And Maggie must be smirking now that even the environmentalist lobby is backing the building of nuclear energy plants.. (see some pages back for the background).

This an example of where spin which passes for your "consensus of scientists" turns into farce:

quote:
On January 31, ‘07 the National Geographic Channel presented a special on global climate change. The first half-hour was a good representation of paleoclimate variation. The program then devolved into a Al Goresk type anthropogenic global-warming tirade. With the Vostok ice core record presented graphically, it was claimed that the temperature curve follows carbon dioxide, despite the obvious fact that didn’t. (CARBON DIOXIDE DOESN’T CAUSE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES TO RISE:)
And, I wish some of that global warming would come my way..

Myrrh

Have a go at a sarky comeback to my remarks a few posts ago, would you, there's a dear?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Have a go at a sarky comeback to my remarks a few posts ago, would you, there's a dear?

A list is a list, so look them up and see what they have to say.

Sarky enough for you?

Let's take the first I googled:

quote:
Dr Veizer's article, which appeared in the December 7, 2000 edition of Nature, was titled “Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon” and described the development of new databases for understanding the temperature of seawater and climate change over the last 550 million years. Based upon these new data-bases, Dr.Veizer was able to postulate in his article that CO2 was not the main driver of climate cycles on geological time scales. On December 7, 2000, the front-page headline of the Toronto Star announced: “Climate change theory stuns scientists.” The next day, a Calgary Herald headline further sensationalized Dr. Veizer’s research by stating:“Scientist deflates greenhouse theory.” Rather than celebrating his research achievement, Dr.Veizer found himself struggling to explain the true meaning behind his years of research. What he ultimately found is that front-page headlines do not always capture the full scope of scientific findings.

“What most people don’t understand,” says Dr.Veizer,“is that there is a natural greenhouse effect of 33°C, without which the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. About two-thirds or more of this temperature enhancement is due to water vapour, not CO2. And how much of the superim-posed 0.6°C temperature rise over the last century can be attributed solely to the 70 ppm (or 30 %) CO2 rise believed to be of anthropogenic origin is an open question. The situation is very complex. We are not saying that CO2is not a greenhouse gas. It is. But so is water vapour. How much each contributes to the greenhouse, let alone to climate change is something that we have yet to figure out

(Dr Veizer, see page 8)

'Open to question, something we have yet to figure out', is the consensus I've noted from real scientists.

I've also noticed rather a lot of simply junk science masquerading as real. However hard the junkies still try to prove the hockey stick revised or not has a place in scientific research it's still nonsense, but, it's this graph deliberately produced to show a rapid rise in temperature in the last century or so by dramatically eliminating previous hot and icy periods in the last thousand years coupled with the erroneous claim that CO2 is proved to be a climate change driver which has informed the rest of the campaign we now hear yelled at us.

And it is rather scary that those who promote this junk science are getting so het up about it all they're actually demanding that sensible objections are silenced.

That is simply not science. It's political junk ideology.

Myrrh

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

What I want to know is, what has any of this got to do with Islamic insurgents bent on destroying my cushy western lifestyle?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
On a whim? On the contrary, I spent a great many hours over several weeks comparing data and very soon concluded that the recent rise in hot air was due to political spin and not man-made CO2.

It's this attitude I find baffling. You spent "a great many hours over several weeks"?

Why do you even start to think that a couple of weeks self-study of dodgy websites gives you the skills needed to assess this? And to claim with such dazzling 100% certainty that you're right, and that the thousands of atmospheric physicists and paeleoclimatologists etc who spent decades debating this are liars or morons? And that they're part of a giant conspiracy that spans every scientific institution on the planet?

None of us here have a tiny fraction of the expertise needed for our opinions to be relevant to actual climate science.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Let's take the first I googled:
quote:
Dr Veizer's article, which appeared in the December 7, 2000 edition of Nature, was titled “Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon” and described the development of new databases for understanding the temperature of seawater and climate change over the last 550 million years. Based upon these new data-bases, Dr.Veizer was able to postulate in his article that CO2 was not the main driver of climate cycles on geological time scales.

OK, a couple of brief comments.

The date of the Nature article is important. 2000, that's before the Third IPCC assessment in 2001 which started to put the disperate strands of research together - measurements (direct and via proxies) of climate and atmospheric gases, and assorted models. It was the combination of all the strands of data that started to make the case for human activity directly influencing the climate compelling. And, of course, 7 years down the line and the additional data just adds weight to what was already a compelling scientific case that human activity is warming the planet.

The second point is that he's quite right. CO2 is not the main driver of climate cycles on geological time scales. No one really disputes that. CO2 is a major component of the feedback mechanisms that amplify other driving forces (things like planetary orbit, solar activity, tectonic activity - the position of continents and mountain ranges are powerful impacts on the climate - and biological activity). But, and here's the big but, we're not talking about geological timescales. We're talking about changes in the climate over the lifetime of human beings, 50-100 years. The picture from geological timescales is important as it puts constraints on models; so, for example, if you take model that works for the current climate system and apply the parameters relevant for a paleoclimate you'd expect a good model to work for that climate too (and, yes, that's been done for several models).

quote:
continuing the quote from the site Googled
And how much of the superim-posed 0.6°C temperature rise over the last century can be attributed solely to the 70 ppm (or 30 %) CO2 rise believed to be of anthropogenic origin is an open question. The situation is very complex. We are not saying that CO2is not a greenhouse gas. It is. But so is water vapour. How much each contributes to the greenhouse, let alone to climate change is something that we have yet to figure out

That sort of caution is representative of good science. Especially 7 years ago when the picture was not as clear as it is today. If such work was published today, I'd expect the author to make very little in the way of comment on how their findings relate to modern climate change - because the findings on geological timescales simply aren't really relevant. Of course, people (especially journalists) will ask him the question. But, this work alone doesn't provide any data directly relevant to the answer.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It's this attitude I find baffling. You spent "a great many hours over several weeks"?

Why do you even start to think that a couple of weeks self-study of dodgy websites gives you the skills needed to assess this? And to claim with such dazzling 100% certainty that you're right, and that the thousands of atmospheric physicists and paeleoclimatologists etc who spent decades debating this are liars or morons? And that they're part of a giant conspiracy that spans every scientific institution on the planet?

None of us here have a tiny fraction of the expertise needed for our opinions to be relevant to actual climate science.

It doesn't take an an expert in climatology to analyse an argument. As you say, there are many disciples involved here and one of the first things I found was that some were dramatically and woefully unscientifically misrepresenting data and the chief offender was the IPCC itself which has even been taken to court for this by scientists who contributed information. That rang alarm bells, for me anyway, and a closer look at what was being said continued confirming this was the actual base of global warming crackpot thinking - decide on the result and then manipulate data to fit. I gave up trying to find real science to back up this theory.

It boils down to the two flawed basic premises. That the rise in temperature over the last 150 years is something out of the ordinary and that CO2 drives global warming.

Neither is proved, in fact neither can be because all real scientific data, from a multitude of angles, proves neither is true.

Take those away and what have you got?

But what is ridiculously unscientific is the logic which puts those two unproven and premises together with the uncorrelated claim that it's man-made CO2 which created that rise.

I'm not impressed.

I was in turn amused and saddened to see the growing examples of real scientific studies adding a line at the end relating the work to global warming to justify the funding. But that's life. The actual arguments for global warming are just bad science.

Myrrh

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It doesn't take an an expert in climatology to analyse an argument.

Yes it does, if the argument is about technical aspects of climatology. You and I can listen to the experts' explanations, but we're in no way qualified to judge between conflicting theories. That may be a bitter pill, but it's the simple truth: we're irrelevant to the science of it.

Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.

So as far as I can see there are three choices:

(a) The thousands of scientists contributing are all irredeemably idiots, and the leading international scientific bodies that universally endose their views are equally idiotic. This is despite them generally being recognised as some of the brightest people on the planet, with a culture that strongly favours cautious claims and neutrality. Similarly, the numerous corporations backing it (despite it potentially damaging their interests - e.g. BP) are doing so out of collective madness, while governments who don't agree on anything have decided to take part in the ruse as an excuse for taxes (despite the fact that it's plainly against most of their interests too).

(b) As above, except that the thousands of scientists are all, almost without exception, involved in a gigantic fraud. This is despite the fact that pressure to blow the whistle would be incredible, and people don't really go into atmospheric physics motivated by money.

(c) The science is fairly good, and you're mistaken after your few weeks of reading.

Which is it? Occam's razor is relevant here.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
one of the first things I found was that some were dramatically and woefully unscientifically misrepresenting data and the chief offender was the IPCC itself which has even been taken to court for this by scientists who contributed information.

I've looked, to no avail, for anything about this. Have you any information about who took the IPCC to court, when and over what issue? I've tried a Google search and trawl of BBC News and other potentially useful sites. But nothing about any scientist (or anyone else for that matter) suing the IPCC. A case where the US EPA was sued for not being tough enough on CO2 pollution.

Court action against a scientific body like the IPCC by scientists seems very strange to me. Letters to leading journals clarifying the research in question is much more common when scientific research gets questioned.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
one of the first things I found was that some were dramatically and woefully unscientifically misrepresenting data and the chief offender was the IPCC itself which has even been taken to court for this by scientists who contributed information.
I've looked, to no avail, for anything about this. Have you any information about who took the IPCC to court, when and over what issue?

One of the people Myrrh is refering to is possibly Paul Reiter, a malaria specialist who had some difficulty getting his name removed from the list of authors after disagreeing with the conclusions. The IPCC wasn't taken to court, but some sources say Reiter threatened to do so.

I don't know who the others might be.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

In case there are any neutral parties still reading this(!), ABC Australia has a great interview with Martin Durkin, director of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

It does a pretty good job of explaining what many scientists were objecting to about the programme. The sunspot stuff (on the second clip) is especially relevant.

I thought Durkin himself came across quite well, even if his arguments didn't.

[ 18. July 2007, 07:20: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's what, about 80 names. Some of whom aren't really qualified (at least according to the job titles you've given) - "Applied Mathematics Professor", "Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics", "Associate Economics Professor" etc.

Are you at all reminded of the lists YECcies produce of scientists who are YECcies? Which look impressive until you realise just how many scientists there are in the world and that there are more scientists called Steve who think YEC is horsefeathers than are in the list of YECcie scientists?

Project Steve

The parallels between YECism and global warming denial are quite striking sometimes. Along with the sort of crap which extremist anti-vivisectionists will sell you about how useless vaccines tested on animals are
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

This sceptic was originally impressed by the news that Solar activity activity (sic!) is not responsible for the temperature rise. But then I became confyoozed by talk of neutron flux (... capacitor discharge and inversion of the chronosynclasticinfundibulator). I think I should still be impressed. I'm not impressed by 99% of all known scientists claiming any thing.

Am I being shtewpid? Climate science ent gravity, right?

This sceptic entirely accepts global warming is occurring and that it may have and in fact probably does have an anthropogenic cause. If it ain't the Sun wot dun it, it MUST be us. Although the mechanism of that through raising the concentration of a trace gas still eludes me as it does every one else.

Yeah, yeah, ozone had an unbelievable catalytic effect. But this ain't catalysis is it?

Short to long wave conversion, trapping and re-equilibration and stuff don't cut it. Do it?

Even so, kiddies, global warming driven climate change is happening. It will be extremely bad for the poor, who will especially persecute the poorer and poorest (i.e. Christians).

There is NOTHING we can do about it.

Don't worry, radical Islam will stop it.

And there's nothing we can do about that either.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sorry, CFCs ON ozone. Eejut.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
These are scientific men who are entirely unconvinced about this stuff, say that it's a myth or at the very least say the science is unsafe and that global warming has little to do with man's activities.

Well know,they aren't. In addition to those whose who have been mentioned, Bjorn Lomborg for one doesn't doubt the existence of anthropogenic global warming - he just thinks that it'll be easier to cope with the effects once it happens than is generally appreciated. So he's a Kyoto Sceptic rather than an AGW sceptic. The actual science still isn't in doubt.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It doesn't take an an expert in climatology to analyse an argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it does, if the argument is about technical aspects of climatology. You and I can listen to the experts' explanations, but we're in no way qualified to judge between conflicting theories. That may be a bitter pill, but it's the simple truth: we're irrelevant to the science of it.

I'm reminded from a scene in Blackadder in which Lord Percy is attempting to discover the secrets of alchemy 'this very afternoon'.

'And the fact that this secret has eluded the most intelligent people in the world since the dawn of time doesn't daunt you?'

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

I'm replying here as an attempt to keep the "Is it real?" questions separate to the other climate thread...

quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
Option 5. In fifty years time it has become evident that the overwhelmingly powerful effect described by the Milankovitch cycle is moving the planet into re-glaciation, and 'we' are all worrying about that.

It'd be good to think so.

Sadly, I can't discuss the Milankovitch cycle with you. I don't have the expertise in orbital physics, solar radiation, atmospheric heat exchange, atmospheric fluid dynamics, statistics and God knows what else for the conversation to be meaningful.

But I know that the Milankovitch cycles have been known about for a long time, and studied and debated extensively by people who do have the right skills. And the consensus from these countless fairly bright specialists is that the cycles explain ice ages quite nicely, but current warming is very different.

Why do you believe you are right, and almost the entire scientific community is so wrong? If you're wrong, 50 years in the future is likely too late to take meaningful action - so what level of certainty have you got that you know the real answer?

And hi Myrrh. The same question goes to you, again.

(Btw, I hope this doesn't come across as antagonistic. For what it's worth, I can entirely sympathise with people who say "pah, this can't be real". Most people I've come across like that are sincere, genuinely concerned for development in the third world, and intelligent. But it's still amazingly arrogant to so confidently dismiss the people who have spent decades studying this.)

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I'm replying here as an attempt to keep the "Is it real?" questions separate to the other climate thread...

quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
Option 5. In fifty years time it has become evident that the overwhelmingly powerful effect described by the Milankovitch cycle is moving the planet into re-glaciation, and 'we' are all worrying about that.
It'd be good to think so.

Sadly, I can't discuss the Milankovitch cycle with you. I don't have the expertise in orbital physics, solar radiation, atmospheric heat exchange, atmospheric fluid dynamics, statistics and God knows what else for the conversation to be meaningful.

But I know that the Milankovitch cycles have been known about for a long time, and studied and debated extensively by people who do have the right skills. And the consensus from these countless fairly bright specialists is that the cycles explain ice ages quite nicely, but current warming is very different.

Why do you believe you are right, and almost the entire scientific community is so wrong? If you're wrong, 50 years in the future is likely too late to take meaningful action - so what level of certainty have you got that you know the real answer?

And hi Myrrh. The same question goes to you, again.

(Btw, I hope this doesn't come across as antagonistic. For what it's worth, I can entirely sympathise with people who say "pah, this can't be real". Most people I've come across like that are sincere, genuinely concerned for development in the third world, and intelligent. But it's still amazingly arrogant to so confidently dismiss the people who have spent decades studying this.)

What science there is shows that CO2 is index linked to rises in temperature, with a time lag of around 800 years, and, I'm fed up with the pseudo science produced by the IPCC bandwagoneers which makes ridiculous statements such as "likely to be anthropogenic" and so on WITHOUT the slightest bit of uncontroversial actual science to back it up, and, etc. etc.

There have been times in our earth's past with CO2 off the scale and sometimes they were cold periods sometimes hot. Since there is no correlation showing rises in CO2 producing GLOBAL warming I fail to see what possible relevance the amount we pump into the atmosphere has to do with it. The 'theory' is illogical.

What we do know is there are remarkable patterns and if it wasn't for all this nonsensical hype which required deliberate and unscientific, i.e. political, fudging by elimination to back its belief we'd be discussing these patterns and what they meant for our future.

If the earth is in the second half of a c 20,000 year cycle which it very much appears to be then we are in the flux of change between the last of the warm and the next cold. Since the main high mid way c 10k years ago, which caused the last ice age to end (dramatically at the last - within a few decades), we've been in a slide of temperature, the mini peaks of hot less than the one before and so on back and higher lows for the mini drops of cold in between.

If this is our future, and how can we possibly debate this when there is so much political dishonesty at play here, we'd be better spending the money on finding real solutions.

Myrrh

Myrrh

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Hi Myrrh,

You'll have to speak to Alan or someone else better read than me to discuss those questions. Sorry! I don't feel the need to hold detailed debates about climate science. I doubt I could hold my own with an eloquent YEC debater about obscure holes in the fossil record - but so what?

Here's the question you didn't answer last time:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
You and I can listen to the experts' explanations, but we're in no way qualified to judge between conflicting theories. That may be a bitter pill, but it's the simple truth: we're irrelevant to the science of it.

Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.

So as far as I can see there are three choices:

(a) The thousands of scientists contributing are all irredeemably idiots, and the leading international scientific bodies that universally endose their views are equally idiotic. This is despite them generally being recognised as some of the brightest people on the planet, with a culture that strongly favours cautious claims and neutrality. Similarly, the numerous corporations backing it (despite it potentially damaging their interests - e.g. BP) are doing so out of collective madness, while governments who don't agree on anything have decided to take part in the ruse as an excuse for taxes (despite the fact that it's plainly against most of their interests too).

(b) As above, except that the thousands of scientists are all, almost without exception, involved in a gigantic fraud. This is despite the fact that pressure to blow the whistle would be incredible, and people don't really go into atmospheric physics motivated by money.

(c) The science is fairly good, and you're mistaken after your few weeks of reading.

Occam's razor is relevant here.

First, apologies for the snipey "Occam's razor" comment - it came out more harshly than intended. But which option do you go for? And how confident are you?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Hi Myrrh,

...

Here's the question you didn't answer last time:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
You and I can listen to the experts' explanations, but we're in no way qualified to judge between conflicting theories. That may be a bitter pill, but it's the simple truth: we're irrelevant to the science of it.

Not my claim to be able to, that there are conflicting theories is my main point, therefore no consensus.

quote:
Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.

And this is what I've found re 'global warming'.

quote:
So as far as I can see there are three choices:

(a) The thousands of scientists contributing are all irredeemably idiots, and the leading international scientific bodies that universally endose their views are equally idiotic. This is despite them generally being recognised as some of the brightest people on the planet, with a culture that strongly favours cautious claims and neutrality. Similarly, the numerous corporations backing it (despite it potentially damaging their interests - e.g. BP) are doing so out of collective madness, while governments who don't agree on anything have decided to take part in the ruse as an excuse for taxes (despite the fact that it's plainly against most of their interests too).

(b) As above, except that the thousands of scientists are all, almost without exception, involved in a gigantic fraud. This is despite the fact that pressure to blow the whistle would be incredible, and people don't really go into atmospheric physics motivated by money.

(c) The science is fairly good, and you're mistaken after your few weeks of reading.

Occam's razor is relevant here.

quote:
First, apologies for the snipey "Occam's razor" comment - it came out more harshly than intended. But which option do you go for? And how confident are you?

See answer above.

What I've found: first of all the base claim being made is that this theory is backed by so many scientists that we must be morons to doubt it and the IPCC is given as the example of the consensus of those estimable scientists. But it ain't no such thing, it's a political organisation which takes, and has been shown to manipulate, scientific work for its own purpose. What is it's purpose - do you know? It certainly isn't to further knowledge about climate change.

Let's look at how it does science - it produces a summary and then produces the report several months later which it admits it tweaks to fit in with the summary.

As some have noted, for example:
( http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/ )

What did it for me, however, was the first time they changed the science to fit in with policy, which was only beginning to develop a life of its own, in 1995 (coincidentally I think when the old boy in charge of temperature graphs was hit over the head by the hockey stick wielder, who I think, (sorry, a while now since I immersed myself in this) has been in charge since and has been promoting his version of our past climate). This report had two entirely different summaries, the first said no anthropogenic driving cause could be reached by the science available to the report and the second said the opposite.

Since then there have been many, many, scientists who have shown that the theory is not sustainable as facts in all aspects of the theory contradict it. For example, the CO2 lag behind, the arguable amounts of CO2 present and so on, the disagreements about the hockey stick, the lack of water vapour in climate models, (too difficult to include.. duh), ditto the sun, and yet, we're told this theory is the scientific consensus! It's politics. And it's this which is driving the global warming theory, not science.

quote:
A Major Deception on Global Warming

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995," its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.

This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

continued on:

(A Major Deception on Global Warming
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996)

So first, let's debunk the myth that has been cultivated in the last decade. There is no scientific consensus on global warming nor, if there is such a thing, on the cause being attributable to anthropogenic driving.

Scientific consensus is not the same creature as intent to produce consensus which is the apparent understanding of the IPCC...

(Statement Concerning Global Warming
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology July 10, 1997)

All of this might not be relevant if models were trustworthy, but satellite measurements of upper level water vapor show profound discrepancies in model results. Under the circumstances, it is surprising that there is any agreement among scientists, but, in fact, most scientists working on climate dynamics would agree that increasing levels of carbon dioxide should have some impact on climate. The real argument is over whether the impact will be significant. The word `significant,' in this context, has a rather specific meaning. The climate is a naturally variable system. That is to say, it varies without any external forcing. Human society already has to deal with this degree of variability over which it has no control. For anthropogenic climate change to be `significant,' it must be as large or larger than natural variability. ...

..Let us begin by quoting this statement (which, in contrast to earlier IPCC reports, gives considerable more attention to important caveats):

"Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long-term natural variability and the time-evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse and aerosols, and land-surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."

...
The specific feature which led Santer (the lead author of Chapter 8 of IPCC 95) to claim discovery of the discernible impact of anthropogenic forcing fails the most elementary test of statistical robustness: namely, it disappears when additional data is considered.

And that's what I've found all through this, the global warming theory disappears when additional data is introduced.

What we have here is the rather scary scenario of millions of people being led to believe something which is not only unproven but actually contradicted by other data. This is junk science, really, there isn't any other word for it.

How easy is it lead so many people in a direction of choice? Look at the destruction of Iraq by the simple expedient of scaring the pants off US joe by making him believe there were weapons of mass destruction within minutes of obliterating him..

What the IPCC's motives are I have no idea, oil obviously in Iraq, maybe they're just bored.

Myrrh

p.s. Please, anyone, can you show me the list of scientists who contributed to the last report and their work?

[ 09. August 2007, 00:40: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Agh, sorry too late in spotting messed up layout, the following is written by me and should come between two quoted examples:

So first, let's debunk the myth that has been cultivated in the last decade. There is no scientific consensus on global warming nor, if there is such a thing, on the cause being attributable to anthropogenic driving.

Scientific consensus is not the same creature as intent to produce consensus which is the apparent understanding of the IPCC...

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

From the top of the page (13).

??

The moon used to govern the tides, but that was then - it's now governed by increased levels of anthropogenic dancing rocking the earth's core and sending shock waves into the seas which coincidentally follows the same pattern as that previously noted was caused by the moon's gravitational pull.

Myrrh

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:Not my claim to be able to, that there are conflicting theories is my main point, therefore no consensus.

This seems to be a non sequitur. "Consensus" does not usually imply unanimity.

quote:
From dictionary.com:
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

There will be a handful of people who hold conflicting theories for any scientific question - e.g. Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen, who you quote.

But so what? They're in a tiny minority who have made themselves vocal, telling us what we ALL want to hear. That doesn't prevent a consensus, and in this case an overwhelming consensus.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.
And this is what I've found re 'global warming'.

OK. So based on you reading a few websites over several months (ones proudly quoting Op-Ed pieces from the...wait for it...Wall Street Journal eleven years ago), you're in a position to call the thousands of scientists liars and/or morons.

Oh, and not just the actual climate scientists, but every major scientific institution in the world, that collectively represent God knows how many hundred thousand scientists.

And you're utterly convinced of it, with not a sliver of doubt.

You seem like a decent person Myrrh - compassionate, and prepared to stand up for causes you believe in. But can't you see the phenomenal arrogance that you're displaying here?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What science there is shows that CO2 is index linked to rises in temperature, with a time lag of around 800 years

I'm sure I've said this before. But, perhaps it needs repeating as the "800 year lag" thing's still getting said. The science is very clear. In the natural system the biggest reservoirs of carbon are the deep oceans and fossilised carbon (coal, oil, limestone). Without human activity the fossil carbon is largely unavailable to affect climate, which leaves the deep oceans in the game. Because ocean water circulates between the deep and surface relatively slowly, it takes 500-1000 years (depending on which bit of the oceans you're in) for the reservoir to return carbon to the surface. This means that as surface waters begin to warm, there isn't initially a large source of CO2 available to be released to the atmosphere. But, several centuries later the deep ocean carbon begins to return to the surface and get released into the atmosphere where it reinforces warming that's already happening. This is a very well understood phenomenum that provides the feedback needed to amplify the small changes in solar energy input due to Milankovich cycles into climate changing atmospheric temperature changes.

The importance to the question of anthropogenic forcing of the climate is marginal, because we're accessing a completely different carbon reservoir. Though it does mean that even if we stabilise our anthropogenic input to the system, because of the temperature increase we've already caused there's going to be releases of CO2 from that deep ocean reservoir in the coming centuries as that deep water circulates back to the surface. Not that you or I are going to be around in 800 years to see the natural system add CO2 to the atmosphere in response to the temperature change we've just induced.

quote:
I'm fed up with the pseudo science produced by the IPCC bandwagoneers which makes ridiculous statements such as "likely to be anthropogenic" and so on WITHOUT the slightest bit of uncontroversial actual science to back it up, and, etc. etc.

Er-hum. There's oodles and oodles of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals, by thousands of qualified scientists, working in practically every country in the world. They all provide scientific backing to the fact that CO2 has increased dramatically due to human activity (it correlates strongly with industrialisation, the carbon isotope ratio is clearly from fossil-carbon, and it makes sense that if we burn lots of fossil carbon generating CO2 it'll end up in the atmosphere), the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the fact that temperatures are increasing globally at an unprecedented rate that correlates with CO2, and presenting a range of models that all reproduce the observed data fairly well. With an enormous weight of evidence behind them, the biggest problem the IPCC has in maintaining scientific credibility is that they're over-cautious and aren't strong enough in asserting the scientific evidence. Forget "likely to be anthropogenic", the science is stronger than that - "certainly anthropogenic" is much closer to the mark.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What is it's [the IPCCs] purpose - do you know? It certainly isn't to further knowledge about climate change.

The primary role of the IPCC is to collate scientific evidence produced by researchers around the world, mostly published in peer reviewed journals, and present it in a manner accessible to non-scientists (primarily international policy makers; initially to give scientific input to the Rio Earth Summit, but later other international summits such as Kyoto; but also national governments and private individuals). That's why the reports are very strictly "this is what's happening" and "if you do this, this is what's predicted to happen", without any "you must do this" - the decision of what to do is a policy issue and is outwith their remit. The IPCC commissions a small amout of research, but primarily systematises the research others are doing. Because it's very difficult to access the output of models based on different scenarios, the IPCC did produce a set of standard scenarios most modellers use (often with other scenarios as well) - but if the IPCC hadn't done this someone else would have as it's essential for good science.

quote:
p.s. Please, anyone, can you show me the list of scientists who contributed to the last report and their work?

The names of the contributing authors, and reviewers, are given in the reports themselves. For the WGI report, you can find them in the annexes (pdf file) starting from p15 of the file. The names and institutions are given, assuming you're familiar with Google you can find out as much information about them as you want - but as there are a few names there it may take you some time.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:Not my claim to be able to, that there are conflicting theories is my main point, therefore no consensus.
This seems to be a non sequitur. "Consensus" does not usually imply unanimity.

quote:
From dictionary.com:
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
There will be a handful of people who hold conflicting theories for any scientific question - e.g. Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen, who you quote.

But so what? They're in a tiny minority who have made themselves vocal, telling us what we ALL want to hear. That doesn't prevent a consensus, and in this case an overwhelming consensus.

I meant consensus as in 'scientific consensus', that the science isn't disputed. It is disputed. There are good reasons for it being disputed. Those reasons haven't been answered.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.
And this is what I've found re 'global warming'.

quote:
OK. So based on you reading a few websites over several months (ones proudly quoting Op-Ed pieces from the...wait for it...Wall Street Journal eleven years ago), you're in a position to call the thousands of scientists liars and/or morons.

Oh, and not just the actual climate scientists, but every major scientific institution in the world, that collectively represent God knows how many hundred thousand scientists.

And you're utterly convinced of it, with not a sliver of doubt.

You seem like a decent person Myrrh - compassionate, and prepared to stand up for causes you believe in. But can't you see the phenomenal arrogance that you're displaying here?

Phew. Those who forget history... Even history 11 years ago?!

This is when the policy change came into being, from an objective look at the science available to a conclusion pushed through in spite of it. This is when the agenda of some became reality and it wasn't based on the science available. This is what was taken out of the report's conclusion:

quote:
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

(Myths / Facts
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING)

This is the critical moment in the saga so far - think about it. The data hadn't changed, but the above was taken out of the IPCC report and from then on the opposite has become a campaign to fudge the actual scientific evidence available to further a particular agenda. Those, the majority of people, who have no reason to doubt the integrity of the IPCC will continue to be deceived here. This is the moment the IPCC became dishonest.

This is the moment the science died.

From then on the IPCC has been working to someone else's agenda, the contrary conclusion decided and promoted ad nauseam by the myth of global warming presented as a fact without solid science to back it up. This is the moment it became junk science.

You really want to ignore this?:

quote:
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

It's a myth that all scientists agree with the global warming theory, but how will you ever see this if you take a deliberate con as objective science? What chance does an ordinary oik have of understanding this when he is being deliberately conned and intimidated because all questioning it are accused of arrogance and worse, likened to Holocaust deniers? And that's quite apart from the rubbishing of scientists who dare say their reports were manipulated - this is proof that the science has been junked for someone's agenda. And it all happened only 11 years ago...

Since then the IPCC cannot be trusted to give real science on the subject, but its technique has been refined and you'll be hard pressed to spot it liberal as it is with such conclusions as 'anthropogenic causes the most likely to account for global warming' while the data it presents produces no evidence to support it.

Read through this analysis also (and for Alan, the hard graft has been done):

quote:
(Release Date: February 5, 2007

London, UK - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.

In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.

“While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.

“The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”

continued on:Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
Contact(s):)

Myrrh

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:Not my claim to be able to, that there are conflicting theories is my main point, therefore no consensus.
This seems to be a non sequitur. "Consensus" does not usually imply unanimity.

quote:
From dictionary.com:
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
There will be a handful of people who hold conflicting theories for any scientific question - e.g. Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen, who you quote.

But so what? They're in a tiny minority who have made themselves vocal, telling us what we ALL want to hear. That doesn't prevent a consensus, and in this case an overwhelming consensus.
I meant consensus as in 'scientific consensus', that the science isn't disputed. It is disputed. There are good reasons for it being disputed. Those reasons haven't been answered.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.
And this is what I've found re 'global warming'.
quote:
OK. So based on you reading a few websites over several months (ones proudly quoting Op-Ed pieces from the...wait for it...Wall Street Journal eleven years ago), you're in a position to call the thousands of scientists liars and/or morons.

Oh, and not just the actual climate scientists, but every major scientific institution in the world, that collectively represent God knows how many hundred thousand scientists.

And you're utterly convinced of it, with not a sliver of doubt.

You seem like a decent person Myrrh - compassionate, and prepared to stand up for causes you believe in. But can't you see the phenomenal arrogance that you're displaying here?
Phew. Those who forget history... Even history 11 years ago?!

This is when the policy change came into being, from an objective look at the science available to a conclusion pushed through in spite of it. This is when the agenda of some became reality and it wasn't based on the science available. This is what was taken out of the report's conclusion:

quote:
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

(Myths / Facts
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING)
This is the critical moment in the saga so far - think about it. The data hadn't changed, but the above was taken out of the IPCC report and from then on the opposite has become a campaign to fudge the actual scientific evidence available to further a particular agenda. Those, the majority of people, who have no reason to doubt the integrity of the IPCC will continue to be deceived here. This is the moment the IPCC became dishonest.

This is the moment the science died.

From then on the IPCC has been working to someone else's agenda, the contrary conclusion decided and promoted ad nauseam by the myth of global warming presented as a fact without solid science to back it up. This is the moment it became junk science.

You really want to ignore this?:

quote:
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
It's a myth that all scientists agree with the global warming theory, but how will you ever see this if you take a deliberate con as objective science? What chance does an ordinary oik have of understanding this when he is being deliberately conned and intimidated because all questioning it are accused of arrogance and worse, likened to Holocaust deniers? And that's quite apart from the rubbishing of scientists who dare say their reports were manipulated - this is proof that the science has been junked for someone's agenda. And it all happened only 11 years ago...

Since then the IPCC cannot be trusted to give real science on the subject, but its technique has been refined and you'll be hard pressed to spot it liberal as it is with such conclusions as 'anthropogenic causes the most likely to account for global warming' while the data it presents produces no evidence to support it.

Read through this analysis also (and for Alan, the hard graft has been done):

quote:
(Release Date: February 5, 2007

London, UK - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.

In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.

“While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.

“The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”

continued on:Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
Contact(s):)
Myrrh

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I meant consensus as in 'scientific consensus', that the science isn't disputed. It is disputed.

Agreed, a handful of scientists dispute it - out of thousands. That is pretty much the definition of "overwhelming scientific consensus". It's not unanimity. It's not disputed because it's no longer considered a scientifically interesting topic to discuss at academic conferences or in the journals: the scientists overwhelming agree. Real debate has moved to other issues, and did so long ago.

And your theory is that the IPCC has not only conned the public, but also the...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These include the most respected, oldest, largest scientific organisations in the world. They have a collective membership of hundreds of thousands.

For instance, the National Academy of Sciences:

quote:
The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" [...] The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.

Now in the other corner, you're giving us links from:

The Wall Street Journal
The Frasier Institute (Right-wing think tank, run by economists and an 'econometrist'.)
Friends of Science (Set up in 2002 specifically to oppose AGW ideas. Funded by oil companies.)

Seriously Myrrh - step back and pause. Don't you see the mis-match here?

Don't you see that right-wing newspapers, think tanks and small oil-company funded pressure groups, who have never published a single paper in a respected journal between them, might not be an entirely unbiased source of scientific information?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What science there is shows that CO2 is index linked to rises in temperature, with a time lag of around 800 years
I'm sure I've said this before. But, perhaps it needs repeating as the "800 year lag" thing's still getting said. The science is very clear. ...
The importance to the question of anthropogenic forcing of the climate is marginal, because we're accessing a completely different carbon reservoir. Though it does mean that even if we stabilise our anthropogenic input to the system, because of the temperature increase we've already caused ..

Not proved that we have any SIGNIFICANT effect.

And, no, it's not "very clear" at all.

How, as a scientist, can you take such arguments seriously?:

quote:
When the AGW lobby was confronted with this "problem" that it had attempted to conceal behind the thickness of the graph line, the response is typified by that of the pro-AGW web site realclimate.org:
"All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2..." (The 800-Year Lag)

The very language is unscientific.

quote:
..there's going to be releases of CO2 from that deep ocean reservoir in the coming centuries as that deep water circulates back to the surface. Not that you or I are going to be around in 800 years to see the natural system add CO2 to the atmosphere in response to the temperature change we've just induced.

Again - Quantify the "temperature change we've just induced", give me actual concrete data to show that we have actually changed the global temperature by anthropogenic forcing.

I'm really fed up with this claim. The recent century and a half increase is measured against an effin mini ice age (which was flattened into non existence by the original Mann which became the base of this measurement). When people held parties on a frozen Thames warmed by bonfires built on the ice! How daft is that as a scare tactic? There's not even a smidgin of common sense here, let alone science. What caused the effin rise in temperature before there was any significant industry to speak of?????????????????

There have been times when there was triple even ten times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and no indication that it affected global temperature one way or the other. CO2 is insignificant as a cause of global warming.

Was there anything 800 years ago that would account for a rise in CO2 levels now, if there actually has been a rise since this is another area of dispute..?

Anyway, it's also nonsense to see imput of CO2 into the atmosphere are a static detrimental to the earth's good, CO2 is a main building block of life and IT'S USED by life forms in natural exchange.

quote:
I'm fed up with the pseudo science produced by the IPCC bandwagoneers which makes ridiculous statements such as "likely to be anthropogenic" and so on WITHOUT the slightest bit of uncontroversial actual science to back it up, and, etc. etc.

quote:
Er-hum. There's oodles and oodles of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals, by thousands of qualified scientists, working in practically every country in the world. They all provide scientific backing to the fact that CO2 has increased dramatically due to human activity (it correlates strongly with industrialisation, the carbon isotope ratio is clearly from fossil-carbon, and it makes sense that if we burn lots of fossil carbon generating CO2 it'll end up in the atmosphere), the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the fact that temperatures are increasing globally at an unprecedented rate that correlates with CO2, and presenting a range of models that all reproduce the observed data fairly well. With an enormous weight of evidence behind them, the biggest problem the IPCC has in maintaining scientific credibility is that they're over-cautious and aren't strong enough in asserting the scientific evidence. Forget "likely to be anthropogenic", the science is stronger than that - "certainly anthropogenic" is much closer to the mark.

There effin isn't!!!!! There is no effin correlation between industry and rise in global temperature! YOU have yet, after countless times of asking, to produce anything to prove this. All these 'countless scientists that you agree with' disagree with those who don't see any correlation. The science is not conclusive to back up your claim. If there was you would be able to point to a peer reviewed report which dealt with each rebuttal by facts not fudge.

quote:
The Industrial Revolution really began after the Second World War which was followed by four decades of temperature decrease. This confounds the theory somewhat.

Since the mid 19th century, the Earth's temperature has risen by about half a degree Celsius. This warming began long before cars and planes had been invented. What's more, most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940 when industrial production was relatively insignificant.

Why do we suppose that carbon dioxide is responsible for our changing climate? CO2 forms only a very small part of the Earth's atmosphere. In fact changes in CO² levels are measured in tens of parts per million. It measures about 0.054% of the atmosphere.

Although CO² is a greenhouse gas, it is a relatively minor one, water vapour is, by far, the biggest player

A scientist largely responsible for measuring the Earth's atmosphere is Professor John Christy. In 1991, he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and in 1996 he received a Special Award from the American Meteorological Society for fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate. He reports "What we've found, consistently, in a great part of the planet, is that the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see on the surface". This suggests that the warming is not a result of greenhouse gases. (The Great Global Warming Swindle
Carbon Dioxide is not the Culprit!)

How, as a scientist, can you continue to ignore the renowned scientists who dispute the theory?

The IPCC is shown to have changed it's conclusion which actually said there was no scientific base for thinking that anthropogenic causes affected global temperature. This was the conclusion in the original peer reviewed report. You're promoting an con. You can't prove it.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Now in the other corner, you're giving us links from:
The Wall Street Journal
The Frasier Institute (Right-wing think tank, run by economists and an 'econometrist'.)
Friends of Science (Set up in 2002 specifically to oppose AGW ideas. Funded by oil companies.)

Seriously Myrrh - step back and pause. Don't you see the mis-match here?

Don't you see that right-wing newspapers, think tanks and small oil-company funded pressure groups, who have never published a single paper in a respected journal between them, might not be an entirely unbiased source of scientific information?

Seriously Hiro. I'm at a loss here, it doesn't bother you at all that what these few voices point out is that the IPCC altered its original conclusion which showed there was no case for the anthropogenic claim and that since then it's conclusions continue the hype unsupported by the actual facts in subsequent reports.

The emperor wasn't wearing any clothes...

Myrrh

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
Contact(s):)

The Fraser Institute is well known for producing reports that are ideologically based, and are sometimes fit for nothing but wiping one's ass with. They're opposed to government regulation of tobacco and they're obsessed with ranking schools by examination results, among their other goofy ideas. OliviaG

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
Contact(s):)
The Fraser Institute is well known for producing reports that are ideologically based, and are sometimes fit for nothing but wiping one's ass with. They're opposed to government regulation of tobacco and they're obsessed with ranking schools by examination results, among their other goofy ideas. OliviaG

Shrug. You might see those as goofy...

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Personally, I don't see any government has a right to legislate on the use of any natural substance found on earth - to claim one has control over something one hasn't created is tyranny.

Myrrh

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Seriously Hiro. I'm at a loss here, it doesn't bother you at all that what these few voices point out is that the IPCC altered its original conclusion

Hi Myrrh,

No, it doesn't bother me, because your sources for reporting it seem to have very large biases and vested interests in the status quo. Put it this way:

Option 1.

The IPCC is a political conspiracy.
The holes in AGW theory are so gaping that you, with your several weeks reading, can see them easily.
The people who point these flaws out to you all happen to belong to interest groups that stand to lose greatly by cutting carbon.
The thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC are utterly stupid, and unable to see these flaws. This is despite their postgraduate degrees in atmospheric physics and years of research work.
The scientists who take part in the IPCC who aren't utter stupid are irredeemably corrupt. Despite them doing jobs that are legendary for low pay, they en-mass decide to sell out for a few more dollars of research funding.
None of these brighter but greedy scientists is then tempted to sell their conspiracy stories to the media, despite the riches that would await them.
Academic journals across the world are in on it, only publishing the IPCC lies.
Every scientific institution on the planet gets in on the act, backing this monsterous political conspiracy that you (and libertarian bloggers everywhere) can see so clearly.

Option 2

The IPCC reports are basically sound.
Some of the richest organisations in the world stand to lose money as a result.
You read biased information they distribute through non-scientific organisations. You're new to climate science, you have no background in the physics of it, but it sounds feasible.
You are mistaken.

The first option requires me to believe in a gigantic, utterly unheard of conspiracy by people who generally value their reputation for accuracy more than anything.

The second option doesn't.

I'll tell you what. Show me ONE major long-standing scientific body anywhere in the world that supports your conspiracy, and I'll spend at least ten hours over the weekend researching any claims you like.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

In my yoof I took off "to see the world" and spent the next three years travelling in the East between England and Japan. I was in Laos when the US was in the middle of its genocide of the northern Laotian people and yet the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world. How come? In the hotel used as the watering hole for the world's press I found out how, none of journalist's editors would print their stories. This is fact, it was several years later went the stink came out, that the US had been secretly and illegally bombing two nations it wasn't at war with..

I'm really not at all impressed by huge lists of "those who support" the global warming theory... From what I've read most support it from expediency - I've lost track of the amounts of research I've read by scientists who prefer to concentrate on their interests, and show amazing years of hard work in doing so, and add a line at the end as a milk sop to the global warming theory.

Seriously, I'm genuinely concerned that this is giving you sleepless nights and can only suggest that you include political and ideological reasons in support for it, in other words take a step back. As long as it's disputed science it isn't proved.

It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.

Myrrh

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I was in Laos when the US was in the middle of its genocide of the northern Laotian people and yet the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world.

It must have been quite an experience. But controlling the media in a (near) war zone is one thing, and one we know happens; controlling every scientific institution on the planet for years and years is an entirely different thing. Scientists can be herded like ferrets.

quote:
I've lost track of the amounts of research I've read by scientists who prefer to concentrate on their interests, and show amazing years of hard work in doing so, and add a line at the end as a milk sop to the global warming theory.

That's a perfectly fair comment, and I have no doubt it goes on a lot. But it's a million miles from lying about results, and that's that you're suggesting - on a massive scale.

Why do people go into science? After all, the pay's pretty crappy and the jobs are hard. One answer is that that they're fascinated by it, and want to find out how things work. Fabricating results is an anathema to that.

Another driving force is for prestige within the scientific community. Again, this generates a respect for careful statements and accuracy: if you claim too much, or are sloppy, you lose big kudos.

Occasionally someone fakes results - but it's a huge scandal when that happens. The idea of getting virtually every climate scientist and every scientific organisation to simultaneously do so is beyond belief.

But even beyond that, now governments worldwide support the findings. Regardless of their ideology, and even though they never agree on anything, and that it's against most of their interests to do so. Nobody wants this to be true. Aside from economic slowdown, they'll have to set targets, they'll fail to meet them, and they'll look inept.

quote:
It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.

So you keep asserting. (Along with "It's junk science!" and "None of it is proven!")

[ 09. August 2007, 18:58: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world.

When are you talking about exactly?

I seem to remember that we heard about it every day. The US government may have denied ti but we didn't believe them

quote:

This is fact, it was several years later went the stink came out, that the US had been secretly and illegally bombing two nations it wasn't at war with.

When exactly?

quote:

I'm really not at all impressed by huge lists of "those who support" the global warming theory...

By their frutis shall ye know them

Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos taught us that when the US government said one thing and the journalists and scientists another the journalists and scientists were more likely to be telling the truth.

The same US government and business interests who tried AND FAILED to lie about Laos have since been trying and FAILING to lie about the environment.

If your story about Laos back then is true then you seem toi have changed sides. You are not saying you believe the peopel who were lying to you back then.

quote:

From what I've read most support it from expediency

Name one.

quote:
As long as it's disputed science it isn't proved.

Proved is for courts. Science is aa matter of probabilities statistics.

To want to take action I don't have to believe that the global warming story is 100% likely to be true.

If, say, I thought that the cost of taking action to reduce the damage was X trillion dollars, and there was a 1 in 5 chance of global warming costing 10X trillion dollars, then it woudl be rational to take the action, even though I though that damage was not very likely to happen.

quote:

It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.

Yes it has and you know it has.

[ 09. August 2007, 19:17: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What science there is shows that CO2 is index linked to rises in temperature, with a time lag of around 800 years
I'm sure I've said this before. But, perhaps it needs repeating as the "800 year lag" thing's still getting said. The science is very clear. ...
The importance to the question of anthropogenic forcing of the climate is marginal, because we're accessing a completely different carbon reservoir. Though it does mean that even if we stabilise our anthropogenic input to the system, because of the temperature increase we've already caused ..
Not proved that we have any SIGNIFICANT effect.

Yes, it's been proved that we're having a significant effect on global climate (or, more scientifically "the data is consistent with human activity having a significant effect on the global climate, and inconsistent with the view that human activity is having no effect" - see, for example, figure SPM4.5 on p11 of this report - which has already been discussed on this thread).

quote:
And, no, it's not "very clear" at all.

It seems very clear to me. I open my eyes, look at the data and models and lo and behold the data fits one model but not the other. That's what science does - postulate a theory, make a prediction and compare with data. When the data matches a theory and doesn't match the alternative theories that makes it "very clear" that the theory that matches the data is much better than the one that doesn't.

quote:
How, as a scientist, can you take such arguments seriously?

Because the arguments are bloody good science. I take good science seriously.

None of which has bugger all to do with the quote you were responding to, because you dodged the point entirely. Which was that the well known and understood 800 year time lag between the onset of warming and large increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations at the end of glaciations is irrelevant to discussions of other sources of CO2 in the atmosphere (eg: burning the fossil fuel reservoir).

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

A new and improved model of the predicted increase in global temperature over the next few years... capable of accurately modelling the changes of the last decades through a model which in which CO2 is heating the earth combined with observational data to help factor in stochastic effects.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Not advocating any position on this, but I'm not sure if anyone posted This or the Response (bottom of page)

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Not advocating any position on this, but I'm not sure if anyone posted This or the Response (bottom of page)

I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of climate models: I'd be surprised if more than one person in 100,000 is.

However, James Hansen, working for NASA on the first detailed climate models, testified to the US Senate in 1988 that we would see temperature rises due to CO2. At the time this was widely decried, and many of the skeptics said "the Earth isn't warming at all". Since then, the temperature rise has become undeniable, and their position has shifted to "OK, it's warming like you said, but it's just natural", or "it won't rise much more". (Pat Michaels also blatantly deceived Congress ten years later about Hansen's predictions.)

Lindzen and Dyson et al could be right. It could be dodgy modelling, and nothing to worry about. But virtually all experts disagree, and the real warming has been even worse than the models. Because the consequences of inaction are potentially so dire, it seems INSANE to not consider there's at least a very good chance of the predictions being right and so plan accordingly.

Posted by fredwa (# 12401) on :

quote:
Personally, I don't see any government has a right to legislate on the use of any natural substance found on earth - to claim one has control over something one hasn't created is tyranny.

Really Myrrh? So no regulation of alcohol, or tobacco, what about cannabis, or coke, or opium? Do you really think there should be no legislation on lead, even in children's toys, or what about arsenic? Presumably uranium trading should be completely unfettered?

It's an interesting position to take but rather revealing of your political views. Or it might be you don't really mean it and it was sloppy thinking.

I'd love to know which.

Fred

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It must have been quite an experience. But controlling the media in a (near) war zone is one thing, and one we know happens; controlling every scientific institution on the planet for years and years is an entirely different thing. Scientists can be herded like ferrets.

I think you meant here "can't be herded"? Well, I know I keep coming back to this, but the Hockey Stick was a scam. And scientists since have been herded into toeing the party line. Not for the first time in our history, it takes a certain greatness to become a Sakharov.

quote:
That's a perfectly fair comment, and I have no doubt it goes on a lot. But it's a million miles from lying about results, and that's that you're suggesting - on a massive scale.

quote:
So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

continued on:(Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph)

This is the man who was advisor to Maggie Thatcher when she was looking for ways to screw the coal miners and annoyed that Britain was reliant on Mid East oil and Britain was very much against nuclear power stations (see Sellafied/Windscale). So when she read that someone thought CO2 would contribute to global warming, and at that time it was seen as a good thing, Monckton was one of those sent to investigate if this could be of any use to her politically. Politically.

And the scam has growed and growed like topsy ever since, to the extraordinary extent that greenpeace type environmentalists are now muttering for nuclear power plants!

quote:
Why do people go into science? After all, the pay's pretty crappy and the jobs are hard. One answer is that that they're fascinated by it, and want to find out how things work. Fabricating results is an anathema to that.

Sure, for the majority of scientists it is, but you err if you think the IPCC is run by scientists, it's not, it's a politically organisation making use of science, and several have accused it of misrepresenting their work.

quote:
Another driving force is for prestige within the scientific community. Again, this generates a respect for careful statements and accuracy: if you claim too much, or are sloppy, you lose big kudos.

Fine, I agree with all that. But the IPCC has no such compunction, nor have the many journalists who prefer a good story to accuracy, ditto politicians. But, as above, their are scientists who don't have this integrity. And it's they who are driving this scam.

quote:
Occasionally someone fakes results - but it's a huge scandal when that happens. The idea of getting virtually every climate scientist and every scientific organisation to simultaneously do so is beyond belief.

Most keep their noses clean and don't get involved in the politics as long as they can continue doing their research unhindered, as I've said and seen many times. A milk sop to the work being relevant in the "global warming" issue is enough to get funded.

quote:
But even beyond that, now governments worldwide support the findings. Regardless of their ideology, and even though they never agree on anything, and that it's against most of their interests to do so. Nobody wants this to be true. Aside from economic slowdown, they'll have to set targets, they'll fail to meet them, and they'll look inept.

Since when has that bothered any government? As long as it can maintain power .. Anyway, all this is practically irrelevant, why it's being taken to the extent it has is too complicated - the OP is still whether man-induced climate change is real or not.

quote:
It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.

So you keep asserting. (Along with "It's junk science!" and "None of it is proven!") [/QB][/QUOTE]

I keep asserting it because it's blatantly obvious. It hasn't been proved.

CO2 has not been shown to alter global temperatures. Never been shown to alter global temperatures.

The changes of temperature in the last 10,000 years show a consistent pattern of change, gradually sliding down into cold from that dramatic end of biggy ice age preceding it. In between we've had several mini ice ages and several mini warms, we're in a warm now after a nasty spell called the Mini Ice Age. Yeah right, it's got hotter since it stopped... duh.

If it wasn't for the deliberate scam which is the Hockey Stick there would be no "global warming" theory, it was designed to prove the theory by flattening out the Medieval Warm and Mini Ice Age to produce the scare. That is simply dishonest.

Mann took control of all that at the IPCC and has pushed it for whatever reasons best known to himself - but he cannot be called a scientist. He spent the next years obfuscating, refusing to produce his method and data for corrobative testing, until the whole man-made global warming acquired such momentum that even those who can now prove he produced a scam (any amount of random numbers can be entered and they will generate his hockey stick) it doesn't matter, it's become "gospel truth" that this is the hottest etc., and any scientist disagreeing is villified!

What produced the dramatic rise in temperature from the end of the Mini Ice Age? There was no global industry to speak of until the end of WWII, and the temperatures went down for the next decades.

We've been manipulated into believing a fact something which has NEVER been proved. And as I've posted above, something nasty politics happened around '95 - when the IPCC report changed by removing the reasonable conclusion from the science that there was nothing to suggest man-made CO2 was at all relevant to the beginning of pushing this as an agenda to which all science was then made to fit. And it was around this time that Mann taking control of the process.

That's the reality here.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world.
When are you talking about exactly?

I seem to remember that we heard about it every day. The US government may have denied ti but we didn't believe them

I was in Laos and Cambodia in January and February 1971, when was it in all the papers?

I haven't had time to do much research on this, but found re Cambodia:

quote:

quote:
As Viet Cong activity grew, the United States became concerned, and in 1969, the US began a fourteen month long series of bombing raids targeted at Viet Cong elements. The US claims that the bombing took place no further than ten, and later twenty miles inside the border. (The truth of what actually took place is detailed in the following article – THE CLANDESTINE WAR).
[When in Phnom Penh we used to go and sit on the roof for an after dinner smoke and watch the US bombs fall around the city perimeter, but not attacking the Cambodians - they were 'impersonating' the 'N. Vietnamese' to gain popular support for their presence, (not long after I'd returned to Thailand they'd messed up and bombed the airport by mistake). There was a six o'clock curfew for the Vietnamese, 10 o'clock for the Cambodians.]

quote:
Solid estimates of the numbers who died between 1975 and 1979 are not available, but it is likely that hundreds of thousands were brutally murdered by the regime, while hundreds of thousands died of starvation and disease. It is probable that the figure is around 1.7 million deaths. That does not include the 1 million peasant farmers and their families who died as a consequence of the US carpet-bombing raids over Cambodia between 1969 and 1973 (see the following article – THE CLANDESTINE WAR).(Appendix D)

quote:
And, Appendix E, (same link)
Kissinger embarked on a plan to wipe out the Viet Cong activity inside Cambodia, but the extentto which the operation would reach needed to be shrouded in secrecy, away from the eyes and ears of an already hostile public. From March 1969, through to May 1970, US B-52’s conducted 3,630 sorties inside Cam-bodian territory, dropping massive amounts of explosives on Cambodian areas suspected of harbouring North Vietnamese forces. In April 1970, Nixon announced to the American public that US and South Vietnamese ground forces had entered Cambodia in a campaign aimed atdestroying North Vietnamese bases in Cambodia. Demonstrations took place across collegecampuses in the US, culminating in the death of four students at Kent State, lending support for US withdrawal from Vietnam.The North Vietnamese moved further into Cambodia, and the US stepped up the tempo bycarpet-bombing deeper into the country, indiscriminately inundating rice fields and villages alike. In The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea , Craig Etcheson writes: ‘The fact is that the United States dropped three times the quantity of explosives on Cambodia between 1970 and 1973 than it dropped on Japan for the duration of World War II. Between 1969 and 1973 – 539,129 tons of high explosives rained down on Cambodia; that is more than one billion pounds. This is equivalent to some 15,400 pounds of explosives for every square mile of Cambodian territory. Considering that probably less than 25 percent of the total area of Cambodia was bombed at one time or another, the actual force per area would be fourtimes this level.’

GENOCIDE AND PROPAGANDAThe relentless US bombing campaign (that progressed for nearly five years, continuing evenafter the 1973 Paris Accords) contributed greatly to the destabilisation of the country. It was duly noted by some scholars that it provided the Khmer Rouge ‘with the psychological ingredientsof a violent, vengeful, and unrelenting social revolution’ (David Chandler). However,for the mainstream media, the bombing campaign never happened; Cambodian history began with the Khmer Rouge genocide starting in 1975. This media stance continues today, although it is sometimes admitted in passing that the US dropped some bombs on Cambodia before 1975. In The Long Secret Alliance, John Pilger writes; ‘The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia’sKhmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially.’

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is fact, it was several years later went the stink came out, that the US had been secretly and illegally bombing two nations it wasn't at war with.
When exactly?

As above, I was there beginning 1971, and we were told by mainstream media reporters in Laos that they knew about the US carpet bombing of Norther Laos, but their editors wouldn't print it. The following month we went to Cambodia and among our fellow travellers from the border to Phnom Penh was a pilot who'd flown on these raids, over 500 a day he also told us. This corroborated the information we'd been given the previous month in Laos. This was more each day than the amount of bombs dropped on Germany in WWII.

The US carpet bombed countries it was not at war with with impunity. The US general in Laos, name escapes me, said something along the lines 'to get the fish they would dry up the pond' - to get at the arms supply coming through Laos the US had no hesitation at committing mass murder of all the people through which the trail went.

quote:

I'm really not at all impressed by huge lists of "those who support" the global warming theory...

quote:
By their frutis shall ye know them

Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos taught us that when the US government said one thing and the journalists and scientists another the journalists and scientists were more likely to be telling the truth.

Well, as you can see I don't have the same faith you have in journalists..

quote:
The same US government and business interests who tried AND FAILED to lie about Laos have since been trying and FAILING to lie about the environment.

If your story about Laos back then is true then you seem toi have changed sides. You are not saying you believe the peopel who were lying to you back then.

As I said, I don't believe we have a completely free press, so why should I believe we have a completely free scientific community?

quote:

From what I've read most support it from expediency

quote:
Name one.

In general, as last post - I've seen too many objective reports which then add a short paragraph of how this 'might be relevant' to global warming..

And who can blame them? I don't. If someone is willing to be stuck for years in an inhospitable clime to gather data because they think it's important/interesting, good for them.

quote:
As long as it's disputed science it isn't proved.

quote:
Proved is for courts. Science is aa matter of probabilities statistics.

To want to take action I don't have to believe that the global warming story is 100% likely to be true.

If, say, I thought that the cost of taking action to reduce the damage was X trillion dollars, and there was a 1 in 5 chance of global warming costing 10X trillion dollars, then it woudl be rational to take the action, even though I though that damage was not very likely to happen.

Well then, lets see the stats, and I hope you remember to include the plus side for those that would benefit.

quote:

It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.

quote:
Yes it has and you know it has.

But it really hasn't. There is absolutely no proof that a) that there is such a thing as manmade global warming, not even b) that there is such a thing as CO2 driving global temperature even if C) any proof could be shown that this temperature rise since the last Mini Ice Age was at all out of norm.

NOTHING is proved, nor even close to being a rational hypothesis.

OK, you try. Show me that man-made CO2 has created the rise from the last Mini Ice Age when it was obviously of no importance in amount until post WWII.

Coincidence does not prove correlation.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fredwa:

quote:
Personally, I don't see any government has a right to legislate on the use of any natural substance found on earth - to claim one has control over something one hasn't created is tyranny.

Really Myrrh? So no regulation of alcohol, or tobacco, what about cannabis, or coke, or opium?

Exactly. Because no government has the right to decide which herbs we choose to use.

But you err, there are no real restrictions on alchohol and tobacco, we don't have prohibition because it's far too lucrative for the government. But, do you know why hemp got banned?

quote:
Do you really think there should be no legislation on lead, even in children's toys, or what about arsenic? Presumably uranium trading should be completely unfettered?[quote]

That's not the same thing. Obviously lead in childrens toys is unacceptable, although I don't know how long a child would need to suck his barbie doll before getting poisoned. Arsenic used to be, perhaps still is, available over the counter - it has a role in pest control other than slowly poisoning great uncle to speed up inheritance and the downside is that several herbs have been banned because they're upsetting the pharmaceutical companies - comfrey, St John's Wort, and a couple of days ago I found out ginko had been added to that list (Ireland).

[quote]It's an interesting position to take but rather revealing of your political views. Or it might be you don't really mean it and it was sloppy thinking.

I'd love to know which.

Fred

And exactly what has it revealed of my political views?

And, you've added to my statement by assuming it includes some of your examples so I'm really not sure that any reply I give isn't going to be taken out of context.

In a nutshell, no government has the blanket right to control the use of herbs, even if you don't approve of smoking or opium eating.., it has a duty to put restrictions on its use in place if detrimental to the common good in specific cases - not allowing our water supply to be poisoned, limits on drinking and driving and so on can be rationalised. It is not the government's business in principle if some choose to grow or use the natural resources of this planet.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I know I keep coming back to this, but the Hockey Stick was a scam.

What exactly do you mean by a 'scam'? The "Hockey Stick" has been repeatedly demonstrated to be consistent with other multi-regional estimates of temperature over the last 1000 years or so. Admittedly, some regional estimates (eg: those for NW Europe) do show a different pattern with a distinctly warmer period in the Middle Ages and a later cooler period, it's just that these regional variations don't have an enormous impact on hemispheric and global mean temperature estimates. Besides, even the data you've shown previously has demonstrated a significant temperature rise over the last 50 years that's been faster than other rises (or falls) and puts the current temperature at the warmest in recent history (last few thousand years). If even the skeptics data shows the same broad picture as Manns Hockey Stick (even if there's slight difference in the amount of temperature increase compared to 200 years ago) why keep bashing the Hockey Stick? Especially as the IPCC doesn't even use the Hockey Stick exclusively, it's one of about a dozen reconstructions that went into the report - some showing the same pattern as Mann, others showing the MWP and MIA more clearly; I think you've even used some of the data the IPCC used to try and demonstrate that the IPCC weren't using all the data!

quote:
This [Monckton] is the man who was advisor to Maggie Thatcher...

OK, so let me try and get this straight. You're willing to accept the authority of a non-scientist who you clearly acknowledge as being a political advisor. Yet, you're not willing to accept the authority of qualified scientists because they also advice politicians. What is your position on the issue of political advice? Are you going to reject the opinions of anyone who advises politicians? In which case, stop quoting Monckton. Or, are you going to accept that it's perfectly proper and reasonable for people with relevant expertise to advise politicians? In which case, stop knocking the IPCC for doing exactly that.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is the man who was advisor to Maggie Thatcher when she was looking for ways to screw the coal miners [...] Monckton was one of those sent to investigate if this could be of any use to her politically. Politically.
And the scam has growed and growed like topsy ever since

It's the "Maggie dunnit" theory! I haven't seen that since The Great Global Warming Swindle.

So to re-cap...

Maggie started this by persuading a great load of UK scientists to lie for her, as an anti-coal tactic. (i.e. people that you've admitted have a professional love of accuracy.)
This fraud was so successful it spread to researchers in the US, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, India...oh, well everywhere.
After her losing power, the myth was so powerful that no-one could stop it, and the leading scientific organisations in every country without exception joined in. Countless independent researchers confirmed it.
By sheer fluke, the predictions the theory made came true! It DID get warmer, at a rate far faster than anything ever seen before.
Every government on the planet backed the conspiracy, even though it goes against most of their interests.

You actually believe this Myrrh? Rather than the infinitely simpler alternative that the science is reasonable?

quote:
you err if you think the IPCC is run by scientists, it's not, it's a politically organisation making use of science, and several have accused it of misrepresenting their work.

Several people? Out of the thousands of contributors, and the doubtless impressive egos knocking around, and the potential of honest mistakes and confusion, only a few were unhappy? That seems pretty impressive to me.

quote:
By Myrrh:
quote:
By Hiro's Leap:
Another driving force is for prestige within the scientific community. Again, this generates a respect for careful statements and accuracy: if you claim too much, or are sloppy, you lose big kudos.
Fine, I agree with all that.

Quoted because it's good to see that you think most of them are honest.

quote:
Mann took control of all that at the IPCC and has pushed it for whatever reasons best known to himself but he cannot be called a scientist. He spent the next years obfuscating, refusing to produce his method and data for corrobative testing, until the whole man-made global warming acquired such momentum that even those who can now prove he produced a scam [...] And as I've posted above, something nasty politics happened around '95 [...] around this time that Mann taking control of the process.

That's the reality here.

Ah. So we're all being oppressed by The Mann? [Snigger]

[ 17. August 2007, 13:49: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

You think the idea that any scientist would do what the dreaded Maggie told them is tenable?

Now, if the claim was that scientists had invented Global Warming just to spite her - that I might believe!

Oh, and for any of that conspiracy to make sense, Maggie would also have had to switched to nuclear power rather than exploiting North Sea gas and oil. Oh, and to have needed GW as an excuse for shafting the miners, rather than the fact they kept attempting to destabilise her government and replace her with Arthur Scargill, which would seem to be quite reason enough. Oh, and one would also have expected Labour to debunk the phoney theory as soon as they got into power in 1997, rather than perpetuating
the lie to the detriment of their own policy. Oh, and one would also expect.... but why go on?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What exactly do you mean by a 'scam'? The "Hockey Stick" has been repeatedly demonstrated to be consistent with other multi-regional estimates of temperature over the last 1000 years or so. ..

Alan, please, the beginning of the Hockey Stick was clearly a scam, deliberately ironing out the Medieval Warm and Mini Ice Age - that's how this theory got off the ground! There was a distinct change in emphasis around '95/96 - this was when Mann and his coterie, whoever they were, came to direct the agenda. For goodness sake man, how can it not ring warning bells for you when it's pointed out that two crucial statements were deliberately taken out of the '96 IPCC report? Based on the same data it was originally summarised that there was no provable or significant connection between man's imput and global warming. Then the original Mann Hockey Stick became the flag for the campaign to prove the opposite by manipulating data and creating unsubstantiated scares, and it really has been thoroughly discredited as we've already been over here. The Hockey Stick is still a joke, a scam which denies extremes of climate variation of which we're in but one phase, not at all out of the ordinary.

The whole man-made global warming scare is built on nothing but hot air of those working to their own agendas, whatever they are, it is not science: 1)CO2 is not shown to be significant in raising global temperature, 2) the climate variation we're in is not out of the ordinary and 3)there is no correlation between the rise of industrial output and the rise in temperature since the last mini ice age. What the f. are you building this theory on?

quote:
OK, so let me try and get this straight. You're willing to accept the authority of a non-scientist who you clearly acknowledge as being a political advisor. Yet, you're not willing to accept the authority of qualified scientists because they also advice politicians. What is your position on the issue of political advice? Are you going to reject the opinions of anyone who advises politicians? In which case, stop quoting Monckton. Or, are you going to accept that it's perfectly proper and reasonable for people with relevant expertise to advise politicians? In which case, stop knocking the IPCC for doing exactly that.

I don't take anyone's authority here.. I do take note of the political reality of his insider knowledge to pertinent background history of the rise and rise of global warming and you are being disingenous to keep presuming that "qualified scientists" refers to those who support the theory. There are many qualified scientists who think the theory is junk. Since the basic premise is non-existent, that the three claims above are even rational, it's not even a theory.

Alan, with respect, it's pathetic reasoning, certainly having no claim to be considered scientific. The rest is spin to cover up the absurd non-existence of a rational base for the theory. One doesn't have to be a specialist in any subject to see that simple logic is missing from the base premise.

It may have become mainstream, but every century of our history shows us how easy it is to rally people to ridiculous causes, mainstream is no guarantee of anything. Let's look at the science rationally from qualified scientists who disagree with the theory:

(Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming)

From which re temperature:

quote:
Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

Where's the correlation between man-made CO2 and global warming?

Where the feck is it?

Why should I go with your "qualified scientists" when I find these, and please do read through their thoughts about it, equally qualified and showing a simple rational logic that still hasn't been answered by you and your ilk.

The basic premise is flawed. You have not and cannot show any proof of the three core claims for the theory.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What the f. are you building this theory on?

Simple. The theory is built on the following solidly established scientific facts.

1) CO2 is shown to be significant in raising global temperature,
2) the climate variation we're in is out of the ordinary and
3) there is a good correlation between the rise of industrial output and the rise in temperature

As I've repeatedly offered good sources to support.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
You actually believe this Myrrh? Rather than the infinitely simpler alternative that the science is reasonable?

Well, this is exactly my gripe here about all aspects of the claim which supposedly back the anthropogenic global warming theory, not one can be held up as reasonable.

So there's been tweaking since the original Mann, but it was the original Mann which drove the global warming scenario and it was deliberately produced to present a skewed view of our climate - by flattening the main past high and low it made it appear that in the last thousand years nothing much changed until the 150 years ago and then the global temperature rose dramatically. That's why it's called the hockey stick - and it went completely against all known and reasonable knowledge of our climate in this period.

That it was finally proved to be ridiculous, flawed methodology etc. and even deliberately created to give this view, any set of random numbers will produce it, has not changed its effect in that this is still the general perception promoted by global warming protagonists - this is not reasonable. This is conman tactics and not worthy of being called science. Science skewed to promote a view is propaganda not science.

This is not ancient history where documentary evidence is scarce, the main argument peaked just over a decade ago. As an example, reasonable people were arguing reasonably against those who promoted this view that the Medieval Warm didn't exist (Sep 26, 1995 by moore@Hoover.Stanford.EDU)

But the agenda driven disingenous science didn't care for reasonable arguments then as it doesn't now. Putting back into our recent history the Medieval Warm and the Mini Ice Age shows that our current warm coming out of the MIA is nothing unusual. Not at all what the agenda driven anthropogenic global warming theorists want known and any amount of jiggling and distractions and downright lies continue to be yelled at us, have to be yelled at us, to hide this simple fact. Where's the problem if we've just come out of the MIA and are now back at similar temperatures to the MWP? (and by much sensible reasoning not yet at high as the MWP).

This in itself is quite sufficient to debunk the theory as it takes away its ground of being, hence we see desperate arguments now to belittle the importance of Mann and his graph's role in this.

This same propaganda machine made other claims to back its view of anthropogenic global warming, none of which is reasonable either (and this is quite apart from the deliberate lies and fakery such as pictures of polar bears on ice floes in the summer melt and the IPCC claims about hurricanes and mosquitoes which deliberately presented scenarios contradicted by contributing scientists, and so on). Taken individually each is of the main claims shows unreasonable science.

Which is more reasonable - that our recent warmth is in the natural highs and lows of global temperature and which finally came out of the last mini ice age around 1950 or that man-made CO2 brought us out of it beginning 150 years ago when industrial CO2 was practically non-existant until after WWII? (when global temperature actually dropped for a few decades).

And this is quite separate from the unreasonable claims still being made for CO2 as the driver of global warming when all facts considered it is unreasonable to claim it is significant? And that's quite separate to the unreasonable claim that the rise in CO2 is undisputed, i.e. proved, when it's no such thing. And so on and so on.

There's nothing reasonable in this theory except that it itself is driven by anthropogenic hot air and deliberate deceit.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Hiro - re unreasonable claims.

Do read all the page for background, but claims about the level of CO2 as undisputed, i.e. proved, is another of the unreasonable claims made by global warming theorists.

quote:
(Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2)

Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 2004 Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski

....

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.

So far, it is not reasonable to claim our current global temperature is anything out of the ordinary, it is not reasonable to claim that the industrial revolution has driven this current rise in temperature, it is not reasonable to claim our current levels of CO2 are unprecedented, (to come - and it not reasonable to claim that CO2 is significant in driving global warming) and it is not reasonable to conclude that the scientists who dispute the theory are fools especially in light of the proven manipulation of science by the IPCC and global warming protagonists.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That it [Mann's reconstruction of past climate] was finally proved to be ridiculous, flawed methodology etc. and even deliberately created to give this view

Mann set out to answer a seemingly simple question - "what was the climate, specifically temperature, like in the past?" He wasn't the first, nor the last, to ask that question and seek to answer it. But, it's not an easy question to answer. There are two big problems to be addressed, and how they're addressed will affect the answer.

The first problem is that we only have instrumental measurements going back a couple of centuries or so. That means that to study the climate earlier than that we need to look at proxy data, things that are affected by climate but not direct measurements of the climate. These proxy's can include ice core data (especially oxygen isotope ratios that give the temperature of the air when the ice formed), tree rings (with different conditions favouring more or less growth in any season) and anecdotal evidence (eg: diaries of people recording that the summer was dry, or paintings of the Thames frozen). Different proxies are sensitive to the climate in different ways, and some are a lot easier to assess.

The second problem is that your data, whether direct measurement or proxy, is specific to a given time and place. Given that specificity, how do you convert a set of data for London to a set of average values, even to give "the mean noon temperature in winter" isn't necessarily straight forward - when you then try to get a mean global average temperature, which is what is commonly reported, you face even bigger problems. Given that most data is biased geographically as well (instruments until recently were concentrated in developed countries, ice cores come from polar regions except for a few glaciers, different species of tree grow in different areas etc), and you're facing a really tough problem.

Given the above it's not surprising that any one data set will be challenged, both on the selection of data and the methodology used to interpret that data. Which is why a body like the IPCC collates as many independent data sets as possible. The latest report uses 12 for the Northern Hemisphere, including the data from Mann. And, you know what? They're all basically consistent with the "Hockey Stick" - that is, 12 independent data sets produced by independent teams of scientists using different proxies and different methodologies get basically the same result. There's a nice set of graphics on p467 of this years WGI report.

So, far from "ridiculous, flawed methodology" the work of Mann has stood up well under stringent scrutiny. And, the acid test has been passed - that is his work has been repeated, reproducing basically the same outcome.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That it [Mann's reconstruction of past climate] was finally proved to be ridiculous, flawed methodology etc. and even deliberately created to give this view
Mann set out to answer a seemingly simple question - "what was the climate, specifically temperature, like in the past?" He wasn't the first, nor the last, to ask that question and seek to answer it. But, it's not an easy question to answer. There are two big problems to be addressed, and how they're addressed will affect the answer.

Alan, I have read quite a lot of the 'history' of this dispute and try as you will to convince me that Mann's concern was for good science I now think otherwise.

What I have been trying to explain is that I've found enough evidence of corrupt science from the global warming theorists to be convinced that this wasn't even bad science by error, but by deliberate manipulation. Mann's 1998 Hockey Stick completely flattened out the MWP and the MIA - even a non-expert like myself could recognise that this was really weird as it went against all received wisdom.

Further research in both camps showed that around a decade ago those promoting the idea of man-made global warming turned the corner and were able to force this idea into prominence - based primarily on this Hockey Stick graph. To the extent that Mann's influence in the IPCC grew, around '95/96, he gained greater control over the publication of global temperature data and jettisoned graphs which had been used previously in the IPCC reports after producing his Hockey Stick, the 2001 report used his graph prominently whereas previous graphs showed both the Medieval Warm and Mini Ice Age.

This takeover began as previously noted here, (on the Seitz link) with the two critical paragraphs taken out of the summary which said that the recent global warming 'could not be attributed to anthropogenic imput'. However, it wasn't until the 2001 report that Mann & Co found themselves in a strong enough position to completely screw with scientists imput by promoting his Hockey Stick anthropogenic global warming theory contrary to simple common sense.

How can you not be appalled to learn of this? I'm really amazed that this aspect appears not to bother you at all. I'll put a link to it again at the end, perhaps you missed it first time around, but let's go back to Mann's imput when this argument was raging - we're still in the early nineties - when the coterie of global warming theorists were warming up to the task they'd set themselves.

quote:

In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

And by 1998 Mann had accomplished exactly that.

Coincidence or what?

How? Firstly by using proxy data which was not considered acceptable to establish climate change, bristlecone pines, and secondly by deliberately creating a computer model which eliminated the MWP and MIA. It completely flattened out past temperatures in so refined a model that one can put in any series of random numbers and get the Hockey Stick every time.

He then spent a considerable amount of energy over the next years withholding the data he'd used and his method of arriving at his graph. It has been thoroughly discredited now, but the damage has been done. Science itself has been discredited because of it and there is now a global industry based on this so-called peer reviewed science and itself busy maintaining the fiction.

Actually this aspect has become paramount and the subtleties of manipulation have become tiresome to spot in the vast amount of information now available. I'm sorry, but I simply can't take seriously data from any scientist who defends him now because it's proved to me beyond all reasonable doubt to be a deliberate scam.

The above quote from Deming is available in several places and it was in Monckton's piece I posted above, but I've taken it from a yahoo answers page which has an explanation of Mann's agenda graph together with a link to a pdf file which shows a comparison of the Hockey Stick with several other graphs generated from random numbers, but I haven't been able to get the pdf up for some reason. Perhaps you'll let me know what it looks like... ?

(Is Mann's Hockey Stick valid?)

Still in the nineties, a quick look at what else was in play in this scam:

quote:
(Holocaust Or Hoax? - The Global Warming Debate Heats Up By Leland Lehrman 4-26-7)

..
Let's start with the infamous 1992 quote of Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the commercial brainchild of Al Gore's supposedly well-intentioned efforts to alert the world to "global warming:"

"Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated."

.....

Adding to my confusion, the normally reputable and fearless Alex Jones and his brilliant young British colleague Paul Joseph Watson of infowars.com recently attacked both the science and the policy objectives behind global warming. They cited a perceptive article by Daniel Taylor which spells out concerns which I share:

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself"

The article also gives more background about the Mann data as manipulated by so called peer review and together with the above and the Seitz link below, tell me again that the global warming theory is based on solid peer reviewed science...

I hope you can see my problem here, Alan. Rather a lot of links, but I wanted to make it clear that I have absolutely no reason to take your explanations 'that further climate graphs confirm Mann' at all seriously because the 1998 Mann is so obviously flawed even without knowing how it was engineered and pushed to prominence.

Myrrh

The full Deming statement is here: (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements Date: 12/06/2006)

And please, think about what Seitz is saying here - this is a terrible condemnation of the IPCC and puts at zero any claim to its reports being approved by the contributing scientists: (A Major Deception on Global Warming)

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

For a graphic of the Mann 1998 Hockey Stick in all its glory -

(Hockey Stick)

And just how ridiculous does this sound "We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald North, the committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station." when he goes on to say "In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries."

Yeah right, but one can't see where they'd get their high level of confidence to even "roughly agree" with Mann 1998 since the Mini Ice Age ain't there...

Disingenous gobbledegook passes for peer reviewed science in this subject.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Mann's 1998 Hockey Stick completely flattened out the MWP and the MIA - even a non-expert like myself could recognise that this was really weird as it went against all received wisdom.

What's this "received wisdom"? That European records show a relatively warm period in the Middle Ages (around 800-1300AD) and a relatively cold period around 1650-1800AD? Well, it's received wisdom ... the big question is "is it right?" That Europe (or, Western Europe at least) experienced these temperature variations isn't in dispute. The big question is to what extent these events affect the mean global (or even Northern Hemisphere) temperature? The answer appears to be "not all that much really". Should that be a surprise? Probably not, if anyone was to think about it carefully. We know from direct observations that there are ocean current influenced climate events that are global in effect, but the effects aren't uniform. In the current epoch the El Nino/La Nina oscillation in the southern Pacific is the biggest one; during El Nino years, South America is generally warmer and drier than usual; warmer winters in Northern USA and Canada, cooler in the SW States; drier and cooler summers in Australia; etc. Clearly if the biggest climate variations we regularly see now warm some areas of the globe and cool others, why would we expect the MWP and LIA to be global? If they weren't global, or even limited to the Northern Hemisphere, then we'd expect global/NH reconstructions of climate to flatten out these events.

And, as an aside, the 1998/99 Mann papers covered a period from 1000AD onwards. That means that, at best, he'd have picked up on the end of the MWP (if it had the hemispheric effect in temperature needed to not be flattened out). Therefore, it seems strange that that data would be used to comment on the MWP at all - you'd really need the data to go back further so you get the start of the MWP too.

I'm not sure what to make of people repeating the "we must get rid of the MWP" quote. Clearly people are quoting it as though it proves a conspiracy. But, as I don't know the original context I can see several innocent explanations for why Mann would say that - especially if it was in the context of an informal chat with a colleague about what the data he had was showing. The most obvious being that the data shows that the MWP (and LIA) weren't global temperature events, and therefore climatologists need to "get rid of" talk that implies that they were anything other than phenomena that affected temperatures in Europe.

And, of course, if you're sticking with the conspiracy hypothesis then you need to not just include Mann in the conspiracy. You need to prove that the other teams of scientists independently reconstructing the past temperature record also deliberately falsified or mis-analysed their data to produce plots similar to Mann's Hockey Stick. One data set being hyped is bad science. But, most people recognise reproducibility as a mark of good science, and therefore a dozen independent data sets showing a consistent picture of the past temperature is a mark of good science - ie: despite some minor statistical errors and potentially poor choice of bristle cone pines as one of his proxies, Mann got it about right.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Hi Myrrh,

Sorry, I'm still not interested in debating the science of global warming: neither of us are involved enough for our opinions to matter in the slightest. I'm also still not interested in op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, nor posters on malaysia.answers.yahoo.com. - neither seem particularly authoritive sources of information (to say the least).

However, my previous offer still stands. Find me one long-established scientific organisation anywhere in the world that backs your conspiracy version, and I'll gladly read all of those links.

quote:
The above quote from Deming is available in several places and it was in Monckton's piece I posted above

Hang on, if Deming was so shocked then why didn't he keep a copy of this explosive email? And why isn't naming the person? "Oh yeah, someone I won't name but is REALLY important said something about getting rid of the MWP, but I won't give you the quote in its full context because...uhh...". Again, this is not convincing in the least.

Please, find one major scientific organisation back up your version of events. After all, wouldn't it be in Russian or Chinese or even North Korean interests to demonstrate that western governments had been lying to everyone for so long? Just one will do, anywhere. [Smile]

I'd LOVE to believe it's a scam!

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Mann's 1998 Hockey Stick completely flattened out the MWP and the MIA - even a non-expert like myself could recognise that this was really weird as it went against all received wisdom.
What's this "received wisdom"? That European records show a relatively warm period in the Middle Ages (around 800-1300AD) and a relatively cold period around 1650-1800AD? Well, it's received wisdom ... the big question is "is it right?" That Europe (or, Western Europe at least) experienced these temperature variations isn't in dispute. The big question is to what extent these events affect the mean global (or even Northern Hemisphere) temperature? The answer appears to be "not all that much really". Should that be a surprise? Probably not, if anyone was to think about it carefully. We know from direct observations that there are ocean current influenced climate events that are global in effect, but the effects aren't uniform. In the current epoch the El Nino/La Nina oscillation in the southern Pacific is the biggest one; during El Nino years, South America is generally warmer and drier than usual; warmer winters in Northern USA and Canada, cooler in the SW States; drier and cooler summers in Australia; etc. Clearly if the biggest climate variations we regularly see now warm some areas of the globe and cool others, why would we expect the MWP and LIA to be global? If they weren't global, or even limited to the Northern Hemisphere, then we'd expect global/NH reconstructions of climate to flatten out these events.

So what's your explanation for the disappearance of the global MWP and MIA as produced by the IPCC 1995 report?

Why was the Hockey Stick which covered the Northern Hemisphere relabelled (Fig.5 The `Hockey Stick' according to the U.S. `National Assessment' in link below) - "1000 Years of Global CO2 and Temperature Change"?

Relegating the MWP/MIA to 'Europe' is part of the spin to eliminate them. Global warmists who produce this seemingly endless stream of propaganda denying their existence need to do so because climate facts falsify their theory, and, for this they are not due any respect at all as scientists.

I'm disappointed that any scientist would knowingly want to support such for whatever reason in the variety of agendas, but simple fraud and complex ideology driven campaigns are a recognised part of human behaviour. What makes "science" think it's any different or immune from being taken over by a man and his mission?

And a successful fraudster uses accepted terms to give credibility, the use of "peer reviewed" is the USP here when it's actually missing in the change from "received wisdom" to "Hockey Stick".

Please see the following page for received wisdom - (The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Scienceby John L. Daly)

And please, read it, then we can discuss whether or not the MWP and MIA were global or not. And please, don't detract by attacking the messenger if you have a gripe about him, look at the argument.

quote:
And, as an aside, the 1998/99 Mann papers covered a period from 1000AD onwards. That means that, at best, he'd have picked up on the end of the MWP (if it had the hemispheric effect in temperature needed to not be flattened out). Therefore, it seems strange that that data would be used to comment on the MWP at all - you'd really need the data to go back further so you get the start of the MWP too.

The whole point was to make the Medieval Warm disappear..

And by virtually obliterating the MIA to produce a rise of temperature out of nowhere.

And, anyway, without any evidence that CO2 drives global warming (actually the observed time lag showing that this, if itself accurate, present rise in levels would correlate with the MWP), coupling unhistoric industrial production to it and so creating a totally imaginary scenario.

quote:
I'm not sure what to make of people repeating the "we must get rid of the MWP" quote. Clearly people are quoting it as though it proves a conspiracy. But, as I don't know the original context I can see several innocent explanations for why Mann would say that - especially if it was in the context of an informal chat with a colleague about what the data he had was showing. The most obvious being that the data shows that the MWP (and LIA) weren't global temperature events, and therefore climatologists need to "get rid of" talk that implies that they were anything other than phenomena that affected temperatures in Europe.

See above re global. But you're not taking into account the history of this argument. It was imperative for Mann & Co (for whatever agenda) to get rid of the MWP and MIA as they show the theory for the nonsense it is.

There was a definite change in the IPCC agenda from the time Mann & Co gained the upper hand among those setting policy, mid nineties. Again, the same point I've been trying to make here, from the above link:

quote:
In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.

This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

The ultimate consummation of the new theory came with the release of the draft of the Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000) [11] of the IPCC. Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the `Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report. They could not even offer any scientific justification for their new line.

So you tell what happened here to peer review.

quote:
And, of course, if you're sticking with the conspiracy hypothesis then you need to not just include Mann in the conspiracy. You need to prove that the other teams of scientists independently reconstructing the past temperature record also deliberately falsified or mis-analysed their data to produce plots similar to Mann's Hockey Stick. One data set being hyped is bad science. But, most people recognise reproducibility as a mark of good science, and therefore a dozen independent data sets showing a consistent picture of the past temperature is a mark of good science - ie: despite some minor statistical errors and potentially poor choice of bristle cone pines as one of his proxies, Mann got it about right.

This is the history of the change - we have documentary evidence showing what actually happened. This is not ancient history, but only a DECADE. We have the story as recorded.

If it walks like a duck.., we can see for ourselves it's a scam. I really don't have to go into researching everyone who was involved in the scam or now backing the scam to show the scam exists.

Myrrh

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Sorry to be so late getting back to this. I've been away, and was extrememly busy prior to that

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So what's your explanation for the disappearance of the global MWP and MIA as produced by the IPCC 1995 report?

I'm not sure where I'd get a copy of the 1995 IPCC report, the IPCC website has the SPMs but not the full report. Nevertheless, the 1995 SPM from WGI doesn't mention the MWP or MIA as far as I can see from a quick read. It does, however, have this to say about the 20th century data then available

quote:
The limited available evidence from proxy climate indicators suggests that the 20th century global mean temperature is at least as warm as any other century since at least 1400 A.D. Data prior to 1400 are too sparse to allow the reliable estimation of global mean temperature.

Note that last sentence. That means that in 1995 the IPCC didn't consider it possible to estimate pre-1400 global mean temperatures because of insufficient data then available. No pre 1400 global data means no comment on the MWP outwith western Europe. Of course, we now have a load more data. Mann, and other groups, had produced proxy data going back to 1000AD which went into the 2001 IPCC report, and even more data pushing that back even further has gone into the most recent one.

So, to answer your question. First, I've no real evidence that in 1995 the IPCC said much about either the MWP or LIA; whatever was in the main report wasn't considered important enough to include in the SPM. Second, even if the IPCC had the MWP and LIA in their 1995 report, they disappear in later reports simply because there now exists the data that shows that the impact of these events didn't result in any significant change in mean global temperature. These regional events disappear from the global averages because better data has shown that they don't impact global averages.

quote:
Why was the Hockey Stick which covered the Northern Hemisphere relabelled (Fig.5 The `Hockey Stick' according to the U.S. `National Assessment' in link below) - "1000 Years of Global CO2 and Temperature Change"?

When I look at that figure on the John Daly site there is one thing that strikes me. That is, he says it's drawn from a US National Assessment, he even gives a citation. Here is the National Assessment he cites. Read through chapter 1 of that report, which is where the evidence for climate change is presented and you'll find a plot including Mann's Hockey Stick. In the USGCRP report it's clearly labelled "Northern Hemisphere". Admittedly it doesn't have the error bars that Mann includes in his original paper (and that are reproduced in the 2001 IPCC report). Put quite simply, John Daly produces a graph that he claims comes from a USGCRP report and procedes to criticise it. That graph is not in the report he claims to have taken it from.

quote:
Please see the following page for received wisdom - (The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Scienceby John L. Daly)

And please, read it, then we can discuss whether or not the MWP and MIA were global or not. And please, don't detract by attacking the messenger if you have a gripe about him, look at the argument.

As I've just said, I've had a look at that site. If the fact that he reproduces a graph that doesn't exist in the report he claims it comes from isn't enough to raise questions about the value of his contribution to the debate, his arguments against the use of tree rings are practically identical to the words of caution about tree rings in the 2001 IPCC report. He's not exactly telling climate scientists something they didn't already know, and something for which they had already taken steps to attempt to minimize the impact of on the data they wanted and included within their uncertainty estimates.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It's not disputed because [the question 'is climate change real'] is no longer considered a scientifically interesting topic to discuss at academic conferences or in the journals: the scientists overwhelming agree. Real debate has moved to other issues, and did so long ago [/QB]

Here is one such issue, with theological overtones, which may warrant a new thread. (It actually came up in a meeting of church leaders from Pacific Island countries.)

People in the low-lying islands of the Pacific can see directly that the sea-level has been rising over the last decade or two: at spring tide, the sea often washes over most of the island! Nevertheless some church elders say say that we don’t have to worry about the sea inundating our island (or take action to mitigate this) because God promised Noah that never again shall there be a flood to lay waste the earth.

How should a Minister respond to this, which is undoubtedly a serious theological question to those concerned?

One response that was given at the meeting was : God promised that He would not make such a flood, but Noah made no promise that human kind would not do so.

What other responses can Shipmates suggest?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The other response is that in the Genesis record God says he's never again going to destroy all life by flood. It doesn't say that floods won't destroy some life, and lay waste to parts of the earth.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Hi Tukai,

I'm not a Christian and can't give you much in the way of theological answers. That said, it sounds like your answer is pretty good: it's not God who is digging up the coal and oil, and he's not the one burning it in such a hurry.

As Alan says, there's no particular reason to believe this will destroy everything, and so there is no contradiction with God's promise whatsoever. That said, the next hundred years are looking bleak for big chunks of the world unless we change soon. To me, that's a bad enough issue to take seriously, regardless of the worst-case scenarios.

[Btw to people in the UK: Channel 4 are hosting a climate change discussion tonight at 7.30pm. It's called "The Great Green Debate" and has scientists trying to explain to a skeptical lay audience why there's a problem. Sounds interesting, if you're into that kinda thang.]

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Relating to a Christian response to climate change:

quote:
From The Guardian:
Yesterday Christian, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist and Jewish religious leaders took a boat to the tongue of the glacier for a silent prayer for the planet. They were invited by Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.

I might not know much about this religious stuff, but Bartholomew I sounds like a great bloke. I'll definitely be voting for him as next Pope. Sadly, it was somewhat overshadowed by recent Greenland research showing the IPCC projections may be pretty conservative:

quote:
The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off.

The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.

[...] the quakes were triggered because ice had broken away after being fused to the rock for hundreds of years. The quakes were not vast - on a magnitude of 1 to 3 - but had never happened before in north-west Greenland and showed potential for the entire ice sheet to collapse.

This makes the IPCC sea-level rise predictions look optimistic. Adios Amsterdam?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
it was somewhat overshadowed by recent Greenland research showing the IPCC projections may be pretty conservative

Which, is hardly surprising. The nature and role of the IPCC will naturally make it conservative. It's role is to inform policy makers by presenting the best supported scientific data. That would naturally mean that data that's not been well documented or where the uncertainties are very large won't feature prominantly.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The nature and role of the IPCC will naturally make it conservative. It's role is to inform policy makers by presenting the best supported scientific data.

Absolutely. If it wasn't so conservative, it wouldn't carry the weight it does.

However, the IPCC's original mandate was to determine the most likely result of global warming, and there was some discussion at the time if this was the right aim. In many ways it'd be good to also know the worst case scenario (say, with a 5% chance of occuring). After all, military and business planning will look at serious negative outcomes that are much less than 50% likely.

While cautious language is good science, most people are unused to it. I think there's a widespread assumption that that the IPCC is promoting an extreme view, the carbon industries are presenting another, and the truth lies in between. This is untrue: because of the conservative nature of the IPCC, the reality is likely to be worse. We're used to hearing spin, and the idea of an organisation putting out honest and cautious claims is pretty alien to us now.

James Hansen wrote an interesting piece on this:

quote:
I suggest that a `scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

There is, in my opinion, a huge gap between what is understood about human-made global warming and its consequences, and what is known by the people who most need to know, the public and policy makers. The IPCC is doing a commendable job, but we need something more. Given the reticence that the IPCC necessarily exhibits, there need to be supplementary mechanisms. The onus, it seems to me, falls on us scientists as a community.

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

Woman made global warming?

quote:
If you were asked to name the biggest global-warming villains of the past 30 years, here’s one name that probably wouldn’t spring to mind: Jane Fonda. But should it?

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

You can blame Jane Fonda for a lot of things - Barbarella for example - but it seems a bit harsh to pin global warming on her!

Jonah

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh on another thread:
Alan, to be precise, CO2 as a greenhouse gas has not been proved to have any significant effect on global warming.

Bullshit. The effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures has been known for 100 years or more.

quote:
If you really think that our piddling amount of extra CO2 has the capability of changing that pattern

I wouldn't call something over 30% increase in CO2 concentrations in the last 100 years a "piddling amount". That's a 30+% increase over the highest levels of CO2 in the last 450ky, 30% or more over what the natural cycle of recent times has produced.

quote:
... then we should be pumping more of it into the atmosphere

And the logic of that is? We're screwing massively with the climate, making it less hospitable for the species that have evolved over the last few million years (including humans), and so therefore we should screw it all up even more????

quote:
Sigh, not only have you decided to go with those whose express purpose was to flatten out our recent 2000 year high of the Medieval Warm to create data for this silly concept

You're referring, again, to the work of Mann et al I take it, and the so-called "hockey stick" that their data shows. I notice you haven't responded to my last reply to you. The one where I point out that the source you give supporting your claim of 'scientific fraud' on the part of Mann et al makes that claim based largely on a plot from a USGCRP report that, a plot that simply doesn't exist in the report he claims he took it from. Do you realise how unconvincing a claim of scientific fraud is from someone who fabricates figures? Do you really you want to try and convince me to accept people who fake data to prove other people have faked data?

quote:
you are still completely ignoring the fact that temperatures rise and fall dramatically over time with or without our imput and have nothing to say of the pattern of warming and cooling we are in which has been going on for the last 450,000 years without our last 50 years of industrial extra CO2.

If you read what I've said on this thread then you'll see that I'm perfectly happy to talk about the natural cycles of warming and cooling. In fact, the whole thing about those cycles is that they show how unusual the current changes in atmospheric chemistry and the associated warming are. Yes, the warming is small compared to the rise at the end of previous glaciations, but it's occuring in the middle of an interglacial rather than the start of one. Yes, the rise on CO2 concentrations is similar to that following the end of a glaciation, but it's happening in the middle of an interglacial. Basically, from the pattern of temperature and atmospheric chemistry over the last 450ky we can easily deduce that the current changes will take us out of that cycle completely. Which is distinctly unnatural.

quote:
in section IV Climate Models Are Unconvincing - "The burden of proof rests with those claiming anthropogenic warming. Because mitigating climate change would entail huge costs, and because past warming episodes have been natural, it is up to climate scientists to dispel all reasonable doubts---not to climate skeptics to prove them wrong."

Seems to be a disconnected set of concepts.

First, the title is wrong. Climate models are extremely convincing. In that, for example, they can reasonably well reproduce past climates. And, if you run the models with and without anthropogenic effects the ones without show a slow temperature decrease and those with show a rapid rise that almost exactly matches observations. You can't really do better with a model than have it reproduce direct observations.

Second, the burden of proof has shifted. The evidence is strongly in favour of anthropogenic warming. The burden of proof rests with those who would claim that the best scientists in the field are wrong. As climate scientists have dispeled all reasonable doubt, at least for people willing to put aside their prejudices and commitments to the views of the oil companies who pay them, I'm not sure what the skeptics want.

And, finally, I'm not sure mitigating climate change would entail huge costs. At least, not necessarily any bigger than the cost of living with a changing climate. Does it actually cost more to improve fuel efficiency, develop non-carbon energy sources, drive and fly a lot less, etc than it costs to build massive flood defenses and develop new crops and livestock that can thrive in different conditions? Let alone the costs of millions of people needlessly dieing from heat stroke, disease, starvation and storms, and the millions more displaced from their homes seeking refuge elsewhere ... and that the pressures in many parts of the world will result in increases tensions between nations and groups trying to secure the resources they need to cope, leading inevitably to more war and suffering.

Unfortunately, we've probably delayed too long and we're likely have to incur some of the costs of adapting anyway ... but I don't think we've gone too far, and that cutting our carbon footprints will reduce the amount we'll eventually have to pay.

quote:
As I have said to you many times before: a) you have not proved that there is such a thing as global warming (we're in a similar pattern of cooling as clearly shown in for the last 450ky), b) you have not proved that CO2 drives global warming, c) you have not proved either the amount of CO2 we have now is significantly different to the last century nor proved that the amount claimed for the last century is accurate and c) you still cannot show any correlation of man-made CO2 to rising temperatures

Well, taking your points ...

a) The evidence is clear. The earth is warming at about 0.2°C per decade, and that warming appears to be accelerating. That's from instruments around the world, not from any paleoclimate reconstructions.

b) CO2 is well known as a greenhouse gas, it has been known for a century or more. What is there to prove? That physics is physics?

c) we have instrumental measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the last 50 years or so. They have been increasing steadily. We have samples of atmospheric gases trapped in ice from the poles (and other glaciers) that take the record back further than that - not just the last few centuries but over the course of several glacial/interglacial cycles over the last 450ky. You either accept these records, or not. If you don't accept them then you can't appeal to data about the natural cycles.

d) the correlation is clear. Just take a plot of temperature over the last few centuries and one of atmospheric chemistry (CO2, NO2, methane etc concentrations). The correlation is blindingly obvious. Of course, one could argue that correlation doesn't imply causation. But a good correlation coupled with a well understood mechanism and supported by well founded models does make causation much more likely.

quote:

In other words you don't have a theory, you have fantasy masquerading as science.

No, I have a whole heap of extremely good scientific data, theory and models all telling the same story. And, you have a handful of cranks and oil-industry funded "think tanks" producing ill-informed, ignorant and down-right fraudelent claims. Where's the fantasy?

quote:
And that's all I have to say about it.

In which case, why don't you shut up?

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

It's nice to see that the Nobel prize committee can recognise real science when they see it.

Al Gore and the IPCC share the prize.

Good.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Excellent news, although I wonder if it'll make much difference to people's opinions. Last I saw, the denial blogs were saying "it just shows how little a Nobel Peace Prize means these days". [Roll Eyes]

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Excellent news, although I wonder if it'll make much difference to people's opinions.

It won't change everyone's

quote:
In an interim decision, the British High Court ruled that such partisan works cannot be presented in schools without identifying them for what they are.

Teachers who mislead their pupils into thinking that Gore's film accurately represents the science of global warming are in violation of the "Political indoctrination" section of the country's Education Act of 1996, which explicitly requires that: "The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid ... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school."

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

I haven't seen the film but in what way is it political? I understood it to present the majority view of scientists qualified in the field of climate science. AIUI, it contained some relatively minor inaccuracies but the core message still presents what scientists say is true beyond any reasonable doubt.

Deniers claiming that it is political dogma are surely grasping at straws, just to try to get something they don't like banned.

But then as I said, I haven't seen it.

[ 12. October 2007, 11:19: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Clint Boggis,

An Inconvenient Truth is scientifically pretty accurate according to most climate scientists I've read. The judge in the case identified nine problems, e.g.:

Using Kilimanjaro as an example of global warming. [Bad choice. It's actually one of the few melting for other reasons.]
Gore described a potential 20 feet rise in sea level. [20 feet is fair, but he didn't point out the mainstream consensus is it'd take 1000+ years. However, the melting could become irreversible very soon, even if it took longer to play out.]
The ice-core link between CO2 and temperature was explained too simplistically. [CO2 causes interglacial warming by providing a feedback mechanism, not the initial trigger.]
The film attributes specific events to global warming - e.g. hurricane Katrina and coral bleaching. [It's impossible to say if any one event is the result of climate change, but you can say it makes these types of event more likely.]

The judge didn't ban the film, but said it should be shown with advice pointing out these problems.

The Financial Post's reporting seems pretty skewed to me:

quote:
Should children become tools of propagandists, their schools able to serve as indoctrination centres that teach students to parrot the views of the powers-that-be rather than think for themselves?

On the other hand, I can understand why it's accused of being political. There are a few jabs at George Bush, and lots of time spent focusing on Al Gore's childhood. Personally, I didn't think the film was great, but it's been undeniably powerful and the core science is pretty sound.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I've seen the film (and the DVD), I've read the book, and... I saw Al Gore give a live presentation of it. The live presentation had a few political asides (lighthearted ones -- he has a very dry sense of humor). But the film is not at all political. But the assumption is probably that because it was made by a (former) politician, it is political.

Congratulations, Al!
[Overused]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Is it true that Gore won for having invented global warming? [Big Grin]

--Tom Clune

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Al Gore's film is undeniably propoganda, which doesn't make it any more or less accurate as science. But, it's produced with two aims - one, non-political, is to present the findings of climate scientists to the general public. The other aim is much more political, Gore wants his film to make global climate change a political issue in the US; if that happens then Gore (and those politicians he publically endorses) are sitting in the green seat, which if the US public takes on board the science he presents will probably win votes.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Al Gore's film is undeniably propoganda, which doesn't make it any more or less accurate as science.

By the dictionary definition of propaganda you're quite right. However, I suspect for most people propaganda is synonymous with lying and distorting facts, and so makes it seem much less accurate as science.

quote:
But, it's produced with two aims - one, non-political, is to present the findings of climate scientists to the general public. The other aim is much more political, Gore wants his film to make global climate change a political issue in the US; if that happens then Gore (and those politicians he publically endorses) are sitting in the green seat, which if the US public takes on board the science he presents will probably win votes.

Surely any documentary film is political (and perhaps propaganda) in the broadest sense? They're produced intending to influence thought and discussion about human issues. And simply influencing the debate in one direction doesn't (IMO) make something party political. If a non-politician produced a documentary about (say) abortion, it might benefit one party more than the others - but that's a side-effect to the main issue.

Also, none of this makes An Inconvenient Truth political in the UK. I can see why it might be considered it in the US.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

New Scientist has a comprehensive piece about the ruling on Al Gore's film.

[ 12. October 2007, 16:17: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on global warming, claiming that the debate is over and there is no need to debate it. Yet here is one eminent meteorologist who says Gore's claims are ridiculous. Sounds like the debate has not begun, really, much less is it over.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on global warming, claiming that the debate is over and there is no need to debate it.

In a sense, the debate is over. Well, the first part of the debate - there's no credible scientific basis to deny that human activity is affecting the global climate. The questions relating to how badly we're affecting the climate, to what extent particular parts of the climate system (eg: hurricane frequency) is attributable to the changes we've set in motion, how much worse it'll get and what we can do about it are still more open. That said, I think it's probably a mistake by Gore not to engage in debates on the subject (if, indeed, he has refused to do so) given the number of poorly informed people who aren't aware of the science and the importance of the question. It just makes him look scared of facing the questions, even if the questions themselves are based on poorly supported science.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's probably a mistake by Gore not to engage in debates on the subject (if, indeed, he has refused to do so) given the number of poorly informed people who aren't aware of the science and the importance of the question.

I don't think it's a mistake. For one thing, "Gore Vs Joe Denier" proves nothing. If someone is inclined to ignore the mass of scientists, why should they take any notice of Gore? And Gore isn't a scientist: he'd doubtless get some of the science wrong, and then opponents would have rhetorical ammunition.

Also, Scientist versus Skeptic debates seem to go badly for the science side, as biologists have found this to their cost when debating YEC types. It's easy to throw up dozens of objections that sound plausible to a lay audience, and debunking each one can take hours - even if the audience has the necessary level of technical expertise. Science just doesn't seem to be suited for sound-bite debates, and scientists aren't good at it.

Lastly, these debates give an undue legitimacy to the opposing viewpoint, and make people think there's significant uncertainty to the basic science.

IMO Gore has no need to debate this - that's what the scientific process is for.

[ 14. October 2007, 20:36: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In a sense, the debate is over. Well, the first part of the debate - there's no credible scientific basis to deny that human activity is affecting the global climate.

That's just it. In my above post I linked to a well respected scientist who says that the question whether human activity is affecting the climate is still wide open.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Amazing parallels between what he says and what the Yeccies say, New Yorker:

1. In a few years we'll all look back and see we were wrong - similarly, YEC proponents have been predicting the downfall of evolutionary theory and mass conversion to creationism for decades.

2. His beliefs make him an outsider - YEC proponents frequently claim persecution, and often put a spin on events to try to demonstrate instances.

3. Scientists daren't take his line because they'd lose their funding. YECs also frequently claim that mainstream scientists know that evolutionary theory is badly flawed, but daren't say so because the Evil Atheist Conspiracy which runs the establishment will cut off their funding.

In other words, he's playing the classical game of the maverick. The fact he says what he does means bugger all, scientifically. Where are his research papers which show that the mainstream climate change model is flawed? His opinion, on its own, without the backing of the actual data and analysis, means nothing.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
That's just it. In my above post I linked to a well respected scientist who says that the question whether human activity is affecting the climate is still wide open.

Hi New Yorker,

He's one of a handful who dispute it, while thousands don't. The phrase "overwhelming concensus" doesn't mean that every single climate scientist agrees, just that virtually all do.

Even Bjorn Lomborg, Danish statistician and poster-boy for the climate skeptics, doesn't disagree that climate change is real and is man made.

Sorry. I wish it wasn't true - nobody wants it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, two more points to add to what Karl has said.

First, Dr Gray is a meteorologist rather than a climatologist. Though the two disciplines are related, there are still significant differences between them. Metereology is concerned with the relatively short term and local, climatology is more concerned with the medium to long term and regional. That means that although his area of technical expertise makes him better able to comprehend the science than the average layman, he's no more of an expert than I am. Of course, he may have read very widely and contributed to the scientific discussion about climate change, but there's no mention of that in the article.

Second, the example given that "Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error" is a valid scientific position. Even the IPCC says that there isn't the evidence to categorically link global warming with observed number and intensity of hurricanes - the table they put in the summary for policy makers for the WG1 report (it's on p8) puts it as "likely in some regions since 1970" (likelihood of 66-90%), and that it's only "more likely than not" (likelihood of 50-66%) to have a human contribution. Though, by the scenarios they used to predict the range of possible future climates it's likely that there will be more frequent hurricanes this century. It hardly seems fair to criticise climate scientists for saying something they're not actually saying, or at least not saying as strongly as Dr Gray implied.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

Karl -

Sorry to be uninformed, but what is YEC?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's probably a mistake by Gore not to engage in debates on the subject (if, indeed, he has refused to do so) given the number of poorly informed people who aren't aware of the science and the importance of the question.
I don't think it's a mistake.

I'd tend to agree with your first two points. Such a debate wouldn't necessarily prove anything, and that such debates aren't conducive to sound-bite rhetoric. But,

quote:
Lastly, these debates give an undue legitimacy to the opposing viewpoint, and make people think there's significant uncertainty to the basic science.

Unfortunately, this cuts both ways. Such debates let the maverick view be heard, and could lend some people to doubt the certainty of the science. But also, not holding the debates lets the mavericks say "they can't answer these questions" which also gives them undue legitimacy. It's one of those situations where, whatever you do, you could lose. But, I think letting the mavericks be heard in the open, and refuted, is the better option.

quote:
IMO Gore has no need to debate this - that's what the scientific process is for.

The scientific process is something that happens in learned journals and academic conferences, with scientists beavering away at their little bits of the big picture in their labs and out in the field. But, especially in relation to something like global climate change, the scientific process runs in parallel with a public discussion. The IPCC exists to foster that discussion, principally with policy makers but the wider public as well. Al Gore launched himself into the public discussion with his Inconvenient Truth. We're involved here on this thread. You can't seperate the two areas neatly, both discussions need to be had and both discussions feed each other - the science informs the public discussion, the public discussion would also prioritise some areas of the scientific process.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Unfortunately, this cuts both ways. [...] But, I think letting the mavericks be heard in the open, and refuted, is the better option.

Yes - damned if you do, damned if you don't. Unfortunately, I doubt Gore could conclusively refute the arguments in the time available. The Great Global Warming Swindle was very persuasive to the lay public, even if the scientists knew it was crap.

quote:
[...] the scientific process runs in parallel with a public discussion. The IPCC exists to foster that discussion, principally with policy makers but the wider public as well. Al Gore launched himself into the public discussion with his Inconvenient Truth. We're involved here on this thread. You can't seperate the two areas neatly

OK, that's true. However, it's a not a public discussion that's well suited to brief adversarial debate. Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, and Philip Stott certainly got the upper hand over three mainstream climate scientists in a debate earlier this year. It was painful.

For me, the actual science isn't the persuasive thing. It sounds feasible, but how the hell should I know? I don't have the time or the training to assess it one way or another. It's the consensus that is much more persuasive for me. I'm happy to say "OK, these guys have been arguing about it for years. They're pretty bright, and the vast majority now think this is real. They might be wrong, but it's a horrible gamble if they're not."

In other words, there only has to be reasonable cause to make the issue worth acting on, and I'm happy to take a scientific consensus as enough.

[ETA: New Yorker, YEC = Young Earth Creation/Creationist]

[ 15. October 2007, 13:01: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Bellamy is at it again. All the familiar themes - little ice age, hockey stick invented, sunspot activity, volcanoes, political takeover at the IPCC, they-said-it-was-cooling-in-the-70s, mavericks-proved-right-eventually. Dispressing in its regularity.

Another entry in the Times' shoddy record on Global Warming.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

His first full paragraph is interesting.

quote:
the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

He's actually correct, depending on the data set used. The average near surface temperature has, indeed, levelled of (after a rapid increase). But, that reflects a slight cooling of the oceans, land temperatures continue to rise rapidly. Since the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the earth, they tend to dominate the global average. The usual explanation given is that the increased temperatures have increased evaporation - this cools the surface waters slightly bucking the global trend. But, with increasing radiative forcing inexorably driving the temperatures upwards the oceanic evaporation effect won't last long term.

Posted by John Spears (# 11694) on :

I just think that if this one turns out to be wrong in a few years time, the 'Scientists' perspective on things will be regarded as completely unreliable - which imo, will be a very bad thing. If wholesale changes are going to be made and billions of dollars spent fighting it, they better be damn sure.

What I don't understand however, is why many Scientists who clearly aren't funded by oil,coal etc are not yet convinced and why we should know something they don't?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
I just think that if this one turns out to be wrong in a few years time, the 'Scientists' perspective on things will be regarded as completely unreliable - which imo, will be a very bad thing.

Yes, that's true. On the other hand, if it turns out they're right and we didn't act, the consequences will be much worse than simply a loss of respect for scientists.

quote:
If wholesale changes are going to be made and billions of dollars spent fighting it, they better be damn sure.

Sure about what? By-and-large, they're sure that we're responsible for part of the late 20th century warming. They're also pretty certain if we keep increasing CO2 it's going to get a LOT hotter. The argument is how quickly that'll happen.

quote:
What I don't understand however, is why many Scientists who clearly aren't funded by oil,coal etc are not yet convinced and why we should know something they don't?

There are very few experts in the field who don't believe we're responsible for some of the warming, even amongst the remaining 'Skeptics'.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Hiro's Leap wrote, "In other words, there only has to be reasonable cause to make the issue worth acting on, and I'm happy to take a scientific consensus as enough."

That's my money your talking about spending (well a small amount of it is). I find it odd that the "haves" seem against the global warming thing while the "have nots" are for it. The plan for dealing with it seems to be to transfer wealth.

If we were serious about sinking CO2, we would fertilize the central Pacific. Huge amounts of bio-mass would form and fall to the bottom of the sea removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This would also be good for the world fishing economy.

There was a company which tried to do this using profits from offset trading. It was sued by the WWF because it would change the environment!

When the greens who support global warming start dealing with the problem rather than engaging in wealth transfer programs, I'll start believing them.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

What 'have nots' were you thinking of? All the representatives of the Developing World I've heard mention Global Warming are adamant that the Developed World has a duty to stop it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What 'have nots' were you thinking of? All the representatives of the Developing World I've heard mention Global Warming are adamant that the Developed World has a duty to stop it.

I read the

quote:
I find it odd that the "haves" seem against the global warming thing while the "have nots" are for it.

to mean that the "global warming thing" is "spend money trying to reduce our contribution to global climate change". ie: he's saying that those without money are saying those of us with money should be spending that money cutting carbon emissions, and those of us with money are saying we shouldn't. Any other way of reading the sentance that I can see makes no sense at all.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
If we were serious about sinking CO2, we would fertilise the central Pacific. Huge amounts of bio-mass would form and fall to the bottom of the sea removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This would also be good for the world fishing economy.

Yeah, what a good idea. Combat one form of pollution by deliberately polluting another ecosystem [Roll Eyes]

You do know that the trials of ocean fertilisation (usually with iron which is the main nutrient missing in oceanic waters) have been disappointing? The increased algal growth has been minimal, the iron disperses very quickly in all but the stillest conditions, and when the algae do bloom they tend to produce toxic environments for other marine life - ie: they kill off the fish, which hardly seems to be good for fishing communities.

Add to that, the small amount of extra organic matter doesn't sink very quickly. It tends to come ashore and rot, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere.

The oceans are an enormous sink for carbon. But, that's largely a physical sink with the CO2 dissolved in the water rather than a biological one. And, the ability of oceans to absorb CO2 is temperature dependant, cold water can hold more than warm water. In the past, that cold carbon-rich water has circulated down to the deep oceans where it forms an enormous reservoir. Normally, those deep waters rise and retain their carbon (OK, the release some and absorb more to maintain an approximate equilibrium). If the surface temperatures are higher than when the water sank, they'll hold more CO2 than the present surface waters and will hence release more than they release. This is a well understood effect related to the end of glaciations resulting in a rise in CO2 lagging several centuries behind the initial warming. It also means that cold water rising from the depths now will add more CO2 to the atmosphere regardless of what we do, which means we have to cut back our own emissions more. It also follows that plans to pump CO2 into the deep oceans simply passes the problem onto our descendants in a few centuries.

Marine biology does take up a lot of carbon, but similar to terrestrial ecosystems, most of it recycles back through the atmosphere on relatively short time scales.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I find it odd that the "haves" seem against the global warming thing while the "have nots" are for it. The plan for dealing with it seems to be to transfer wealth.

So amongst the "have-nots" you're counting those noteable anti-capitalist lefties:

Rupert Murdock
Richard Branson
Shell Oil
Wart-Mart
Swiss Re, and virtually all insurance companies (who are investing countless millions in dealing with it)
The CEOs and senior managers of Reckitt Benckiser, Johnson Matthey, Standard Chartered Bank, Vodafone Group, Unilever U.K., Tesco, Sun Microsystems, etc etc.

Sorry, it's really not a have/have-nots issue. But regardless, their opinions are irrelevant to the science - it's only the scientists who count.

quote:
Hiro's Leap wrote, "In other words, there only has to be reasonable cause to make the issue worth acting on, and I'm happy to take a scientific consensus as enough."

That's my money your talking about spending (well a small amount of it is).

My money too! Caution (and even suspicion) are understandable. However, look at it this way...

Suppose for simplicity there are three possible outcomes in 100 years for us continuing business as usual:

(a) The skeptics are right.

Climate change has little or no impact on humanity or most of the environment.
If there are any problems, they can be easily dealt with by increased living standards.

(b) The mainstream scientists (e.g. IPCC) are right.

Vanishing glaciers affect the water supply in many countries.
Multiple resource conflicts occur from famine and drought.
Widespread extinctions.
Sea levels only rise slightly, but the irreversible melting of Greenland and the Arctic has begun.

Many positive feedbacks are triggered long before we reach 100 years.
Rapid collapse of Greenland and/or western parts of the Antartic cause unprecedented flooding, rendering hundreds of millions homeless.
Major acidification of the oceans and loss of sea-life as CO2 is absorbed.
Changing patterns to El Nino causes massive famine/drought throughout much of the world.
Severe economic hardship makes dealing with the problem far harder than it would be in a relative time of peace and prosperity.

Rather than thinking in absolutes, what probabilities would you assign to (a), (b) and (c)?

My very rough guess is 10% / 60% / 40%. Personally, I think there is a chance the mainstream science is wrong, but it's insane to bet on it. The costs of dealing with CO2 may be high, but the costs of NOT dealing with it could easily be crippling.

(I share some of your skepticism about the environmental movement, but this really is a different issue.)

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Alan wrote,

quote:
Yeah, what a good idea. Combat one form of pollution by deliberately polluting another ecosystem You do know that the trials of ocean fertilisation (usually with iron which is the main nutrient missing in oceanic waters) have been disappointing? The increased algal growth has been minimal, the iron disperses very quickly in all but the stillest conditions, and when the algae do bloom they tend to produce toxic environments for other marine life - ie: they kill off the fish, which hardly seems to be good for fishing communities.

Perhaps this shows the basic problem. The global warming people have decried it a an unprecedented disaster. Yet when solutions are proposed they decline them because they affect the pristine environment.

If it really a disaster, we need to fix it and if some fish die, so what?

Now as for the proposed solution: I'm betting there's a middle ground between no fertilize and too much. I'm also betting we can find some floating, slow dissolving pellets for the dispersion. As for a small amount of biomass sinking, I'd be surprised if even one percent sank, but that would be more than enough.

I know, let's run some tests. For only a few million dollars we could fertilize strips of ocean with different methods and concentrations and monitor the results. But that would be too much like real science ... way too boring. Instead let's destroy our working industries (costing trillions of dollars) while letting the worlds second largest carbon emitter have a free pass.

Hiro's Leap wrote,

quote:
[T]heir opinions are irrelevant to the science - it's only the scientists who count.

Between our being a democracy and a (more or less) free market, I don't think the scientist get much of a vote. Their track record is weak when it comes to complex issues where they've left the scientific method behind. (You know... the test the hypothesis step.)

Also I divide the possible outcomes a little differently:

A) The scientists are wrong

B) Moderate Warming leading to increased agricultural output.

C) More warming leading to moderate ocean level rises.

D) Positive feedback events leading to mass extinctions.

I give it 60, 25, 17, 3.

Of course any change will lead to "bad things". But only C and D are net losses, while B is a net gain.

D is the really scary one. Don't let that three percent fool you, low odds do happen and the costs would be staggering. I think it's time we, as a species, developed the ability to have some controls in place to both raise and lower the temperature of the planet.

But the current global warming people seem politically motivated to me.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

You can't just dismiss those who know more than anyone about a subject just because... actually on what basis is it that you feel no apparent compunction about ignoring the experts? They know about a million times more about the climate than you do.

Does ignorance and an ostrich mentality trump knowledge now?

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

There was a time when nearly all scientists thought that light was a wave. They were wrong. (Thank you Einstein.)

I remember being taught in college that weather control was impossible due to the butterfly effect. This was believed by the vast majority of my professors. It was the "in" thing at the time.

They taught this while standing in an air conditioned room! Yes air conditioning is a form of weather control. The point is that lots of really smart people can believe some really dumb things. The Universe doesn't care what the scientists think.

Science is a process:

1) Observe.

2) Formulate an hypothesis.

3) Test the hypothesis.

4) Start over unless your test proves the current hypothesis. (It almost never does the first time.)

We have no way to test the global warming hypothesis. We can test parts. We can use those parts to build models. One of the hundreds of models out there might even be correct. (odds are against any of them being right.) But until we run the test (which we can't do) we don't know and it's not science.

I'm an electrical engineer. I build large complex systems. They are not nearly as complex as the weather. Yet we never get it right the first time. Not even the tenth time. We go back again and again until it works.

I simply don't believe majority opinion counts for much in technical areas. Really smart people know when to sheath their arrogance and admit they may not know everything.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
There was a time when nearly all scientists thought that light was a wave. They were wrong. (Thank you Einstein.)

Well, not exactly. It would be more correct to say that there was a time when the wave theory of light accounted for all experimental observations. Then when the photoelectric effect was observed, and the wave theory was unable to account for it, Einstein suggested another theory. Now, we have wave-particle duality, which posits that all matter (and energy) may have characteristics associated with particles and waves. Does that make Einstein "wrong"?
OliviaG

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
...I think it's time we, as a species, developed the ability to have some controls in place to both raise and lower the temperature of the planet.

quote:
I'm an electrical engineer. I build large complex systems. They are not nearly as complex as the weather. Yet we never get it right the first time. Not even the tenth time. We go back again and again until it works.

So we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about climate change, but instead, we should invest a kajillion dollars into a wather control system that will fuck up repeatedly on a planetary scale. Thanks, but no thanks. This kind of reasoning makes those hysterical propaganda-mongering scientists sound almost credible. OliviaG

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

We do get it right eventually. [Hot and Hormonal]

(I'm glad Edison didn't give up after a few mistakes.) We also avoid putting people at risk until we're done and it works.

I don't disbelieve in climate change. I'm just skeptical to the point of not wanting to spend my money on it yet. And let's try the cheaper solutions first. A trillion dollars is more than I paid for my car for goodness sake.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I know, let's run some tests. For only a few million dollars we could fertilize strips of ocean with different methods and concentrations and monitor the results. But that would be too much like real science ... way too boring.

You are aware that such experiments have been conducted since the early 1980s? It's hardly a novel idea to scientists to run experiments to test a hypothesis. And, in this case, the hypothesis has been proved partially right - yes, iron fertilises algal blooms, yes those blooms remove CO2 from the atmosphere (sometimes in measurable quantities as happened following fertilisation by the Pinatubo eruption which covered a vast area compared to the experiments), and the effect would certainly have been enough to help keep CO2 levels down in glacial periods (when dry conditions resulted in significantly greater dust and sand storms fertilising the oceans). But, the experiments also showed that the algal blooms had significant impacts on oceanic ecosystems (including deep ocean ecosystems beneath the blooms that became anoxic), that the vast majority of the carbon was eaten and never entered long term sequestration in the deep oceans, and that the amount of iron fertilisation needed to offset human CO2 production would be unfeasible (ie: it would totally wreck marine ecosystems on which we rely for some of our food, and cost billions of dollars per year).

quote:
[the scientists] track record is weak when it comes to complex issues where they've left the scientific method behind. (You know... the test the hypothesis step.)

And, you're clearly not only unaware of the extensive scientific investigations into iron fertilisation to sequester carbon, you're woefully ignorant how well tested the science behind our knowledge of global climate change is. There have been literally hundreds of computer models run with different parameters (because we don't know all the parameters precisely and they interact in complex ways) which show the same general result. There are loads of measurements reconstructing past climates stretching back 450000 years through glaciations and interglacials against which we can see that the current changes are unprecedented in that time. And, we can use that record of a large range of different climates to test models - and show them to reproduce the past reasonably accurately. About the only test left to do is the one that says "if we do this ('this' including the option to carry on as normal), then in 100 years the climate will be like that". Without a time machine we can't test that. But then, a lot of science works perfectly well without being able to test every little bit of theory against experimental results.

quote:
From a subsequent post
Science is a process:

1) Observe.

2) Formulate an hypothesis.

3) Test the hypothesis.

4) Start over unless your test proves the current hypothesis. (It almost never does the first time.)

I think you need to learn a wee bit more about the scientific process. Because your little 4 step summary has no comparison to how science has ever been done. Science is a far more complex process of incomplete and inconclusive data, educated guess work, intuition, getting by with the tools (including mathematical models and other scientific theories) that aren't quie perfect, and umpteen other complexities.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
And let's try the cheaper solutions first.

Of course, that's only sensible. Next time you get a new car, buy one that's more fuel efficient and drive it very rarely. Put energy efficient light bulbs in. Turn your TV off rather than leave it on standby. Adjust your central heating (or AC). Walk to the store and buy stuff that hasn't been shipped across the world. Make sure your home is properly insulated. Recycle. Compost stuff that'll compost. These'll actually save you money.

Then, maybe spend a bit more. Make all new buildings satisfy minimal environmental criteria; build them so they need very little heating or AC, put in heat pumps to use geothermal energy, solar panels on the roof (including having the roof built at the right angle, facing the right way). Invest in building wind turbines, hydroelectric schemes, biomass power generation (but, not the idiocy of turning corn into ethanol for transport), nuclear plants. Look at carbon capture pumped into old oil and gas wells (the extra production from the fields will help offset the cost - though the capacity in oil fields is no where near enough to remove even a fraction of our current carbon dioxide pollution). Be serious about cutting down on air travel. Build decent long-distance train routes and local public transport. Reduce the amount of packaging everything comes in.

Then, maybe then, if we need to we can look at the stupid expensive options with high risks like seeding the oceans with iron or putting mirrors in space to shield the earth from sunlight.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Alan wrote,

quote:
I think you need to learn a wee bit more about the scientific process. Because your little 4 step summary has no comparison to how science has ever been done. Science is a far more complex process of incomplete and inconclusive data, educated guess work, intuition, getting by with the tools (including mathematical models and other scientific theories) that aren't quie perfect, and umpteen other complexities.

Sorry, I knew I missed a step: First, get the funding.

All those things you list fall into the four steps. Finding data is part of observing, intuition is part of forming a hypothesis, etc. I didn't say it was easy, but that's what you get paid the big bucks for.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I don't disbelieve in climate change.

That's what your position comes down to. Stop pretending that you pay the slightest attention to science and what scientists say.

Your mind is made up. You believe what you want to believe, irrespective of the evidence.

You have no position at all.

Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :

Hey, I don't have to take that kind of abuse here. I can get abuse like that anywhere.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Apologies Jeff:

I misread your comment to mean that you don't accept it, that you just don't believe it like some kind of faith that denies all the evidence and that's not what you wrote. Sorry.

The rest of what I said was based on what I wrongly thought was your anti-intellectual position. Sorry again.
.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Equating air conditioning with weather control is, to my mind, as Douglas Adams would put it, like comparing the entire West Wing of the Sirius State Mental Hospital to a bag of mixed nuts.

And we can't even make aircon work properly all the time. When the aircon goes in the server room, we risk losing a server. When the Earth Aircon goes, what do we risk losing?

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Yes, the air conditioning was a fatuous comparison, unworthy of serious consideration.

I had a thought yesterday regarding the ACC "deniers" (nothing to do with hosiery) who sometimes claim that if weather forecasts are inaccurate just a few days ahead, then they have no confidence in climate forecasts much further into the future.

Personally, I'd much rather bet on the average of the next hundred throws of a dice than the next single throw.
.

[ 25. October 2007, 18:59: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0