Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment? 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=000752

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :
 
Lord Monkton thinks so (video clip ).

I don't know but if someone can summarise the situation I'll happily listen.

[ 06. May 2010, 19:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
No.
 
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
No.

Thanks.
Your seminars must be amazing!
[Biased]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Do you have anything other than a video titled, "WARNING! Goodbye U.S Sovereignty... Hello One World Government !" for us to look at? This doesn't exactly make one think, "well-reasoned, dispassionate explication." Rather the word "nutcase" comes to mind.

[ 11. November 2009, 00:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I don't know but if someone can summarise the situation I'll happily listen.

Nor do I but WTH we haven't had an ACC thread for a bit.

'Improbable but it surely is bringing a lot of gravy to no small number of trains.'


And the video reminds me of the principled stand W took refusing to participate in some bogus 'treaty' no one is adhering to anyway.

IMO the guy remains misunderestimated.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
The point of most of the climate-change discussion is that the changes will affect all countries, and that all countries will have some part in dealing with the changes or prevention of same.

That will mean that discussion must go on. If you feel that any one country can operate totally independently of what any or all other countries think, then I would suggest getting fitted for a tinfoil helmet. The country that tries to be totally free of any outside constraint is just as dangerous as the guy who brings his gun into the bar and demands the right to use it, regardless of what the other drinkers think.

If a small, lowlying country - the Maldives or Kiribati, for instance - finds that their land is simply disappearing as the waters rise or as erosion from changed wind patterns occurs, then all other countries have the problem of "where do these people go?" One alternative is to let them drown. Another is to find them a new home, either as immigrants to somewhere or as people moved to a new location en masse (as is being debated in one case)

Your solution, implicit in the OP, is to deny that the problem exists, so that there will be no reason to talk about it.

Talk is dangerous, you know - you might even change your mind on an issue, and that would obviously be the result of totalitarian thought control, because real minds don't get changed.
 
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
[QB] . . . If a small, lowlying country - the Maldives or Kiribati, for instance - finds that their land is simply disappearing as the waters rise or as erosion from changed wind patterns occurs, . . .

If you look at No.5 of the linked videos you might change your mind on who's thoughts are being manipulated.

Can you think of anything apart from carbon emissions that might cause the problems in these islands?
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Setting aside the global warming debate, does this treaty lead to tyranny?

Reading the negotiating text, I'd have to agree with Lord Monkton on the one world government angle.

Here's the text starting on page 7.

From the "Shared Vision" section:
quote:
[...]promote sustainable economic and social development and to reduce poverty, which are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries.
So any country that wants to claim developing status needs to put social rights ahead of classical rights. That means if my free speech rights get in the way of the government's policy it claims reduces poverty, I need to shut up and obey.
quote:
These adverse effects also undermine the equitable
development needs of present and future generations.

Under this vision, equitable (defined by whom?) needs of future generations outweigh my rights as well. Does this mean an over-government has the right to decide if I can have kids if it reduces poverty?
quote:
Developed country Parties must show leadership in mitigation commitments or actions, in supporting developing country Parties in undertaking adaptation measures and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs)
This sounds fair until the footnote points out that NAMAs only count for developing countries. So developed country parties (that includes companies and private individuals) need to pay for the developing countries economies. Of course developed countries have their own plan detailed later in article II.

Section 19 lays out the new enforcement mechanism. It includes preparation of National Action Plans for the slow countries. It has the power to allocate resources to make sure these plans are followed. This does include "provisions for ensuring the compliance".

Section 30 suggests the full costs of NAMAs be born by a grant based system. Since these are paid for by the developed world and the overriding priorities are reduction in poverty, where's the climate change mitigation going to come from?

Section 42 contemplates programs to provide food security. Does that mean the new meta government gets to tell farmers what to plant? I think it does.

Section 45 makes all these plans, groups, and bureaucracies under the authority of a central group, the COP (Conference of Parties).

Section 52 allows for the monitoring of financial and technological resources of members. Remember members include nations and sub-units like corporations and citizens.

Section 77 contemplates making NAMAs voluntary!

This document still leaves some wiggle room and a lot depends on how it's implemented, but at it's core it allows for the suppression of freedom and the enslavement through taxation.

Lord Monkton is wrong about the U.S. being bound by it though. Currently it would override the constitution, but a simple amendment would eliminate that. Thus as a practical matter it might be used to limit the freedom of some minorities (uppity prison inmates), but if they become too oppressive, we would just leave.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
A decent blog analysis of this issue (albeit from the perspective of a column written about Monckton) seems to indicate that this is due to the word "government" appearing in the document, so not only must it be a global government, it will also be a Communist one as well.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
The way I look at it is that even if climate change rhetoric did bring in a single global government - why would that be a problem? Such a government can only have a limited shelf life. Sooner or later, there would be a revolution, then things would be back to the way they were before. Unless, of course, you think that everyone might be happy with the global government so that they wouldn't want to revolt - but if the global government might turn out for the better, then why is Lord Monkton talking about it as though it would be a bad thing?

These things go round in cycles. No worldly power is immortal.

Once a government in any part of the world has managed to convince you that their collapse would be a bad thing, then it means one of two things, either (a) you are economically, socially or politically privileged in comparison to the majority of the world's population, or (b) they have brainwashed you into putting their own interests ahead of yours.

I'm with Horseman Bree on this. If global warming is really happening, then it would be global. Otherwise, they would call it "regional warming" instead.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Croesos, the treaty as currently proposed, does set up an organization that intends to hold nation states responsible for their actions. That's a fair definition of a world government.

Of course any global solution will need teeth or it's not going to work. It's a world wide problem, it needs a world wide solution.

The Shared Vision section spells out what the treaty is intended to do. It makes it clear that social rights are paramount and classic rights take a back seat. That's been a hallmark of Marxists for over a hundred years.

It's not clear to me why that part is in there. It does little to solve the problem, but it is legally binding on the signatories. If we sign it, it could be interpreted as signing away our bill of rights.

Yet that interpretation will be done by a U.S. judge in a U.S. court.

Or the courts could just read that as window dressing giving third world nations some sense of direction. It's hard to say until the final wording is in place.

Personally I think this is just more cannon fodder for the fair and balanced combat news network. It's certainly not the end of the world.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, the treaty as currently proposed, does set up an organization that intends to hold nation states responsible for their actions. That's a fair definition of a world government.

In what alternate universe? That's not like any definition of "government" I'm familiar with. The United Nations supposedly holds states responsible for their actions (not terribly well of course), but it's not anything like a government except in its ability to burn through money. I think you need a new dictionary.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
No.

Thanks.
Your seminars must be amazing!
[Biased]

You did want it summarised and that did it perfectly.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
This may help the discussions. [It's already contained in the helpful link from Croesos but I reckoned it was worth highlighting.]

I agree with those who are saying that the most likely outcome from Copenhagen will be another political document strong on aspiration but without much by way of teeth. Which is the usual way with international treaties.

I bet Lord Monckton goes down well with Fox News watchers. My summary of the video is "inaccurate, distorting, scare-mongering drivel". With the obligatory kick at Obama's gonads thrown in for good measure. IMO Lord Monckton was pandering to fear and distrust.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... an organization that intends to hold nation states responsible for their actions. That's a fair definition of a world government.

No it isn't. It might be a fair definition of some kind of a court.

quote:


social rights are paramount and classic rights take a back seat. That's been a hallmark of Marxists for over a hundred years.

I strongly suspect that you don't actually know what Marxism is.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


My summary of the video is "inaccurate, distorting, scare-mongering drivel". With the obligatory kick at Obama's gonads thrown in for good measure. IMO Lord Monckton was pandering to fear and distrust.

Oh, much like 'An Incovenient Truth' then?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", Mudfrog. [Now there's a confession]. So my opinions re the reality of climate change and the effect of human activity on climate have not actually been affected by Al Gore's movie.

So far as International Treaties and affects on national sovereignty go in general, [and the likely outcome of this one in particular], Monckton's talk was nonsense.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", Mudfrog. [Now there's a confession]. So my opinions re the reality of climate change and the effect of human activity on climate have not actually been affected by Al Gore's movie.

The first well-known politician to try to get something done about it was Margaret Thatcher, over twenty years ago. I doubt if she was infected by watching too many Al Gore movies either.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I remember it well, ken. I suppose for some folks that might also be an inconvenient truth.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", Mudfrog. [Now there's a confession]. So my opinions re the reality of climate change and the effect of human activity on climate have not actually been affected by Al Gore's movie.

The first well-known politician to try to get something done about it was Margaret Thatcher, over twenty years ago. I doubt if she was infected by watching too many Al Gore movies either.
It was then tied up with trying to produce anti-coal propaganda as part of her battle with the National Union of Miners. Until that point the environmentalists had been mainly obsessed with nuclear power's environmental hazards and the greenhouse gas story was seen as a counter to that.

What is interesting is that in the past few years it has changed its name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Why would that be I wonder?
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It was then tied up with trying to produce anti-coal propaganda as part of her battle with the National Union of Miners. Until that point the environmentalists had been mainly obsessed with nuclear power's environmental hazards and the greenhouse gas story was seen as a counter to that.

I don't know how old you are, but it seems you are not old enough to remember Vole magazine* which raised awareness of both CFCs and "the greenhouse effect". What was not then so clear, despite the use of the word 'greenhouse', was whether the changes would cause warming or cooling.

*There is a Wikipedia entry, but I couldn't link to it because it contains a parenthesis and, apparently, that's not allowed.

Eta: my guess is that 'climate change' has become the preferred term to try to educate all those idiots who say things like: "Britain a few degrees warmer? I can live with that!"

As has been repeated to the point of tedium, if the Gulf Stream stops, we may all get a lot colder on this small insignificant island, home to selfish idiots who apparently don't care about the effects of climate change that are already devastating vulnerable communities.

[ 11. November 2009, 13:03: Message edited by: QLib ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The impact of human activity is far more substantial than just increasing the global average temperature. 'Climate Change' is more accurately used for the larger picture, 'Global Warming' is the sub-set of that larger picture that is the ongoing increase in average temperatures around the globe.

In addition to average temperature increases (which, could in fact be temperature decreases in some locations) the other parts of climate change include sea level rises (directly linked to temperature through oceanic thermal expansion and melting of ice over land), increased strength and frequency of storm events, increased weather variation (eg: more droughts and more floods - just not in the same places, obviously), and changes to oceanic circulation patterns (with impacts on local weather, and fish stocks).

Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.

Also, the experimental data predict both the current warming and past cooling events. So, when your data is applicable to both warming and cooling it's more accurate to refer to 'climate change' in that context.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The impact of human activity is far more substantial than just increasing the global average temperature. 'Climate Change' is more accurately used for the larger picture, 'Global Warming' is the sub-set of that larger picture that is the ongoing increase in average temperatures around the globe.

Global Warming is a specific aspect of Climate Change that is predicted by a fairly basic model of the incredibly complex global climate via the Greenhouse Effect.

As the models have become more advanced, it's become clear that the CO2 we're producing (and so on) is messing up the global climate, but its not entirely clear exactly how that works out in terms of effects. It is clear that the poor, especially in places where they are most vulnerable to climate change, are the people who are going to suffer most.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.

Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.

quote:
Also, the experimental data predict both the current warming and past cooling events. So, when your data is applicable to both warming and cooling it's more accurate to refer to 'climate change' in that context.
What experimental data? None of the models have matched the reality of actual climate change. The Hockey Schtick was the cherry on top which changed the reality of actual climate change as got by scientific observation to create a new imaginary base for manmade global warming to sit on.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
Is the Myrrh v Alan Cresswell debate on climate change becoming an annual Ship institution? It seems to come earlier every year. I hope it doesn't get all commercialised. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The Hockey Schtick

Rumours of the death of the hockey stick (claim 2) appear to have been exaggerated.

Any comments on this?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.

[Roll Eyes] This is one of the wackier conspiracy theories out there. "Climate change" isn't a new term - you'd think that the name of IPCC (established 1988) would be a major hint.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.

Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.
Eh? Care to run that by me again, because I simply don't understand what you're trying to say. You appear to be agreeing with me that science shows that the climate changes, and that it's not just increasing temperatures. But, if so I don't see the reason for the 'bullshit' or the 'you can't deal with it' [Confused]

quote:
quote:
Also, the experimental data predict both the current warming and past cooling events. So, when your data is applicable to both warming and cooling it's more accurate to refer to 'climate change' in that context.
What experimental data? None of the models have matched the reality of actual climate change.
There are dozens of groups around the world experimenting with the climate - what happens if we increase CO2 by 20%? what happens if increased ocenainc temperatures release more CO2? etc., and running those experiments for past, present and potential future conditions. Those experiments match the past pretty well, for a very complex system.

Or, are you just worried that the experiments are run inside computers? Perhaps waiting a century for the data from physical experimentation with the climate (with virtually no chance of controlling the variables) would be better ... but if the computational experiments are anything to go on (and, their results for past climates tend to suggest that they are) then if we did that we'd have waited far too long to actually do anything.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't know how old you are, but it seems you are not old enough to remember Vole magazine* which raised awareness of both CFCs and "the greenhouse effect". What was not then so clear, despite the use of the word 'greenhouse', was whether the changes would cause warming or cooling.

*There is a Wikipedia entry, but I couldn't link to it because it contains a parenthesis and, apparently, that's not allowed.

Eta: my guess is that 'climate change' has become the preferred term to try to educate all those idiots who say things like: "Britain a few degrees warmer? I can live with that!"

As has been repeated to the point of tedium, if the Gulf Stream stops, we may all get a lot colder on this small insignificant island, home to selfish idiots who apparently don't care about the effects of climate change that are already devastating vulnerable communities. [/QB]

No you are quite right I have never heard of Vole Magazine.

And perhaps if some "environmentalists" were not so shrill we would be inclined to think a lot of the scaremongering was more scientific and less neurotic. It doesn't at all surprise me that some are holding their climate change beliefs to be a quasi-religion/philosopy.

Personally I am intrigued by the way that all this environmental doomsday stuff jumped out of the vole-hole and into the full light of day at about the same time as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear destruction receded.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Some "environmentalists" were not so shrill we would be inclined to think a lot of the scaremongering was more scientific and less neurotic.

If it was just hairy environmentalists I might agree. When a load of sober mainstream scientists and scientific organisations start to get worried, then I don't feel so confident.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Some "environmentalists" were not so shrill we would be inclined to think a lot of the scaremongering was more scientific and less neurotic.

If it was just hairy environmentalists I might agree. When a load of sober mainstream scientists and scientific organisations start to get worried, then I don't feel so confident.
The problem with the Climate Change Agenda is, whether it be Mrs Thatcher or Blair/Brown/Cameron it is tailormade for politicians who see it is as a way to increase control and to give a rationale to taxing the public. It is too frequently used to make extrapolations which are dubious to say the least e.g the turning off of the gulfstream. It has a danger of crowding out environmental concerns which should be faced up to such as deforestation and over-population and for which immediate positive progress could be made but which politicians can avoid with the climate change smokescreen. It also gives the politicians, Blair was a classic case of this, a stage on which to appear environmentally concerned but at the same time do next to nothing about environmental matters that could be fixed - anyone for a third airport at Heathrow?

It has also taken on the form of a quasi-religion in which any doubt will not be allowed and which is stamped upon as a heresy - a facet of the thing which makes me somewhat agnostic. To this extent it runs the risk of bringing all environmental concerns into question - should it, as I think seems quite possible - turns out to have been bigged up - a lot if its associated scare stories.
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
As the models have become more advanced, it's become clear that the CO2 we're producing (and so on) is messing up the global climate, but its not entirely clear exactly how that works out in terms of effects.

It is clear that the poor, especially in places where they are most vulnerable to climate change, are the people who are going to suffer most.

My inserted space and bold.

This post perhaps best represents why ACC skeptics remain.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
It's always the poor who suffer most. Why should that make you skeptical about well-established science?
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
Not being a scientist I won't voice an opinion on the science of climate change* however it occurs to me that if people are concerned that climate change will be used to create a global government** then they should petition their respective national governments to act responsibly and intelligently with regard to climate change, and to voluntarily assist whichever countries and peoples are harmed by their actions, especially those who through poverty or other characteristics are unable to easily adjust. The greater and wider the harm done by climate change, the larger the proper scope of government to restrain it, and the longer the issue is effectively ignored, the higher the chance that its effects will be rapid and serious enough to require supernational or global government.

As those warning of global government appear to be a subset of those opposed to any and all voluntary restrictions by national governments, either "global government" is a scare story to taint those who warn of climate change, or they genuinely fear a global government will be instituted, and are so sure that climate change is not only a myth but will be proven to be a myth in a reasonable timeframe that they confidently sabotage national emissions reduction efforts, thus demonstrating that climate change, should it turn out to be as real and damaging as majority or median scientific consensus currently predicts, really does require global government. Belief in the latter would require extraordinary confidence, not just in the incorrectness of mainstream scientific predictions but in the ability of the scientific establishment to collectively realise its error; there are historical precedents for such changes in accepted science, but they are reasonably rare and very difficult to predict. So it appears more likely that "global government" is a scare story not a serious belief.

*I have tried to understand the issue, with limited success.

**whether that takes the form of a court which merely enforces agreed upon limits, or a more expansive court and bureaucracy which can set limits or prices, set costs for breaches and distribute recompense to those adversely affected
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The problem with the Climate Change Agenda is, whether it be Mrs Thatcher or Blair/Brown/Cameron it is tailormade for politicians who see it is as a way to increase control and to give a rationale to taxing the public.

So, even if it's true, you'll reject it because you don't like the consequences?

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It has a danger of crowding out environmental concerns which should be faced up to such as deforestation and over-population [...]

What about a 'both-and' response? Dealing with deforestation is hardly in conflict with responding to climate change. Some concerns about over-population may be legitimate; some of it seems to be about rich people blaming poor people.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It has also taken on the form of a quasi-religion in which any doubt will not be allowed and which is stamped upon as a heresy [...]

How many religions can honestly say that their truth claims are supported by an international consensus of scientists?

In what sense is doubt 'not allowed'? Some journalists are well-paid to publish 'pro-sceptic' articles, as I am about to show. Having scientists disagree with you is not censorship. Disagreeing with most scientists is not the moral equivalent of being the guy who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square.

Climate change scepticism sounds a lot more like a quasi-religion to me... and its high priests are "journalists who have no background in science, and who appear to know less about the subject than the average 12-year old, have been filling the pages of the Mail, the Telegraph and the Times with articles claiming that manmade global warming is a fraud."

How consistent are sceptics in their scepticism? As RealClimate observed, "Absolute credence in one obscure publication while distrusting mountains of ‘mainstream’ papers is a sure sign of cherry picking data to support an agenda, not clear-thinking scepticism." That sounds 'quasi-religious to me - and not in a good way.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
That's an interesting article on overpopulation and one that I mostly agree with.

I think there is truth to the idea that the current overpopulation rhetoric is framed in a way of blaming poor people. Given that one lower middle class adult American consumes more and produces more waste than a family of twelve in rural Sénégal or Burma simply "helping" poor people have fewer kids isn't going to fix the problem, nor is the notion that all we have to do is wait for poor countries to become rich for fertility rates to fall. Rising affluence will actually make things worse, not better. It isn't as much a matter of how many bodies there are on the planet but how much each body consumes.
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
Hiro's Leap says
quote:
This is one of the wackier conspiracy theories out there. "Climate change" isn't a new term - you'd think that the name of IPCC (established 1988) would be a major hint.
I agree but I think Myrrh's point is that the balance of the proportion of usage of the expression "global warming" to the expression "climate change" in the mainstream press has recently been moving away from "global warming" towards "climate change".

It's not that climate change is a new expression; it's just that to a sceptic's way of thinking, environmentalists are embarrassed about the fact that the globe apparently hasn't warmed for about ten or fifteen years, which is why they are talking more about "climate change" rather than "global warming" these days.

Zwingli says
quote:
Not being a scientist I won't voice an opinion on the science of climate change* however it occurs to me that if people are concerned that climate change will be used to create a global government** then they should petition their respective national governments to act responsibly and intelligently with regard to climate change, and to voluntarily assist whichever countries and peoples are harmed by their actions, especially those who through poverty or other characteristics are unable to easily adjust.
Sounds like a good idea - but unfortunately it presupposes that people actually trust government in the first place. And this is the thing that both environmental activists and deniers seem to have in common. Generally speaking, neither of them trust their governments. The whole thing seems to be getting increasingly polarised.

But it's not just two sides. Generally speaking, governments have taken a fairly soft touch on this issue so far; granted, they've put out propaganda to try to encourage people to take personal responsibility for emissions, but authoritarian control mechanisms (such as meter throttling and petrol rationing) have not yet been put in place.

But what if governments do start putting such measures in place? Deniers will resent it - but both environmentalists and deniers alike will naturally wonder if the government is practising what it's preaching. The government's own emissions, including its transport infrastructure and its military, will come under close scrutiny. Sure as night follows day, sooner or later it's going to start looking like government organisations are being a bit profligate.

Once word gets out about this, you may find that the environmentalists and deniers - who were previously at each other's throats - now come together to fight the common enemy, namely, the government.

I can't see how state and national governments can avoid this happening. But on the other hand, that's also the reason why I think there's no risk of a single global government forming over this issue any time soon. You might be able to prevent localised revolutionary activity in just one country, but I don't see how you can prevent pockets of localised revolutionary activity springing up all over the world.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
OP question: answer: Yes....
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
OP question: answer: Yes....

How? Please give details in your explanation so I may follow your steps of reasoning and evidence. Ta.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The problem with the Climate Change Agenda is, whether it be Mrs Thatcher or Blair/Brown/Cameron it is tailormade for politicians who see it is as a way to increase control and to give a rationale to taxing the public.

It's also tailormade for the politicians to look like tools as they fail to reduce emissions. I don't see a strong incentive here - especially as the taxes raised need to be spent on carbon-cutting technologies, and most voters aren't terribly interested.

That said, I know a lot of people agree with you. It's why I believe all carbon taxes should be revenue neutral, giving the money raised straight back as dividends or tax breaks.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
That's an interesting article on overpopulation and one that I mostly agree with.

IMO it misses the point because it looks at current third world carbon emissions, not future ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
The greater and wider the harm done by climate change, the larger the proper scope of government to restrain it, and the longer the issue is effectively ignored, the higher the chance that its effects will be rapid and serious enough to require supernational or global government.

[Overused] Absolutely spot on.

I remember one Shipmate being appalled at the idea of building codes with mandatory insulation standards: this represented too much government influence. But by rejecting relatively minor government actions like this now, it's going to make much more drastic ones inevitable a few decades further in. It's an entirely self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
Alwyn responds to aumbry
quote:
quote:
It has also taken on the form of a quasi-religion in which any doubt will not be allowed and which is stamped upon as a heresy [...]
How many religions can honestly say that their truth claims are supported by an international consensus of scientists?
It depends how you define "scientist" I suppose. And "consensus" for that matter. How hard can getting an international consensus of scientists actually be?

And how many scientists have to disagree with the consensus before it's no longer considered a "consensus"?

If there's one thing I've learnt from gay rights and anti-racism campaigning, it's that those in the majority aren't always in the right. See the Wikipedia article.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.

If you want to insult Alan, and the rest of us here us and millions of other people, inclusing thousands of scientists, who are trying to save your arse along with our own, why not do it in a form where we are allowed to reply in kind?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Is the Myrrh v Alan Cresswell debate on climate change becoming an annual Ship institution? It seems to come earlier every year. I hope it doesn't get all commercialised.

Hardly likely to. So far the score is Myrrh nil, Alan 42. Such an unequal contest makes poor TV. Its not even up to the feeble standards of recent series of Big Brother


quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

Personally I am intrigued by the way that all this environmental doomsday stuff jumped out of the vole-hole and into the full light of day at about the same time as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear destruction receded.

I think that must be when you started paying attention. People had been discussing it since the 1960s and it was reasonably clear that something was happehing in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

The trouble with both your contradictory conspiracy theories is that Thatcher got on the bandwagon in 1988 - at least three years after she'd stuffed the miners and killed the coal industry (so no reason to make any link there) but over a year before the events of 1989 (which she was probably the last major Western politician to see the significance of anyway)
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There's a (pdf) discussion paper on Climate Change from the Fairtrade Foundation. There are holes in it, particularly the issues around water, but it's pretty chilling reading
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
ken says
quote:
The trouble with both your contradictory conspiracy theories is that Thatcher got on the bandwagon in 1988 - at least three years after she'd stuffed the miners and killed the coal industry (so no reason to make any link there) but over a year before the events of 1989 (which she was probably the last major Western politician to see the significance of anyway)
In defence of aumbry, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say that environmentalism didn't really take off until after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It's a matter of historical record that Rachel Carson's classic book "Silent Spring" was published in 1962 - and that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. It seems to me that it wasn't until the A-bomb in 1945 that people started to take seriously the idea that Armageddon might be brought about by technological progress - and that's why I think it would have been unlikely for there to have been a serious environmentalist movement before 1945.

That's not to say there was no eschatological speculation at all. There was loads! Eschatological speculation has got a very long history. Whilst Joachim of Fiore certainly wasn't the first to pin an approximate date on the end of the current age, he certainly did a lot to popularise this kind of belief system in the middle ages onwards, being influential on the Franciscan Spirituals, Girolamo Savonarola, the Anabaptist movement, the Puritan movement, and William Miller's 1843 prediction.

Mainstream Christians often mock dispensationalists for saying that rapture theology has Biblical support, since it's a matter of historical record that rapture theology was only invented as recently as the 19th century, by John Nelson Darby. I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that doctrines should stand the test of time, and that the older a doctrine that hasn't been proved false is, the more likely it is that the doctrine is true.

But it's disingenious to use this argument against dispensationalism, if you don't use it against environmentalism as well. Environmentalism is a lot younger than dispensationalism!!

I used to be a believer in man-made global warming myself; indeed, once of the reasons I previously thought that dispensationalism was so dangerous is because pre-tribulation rapture theology tends to make dispensationalists think that rising sea levels are (a) not their problem because they're going to be raptured soon anyway, and (b) part of the prophesied tribulation. Scaremongering rhetoric about global warming doesn't persuade people to abandon dispensationalist beliefs; on the contrary, it tends to reinforce those beliefs, because the environmentalist rhetoric tends to get re-interpreted in terms of the tribulation. Environmentalists usually don't understand this, though, because they tend to be clueless about the historical context of their end-times beliefs, and as a result they repeat the same mistakes of history.

Why did I stop believing in global warming? Well, because I tried to do my bit, I did replace all my lightbulbs with energy saving bulbs, I tried to make other efficiencies too - but to be honest I can't see any evidence that it's made any difference. The Guardian still bangs on about how much of a problem global warming is, just as they did before; indeed, if anything, they're getting more hysterical. Naturally, this sowed doubts in my mind.

But that's not the only reason. I also wanted to know why the dispensationalists and Christian Zionists believe what they do - and that made me look into the broader history of the interpretation of apocalyptic prophesy in general, and the book of Revelation in particular. And that's when I realised that environmentalist scaremongering and dispensationalism and the fundamentalist Islam that the Daily Mail thinks we should be so scared of, have all got the same historical root. It seems they can all trace their history, at least in part, back to late medieval apocalyptic thought, that started with Joachim of Fiore.

Now I'm not denying the fact that there are indeed some scientists involved in global warming research. However, science plays only a bit-part in the contemporary popular cultural phenomenon of environmentalism. The history of the interpretation of the book of Revelation plays a far far bigger part, in my opinion.

None of this proves that global warming isn't real. But then again, the plague of the Black Death in the 1340's was real too. Make no mistake, vast swathes of the population in Europe died out, and the population levels didn't recover until several centuries later. And unless I'm greatly mistaken, there is historical evidence of an apocalyptic cultural phenomenon that rode on the back of fears of the Black Death.

But it clearly didn't kill absolutely everyone on the planet in one go, did it? So even in the worst-case scenario, I find it hard to believe that global warming will be any different.

Point I'm trying to make is that if global warming is a real problem, then it deserves to get a calm, rational response. Witch-hunts against "deniers" and publicly hurling insults about simply won't do. No we are not all scientists - but then again, we're clearly not all historians either, as is evidenced by the fact that scientists seem to think that the historical context is irrelevant. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to become scientists - but, given that we're not all scientists, it's also unrealistic to expect everyone to sustain a belief that they are individually responsible for saving the world, if they don't understand the reasons why it matters. When people fail to see the evidence that their own change in personal emissions makes any difference, you can't blame them for being sceptical.

Still, that's my view.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
It seems to me that it wasn't until the A-bomb in 1945 that people started to take seriously the idea that Armageddon might be brought about by technological progress

Agreed. I'm reading Spencer Weart's fascinating Discovery of Global Warming at the moment and he repeatedly stresses how important the Cold War was for climate science. One reason was that the U.S. military had seen how vital science was in WWII, and were now prepared to fund blue sky research into many areas. These included atmospheric physics and oceanography, two key areas for understanding climate.

Also, there had previously been an assumption amongst scientists that humanity could never seriously alter the Earth's biosphere or atmosphere. The potential of large scale nuclear war changed that assumption.

There were even Soviet plans to deliberately modify climate to gain strategic advantage.
quote:
But it's disingenious to use this argument against dispensationalism, if you don't use it against environmentalism as well. Environmentalism is a lot younger than dispensationalism!!
I don't think this follows. Modern environmentalism isn't theology, and so why should its age matter? The Civil Rights Movement was new in many ways, but that didn't affect its legitimacy.
quote:
Scaremongering rhetoric about global warming doesn't persuade people to abandon dispensationalist beliefs; on the contrary, it tends to reinforce those beliefs
Very true. If things do get nasty (e.g. if the higher sensitivity models are right) I suspect that then we'll see a lot of doomsday cults, not just regular dispensationalism.
quote:
Why did I stop believing in global warming? Well, because I tried to do my bit, I did replace all my lightbulbs with energy saving bulbs, I tried to make other efficiencies too - but to be honest I can't see any evidence that it's made any difference. [...] Naturally, this sowed doubts in my mind.
Although I agree with a lot of what you write, this makes no sense to me at all. What did you expect to happen? Why should it naturally sow doubts?
quote:
So even in the worst-case scenario, I find it hard to believe that global warming will be any different.
One difference is that medieval Europe didn't have nukes. How will losing the Tibetan glaciers affect the stability of China and India? What about millions of flooded Bangladeshi refugees in Pakistan? I'm not predicting the end of humanity, but this has the potential to be very seriously destabilising.
 
Posted by Glenn (# 6517) on :
 
Climate doesn't stay the same from year to year. We knew that. So, what's all the fuss about?

CO2 has increased from zero-ish to zero-ish, while water remains the earth's favourite greenhouse gas. CO2 is zero-ish because of photosynthesis and other natural chemical processes that remove CO2 from the air.

I think we're being misled.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Having been out doing that strange RL thing, I'm a little late responding. Whatever.

How is it that Al Gore is picked on as a lone voice crying doom in the wilderness, and He Must Be Absolutely Wrong, even if he has a significant factual base to work with, while Glenn Beck is treated as the authentic voice of all that is real and true, even if he doesn't have any significant factual base? It wouldn't have anything to do with mindless party affiliation, would it? Or is ANYTHING that doesn't suit your need to avoid thought automatically absolute trash?

It is possible to deal with a mild adjustment in a title ("global warming" to "climate change") if you can actually look at the reason for that change, instead of rushing about yelling about how scientists keep on changing their minds. Scientists process information, and adjust their thoughts when new information comes along - or, at least, most of then try to do this.

If that's too complicated for you, I would suggest you stop using electricity, which has only been understood for 150 years or so. That is obviously too much change too fast.

Probably means you shouldn't use a computer.

But at least you won't contribute that bit of heat to the changing climate.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Care to run that by me again, because I simply don't understand what you're trying to say. You appear to be agreeing with me that science shows that the climate changes, and that it's not just increasing temperatures. But, if so I don't see the reason for the 'bullshit' or the 'you can't deal with it' [Confused]

Because Alan, what was used to bash us all into this guilt trip was that climate didn't change, by any discernable amount. The whole soddin' agw is based on that!

Youze (for Ken's benefit, that refers to you all who promote manmade global warming and CO2 driving up temperature), sold the world that climate Didn't change. It was flat as a hockey stick for yonks until we came along with our industrial output and started driving up CO2 levels creating global warming which was going to melt all the ice caps and flood the world.

Those arguing that this was crap science pointed to the fact, from scientific observation, that climate changes, often and dramatically, and, neither CO2 nor man-made industrial output has anything to do with it.


quote:
Alan There are dozens of groups around the world experimenting with the climate - what happens if we increase CO2 by 20%? what happens if increased ocenainc temperatures release more CO2? etc., and running those experiments for past, present and potential future conditions. Those experiments match the past pretty well, for a very complex system.
And I'm quite sure that makes them very happy. But until they can prove that CO2 is even capable of driving the vast global temperature changes the earth has been through and ignoring that science has actually shown that it hasn't in the past, seems a mite pointless.



quote:
Or, are you just worried that the experiments are run inside computers? Perhaps waiting a century for the data from physical experimentation with the climate (with virtually no chance of controlling the variables) would be better ... but if the computational experiments are anything to go on (and, their results for past climates tend to suggest that they are) then if we did that we'd have waited far too long to actually do anything.
Garbage in, garbage out. What concerns me is the thinking that programmes the computers.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Myrrh, I asked you a question on the eat your pet thread - would you answer it.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn:
Climate doesn't stay the same from year to year. We knew that. So, what's all the fuss about?

CO2 has increased from zero-ish to zero-ish, while water remains the earth's favourite greenhouse gas. CO2 is zero-ish because of photosynthesis and other natural chemical processes that remove CO2 from the air.

I think we're being misled.

It strikes me that you would be a particularly easy person to mislead, since you seem (on the basis of the above) to have no grasp at all of the core of the scientific argument. If you don't want to engage with the science, fine - but you can hardly then expect that others will pay any attention to your views on the subject.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn:
CO2 has increased from zero-ish to zero-ish, while water remains the earth's favourite greenhouse gas. CO2 is zero-ish because of photosynthesis and other natural chemical processes that remove CO2 from the air.

There are a number of problems with this.
  1. "Zero-ish" is just rhetoric. Zero-ish strychnine (or even caffeine) can have a significant effect.
  2. Water vapour accounts for about two-thirds of the greenhouse effect, but that doesn't make the other gases trivial.
  3. Photosynthesis only has a limited ability to remove CO2 (otherwise CO2 levels wouldn't be rising).
  4. Chemical weathering will remove CO2 eventually, but that's after 100,000+ years.

 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
How hard can getting an international consensus of scientists actually be?

If it's easy, let's try an experiment. Prove your point by achieving an international consensus among contemporary scientists about something that is demonstrably untrue. Here's how. Let us know when you've done it [Big Grin]

Sure, there are some eco-fundamentalists out there - you get fruitcakes in every big human group. My point, when asking the question ... 'how many religions can say that their truth claims are supported by a global scientific consensus?' ... was that it's hard to sustain a case that belief in climate science is 'quasi-religious', rather than based on, well, science.

Trying to paint climate sceptics as victims of mad religious zealous won't work. Your opponent is not Fred Phelps, he is Alan Cresswell.

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
If there's one thing I've learnt from gay rights and anti-racism campaigning, it's that those in the majority aren't always in the right. See the Wikipedia article.

Sure, truth isn't determined by a majority vote. However, climate sceptics' attempt to paint themselves as a 'victims persecuted by the majority' won't work, either. 'I'm a victim, therefore my claims are true' isn't convincing. Even if it was, at least some evidence of victimisation points the other way.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
How hard can getting an international consensus of scientists actually be?

If it's easy, let's try an experiment. Prove your point by achieving an international consensus among contemporary scientists about something that is demonstrably untrue. Here's how. Let us know when you've done it [Big Grin]


Hmm, consensus achieved by consistently denying access to the raw data and methodology and logs for the hard to keep up with changes re-adjusting same for checking isn't science. So consensus of which group?

Like these?: Frightened to death

From a discussion on the Mauna Loa fudging of data, a comment on the Salmonella Scare in the UK, those who lived through it will remember the panic created and millions of chickens killed and government warnings about eating raw eggs and the dangers of mayonnaise and new recipes using powdered eggs and the downfall of Edwina Currie.

quote:
If there is data manipulation, it would not be a new phenomenon in the “scare” dynamic. In my studies of the first prominent UK scare – the “salmonella in eggs” scare in 1988-9, I caught out a leading government epidemiologist “reinterpreting” figures in a food poisoning outbreak to turn it from “unknown origin” into a definite egg case. Unfortunately for the man, he had already released the “uncorrected” data, to which we had access.

In my review of 60 official “egg” outbreaks – peer reviewed for my PhD – only four could be reliably attributed to eggs. Richard North Unaccountable data changes

These scares have only a limited shelf life, can't keep the excitement going when you've killed all the chickens, but global warming has all the ingredients for a show that will run and run and run. Fear, guilt, recriminations, opportunities for righteous anger and greater taxation, and wow, even a new commodity to be traded - It's not joe bloggs making millions of dollars on the back of promoting it - and we'll all be dead anyway before the computer models show their predictions for 2100 were wrong.

And yes, where government control can be imposed without argument then every kind of abuse of our freedoms can be implemented.

It isn't science when open debate isn't allowed, it is religious persecution.


The heretic

Myrrh
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It isn't science when open debate isn't allowed, it is religious persecution.

You're 'openly debating' it here. In what sense is what you are doing 'not allowed'? How, specifically, have you been persecuted for expressing your views?

As I showed, some journalists repeatedly express climate sceptic views. They are 'openly debating' this issue constantly. In what sense are they 'not allowed' to do so? What specific persecution have they suffered?

If anyone has been 'not allowed' to openly debate this issue, evidence suggests that they are climate scientists, not climate sceptics. Which side in this debate has really been affected by 'government control [that] can be imposed without argument' (as you put it)...?

"Philip Cooney, a senior White House aide who previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted to Congress that he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush government.

Among other changes, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming." (source)
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[...] where government control can be imposed without argument then every kind of abuse of our freedoms can be implemented.

[...]it is religious persecution.

Your persecution meter needs new batteries.

What were you just saying about not scaring people without good reason?

If the Government wants us to rely more on alternative fuels and fly less, I don't imagine that the Bond-villain dictators of the world will feel inspired to use this terrifying new form of persecution in order to strike fear into their populations.

Can you imagine it?

Dictator: ... and we will have more wind farms, energy efficient light bulbs and better bus services! Mwahahaha! We will give you money to help you insulate your lofts! Cower before my mighty reign of terror!

People: Help! Run for the hills! We're done for!

No, I don't think so.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
I think it's unfair of climate change skeptics to use the normal scientific language uncertainty as an excuse to discard the science while at the same time complaining that the "religious" types make wild claims they can't back up.

Which do you want, carefully delineated data, or political correct certainty?

Glenn wrote,
quote:
CO2 has increased from zero-ish to zero-ish, while water remains the earth's favourite greenhouse gas. CO2 is zero-ish because of photosynthesis and other natural chemical processes that remove CO2 from the air.
Why doesn't water count? We have irrigated deserts. Why wouldn't this lead to a greater greenhouse effect? Or doesn't that count as human induced climate change?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It isn't science when open debate isn't allowed, it is religious persecution.

You're 'openly debating' it here. In what sense is what you are doing 'not allowed'? How, specifically, have you been persecuted for expressing your views?
I should have written "when open scientific debate isn't allowed".

See my last post on: Eat your dog to save the earth


Scientists withholding and manipulating data are not scientists, scientists whose societies have been hijacked do not have access to open scientific debate.

RE the OP, for interest - The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

I haven't checked this out any further. Leave it you.

Bye.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I should have written "when open scientific debate isn't allowed".

If only open scientific debate was allowed, and if climate scientists were allowed to do their work without political interference, we'd be better informed.

These scientists have published lots of research in peer-reviewed journals. Climate sceptics are free to carry out their own research, get it published in the same journals - and have an open debate. If there is science to be done to support the sceptics' case, no-one is stopping sceptics from doing that. You're not victims. No-one is persecuting you.

Some climate sceptics today seem to be using the same tactics that sceptics of the theory that smoking causes cancer used to use.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
One thing in the proposed treaty's favor is it's insistence on scientific evidence. If science is currently being manipulated as Myrrh suggests, then when that becomes clear the treaty will support the new scientific paradigm instead.

In fact, the Party (Conference of Parties) line is quite adjustable for future facts. It finally provides an answer to the problem of how democracies deal with technical issues. The science is what the Party decides is right after examining the data.

People either become funders and pay their fair share or they live with a NAMA handed down to them by scientists who have a better idea of what's going on.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There are multiple causations involved in climate change. And it is by no means clear at this stage which if any is the most important. Dogmatic assertions are not helpful. But a proper examination of the question "Is there anything we can do to alleviate potentially deleterious effects?" is obviously worthwhile.

A proper consideration of that question is not helped by shouting the odds.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
RE the OP, for interest - The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

I haven't checked this out any further. Leave it you.

If you can't be bothered to read it, why link to it? Why do you think this contributes anything to the conversation? Quoting other random websites at length isn't debate. It kills debate.

But let's see what the bloggers at Libertarian Alliance have to say anyway...
quote:
Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate.
What dramatic turn to a colder climate? Here's the data from NASA. (You could perhaps argue the warming has slowed recently - although that's debatable - but there's certainly no dramatic cooling.)
quote:
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas.
[Killing me]
People have known CO2 was a greenhouse gas since the late 19th century. There's no question about it whatsoever.
quote:
Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.
The irony of this is that industry fought these measures, just like now. With hindsight we can see they were wrong, that cleaning up smog wasn't so hard, costs were over-estimated and the benefits were well worth it. But industrial groups with a financial stake threw up exactly the same arguments as they're doing now.
 
Posted by Glenn (# 6517) on :
 
I think the credibility of global warming is manufactured. I'll happily look at the raw data, if someone will show me where it is. I have looked for it, but had no luck. Perhaps I gave up too easily. I think we're expected to believe someone's interpretation of a graph. Example, I recall hearing about some data that was taken inside a city and used as proof that temperatures are going up over decades, everywhere. Scepticism is good.

Those who have declared a consensus are now labelling others, who object to fraud, as naysayers. I say the onus is still where it was before the alleged consensus.

Who can tell me something about Al Gore that might make me think he has an ulterior motive, perhaps beyond money?

Water vapour accounts for two thirds of the greenhouse effect? Is there some raw data on that?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
RE the OP, for interest - The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

I haven't checked this out any further. Leave it you.

If you can't be bothered to read it, why link to it? Why do you think this contributes anything to the conversation? Quoting other random websites at length isn't debate. It kills debate.
What is the matter with you, Hiro? Don't you ever read what I say before jumping to prejudiced conclusions?

I posted it because I had read it and I posted it because there is something in it relevant to the OP.

I haven't checked any further about what is mentioned there. Relevant to the OP.

Myrrh


Glenn - good luck trying to getting information about water vapour from agw's, they don't include water vapour in their modelling, except as an amplifier of CO2, though if pushed they will admit it is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2

Because a nutshell, post 3

and, Water Vapor Explained

More about the water vapour debacle in the list of articles.

Al Gore, see the link I posted re the OP. He was a student of Revelle and completely enamoured of his theory and ran with it. Revelle's change of mind and attempts to stop the growing bandwagon was put down by Gore by attributing it to senility.

He's still just as passionate about it, from a few minutes of an interview I caught recently. Famously he said the science was settled and there was nothing more to discuss, so he doesn't want anyone rocking his boat. That he's made many millions from all this is, I think, by the by, it's his belief in it that still seems to motivate him.


Myrrh


RE OP and Maurice Strong who set up the IPCC, there's more on how he used it in the list of articles on the nov55 site, from someone who was there from the beginning.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
OK, I couldn't resist. Maurice Strong - an article from 1997


Who is Maurice Strong?

Fascinating stuff.

quote:
The concept of global governance has been fermenting for some time. In 1991, the Club of Rome (of which Strong is, of course, a member) issued a report called The First Global Revolution, which asserted that current problems "are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives [which] gives a greatly enhanced importance to the United Nations and other international systems." Also in 1991 Strong claimed that the Earth Summit, of which he was Secretary General, would play an important role in "reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance." In 1995, in Our Global Neighborhood, the CGG agreed: "It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance."

Americans should be worried by the Commission's recommendations: for instance, that some UN activities be funded through taxes on foreign-exchange transactions and multinational corporations. Economist James Tobin estimates that a 0.5 per cent tax on foreign-exchange transactions would raise $1.5 trillion annually -- nearly equivalent to the U.S. federal budget.

It also recommended that "user fees" might be imposed on companies operating in the "global commons." Such fees might be collected on international airline tickets, ocean shipping, deep-sea fishing, activities in Antarctica, geostationary satellite orbits, and electromagnetic spectrum. But the big enchilada is carbon taxes, which would be levied on all fuels made from coal, oil, and natural gas. "A carbon tax," the report deadpans, ". . . would yield very large revenues indeed." Given the UN's record of empire-building and corruption, Cato's Ted Carpenter warns: "One can only imagine the degree of mischief it could get into if it had independent sources of revenue."

Myrrh
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
OP question: answer: Yes....

How? Please give details in your explanation so I may follow your steps of reasoning and evidence. Ta.
A "consortium" of jealous nations always have it in for the USA; every detail of change suggested targets the bad American lifestyle as the cause of climate change. It is not shown to be humans causing climate change, at, all. The consensus of UN backed scientists that said "AGW" originally have backed off and called it "ACC" instead; so that no matter what the planet's climate does, it is a negative "change" and it is caused by evil capitalist living standards. "They" want the USA to pay for the privilege of being top-nation, and all other developed nations are to chip into the kitty, from which developing nations will draw to upgrade themselves. It is a contemplated forced "tax" of nations who have to supply nations who have not; all in the name of reductions to "save the planet."

The proposals are unreasonable; e.g. requiring the USA to return to 1960's level emissions, even though our population has more than doubled in the meantime. We could satisfy Kyoto, et al. ANY drawn up reduction measures, simply by cutting off all food aid to foreign countries: the stopping of all that extra food production and transportation would account for an enormous amount of our so-called carbon debt....
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Merlin, the U.S. is more easily capable of returning to pre 1960 level emissions than other countries (except maybe France). We choose not to because our leaders stay in power by controlling energy sources. We have abandoned cheap, clean nuclear power in favor of coal.

Well that choice is going to cost us, as we knew it would. We have been living at the whim of our energy producers for too long. This treaty replaces that bunch with another bunch.

Is it full of opportunities for graft? Yes. Is it a new form of world government? Yes. Is it worse than what it's replacing? I don't know.

We currently live in a world controlled by a shadow government run by OPEC and their ilk. Perhaps rule by power mad scientists is worse. Perhaps it's not. But Bush and his friends really screwed the pooch so people want something new.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I posted it because I had read it and I posted it because there is something in it relevant to the OP.

If you'd read it, that's even worse. Do you stand by the author's claim that Revelle should have proved CO2 is a greenhouse gas? And did you notice that even this conspiracy theorist article has to admit "carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million", contradicting claims you're making here?

There are intelligent sceptics around, and there are real issues worth discussing. Regurgitating paranoid anti-AGW websites, regardless of how flawed the claims or biased the authors, doesn't further the discussion IMO.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn:
I think the credibility of global warming is manufactured. I'll happily look at the raw data, if someone will show me where it is. I have looked for it, but had no luck. Perhaps I gave up too easily. I think we're expected to believe someone's interpretation of a graph. Example, I recall hearing about some data that was taken inside a city and used as proof that temperatures are going up over decades, everywhere. Scepticism is good.

mmm - the link I posted earlier is to a lot of anecdotal evidence of climate change, and not in cities - you know the sort of raw data you're asking for, in the making. Discussion paper on climate change (pdf)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn:
I think the credibility of global warming is manufactured. I'll happily look at the raw data, if someone will show me where it is.

The actual raw data is probably almost impossible for those not actually involved in the research to access. For a start, there'll be vast quantities of it - do you have any idea how much web server space the entire database of met station data for the UK would occupy, every single reading ever taken? Add in millions of paleoclimate estimates, satellite data, experimental climate data, other historic records ... even if all that raw data was readily available to the public virtually no-one would be able to make use of it. Most of the peer reviewed papers will be in subscription journals, OK if you're at a university which has paid the subscription but less useful for others. Many are appearing on institutional repositories that are openly accessible as "authors final versions" though.

Summaries of those data sets and papers are more readily available though, The IPCC technical reports will have graphs of minimally processed data (I'm talking about the actual full reports, and their technical annexes, not the 'sumary for policy makers' versions). Those are on the IPCC website, and often reproduced elsewhere - I think NOAA has many of them. A bit of looking around will find them.

quote:
Example, I recall hearing about some data that was taken inside a city and used as proof that temperatures are going up over decades, everywhere.
It is a big problem. Many weather stations were, and are, located in places like university campuses - often when built in large open areas but now often in cities as the urban area expanded to encompass them. Scientists try to locate new stations where their measurements are generally representative of the local area ... but it's very difficult to do that and ensure the local area doesn't change (even fences around stations to keep animals from interfering with the instruments can be a problem if plants grow up inside the fence where there's now no grazing). And, of course, a modern well placed weather station put up 10 years ago will only give 10 years worth of data ... to get the longer term instrumental record you need to rely on instruments that are currently poorly located, records from amateurs with instruments that may not be well calibrated and other imperfect data. There are plenty of mathematical and statistical techniques that can be applied to extract the full value from that raw data, and it's a problem that's widely recognised - climate scientists don't need some crank to tell them that they have data from cities which are recognised as being heat islands.

quote:

Water vapour accounts for two thirds of the greenhouse effect? Is there some raw data on that?

Water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas. And, there's a lot of it in the atmosphere. So, yes it is a very significant contribution to the greenhouse effect. However, it has a very short residence time in the atmosphere and the distribution (in time and location) is highly variable. Also, it responds very quickly to temperature changes - where surface water is present a temperature rise quickly raises humidity, humid air loses water vapour very quickly as it cools - it is therefore a very important rapid feedback mechanism that can quite simply be modelled as an amplification of other changes. It is, of course, a bit more complex than that because one of the places where water vapour will condense is in the upper atmosphere to form clouds - which both insulate the earth at night and shade us during the day (there's still a bit of a debate about whether more clouds will be a net cooling or warming effect, it depends a lot on what sort of clouds and when they're present ... but the fact that the question isn't yet settled implies that the effects of clouds isn't very strong in either direction). And, clouds result in rain and snow that are also important climate variables.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
Thank you, Myrrh, for explaining more of your thinking and for the links. Let me see if I understand your position.

You're saying that there is no science proving that climate change occurs because of human activity. You see (if you agree with the Libertarian Alliance comments that you linked to) climate change as an attempt by environmentalists to sustain their movement and for Maurice Strong to "fulfill his dream of one-world government". For you (or at least, for the Libertarian Alliance), this is "bad science [...] driving big government". Have I represented your view correctly? I may well have missed significant points.

Maybe I'm just realising the importance of this particular thread title now (I'm a slow learner, sometimes.) How much of the concern of sceptics linked to a perception that climate science is a Trojan Horse for bigger government and higher taxes?

When climate scientists talk about their evidence, are climate sceptics simply hearing demands for bigger government and higher taxes? Maybe both sides feel that they're not being heard about issues that matter.

Suppose that measures to reduce climate change could be achieved through private initiatives and voluntary action. Suppose climate change measures could be introduced without significant tax increases. How much difference (if any) would that make to sceptics' level of concern about climate science?

[ 13. November 2009, 10:00: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
It's unrealistic to expect everyone to become scientists - but, given that we're not all scientists, it's also unrealistic to expect everyone to sustain a belief that they are individually responsible for saving the world, if they don't understand the reasons why it matters. When people fail to see the evidence that their own change in personal emissions makes any difference, you can't blame them for being sceptical.

It is true that we can see the roots of environmental movements in some types of apocalyptic thought. (A reason why the conspiracy theory that it's all rooted in the interests of well-known big government apostles such as Margaret Thatcher is just so off the mark.) But if it were true you'd expect those environmentalist communities to act as canaries - they would be picking up on it first. Also, there's a lot of Romantic thought in the environmental movement. Some Romantics such as Blake might have had links with apocalyptic movements, but others not.

There's apocalyptic thought and apocalyptic thought. The environmentalist movements and the Biblical millennialist movements in modern society tend to be pretty much hostile to each other. The one's putting forward the idea that there's nothing we can do about it, and to be honest it's really a good thing; the other is putting forward the idea that if we abandon modern civilization and go back to nature we can avoid the catastrophe, which will be a really bad thing.

Ideas get out of the wilder apocalyptic communities and into mainstream discourse with considerable difficulty. That this one has done so must suggest that there's something to it.

I am trying to think whether it's possible to systematize how to distinguish between someone who is a crank and someone who isn't. It's not just the consensus. Ken and Alan Cresswell are pretty clearly not cranks. I don't think it's just their rhetorical self-presentation, or rather the rhetoric reflects a way of thinking that isn't easily impressed by bad reasoning.

As for individual action, none of us are in an individual position to do very much about it. In part, it's a tragedy of collective action and free-riding. Cutting down individual power consumption is a good first step. It's only really effective if a large percentage of our society does it, and at the moment only those who are individually highly motivated by the thought of anthropogenic climate change itself are doing that. The other problem is that a lot of the action that needs to be taken is at collective scales, and the progress there is painfully slow. (If the world's governments were really in a conspiracy to foist climate change upon us, then you'd think government action would be more than grudging and half-hearted.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
How much of the concern of sceptics linked to a perception that climate science is a Trojan Horse for bigger government and higher taxes?

I suspect you may be onto something there. Certainly it does seem that many of the most vocal organisations on the 'sceptic' side of the argument also argue against big government or high taxes.

And, some of the arguments that are made only really make sense within that context. For example, it seems totally irrelevant to me that someone advocating action to reduce carbon emissions also advocates the development of a global government. The two just don't seem to be related, the science isn't affected by the politics. And, the politics doesn't depend on climate science. There are good reasons to advocate a global government that don't mention climate change, and carbom emission reductions can occur without a global government. That whole line of argument doesn't even make any sense to me; but I can see that it might be highly persuasive in debating with people who are already highly suspicious of big government.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am trying to think whether it's possible to systematize how to distinguish between someone who is a crank and someone who isn't. It's not just the consensus.

I'd be very wary about describing any professional scientist as a crank, even the ones whose views I disagree strongly with. Scientific theories get overturned, and someone once considered a crank can become highly respected when they're proved right. Of course, they usually aren't right, but it's not for me to make that call.

(That said, scientists can have strong personal biases without being cranks. I'm wary when they make controversial pronouncements about subjects in which they have very little relevant expertise.)

Crank bloggers are much easier to spot. They pounce on anything to support their case, they make glaring mistakes about the science, and they think everyone's in a giant conspiracy. They usually have strong ideological convictions and exhibit similar behaviour on a range of subjects.

As for apocalyptic ideas, ultimately I don't particularly care what Al Gore or environmentalists say. I'm worried because so many relevant scientists seem to be:
quote:
Asked what temperature rise was most likely [this century], 84 of the 182 specialists (46%) who answered the question said it would reach 3-4C by the end of the century; 47 (26%) suggested a rise of 2-3C, while a handful said 6C or more. While 24 experts predicted a catastrophic rise of 4-5C, just 18 thought it would stay at 2C or under.

Some of those surveyed who said the 2C target would be met confessed they did so more out of hope rather than belief. "As a mother of young children I choose to believe this, and work hard toward it," one said.

"This optimism is not primarily due to scientific facts, but to hope," said another.

i.e. less than 10% thought we'd keep warming under 2C, and they were being optimistic. And I worry because of stuff like this:
quote:
Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States have issued what amounts to an unambiguous warning to the world: civilisation itself is threatened by global warming.
[...]
"Civilisation developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end," the scientists warn. Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. "To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet from the one on which civilisation developed and for which extensive physical infrastructure has been built," they say.

Al Gore I can happily ignore. These scientists I can't.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alan, when I want data I don't mean all the data points. I want to know how these climate models work. What assumptions were make? What equations were used?

The case of clouds seems highly relevant. Clouds reflect during the day and insulate at night (and some during the day of course). How does rising temperature affect cloud formation at night?

Does snow do more insulation or reflection? I would think it insulates more since it happens in the winter when there's less sun per unit area. Is there data to support this? If so does the opening of arctic ice act as a giant radiator?

Does the rise in temperatures affect desert regions? The popular idea is that they become drier. From recent years I would say the desert belt is instead shifting north a little. How does this affect the greenhouse effect?

In the end water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect (far more than two thirds). How does the amplification effect of carbon dioxide work? Does it actually reduce the desert areas? Does it raise the humidity during the key winter months at the poles? Does it aid in the uptake of water over the oceans?

What are the equations being used and what experimental evidence supports them?

I don't expect you to answer these questions, but is there somewhere to find them?

Every day the media hits me with hundreds of adverts saying "trust me". Skepticism when scientists say the same thing is only natural.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
It's unrealistic to expect everyone to become scientists - but, given that we're not all scientists, it's also unrealistic to expect everyone to sustain a belief that they are individually responsible for saving the world, if they don't understand the reasons why it matters. When people fail to see the evidence that their own change in personal emissions makes any difference, you can't blame them for being sceptical.

It is true that we can see the roots of environmental movements in some types of apocalyptic thought. (A reason why the conspiracy theory that it's all rooted in the interests of well-known big government apostles such as Margaret Thatcher is just so off the mark.) But if it were true you'd expect those environmentalist communities to act as canaries - they would be picking up on it first. Also, there's a lot of Romantic thought in the environmental movement. Some Romantics such as Blake might have had links with apocalyptic movements, but others not.

There's apocalyptic thought and apocalyptic thought. The environmentalist movements and the Biblical millennialist movements in modern society tend to be pretty much hostile to each other. The one's putting forward the idea that there's nothing we can do about it, and to be honest it's really a good thing; the other is putting forward the idea that if we abandon modern civilization and go back to nature we can avoid the catastrophe, which will be a really bad thing.

Ideas get out of the wilder apocalyptic communities and into mainstream discourse with considerable difficulty. That this one has done so must suggest that there's something to it.

I am trying to think whether it's possible to systematize how to distinguish between someone who is a crank and someone who isn't. It's not just the consensus. Ken and Alan Cresswell are pretty clearly not cranks. I don't think it's just their rhetorical self-presentation, or rather the rhetoric reflects a way of thinking that isn't easily impressed by bad reasoning.

As for individual action, none of us are in an individual position to do very much about it. In part, it's a tragedy of collective action and free-riding. Cutting down individual power consumption is a good first step. It's only really effective if a large percentage of our society does it, and at the moment only those who are individually highly motivated by the thought of anthropogenic climate change itself are doing that. The other problem is that a lot of the action that needs to be taken is at collective scales, and the progress there is painfully slow. (If the world's governments were really in a conspiracy to foist climate change upon us, then you'd think government action would be more than grudging and half-hearted.)

The trouble is that the experts are just as likely to fall for the mob psychology as the man in the mob. I recall that for the two or three years before 2000 we were told how planes would fall out of the sky, power stations would break down and basically more or less all the gadgets of the modern world would stop functioning due to the Millennium Bug. Doubtless a lot of this hyperbole was down to newspaper sensationalism but I don't recall many computer experts saying it was all tosh. Needless to say governments and industry spent billions on this scare and in reality the problem was miniscule.

Computer experts now say that it was all too overblown and that the panic was unnecessary.

I suspect that there are a good number of scientists who have similar views on manmade global warming but they dare not speak out for the fear that they will be tarred as idiots and their sources of funding stopped.

Unfortunately too many people are taken in by the likes of George Mombiot and in the end the real damage will be done to Environmentalism for over-egging this particular one.

[ 13. November 2009, 13:58: Message edited by: aumbry ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I recall that for the two or three years before 2000 we were told how planes would fall out of the sky, power stations would break down and basically more or less all the gadgets of the modern world would stop functioning due to the Millennium Bug. Doubtless a lot of this hyperbole was down to newspaper sensationalism but I don't recall many computer experts saying it was all tosh. Needless to say governments and industry spent billions on this scare and in reality the problem was miniscule.

Yes, a lot of the hyperbole was down to newspaper sensationalism.
I was working for a computer company in the run-up to AD 2000. Our programs had the potential to get a lot of data fouled up at the turn of the millennium. It wouldn't have caused any loss of life, but it would have caused a certain amount of bureaucratic hassle. They didn't foul up any data or cause any bureaucratic hassle though - because we updated them.

Government and media say action must be taken.
Action is taken.
Nothing happens.

From merely the above three events, you do not know whether the government and media were wrong or whether the action was effective.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Unfortunately too many people are taken in by the likes of George Mombiot and in the end the real damage will be done to Environmentalism for over-egging this particular one.

Would you provide examples of Monbiot's deceptions.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
From merely the above three events, you do not know whether the government and media were wrong or whether the action was effective.

I agree with aumbry. AFAIK, countries which spent very little money on the millennium bug suffered few consequences.

One significant difference between that and climate change is that the climate scientists aren't saying "This is a problem, we will fix it". They're saying "You need to get someone else to fix it." The funding will go to engineers developing new transmission networks or geothermal power plants, not the climate scientists. If they wanted funded, they'd fake uncertainty not over-confidence.

[ 13. November 2009, 15:07: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Unfortunately too many people are taken in by the likes of George Mombiot [...]

Yeah, don't you hate it when people are 'taken in' by intelligent, multi award-winning journalists whose work is recognised by several universities and who take the time to research and think about what they write:

"[George Monbiot] has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning) and East London (environmental science). He has honorary doctorates from the University of St Andrews and the University of Essex and an Honorary Fellowship from Cardiff University.

In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has also won the Lloyds National Screenwriting Prize for his screenplay The Norwegian, a Sony Award for radio production, the Sir Peter Kent Award and the OneWorld National Press Award." (source; see also his Wikipedia entry)

[ 13. November 2009, 15:25: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Unfortunately too many people are taken in by the likes of George Mombiot [...]

Yeah, don't you hate it when people are 'taken in' by intelligent, multi award-winning journalists whose work is recognised by several universities and who take the time to research and think about what they write:

"[George Monbiot] has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning) and East London (environmental science). He has honorary doctorates from the University of St Andrews and the University of Essex and an Honorary Fellowship from Cardiff University.

In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has also won the Lloyds National Screenwriting Prize for his screenplay The Norwegian, a Sony Award for radio production, the Sir Peter Kent Award and the OneWorld National Press Award." (source; see also his Wikipedia entry)

So what? He is a climate change polemicist like Al Gore and no doubt there are plenty of institutions who have showered honours on him too. Otherwise his basic qualification is a second class degree in Zoology and that achieved after receiving a highly advantaged education.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
So what?

So, unlike some journalists, he thinks about the issues and provides evidence for his arguments. Perhaps you prefer to be 'taken in' by people like Michael Crichton and Ian Plimer?

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
He is a climate change polemicist

Shall we disregard the views of everyone who has strong views and expresses them? That argument works both ways.

Is anyone else seeing a pattern here?

Climate sceptics claim that climate scientists ...
- aren't supported by the science
- defend a 'quasi-religious' view
- are polemicists

... pot, meet kettle [Big Grin]
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
Have a look at his own website if you think he is a paragon of balanced argument: "transatlantic flights as unacceptable as child abuse"

Julie Burchill had Mombiot's number. He is basically a type of privileged Englishman educated beyond his intelligence who believes he has the right to tell others what they can and can't do whilst his own indulging in flights and cars overrides environmental considerations because what HE does is so important.

Before the collapse of "scientific socialism" he would have postured from the viewpoint of nannying leftism - now he finds more fruitful ground in the purlieus of environmentalism.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
[...]if you think he is a paragon of balanced argument

So he uses hyberbole. So did Jesus. Shall we disregard the Sermon on the Mount now?

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Julie Burchill had Mombiot's number.

Is that the same Julie Birchill who has described her own writing as "the writing equivalent of screaming and throwing things" (Source, under the heading 'Views and reputation')? A couple of minutes ago, you didn't like polemicists. So now we're back to contrarians who think that shouting down climate science is the moral equivalent of standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
Just had a laugh reading Mombiot's site. In 1999 he seemed to be revelling in destruction wrought by global warming - really quite obscene in his enthusiasm.

Based on his descriptions of the effects of warming 10 years ago I should expect to fry when I go out the front door today - but in fact it is pissing with rain and freezing cold.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Just had a laugh [...]

Yeah, me too.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
[...] it is pissing with rain and freezing cold [...]

Yeah, yeah.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
So Aumbry, would you provide an example of Monbiot's deceptions. Just a solid example we can look at.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Alan, when I want data I don't mean all the data points. I want to know how these climate models work. What assumptions were make? What equations were used?

If you're interested in presentation of raw temperature measurement data, then you probably need to look for something like the Hadley Centre in the UK. Indeed, enter "hadley climate research unit" into Google and top of the list is Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia who have worked with Hadley in compiling a database of temperature measurements. This page would seem to be exactly the sort of thing you're looking for - average monthly temperatures for 5x5° grids since 1850, with a summary of what was done to get that data and citations of relevant papers giving more detail on the methodology.

I can't immediately find that sort of detail for the Hadley climate models that are used for predicting future climate changes for different scenarios. This Met Office page has a very brief summary, there are papers describing the simulation (for example this one), but you'll need a subscription to actually read most of them I'm afraid.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Thank you Alan. I'll poke around some.

It's times like these I wish I was rich. I can't afford the subscriptions.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Jeff, it might not have the technical details you're interested in, but I found Spencer Weart's site extremely helpful, in this case:
The author is a historian and a physicist, and he gives an extremely thorough explanation of how the various models evolved.

If you want to play with source code, Weart mentions some models are available. Be aware that the full GCMs are mammoth. Hansen released his code after some prodding, and last I heard there was a group of sceptic programmers picking through it to try and find errors. (Fair play to them.)

If you want more detail than Weart, you're probably best looking for an introductory text book or two. There's a free one online, originally used in a Masters course. It's well beyond me.

[ 13. November 2009, 19:23: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
We currently live in a world controlled by a shadow government run by OPEC and their ilk. Perhaps rule by power mad scientists is worse. Perhaps it's not. But Bush and his friends really screwed the pooch so people want something new.

Well if the world is run by OPEC then we really are screwed (regardless of what Dubya did to Barney)!!
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
I have lurked on the Ship for a very long time (by the way, I think you should have a standard acronym for this phrase à la ITTWACW, since it seems to be used by virtually every new member). I'm finally prompted to join because I think there is one point in this debate I can throw some light on, even if I never post again. [Biased]

It's about the change in usage from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Clearly the IPCC used it from the start, but I think it's true that in common parlance GW was commoner until some years ago. But contrary to what is regularly asserted by sceptics, this change, far from originating in green circles, was deliberately promoted by the Bush administration, so comes very much from the opposite camp.

It appears to date back to 2002, to a notorious memo from Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, to the Bush administration. In it he advocated the use of 'climate change' instead of 'global warming':

“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming
within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.”

“Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

“It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming and ‘conservation’ instead of preservation. ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming’. As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”

(From the memo; my emphasis)

"The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced"

From the Guardian

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning myself, that CC sounds less frightening than GW, but that's another matter. It does seem to me reasonable to talk of 'climate change caused by global warming', since warming may not be a universal outcome, at least initially.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I posted it because I had read it and I posted it because there is something in it relevant to the OP.

If you'd read it, that's even worse.
? The OP is "Is climate change being used to bring in a global Government".

quote:
Do you stand by the author's claim that Revelle should have proved CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Yes.

Hence back to my one question which continues to go unanswered because agw's don't have an answer. "Prove that CO2 drives global warming".


quote:
And did you notice that even this conspiracy theorist article has to admit "carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million", contradicting claims you're making here?
He's taking those figures from Keeling, the sentence preceding it. I on the other hand have explored this a bit more. His argument is that it hasn't been proved a greenhouse gas and anyway these figures are miniscule and irrelevant, and, his main point is that Revelle changed his mind about all this, but, the bandwagon had got rolling, his fervent disciple was unstoppable, and along came a man from the UN with his own agenda, global government. Who used it as did others with their own agendas, against the environmentalists who objected to nuclear power stations, for example.

Can you prove CO2 drives global warming? Can Alan? Ken?

Is there anyone here who can prove it? Conclusively?

If you can't then what are you all doing arguing that it can?


Let me put it another way, is there anyone who can disprove the arguments that it can't? There seem to be rather a lot of these and they make more sense to me, uneducated as I am in climatology, than rants that CO2 drives global warming when the only correlation between the two shows CO2 lags temperature rises by around 800 years. Consistently. For hundreds of thousands of years.

Maybe it was promoted first by creationists who can't admit to any period existing before 6,000 years ago?


CO2 Absorption Spectrum - There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

CO2 Charlatanism


You have a go.


quote:
There are intelligent sceptics around, and there are real issues worth discussing. Regurgitating paranoid anti-AGW websites, regardless of how flawed the claims or biased the authors, doesn't further the discussion IMO.
Let me know when you've proved it does, won't you?

Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Thank you, Myrrh, for explaining more of your thinking and for the links. Let me see if I understand your position.

You're saying that there is no science proving that climate change occurs because of human activity. You see (if you agree with the Libertarian Alliance comments that you linked to) climate change as an attempt by environmentalists to sustain their movement and for Maurice Strong to "fulfill his dream of one-world government". For you (or at least, for the Libertarian Alliance), this is "bad science [...] driving big government". Have I represented your view correctly? I may well have missed significant points.

I think this is just big government discovering it had science which would suit its agenda, from Revelle's work and the Al Gore devotee. Strong set up the IPCC at the UN to show how it worked and the first report I think was a genuine attempt to get to grips with all these ideas about climate. All this took time, and Al Gore dismissed Revelle's concerns as senility and ploughed on because he believed in it, it appears to me.

Scientists working on this from different fields were I think genuine at first. The conclusion the first report came to that there wasn't a problem was then deliberately exised and this new mantra agw put in its place. This is when Strong began creating bad science to suit his agenda.

This is when the Hockey Schtick was produced to back it up and when, forget his name, the head at the time before the mantra was substituted, was pensioned off. From that point those organising at the top became a coterie with the same agenda which became more and more adept at promoting their agenda by peer reviewing each others work and excluding and bad mouthing any scientist who objected, until it was safer for them not to raise their heads above the parapet. And of course that too grew as all kinds of other agendas came into play.

What's interesting here for me is that I didn't know about the Strong and world government connection, I'd got fed up with the subject and stopped exploring it. Although I had wondered briefly how it could have been so well organised. How something as flawed as the HS contrary to everything known about our climate history and then conclusively proved a con could still keep being promoted by them. Strong makes sense of this.


quote:
Maybe I'm just realising the importance of this particular thread title now (I'm a slow learner, sometimes.) How much of the concern of sceptics linked to a perception that climate science is a Trojan Horse for bigger government and higher taxes?
That wasn't my interest in it. I had never given the subject any thought until I found, from Hiro's earlier thread, that there were arguments about it. I think, from the quite extensive searches I've made, that those objecting are doing so because the science stinks. Anyone who has made an objective attempt to look at this already has a good idea of what is likely to happen to our climate and perhaps it's this which has made us strangely philosophical about any problem the 'world government' thinks it can impose on us..


quote:
When climate scientists talk about their evidence, are climate sceptics simply hearing demands for bigger government and higher taxes? Maybe both sides feel that they're not being heard about issues that matter.
Oh, we're certainly hearing that too.


quote:
Suppose that measures to reduce climate change could be achieved through private initiatives and voluntary action. Suppose climate change measures could be introduced without significant tax increases. How much difference (if any) would that make to sceptics' level of concern about climate science?
None at all.

This isn't science, that's proved conclusively by the scientists who object the Al Gore's pronouncement that 'it's settled'. But, as those who have been working for years in climate and meteorology have found, such as in the AMS, their thousands of numbers don't count when the control at the top has been compromised. They are still teaching it doesn't exist, why would they want to produce young meteorolgists who don't have any concept of climate?, but they're unable to change the policy making at the top which makes pronouncements on the world stage. Hansen and other agw's getting their highest awards.

Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

Anyway, there is definitely some real heavyweight control at the top, whether or not these same people will be able to create a global government remains to be seen, but meanwhile, it's still worth pointing out the science behind it is non-existent and suggestions for getting rid of the IPCC welcome - IPCC


Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Do you stand by the author's claim that Revelle should have proved CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Yes.

Hence back to my one question which continues to go unanswered because agw's don't have an answer. "Prove that CO2 drives global warming".

You should be aware that "is CO2 a greenhouse gas?" and "does CO2 drive global warming?" are different questions. You'd probably save a lot of confusion if you don't conflate the two questions too much.

A simple experiment that I'd expect most people to be able to do in their home (if they can source a few components) will show that CO2 absorbs IR, and if you have a spectroscopy system you can even measure what IR wavelengths are most strongly absorbed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the experiment doesn't allow any other interpretation.

Whether CO2 drives global warming requires additional data and interpretation. How much of the earths black-body IR radiation is absorbed at different altitudes? How much of a contribution to the greenhouse effect does CO2 make in relation to other gases? What mechanisms are there to control CO2 concentrations, and how fast do they react to changing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? These are the questions, and others like them, that climate scientists grapple with ... and reach the conclusion that CO2 is a major driver of global warming and associated climate changes.

quote:
Let me put it another way, is there anyone who can disprove the arguments that it can't? There seem to be rather a lot of these and they make more sense to me, uneducated as I am in climatology, than rants that CO2 drives global warming when the only correlation between the two shows CO2 lags temperature rises by around 800 years. Consistently. For hundreds of thousands of years.
Do you really want me to repeat what I've said several times before? Do I? Oh, what the heck ...

Without human input, the main source/sink for CO2 is the oceans. Surface waters exchange CO2 with the atmosphere, with an equilibrium dependent upon the water temperature (correlated to air temperature) - cooler water holds more CO2 than warmer. Deep ocean circulation patterns take surface water to deep oceans, taking the CO2 with it. When deep waters return to the surface their CO2 concentrations will re-equilibrate with the atmosphere; if the air's warmer than when the water was subducted it'll release CO2, if the air's colder then it'll absorb more CO2. Thus, the oceans provide a very powerful feedback mechanism amplifying changes in the atmospheric temperature, with a lag related to the time it takes water to circulate from surface to depth and back again - several centuries.

If you introduce another carbon source to the equation (ie: burning fossil fuels) then the situation changes. A fairly simple model with a single dominant source/sink on a 500-800 lag feedback isn't going to be valid when you introduce another very large source. Fortunately for us, the oceans still act as a sink (a combination of the fortuitous slightly warmer than average, albeit colder than today, temperatures 500-1000 years ago and the very much larger atmospheric CO2 concentration today) and make a big contribution to removing about 50% of the CO2 we emit from burning fossil fuels and deforestation etc.

quote:
CO2 Absorption Spectrum - There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

CO2 Charlatanism


You have a go.

I had a look at the first link (plus hunting out a bit of info on the author - who, it turns out, has a biological science background and is a "pre-1980 type of liberal, which means promotion of equal opportunity. What's good for the lower classes is good for everyone" ... which to me sounds like someone in favour of bigger government and internationalism, but that may be because he seems to be more of a socialist than a free-market capitalist). He seems to have failed to grasp some simple science. Let me explain.

He makes a statement about the short range of IR in CO2 at atmospheric concentrations. I don't have the IR absorption characteristics of CO2 to hand, but I'm not going to dispute that if he acknowledges that that's only true for some parts of the IR spectrum - large arts of the IR spectrum are totally absorbed by the atmosphere. The important thing to remember is that that absorbed energy is largely re-irradiated as black-body radiation (reflecting the air temperature at that height). That re-irradiation is going to be omni-directional, so a lot of it comes back to earth and the air acts as a blanket. But, a lot of it is towards space. So, even with total IR absorption over short ranges the atmosphere would still radiate heat back into space (good thing too, or we'd fry). Of course, there are large parts of the IR spectrum that are effectively unabsorbed by the atmosphere (sum of all gases including water, methane, CO2, etc); some of the re-irradiated black-body spectrum will be in that part of the spectrum.

quote:
quote:
Maybe I'm just realising the importance of this particular thread title now (I'm a slow learner, sometimes.) How much of the concern of sceptics linked to a perception that climate science is a Trojan Horse for bigger government and higher taxes?
That wasn't my interest in it. I had never given the subject any thought until I found, from Hiro's earlier thread, that there were arguments about it. I think, from the quite extensive searches I've made, that those objecting are doing so because the science stinks.
And, many of us knowing that the science is sound and conclusive feel there has to be some other factor at play that justifies various people in looking for the minor flaws and bits of work still not done and on the basis of finding some small holes shout that the whole thing is wrong. I admit the science isn't complete, science never is.

I'd always thought the biggest reason for people desperately seeking anything to try and deny the obvious truth is that there was a demand on their money - oil and coal industries, and others such as car manufacturers, were seeing a potential loss of market. I know others were concerned about increased taxation to pay for carbon cuts (although, if the science is right the current costs of carbon emission reductions would be peanuts compared to adaptation to a warmer globe). It never really occured to me that some people would be desperate to undermine the science because they were seeing a 'global government' agenda.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
It would be interesting to see how what is described in this article is related to a deep plot to foist either "socialist" or "global" government on us.

Unless you see any attempt to do cooperative things in various places is a threat.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Also, we observe animal habits and movements are changing; various species are living further north where it is cooler etc.

Evidently the global conspiracy has got to the animals as well.
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Anyway, there is definitely some real heavyweight control at the top

Could we show a little respect for the former Vice President, please?

It may be a glandular problem.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alan, my concern has been two fold. The first is the global government angle.

Powerful men have historically used hysteria to take freedom from people. They have shown little regard for truth, decency, or the lives of the commoners. Even revolutions started for good causes often (usually?) end up with a Napoleon or Stalin in charge. I don't think human nature has magically changed so that this isn't a danger.

The second is the use of complex models to represent things we don't fully understand. As an engineer working on DARPA contracts I work with complex models all the time. None of them are as complex as our climate though. Even so about two thirds of them turn out to be wrong. Project after project turns out to not work because some small, unseen, insurmountable problem shows up.

Of course one of the saving graces of the proposed climate treaty is the desire to stop burning fossil fuels. Stopping isn't the same as active interference. Also the means are admirable even if it turns out to have little bearing on climate change.

Hydrocarbons are wonderful things from an engineering point of view. They provide thousands of valuable lubricants and plastics. Burning them all is wasteful. Other solutions need to be found.

I would like to see stronger language preventing the rise of a dictatorship though. The ill defined conference of parties is given way too much power. Who are these people and how are they governed?

Also the social rights are made paramount over the classical rights for reasons that seem to have little to do with climate change. Why is that?

Myrrh, your CO2 Absorption Spectrum link makes some errors that appear intentional. First the graph is labeled wrong in a seriously misleading manner. Second the CO2 spectrums will not be little blocks, they will spread out some just as the black body radiation does.

Finally (and this might be simple ignorance) the energy in a photon goes up as the wavelength shortens. If the wavelength ever did reach zero, as shown on your linked graph, the energy would be infinite. This is important because much of the actual energy is clustered near the CO2 blocking frequencies.

In any case the idea is that a small change in temperature brought on by more CO2 is amplified by water vapor which is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. This is because warm air holds more water vapor.

I can't accept that at face value because any warming at all (even a sunny day) would lead to runaway warming if it were true. There must be other factors at play. Until we have a complete understanding of why this doesn't happen, we don't understand the system.

To me there seems to be a complex interplay between oceans and deserts (particularly northern deserts). Ocean currents might drive historical climate change by changing desert sizes. A warm current near a desert might bring rain (and vapor) which increases the desert temperature while a cool one would bring dryer air.

Our irrigation of deserts seems to me to be at least as likely a culprit for global warming. Vast stretches of central Asia and North America have been irrigated raising the local humidity (I assume).

If this is the cause (or a major contributing factor) we need to decide which is more important, protecting low lying areas or eating. I know many environmental types would chose a static environment over people's lives, but I don't. There is the real possibility that global warming is inevitable and we need to deal with it.

This is where the treaty might be a mistake. Under the treaty we would be legally required to reduce our world population by force. Our large agricultural belts growing wheat would need to be shut down. Northern dry land crops such as oats and barley would be limited while wetland crops such as rice and sugar could continue. We might even need to poison large areas turning them to deserts.

Of course this would be insane, but so was Stalin's deliberately starving his farmers to death. Stranger things have happened when law and politics interact.

The presence of ice at the poles raises the albedo (reflection) thus warming the earth. It warms (instead of cooling it as many climate change advocates assume) because little light falls on the poles anyway so a higher albedo means less black body radiation.

This leaves the possibility that the massive antarctic ice sheets serve as a feedback mechanism by insulating when it gets cold and radiating when it warms.

All the studies I've seen decry the loss of polar ice, but this may be a good thing. I think it needs more study.

Still, overall I support the proposed treaty with some modifications and clarifications.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
I have lurked on the Ship for a very long time (by the way, I think you should have a standard acronym for this phrase à la ITTWACW, since it seems to be used by virtually every new member).

Welcome to the Ship, Inger. Good idea - we could have an acronym for that.

quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
It's about the change in usage from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. [...] But contrary to what is regularly asserted by sceptics, this change, far from originating in green circles, was deliberately promoted by the Bush administration, so comes very much from the opposite camp.

An interesting point - I hadn't heard that. I thought that the idea behind the shift was that 'climate change' more accurately reflected what is likely to happen - 'rare' extreme weather events happening more frequently and being worse.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
... the science stinks ...

Thank you, Myrrh, for your response. What about:-

1. The precautionary principle

If I'm wrong, I'll look stupid. If you're wrong, and if we don't act, what will happen? Does that bother you?

2. The effects of climate change that are visible now

If you search online for 'visible effects of climate change' there are some interesting results, such as:-

- report on visible effects of climate change in US

- 2009 Statement by Faith Leaders referring to the "already visible effects of global heating"

- Effects of climate change are visible in Greenland and the Democratic Republic of Congo

Also, in Michael Northcott's book A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming he mentions "more violent storms in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans" as being "almost certainly" due to climate change (p. 19). He adds that there is "growing evidence that climate change has contributed to "the increased frequency and severity of drought in sub-Saharan and South Africa" (p. 31).
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Do you stand by the author's claim that Revelle should have proved CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Yes.

Hence back to my one question which continues to go unanswered because agw's don't have an answer. "Prove that CO2 drives global warming".

You should be aware that "is CO2 a greenhouse gas?" and "does CO2 drive global warming?" are different questions. You'd probably save a lot of confusion if you don't conflate the two questions too much.

A simple experiment that I'd expect most people to be able to do in their home (if they can source a few components) will show that CO2 absorbs IR, and if you have a spectroscopy system you can even measure what IR wavelengths are most strongly absorbed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the experiment doesn't allow any other interpretation.

I've phrased my question the way I have deliberately, because it takes account of these effects. I'm saying yes to Revelle should have proved it was a greenhouse gas because these affects are limited and unable to function as a driving force for greater production of heat the greater the amount of CO2, which is what is used in computer models. To equate it to the force of the sun which is what greenhouses are designed to capture is absurd. If you care to experiment with a greenhouse and pump CO2 into it you'll find as those actually doing this, to obtain better plant growth as CO2 is food, that its effects are limited. It doesn't hold that the more CO2 is pumped in the greater the heat generated, all other conditions being equal.


A greenhouse is designed for a specific purpose, to obtain heat for growing plants in a cold climate, we don't need such things in any of the vast areas of the world where this isn't a problem. Especially in those areas where we have lots of water, the main greenhouse gas, and lots of heat, the sun, so lush growth and even several crop seasons in one year possible because of this.

Why anyone living in such countries and enjoying the great benefits of same would take the frigid northern thinking of agw as a problem to be solved is beyond me, I doubt there are many who do.


quote:
Whether CO2 drives global warming requires additional data and interpretation.
Stop right there. Read what you've just written. This is what finally pissed me off when you went through it with me the first time.

If you can't see how unconscionable this statement is while agw fundies continue to rage and drive us all to distraction with their club wielding tactics in every area of our lives by claiming they have precisely solved this by stating right is on their side because categorically the science is settled and attacking all those scientists saying hold your horses then, as before, there's no further discussion possible. Don't you dare call that science.

Prove it drives global warming first!

I'm still waiting.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alwyn, if the climate change advocates are wrong we will have cost people their lives work wasted on combatting a nonexistent problem. We will have denied freedom to people who deserve it. Trillions of dollars that could have been spent relieving suffering through medical or scientific advances in other areas will be gone, as well as the natural resources we spend on the problem.

All of this seems to be being spent to limit flooding in coastal areas. Four or five degrees global warming will make huge areas in Canada and Russia that are currently unproductive because of the cold into useful farm land. Deserts will be reduced as well (since it is basically the reduction in deserts that drives the warming).

For all the talk about the poor being most affected, in my view coastal areas are the playgrounds for rich people. The poor living in these areas will be hit hard because they have fewer options than the rich. This is a tragedy. But it will be offset by the poor in the interior seeing the value of their land rise.

Yes, global warming is a bad thing, but it's not the end of the world. The precautionary principal works both ways.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
It's about equilibrium, balance. We are upsetting the balance.

In the past when warming preceded the increase in Co2 (which then led to greater warming), mankind was not putting Co2 etc into the atmosphere. We are now.

Earth is warmed by the sun and planet Earth is insulated from the cold of space by its atmosphere which retains some of the heat of the sun. We are increasing the means by which it retains some of the heat.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh [quoting Alan Cresswell]:
Whether CO2 drives global warming requires additional data and interpretation.

You're quoting Alan Cresswell out of context. He wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether CO2 drives global warming requires additional data and interpretation. [... he provides details ...] These are the questions, and others like them, that climate scientists grapple with ... and reach the conclusion that CO2 is a major driver of global warming and associated climate changes.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm still waiting.



You're trying to move the goalposts and set up a standard of proof that science cannot ever reach. Using the impossible standard of 'categorical proof', you guarantee that you'll be waiting forever.
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
More visible evidence of climate change.

quote:
In some places, the ice was 500 feet thick. The huge sheet of ice passed over hills and valleys, bringing with it great loads of rock, gravel, sand, and clay that were ground and scraped from the surface of the land they traversed. Boulders of red quartzite and granite, dragged from Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota can be found throughout eastern Kansas.

 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
Alwyn,

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree that 'climate change' is a perfectly reasonable term. What is troubling is the way sceptics attempt to suggest some sinister or dishonest purpose behind the change from GW to CC - as in the post quoted below:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.

Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.
Myrrh


 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Inger - I appreciated the post, thought it was very interesting. However, it probably won't have much traction with Myrrh and her ilk as you presumably have just shown that you are now signed up to an enormous (and entirely implausible) conspiracy.

Luigi

[ 14. November 2009, 20:40: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Glenn (# 6517) on :
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff#Family

I'm not sure what to make of this. Opinions, please.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff#Family

I'm not sure what to make of this. Opinions, please.

I think you must have posted that link on the wrong thread. Its not got anything to do with the topic of this one.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Isn't it obvious Ken? Don't say your brain has been captured by the pinko-greeno-world-government lizards!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:


Myrrh, your CO2 Absorption Spectrum link makes some errors that appear intentional. First the graph is labeled wrong in a seriously misleading manner. Second the CO2 spectrums will not be little blocks, they will spread out some just as the black body radiation does.

I don't know what you mean by labelled wrongly. The little blocks I took to be representational, i.e. more clearly seen than a thin line, this is of a type of graphical representation.

I think this is to show only that of the amount of black body radiation produced most of it bypasses CO2 because its bands of absorption are limited to these values.

CO2 anyway is only capable of absorbing a certain amount of heat, after the cut off point it doesn't matter how much heat is thrown at it, it pulls down the shutters and says no thanks.

And, what's the term?, it's not an exponential absorbtion, it's greatest in the first few parts and it takes greater amounts to achieve the same from then on. I'll try and find something on this. But what it means is that if it actually was acting as a blanket it would take what would become impractical amounts of extra CO2 to achieve the same as at the start - say if, 1 degree for the first two hundred or so extra ppm would take 7,000 extra to achieve the second degree rise. Don't hold me to those exact figures, but it's that kind of ratio in the property of CO2. In other words it isn't capable of producing runaway heating by greater amounts.


quote:
Finally (and this might be simple ignorance) the energy in a photon goes up as the wavelength shortens. If the wavelength ever did reach zero, as shown on your linked graph, the energy would be infinite. This is important because much of the actual energy is clustered near the CO2 blocking frequencies.
OK, again I'm not sure what you mean here. I think the graph represents the three frequencies at which CO2 absorbs IR from black body heat.


quote:
In any case the idea is that a small change in temperature brought on by more CO2 is amplified by water vapor which is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. This is because warm air holds more water vapor.

I can't accept that at face value because any warming at all (even a sunny day) would lead to runaway warming if it were true. There must be other factors at play. Until we have a complete understanding of why this doesn't happen, we don't understand the system.

Yes.. What models do is to exclude water vapour except as a presumed figure affecting CO2, not proved even to exist, which conveniently gives an amplification factor to CO2 making doubling of CO2 the culprit for runaway warming. Hence all the scare scenarios from models playing with this, the what happens if we add 20%, 30% extra and so on.

It's been a while since I immersed myself in this and my memory not being what it was.., but he says here:

"Some supposed experts insist that CO2 will absorb and instantly re-emit at the same wavelength in the atmosphere. They are wrong, but if they were right, it would be irrelevant, because instantly re-emitting at the same wavelength is no different from not absorbing at all. No heat is produced."

I don't know why he's saying that's an argument from pro agw's, I think it's an argument for antis. Can't recall the term at the moment, to do with how quickly gases and metals absorb heat and release it. CO2 being among the bottom of this among the metals, water vapour being among the top. What it means is that CO2 releases practically as soon as it absorbs so any exposure to cool conditions, such as higher atmosphere, cold winds, will release the heat and therefore doesn't make it in itself capable of providing 'blanket effect', as greenhouse claims, as it's no more capable of retaining heat than expending it.

I'll try and find something on that too.


quote:


This is where the treaty might be a mistake. Under the treaty we would be legally required to reduce our world population by force. Our large agricultural belts growing wheat would need to be shut down. Northern dry land crops such as oats and barley would be limited while wetland crops such as rice and sugar could continue. We might even need to poison large areas turning them to deserts.

Of course this would be insane, but so was Stalin's deliberately starving his farmers to death. Stranger things have happened when law and politics interact.

....

Still, overall I support the proposed treaty with some modifications and clarifications.

I think since the science is actually junk and deliberately so, no such treaty is necessary. The only reason for it now that it has grown beyond 'mad scientist with an idea' is political control and I for one, family history living under Stalin and slave labour under Hitler, can't see any good reason to give such yet another tool of science to play with, as the US and Germany played with eugenics.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
... the science stinks ...

Thank you, Myrrh, for your response. What about:-

1. The precautionary principle

If I'm wrong, I'll look stupid. If you're wrong, and if we don't act, what will happen? Does that bother you?

No, this is too important to bother worrying about whether one looks stupid or not. My research was intense, I first went through this with Alan, and as it was a subject I knew nothing about containing a huge variety of disciplines I knew nothing or hardly anything about, it was a steep learning curve. I did have one advantage, as I see it, I trained as a researcher in a field which knows all about lying with statistics, the rest was hard slog looking up everything I could find about each claim until I had a reasonable understanding of the arguments about it. My conclusion was that it was a scam of huge proportions. Of the kind "Science should be ashamed", what was just fumbling around re the Piltdown Man which took a generation to show it was a deliberate scam by one man, is now organised at the highest level scam here. Thanks to OP that missing piece of the jigsaw falls into place.


quote:
2. The effects of climate change that are visible now

If you search online for 'visible effects of climate change' there are some interesting results, such as:-

As I said on the other thread, I have been through countless such examples. Polar bears can swim, ice floes form in the summer. I have absolutely zero interest in looking at any more of these, you do it. As I suggested, you check out all you can find about these looking at whatever arguments you can find pro and con. Make up your own mind.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Myrrh wrote,
quote:
OK, again I'm not sure what you mean here.
Clearly you are not. The surprising thing is you show so much certainty after admitting ignorance.

You go on to explain how CO2 acts exactly like a blanket (not producing any heat and all) while stating it's not like a blanket at all.

The greenhouse effect is real. Both Mars and Venus are close enough to the Earth's orbit to show us what a greenhouse effect does. Mars is an icicle and Venus is a furnace due to their respective atmospheres. The Earth would be an icicle as well if it weren't for the 40 degrees of warming we get from the greenhouse effect.

The real miracle is that we have a stable climate at all. Nothing the climate experts have said convinces me they know why we do. So it's hard to believe they know how we're messing it up.

But as I said, halting the burning of hydrocarbons is itself a good goal for several reasons independent of climate change. Also developing a workable framework for international cooperation isn't a bad thing. The day may come when we need it for something more urgent than protecting the beaches of the rich and famous.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Myrrh wrote,
quote:
OK, again I'm not sure what you mean here.
Clearly you are not. The surprising thing is you show so much certainty after admitting ignorance.

You go on to explain how CO2 acts exactly like a blanket (not producing any heat and all) while stating it's not like a blanket at all.

What I've given is some qualities of CO2 as already well established by science.

It has a limited range of effectiveness 'as a blanket', some few metres above ground.

It has a limited absorption of heat within that, if it doesn't actually want to go burp it certainly says no thanks to any more.

It expends heat as quickly as it absorbs it - in that it cannot of itself act as any kind of blanket which says that such a blanket is one which hold onto heat longer before expending it. Even water vapour has its limits, precipitating out etc.

Its absorption rate to the amount of heat it holds is not exponential, it takes continuing greater amounts of the stuff to create the same rise in degree of heat it first creates from a small amount. If, check the numbers yourself, I really can't be bothered with this attitude, it takes plus 2-300 extra CO2 ppm to create a 1 degree rise from the heat it can store it will take many more times that to achieve the next 1 degree.

Taken all together, it shows CO2 doesn't have the properties capable of doing that claimed for it.

[/QB][/QUOTE]


Myrrh
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
[description of greenhouse effect on Venus, Mars, and Earth]
The real miracle is that we have a stable climate at all. Nothing the climate experts have said convinces me they know why we do.

And yet they say their theories do, in fact, predict a stable climate (at least in the sense of not expecting runaway heating) so they seem to think this isn't an issue requiring a miraculous explanation.

Earlier you posted:
quote:
In any case the idea is that a small change in temperature brought on by more CO2 is amplified by water vapor which is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. This is because warm air holds more water vapor.

I can't accept that at face value because any warming at all (even a sunny day) would lead to runaway warming if it were true.

This seems to argue that any positive feedback (through water vapor in this case) must result in instability - is this the problem?

[ 15. November 2009, 16:05: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:


Myrrh, your CO2 Absorption Spectrum link makes some errors that appear intentional. First the graph is labeled wrong in a seriously misleading manner. Second the CO2 spectrums will not be little blocks, they will spread out some just as the black body radiation does.

I don't know what you mean by labelled wrongly. The little blocks I took to be representational, i.e. more clearly seen than a thin line, this is of a type of graphical representation.
There's nothing especially wrong with his graph. I'd have added more divisions on the wavelength axis, and it seems to be on a linear scale whereas a logarithmic one is usually clearer. Also, he doesn't give the temperature for the black body spectrum. But, that's nit-picking. Here's a wikipedia page showing the same thing in a slightly better form, with some of the other gases as well as CO2.

quote:
CO2 anyway is only capable of absorbing a certain amount of heat, after the cut off point it doesn't matter how much heat is thrown at it, it pulls down the shutters and says no thanks.
Actually, that's totally wrong. CO2 absorbs IR (which isn't exactly the same as heat), which causes molecular bonds to excite and heats the atmosphere as those vibrations are transfered to motion through collisions with other molecules. While the bonds are in an excited state the molecule won't be able to absorb an IR photon (at least, not at the same energy, some of the other excitation modes may still be accessible), but the bond is only excited for a very short time ... once it's de-excited it can absorb another IR photon.

There is a limit to how hot the total volume of air can get - it's the point at which heat loss (via black body radiation and convection) and energy input (IR absorption) balance. For a given body of air, if you increase the number of greenhouse gas molecules then the amount of IR absorbed will increase. That will increase the equilibrium temperature.

quote:
he says here:

"Some supposed experts insist that CO2 will absorb and instantly re-emit at the same wavelength in the atmosphere. They are wrong, but if they were right, it would be irrelevant, because instantly re-emitting at the same wavelength is no different from not absorbing at all. No heat is produced."

I don't know why he's saying that's an argument from pro agw's, I think it's an argument for antis.

Frankly, to me it's primarily an argument that displays his ignorance. His un-named so-called experts are, of course, talking bullshit. If he could cite anyone who had actually claimed that then I'd be surprised if they had any formal science education beyond school - and, if I was an A level physics teacher and one of my pupils came up with such hogwash I'd be embarrassed because they should know better. The same would be true of some of the other 'esoteric' ideas he demolishes. He can easily demolish them because they're garbage - I've never come across any of them before reading that page!

He does, however get part way there in some almost right statements:
quote:
When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The way heat moves toward the outer atmosphere is either through convectional currents or long wave infrared radiation which is not affected by greenhouse gasses.
He is, of course, right that re-emitted radiation is in all directions. That means that half of that energy is towards space (actually, a wee bit more because the earth isn't flat). And, some of that will be in the part of the IR spectrum with very little absorption by the atmosphere (it'll still be black body radiation). That means that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) won't be a 100% blanket. His whole "it's absorbed in a very short distance, so adding more will make no difference" argument is spurious, because re-iradiation is allowing IR to penetrate long distances - even if the path length of individual photons is very short.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Dave, any positive feedback must at some point be balanced by at least as much negative feedback or a system is unstable.

Since water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect and it's a strong positive feedback mechanism there must be as strong a negative feedback mechanism.

IIRC, water sticks around in the atmosphere for a few days. Any feedback mechanisms need to work on a similar timescale.

One big feedback mechanism is area. Water might be absorbed while air is moving over a warm ocean, only to be dropped as rain when the air passes a mountain range. The far side of the range might thus be a desert.

Thus the ratio of desert to humid climates makes a big difference in global temperatures. More deserts mean less water vapor and less greenhouse effect.

The difference in energy absorption leads to temperature and pressure differences which drive winds, which in turn develop the deserts. The direction these winds move depends in small part on local geography including local land use. Open prairies don't slow winds as much as forests or skyscrapers. Yet how much do low level winds matter? Most of the water is at a low altitude, but how low is low? It gets complicated very quickly.

Alan, thanks for the link to the graph. It is very informative.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Dave, any positive feedback must at some point be balanced by at least as much negative feedback or a system is unstable.

Since water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect and it's a strong positive feedback mechanism there must be as strong a negative feedback mechanism.

Fine - but we know of strong negative feedback mechanisms in the climate system. (The most obvious is that objects radiate more heat at higher temperatures.) And when climatologists account for all the known heat transfer mechanisms, the result is in fact a prediction that does not show runaway warming. So I don't see why you say our current situation is inexplicable - aren't the results of their calculations an explanation?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Fine - but we know of strong negative feedback mechanisms in the climate system. (The most obvious is that objects radiate more heat at higher temperatures.)

Another is likely to be clouds. Although their effects are complex and still much debated, they seem to provide a fairly strong negative feedback overall.

Also, does a system always need negative feedback to stabilise? For example, suppose an increase in temperature 1C reduced ice cover by 5%, and this in turn increased temperatures (via albedo effects) by 0.1C for every 1% reduction in ice cover. The positive feedback goes:
Unless I'm missing something, you end up with a 2C temperature rise, and -10% ice cover in a new equilibrium. So not all positive feedbacks cause runaway effects.

(Apologies if that's a bit naive, my maths is very rusty.)
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
So not all positive feedbacks cause runaway effects.

You're correct; if you apply a positive feedback to an otherwise stable system, it's the size of the feedback (actually the loop gain) that determines whether the modified system will be stable or not.

In your example, an initial rise of 1C causes an additional rise of 0.5C going once around the loop, so the loop gain is g=0.5. The resulting amplification factor is 1/(1-g)=2; whatever phenomenon would have caused a +1C change in the system without feedback, ends up causing a +2C change in the system with feedback.

The formula only works for feedback gains less than 1; g>1 produces sequences which do not converge - i.e., they run away instead of reaching steady state equilibrium.
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Also, does a system always need negative feedback to stabilise?

No. In fact, systems which have sufficient positive feedback that they never stabilize if an exogenous change moves them from their initial conditions are very rare, and don't tend to exist for long. The issue is more that positive feedback makes a system much more unpredictable, with small changes having large effects, and some changes being much harder to reverse or to halt once started. In the absence of complete understanding or controlled experiments it is very difficult to know in advance whether positive or negative feedback loops will dominate, and, in the case of climate change, I would guess it is also hard to separate which (or how much of the) changes in the data we collect are caused by positive feedback, which by negative feedback, which are caused directly, and whether or not they can be separated, even theoretically.

<<Crosspost with Dave W>>

[ 15. November 2009, 20:35: Message edited by: Zwingli ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
CO2 anyway is only capable of absorbing a certain amount of heat, after the cut off point it doesn't matter how much heat is thrown at it, it pulls down the shutters and says no thanks.

Actually, that's totally wrong. CO2 absorbs IR (which isn't exactly the same as heat), which causes molecular bonds to excite and heats the atmosphere as those vibrations are transfered to motion through collisions with other molecules. While the bonds are in an excited state the molecule won't be able to absorb an IR photon (at least, not at the same energy, some of the other excitation modes may still be accessible), but the bond is only excited for a very short time ... once it's de-excited it can absorb another IR photon.
IR (infrared radiation) is heat as commonly thought of, infrared heaters and night vision glasses which pick up the heat. That long wave IR is exciting my molecules may well be what's actually happening when I touch a car that's been standing around in the sun and say ouch that's hot, but the paradigm agw is now built on (later re the now) is that CO2 absorbs black body infrared radiation from the earth and keeps it and gets hotter and hotter driving up the temperature. Though if you say it can't actually absorb this while in an excited state that would go some way to explain the argument that for the most part it doesn't, that IR simply bypasses CO2 as that graph showed, only certain frequencies getting through.


quote:
There is a limit to how hot the total volume of air can get - it's the point at which heat loss (via black body radiation and convection) and energy input (IR absorption) balance. For a given body of air, if you increase the number of greenhouse gas molecules then the amount of IR absorbed will increase. That will increase the equilibrium temperature.
I'll try and get my head around that.


quote:
he says here:

"Some supposed experts insist that CO2 will absorb and instantly re-emit at the same wavelength in the atmosphere. They are wrong, but if they were right, it would be irrelevant, because instantly re-emitting at the same wavelength is no different from not absorbing at all. No heat is produced."

I don't know why he's saying that's an argument from pro agw's, I think it's an argument for antis.

quote:
Frankly, to me it's primarily an argument that displays his ignorance. His un-named so-called experts are, of course, talking bullshit. If he could cite anyone who had actually claimed that then I'd be surprised if they had any formal science education beyond school - and, if I was an A level physics teacher and one of my pupils came up with such hogwash I'd be embarrassed because they should know better. The same would be true of some of the other 'esoteric' ideas he demolishes. He can easily demolish them because they're garbage - I've never come across any of them before reading that page!
Well, I came across it as basic physics when I was looking for the properties of CO2. It's with reference to "heat capacity", managed to find the term again. Basically the amount of heat (let's just call it heat for my poor old brain's sake) it takes raise the temperature of something to 1 degree (lots of different ways of measuring this depending on area of interest). The more it takes to raise the temperature the longer it takes to cool. CO2 is among the lowest numbers for this to the extent that it gets hot quickly and just as quickly releases the heat.

This is what he must have heard about but mistook it for some agw argument because he didn't know what it referred to. I give this as a point for the antis, heat doesn't hang around in CO2. It would take continual source of heat to keep it hot. This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.

Specific Heat Capacity

OK here's another page, actually over 4, which begins with an experiment to measure how hot a jar of CO2 gets compared with a jar of Air and goes on,
quote:
Still, CO2 does get hotter than normal air according to the first experiment. So I thought it would be prudent to take a closer look at CO2 and other substances. The following are some specific heat coefficients (J/g*deg. K) from highest to lowest:

Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395

Notice that the greenhouse gases are high on the list. They absorb heat slowly and lose it slowly. Thus they can prevent heat from earth from escaping to outer space. Water is the highest and water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas.

Mercury is last on the list. This is not surprising since mercury gains and loses heat the fastest. In fact all metals gain and lose heat quickly. You might say they are anti-greenhouse.

After water on the list, comes methane--another powerful greenhouse gas with a coefficient of 2.34! Then comes nitrogen gas. Most air consists of nitro--HEY! Wait a minute?! After nitrogen comes oxygen? What?!

....


The experimenter neglected to put the jars in the freezer to see which jar would cool the fastest. According to Q = cm(T1-T2), the jar containing CO2 would cool faster than the jar containing air.

On a warm day CO2 will heat up faster than the other air molecules, but on a cold day it will cool faster and lose its heat. So how exactly is CO2 supposed to warm the planet if it loses its heat?

The greenhouse theory proposes the sun's radiation enters Earth's atmosphere in small frequency waves that are not absorbed by CO2. These waves are absorbed by the earth's surface. Longer infrared waves are reflected back towards outer space.

William Pinn Page 3

So CO2 around a coefficient of 1 is practically instantaneous in getting and giving and considering how low a percentage there is of it in the atmosphere it isn't ever very far away from something that'll take it and run. And re the above experiment, I read a post by a disgruntled refrigeration engineer who said every scientist and engineer in his field knows CO2 can't drive warming because of this.

So we come back to Revelle and that he didn't prove it was a greenhouse gas in the first place.


quote:
He does, however get part way there in some almost right statements:


quote:
When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The way heat moves toward the outer atmosphere is either through convectional currents or long wave infrared radiation which is not affected by greenhouse gasses.
He is, of course, right that re-emitted radiation is in all directions. That means that half of that energy is towards space (actually, a wee bit more because the earth isn't flat). And, some of that will be in the part of the IR spectrum with very little absorption by the atmosphere (it'll still be black body radiation). That means that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) won't be a 100% blanket. His whole "it's absorbed in a very short distance, so adding more will make no difference" argument is spurious, because re-iradiation is allowing IR to penetrate long distances - even if the path length of individual photons is very short.
Can't see how that is spurious, If a lump of CO2 can only take so much before saying no thanks to another mint how doesn't it matter how far IR travels to get to it? The main black body heat which is IR comes from the earth in this agw model, how far does it get before it itself dissipates and is no longer effective to raise the temperature of CO2 in levels above that which is already saturated? Which would only be a short distance in height, 30 metres or so IIRC.


Now the now. A bit of history from this pdf file of several voices which I found when looking for stuff on specific heat.

quote:
The 1971 version of the climate models assumed the global cooling of the time was caused by particulate matter from fossil fuels reducing the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth.
This was incorporated as a parameter in the climate models, and based on the continued increase in fossil fuel usage, the models predicted 50 years of further cooling!
Suddenly just four years later and in spite of the continued increase in fossil fuel usage, in 1975 global cooling ended proving the premise of the climate models to be wrong.
Somehow Hansen managed to quietly remove this parameter based on effects to the incoming solar energy, and replaced it with a new forcing parameter based on effects to the outgoing thermal energy from the Earth.
He ignored all the physical properties of CO2 and created a parameter based solely on the false assumption that 100ppmv CO2 concentration increase caused a 0.6°C global temperature increase (ignoring the fact that 0.5°C of this was due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age).
This model started the whole global warming scam in 1988, but just a decade later with increases in CO2 emissions continuing, global warming stopped, and all predictions of this revised model have subsequently been wrong. From Norm Kalmanovitch, October 10, 2009

Which neatly reminds me of the OP because Hansen was awarded a prize by the American Meteoroligical Association which has annoyed thousands of its members who do understand the physics and know it's water vapour etc. So what or who is it exactly controlling those at the top of these societies? Who must surely know the physics sucks.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Global temperatures have remained more or less constant for billions of years. This is despite life crawling out of the oceans, super volcanoes spewing greenhouse gasses, and large changes in solar output.

It's my understanding that the recent (in geologic time) ice ages are aberrations and about as far from the normative temperatures as the Earth has gotten. If scientists have a convincing reason for this I haven't heard it.

It might all be a coincidence that the thousands of bits needed to explain the atmosphere all worked out just right for billions of years. If so then that is a miracle. Otherwise we're missing something. Some feedback mechanism needs to exist.

I'm sure the Deccan Traps dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever did.

Dave W. wrote,
quote:
You're correct; if you apply a positive feedback to an otherwise stable system, it's the size of the feedback (actually the loop gain) that determines whether the modified system will be stable or not.
Dave is pretty much right. What I said was misleading because nearly all real world systems start with a stable state somewhere. This stability is assumed by most people. There is a minimum temperature with no green house effect and a maximum temperature with even a perfect greenhouse effect. Starting from one of these (the lower I would think) one could figure the feedback systems -- at least theoretically.

But as Zwingli points out, figuring out what's what is hard.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Global temperatures have remained more or less constant for billions of years.

I must confess that as soon as I read that sentence I decided to skip the rest of your no-doubt wonderful posting.

No, they haven't. Really.

Well they have in the sense that much of the world's surface has remained in the zone suitable for life - say 0 to 50 - there seems to be a number of big feedback mechanisms keeping temperature in that general area - but there has been a huge amount of variation within that limit.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

You're suggesting scientists spent $278 million and many years developing a satellite and state-of-the-art equipment to track carbon, then deliberately crashed it as part of the global conspiracy?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It never really occured to me that some people would be desperate to undermine the science because they were seeing a 'global government' agenda.

I'm not sure how representative internet blogs and discussions are, but you see this sort of issue a lot. One of the obvious signs is how often people refer to "UN-funded scientists" - the U.N. plots global domination and anything they touch is tainted by definition. IMO scientists make a mistake by referring to the IPCC too much, and they'd do better concentrating on all the national academies worldwide who've said similar stuff.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Hiro, the U.N. does "plot" global domination. Coke plots global domination against Pepsi and the Boy Scouts seek to spread scouting worldwide. Everybody wants to rule the world.

These are not secret plots to rule the world. They are what organizations are set up to do. It's their job.

But just as some Coke executives might use dishonest means to advance their sales and thus their own careers, some U.N. people are not above doing the same.

That doesn't make the U.N. bad. It does mean it needs watching just as the Coke company does.

If Coke decides to strong arm Pepsi's distributers, they can be taken to court. If the U.N. decides to fund bad science (I'm not saying any of this happened), there's squat we can do about it.

The difference is in the checks and balances area, not the good/bad area. There are plenty of dishonest people in the world willing to take advantage. A fair number end up getting and using diplomatic immunity.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

You're suggesting scientists spent $278 million and many years developing a satellite and state-of-the-art equipment to track carbon, then deliberately crashed it as part of the global conspiracy?

Pretty amazing, huh? You'd think they'd just fake the data, a la Capricorn One, wouldn't you?

But anyway, that wasn't the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 - the Japanese had already launched one (Ibuki) the previous month. The calibrations are almost done, and validated data should be available starting January. (Preliminary results appear to be in agreement with Scripps surface measurements.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IR (infrared radiation) is heat as commonly thought of, infrared heaters and night vision glasses which pick up the heat. That long wave IR is exciting my molecules may well be what's actually happening when I touch a car that's been standing around in the sun and say ouch that's hot

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy and confused heat and temperature. Heat is, as you say, the energy transferred between systems - and includes IR.

When you touch a hot object you're not feeling the IR given off by it (not primarily anyway). You're feeling the heat of the object, vibrations and motion in the molecules and solids of the object are tranferred directly to your hand. Put your hand near a hot object, and you'll feel the heat of the air (directly heated by convection from the hot object, and indirectly by IR) and some IR directly heating your hand.

quote:
CO2 absorbs black body infrared radiation from the earth and keeps it and gets hotter and hotter driving up the temperature. Though if you say it can't actually absorb this while in an excited state that would go some way to explain the argument that for the most part it doesn't, that IR simply bypasses CO2 as that graph showed, only certain frequencies getting through.
The gaps in the absorption spectrum are there because there's no excited state that IR of that wavelength can cause the molecule to occupy. It's nothing to do with no further absoption by an excited state - the states remain excited for such a short amount of time that the effect is negligible.

quote:
Well, I came across it as basic physics when I was looking for the properties of CO2.
Well, in that case you need to find your basic physics from a reliable source. It is not a basic property of CO2 (or any other material) that IR energy absobed is re-emitted at exactly the same wavelength. The energy isn't re-emitted by the absorbing molecule, it's transferred to the surrounding mass of gas and increases the temperature. The warm body of air will emit black body radiation, of course.

quote:
It's with reference to "heat capacity"
Heat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
It's not often that I can catch Alan in even a small error, so here goes. He wrote,
quote:
It is not a basic property of CO2 (or any other material) that IR energy absorbed is re-emitted at exactly the same wavelength.
This does happen on a quantum level. It doesn't happen very often, but it is a basic property.

It's one of the things laser designers have to work with. Molecules will absorb energy, then reemit it only at certain frequencies. Usually the absorption happens at a higher energy (energy proportional to frequency) than the emission. But on rare occasions it does happen that they are the same. Often any leftover energy is transfered into motion (or vibration for molecules).

Of course Alan is right that this is a negligible effect in this situation.

Blackbody radiation is the aggregate radiation due to thermal mass. They are the big, wide humps in Alan's link. They are dependent on temperature. The red hump is at the temperature of the sun's surface while the other three are at various likely terrestrial temperatures. (At -60 degrees F. the black one's a polar reading I assume.)

IIRC, energy carried is equal to the square of the frequency for a given spectral intensity. I don't know how the graph has been normalized. Obviously the total outgoing energy is roughly equal to the total incoming energy (on a planet wide basis).

In any case, higher frequencies dominate. Subtracting out much of the water vapor for desert conditions, it can be seen that huge amounts of energy radiate off deserts over 310 K (98 F). Hot wet deserts (due to irrigation) trap far more heat than cooler swamps and rain forests.

This raises an interesting question. How responsible is CO2 for increasing water vapor in the air? CO2 is at the lower tail of the outgoing radiation on the graph. Aren't local climate variables far more influential?

Does this mean warm weather farming in desert regions like the Imperial Valley, the Aswan High Dam, and the Aral sea region far more likely to be culprits than CO2 emissions?
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
This raises an interesting question. How responsible is CO2 for increasing water vapor in the air? CO2 is at the lower tail of the outgoing radiation on the graph. Aren't local climate variables far more influential?

Does this mean warm weather farming in desert regions like the Imperial Valley, the Aswan High Dam, and the Aral sea region far more likely to be culprits than CO2 emissions?

To answer that question, Jeff, I think you'd have to make some quantitative studies of the various effects. If only someone would review the relevant papers and summarize them in some sort of assessment report...
(Land use changes are considered along with other contributions to radiative forcing in chapter 2, if you're interested.)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

You're suggesting scientists spent $278 million and many years developing a satellite and state-of-the-art equipment to track carbon, then deliberately crashed it as part of the global conspiracy?
You didn't understand crashed as in crashed data? Although I did have a picture in mind of them shooting it out of the sky... [Smile]


I'm going to give you a teensybit of information here, see what else you can find.


quote:
AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time AIRS Data - Available to all

AIRS is a "facility instrument", meaning it is part of the Earth Observing System Facility and there is no Principal Investigator. As such, data coming from the instrument is freely available to all who request it. And AIRS data is truly free. In contrast to data from many other instruments, there is no fee to use the data. In addition, the AIRS Project is here to support the AIRS data users.

That, as you'll notice, is on an archive retrieval page.

And this was posted July 08
quote:
An encouraging response on satellite CO2 measurement from the AIRS Team

Recently we’ve been discussing products from the AIRS satellite instrument
I wrote to the AIRS team to inquire about when the satellite data on CO2, and other relevant products might be made public. All that has been released so far are occasional snippets of data and imagery, such as the short slide show above.

Here is the response I got from them:

Thank you for your interest in the AIRS CO2 data product.

We are still in the validation phase in developing this new product. It will be part of the Version 6 data release, but for now those of us working on it are intensively validating our results using in situ measurements by aircraft and upward looking fourier transform IR spectrometers (TCCON network and others).

The AIRS CO2 product is for the mid-troposphere. For quite some time it was accepted theory that CO2 in the free troposphere is “well-mixed”, i.e., the difference that might be seen at that altitude would be a fraction of a part per million (ppmv). Models, which ingest surface fluxes from known sources, have long predicted a smooth (small)variation with latitude, with steadily diminishing CO2 as you move farther South. We have a “two-planet” planet – land in the Northern Hemisphere and ocean in the Southern Hemisphere. Synoptic weather in the NH can be seen to control the distribution of CO2 in the free troposphere. The SH large-scale action is mostly zonal.

Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by he scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
We have just had a paper accepted by Geophysical Research Letters that will be published in 6-8 weeks, and are preparing a validation paper.

We have global CO2 retrievals (day and night, over ocean and land, for clear and cloudy scenes) spanning the time period from Sept 2002 to the present. Those data will be released as we satisfactorily validate them.

Bearing in mind the brave objectives of information freely available to all initially, why isn't it?

Since their results were at variance with the scientific community, what do you think they mean by having to validate them?(*)

Is this expensive and state of the art data gathering machine useless?

Have the Japanese begun with validated constraints?

(*) It has been since Revelle and Keeling the claim about CO2 measurement, that it is a given it is well mixed, so a 'background' level which can be measured.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IR (infrared radiation) is heat as commonly thought of, infrared heaters and night vision glasses which pick up the heat. That long wave IR is exciting my molecules may well be what's actually happening when I touch a car that's been standing around in the sun and say ouch that's hot

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy and confused heat and temperature. Heat is, as you say, the energy transferred between systems - and includes IR.
Let's clear this up shall we? We seem to be talking past each other here. Heat is IR. IR is heat.

For example, the heat we feel from the sun is IR.

All bodies give of IR, even ice cubes, except something at absolute zero.

Some 49% of the sun's energy is IR. We'd all be very cheesed off if it wasn't.

A human radiates IR to 10 microns, a micron being 1 millionth of a metre.

Agreed?


quote:
When you touch a hot object you're not feeling the IR given off by it (not primarily anyway). You're feeling the heat of the object, vibrations and motion in the molecules and solids of the object are tranferred directly to your hand. Put your hand near a hot object, and you'll feel the heat of the air (directly heated by convection from the hot object, and indirectly by IR) and some IR directly heating your hand.
Or not?


quote:
Well, I came across it as basic physics when I was looking for the properties of CO2.
quote:
Well, in that case you need to find your basic physics from a reliable source. It is not a basic property of CO2 (or any other material) that IR energy absobed is re-emitted at exactly the same wavelength. The energy isn't re-emitted by the absorbing molecule, it's transferred to the surrounding mass of gas and increases the temperature. The warm body of air will emit black body radiation, of course.
If CO2 absorbs IR, which is heat, and as a black body emits IR, which is heat, then it is giving away what it received.


quote:
It's with reference to "heat capacity"
quote:
Heat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.
If it is in a cooler surrounding then it will emit it as quickly as it receives it. Makes it highly relevant to this subject.

Makes CO2 totally irrelevant to greenhouse theory which says greenhouse gases keep heat, IR, longer.

Nitrogen, oygen and water vapour as you say are dominant, they all have a higher heat capacity than CO2, therefore, they will most likely be the recipients, no?

And as you also say, or rather as I'll stress, CO2 is very much insignificant in air.


Myrrh


Alwyn, remembering how I struggled to make sense of this, re the examples you gave, I'd caution you to check thoroughly remembering that science exists as a discipline on the principle that its work is freely available for others. The last couple of hundred years particularly have shown how that has benefitted us.

Those claiming CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're all going to die horrible deaths because an extra insignificant amount of it has been released into the atmosphere from industry are the same ones withholding data.

This discussion has an interesting exchange re the comparison figs at the top from NIPCC, from a post some way down which begins:

Submitted by Fred (not verified) on Sun, 08/02/2009 - 04:27.
quote:
"Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature

Trends in the Tropical Troposphere", by B.D. Santer et al.

Abstract

Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science - the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics.

Santer

See the reply a couple of posts down.

quote:
Firstly, this paper is not science, it is advocacy. The paper you want that demolishes it utterly is: “An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere” Stephen McIntyre(1), Ross McKitrick (2) here.
Whatever this is, it isn't science.


Myrrh


Whatever it is, it is coming from the top strata of scientific bodies.

Conspiracy (COD) Act of conspiring; combination for unlawful purpose, plot;

That AIRS archived page has a 2003 date on it (fig). Were they releasing data before that? Or was that just a milksop to keep everyone quiet?

Difficult to believe there weren't at least some on the project who weren't open, to say in a letter in 2008 that the data gathered put them at odds with 'scientific consensus'.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Dave thanks for that link. It would be more useful if the didn't keep saying that the things I'm discussing have a low level of scientific understanding.
quote:
Other surface property changes can affect climate through processes that cannot be quantified by RF; these have a very low level of scientific understanding. (p 132)
On this we spend a trillion dollars?

BTW, the study only considers stratospheric water vapor (in this chapter, that I saw). I'm not sure why. Perhaps lower level vapor is considered a surface effect?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Alan, sorry, should have left it until later to reply.


"Nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour as you say are dominant, they all have a higher heat capacity than CO2, therefore, they will most likely be the recipients, no?"

Or rather, if they are colder.

And, I'm assuming that until it is radiated heat in a body is potential IR.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Since their results were at variance with the scientific community, what do you think they mean by having to validate them?

That's simple. They need to check that there isn't some fault with their instrument or processing algorithm, it seems from what they say that at least part of that is to collect additional data from other instruments to compare with their satellite data. If the new data support the satellite data, then they've validated their data. If the different data sets disagree then there is some instrumental/processing effect that needs explanation. There is no point releasing data that's erroneous.

quote:
Let's clear this up shall we? We seem to be talking past each other here. Heat is IR. IR is heat.
No, IR is heat ... heat is not just IR. Heat is energy transfer between hot and cold objects .. it includes convection, direct thermal contact etc. Even your crank site agrred on that. If it was just IR then the fans and coollant fluids in your car are just cosmetic and don't actually do anything.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
The precautionary principal works both ways.

Fair point. I hope you'll excuse me for replying slowly and for quoting your comments in a different order. I thought I'd start with the point where we most agree.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... if the climate change advocates are wrong we will have cost people their lives work wasted on combatting a nonexistent problem.

It's always possible that climate scientists are wrong. Would the research be wasted? Possibly, but not necessarily. For example, improvements to alternative energy generation could be more useful as the cost of oil rises, even if climate change wasn't happening.

You're right that these measures can involve major costs. As the previous link shows, some (misguided) measures such as growing biofuelds (rather than food crops) can cause serious problems.

Would prevention or mitigation measures be a waste? Energy efficiency can save money. Floods, droughts and hurricanes will still happen, even if the climate science is wrong, so measures to help us survive them will still be useful. For me, a move from our current resource-hungry 'use once and throw-away' society to a more sustainable model would be a good thing, since the Earth does not have sufficient resources to support indefinite growth. Of course, different people will see this differently.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
We will have denied freedom to people who deserve it.

Our governments' choices usually provide more freedom for some and less for others. States may choose between, for example, spending money on a new runway for an airport or providing decent bus services. One person's freedom to fly comes at the cost to the freedom of another person who loses the bus service that she depended on.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
All of this seems to be being spent to limit flooding in coastal areas. [...]

As you suggested, some areas may benefit. However, the costs of climate change aren't confined to flooding - what about the health consequences, as diseases spread to new areas and the increased severity of hurricans, for example? There seem to be serious implications for the United States.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
For all the talk about the poor being most affected, in my view coastal areas are the playgrounds for rich people ...

In some places, sure. Not so much in Bangladesh (Oxfam video) or if you're an African slum dweller (ActionAid report)

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... This is a tragedy. But it will be offset by the poor in the interior seeing the value of their land rise.

... for some people, maybe - but I'm not sure how many people who are poor by the standard of Bangladesh or African slum-dwellers will benefit ... not if they live by the coast, don't own land or are struggling to deal with "a new wave of food shortages and rising prices in the developing world".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I didn't have time to respond to everything this morning.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If CO2 absorbs IR, which is heat, and as a black body emits IR, which is heat, then it is giving away what it received.

Molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) in the air absorb IR. The mass of air those molecules are in emit black body radiation. The broad spectrum of IR photons from the black body do not correspond to the discrete photon energy of the absorbed IR. If the air mass has the same temperature as the body that emitted the absorbed photon (the ground near the surface, more often other air masses) then the spectra will have the same shape. If there's a temperature difference then there will be a corresponding shift in the black body spectrum.

quote:

quote:
It's with reference to "heat capacity"
quote:
Heat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.
If it is in a cooler surrounding then it will emit it as quickly as it receives it. Makes it highly relevant to this subject.

You're still not understanding the difference between a large body of gas and the constituent molecules.

The rate at which a large body of gas (or, solid or liquid for that matter) heats or cools is a function of the heat capacity of that gas. If the gas is a composition of different molecular species then the heat capacity is function of the specific heat capacities of those constituents weighted according to their abundance. In air, that means it's dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour (which is variable). The contribution of CO2 to the heat capacity is negligable because there's so little of it - whether there was 300, 400, 600 ppm CO2 would make no practical difference to the heat capacity.

quote:
Makes CO2 totally irrelevant to greenhouse theory which says greenhouse gases keep heat, IR, longer.
No, greenhouse gases do not retain energy longer. Except for water vapour, their contribution to the heat capacity of air is insignificant. Greenhouse gases absorb IR energy more efficiently than other gases. An increase in greenhouse gas concentration thus increases the rate at which heat is captured by a mass of air. The heat capacity hasn't changed (unless the greenhouse gas is water vapour) so the rate of heat loss from the mass of air won't change for a fixed temperature. So, if you increase heat input and there's no corresponding increase in heat loss the only outcome is an increase in temperature. The warmer air will release heat faster than cooler air, so a new equilibrium temperature will be reached that's warmer than before the greenhouse gas was increased.

quote:

And as you also say, or rather as I'll stress, CO2 is very much insignificant in air.

Insignificant in relation to heat capacity. Very significant in relation to IR absorption.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Dave thanks for that link. It would be more useful if the didn't keep saying that the things I'm discussing have a low level of scientific understanding.
quote:
Other surface property changes can affect climate through processes that cannot be quantified by RF; these have a very low level of scientific understanding. (p 132)
On this we spend a trillion dollars?

BTW, the study only considers stratospheric water vapor (in this chapter, that I saw). I'm not sure why. Perhaps lower level vapor is considered a surface effect?

Well, there's this:
quote:
Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources of tropospheric water vapour is not evaluated here, since these sources affect surface temperature more significantly through these non-radiative processes, and a strict use of the RF is problematic.
which you would have found if you had read section 2.5.6, "Tropospheric Water Vapour from Anthropogenic Sources".
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't have time to respond to everything this morning.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If CO2 absorbs IR, which is heat, and as a black body emits IR, which is heat, then it is giving away what it received.

Molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) in the air absorb IR. The mass of air those molecules are in emit black body radiation. The broad spectrum of IR photons from the black body do not correspond to the discrete photon energy of the absorbed IR. If the air mass has the same temperature as the body that emitted the absorbed photon (the ground near the surface, more often other air masses) then the spectra will have the same shape. If there's a temperature difference then there will be a corresponding shift in the black body spectrum.
We're agreed that it is heat.


quote:

MyrrhIt's with reference to "heat capacity"

quote:
AlanHeat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.
quote:
MyrrhIf it is in a cooler surrounding then it will emit it as quickly as it receives it. Makes it highly relevant to this subject.
quote:
AlanYou're still not understanding the difference between a large body of gas and the constituent molecules.

The rate at which a large body of gas (or, solid or liquid for that matter) heats or cools is a function of the heat capacity of that gas. If the gas is a composition of different molecular species then the heat capacity is function of the specific heat capacities of those constituents weighted according to their abundance. In air, that means it's dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour (which is variable). The contribution of CO2 to the heat capacity is negligable because there's so little of it - whether there was 300, 400, 600 ppm CO2 would make no practical difference to the heat capacity.

Exactly.

quote:
Makes CO2 totally irrelevant to greenhouse theory which says greenhouse gases keep heat, IR, longer.
quote:
No, greenhouse gases do not retain energy longer. Except for water vapour, their contribution to the heat capacity of air is insignificant. Greenhouse gases absorb IR energy more efficiently than other gases. An increase in greenhouse gas concentration thus increases the rate at which heat is captured by a mass of air. The heat capacity hasn't changed (unless the greenhouse gas is water vapour) so the rate of heat loss from the mass of air won't change for a fixed temperature. So, if you increase heat input and there's no corresponding increase in heat loss the only outcome is an increase in temperature. The warmer air will release heat faster than cooler air, so a new equilibrium temperature will be reached that's warmer than before the greenhouse gas was increased.
We're still talking past each other.

I'm responding to the common AGM spiel such as these, first two pages I opened and third I searched a couple of seconds to find 'more official' representation of this argument for AGW and CO2 driving global warming:


quote:
"Global Warming
Carbon dioxide contributes to global warming by absorbing heat energy from the earth, trapping it and preventing its release into space."
How does CO2 cause global warming

"Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests. There are many heat-trapping gases (from methane to water vapor), but CO2 puts us at the greatest risk of irreversible changes if it continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere. There are two key reasons why.

CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue. CO2, more than any other cf driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005.[1, 2, 3] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a global climate assessment in 2007 that compared the relative influence exerted by key heat-trapping gases, tiny particles known as aerosols, and land use change of human origin on our climate between 1750 and 2005.[3] By measuring the abundance of heat-trapping gases in ice cores, the atmosphere, and other climate drivers along with models, the IPCC calculated the “radiative forcing” (RF) of each climate driver—in other words, the net increase (or decrease) in the amount of energy reaching Earth’s surface attributable to that climate driver. Positive RF values represent average surface warming and negative values represent average surface cooling. CO2 has the highest positive RF (see Figure 1) of all the human-influenced climate drivers compared by the IPCC. Other gases have more potent heat-trapping ability molecule per molecule than CO2 (e.g. methane), but are simply far less abundant in the atmosphere and being added more slowly."
Global warming faq

[And they get it from the top:

quote:
"The GISS "SI2000" climate model provided a convincing demonstration that global temperature change of the past half-century is mainly a response to climate forcing agents, or imposed perturbations of the Earth's energy balance. This is especially true of human-made forcings, such as carbon dioxide and methane, which trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat; thus they cause warming."
Nasa

quote:
Myrrh
And as you also say, or rather as I'll stress, CO2 is very much insignificant in air.

quote:
AlanInsignificant in relation to heat capacity. Very significant in relation to IR absorption.
Very significant re heat capacity in debunking the above claims which base their reasoning and their scientific consensus quite categorically in the presumed effect of CO2 to trap heat.

Hardly of any significance in relation to IR absorption, firstly because water vapour is the dominant absorber and secondly, because CO2 takes in only 8% of the IR spectrum and its absorption is algorithmic and in saturated level stays close to the ground and thirdly, because there's such a ridiculously insignificant amount of it in the atmosphere.

Said Chicken Little's friends, this is not science..

"Trapping it and preventing its release into space"

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a global climate assessment in 2007 that compared the relative influence exerted by key heat-trapping gases,"

"..which trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat; thus they cause warming."

So,

3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.

Bearing in mind:

Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395

Most of the atmosphere is Oxygen and Nitrogen. Atmosphere

21% Oxygen 78% Nitrogen = 99% of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is 0.03%

That's not even a fishing net, let alone blanket.

How does that contribute in any significant way to your:

"So, if you increase heat input and there's no corresponding increase in heat loss the only outcome is an increase in temperature. The warmer air will release heat faster than cooler air, so a new equilibrium temperature will be reached that's warmer than before the greenhouse gas was increased."


And for how long?

In and of itself relative to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with the 99% of the atmosphere with a higher heat capacity, i.e. releasing it more slowly than CO2, and that's not including water vapour, and bearing in mind the other aspects of thermondynamics.

And then include water vapour:

quote:
AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time

It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases. AIRS advanced technology makes it the most advanced water vapor sensor ever built. Beyond water vapor, AIRS measures all the other primary greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide, methane, and ozone. What is AIRS

Of course, the "largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas", is still insignificant in relationship to the amount of oxygen and nitrogen and water vapour...

And to remember:

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry" and more real education about CO2 on: CO2 is Life


Myrrh
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Myrhh, you seem to be confusing the ability of CO2 to interact with infrared radiation with its heat capacity. These are two very distinct things; it is the former effect which distinguishes greenhouse gases, and which your quotes from the Union of Concerned Scientists and NASA refer to as "heat trapping."

This is rather an important point; the major constituent gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are by contrast practically transparent to infrared radiation. Saying greenhouse gases can't have a significant effect because there are a lot more of these other molecules is like saying the weight of a rock is insignificant because it's in a room with a lot of soap bubbles.

And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?

And in this:
quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).

Of course, an increase in greenhouse effect that is directly proportional to the increase in CO2 would still be a factor in climate warming.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
I will add to my previous post by adding that:

CO2 is a much more effective greenhouse gas per molecule than water vapour, so that despite its much lower concentration it has a greenhouse effect of the same order of magnitude as water vapour, if somewhat lower. This is why changes to its concentration are significant.

When it is said that greenhouse gases trap IR, this is shorthand for saying that they absorb IR (e.g. that radiating from the earth) and transfer the heat energy to the other parts of the atmosphere, including non greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2, by molecular collision.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?

It's clearly the Third Law of Myrhhmeneutics. Because, the more obvious interpretation that he's talking about the Third Law of Thermodynamics makes no sense. That the entropy of a system at absolute zero is minimum (zero for perfect solids) has no relation to heat being trapped.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Myrrh, it's clear to me (and others) that you're confusing CO2's heat capacity (how quickly its temperature rises as heat is applied) with its characteristics as a partial barrier to infrared radiation.

A wire fence in a field may be a barrier to sheep without taking on any characteristics of the sheep. Such a fence may be no barrier to rabbits or mice as they can go through, while people could step over it. Gases filter or reflect varying proportions of different wavelengths of radiation. As Alan pointed out many months ago, it's a simple lab experiment to measure such characteristics of gases; it's well-established, measurable, repeatable and beyond any doubt. I expect it's been done at different temperatures and any effects will be part of the understanding and the climate models.

You also seem to think that because the amount of CO2 is small ("insignificant" in your opinion) that your admitted lack of knowledge on science topics somehow trumps the expertise of those who do know something (or a lot) and you can discount its influence as a serious greenhouse gas in direct opposition to those who know a lot about it.

Some might say that's an odd point of view.
.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Most of the atmosphere is Oxygen and Nitrogen. Atmosphere

21% Oxygen 78% Nitrogen = 99% of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is 0.03%

That's not even a fishing net, let alone blanket.

Myrrh, contrary to a previous decision I made not to become involved in AGW threads here, I would offer a couple of things in the hope that they might clarify your thinking. I'm not trying to change your mind, just to offer information, as it appears from your post you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works.

Dave W. said some good things in his post, but I thought I'd add some more detail to explain why what he said is true.

Although some accounts in the popular press talk about a "blanket," this is a poor analogy. It's not the thermal conductivity or heat capacity of the atmosphere that's the issue, it's the fact that some gasses absorb infra-red radiation and re-emit it. To quote from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Like all bodies with a temperature above absolute zero the Earth's surface radiates energy in the infrared range. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb most of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and pass the absorbed heat to other atmospheric gases through molecular collisions. The greenhouse gases also radiate in the infrared range. Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are warmed by the part of the energy that is radiated downward, making our life on earth possible.[5]
(emphasis mine). It this absorption and re-emission of IR which makes the greenhouse effect work, not anything to do with heat capacity. If you've read the argument about heat capacity on a website, I wouldn't trust that website.

This is relevant to your point about the composition of the atmosphere as well. It's true that CO2 is a much smaller proportion of the atmosphere than Nitrogen or Oxygen, but it's also true that (as Dave W said) they are almost entirely transparent to IR radiation, whereas CO2 isn't.

Light can be thought of as an oscillating electromagnetic field. Infra-red is of the same range of frequencies as molecular vibration, and in order for a molecule to interact with the light's electrical oscillation, the vibration must give rise to an oscillating electrical charge of its own (in molecules, this is called the dipole moment). In short, if a molecule's vibrations can't cause an oscillating electrical dipole, it can't absorb the infra-red light. There's some more information on this here.

Oxygen and Nitrogen are both similar in that their molecules consist of two atoms joined by a chemical bond. The only thing that bond can do is stretch, but because the atoms at either end are the same, that stretching doesn't give rise to a change in dipole moment. They can thus not absorb the the infra-red. CO2 on the other hand is a triatomic molecule, and its bending and asymmetric stretching modes do change the dipole moment. Because of this, it's capable of absorbing IR whereas O2 and N2 aren't.

Although it's only a small proportion of the atmosphere, the presence of CO2 can have an unexpectedly large effect. This is true for a lot of atmospheric chemistry: just look at the effect the very small percentage of CFCs in the atmosphere had on the ozone layer.

You point about water vapour in the atmosphere is valid in that water vapour is a greenhouse gas (as a bent triatomic, all of its vibrational modes are IR active). However, it is referred to a a feedback rather than a forcing by climate scientists. The reason for this is that, if one could remove all the water vapour from the atmosphere right now, it would be replaced by evaporation from the oceans (etc) in around a month. The lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere OTOH is thousands of years.

I'm sorry if this all sounds like a lot of Chemistry. The problem is that if you want to dispute how the greenhouse effect works you really have to know the background science, or you have no hope of grasping the answer. You could just trust the people that say "CO2 is a greenhouse gas," - but if you don't trust them for whatever reason this is the sort of thing you will have to learn about to verify it for yourself.

All the best,

- Chris.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Myrrh - one of the reasons I find the 'scientific concensus' so plausible is because in the early days whenever I read the debates on the web almost always those who knew the most science were those who backed the IPCC position (see for example Alan and several others on this thread). When a poster doesn't make school boy errors then you gradually build up more trust of their position than those who clearly don't understand some of the very basic science.

The other reason - which is related I know - is that the climate change deniers (for want of a better label) almost never nuanced their answers. Everything was black and white - there was no evidence of 'in this area the arguement is strongest whilst there is greater uncertainty in this area' type of thinking. I cannot remember any of the deniers pointing out the greatest challenges to their way of thinking because accordint to them everything about their opponents' position was rubbish.

This is one (just one!) of the reasons why your position is so unpersuasive.

Luigi
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
There is also the point that the science of AGW has been accepted by every major scientific organisation in the world. There is a list of them available, in case you haven't come across it (not likely, I know).

The scientists in those organisations may not be experts on climate, but they are, I'm sure, quite capable of recognising poor science when they come across it. It's often alleged that this is all about research grants, but if that were the case, it would give scientists in other fields, who will be in competition for a limited pool of money, an additional reason to be sceptical, or at least pretend to be. The fact remains that they aren't.

The latest alarming news.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I'm getting ready for a trip away so unlikely to to be able to respond to any further posts until possibly Wednesday, probably Thursday, next week.

This is a long post, apologies.


quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Myrhh, you seem to be confusing the ability of CO2 to interact with infrared radiation with its heat capacity.

Dave, and others who keep making this point, no I'm not.

quote:
These are two very distinct things; it is the former effect which distinguishes greenhouse gases, and which your quotes from the Union of Concerned Scientists and NASA refer to as "heat trapping."
They certainly are two different things, and both need to be considered here.

But this is not what they "refer to", it is what they claim. That CO2 traps heat and acts like a blanket over the earth driving up global temperatures.

This is a well known position, hence the convoluted attempts to provide an explanation when this is debunked. I gave a link, up the page, to a discussion on this which contained Santer's garbled and data witheld defence of it.



quote:
This is rather an important point; the major constituent gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are by contrast practically transparent to infrared radiation. Saying greenhouse gases can't have a significant effect because there are a lot more of these other molecules is like saying the weight of a rock is insignificant because it's in a room with a lot of soap bubbles.
? Is this what you get from your 'scientific consensus'? That CO2 is this massive rock among teensy weeny nitrogen and oxygen molecules as if the latter only react to CO2?


quote:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?
It's physics.


quote:
And in this:
quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Yes, really. Shock horror.

Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).

Nope, the word is algorithmic.

quote:
Of course, an increase in greenhouse effect that is directly proportional to the increase in CO2 would still be a factor in climate warming.
If such a thing could be shown to exist. However the agw argument is firstly that it is a driver of global warming which all observable scientific research shows it's never been, its rise in relationship to temperature has had a time lag of c.800 years, over the last 450,000 years or so, see Vostok. So, its rise could be said to be relational to rise in temperature, but not with arithmetic accuracy as you'll see from the graphs, around 800 years is the best we can do. It's dem pesky butterflies.

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
CO2 is a much more effective greenhouse gas per molecule than water vapour, so that despite its much lower concentration it has a greenhouse effect of the same order of magnitude as water vapour, if somewhat lower. This is why changes to its concentration are significant.

Can you show me the science behind this?


quote:
When it is said that greenhouse gases trap IR, this is shorthand for saying that they absorb IR (e.g. that radiating from the earth) and transfer the heat energy to the other parts of the atmosphere, including non greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2, by molecular collision.
We're agreed then.


Myrrh

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?

It's clearly the Third Law of Myrhhmeneutics. Because, the more obvious interpretation that he's talking about the Third Law of Thermodynamics makes no sense. That the entropy of a system at absolute zero is minimum (zero for perfect solids) has no relation to heat being trapped.
It's saying exactly that heat can't be.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Myrrh, it's clear to me (and others) that you're confusing CO2's heat capacity (how quickly its temperature rises as heat is applied) with its characteristics as a partial barrier to infrared radiation.

? How can something that absorbs something else be a barrier to it?


quote:
A wire fence in a field may be a barrier to sheep without taking on any characteristics of the sheep. Such a fence may be no barrier to rabbits or mice as they can go through, while people could step over it. Gases filter or reflect varying proportions of different wavelengths of radiation. As Alan pointed out many months ago, it's a simple lab experiment to measure such characteristics of gases; it's well-established, measurable, repeatable and beyond any doubt. I expect it's been done at different temperatures and any effects will be part of the understanding and the climate models.
I wish you AGMerrs would reach consensus on what you're saying. Is CO2 a barrier to infrared or does it absorb it?


quote:
You also seem to think that because the amount of CO2 is small ("insignificant" in your opinion) that your admitted lack of knowledge on science topics somehow trumps the expertise of those who do know something (or a lot) and you can discount its influence as a serious greenhouse gas in direct opposition to those who know a lot about it.
And did you get that CO2 was a barrier to infrared from these experts?



quote:
Some might say that's an odd point of view.
.

Some might well...


Myrrh

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, contrary to a previous decision I made not to become involved in AGW threads here, I would offer a couple of things in the hope that they might clarify your thinking. I'm not trying to change your mind, just to offer information, as it appears from your post you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works.

Dave W. said some good things in his post, but I thought I'd add some more detail to explain why what he said is true.

Although some accounts in the popular press talk about a "blanket," this is a poor analogy.

It's more than a poor analogy. It is however the 'scientific consensus' that this is what CO2 does.

quote:
It's not the thermal conductivity or heat capacity of the atmosphere that's the issue, it's the fact that some gasses absorb infra-red radiation and re-emit it. To quote from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Like all bodies with a temperature above absolute zero the Earth's surface radiates energy in the infrared range. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb most of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and pass the absorbed heat to other atmospheric gases through molecular collisions. The greenhouse gases also radiate in the infrared range. Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are warmed by the part of the energy that is radiated downward, making our life on earth possible.[5]
(emphasis mine). It this absorption and re-emission of IR which makes the greenhouse effect work, not anything to do with heat capacity. If you've read the argument about heat capacity on a website, I wouldn't trust that website.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but it's not what AGM claims for CO2.


To be continued:
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Continued/2


quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
This is relevant to your point about the composition of the atmosphere as well. It's true that CO2 is a much smaller proportion of the atmosphere than Nitrogen or Oxygen, but it's also true that (as Dave W said) they are almost entirely transparent to IR radiation, whereas CO2 isn't.

So? Does that mean they don't get hot?


quote:
Light can be thought of as an oscillating electromagnetic field. Infra-red is of the same range of frequencies as molecular vibration, and in order for a molecule to interact with the light's electrical oscillation, the vibration must give rise to an oscillating electrical charge of its own (in molecules, this is called the dipole moment). In short, if a molecule's vibrations can't cause an oscillating electrical dipole, it can't absorb the infra-red light. There's some more information on this here.
Yes, thank you, I've read about that before.


quote:
Oxygen and Nitrogen are both similar in that their molecules consist of two atoms joined by a chemical bond. The only thing that bond can do is stretch, but because the atoms at either end are the same, that stretching doesn't give rise to a change in dipole moment. They can thus not absorb the the infra-red. CO2 on the other hand is a triatomic molecule, and its bending and asymmetric stretching modes do change the dipole moment. Because of this, it's capable of absorbing IR whereas O2 and N2 aren't.
Yes, thank you, I've also read about that to try and understand the subject. Though I don't have your ease with it, I can get my head around it as it relates to molecules in the atmosphere. Fascinating as other areas in science, if I had time..


quote:
Although it's only a small proportion of the atmosphere, the presence of CO2 can have an unexpectedly large effect. This is true for a lot of atmospheric chemistry: just look at the effect the very small percentage of CFCs in the atmosphere had on the ozone layer.
Oh no, not ozone..! I've heard contrary arguments and I'm definitely not going there..

Hm, this reminds me of a reply I got some time earlier, which author then dismissed the effects of the sun as minute and unimportant in this.

Well, as yet I haven't seen any proof of this effect.


If you're going to claim that CO2 has such a massive effect relative to its amount I expect a lot better than, 'well it does, so there, it's scientific consensus and you're an ignorant nonentity', no matter how politely it's phrased..

I expect some actual proof in the science. (Which I've been asking for, for rather a long time here.)


quote:
You point about water vapour in the atmosphere is valid in that water vapour is a greenhouse gas (as a bent triatomic, all of its vibrational modes are IR active).
And to note here from the AIRS archived data, that they were amazed at the amount of water vapour and knew it would come as a surprise also to the 'scientific consensus'. Then the system crashed.

quote:
However, it is referred to a a feedback rather than a forcing by climate scientists.
And why do they refer to it as such? Because they don't want to take it into consideration in climate models except as a multiplier applied to CO2 in feedback. Yet, oh gosh, CO2 a small fraction of the amount is blamed for all the forcing while all this water vapour is simply ignored.


quote:
The reason for this [referred to as a feedback rather than a forcing] is that, if one could remove all the water vapour from the atmosphere right now, it would be replaced by evaporation from the oceans (etc) in around a month. The lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere OTOH is thousands of years.
? Sez who? We all breathe CO2 into the atmosphere, even plants at night. And if it hangs around for thousands of years why hasn't there been any change for thousands of years of the earth and us pumping more into it? And if we took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere we'd most likely (I can do IPCC speak), all die of starvation, if we didn't stop breathing first from lack of oxygen.

The actual reason for saying it is this, because CO2 is incapable of doing what those in the 'scientific consensus' says it does. As the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, then if you say another greenhouse gas as tiny proportion of it, CO2, is capable of driving vast global temperature changes by virtue of it being a greenhouse gas then excluding water vapour from creating the same effect is simply illogical.

You're blaming CO2 for driving massive global temperature changes and ignoring the elephant in the room twenty times its size doing the same thing.


quote:
I'm sorry if this all sounds like a lot of Chemistry. The problem is that if you want to dispute how the greenhouse effect works you really have to know the background science, or you have no hope of grasping the answer. You could just trust the people that say "CO2 is a greenhouse gas," - but if you don't trust them for whatever reason this is the sort of thing you will have to learn about to verify it for yourself.

All the best,

Again, thank you Chris, this is what I've tried my best to do and I've already looked at it on the molecular level, and taken it on board.

Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - one of the reasons I find the 'scientific concensus' so plausible is because in the early days whenever I read the debates on the web almost always those who knew the most science were those who backed the IPCC position (see for example Alan and several others on this thread). When a poster doesn't make school boy errors then you gradually build up more trust of their position than those who clearly don't understand some of the very basic science.

Well Luigi, in the end it's a matter of physics/chemistry/common sense and logic and so on and not who regurgitates the information that matters. 'Scientific agw consensus' that promotes information on the subject which is at such complete odds with well established scientific fact is, to me, suspect.



quote:
The other reason - which is related I know - is that the climate change deniers (for want of a better label) almost never nuanced their answers. Everything was black and white - there was no evidence of 'in this area the arguement is strongest whilst there is greater uncertainty in this area' type of thinking. I cannot remember any of the deniers pointing out the greatest challenges to their way of thinking because accordint to them everything about their opponents' position was rubbish.
Well again, this is what convinced me, because the arguments were well established scientific facts. I can say the tea cup on my desk at the moment is an elephant dancing, but it ain't. Observably so it ain't and in every scientifical provable aspect it ain't. If climate models exclude water vapour as a forcer of climate change then they are not based on observable scientific fact, ditto if they credit CO2 with more power than it has and don't take in its other characteristics, scientifically established as fact. If CO2 is a blanket driving up global warming how much more so is the blanket of water vapour? 60% of the atmosphere according to the surprised Hal from AIRS as he gave us his final message.


quote:
This is one (just one!) of the reasons why your position is so unpersuasive.

Luigi

And just a few examples of why I'm not at all impressed by 'scientific consensus' in AGW.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
There is also the point that the science of AGW has been accepted by every major scientific organisation in the world. There is a list of them available, in case you haven't come across it (not likely, I know).

Well, this is what the thread is about, are these people being used to manipulate a global Government into place? The science behind global warming disappears like the emperor's new clothes on closer inspection, so why are all these backing it? It may have started out as just bad science, Revelle changed his mind, but since then it's been taken up by bigger players on the world stage.

As I've given example, those working in the particular fields from which information is taken for AGW are overruled by the few at the top of their organisations. The example I gave was the American Meteorological Society, firstly in giving its top prize to top AGW promoters while actually in its teaching syllubus which comes from reality grounded meteorologists, debunking the whole thing. Strange, no?


quote:
The scientists in those organisations may not be experts on climate, but they are, I'm sure, quite capable of recognising poor science when they come across it.
Here I think I must agree with you, at least by now they should be capable of this. That's why it's so obviously a con. Mann created his Hockey Stick to order, that's well known history now. That's not science. So why do they promote it as such? And more to the point. Who are they?


quote:
It's often alleged that this is all about research grants, but if that were the case, it would give scientists in other fields, who will be in competition for a limited pool of money, an additional reason to be sceptical, or at least pretend to be. The fact remains that they aren't.
It's amazing what variety of fields can be included in the objectives of AGW when applying, when it's re global warming. [Smile] I don't blame them, if you had an opportunity to be paid to go out and study your life's interest, say geology, and all that was expected of you was to put a paragraph at the end saying how interesting this all is in respect of and maybe it has a bearing on global warming..? But we do get the data, unless of course it has a direct relevance to AGW and contradicts it.

I think what you'll find more of, is that those who do know it's junk science aren't in a position to object even when it's re their own field, because those at the top have control of it. At least that's what I've seen more of.

And you posted:

quote:
The latest alarming news.
Gosh!

quote:
World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists

Fast-rising carbon emissions mean that worst-case predictions for climate change are coming true

By Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy

The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.

This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project.

....

Professor Le Quéré emphasised that there are still many uncertainties over carbon sinks, such as the ability of the oceans to absorb dissolved CO2, but all the evidence suggests that there is now a cycle of "positive feedbacks", whereby rising carbon dioxide emissions are leading to rising temperatures and a corresponding rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

"Our understanding at the moment in the computer models we have used – and they are state of the art – suggests that carbon-cycle climate feedback has already kicked in," she said.

Quick, someone explain about garbage in garbage out..

What are we actually observing?

Myrrh


OK, I've found quite a good page which pulls together several of the problems about imagining what CO2 can do and how the climate works, which I'm posting in the hope that it'll be read as it's a good introduction to reality science.

Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

Back to heat capacity for a moment, before I go.

This is an argument against the widely and officially endorsed scientific image for the problem CO2 is said to pose for us, that it is blanket and getting thicker, storing heat and thereby heating the atmosphere and creating global warming. This is the common agw claim as I went through above. It's on practically every agw page, it's taught to children.

This from a page of various major media articles covering the 2001 IPCC report: "Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide prevent heat from leaving the earth, therefore warming the earth's atmosphere, whereas sulphur dioxide tends to cool it." Reports below on the IPCC's Third Assessment Report from: Reuters News service, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times


Which is where the idea of "fence" comes in.

Both these conveniently ignore the actual flow of climate and the properties of CO2. One of the properties of CO2 is its capacity for heat, in meeting a colder body it gives away its heat, one way or another. Look up the laws of thermodynamics to understand what I'm arguing here.

To say that CO2 is like a blanket trapping heat and projecting it towards the earth or like a fence not allowing IR to pass through it is simply inconceivable in physical terms. It is a claim that above this blanket or fence is another blanket hotter or as hot as it is.

Because otherwise CO2 would give away its heat on meeting colder conditions in the atmosphere above it. And quickly, it gains heat and gives it away on meeting colder conditions even more quickly than oxygen.

Water vapour is far more able to temporarily store it (3rd law, heat cannot be trapped, always moves to entropy). Some four times the ability of CO2 and nitrogen also has a greater heat capacity.

There are three basic models in studying thermodynamics of a given something. The closed jar which looks at what is happening in the jar to what is inside with minimum interference from outside, (remember that your coffee gets cold even in a thermos), the jar of something with the lid off with the something exposed to outside and the jar of something with direct action from outside into it, as something being poured into the something in the jar.

Our climate on this planet is of the third model - our atmosphere is not only open as in the second model, but is actively being affected by something poured into it, in our case the sun the major player here through all the levels above it.

So, unless you can prove that CO2 is physically capable of being a blanket or fence in our atmosphere you cannot convince me that you have overturned the laws of physics and chemistry and all.

Of course, even if you could prove such a thing, then you have to prove that this mechanism is capable of melting the arctic and antarctic ice we have now, and, explain why it hasn't played any such role in the forming and melting of vastly greater ice c10,000 years ago, and we do know very well how dramatic that was, and in the ebb and flow of our previous recorded ice ages as shown in the 400+ thousands of years Vostok data, even though, CO2 is claimed by AGW to be, ".. higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years." From the wiki link already posted on Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

In other words, since the AGW claim is that it played no part in the history of our dramatic ice ages, why is it doing so now, and what did?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?
It's physics.

It most certainly is not. The Third Law of Thermodynamics says nothing of the sort, as you could easily have found out for yourself.
quote:

quote:
And in this:
quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Yes, really. Shock horror.

Myrrh

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).

Nope, the word is algorithmic.

Oh for crying out loud. How can you mistake this:

quote:
Main Entry: al·go·rithm
Pronunciation: \ˈal-gə-ˌri-thəm\
Function: noun
: a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation; broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer

— al·go·rith·mic \ˌal-gə-ˈrith-mik\ adjective

— al·go·rith·mi·cal·ly \-mi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

for this:
quote:
Main Entry: log·a·rithm
Pronunciation: \ˈlȯ-gə-ˌri-thəm, ˈlä-\
Function: noun
: the exponent that indicates the power to which a base number is raised to produce a given number <the logarithm of 100 to the base 10 is 2>

— log·a·rith·mic \ˌlȯ-gə-ˈrith-mik, ˌlä-\ adjective

— log·a·rith·mi·cal·ly \-mi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Sure, they sound somewhat similar. I could imagine accidently saying one while meaning the other - as a slip of the tongue, perhaps, or when fatigued, drunk, or under sedation. (Hey, they're even anagrams!)

But no one who understood what they meant would stubbornly persist in the error, and there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about science with someone who can't tell the difference.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).
The word Myrhh was grasping for is 'logarithmic' - the radiative forcing (in watts per square meter, W/m^2) of CO2 is approximately proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. This means that the effect is actually "less than proportional" in the sense that the increase of 10 parts per million from 380 ppm to 390 ppm results in less additional forcing than the same size increase from 280 to 290 - the more CO2 there is, the less each additional amount adds to the forcing.

But the form of the log function is such that it does give equal increments in output for equal percentage changes in input. Typically this is quoted as the increase in forcing for a doubling (100% increase) - according to the IPCC report I linked to above, every doubling of CO2 concentration results in an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. So going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would cause an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2, but to get another increase of the same size we'd need to go all the way from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.

This decreasing effectiveness of CO2 with increasing concentration (which Myrhh seems to think is so fatal to the notion of AGW) is, of course, included in the climate models.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Now where to begin? Oh, I can't be bothered. Since what I've said several times about the 800 year time lag in the historical record of CO2 and temperature has been totally ignored, I'm not going to address any of the rest of the garbage just posted by Myrrh. A classic case of garbage in - garbage out. If someone can't even start with getting some very basic maths and physics right, there's not much hope that where they'll take that will be anything other than total bollocks.

If anyone else has any questions about the science they want answered, ask and I'll try. Nut, I've had enough of Myrrh.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
I think I know why even the proverbial 'patience of Alan Cresswell' has reached its end. My theory starts with two possible reasons why climate scientists talk about climate change:

Reason 1: Conspiracy
The scientists are under the control of "members of the green movement [who] as communists [...] are creating and exaggerating environmental problems in order to scare the public into allowing the government to take control of and regulate all aspects of Americans’ lives" (source):

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
... those who do know it's junk science aren't in a position to object even when it's re their own field, because those at the top have control of it.

Reason 2: Integrity
As scientists, they prefer telling the truth rather than bowing to pressure from (a) corporate lobbyists whose clients sell fossil fuels or (b) people who believe the conspiracy theory and are trying to shout down climate science.

As Myrrh said, we should make up our own minds. I prefer the integrity theory to the conspiracy theory.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I've found quite a good page which pulls together several of the problems about imagining what CO2 can do and how the climate works, which I'm posting in the hope that it'll be read as it's a good introduction to reality science.

Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

Myrrh didn't tell us that the web site that she recommended for 'reality science' (JunkScience.com) is run by Steven J. Milloy. How much can we rely on Milloy's web site? According to the author of a book on critical thinking, on The Skeptic's Dictionary:

"the Junk Science page ... some valid analyses sprinkled amongst its propaganda, but overall the page is deceptive. There's nothing wrong with having a political agenda, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being concerned that the government is spending its resources on the wrong projects, and there is nothing wrong with being critical of the work of scientists, but there is something wrong with pretending to care about science and truth, while labeling scientists who produce work contrary to your agenda as doing junk science"

How does Milloy use this term 'junk science'?

"an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health noted that "... attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of 'junk' has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation. One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled." (source)

So why has even Alan's legendary patience been sorely tested? Because it's not really about the science. It's about politics, conspiracy theories and corporate lobbyists.

[ 19. November 2009, 08:32: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
I'm left a little [Confused] by this, as well as amazed that Alan et al. have had the patience they have up until this point. Myrrh, I simply cannot understand how you say you know the explanation for why CO2 absorbs IR and O2 and N2 are transparent to it, but then go on to say that the Wikipedia entry is "not what AGM claims for CO2." (Did you mean AGW?).

To quote from wiki again,
quote:
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
This is old science. Not wacky, new, unproved science, but accepted, undergraduate textbook level science. If you say you accept this, then congratulations, you understand the greenhouse effect, and can safely ignore any fringe website that tries to tell you it works differently. But your statement that it's not how climate scientists understand it is, I'm afraid, just wrong. It's too basic to be controversial.

I'm not writing to try to slight you or your understanding. To be honest, I think it must be horribly difficult for someone without a scientific degree to get to grips with the subject of climate change, because there's so much misinformation around, a lot of it in the popular press. I'm afraid to say that the general level of science reporting in the UK is awful, and it's very easy to be misled if you don't already know that a lot of what they're saying is wrong. Then there's the internet, where anyone with an axe to grind can and does set up a website. Trying to find good information is hard, which is why I tried to give the background that I did (of course, I'm just another guy on a website, but there you go).

The thing is, you seem to be very sure that you know how AGW works, and why its wrong. However, anyone with a science background here seems to be telling you that you've actually misunderstood the underlying, basic science behind it. There are legitimate areas of uncertainty and limits to our knowledge, but the areas you are attacking just aren't one of them. Alan and the others weren't trying to defend climate scientists to much as just basic (degree level) chemistry and physics. There's no shame in not knowing degree level chemistry if you haven't got a degree in it, but being so aggressively dismissive of people who do, and are trying to explain something they are qualified in, leave me genuinely puzzled. Would you do the same to someone with a French degree, or English Literature?

As an aside, I'm sorry you took my remark about how seemingly small amounts of gas can make a big difference personally. I took a course in atmospheric chemistry, and this was one of the points that stood out for me: that my intuitive understanding of quantities could lead me to wrong conclusions. I was not trying to say you're "an ignorant nonentity," just pointing out that our intuitions about what we think is "too small" aren't always correct.

Reading back in your posts, it seems that the description of the atmosphere as a "blanket" is a real problem for you, especially as it has been used as an illustration by people explaining climate science, such as the NASA quote "trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat" that you mentioned.

Here's a very important point: that was just a simile. As with most similies, it has things which are the same (trapping heat) and things which are not (the mechanism by which heat is trapped, in this case). Trying to infer that the greenhouse effect is exactly like a blanket is going to get you in trouble, as it seems to have done. The actual scientists are just fishing for metaphors or images to describe the science to the general public, and scientists aren't always very good communicators (as I'm sure you will have realised!).

The scientists do not believe in the 'blanket.' The scientists believe the science, which you can get in places like the wiki article (I'm not trying to make you read realClimate here, just Wikipedia!). I'm sorry the 'blanket' picture is one which has proved so misleading and difficult for you, but please don't insist that that what scientists 'believe,' because I can guarantee you that's not true. If taken literally, they would all agree it makes no sense[*]!

All the best,

- Chris.

--
[*] the blankets that I know work by trapping air and thus inhibiting convection. If you're talking about a planet, stopping convection makes no sense - what's the atmosphere going to do, convect away? [Smile]
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
The latest alarming news.

quote:
The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.

snip

This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project.

snip

Their chilling and remarkable prediction throws into sharp relief the importance of next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, where the world community will come together to try to construct a new agreement to bring the warming under control.

For the past month there has been a lowering of expectations about the conference, not least because the US may not be ready to commit itself to cuts in its emissions. But yesterday President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China issued a joint communiqué after a meeting in Beijing, which reignited hopes that a serious deal might be possible after all.

snip

On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy. The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010.

In total, CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2008, yet global emissions in 1990 are the reference level set by the Kyoto Protocol, which countries are trying to fall below in terms of their own emissions.

Any thoughts on what a 'serious deal' must consist of? ISTM given this most recent most dire prediction the kid gloves are going to have to come off.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Any thoughts on what a 'serious deal' must consist of? ISTM given this most recent most dire prediction the kid gloves are going to have to come off. [/QB]
I've read bits of the Montreal Protocol (1978, "banning" CFCs), and it was absolutely riddled with get-out clauses. As far as I could see, no government had to do anything they didn't want to do at the end of the day.

I give this as an example of a treaty that worked - CFC replacements were found, production of the most harmful CFCs decreased drastically, and the concentration in the atmosphere is now slowly falling - not bad, for compounds which are so stable their lifetime in the atmosphere is almost geological.

The point being, if you want bondage and discipline in a treaty, you're always going to be disappointed. What matters is the will and ability to act: the treaty is just an outward and visible sign of an inward and political will to do something.

- Chris.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
This chap is certainly on to something:-

Global Warming as a religion
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This chap is certainly on to something:-

Global Warming as a religion

He's on something.

He writes:
"The activists now prefer to call it [AGW] “climate change”."

Whereas we have seen earlier in this thread the evidence that it was AGW deniers who started using it.

Yawn. Any science, Aumbry?
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This chap is certainly on to something:-

Global Warming as a religion

He's on something.

He writes:
"The activists now prefer to call it [AGW] “climate change”."

Whereas we have seen earlier in this thread the evidence that it was AGW deniers who started using it.

Yawn. Any science, Aumbry?

It is not really anything to do with science it is a chapter in the history of mass hysteria.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Wrong! The argument depends completely on scientific evidence. If you don't know that by now, you've learned nothing and have nothing to contribute on the subject. You can assert your opinion as Myrrh does, also with nothing useful to say.

If you could present evidence which overturns the current overwhelming body of evidence accepted by climate scientists, it's going to be pretty damn good.

You got nothing? Thought so.
.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.

There have been endless other scares of recent years and all of them have shown little sign of developing into the doomsday scenario which is always put forward. we probably are doomed but my bet is that this is not it.

I am not contending that there is no evidence for global climate change, that would be a ridiculous stance to take as there is plenty of geological and archaeological evidence of the earth's constantly changing climate. There is unfortunately a form of primitive fetishism with the current Man Made Climate Change hysteria which has all the aspects of a new age religion. A religion with its own priesthood - environmentalists and climate scientists who order the tribe to make sacrifices to the great climate deity. This is indeed a puritanical religion which sees human existence - let alone himan happyness as a taboo. Its totems are windfarms and low-energy light bulbs - things which are of little real use if the climate change is manmade.

Its real danger, and I am repeating myself here, is that it damages other environmental causes - a classic example of which is it having caused the need to have biodiesels in European fuel which in turn has caused forest destruction to make room for palm oil plantations.

Unfortunately if politicians want to delegate their responsibilities to the environmental priesthood that will be their and our loss in the long run.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.

Ambry, I don't doubt your memory, but a quick bit of Googling has only turned up articles like this which don't make any such doomsday predictions. However, that's only in the UK. If you have a particular reference in mind, I'd be grateful if you could post it, as I'm interested in the representation of scientific data in the mass media.

At the start of something like the BSE scare, not a lot is known, and that uncertainty translates to a wide error band. The upper figure for this band will look quite scary, and may attract headlines for that reason. When more is known and the worst-case estimates scale rapidly down, the scientists will probably be ignored by the mainstream media, as their figures aren't sensational enough to make a good story. The public ends up with the impression that the scientists were scaremongering, when in fact it was all media sensationalism and selective reporting.

Many thanks,

- Chris.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.

Ambry, I don't doubt your memory, but a quick bit of Googling has only turned up articles like this which don't make any such doomsday predictions. However, that's only in the UK. If you have a particular reference in mind, I'd be grateful if you could post it, as I'm interested in the representation of scientific data in the mass media.

At the start of something like the BSE scare, not a lot is known, and that uncertainty translates to a wide error band. The upper figure for this band will look quite scary, and may attract headlines for that reason. When more is known and the worst-case estimates scale rapidly down, the scientists will probably be ignored by the mainstream media, as their figures aren't sensational enough to make a good story. The public ends up with the impression that the scientists were scaremongering, when in fact it was all media sensationalism and selective reporting.

Many thanks,

- Chris.

I think you will find any number of predictions were made by experts that there would be quite likely tens of thousands of deaths. A noted one was Dr John Patterson who on Newsnight told Jeremy Paxman that we could expect up to half a million sufferers within a few years.

The result was the destruction of several million cattle at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5 billion. As far as I know there has not even been a spike in the number of CJD cases since.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.

During the BSE scandal, scientists warned us that many people could die if no counter-measures were taken. Early counter-measures protected us from the worst case scenario:

"...the models [predicting a high number of deaths] take no account of the improved enforcement of existing regulations and the introduction of new countermeasures, and so give an indication of the maximum number of lives that would have been at risk in the absence of the countermeasures introduced after 31 March 1996" (source, under the heading 'The risks of contracting vCJD...')

Some people may interpret that as a useful lesson about the value of listening to scientists and taking early action to protect ourselves from real risks. The implications for the climate science debate are obvious.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The result was the destruction of several million cattle at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5 billion. As far as I know there has not even been a spike in the number of CJD cases since.

So it worked.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
Oh come off it!

The microbiologists were claiming that several million people who had eaten beef would have already been infected with the prion so even if the countermeasures had been 100% successful there would still have been a massive increase in the disease.

There wasn't.

(By the way the latest figure for the millenium bug's cost (on those countries that took measures against it) is put at £35 billion).
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Re: CJD, what sanityman says sounds likely to me - early media hype with no later correction leading the public to believe the scientists had been wrong. Sometimes they will be proven wrong but it's MUCH more likely they were very cautious in their predictions and misquoted by numpty journalists to make it sound more exciting.

I'd also expect that when scientists are proven wrong it's some individual study or flawed new research, (or someone sponsored to publish conclusions favourable to the sponsor), not some well-established body of knowledge based on very large quantities of data from numerous experiments and studies, with many opportunities to iron out mistakes, leading to most people in the relevant field to agree on something to the extent that (AFAIK) all national science bodies, almost all university departments with a climate science research group concur, as on AGW.

Of course the real only way to counter such a widely accepted scientific opinion is to try to cast doubt on the science or claim it's all a conspiracy. This is really hard when you know nothing at all and don't trust anyone to help you learn the basics. This is the Myrrh approach of denying anything involving actual established, uncontroversial science or facts or expertise of others, while meekly accepting anything critical of real science without question or the slightest understanding of why it's complete rubbish.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I am not contending that there is no evidence for global climate change, that would be a ridiculous stance to take as there is plenty of geological and archaeological evidence of the earth's constantly changing climate.

Good. Very sensible.

quote:
There is unfortunately a form of primitive fetishism with the current Man Made Climate Change hysteria which has all the aspects of a new age religion. A religion with its own priesthood - environmentalists and climate scientists who order the tribe to make sacrifices to the great climate deity. This is indeed a puritanical religion which sees human existence - let alone himan happyness as a taboo. Its totems are windfarms and low-energy light bulbs - things which are of little real use if the climate change is manmade.
This is where you don't make any sense. As soon as you use emotive words like primitive, fetishism, hysteria, "puritanical religion" your views look far from thoughtful, as though you aren't being completely open-minded about it.
.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The microbiologists were claiming that several million people who had eaten beef would have already been infected with the prion so even if the countermeasures had been 100% successful there would still have been a massive increase in the disease.

Which part of ...

"...the models [predicting a high number of deaths] take no account of the improved enforcement of existing regulations and the introduction of new countermeasures, and so give an indication of the maximum number of lives that would have been at risk in the absence of the countermeasures introduced after 31 March 1996" (source, under the heading 'The risks of contracting vCJD...')

... do you find difficult to understand?
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I think you will find any number of predictions were made by experts that there would be quite likely tens of thousands of deaths. A noted one was Dr John Patterson who on Newsnight told Jeremy Paxman that we could expect up to half a million sufferers within a few years.

The result was the destruction of several million cattle at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5 billion. As far as I know there has not even been a spike in the number of CJD cases since.

Thanks for your response, ambry, and for the quote. Looking it up, I find a review of the book Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming by Christopher Booker and Richard North. Is this where you're getting you're figures from? The number you mentioned seems close to that given in the review. I note that the context of your quote is
quote:
... under pressure in the Newsnight studio to reveal his worst fears, one of the government’s scientific advisers, Dr John Patterson, suggested that half a million Britons could be dead of the disease by 2005
Now I don't have a transcript, but someone being pressurised into giving a worst-case figure seems to fit my scenario pretty well. Do you have any examples from a print interview that gives a little more context? I find it's very easy to parley media hyteria (which there undoubtedly was) into "any number of experts." A similar thing was responsible for the current rumours of "experts predicted a new ice age in the 70s," which is blatantly untrue. If you're going to get angry about the misinformation, get angry at the right people.

- Chris.

PS: with things like the BSE crisis and to a lesser extent the Millennium Bug, what would you have people do? Sit on their thumbs and wait and see how bad it gets? I would certainly agree that there was over-reaction and some blatant profiteering associated with the millennium bug. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a real problem, with potentially serious and far-reaching consequences. Why does it have to be either-or?
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The word Myrhh was grasping for is 'logarithmic' - the radiative forcing (in watts per square meter, W/m^2) of CO2 is approximately proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. This means that the effect is actually "less than proportional" in the sense that the increase of 10 parts per million from 380 ppm to 390 ppm results in less additional forcing than the same size increase from 280 to 290 - the more CO2 there is, the less each additional amount adds to the forcing.

But the form of the log function is such that it does give equal increments in output for equal percentage changes in input. Typically this is quoted as the increase in forcing for a doubling (100% increase) - according to the IPCC report I linked to above, every doubling of CO2 concentration results in an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. So going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would cause an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2, but to get another increase of the same size we'd need to go all the way from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.

This decreasing effectiveness of CO2 with increasing concentration (which Myrhh seems to think is so fatal to the notion of AGW) is, of course, included in the climate models.

Thanks for this Dave W.

Do you or Alan Cresswell (or anyone) know of a good description of how peoples lives would have to change to prevent further, or reverse where necessary, man made climate change?

What I see are statements at a gross level about reducing emissions and 'solutions' such as carbon sequestration and nuclear power replacing coal power electricity generation. Or else there is encouragement to do things at a household level such as installing solar power and efficient lighting, and using more fuel efficient vehicles; which seem to me to make hardly a dent in the problem.

The assumption or hope seems to be that our lifestyles will not need to change dramatically because some technical solutions will be found.

I suppose this is a tangent from the 'global government' of the OP, but we are already on a tangent.

If the hosts think this subject should be a different thread then I would be happy with that.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Do you or Alan Cresswell (or anyone) know of a good description of how peoples lives would have to change to prevent further, or reverse where necessary, man made climate change?

What I see are statements at a gross level about reducing emissions and 'solutions' such as carbon sequestration and nuclear power replacing coal power electricity generation. Or else there is encouragement to do things at a household level such as installing solar power and efficient lighting, and using more fuel efficient vehicles; which seem to me to make hardly a dent in the problem.

The assumption or hope seems to be that our lifestyles will not need to change dramatically because some technical solutions will be found.

Well, I suspect that reversing AGW, or even halting it where it stands now, is not in the cards. Even if we stop CO2 emissions almost entirely in fairly short order (which seems unlikely to me) we may struggle to keep global temperature change down to the oft-cited 2C above pre-industrial level, and a large fraction of the sea-level rise now predicted under "business as usual" scenarios is essentially unstoppable. I think climate policy proposals are mostly about trying to minimize the chances of even larger, more damaging changes. (Here's a simplified model which can give you a rough idea of what different policies might achieve in the way of CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level, based on current understanding of the climate system.)

As for how any necessary reductions would change our lifestyles, opinions run the gamut (as you've probably noticed) from those who claim even modest limits would cripple the world's economies, to those who say large changes could be achieved at little or no cost. I'm afraid I don't have a favorite trusted resource to recommend on this, Latchkey Kid, though you might find some material of interest in the reports of the 2nd and 3rd Working Groups of the IPCC.

At present, I'm leaning toward the opinion that whatever measures we adopt won't be too onerous for the average citizen, because I don't think we'll be willing to make painful sacrifices to solve a problem that a) doesn't appear in the form of an acute crisis, and b) won't show obvious signs of prompt improvement in response to our actions. In this view, our lifestyles won't be dramatically affected by our policy choices directly because we'll only attempt relatively inexpensive things. Whether those things are effective or not is a different question - if not, our lifestyles will be more drastically affected by the climate changes we fail to avoid.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

At present, I'm leaning toward the opinion that whatever measures we adopt won't be too onerous for the average citizen, because I don't think we'll be willing to make painful sacrifices to solve a problem that a) doesn't appear in the form of an acute crisis, and b) won't show obvious signs of prompt improvement in response to our actions. In this view, our lifestyles won't be dramatically affected by our policy choices directly because we'll only attempt relatively inexpensive things. Whether those things are effective or not is a different question - if not, our lifestyles will be more drastically affected by the climate changes we fail to avoid.

Thanks Again, Dave W.
I try to find alternatives to my pessimistic outlook, but it does seem as though we won't be motivated to take timely action, if it is still possible. Perhaps we can't help being like Easter Islanders on a global scale with our resources.

Paul Simon's Have a Good Time (applied globally) comes to mind:
quote:
So God bless the goods we was given
And God bless the U. S. of A.
And God bless our standard of livin'
Let's keep it that way
And we'll all have a good time


 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Wrong! The argument depends completely on scientific evidence. If you don't know that by now, you've learned nothing and have nothing to contribute on the subject.

Actually, that's going to depend entirely on which argument we're talking about. I'm not sure a discussion on whether or not there's an intention to develop a global government, or give existing national governments more power, using climate chnage as a lever to forward that aim has anything at all to do with science.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
... I find a review of the book Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

Well spotted. A review of this book (on the web site of what has been described as a 'Conservative-leaning think tank') commented that, while this "isn't exactly a bad book and it has its merits", it also has some drawbacks:

"Hanging over this book there is a sense that 'official' science is always wrong. But that's about as batty as saying that it is always right. [...]
Our authors turn their scepticism filter on and off according to who happens to be in range [...]
Towards the end of the book there is a big section on climate change. This is included presumably on the grounds that it is another giant scare. But in almost every respect climate change doesn't fit their bill or make their case. [...]
This is not a book one could pick up for a decent assessment of such matters."

[ 20. November 2009, 08:43: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

Myrrh, when challenged you changed this to...
quote:
You didn't understand crashed as in crashed data?
[Roll Eyes] That's blatantly dishonest. You didn't mean crashed data, you meant NASA (or someone else inside the conspiracy) crashed the satellite.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure a discussion on whether or not there's an intention to develop a global government, or give existing national governments more power, using climate chnage as a lever to forward that aim has anything at all to do with science.

I think there are two ways to interpret the OP's question:
  1. Is man-made climate change simply a lie, fabricated to bring in global Government?
  2. AGW is real, but are political organisations using it as a way to further their own agendas - e.g. global Government?
Science is entirely relevant to the first interpretation, and less so for the second. I think it's fair to assume the OP is suggesting #1, especially it mentioned Lord Monkton. He's currently touring the U.S. championing his "scientists are big fat hairy liars" views.

IMO the second interpretation is a more interesting question - or at least, a less frequently asked one.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Alwyn, thanks for finding that review. Without wishing to derail further into BSE etc, I did think that the criticisms of government actions made were pretty well balanced: you don't have to look further than the recent drugs furore to see the uneasy relationship between public policy and scientific advice. To blame the government's actions on "scientists" seems to be missing the mark a little. Also, the point that at the start of these scares, no-one is really sure what they're dealing with and mistakes are made is a good one.

One point on which I do agree with Booker and North is that there seems to be a positive-feedback mechanism with pressure groups and newspapers pushing their agendas, and the government trying to be seen to be responding to these pressures.

Ironically, these same mechanisms that they point out are at work in the anti-global warming lobby. Far from being the voice of reason, they're an (unwitting?) part of the campaign of media manipulation which result in the general public being far less sure about global warming than any of the science community.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure a discussion on whether or not there's an intention to develop a global government, or give existing national governments more power, using climate chnage as a lever to forward that aim has anything at all to do with science.

I think there are two ways to interpret the OP's question:
  1. Is man-made climate change simply a lie, fabricated to bring in global Government?
  2. AGW is real, but are political organisations using it as a way to further their own agendas - e.g. global Government?
Science is entirely relevant to the first interpretation, and less so for the second. I think it's fair to assume the OP is suggesting #1, especially it mentioned Lord Monkton. He's currently touring the U.S. championing his "scientists are big fat hairy liars" views.

IMO the second interpretation is a more interesting question - or at least, a less frequently asked one.

You're probably right that there is a voice expressing position #1, and in that case the science is relevant.

I'd tend towards a much more nuanced categorisation of views, however. There are at least two dimensions on the science and response positions.

Along one axis we could have a value expressing how much someone agrees with the "scientific consensus" - ranging from "science is totally wrong, there is no climate change/climate change is entirely natural" to "science has categorically proved beyond doubt that human activity has screwed with the climate" (with probably most people, certainly most scientist, somewhere in the middle towards the acceptance end but knowing there are parts of the scientific picture which are unclear or potentially wrong).

Another axis could relate to opinions about what we should be doing. This could range from "stop burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees, immediately and completely" to "there's no need to do anything". My guess would be that most people who score highly on the acceptance of the science would also advocate significant action. There would be some who would say human activity is affecting the climate, but that the consequences of that are not sufficient to warrant any action. There would be others who would advocate reduced consumption of fossil fuels even though they reject the scientific consensus (there are reasons other than greenhouse gases to conserve fossil fuels).

The question then becomes, if we take a third axis for attitudes towards government is there any correlation between 'climate science scepticism', 'non-action to mitigate climate change (if accepted it's happening)' and 'opposition to big government/internationalism'?
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
sanityman - I agree.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... is there any correlation between 'climate science scepticism', 'non-action to mitigate climate change (if accepted it's happening)' and 'opposition to big government/internationalism'?

Maybe - and, if so, will action on climate change be delayed by a 'culture war'? I agree with the concerns of Australian economist Dr Brett Parris who wrote:

"For the poor and for today’s children who will inherit our legacy, these are not abstract debates. They are not opportunities for political point scoring, or for fighting left-right culture wars. The science of climate change matters and it deserves to be taken seriously.

When the British economist John Maynard Keynes was derided for changing his position on economic policy he replied: “When the facts change, I change my position. What do you do, sir?” Keynes’ response reflects the open-minded attitude of a genuine inquirer, a true skeptic, willing to change his mind when new information emerges, or when the weight of evidence, the balance of probabilities and the risks and consequences of being wrong become overwhelming.

Not everyone approaches the issue of climate change in this open-minded way. Some come to the science through the lenses of political ideologies or economic interests, maintaining positions dogmatically in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and endlessly recycling views that have been repeatedly debunked by scientists. We have seen this approach before with those who continue to deny the moon landings, the link between HIV and AIDS and the link between smoking and cancer..."

[ 20. November 2009, 11:35: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
... I find a review of the book Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

Well spotted. A review of this book (on the web site of what has been described as a 'Conservative-leaning think tank') commented that, while this "isn't exactly a bad book and it has its merits", it also has some drawbacks:

"Hanging over this book there is a sense that 'official' science is always wrong. But that's about as batty as saying that it is always right. [...]
Our authors turn their scepticism filter on and off according to who happens to be in range [...]
Towards the end of the book there is a big section on climate change. This is included presumably on the grounds that it is another giant scare. But in almost every respect climate change doesn't fit their bill or make their case. [...]
This is not a book one could pick up for a decent assessment of such matters."

Booker is, after all, considered by quite a lot of us to be a pretty well-known long-term paranoid nutter.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]
The question then becomes, if we take a third axis for attitudes towards government is there any correlation between 'climate science scepticism', 'non-action to mitigate climate change (if accepted it's happening)' and 'opposition to big government/internationalism'?

Alan - I was almost tempted to post a new thread on this subject as it seems to me that the denialism of those who seek to disparage the 'scientific consensus' is based in ideology.

As you have probably noticed often the argument doesn't seem to be about science at all. You can correct their scientific misunderstanding and it still doesn’t mean that they change their position. There are significant numbers of people on forums who seem to think that they are pointing out things that the 'experts' (almost always used in a derogatory way) haven't thought of or haven't noticed.

I often read on forums that it is all a conspiracy to raise taxes or bring in global government. From my experience the vast majority of the 'deniers' are libertarians and the issues for them is control even more than it is money and taxes. They see government as (always?) impinging massively on their personal freedom - it often seems to give a focus for their frustrations. How many Brits of this ilk believe that over 70% of laws are now made in Brussels and yet ask them for examples of how this impinges on their everyday life and they are either speechless or they come up with urban myths.

They seem to instinctively believe - and here I think they are right - that to tackle this issue will mean more co-operation at an international level and that will mean more politics and more regulation.

As they believe in small government they cannot countenance an issue which actually would undermine their ideology: one which would need government action to deal with it. Indeed to them preventative health care initiatives are suspect, attempts to protect fishing stocks will always prove to be counterproductive or unnecessary. Etc etc

In the end the scientific community have to persuade a public many of whom cannot see how it is in their self-interest to take GW seriously and a bunch of ideologues who have the inevitable attendant blindness
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yes, I tend to agree that the driving force for the correlation between 'climate change sceptics' and 'small government idealists' is from political ideology to science. I don't think that's true in all cases, but it seems very difficult to start with a disagreement with the scientific conclusions and work to a particular political ideology ... you could logically argue for big government to keep these pesky scientists in their place as easily as argue against big government imposing faulty science on everyone.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I tend to agree that the driving force for the correlation between 'climate change sceptics' and 'small government idealists' is from political ideology to science. I don't think that's true in all cases, but it seems very difficult to start with a disagreement with the scientific conclusions and work to a particular political ideology ... you could logically argue for big government to keep these pesky scientists in their place as easily as argue against big government imposing faulty science on everyone.

Tiptoeing around the dead horse, this seems to me to be exactly the same attitude towards science that YECs exhibit. It frequently presents as complaints about the perversion of science in the service of atheistic materialism - but in reality, those arguing don't give a damn about good science: they are against it purely because their [th/id]eology is being challenged.

I do wonder whether the opponents of AGW couldn't use the same argument, though: "you uncritically accept the consensus because you are a pro-European, Communist, New World Order-supporting, cheese-eating pinko," or some such. The motives games tends to be a level playing field.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Chris - that is exactly what many do claim. It seems to me that whilst there are some that fit your desciption, a great many who are relatively hard to pidgeon hole politically, do accept the scientific consensus providing they are scientifically literate.

Being someone who some would say fits that description and who is instinctively sypmathetic to organic farming as probably a force for good - I still accept that there was a substantial study recently that cast doubt over many of the positive claims made for organic farming. Put simply my ideology isn't impermeable to good science.

[ 20. November 2009, 16:25: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Chris - that is exactly what many do claim. It seems to me that whilst there are some that fit your desciption, a great many who are relatively hard to pidgeon hole politically, do accept the scientific consensus providing they are scientifically literate.

Being someone who some would say fits that description and who is instinctively sypmathetic to organic farming as probably a force for good - I still accept that there was a substantial study recently that cast doubt over many of the positive claims made for organic farming. Put simply my ideology isn't impermeable to good science.

Luigi, that was of course a self-description[1] [Razz] (I'm sympathetic with you on the organic farming thing, btw). From the study I keep on quoting, it seems that scientific literacy is by far the best predictor of agreement with AGW. On the other side, I feel Alan is right: the common ground is a political viewpoint. I hope this moves it out of the realms of pure Bulversim!

- Chris.

--
[1]: mmm, cheese...

[ 20. November 2009, 16:42: Message edited by: sanityman ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
this seems to me to be exactly the same attitude towards science that YECs exhibit.

I recall a thread discussing that exact parallel a year or so back.
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
I found this amusing...
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
this seems to me to be exactly the same attitude towards science that YECs exhibit.

I recall a thread discussing that exact parallel a year or so back.
[Hot and Hormonal] Sorry, was probably trying to stay out of it at that point! It's interesting that those two subjects have the ability to get me annoyed more than any others that spring to mind - and hence arguing and thinking emotionally rather than rationally. I think it's because of the "reckless disregard for truth" angle, as thinking about Max Clifford or Karl Rove tends to provoke the same reaction. Or for that matter, someone unthinkingly repeating urban legends (especially if they have a dodgy subtext).

- Chris.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
The big climate change news story right now is that servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit have been hacked, and thousands of private emails between the scientists have been leaked.

This is causing great glee for the sceptics, and no small embarrassment to the scientists involved. The main talking points seem to be:
  1. When discussing how to present temperature reconstructions, one scientist (Phil Jones) said “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
  2. One scientist suggests to another that they delete some email before responding to a Freedom of Information request.
  3. Some of the researchers are pretty scathing (and even unpleasant) about the sceptics.
Real Climate responds here. They admit it doesn't look great, but it's an edited selection of thousands of emails (stretching back to 1996) and...
quote:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.
I doubt this will make much difference either way to people with strong opinions on climate change, but it could influence some people who are undecided. We'll be hearing about it for a long time.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I read that too. My reaction was that I was staggered that they managed to come up with so little.

If I watched 1000s of hours of French football I am sure I could come to the conclusion that all french footballers cheat all the time. And that they have never deservedly won anything.

But it would be wrong.

Luigi
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
I don't find the content of the emails (as summarised in the linked article) surprising. If I was a scientist, I would likely be tempted to be scathing of some of the more extreme and less reality-based sceptics. Scientists, and indeed academics in general, can sometimes present data in such a way that it more clearly illustrates the science they think is true, especially when there are outside spoilers who will seize on any supposed ambiguities or contrary results. Making private emails public under FoI could be misguided, as it causes real frank discussion to move from private written correspondence to informal and unminuted meetings and conversations.*

The problems shown in these emails seem to be fairly small. But if they were shown to be serious and endemic then I'm not sure how much that would help the denialists' case; if anything, it would show that even ill informed and dishonest criticism, mostly from outside academia, can have a negative impact on the thinking and conduct of academic scientists. In an open society which values free speech and free enquiry as well as accurate scientific knowledge this could pose something of a dilemma.

Hopefully it would motivate the genuine sceptics to be honest in their scepticism, not to engage in personal attacks, to realise that uncertainty regarding climate change likely necessitates more funds for research, not less, and to examine their own motives and honesty, and think about what would happen if their own private correspondence was made public. I'm not especially hopeful.

*Everything I know about organisational politics I learnt from Yes, Minister. [Big Grin]

[ 21. November 2009, 11:35: Message edited by: Zwingli ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Making private emails public under FoI could be misguided, as it causes real frank discussion to move from private written correspondence to informal and unminuted meetings and conversations.*

Agreed. Someone could suggest deleting an email for various reasons, including:
  1. To conceal important information.
  2. Because the email wasn't important, your research field has become a political football, it'd be misleading to take your remarks out of context, and you're sick of being selectively quoted.
Because I'm not a sceptic, I tend to gravitate towards #2 in this case. Still, if I'd heard about (say) a tobacco company's scientists suggesting the same I'd be sure it was because of #1. This reflects my preconceptions. I can quite see why sceptics are offended and/or excited.
quote:
The problems shown in these emails seem to be fairly small.
We don't know how many emails were nicked. There might have been hundreds of thousands - 60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment. The hackers also seem to have edited them to an extent - perhaps not deceptively, but there's no personal information or general chit-chat in them. It's not just a random chunk of email data.
quote:
if anything, it would show that even ill informed and dishonest criticism, mostly from outside academia, can have a negative impact on the thinking and conduct of academic scientists.
Very true. As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models. In my (admittedly superficial) opinion, some of the sceptic criticisms about a lack of transparency are partially valid.

Still, I can also see why the scientists are cautious. Everything they say gets pored over to find the worst possible interpretation, and even clear data gets blatantly misrepresented.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Still, I can also see why the scientists are cautious. Everything they say gets pored over to find the worst possible interpretation, and even clear data gets blatantly misrepresented.

This.

Leaving aside the violation of privacy etc (if there was some valid whistle-blowing justification, I wouldn't complain), how many organisations would emerge from hostile parties picking over their inner workings unblemished? (answer - look at the house of commons recently! I can pretty much guarantee worse abuses of expense accounts happen at every major company in the country).

If you data-mine that amount of data, seeking to interpret any unguarded language in the worst possible light, you will find something.
quote:
60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment.
You message text was around 1.9k; a 60Mb archive could contain over 32,000 such plaintext messages. Having said that, you're right: this is still on the low side for a complete archive.

There's a quote which bears repeating here:
quote:
If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him

- Cardinal Richelieu

- Chris.

[ 21. November 2009, 13:04: Message edited by: sanityman ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models.

Actually, scientists can be a bit defensive about their research - it's not just climate scientists. Part of that's just human nature, of course - I suspect that film makers are equally defensive of their product when they read some outrageous review from a critic who seems to have not even sat down to watch it.

But, more importantly, scientists make their living from their intellectual property. Especially in the funding climate that's been developing over the last few decades. If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run, they're going to want to retain rights to use it so that they can earn the service income from running it for other people and the future research projects to further refine that code. Individual researchers may be willing to release that sort of property, but if they're part of a university or other large organisation then their business administration people would have a total fit at the idea.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
Yesterday I heard a radio program on Climate change and the psyche about the psychology and the mythologies behind our various reactions to climate change. Note: This is not about any myths of climate change.

One of the interviewees has written a book Why We Disagree About Climate Change which I now intend to read. As I can't find any reference to this book in this forum I am posting the link for others who may be interested. This link is not to the book itself, but to Mike Hulme's page of reviews of his book, including at least one criticising it.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run

Steve McIntyre observes that in his field, mineral exploration, professionals are obliged to show duty of care when prospecting. They need to produce a publicly accessible package which includes all relevant data, plus proprietary code (documented), maps, and anything else relevant. This is expensive and a hassle, but it ensures transparency for investors and leaves an audit trail.

McIntyre suggests that climate scientists perhaps ought to do the same. I don't know enough about how science works to know whether he's right or not, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. The money spent developing a climate model or drilling an ice core is trivial compared to the investment required in reducing CO2.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment.

It wouldn't be a lot for 13 days. (I get paid for running a university email system among other things)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment.

It wouldn't be a lot for 13 days. (I get paid for running a university email system among other things)
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
The climate change emails don't seem to be getting much air time on the ship. (Naughty Andrew Bolt has a round up here.)
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
This is not an uncommon phenomenon - the plot of William Boyd's excellent novel - Brazzaville Beach - includes a scientist who cannot accept any view that does not comply with his already established view. Whether or not the climate scientists are right or not the evidence is that their minds (certainly in East Anglia) have become closed and a certain amount of paranoia has come into play (especially with regard to their wanting to have the editor of a scientific journal that publishes both sides of the argument sacked).
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(Naughty Andrew Bolt has a round up here.)

quote:
We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.
Skeptics: 1
ACC Believers: < 1
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models.

Actually, scientists can be a bit defensive about their research - it's not just climate scientists. Part of that's just human nature, of course - I suspect that film makers are equally defensive of their product when they read some outrageous review from a critic who seems to have not even sat down to watch it.

But, more importantly, scientists make their living from their intellectual property. Especially in the funding climate that's been developing over the last few decades. If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run, they're going to want to retain rights to use it so that they can earn the service income from running it for other people and the future research projects to further refine that code. Individual researchers may be willing to release that sort of property, but if they're part of a university or other large organisation then their business administration people would have a total fit at the idea.

Fair enough but they can then hardly claim to be disinterested.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
The climate change emails don't seem to be getting much air time on the ship. (Naughty Andrew Bolt has a round up here.)

Surely you are not surprised? Lot's of folks have already digested and passed the hook, line, and sinker of ACC.

It really hurts to have to pull all that tackle back through!
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
There are various shades of climate sceptic view, including:
For me, one of the interesting things about this theft is how utterly it demolishes the first two sceptic positions. In private conversation amongst themselves, the leading scientists consistently express concern at their findings and anger at people who (in their view) distort their results.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models.

Actually, scientists can be a bit defensive about their research - it's not just climate scientists. Part of that's just human nature, of course - I suspect that film makers are equally defensive of their product when they read some outrageous review from a critic who seems to have not even sat down to watch it.

But, more importantly, scientists make their living from their intellectual property. Especially in the funding climate that's been developing over the last few decades. If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run, they're going to want to retain rights to use it so that they can earn the service income from running it for other people and the future research projects to further refine that code. Individual researchers may be willing to release that sort of property, but if they're part of a university or other large organisation then their business administration people would have a total fit at the idea.

Fair enough but they can then hardly claim to be disinterested.
Why should they be disinterested, much less claim to be? When you're talking about professional career development, and even potentially future employment, then that usually automatically makes one interested. The days when scientists were independantly wealthy individuals who pursued scientific interests in their spare time are long since past. Today, just like the majority of people, scientists are paid for the work they do - we're often in the privilaged position of doing a job we enjoy and are interested in, but at the end of the day the mortgage needs to be paid and that doesn't happen by giving away for free means of getting money into the lab.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models.

Actually, scientists can be a bit defensive about their research - it's not just climate scientists. Part of that's just human nature, of course - I suspect that film makers are equally defensive of their product when they read some outrageous review from a critic who seems to have not even sat down to watch it.

But, more importantly, scientists make their living from their intellectual property. Especially in the funding climate that's been developing over the last few decades. If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run, they're going to want to retain rights to use it so that they can earn the service income from running it for other people and the future research projects to further refine that code. Individual researchers may be willing to release that sort of property, but if they're part of a university or other large organisation then their business administration people would have a total fit at the idea.

Fair enough but they can then hardly claim to be disinterested.
Why should they be disinterested, much less claim to be? When you're talking about professional career development, and even potentially future employment, then that usually automatically makes one interested. The days when scientists were independantly wealthy individuals who pursued scientific interests in their spare time are long since past. Today, just like the majority of people, scientists are paid for the work they do - we're often in the privilaged position of doing a job we enjoy and are interested in, but at the end of the day the mortgage needs to be paid and that doesn't happen by giving away for free means of getting money into the lab.
Because if the Universities are run as commercial concerns and their research is seen as work in progress they start to have a vested interest in keeping to the scientific concensus into which they may well have invested heavily.

However at the same time they cannot expect the general public to see such work as entirely unbiased. The "politics" of the UEA research shows that once the position which suits the scientific zeitgeist has been established it is not for scientists to test it but instead the efforts are to disprove the work of those who are seen as opposed - and this can mean dirty tricks as much as experimental method. There appears to have been some sort of blanket ban on drawing attention to anything that didn't fit the results expected by the model. It is a sort of group psychosis.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, that's science for you. The vast majority of the work done is testing things around the edges of established theories, pushing the boundaries of what is known (with a reasonable level of certainty), and seeing if people who think they've seen a flaw have a point. While that work continues to make sense within the framework of the established understanding there's no point trying to radically change that understanding.

At the moment science has what appears to be a pretty good understanding of the climate, even if the precise application of that understanding is impossible because of the sheer complexity of the system. Scientists can productively pursue research that improves data collection and modelling within that theory, and pushes the edges to see where it's weakest and more work is needed.

There isn't another even vaguely plausible theory out there, there's simply no other framework within which research can be conducted that would make any sense at all. There's no conjecture that would allow CO2 to be anything other than a greenhouse gas. No radically different model of ocean and atmospheric circulation that would reproduce even an approximation of the observations current models predict.

When doing anything in life, it's almost never constructive to have something that sort of works but isn't perfect and throw it all away to start again from scratch. You start with what you have that works, and tinker with it to get it working better. And, although there are bits of climate science that don't work perfectly, by and large climate science works pretty well.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Because if the Universities are run as commercial concerns and their research is seen as work in progress they start to have a vested interest in keeping to the scientific concensus into which they may well have invested heavily.

Yes, they do have an interest - Alan said so too. It doesn't mean that what they discover about the climate and what's causing the changes is untrue.

I see this like a team of lawyers discussing how best to defend a client in court; they may decide privately which bits of evidence give a less helpful impression to the court, even if they're genuinely convinced their client is completely innocent. An illicit recording edited by the other side might be made to sound like they were twisting the truth and lying to get the guilty person freed.

Everything the scientists publish has to bear the scrutiny of those qualified to understand the details and offer comment or criticism. The opinions of others may be entertaining but are not relevant. Private emails weren't intended to pass public (or sceptic) scrutiny so they're only really relevant if they demonstrate deception or dishonesty on their part in what they publish; AFIAK, they don't.

I don't see how uncovering private discussions of those involved is anything more than mildly embarrassing, except to those who don't care about the science but are just looking for any excuse to smear the scientists or muddy the waters. Maybe they hope that those with little understanding of the subject matter but who prefer to read misleading websites than try to understand the actual subject will find it in some way convincing. It'll hardly cause anyone to change sides and just makes the scientists look human and frustrated, rather a bunch of paid conspirators.
.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Clint Boggis:

I see this like a team of lawyers discussing how best to defend a client in court; they may decide privately which bits of evidence give a less helpful impression to the court, even if they're genuinely convinced their client is completely innocent.

Aumbry's reply:-

Oh dear - if that is the nature of the science - that the data is used to give the helpful impression to back up the theory it doesn't sound very vigorous to me.

You can be insouciant about the UEA e-mails but even George Monbiot sees this as a severe embarrassment and has called for the director of the unit to quit.

[ 24. November 2009, 15:39: Message edited by: aumbry ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
You can be insouciant about the UEA e-mails but even George Monbiot sees this as a severe embarrassment and has called for the director of the unit to quit.

I often like Monbiot, but he's a bit of a drama queen sometimes. You're probably quite right that this whole business is going to do a lot of damage to AGW though.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
There appears to have been some sort of blanket ban on drawing attention to anything that didn't fit the results expected by the model. It is a sort of group psychosis.

I think that's over-stating it. The scientists reacted strongly against Soon's 2003 paper because they thought it was very bad science. This article suggests that biologists would do exactly the same against a bad paper supporting Intelligent Design. Other scientists - e.g. Lindzen - have produced papers critical of AGW, and these were treated much more seriously.

IMO Zwingli has got it spot on:
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
if anything, it would show that even ill informed and dishonest criticism, mostly from outside academia, can have a negative impact on the thinking and conduct of academic scientists.


 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Aumbry, the discussions between the scientists weren't intended for public scrutiny. When such discussions are made public it may not portray those involved in the best light. It doesn't prove they were deliberately being deceptive, but it doesn't help either. It shows them as people frustrated that their work and conclusions are frequently misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented.

I think you're right - my legal parallel probably doesn't really help as scientists should present the all evidence they collect, even if they can't explain every little thing. In court, maybe their equivalent would be the expert witnesses.
.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Aumbry, the discussions between the scientists weren't intended for public scrutiny. When such discussions are made public it may not portray those involved in the best light. It doesn't prove they were deliberately being deceptive, but it doesn't help either. It shows them as people frustrated that their work and conclusions are frequently misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented.

I think you're right - my legal parallel probably doesn't really help as scientists should present the all evidence they collect, even if they can't explain every little thing. In court, maybe their equivalent would be the expert witnesses.
.

Yes and even expert witnesses can be challenged by the defence or the prosecution.

The Court does not make the decision first and then chooses the expert witness to back the decision up.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Alan - whilst you know a great deal more about the scientific community and how it operates, it seems likely to me that there is another counterveiling force within the science community that pushes them in the opposite direction to consensus.

Of course when a climate scientist is investigating a hypothesis, they are unlikely to question the most basic understandings of how CO2 functions and its effects. However, I would guess that the vast majority of scientists would become enormously excited if they started to uncover a large number of results that could be uncovering a new phenomenon - results that consistently went in a slightly different direction to the one expected. (I realise a great deal of checking of equipment for any mafunctions etc would initially happen.) After all these results could highlight a parallel phenomenon that could turn out to be significant.

It seems to me that slight deviations from the expected can over time become the foundation stones for a new understanding - a new consensus.

As I understand it any consensus takes a great deal of time to overturn but it must be the dream of many scientists not to just find out the same as everyone else has already found out but to find something new, something never seen before. Finding something significantly new may happen rarely but aren't scientists in their jobs to find new phenomena rather than actually wanting to do research which merely shows they have nothing new to add.

My point is that the competitive instincts of the scientists I know is pretty strong and pushes them in the opposite direction to defference to the current ways of thinking.

Luigi
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Luigi, you are entirely correct. The vast majority of us don't have the opportunity to do more than push the boundaries of knowledge, but we all dream of finding the genuinely new (for a start it'll give us far more career security than just doing the same as everyone else!). When such new discoveries are made they create a flurry of work; verification of the work, examination of alternative explanations within the existing framework as well as outwith it, lots of grant applications to explore it further and lots of publications in the journals.

The nature of the genuinely new discovery is that no one can predict if it'll happen in any given field, let alone what that would be. Even though there's no hint I can see of any such discovery in climate science in the near future, it can't be ruled out.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
It shows them as people frustrated that their work and conclusions are frequently misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented.

And, it's hardly unreasonable for people who have had their work misunderstood to discuss how they can present it in the future to try and avoid misunderstanding. And, if they feel that some people have deliberately misrepresented their work that would be more important, if they make their presentation clearer then the deliberate misrepresentation should hopefully be obvious.

It is, of course, entirely normal for scientists to discuss their work. Even more so when preparing a paper, the authors will edit and comment on drafts with the intention of making the paper clear and concise. That will almost always mean playing some 'tricks' with the data - will the plot be clearer on a log or linear scale? with a smoothing function and if so what? what form of average value to present for the data?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Oh come off it, Alan. The UEA emails show a bunch of scientists trying to manipulate the peer review process, conceal data (which wasn't theirs in the first place) in the face of Freedom of information requests, and behaving like a cult of true believers rather than enquirers. I'm no sceptic, in that I trust the consensus that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it demonstrably warms the climate, but I do want a much more mature and open debate than the one that's taking place currently.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Oh come off it, Alan. The UEA emails show a bunch of scientists trying to manipulate the peer review process, conceal data (which wasn't theirs in the first place) in the face of Freedom of information requests, and behaving like a cult of true believers rather than enquirers. I'm no sceptic, in that I trust the consensus that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it demonstrably warms the climate, but I do want a much more mature and open debate than the one that's taking place currently.

When you write that you're no sceptic, do you mean that you trust the consensus that mankind's adding to the planet's Co2 and that we need to do something about it soon, if it isn't too late already?

There are other independent temperature data sets and the oceans are warming, expanding and becoming more acidic, habitats are changing, glaciers retreating and ice shelves reducing.
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has an interesting view on the emails, and as he notes, Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias has a similar opinion. I don't know enough to have a developed opinion on the explanations they give, but to the extent that I do, I find myself in agreement.

With respect to the opening post of this thread, one thing the extracts of the emails I have seen definitely don't show is any evidence of a global government conspiracy. There is no evidence either that the scientists are motivated by a desire to bring about such an organisation, or that a global government precursor or those hoping to establish one are manipulating scientists behind the scenes.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
When you write that you're no sceptic, do you mean that you trust the consensus that mankind's adding to the planet's Co2 and that we need to do something about it soon, if it isn't too late already?

Well, it's clear that mankind is adding to Co2. But I think there's legitimate debate about the models and the policy. I'm pleased that expectations are being reduced for Copenhagen. The important thing is that whatever the state of play in the scientific debate the public have to be convinced about both the science and the policy because they are being asked to make radical changes and sacrifices. The signs are that politicians and scientists have not carried the public with them yet.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Spawn - I genuinely don't know enough to make the sorts of assertions you feel you can make. A number of the issues raised appear to have little to do with the science. However there are at least a couple of questions I would like some clarity on in the long run.

However, I know that at times I use, for example, irony or write things with my tongue firmly in my cheek. Those who know me well will easily spot these occasions. So my emails could suggest that I completely contradict myself at times when I am not. Equally some of my emails follow up phone calls and would only make sense in the light of knowledge of the phone call. This is why I am reserving judgement for the moment about what the emails show about the integrity of the scientists involved.

Luigi
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
Yes, there's clearly no evidence for an Orwellian Club of Rome style take-over. However they do reveal Al Gore's allegedly overwhelming and water-tight consensus on global warming was a beat up. They also more interestingly show that 'scientists' can be just as subjective and duplicitous as the rest of us.

Hopefully the outing of these emails means we can all get on with being good stewards of the environment without a massive, corruptible carbon trading scheme being forced on us.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
My word Luke - you are easily persuaded. A few emails that have not been contextualised prove that AGW is a myth eh?
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
I've always believed the climate is changing but since watching An Inconvenient Truth I've realised that man-made global warming is a over-heated. Since reading The Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge, I've also discovered we don't need a large scale carbon trading scheme to look after the environment. The emails were really the icing on the cake.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
When you write that you're no sceptic, do you mean that you trust the consensus that mankind's adding to the planet's Co2 and that we need to do something about it soon, if it isn't too late already?

Well, it's clear that mankind is adding to Co2. But I think there's legitimate debate about the models and the policy. I'm pleased that expectations are being reduced for Copenhagen. The important thing is that whatever the state of play in the scientific debate the public have to be convinced about both the science and the policy because they are being asked to make radical changes and sacrifices. The signs are that politicians and scientists have not carried the public with them yet.
Thanks. I agree that the public have not been carried, thanks in the main, I would suggest, to the efforts of blog writers who have attempted to give the impression that the scientists are wrong.

This is what the Uni of E Anglia had to say yesterday about the matter
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Luke - basing your view of Global Warming on one film makes it sound as if you don't take science very seriously
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Zwingli, thanks for those links. I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't read the entirety of that email archive. (1) It feels pretty intrusive to comb through someone's private email against their wishes, and (2) it's likely be really boring.

I suspect I'm not alone in this.

The "debate" is(/has) therefore going the become dominated by shouty voices in the blogosphere picking quotes up and exaggerating what they mean. I've already seen references to "falsifying data" and "subverting the scientific process" in the Marginal Revolution comments. Taking clearly rhetorical comments such as "I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" at face value is ridiculous - the author doesn't have the power to do this, and they and their readers would have known this. Parlaying this into "subverting the scientific process" would be a joke if people weren't taking it so seriously. Talking about a "trick" does not mean falsehood in the context used, and that's a very common usage.

Swiftboating as a means of political discourse is sickening. some of the loudest voices don't seem to care about the truth: what matters is what they can make stick, and they know it.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I should probably start by admitting I've only read snippets of the emails reproduced in the paper. I've too many of my own emails to keep up on without eavesdropping on the personal correspondence of other people.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Oh come off it, Alan. The UEA emails show a bunch of scientists trying to manipulate the peer review process

OK, from what I've read there were some exchanges relating to a 'troublesome editor'. Well, whoop-dee-doo, haven't we all had words to say about an editor and/or referee of a journal. I doubt there's any scientist with more than 10years experience of the peer reviewed journal publication process who hasn't found themselves with a paper rejected and mouthing off about the editor (especially if the editor allows less good papers to be published). Admittedly, in my case it was with colleagues I was actually in the same room with so there's no electronic record of it - well, apart from the letter to the editor expressing my disappointment and lodging my objection the to referees comments.

And, note that some of those comments were relating to work that had clearly been published somewhere. Peer-review is much more than simply whether or not a paper appears in a given journal. It also includes the response to the paper from the scientific community - in fact, that's probably a far bigger part of the process than the 2 or 3 referees and editors who decide whether to publish it in their journal in the first place. Important and valuable work published outwith the peer-reviewed journal system will be recognised as such, poor work published in a peer-reviewed journal will be ignored. What I see in the bits of emails I've seen quoted is people engaged in the peer-review process rather than people seeking to undermine it.

quote:
conceal data (which wasn't theirs in the first place) in the face of Freedom of information requests
What I've seen is suggestions about deleting email correspondence, rather than actual scientific data.

quote:
I do want a much more mature and open debate than the one that's taking place currently.
As do I. But, that's not helped by criminals stealing personal communication and releasing selected excerpts of that to the public.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Sorry for the double - edit window expired. A couple of quotes from the CRU Response which Mr Clingford posted:
quote:
The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.
quote:
One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.
This underlines my point about swiftboating. This is an attempt to muddy the waters at a crucial time: a distraction, not part of any reasonable debate.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Of course the real only way to counter such a widely accepted scientific opinion is to try to cast doubt on the science or claim it's all a conspiracy. This is really hard when you know nothing at all and don't trust anyone to help you learn the basics. This is the Myrrh approach of denying anything involving actual established, uncontroversial science or facts or expertise of others, while meekly accepting anything critical of real science without question or the slightest understanding of why it's complete rubbish.

IRL that would be libel. I've explained my method. Look at both sides of the argument.

Your claim is that AGW is widely accepted scientific opinion. For you and other AGW's to continually ignore and disparage those saying it doesn't conform to scientific method isn't objective of you. What it shows is you AGW's have put your fingers in your ears and la la la the unproven propaganda to drown out giving this any actual thought.

It doesn't bother you that no real science from all geological and climate and historical research has never shown the Hockey Stick.

It doesn't bother you that the Hockey Stick and apologies for it, Briff, have been shown to be actually manipulated data.

It doesn't bother you that these data have only been peer reviewed among the coterie producing it and were never actually rigorously analysed by the IPCC.

It doesn't bother you that persistent stonewalling for independent checking is the preferred method protecting the hypothesis, data withheld and destroyed so that it couldn't be checked.

None of this bothers you because you either aren't scientists or haven't a clue what science is.

Instead you produce a litany of excuses for every example of scientific malpractice to perpetuate this scientific fraud.

You have no credibility.

That is an objective assessment from one who has looked at both sides of the argument.

It's fake turtles all the way down, to the very beginning of Revelle to the continuing manipulation. Only conmen and the deluded use these methods, that's a well known proven fact.

Do yourselves a favour, read the arguments against before posting more manmade global drivel.

One may call oneself a scientist and one may be lauded as a scientist by others, but if one can't fathom that if it smells like shit it is shit unless it's been engineered to smell like something else, one in the wrong profession.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
I agree with aumbry that, politically, this will have a big impact. I also agree with Zwingli and sanityman, among anothers. Yeah, it's a swiftboating and 'culture warfare as usual'...

...Ruth Limbaugh: "I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus."

Notice the "I've instinctively known..." - this is truthiness, not truth.

The implications are huge. If I discover an unguarded comment in a letter by a scientist who researched gravity, maybe I will be able to fly [Big Grin]
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I agree with aumbry that, politically, this will have a big impact. I also agree with Zwingli and sanityman, among anothers. Yeah, it's a swiftboating and 'culture warfare as usual'...

...Ruth Limbaugh: "I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus."

Notice the "I've instinctively known..." - this is truthiness, not truth.

The implications are huge. If I discover an unguarded comment in a letter by a scientist who researched gravity, maybe I will be able to fly [Big Grin]

He is Rush not Ruth. He's a chap by the way.

One statement in that article which is dubious is "it is not an environmental movement anymore... smart business and investors agree".

Well to the extent that smart investors are making decisions to back low carbon-emission projects this is because they come with an enormous government subsidy. No sensible investor would build a wind farm on the basis of the actual real return it would make on capital without the government subsidies. Similarly the bogus Eco-towns initiative backed by Gordon Brown would see little or no business interest without subsidy. Ditto the dash to build several new nuclear power stations - a project that not so long ago the environmental movement was telling us could destroy the planet with a "China-syndrome".
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Of course the real only way to counter such a widely accepted scientific opinion is to try to cast doubt on the science or claim it's all a conspiracy. This is really hard when you know nothing at all and don't trust anyone to help you learn the basics. This is the Myrrh approach of denying anything involving actual established, uncontroversial science or facts or expertise of others, while meekly accepting anything critical of real science without question or the slightest understanding of why it's complete rubbish.

IRL that would be libel. I've explained my method. Look at both sides of the argument.
And I've said how your method appears to me. You may truly believe you're being fair and logical but it doesn't mean you're right and it's not how I see it. What happens now?

quote:
Your claim is that AGW is widely accepted scientific opinion. For you and other AGW's to continually ignore and disparage those saying it doesn't conform to scientific method isn't objective of you. What it shows is you AGW's have put your fingers in your ears and la la la the unproven propaganda to drown out giving this any actual thought.
Is this where people usually refer the writer to pots and kettles?

quote:
It doesn't bother you that no real science from all geological and climate and historical research has never shown the Hockey Stick.

It doesn't bother you that the Hockey Stick and apologies for it, Briff, have been shown to be actually manipulated data.

Says you. I'm not sure what the outcome of the Hockey Stick affair was but Climate Scientists didn't rush to change sides in droves while expressing sorrow at having been duped so I assume it was fully explained. If not, please educate me, preferably from a genuine science source.


quote:
It doesn't bother you that these data have only been peer reviewed among the coterie producing it and were never actually rigorously analysed by the IPCC.

It doesn't bother you that persistent stonewalling for independent checking is the preferred method protecting the hypothesis, data withheld and destroyed so that it couldn't be checked.

None of this bothers you because you either aren't scientists or haven't a clue what science is.

Instead you produce a litany of excuses for every example of scientific malpractice to perpetuate this scientific fraud.

You have no credibility.

That is an objective assessment from one who has looked at both sides of the argument.

It's fake turtles all the way down, to the very beginning of Revelle to the continuing manipulation. Only conmen and the deluded use these methods, that's a well known proven fact.

Do yourselves a favour, read the arguments against before posting more manmade global drivel.

One may call oneself a scientist and one may be lauded as a scientist by others, but if one can't fathom that if it smells like shit it is shit unless it's been engineered to smell like something else, one in the wrong profession.

Myrrh

For 'coterie' I read "Climate Scientists" and I don't know how many are involved. Do you know whether the IPCC are supposed to scrutinise? I'm not sure but I think once papers pass peer review and are published they become part of the body of work others discuss, argue about and refer to in their own work but I'm not a scientist so I'm guessing here.

You still seem to think that your lack of knowledge provides a good basis to challenge highly qualified people who spend their lives on this stuff. That's not really credible.
.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That is an objective assessment from one who has looked at both sides of the argument.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

OK, maybe I'll accept looked at both sides of the argument. But, I've seen no evidence of any attempt to comprehend the arguments put forth by climate scientists. In fact, most of what I've seen you reproduce from the 'sceptic' side has been obviously crank websites. There are 'sceptics' who have put forward serious arguments, some through the peer-reviewed climate science literature ... but you don't seem to have assimilated those arguments any better than the scientific consensus.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, from what I've read there were some exchanges relating to a 'troublesome editor'. Well, whoop-dee-doo, haven't we all had words to say about an editor and/or referee of a journal. .

Well, you haven't read the emails concerned, but there looks to me as though there's more to it than that.

quote:
What I've seen is suggestions about deleting email correspondence, rather than actual scientific data.
Well, correspondence can be the subject of FOI. They also talk about deleting attachments to avoid FOI disclosure. To delete data and correspondence which is the subject of FOI requests is illegal.

[ 25. November 2009, 13:06: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Thanks. I agree that the public have not been carried, thanks in the main, I would suggest, to the efforts of blog writers who have attempted to give the impression that the scientists are wrong.

This is what the Uni of E Anglia had to say yesterday about the matter

quote:
It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

snip

In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.

You'd hope scientists would be up in arms about such statements of faith but I guess they can't afford to be 'deniers'.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
About deleting emails: it seems to me the suggestion found in the hacked correspondence might be the best evidence that no deletions took place. I've never myself embarked on any such endeavor, but if I had, I do think that I would start with the email in which the suggestion was made. I certainly wouldn't leave it to be found...
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
It is not difficult to see why climate scientists might have a vested interest in promoting the idea of climate Armagedon.

Until 10 years ago they would have been scientific nobodies working in a dingy, cold and damp underfunded 1950's lab and probably dreaming of becoming a BBC weatherman a la Bert Ford and being able to afford a week in Majorca.

Then suddenly the Berlin Wall comes down, nuclear war is averted and it is necessary to find a doomsday scenario to scare the public with. Someone picks up on global warming (possibly the ghastly Mrs Thatcher) the politicians like it and then its big government grants, new labs, lots of new colleagues, academic empires, newspaper articles and global climate summits to which you can write your expert witness statement while flying with your team business class. I's fortnights in Barbados from now on. Anyone for the World Climate Conference in Acapulco?

Until that point you had been writing about the coming ice age but that stuff had to all be junked. Inter-glacial period - cobblers.

Of course there is always some scientist-hermit-nutcase who will disagree with you but they have to be scrunched.

It's all human nature.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is not difficult to see why climate scientists might have a vested interest in promoting the idea of climate Armagedon.

Until 10 years ago they would have been scientific nobodies working in a dingy, cold and damp underfunded 1950's lab and probably dreaming of becoming a BBC weatherman a la Bert Ford and being able to afford a week in Majorca.

Then suddenly the Berlin Wall comes down, nuclear war is averted and it is necessary to find a doomsday scenario to scare the public with. Someone picks up on global warming (possibly the ghastly Mrs Thatcher) the politicians like it and then its big government grants, new labs, lots of new colleagues, academic empires, newspaper articles and global climate summits to which you can write your expert witness statement while flying with your team business class. I's fortnights in Barbados from now on. Anyone for the World Climate Conference in Acapulco?

Until that point you had been writing about the coming ice age but that stuff had to all be junked. Inter-glacial period - cobblers.

Of course there is always some scientist-hermit-nutcase who will disagree with you but they have to be scrunched.

It's all human nature.

And how many "doomsday deadlines" can you recall in your lifetime? I remember quite a few. One that stuck with me was when I was told that the rainforests would all be gone before I ever grew up and got a chance to see them. Well I loved the idea of rainforests, and that thought made me sad and scared.

Scare the children...fucking assholes.

The bright spot in this email thingy from a US POV is that it will further damage efforts for "knee-cap and tax" legislation. Maybe even kill it altogether, which would be great.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
So all negative predictions are wrong are they?

Funnily enough I remember very few 'scare stories' where there was such a prolonged wide spread concensus.

Also what the headlines say and what the scientists say are very different.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Peer review isn't invalidated if some practitioners use or record information in biased ways. Failure to replicate results - or critical reviews of evidence/presentations - take care of that in the long run. I note the UEA press release in this context.

Unfortunately, there is no process known to humans which can invalidate conspiracy theories sufficiently to dissuade those who have a penchant for them.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
About deleting emails: it seems to me the suggestion found in the hacked correspondence might be the best evidence that no deletions took place. I've never myself embarked on any such endeavor, but if I had, I do think that I would start with the email in which the suggestion was made. I certainly wouldn't leave it to be found...

The suggestion is made by one of the authors of the emails that because of FOI requests they all delete that email. This may have been done but just because an email is deleted doesn't mean that it automatically ceases to exist.

[ 25. November 2009, 13:59: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Until that point you [climate scientists] had been writing about the coming ice age but that stuff had to all be junked.

(italicised addition mine).aumbry, you do realise that this isn't true? From this summary:
quote:
In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison.

Unfortunately, headlines are driven more by a desire to sell papers than by scientific consensus. This is still going on today. Like you say, it's human nature.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Spawn - I was thinking about your statement that the scientists and politicians haven't carried the people with them. Just suppose they are right, what more could / should they do? (After all the poll I presume you are referring to was conducted before the email scandal hit the headlines.)

They have released papers, documents etc that have persuaded almost all international opinion politically (192 countries attending the Copenhagen conference - with a wide range of political standpoints) and virtually every national / international academy of scientists. The public, on the other hand, often seem to want to believe what is convenient for them to believe - no-one likes to think of themselves as part of the problem.

In the end my view is that it is easier to pull down than build up. Those building the consensus have attempted to construct a narrative that makes sense of the (vast majority of the) data. Those who deny it don't make any attempt to come up with an alternative narrative. Much of what is written on forums is blatantly scientifically illiterate. However there is also the issue that occasionally they point out genuine weaknesses with some of the science. The weaknesses may be small but for some this apparently this means that all the science untrustworthy.

(Of course there is no such thing as perfect science, where every single piece of data fits perfectly. So some seem to think that one inconvenient result destroys a whole theory. This in my view is where the low level of scientific literacy really lets us all down.)

Every theory that has ever been accepted as true I reckon can be demolished using 'common sense' arguments. After all science is in many ways the study of the counter-intuitive.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Only conmen and the deluded use these methods, that's a well known proven fact.

You have an extremely flexible definition of "proven fact" Myrrh. As has been noted several times on this thread, these leaked emails utterly demolish your 'conman' conspiracy theory. In this private, not-for-public-eyes chat, the scientists still consistently show their grave concern about the climate, as well as their anger at people who try to downplay the problems.

Whatever other conclusions people choose to draw from these emails, it's crystal clear that these scientists are not frauds, not conmen, and not in cahoots with sinister One World conspiracies.

There are legitimate issues here (e.g. whether or not the people named have acted improperly with peer review) but there's no doubt that the scientists are totally sincere in believing CO2 is causing significant temperature rise.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
Okay - I will give the global warmers and the government the benefit of the doubt if we see the following:-

100% grants for people to insulate their lofts and double glaze their homes. This would save more fossil fuel than all the windfarms and low energy bulbs planned, would provide jobs and save people heating costs.

No more planning permission for out of town developments which simply create traffic and destroy small shopping centres.

No more planning permission for wind farms which are expensive eyesores and the investment to go into the nuclear progamme.

No more governmental or scientific attendance at international conferences. Government are keen to bang on about the benefits of technology so do it all by video. If they are absolutely unavoidable they should be held in the world's poorest and most polluted places (no luxury holiday element).

Take measures to control the country's population. You cannot say that we are going to suffer from environmental degradation caused by man but take a sanguine view of the fact that immigration is likely to raise the current population by 10 million in UK.

No new government installation, civil service offices, universities or other institutions with a workforce of more than 50 to be sited anywhere where they cannot be fully serviced by public transport and therefore no parking spaces on these sites. Phase out all existing public service parking.

No ministrial limousines and MPs can only claim the cost of using public transport - any motoring costs should be paid for out of their own pockets like everyone else.

No more unnecessary wars ( a new-Labour high carbon specialty).

Property taxess to be based on the size of the property and not the rateable value.

No more HIPS - a complete waste of money - the savings could go into the insulation regime.

No more exporting of manufacturing jobs on the basis that the global economy is the best way as all this does is destroy jobs at home and increase the cost of transporting goods from China to the rest of the world i.e import tariffs based on distance a manufactured good is transported.

All long distance holiday flights to be heavily taxed and the money raised to be used to build high speed rail network.

Motorways to have tolls but car tax abolished.

No building of a third runway at Heathrow - just because big business wants it.

Give farmers of marginal land grants to plant woodland.

That will do for a start.

[ 25. November 2009, 14:59: Message edited by: aumbry ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

snip

In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.

You'd hope scientists would be up in arms about such statements of faith but I guess they can't afford to be 'deniers'.
Why on earth would you expect scientists to be any less worried about their future and their childrens future than anyone else?

Do you really think that they would do better science if they tried to pretend that there was no problem? If they kidded themselves that it wasn't important or dangerous?
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
I don't think its neccesarily being used to bring in global government...but it is being trotted out like it was ''gospel'' (which it is not) and has the effect of scaring half the population sh**less and has thus developed its own strange momentum.

Global warming/climate change = unproven theory = another scaremongering story IMO.

Saul
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Spawn - I was thinking about your statement that the scientists and politicians haven't carried the people with them. Just suppose they are right, what more could / should they do? (After all the poll I presume you are referring to was conducted before the email scandal hit the headlines.)

I don't think the near-apocalyptic alarmism, the inseparability of science from politicking and environmental campaigning has helped. The absolute arrogant certainty of some of the predictions, forecasting and modelling is an extreme turn-off. In short, the damage can be repaired when politicians stop pretending to be scientists and scientists stop pretending to be politicians.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Saul - which parts of the theory do you think are unproven?

Which scare stories do you think had a similar level of scientific consensus behind it. (I am talking about the national and international science academies here!)
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Spawn - I can only presume that you are more sceptical than you are trying to make out. After all if the scientific consensus is right then drastic action will be needed. So strong language is appropriate. If the science is wrong then of course it is totally inappropriate. It is impossible to accept the science and think that business as usual will produce nothing more than a little inconvenience.

The near-apocalyptic language may seem extreme to us - my children are highly unlikely to have to contend with many of the more negative aspects of global warming. That doesn't mean to say that mass migration and the accompanying conflict that is likely to provoke won't prove to be a matter of life and death for many of the poorest on the planet.

I was wondering where in the scientific literature you felt there was this certainty about the climatologists positions. Everything I have read has been couched in probabilities.

[ 25. November 2009, 20:10: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Luke - basing your view of Global Warming on one film makes it sound as if you don't take science very seriously

Does anyone really have a complete handle on all the global warming science? I personally haven't gone beyond reading articles in the paper, one book and a few blogs (e.g. Andrew Bolt, named by Prime Minister Rudd as one of a small group of individual's threatening the future of our planet with his global warming denial). I reckon I know as much as the average man on the street. Are you an expert?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Spawn - I can only presume that you are more sceptical than you are trying to make out. After all if the scientific consensus is right then drastic action will be needed.

No, it seems to me that the scientific consensus can agree that pre-existing trends towards warming have intensified as a result of pollution by human beings. There is no scientific consensus on the forecasts and models, because these are in the province of prediction.

I'd prefer strategic, sensible decision-making to hasty, drastic action informed by loose and apocalyptic language.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
So all negative predictions are wrong are they?

Well certainly those about total equatorial deforestation and a coming glaciation were.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

Funnily enough I remember very few 'scare stories' where there was such a prolonged wide spread concensus.

For that time, if Newsweek put it on the cover, that was all the concensus you would have been aware of unless you were privy to the science community yourself. And since that was barely a quarter century ago, in what context do you use the word "prolonged"?

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I don't think its neccesarily being used to bring in global government...but it is being trotted out like it was ''gospel'' (which it is not) and has the effect of scaring half the population sh**less and has thus developed its own strange momentum.

Global warming/climate change = unproven theory = another scaremongering story IMO.

Saul

I agree. Only adding that if you extrapolate the impact of the recommendations they trot out, it's easy to see how the agenda lends itself towards "Global Governance".
No conspiracy, just shitty, collectivist public policy.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Romanlion - So now I know - something being put on the front cover of Newsweek means widespread scientific consensus. Staggering. How many national academies signed up to it?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Loose and apocalypic language? How would you prefer what are considered to be the most likely outcomes to be described? Tell us what you think is most likely to happen. Of course there is a less certain aspect to predictions, that doesn't mean that some of the trends that can already be seen are not genuinely very alarming if they are extended logically.

You seem to judge the science according to how alarming it is rather than how likely it is. Perhaps you can point to a prominent thinker who both thinks that the science is probably correct and everything will be pretty much OK. I have no idea as to what sort of scenario you think we should be responding to.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I have no idea as to what sort of scenario you think we should be responding to.

It's nonsense to say I'm judging science by how alarming it is (if that even makes sense). And it's no good asking me about the future, I don't have a clue, and I seriously don't think anybody has. But we are causing some warming, so there's a productive debate to be had around adaptation and mitigation, on technological solutions as well as cutting-down emissions. But there's absolutely no point in panic and scare-mongering.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
For that time, if Newsweek put it on the cover, that was all the consensus you would have been aware of unless you were privy to the science community yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Romanlion - So now I know - something being put on the front cover of Newsweek means widespread scientific consensus. Staggering. How many national academies signed up to it?

Read it again and perhaps you'll see the lack of a coherent connection between your crap and my post.

Your reading comprehension is shite.

Your response, vacuous.

[ 25. November 2009, 23:06: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That is an objective assessment from one who has looked at both sides of the argument.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

OK, maybe I'll accept looked at both sides of the argument. But, I've seen no evidence of any attempt to comprehend the arguments put forth by climate scientists. In fact, most of what I've seen you reproduce from the 'sceptic' side has been obviously crank websites. There are 'sceptics' who have put forward serious arguments, some through the peer-reviewed climate science literature ... but you don't seem to have assimilated those arguments any better than the scientific consensus.

You think that funny? Any fool can see that when 'a scientist' promoting AGW says CO2 levels haven't changed for 600,000 then there can't possibly be any correlation between the recent bit of warming we've had since the LIA and the rise, even if true, in CO2 lately.

You really expect me to take you seriously as a scientist when not only cannot you show correlation, you have zilch understanding that even if there was you haven't proved causation.

You lost all credibility for me when you first of all waxed lyrical of how even a small amount of CO2 could have an immense effect even as a small amount of poison in the body can destroy it, then, a page or so on, dismissed the changes in the sun as too small and insignificant to make any difference..

And you still haven't shown me any proof that CO2 drives global warming. For nth time of asking.


Any scientist would check and investigate for himself if he heard that the Hockey Stick was proven to be manipulated data. Those who didn't are not scientists, and since they continue to promote a falsified hypothesis are party to the deception, the con.

Let's see if you can pass this simple test, which is the scientific method here?:

quote:
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication.
quote:
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, “I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.” He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

Any idea? Any at all?

The above from [url=http://www.infidelsparadise.com/?p=9385]More On The Junk Science Formerly Known As Climate Change..Suppressing Evidence Of Global Cooling[/quote]



Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You think that funny?

Absolutely freaking hilarious to be exact. Do go on, I need a good laugh now and then.

quote:
You really expect me to take you seriously as a scientist when not only cannot you show correlation, you have zilch understanding that even if there was you haven't proved causation.
I'm well aware that correlation doesn't automatically mean causation. But, when there's a clear correlation and a sound theory that predicts a cause-effect relationship one is on more solid ground. I've shown both a correlation and a solid theoretical framework based on such simple science it can be tested in a school physics lab, you just don't appear to have read my posts.

quote:
And you still haven't shown me any proof that CO2 drives global warming. For nth time of asking.
I have done so, and you've ignored my posts. If you still don't understand what I've said, then you can simply ask specific questions about what you don't find clear.

quote:
Any scientist would check and investigate for himself if he heard that the Hockey Stick was proven to be manipulated data.
True enough, and the 'Hockey Stick data' have been intensively investigated (did you read the stuff in the IPCC report I linked to last time we discussed this? The section of the report that spends more time on that one data set than any other bit of data they have? The one that acknowledges some flaws in the methodology, and offers a comparison with other independent data sets for the same time period). There are a considerable number of papers in the scientific literature that point out the flaws in the approach taken, those that had been published by the time the IPCC report came out are referenced there.

Of course, 'flawed methodology' isn't the same as 'manipulated data' (except to the extent that any approach that takes multiple data sources to produce a coherent 'average' is manipulating the data - but that's bread and butter to scientists).

quote:
Let's see if you can pass this simple test, which is the scientific method here?:

quote:
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication.

Damn. I could have been sure we'd made scientific progress in a vast range of subjects over the last millenium or so. But, no one has ever had "accurate and complete data" to work on, and replication is often not possible. Scientific progress is possible because the scientific method works very well on inaccurate and incomplete data, and non-replicable results, because scientists know how to handle such data. Either scientific progress is all an illusion and we are infact sitting in caves ... or you have no understanding of the scientific method.

But, I'm just repeating what I've said several times before. Call me the eternal optimist, but maybe this time you'll actually read what I said. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
A graph of Co2 concentrations and recent time from BenBurch on JREF forum:

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15910&d=1259174516
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Mr Clingford (others to note)

That link appears to require a membership and some privileges. I registered but was still refused access. Perhaps you can advise or summarise the findings in the link?

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Arse. Perhaps one has to wait a while to gain access (like a day). It's a graph and shows wonderfully the rise in Co2 taken from a few global areas. Pictures speak a thousand words and it's excellent. I'll see if I can provide a way to the picture.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
This is the thread. See post 101
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Mr C

You're right - there is a 24-48 hour delay in the registration. Thanks for the thread link. The bad news is that pro tem I'm still refused access to the embedded link! But Hosts are patient people ....

[ 26. November 2009, 08:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Spawn - with the predictions some things are more confidently predicted than others. You say it is scaremongering. Well lets try this one.

As the world warms so sea levels will rise but alarmingly at the moment sea levels are rising more in line with the upper end of the predictions. Most of what causes the rise is well understood though how the different elements may affect the speed. So we can be confident that if global warming is taking place sea levels will rise.

There are many countries that are very low lying and have large numbers who are killed by flooding - this happens alarmingly fequently in some countries. As they are largely poor countries protecting against this is unlikely to happen. So all those living in such locations are faced with what must seem pretty pressing problems. So your 'lets not scare the horses' approach must seem pretty complacent.

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that anything can be predicted at all. If we cannot predict anything then of course there can't be anything of concern round the corner. This means there are an awful lot of scientists engaged in a totally worthless exercise. I am not just talking about the modellers but all those measuring for example the thickness of arctic ice. If understanding better what is happening now so that we can predict more accurately the future, is a waste of time then there is little point in most science.

The models may not be perfect but they do seem to come up with fairly convincing and consistent findings in certain areas.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Romanlion - I'll ignore the abusive statements. I can only presume that you have misunderstood / not noticed some of the inference of my post. So I will try again.


quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
For that time, if Newsweek put it on the cover, that was all the consensus you would have been aware of unless you were privy to the science community yourself.



I am saying that if I had been old enough to be taking the science produced then seriously I would not have based my judgement on the fact that something appears [b]once[/] on a newsweek magazine. Why would anyone do so. The obvious response would have been to think: 'OK some scientists think that, I wonder how widespread this view is.'

I wouldn't have had to have been privy to the scientific community I could have looked at how many science academies backed this view up. I could have researched how many peer review papers agreed with the central premise - through access to abstracts.

If you would argue that there was a scientific consensus I think such a position would be profoundly ill-informed.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Spawn - with the predictions some things are more confidently predicted than others. You say it is scaremongering. Well lets try this one.

As the world warms so sea levels will rise but alarmingly at the moment sea levels are rising more in line with the upper end of the predictions. Most of what causes the rise is well understood though how the different elements may affect the speed. So we can be confident that if global warming is taking place sea levels will rise.

There are many countries that are very low lying and have large numbers who are killed by flooding - this happens alarmingly fequently in some countries. As they are largely poor countries protecting against this is unlikely to happen. So all those living in such locations are faced with what must seem pretty pressing problems. So your 'lets not scare the horses' approach must seem pretty complacent.

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that anything can be predicted at all. If we cannot predict anything then of course there can't be anything of concern round the corner. This means there are an awful lot of scientists engaged in a totally worthless exercise. I am not just talking about the modellers but all those measuring for example the thickness of arctic ice. If understanding better what is happening now so that we can predict more accurately the future, is a waste of time then there is little point in most science.

The models may not be perfect but they do seem to come up with fairly convincing and consistent findings in certain areas.

The trouble is with this is that it has nothing to do with man made global warming - sealevels have been rising since the end of the last ice age. Not so very long ago (certainly not in terms of geological time) England was attached to France and the North Sea contained a vast island - Doggerland which is now below the waves.

During the mediaeval warm period the Vikings had settlements in greenland which practised agriculture. These settlements were abandoned when the climate got colder. Is there any evidence that there was a concommitant increase in sea levels in that period as presumably there would have been less ice about and the seas were warmer?

Anne McEvoy - in my opinion a very sensible political commentator - pointed out something which may explain a lot and that is that the sort of people who choose to become climate scientists are likely to be inclined to environmental activism and therefore have an agenda.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mr C

You're right - there is a 24-48 hour delay in the registration. Thanks for the thread link. The bad news is that pro tem I'm still refused access to the embedded link! But Hosts are patient people ....

Based on the filename, I think this is the graph?

- Chris.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mr C

You're right - there is a 24-48 hour delay in the registration. Thanks for the thread link. The bad news is that pro tem I'm still refused access to the embedded link! But Hosts are patient people ....

Based on the filename, I think this is the graph?

- Chris.

You beauty, that's the one.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Spawn - with the predictions some things are more confidently predicted than others. You say it is scaremongering. Well lets try this one.

As the world warms so sea levels will rise but alarmingly at the moment sea levels are rising more in line with the upper end of the predictions.

No here we part company in the phrase 'sea levels are rising more in line with the upper end'. I think the models are very likely to be rubbish. We can't forecast the weather effectively more than five days in advance, so we certainly can't talk with any confidence about models which deal with decades in the future. Secondly, modelling is only as good as the data. We're not even very good at measuring temperature, or ice sheets so I think scepticism is the right approach to the models.

But my original point was that politicians have to carry the public with them. The alarmism is counter-productive, because it demonstrates how intextricably linked the science is to the campaigning and politicking. In such a fevered atmosphere, suspicions are created about cherry-picking data, and about making exaggerated claims. Some of these suspicions are furthered by well-known fiascos such as the hockey stick and the UEA emails.

This is not a time to panic (let's not forget that crops for biofuels have led to deforestation and food shortages), there's time to do more science, to seek technological solutions to the emissions and the warming, and to strategically plan around adaptation and mitigation.

BTW, I am not arguing that we shouldn't take some steps consistent with the evidence we currently have to reduce our carbon footprint, I am saying that we shouldn't necesssarily fix our policies because the science can change.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Remember there is a difference between weather and climate - we can be sure that winters will be colder than summers.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Remember there is a difference between weather and climate - we can be sure that winters will be colder than summers.

My weather forecasting line was an illustration of something equally inexact. There are so many variables.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Anne McEvoy - in my opinion a very sensible political commentator - pointed out something which may explain a lot and that is that the sort of people who choose to become climate scientists are likely to be inclined to environmental activism and therefore have an agenda.

Does she give evidence to support this? There's probably a bit of truth to it, but most climate scientists seem like pretty straight-laced atmospheric physicists, geologists etc. I also don't see any reason to believe that the broader scientific bodies who've expressed strong concern over climate change (e.g. the various national academies) have any sort of agenda.

You may be right, the various scientists could be mistaken or blinded by ideology / groupthink, but it seems a huge gamble to count on this. IMO the pragmatic position is to act as if the most serious realistic predictions are right, and keep reviewing the science. If it turns out there's not a problem - great. But if it turns out there is a problem and we've done nothing, then we're in deep trouble.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Anne McEvoy - in my opinion a very sensible political commentator - pointed out something which may explain a lot and that is that the sort of people who choose to become climate scientists are likely to be inclined to environmental activism and therefore have an agenda.

Does she give evidence to support this? There's probably a bit of truth to it, but most climate scientists seem like pretty straight-laced atmospheric physicists, geologists etc. I also don't see any reason to believe that the broader scientific bodies who've expressed strong concern over climate change (e.g. the various national academies) have any sort of agenda.

You may be right, the various scientists could be mistaken or blinded by ideology / groupthink, but it seems a huge gamble to count on this. IMO the pragmatic position is to act as if the most serious realistic predictions are right, and keep reviewing the science. If it turns out there's not a problem - great. But if it turns out there is a problem and we've done nothing, then we're in deep trouble.

Well not so long ago a significant number of academic economists preferred a Marxist model and if they had been taken more seriously by government we would probably be in a bigger mess than we are in now.

I have no problem with governments introducing measures to save energy and invest in ways of reducing the man made pollutants that are undoubtedly being pumped into the atmosphere and I am sure that requires some international cooperation. What I fear is that by listening to the alarmist wing of the environmental lobby and some of its bedfellows in the scientific world governents may make policies which are economically disasterous and in the long run damage all environmental concerns.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Well not so long ago a significant number of academic economists preferred a Marxist model.

Do you have any evidence for that?

(I presume we are excluding academic economists at Eastern Bloc universities who had to be Marxists or else lose their stipend. I would be very surprised if it were true of anywhere in the West.)
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
IMO the pragmatic position is to act as if the most serious realistic predictions are right, and keep reviewing the science. If it turns out there's not a problem - great. But if it turns out there is a problem and we've done nothing, then we're in deep trouble.

Surely the pragmatic position is not to put all our eggs in one basket? We need to address emissions and carbon reduction in a sensible phased-in way which does not cause unnecessary hardship but also look to technology for the solutions.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm well aware that correlation doesn't automatically mean causation. But, when there's a clear correlation and a sound theory that predicts a cause-effect relationship one is on more solid ground. I've shown both a correlation and a solid theoretical framework based on such simple science it can be tested in a school physics lab, you just don't appear to have read my posts.

Oh I've read them, that you're still claiming CO2 in a test tube gets hot is so far all you've offered me in the way of proof that it is thedriver of global warming.

Instead of test tube try bigger greenhouse, those who regularly pump in CO2 to amount 1,000ppm to feed the plants for better growth and water retention report no runnaway greenhouse warming..


quote:
I have done so, and you've ignored my posts. If you still don't understand what I've said, then you can simply ask specific questions about what you don't find clear.
I've asked for proof, not 'most likely' from corrupt data not peer reviewed except by the same coterie of authors presenting papers and running the IPCC, or from those thinking up ever more ridiculous computer models when they fail to predict even a year or two in present events.



quote:
True enough, and the 'Hockey Stick data' have been intensively investigated (did you read the stuff in the IPCC report I linked to last time we discussed this? The section of the report that spends more time on that one data set than any other bit of data they have? The one that acknowledges some flaws in the methodology, and offers a comparison with other independent data sets for the same time period). There are a considerable number of papers in the scientific literature that point out the flaws in the approach taken, those that had been published by the time the IPCC report came out are referenced there.
Again, I've told you I have no reason to trust the IPCC having proved itself to be corrupt. Show me independent, and independently verified, work on this. Come on, surely if this is such a consensus among world scientists there are zillions of papers supporting it?


quote:
Of course, 'flawed methodology' isn't the same as 'manipulated data' (except to the extent that any approach that takes multiple data sources to produce a coherent 'average' is manipulating the data - but that's bread and butter to scientists).
Deliberate fraudulent manipulation of data to produce results to order is not science. What are you missing here? When following Mann's methodology you can put in any numbers you choose and you'll come out with a hockey stick, it's been designed to produce it. Briffa cherry picked his trees to confirm Mann. If you haven't read how they did this, read it. Answer the results of the work showing manipulation of data to achieve results yourself, don't bother showing me more tweaking by the IPCC to hide it all in spaghetti graphs with meaningless confusion of measurements. You're a scientist, I expect better analysis from you than this.


quote:
Damn. I could have been sure we'd made scientific progress in a vast range of subjects over the last millenium or so. But, no one has ever had "accurate and complete data" to work on, and replication is often not possible. Scientific progress is possible because the scientific method works very well on inaccurate and incomplete data, and non-replicable results, because scientists know how to handle such data. Either scientific progress is all an illusion and we are infact sitting in caves ... or you have no understanding of the scientific method.
When a paper is published it behoves the scientific journal publishing it to make the data and methodolgy behind the claim available. Why are you not seeing that withholding same to those requesting it immediately makes the paper junk science? These emails show what has already been the well known process by these charlatans to avoid objective scientific scrutiny.

That you're promoting a climate history based on proven manipulation to deceit of Mann and proven exclusion of trees by Briffa to give and an unhistorical and unscientific picture of our real climate history, is beyond absurd.


quote:
But, I'm just repeating what I've said several times before. Call me the eternal optimist, but maybe this time you'll actually read what I said. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
You keep repeating the same promotion of corrupt science. I'm asking you to provide real science.

Where is the actual scientific proof that CO2 drives global warming when it has had nothing to do with driving us out of ice ages which have come and gone in the last 450,000 years? (Since AGW claims it is only recently risen).

What's missing here is elementary logic.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm asking you to provide real science.

And, I have.

quote:
What's missing here is elementary logic.

Yep. You said it.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Well not so long ago a significant number of academic economists preferred a Marxist model.

Do you have any evidence for that?

(I presume we are excluding academic economists at Eastern Bloc universities who had to be Marxists or else lose their stipend. I would be very surprised if it were true of anywhere in the West.)

Look under "Marxian Economics" in Wikipedia which gives a list of Universities where they are studied (all in the West).
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Surely the pragmatic position is not to put all our eggs in one basket? We need to address emissions and carbon reduction in a sensible phased-in way which does not cause unnecessary hardship but also look to technology for the solutions.

Absolutely.

It's worth noting, however, that there were at least reasonable scientific grounds for believing this might be a problem back in the 1980s. It would have been prudent to begin making relatively low-cost changes back then. Researching alternative energy would have been fairly cheap, but this was largely neglected. Better insulating new houses would have been sensible, but the construction lobby opposed this.

We could have had new houses that were warm and cheap to heat, and conserved finite North Sea gas - incidentally averting future problems with Russian supplies. We could have been many years further ahead with our research data on renewable energy designs, low loss transmission grids, or nuclear power. We could have tried to limit urban sprawl.

None of this would have cost a huge amount, and it'd have left us with a much easier job now.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Shrug.

All available real science shows that CO2 lags temperature rise by c800 years. Ice ages have come and gone in that time.

Why has CO2 suddenly decided to behave differently?

It has never driven global warming before.

If Mann and Briffa hadn't excluded our well known and confirmed by other scientific disciplines as well as historic memory, MWP, then we'd see the same correlation now as we have real science to show has been the recurring pattern for the last 450,000 years.

CO2 again follows c800 later of global temperature rise.

Problem solved. There isn't one.

When did science become irrational and promoted by excluding the observable?


Myrrh

Breaking the Hockey Stick

quote:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

"Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin"

Seems very explicit, doesn't he? What possible context could change its meaning? Note, too, the recent date, long after the frequently cited Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) and subsequent revision (2008). This from the guy who claims we have a net surface absorption of 0.9 Wm2.

Why is this so important? It really invalidates climate models since they are allegedly driven by the global energy budget and how energy moves through the system. If we can not account for what is happening in the climate system we can not model it nor is there any basis for climate model "projections", "predictions" or whatever you want to call the fairytales released by Gore, the IPCC or anyone else. Those "hacked" released CRU files...

M.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.

All available real science shows that CO2 lags temperature rise by c800 years. Ice ages have come and gone in that time.

Why has CO2 suddenly decided to behave differently?

It has never driven global warming before.


Because mankind wasn't putting it into the atmosphere back then. We are affecting this natural process. We are what is different. We know that we are putting the Co2 there because of the isotope ratio.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
How bizarre - Myrrh totally rubbishes current ways of measuring CO2 - even though it can be triangulated a great deal more than in the past using many different methods which generally confirm the findings. Then states that rises in CO2 follow warming. So can we measure increases of CO2 in the atmossphere or can't we! Make up your mind Myrrh.

[ 26. November 2009, 12:15: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.

All available real science shows that CO2 lags temperature rise by c800 years. Ice ages have come and gone in that time.

Yes, I'd agree to both those comments. Though, if I was being technical I'd replace "ice ages" with "glaciations and inter-glacials" because technically we've been in a single long ice age for the last half-million years or so, a state that we're rapidly coming out of as the remaining ice sheets melt away.

Now, what's the issue with the scientific description of why there's a lag of several centuries between the start of warming and the rise in CO2 concentrations? Or, why scientists don't consider the current situation to be the same?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Look under "Marxian Economics" in Wikipedia which gives a list of Universities where they are studied (all in the West).

It's not clear from the article whether they have faculty members who actually advocate Marxism, or if they just teach about Marxist theory. But even if the entire economics faculty of those places were card-carrying Marxists playing Katyusha on the hammer and sickle, that still wouldn't be comparable with the support behind global warming.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It's worth noting, however, that there were at least reasonable scientific grounds for believing this might be a problem back in the 1980s. It would have been prudent to begin making relatively low-cost changes back then. Researching alternative energy would have been fairly cheap, but this was largely neglected....

....None of this would have cost a huge amount, and it'd have left us with a much easier job now.

Absolutely to this also. Unsustainably using up resources and polluting has been a matter of concern for decades. We don't need climate science to tell us this.

I've taken measures all my adult life (80s onwards) to live more sustainably. Many others have also. And now the rest of the world is beginning to catch up. I see this catching up as a good thing, not something to lambast people with.

We don't need punitive taxes, harsh and draconian measures to change people's behaviour, we need to demonstrate and advocate the advantages of sustainable living. Panic reaction always leads to poor policy. This sort of reaction is what we're likely to get when scientists, campaigners and politicians collude in uncritically presenting the most apocalyptic scenarios.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Myrrh, as you've read up about the subject, I'm sure you're aware of the information below: I just wanted to highlight it as your last post made no mention of it, and it's very relevant to the points you raise.

1) The CO2 "800 year" lag. You're right, there is an 800-year lag in the paleoclimate records. However, your statement that "Ice ages have come and gone in that time" is incorrect - the warming periods last around 5000 years. CO2 did not start these warming cycles, but the mechanism by which it contributed to them is well known - it's estimated that about 50% of the warming was due to CO2. The lag is also only true for the glacial-interglacial cycles: in more recent history, CO2 has lead the temperature rise.

2) The "broken hockey stick": The papers by McIntyre and McKitrick on which the 2005 Canada National Post article was based have been discredited in this 2005 paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate. The authors took note of the criticisms levelled by McIntyre and McKitrick, adjusted the methodology to allow for them, and demonstrated that it made no practical difference to the results. Full text here. Of course, this is a critique of the 1998 paper: there are more recent studies available, some of which are summarised here and here. If you ignore the original paper as discredited, just look at some of the others which have been done in the last 11 years, which give the same message: The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

3) You mention the medieval warm period: I presume you're aware that it is now understood that it wasn't global in extent, and that it wasn't as warm as the last 20 years. Source.

4) You quote a personal email from Kevin Trenberth where he says "we are not close to balancing the energy budget." Fair enough, but given that Trenberth has published a paper in 2009 where he states that "there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities," he doesn't seem to agree with your main point, and leads me to suspect that the email is quoted out of context, to justify a point that its author wouldn't agree with.

In summary, your argument either rests on the assumption that the world's foremost experts on climatology are ignorant of some old arguments on the internet advanced by non-specialists (some of whom have political agendas, or are financed by energy companies with a huge interest in the status quo) - or that there's some shadowy conspiracy by every climate scientist to misrepresent the facts in order to keep themselves in jobs. Or something.

Now this might be news to you (it shouldn't be, if you've read anything Alan has written), but when professional scientists find some observations that aren't explained by our current understanding, they're over the moon. That's how breakthroughs are made and Nobel prizes won. If there was a real case for overthrowing the orthodoxy on climate, there's a powerful incentive to publish (even at the risk of substantial embarrasment if wrong: see Fleischmann and Pons). However, even left-field scientists like Lindzen agree with 90% of what other climate scientists are saying.

The problem here is not the science: it's the public policy. All the opposition I've seen stems from a dislike of the political measures which have been put forward to combat climate change: cap & trade, taxation, wind turbines, more expensive air travel, etc. The whole debate just seems to be an expression of "we don't like what people are doing about it, so it mustn't really exist."

To all the deniers: take your lead from aumbry: what would you do if you were convinced AGW and its consequences were real?

- Chris.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

If you would argue that there was a scientific consensus I think such a position would be profoundly ill-informed.

I never argued any such thing, and in your post:


quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:


Funnily enough I remember very few 'scare stories' where there was such a prolonged wide spread concensus.


You did not specify "scientific" consensus, so I assumed you were speaking generally. General consensus is what it will take for democratic action as punitive as cap-and-tax legislation to pass, and in the US 70's a newsweek cover would have been about as powerful a tool to that end as you could have hoped for.
The internet was little more than a gizmo for academia at that point.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

I wouldn't have had to have been privy to the scientific community I could have looked at how many science academies backed this view up. I could have researched how many peer review papers agreed with the central premise - through access to abstracts.

Based on this statement it is clear that you have not considered the reality of life outside the information age. You could not have done what you say without being privy to the science/academic community.
Newsstands often didn't carry one science journal, much less every single one printed that week, and often by the time the journal was available to a layperson, the science was old and outdated. By what means other than being privy would you have gathered any of the information in which you now have such great faith?

None.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I'll ignore the abusive statements.

Along with my question, I suppose...the one about clarification of "prolonged"?

No matter, it was obviously rhetorical.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
sanityman

Many thanks for the link - also your recent post.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
He is Rush not Ruth.

True. If you want to make this about mis-spelled names, how many Ms are there in Monbiot? [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Well to the extent that smart investors are making decisions to back low carbon-emission projects this is because they come with an enormous government subsidy. No sensible investor would build a wind farm on the basis of the actual real return it would make on capital without the government subsidies. Similarly the bogus Eco-towns initiative backed by Gordon Brown would see little or no business interest without subsidy. Ditto the dash to build several new nuclear power stations - a project that not so long ago the environmental movement was telling us could destroy the planet with a "China-syndrome".

... and your alternative plan is?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Look under "Marxian Economics" in Wikipedia which gives a list of Universities where they are studied (all in the West).

It's not clear from the article whether they have faculty members who actually advocate Marxism, or if they just teach about Marxist theory. But even if the entire economics faculty of those places were card-carrying Marxists playing Katyusha on the hammer and sickle, that still wouldn't be comparable with the support behind global warming.
What is the relevance of this supposed to be?

We were talking about scientists, not economists. Why does it matter to the geologists, or meterologists, or astronomers, or biologists who are studying this whether the economics lecturers on the other side of the campus are following last decade's dead intellectual fashion or last century's one?

Also, for what its worth, Marxists are traditionally technological optimists. They are likely to be intellectually predisposed against "green" political moves to sustainable economy; and in favour of planning our way out of problems by building lots of big shiny machines. You 'd expect real Marxists to be calling for carbon sequestration, nuclear power, giant geothermal projects, and orbital solar power platforms beaming microwaves down from O'Neill stations - not reduced emissions and carbon taxes.

Come to think of it...
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aumbry:
[qb] He is Rush not Ruth.

True. If you want to make this about mis-spelled names, how many Ms are there in Monbiot? [Big Grin]

Point taken, any idiot can spell a name wrongly.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
He is Rush not Ruth.

True. If you want to make this about mis-spelled names, how many Ms are there in Monbiot? [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Well to the extent that smart investors are making decisions to back low carbon-emission projects this is because they come with an enormous government subsidy. No sensible investor would build a wind farm on the basis of the actual real return it would make on capital without the government subsidies. Similarly the bogus Eco-towns initiative backed by Gordon Brown would see little or no business interest without subsidy. Ditto the dash to build several new nuclear power stations - a project that not so long ago the environmental movement was telling us could destroy the planet with a "China-syndrome".

... and your alternative plan is?

I was merely pointing out the fallacy in the statement that the business and investor community were fully behind the climate change concensus when the reality of those investment decisions is that they are based on the subsidies received which surely does not signify a wholesale endorsement of the manmade climate change position.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Point taken, any idiot can spell a name wrongly.

Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I was merely pointing out the fallacy in the statement that the business and investor community were fully behind the climate change concensus when the reality of those investment decisions is that they are based on the subsidies received which surely does not signify a wholesale endorsement of the manmade climate change position.

Yes, fair point. Their position could be partly about subsidies - and partly about public image, maybe? Neither would have anything to do with belief in climate science.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm well aware that correlation doesn't automatically mean causation. But, when there's a clear correlation and a sound theory that predicts a cause-effect relationship one is on more solid ground. I've shown both a correlation and a solid theoretical framework based on such simple science it can be tested in a school physics lab, you just don't appear to have read my posts.

Oh I've read them, that you're still claiming CO2 in a test tube gets hot is so far all you've offered me in the way of proof that it is thedriver of global warming.

Who cares whether the CO2 heats up? That's not the point. You're still repeating this Myrrh, demonstrating that you haven't understood the first basic steps in this. The basic point of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect is that the CO2 is semi-opaque to Infrared radiation from the Earth so it bounces around and the Earth doesn't lose the heat into space that it otherwise would. That's why it's said to act like a blanket: it reduces the loss of heat. The concentration of CO2 is like the the thickness of the blanket.

Until mankind added loads more CO2 to the atmosphere in recent times, the system was in a natural balance and everything was ok. We need some CO2 or the Earth wouldn't retain enough of the Sun's heat to sustain our current comfortable existence. Rather more heat will not be a good thing overall but some people still claim that it'll be lovely, having more CO2 and higher temperatures, either because they either know nothing about it or because someone is paying them to say so. I see no other explanation for what appears to be stupidity and lack of consideration for the world's poor and vulnerable.
.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
...[snip]....

In summary, your argument either rests on the assumption that the world's foremost experts on climatology are ignorant of some old arguments on the internet advanced by non-specialists (some of whom have political agendas, or are financed by energy companies with a huge interest in the status quo) - or that there's some shadowy conspiracy by every climate scientist to misrepresent the facts in order to keep themselves in jobs. Or something.

Now this might be news to you (it shouldn't be, if you've read anything Alan has written), but when professional scientists find some observations that aren't explained by our current understanding, they're over the moon. That's how breakthroughs are made and Nobel prizes won. If there was a real case for overthrowing the orthodoxy on climate, there's a powerful incentive to publish (even at the risk of substantial embarrasment if wrong: see Fleischmann and Pons). However, even left-field scientists like Lindzen agree with 90% of what other climate scientists are saying.

The problem here is not the science: it's the public policy. All the opposition I've seen stems from a dislike of the political measures which have been put forward to combat climate change: cap & trade, taxation, wind turbines, more expensive air travel, etc. The whole debate just seems to be an expression of "we don't like what people are doing about it, so it mustn't really exist."

I'm fairly ignorant of the whole debate, and have to admit I'm skeptical about global warming being a man made phenomenon. However after reading the Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge a climate scientist with the CSIRO, two things stood out from what your saying. You imply there is a consensus, yet Paltridge explains that once the momentum built around global warming it was difficult to officially publish conflicting theories or officially question available data. You've also said a "cap & trade" system is the solution, yet Paltridge argues that the immediate cost of such a system far outweighs marginally future life-style benefit improvements.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.

All available real science shows that CO2 lags temperature rise by c800 years. Ice ages have come and gone in that time.

Why has CO2 suddenly decided to behave differently?

It has never driven global warming before.


Because mankind wasn't putting it into the atmosphere back then. We are affecting this natural process. We are what is different. We know that we are putting the Co2 there because of the isotope ratio.
? If it didn't drive the GREAT changes in global climate in the past, over hundreds of thousands of years, that is, no correlation shows it to have been a driver in the past, then the claim that it is a driver now has no foundation.

You're going to have to do better than just saying it is, give me some proof it actually does.

What has been shown, various research, is that CO2 rises as temperatures rise, that is, the climate warms for some reason and then CO2 rises, and lags behind the temperature rises by around 800 years (+/- c200)

Therefore, it is not out of this pattern that the current rise in CO2 comes from warming c800 years ago, except that the Hockey Sticks have deliberately obliterated this..


There is no proof, not of any kind, that CO2 drives global temperature rises. You're going to have to do better than just saying it does, give me some proof.

Surely since this is 'such a scientific consensus' you should be able to find plenty of proof for your claims?


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
How bizarre - Myrrh totally rubbishes current ways of measuring CO2 - even though it can be triangulated a great deal more than in the past using many different methods which generally confirm the findings. Then states that rises in CO2 follow warming. So can we measure increases of CO2 in the atmossphere or can't we! Make up your mind Myrrh.

Measuring actual CO2 levels past and present isn't an exact science..

However, even with the limitations in place Vostok and other such studies show a consistent pattern of c800 years lag for rises in CO2, following temperature rises.

This pattern shows a good correlation between the two, methane level rises also show this pattern.

What's bizzare is the lengths AGW's go to delude themselves that it ain't so..

CO2 lags temperature how alarmists think

If you're really interested in looking at this? JOHN DAVID LEWIS Submission to EPA is a review of CO2 relative to temperature over different time frames, over millions of years, over hundreds of thousands, over the last thousand. Worth reading.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.

All available real science shows that CO2 lags temperature rise by c800 years. Ice ages have come and gone in that time.

Yes, I'd agree to both those comments. Though, if I was being technical I'd replace "ice ages" with "glaciations and inter-glacials" because technically we've been in a single long ice age for the last half-million years or so, a state that we're rapidly coming out of as the remaining ice sheets melt away.
? What are you actually saying here?

Yes, technically correct, re ice ages and glacials, but:

"Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years." Last Glacial Period wikipage

In other words, 'Vostok pattern' set to continue, end unknown.


quote:
Now, what's the issue with the scientific description of why there's a lag of several centuries between the start of warming and the rise in CO2 concentrations? Or, why scientists don't consider the current situation to be the same?
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be more specific. I don't know what you mean by a lag of several centuries, Vostok is fairly standard results for our own conditions and that's c800 years.

The ice age we're in shows us to be in the same consistent pattern as in Vostok, by which the interglacial we're in is looks to be coming to an end fairly soon. If we continue in the same pattern (and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't, the other big ice ages previous relate to different conditions on earth, different continental movements), we're heading back into a glacial. The real debate here is, will this happen in the next c.hundred years or c.thousand?


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, as you've read up about the subject, I'm sure you're aware of the information below: I just wanted to highlight it as your last post made no mention of it, and it's very relevant to the points you raise.

1) The CO2 "800 year" lag. You're right, there is an 800-year lag in the paleoclimate records. However, your statement that "Ice ages have come and gone in that time" is incorrect - the warming periods last around 5000 years. CO2 did not start these warming cycles, but the mechanism by which it contributed to them is well known - it's estimated that about 50% of the warming was due to CO2. The lag is also only true for the glacial-interglacial cycles: in more recent history, CO2 has lead the temperature rise.

No it hasn't. Estimate schmeshtimate, show me the science behind this. If you're basing this on the nonsense Hockey Sticks, they've been thoroughly, and I do mean thoroughly, debunked. They were created to destroy our real climate history.

We're in an interglacial, see Vostok, which continues to show CO2 lagging by c800 years, put back the MWP obliterated by these scientific frauds and CO2 rise now becomes logical again.

Or, it doesn't effin matter what CO2 is doing in interglacials. Your AGW claim that rising CO2 is driving up temperatures now is shown to be false. It's getting colder, has been cooling for the last 10 years (see emails for details of how they've tried to hide this). 1998 was an El Nino year, it's always hotter. NOAA had to admit that its claims for hottest this and that were junk, but the damage is done, no AGW, 'cept in such discussions, gets to hear about it.

quote:
2) The "broken hockey stick": The papers by McIntyre and McKitrick on which the 2005 Canada National Post article was based have been discredited in this 2005 paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate. The authors took note of the criticisms levelled by McIntyre and McKitrick, adjusted the methodology to allow for them, and demonstrated that it made no practical difference to the results. Full text here. Of course, this is a critique of the 1998 paper: there are more recent studies available, some of which are summarised here and here. If you ignore the original paper as discredited, just look at some of the others which have been done in the last 11 years, which give the same message: The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.
Show me independent research to verify these claims. I do not accept the deliberate frauds and cover up by more dishonest tweaking of Mann et al and the IPCC. Have you actually read the debunking? Tell me what you think when you've read it.



quote:
3) You mention the medieval warm period: I presume you're aware that it is now understood that it wasn't global in extent, and that it wasn't as warm as the last 20 years. Source.
Sigh, NOAA is corrupt. If you had even the slightest idea of how they screw temperature you'd not give them the time of day. I looked at many different studies, when I first explored this, and my conclusion is that those saying it wasn't as warm as today are Hockey Sticking it.

And what do you mean by global? The MWP relates to warming causing the ice to retreat - we're not talking about snowball earth here.. We're talking about the difference between something like the LIA affecting the northern hemisphere and warmer conditions like the MWP when the ice retreated back up north, giving us a warmer growing climate for example.


quote:
4) You quote a personal email from Kevin Trenberth where he says "we are not close to balancing the energy budget." Fair enough, but given that Trenberth has published a paper in 2009 where he states that "there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities," he doesn't seem to agree with your main point, and leads me to suspect that the email is quoted out of context, to justify a point that its author wouldn't agree with.
? That's the point! He's saying something in this email which contradicts his published work..

This isn't at all out of context, did you read the preamble to this?

These are genuine emails showing consistent history of manipulating data and thwarting all attempts to retrieve these for independent checking.

Charlatans and con men do this, not scientists worth their salt.


quote:
In summary, your argument either rests on the assumption that the world's foremost experts on climatology are ignorant of some old arguments on the internet advanced by non-specialists (some of whom have political agendas, or are financed by energy companies with a huge interest in the status quo) - or that there's some shadowy conspiracy by every climate scientist to misrepresent the facts in order to keep themselves in jobs. Or something.
They're foremost charlatans. They've been shown to be this from the beginning of the IPCC certainly, the only question is, who is pulling their strings? Maybe they don't even know? Maybe they're just crap scientists being taken advantage of.


quote:
Now this might be news to you (it shouldn't be, if you've read anything Alan has written), but when professional scientists find some observations that aren't explained by our current understanding, they're over the moon. That's how breakthroughs are made and Nobel prizes won. If there was a real case for overthrowing the orthodoxy on climate, there's a powerful incentive to publish (even at the risk of substantial embarrasment if wrong: see Fleischmann and Pons). However, even left-field scientists like Lindzen agree with 90% of what other climate scientists are saying.
Oh, please, you and Alan both, stop equating this nonsense to real science of the like Einstein or DNA. Where data isn't withheld, instead given to open scrutiny. That a Nobel prize was given to the IPCC and Gore proves only that Kissinger wasn't a one off.


quote:
The problem here is not the science: it's the public policy. All the opposition I've seen stems from a dislike of the political measures which have been put forward to combat climate change: cap & trade, taxation, wind turbines, more expensive air travel, etc. The whole debate just seems to be an expression of "we don't like what people are doing about it, so it mustn't really exist."
And that's really twisted, that's the outcome of the 'green agenda', but the 'science' it claims to base this on has been argued against from the beginning of it. That there have been countless coverups and mad attacks against anyone contradicting the claims to prevent the 'science' becoming seen for what it is, junk, is the issue here. Is this being used for some ulterior purpose? See OP. That's the politics here.

quote:
To all the deniers: take your lead from aumbry: what would you do if you were convinced AGW and its consequences were real?

- Chris.

That's a ridiculous question.

Those convinced of it have either not looked into it themselves or not looked into it well enough. What should they do? Get a reality check.

I think the actual scenario is a handful of powerful and well placed conmen at the top promoting AGW and the rest of AGW as Aumbry posted, yet another chapter of mass hysteria in our history.

Did anyone see question time? The shock of the audience being told it was a con. [Smile] You can fool some of the people all of the time..

..you begin by eliminating the opposition. The more fanatic the believers the more easily led and the more dire the consequences.


Myrrh

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm well aware that correlation doesn't automatically mean causation. But, when there's a clear correlation and a sound theory that predicts a cause-effect relationship one is on more solid ground. I've shown both a correlation and a solid theoretical framework based on such simple science it can be tested in a school physics lab, you just don't appear to have read my posts.

Oh I've read them, that you're still claiming CO2 in a test tube gets hot is so far all you've offered me in the way of proof that it is thedriver of global warming.

Who cares whether the CO2 heats up? That's not the point. You're still repeating this Myrrh, demonstrating that you haven't understood the first basic steps in this. The basic point of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect is that the CO2 is semi-opaque to Infrared radiation from the Earth so it bounces around and the Earth doesn't lose the heat into space that it otherwise would. That's why it's said to act like a blanket: it reduces the loss of heat. The concentration of CO2 is like the the thickness of the blanket.
A very holey blanket..

That CO2 heats up is exactly the point. It's not a reflector shield.

Any of IR spectrum, heat, not absorbed by CO2 bypasses it. It continues into space or absorbed by something else, water vapour for example.

Heat Rises.

Heat Rises.


quote:
Until mankind added loads more CO2 to the atmosphere in recent times, the system was in a natural balance and everything was ok. We need some CO2 or the Earth wouldn't retain enough of the Sun's heat to sustain our current comfortable existence. Rather more heat will not be a good thing overall but some people still claim that it'll be lovely, having more CO2 and higher temperatures, either because they either know nothing about it or because someone is paying them to say so. I see no other explanation for what appears to be stupidity and lack of consideration for the world's poor and vulnerable.
.

The poor and vulnerable are being kept that way by this scare. Africa is prime real estate for frigid northerns to migrate to, especially valuable if its resources remain largely untapped.


This idea of 'balance' is meaningless - climate changes, over thousands of years, over millions of years. Our 10,000 year jaunt in such numbers in a warm northern hemisphere is a blip.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Now, what's the issue with the scientific description of why there's a lag of several centuries between the start of warming and the rise in CO2 concentrations? Or, why scientists don't consider the current situation to be the same?
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be more specific.
You claim to have looked objectively at both sides of the argument. You've repeatedly trotted out the 800year lag inthe Vostok core as though this somehow destroys the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and artificially increasing the concentration of CO2 is driving the current climate change. I've repeatedly explained that scientists a) acknowledge the time lag in the ice core records, b) understand where the lag comes from using their climate theory (ie it's not anomalous data that invalidates the theory, but is something the theory predicts and so supports the theory) and c) that the current scenario is different and so the same lag isn't to be expected.

Of course, you may not be convinced by the arguments I've presented. But, if you've failed to understand them (and, I've tried hard to make it fairly clear), especially if you've failed to ask questions about the bits you don't understand to help you understand, then you can't claim to have looked objectively at the argument.

quote:
I don't know what you mean by a lag of several centuries, Vostok is fairly standard results for our own conditions and that's c800 years.
Other ice records vary a bit on the length of the lag, and it changes a bit for each glacial/interglacial interface. 800 years is several centuries, so is 500 years or 1000.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
... after reading the Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge a climate scientist with the CSIRO ...

I found a thoughtful review by Richard D North who "very much wanted to like The Climate Caper on the grounds that its sceptical case seems pretty reasonable".

The reviewer found that "Dr Paltridge accepts that there will be some warming as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases. But he thinks the evidence suggests that the effect may not be large or awful. He makes two main suggestions as to why so many scientists are in the alarmed camp. One is that they have succumbed to the herd mentality which large funding and political nudges will produce. The other is that so much of the work depends on climate computer models whose predictions are fallible mostly because they are highly susceptible both to the quality of the data put in and to the tweaking which can and perhaps must be done to make them accord with present reality.

It is easy to imagine these arguments are important, and they are put attractively in this book. But it’s hopeless, really. Some of Dr Paltridge’s case is weak because purely anecdotal: he thinks he has come across closed minds amongst alarmists during personal run-ins with the mainstream. The rest of his case is weak on much more important grounds. Again and again he asserts failings and weaknesses in computer models or the real-world assumptions which form their input, but either can’t or won’t back it up by reference to anyone else’s work."
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
[ETA: x-posted with Alwyn, my fault for being verbose!]
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I'm fairly ignorant of the whole debate, and have to admit I'm skeptical about global warming being a man made phenomenon. However after reading the Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge a climate scientist with the CSIRO, two things stood out from what your saying. You imply there is a consensus, yet Paltridge explains that once the momentum built around global warming it was difficult to officially publish conflicting theories or officially question available data. You've also said a "cap & trade" system is the solution, yet Paltridge argues that the immediate cost of such a system far outweighs marginally future life-style benefit improvements.

Luke, thanks for the temperate tone of your response. I don't know of Paltridge except for through your reference, but I did look him up in Wikipedia. It seems that he was an atmospheric scientist and involved in the economics of climate forecasting, although not directly in climate modelling.

If there's one thing that does ring faint alarm bells for me, it's the fact that he's retired. A number of previously eminent scientists have developed "hobby horses" in retirement: Lovelock springs to mind, and whereas I have a great deal of respect for him (and thought his first Gaia book was pretty reasonable), he's got more and more extreme, until now he's predicting the end of humanity.

I think it's true that contrarian publishers have a hart time getting into print in peer-reviewed journals. There's a number of reasons this could be true:
I think the first two are reasonable, and the last isn't. I'm sure the "over unity" (perpetual motion machine scams) brigade have similar complaints about finding it difficult to get published in engineering journals! I do note that scientists like Lindzen can and have been published, despite disagreeing with some of the consensus. It does seem to be a minority view amongst actual climate scientists though, according to a 2007 survey I posted earlier - it's not that they disagree and can't get published.

To clarify, I didn't say that cap and trade was a solution: I said that it had been put forward as one. I don't really have an opinion on c&t, as I don't know enough about it.

Cheers,

- Chris.

[ 27. November 2009, 09:10: Message edited by: sanityman ]
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
I thought this article written 2 years ago says it all:-

Article
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Myrrh, I'm at a bit of a loss over how to continue this debate constructively. I know that the subject can easily inflame tempers, which is why I normally stay away from it - I don't trust myself not to lose my temper and start arguing emotionally. In my experience, when this happens any opportunity for communication or mutual understanding is lost. If I have come over as personally insulting or testy, I apologise. From the tone of your last post, it certainly seems like something has made you angry.

However, it's not anger that bothers me, so much as statements like:
quote:
They [hockey sticks] were created to destroy our real climate history.
quote:
put back the MWP obliterated by these scientific frauds
quote:
I do not accept the deliberate frauds and cover up by more dishonest tweaking of Mann et al and the IPCC
quote:
Sigh, NOAA is corrupt. If you had even the slightest idea of how they screw temperature you'd not give them the time of day
quote:
They're foremost charlatans. They've been shown to be this from the beginning of the IPCC certainly, the only question is, who is pulling their strings?
quote:
That there have been countless coverups and mad attacks against anyone contradicting the claims
I'm sorry, Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist. If you systematically discount anyone who disagrees with you - especially professional researchers in the field, who produced the very data that the "junk science" sites you favour twist into their own alternative theories - then you are in a place where you cannot and will not listen to anyone who knows the science better than you and might be in a position to change your mind.

The dwarves are for the dwarves, to take a quote out of context.

Given that you don't trust the CRU, NOAA, NASA or Mann and anyone he's ever published with, are there any sources of actual scientific information that you regard as valid? If the answer is "none," then it's pointless me trying to engage with you further, as we have no common ground in sources of information that we both agree are valid.

The trouble - from my POV - is that that list of things distrusted seems to include 1st year degree textbooks in your case, and crank websites in mine.

quote:
Have you actually read the debunking? Tell me what you think when you've read it.
I read the paper which was written and thought it raised some valid points, although it did come over as having an agenda. Looking at the background of the authors (one of whom was an economist, not a scientist) didn't give me a great deal of confidence. I then read the follow up paper that I quoted, which took their criticisms into account, allowed for them, and then showed that the conclusions were unchanged. I also found a lot of similar studies done subsequently that also found similar conclusions.

Just because someone has "debunked" a paper doesn't mean they have the last word. What they did was publish a paper that disagreed with the research, which in the normal process of scientific to-and-fro (which can get pretty personal and heated even in less controversial areas btw, scientists being human) was subsequently shown not to invalidate the original paper. Subsequent work showed that the conclusions of the original were valid. Why should I pay any more attention to your "debunking?" It's old hat.

The thing is, if none of the sources I depend on as reliable (the peer-reviewed scientific literature, what I know of my degree subject, articles by people who have academic posts at respectable universities who are studying the field in question) are the same are the ones you rely upon (make your own list here) then we're never going to agree. I only note in passing that if you think all of academia is so corrupt, who do you think wrote the textbooks you used at school? Looks like all your education was worthless too. Good think we have the internet...

- Chris.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
I'm sorry, Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist.

Crikey.
quote:
Given that you don't trust the CRU, NOAA, NASA or Mann and anyone he's ever published with, are there any sources of actual scientific information that you regard as valid?
Of course there are. Anyone who puts up a webpage Myrrh agrees with is a "real scientist", regardless of credentials, qualifications or obvious lunacy. Hence the Oregon Institute are "real scientists", despite them being a few family members working on a farm, publishing nuclear survival manuals, etc. On another thread she linked to a site written by a pink unicorn. (I'm not kidding.)

Similarly, anyone Myrrh disagrees with is self-evidently a conman or a fool, promoting "junk science" - a phrase she's used dozens of times. There's no room for honest disagreement.
quote:
If the answer is "none," then it's pointless me trying to engage with you further, as we have no common ground in sources of information that we both agree are valid.
It's entirely pointless. Personally, I think Myrrh is a much stronger advert for AGW than anything Alan could ever write - her position is so obviously barking mad. Still, her long screeds tend to drown all other conversations (including more moderate sceptics) and IMO that's a shame.

I like Myrrh and was genuinely pleased to see her back again. That feeling's wearing off now though.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
As an alternative to entrenched positions and culture war, could there be a room for a 'meeting of moderate minds'? Here's a first draft of what this might look like...

Suppose believers in (human-caused) climate change accepted that:-
- There have been panics that were unfounded, like the 'millenium bug'
- Some of the climate science will probably turn out to be wrong; scientific knowledge moves on and sometimes there are surprises
- As human beings, scientists are vulnerable to 'following the herd' like anyone else
- We aren't 'certain' of any particular scenario; we don't have categorical evidence; not all scientists agree; everyone (scientists or not) have a right to question the validity of climate science; if we are to make sacrifices, we'll need strong evidence to justify them
- Following the recent 'email hacking' incident, probably some scientists have worked together to oppose climate sceptics (whether or not their conduct was understandable or justifiable)

Suppose believers in climate scepticism accepted that:-
- Some warnings by scientists in the past have turned out to be right; for example, smoking is addictive even though some tobacco executives reportedly denied this
- Some of the climate science will probably turn out to be right (whether or not the consequences will be as serious as environmentalists claim)
- Even though they are flawed human beings, scientists have investigated this issue using scientific techniques that deserve some credibility
- We don't necessarily wait for categorical proof before responding to potential threats; for example, we don't wait until an invasion of our countries is in progress before building warships and warplanes
- If climate science is wrong, it could be wrong in either direction (over-estimating or under-estimating); even if it is wrong, moving to a more sustainable economy and energy supply is desirable because the Earth's total resources are limited.

Any takers - or modifications?
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It's entirely pointless. Personally, I think Myrrh is a much stronger advert for AGW than anything Alan could ever write - her position is so obviously barking mad. Still, her long screeds tend to drown all other conversations (including more moderate sceptics) and IMO that's a shame.

I like Myrrh and was genuinely pleased to see her back again. That feeling's wearing off now though.

So why do people bother trying to have an intelligent dialog? Myrrh is not going to be convinced. Credit the other readers of this thread with enough nous that they don't accept whatever is last posted. Alan Cresswell almost managed it, but then he got sucked back in again.
Spend your time on more fruitful dialog. This thread is repeating old material. Take courage and keep silent.

RE the OP. I don't see global government happening. Lord Monkton obviously has his appeal with fringe views.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
As an alternative to entrenched positions and culture war, could there be a room for a 'meeting of moderate minds'? Here's a first draft of what this might look like...[snip]

Alwyn, what a great idea. There's a lot of room for honest disagreement without setting sail on HMS Tinfoil Hat, and I'd love to see more people moving beyond the entrenched positions and examining possible solutions. I love the approach of people like David MacKay FRS, who says things like "I'm not pro- nuclear, just pro- arithmetic." Acknowledging that you can want to move away from burning hydrocarbons for electricity doesn't automatically make you a wind-turbine hugging, capitalism-hating leftie, and similarly being uneasy about statements like "the science is in" doesn't make you a nutter.

In this spirit, can I share an very reasonable and non-partisan article on the contrarian Dr Richard Lindzen? I don't agree with everything that he says, but it's interesting that even people on the opposite side of the debate don't regard him as a crank - he even contributed to IPCC 1996.
quote:
"I’ve been working on the scientific questions of climate for a long time, and I’m seeing them trivialized and ‘stupidified,’ and I’m upset by that."
Cheers,

- Chris.

PS: an apology also, if one is needed, for sucking Alan back into a debate he was trying to extricate himself from [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The real cynic in me inclines to the view that since global political processes seem quite unable to face up in any "make a real difference" way to the arguments favouring "man-made" bad effects on the climate, the sceptical views which exist within the scientific community have a great future to look forward to.

"We can't get our act together" simply gets replaced by "we've no need to get our act together". Given the current and prospective political need, there's got to be money in that!

But of course that is a quite unworthy conspiracy theory to advance. That some scientists may be playing the sceptical card, playing for the grants which may become available to sceptics. Perish the thought!

My serious point is that we can always erect plausible conspiracy theories to support our opinions. But they don't actually prove anything. If indeed some scientists have been conspiring to "improve the evidence" and the evidence of their conspiracy is in the open, they have shot themselves in the foot so far as the value of any future research publications are concerned. Trust once lost is hard to recover. So are reputations and research grants. In the long term, any bad science coming out of any "jumping on bandwagons" will be repudiated. Pomo insights are correct in pointing to the human elements and powerplay behaviour to be found in scientific research, but miss the point that such distortions never last. The process is in the long run self-cleansing. Essentially, they are ad hominem arguments, and such arguments are always self-defeating and sterile.

What this argument needs here and elsewhere is a greater concentration on the science, less conspiracy theorising, and less rubbishing of disagreeable sources. Forget "cry wolf", the real question is "is there really a wolf?". I'm of the view that there is. It wouldn't be the end of my world if that view was shown to be mistaken.

[ 27. November 2009, 11:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
As an alternative to entrenched positions and culture war, could there be a room for a 'meeting of moderate minds'? Here's a first draft of what this might look like...

Suppose believers in (human-caused) climate change accepted that:-
- There have been panics that were unfounded, like the 'millenium bug'
- Some of the climate science will probably turn out to be wrong; scientific knowledge moves on and sometimes there are surprises
- As human beings, scientists are vulnerable to 'following the herd' like anyone else
- We aren't 'certain' of any particular scenario; we don't have categorical evidence; not all scientists agree; everyone (scientists or not) have a right to question the validity of climate science; if we are to make sacrifices, we'll need strong evidence to justify them
- Following the recent 'email hacking' incident, probably some scientists have worked together to oppose climate sceptics (whether or not their conduct was understandable or justifiable)

Suppose believers in climate scepticism accepted that:-
- Some warnings by scientists in the past have turned out to be right; for example, smoking is addictive even though some tobacco executives reportedly denied this
- Some of the climate science will probably turn out to be right (whether or not the consequences will be as serious as environmentalists claim)
- Even though they are flawed human beings, scientists have investigated this issue using scientific techniques that deserve some credibility
- We don't necessarily wait for categorical proof before responding to potential threats; for example, we don't wait until an invasion of our countries is in progress before building warships and warplanes
- If climate science is wrong, it could be wrong in either direction (over-estimating or under-estimating); even if it is wrong, moving to a more sustainable economy and energy supply is desirable because the Earth's total resources are limited.

Any takers - or modifications?

I, for one don't have any difficulty with any of the above.

I wonder if anyone would be interested in answering the folowing questions arising from Professor Lindzen's article above:-

He claims that the warming observed to date could quite easily be caused by El Nino events, volcanic eruptions or changes in solar radiation. Is this correct?

He says that Europe was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. Is that correct?

He says that the Greenland Icesheet is actually expanding and that the Greenland temperature is now lower than it was in 1940 and is little changed since records were first taken in 1780. True?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I wonder if anyone would be interested in answering the folowing questions arising from Professor Lindzen's article above:-

He claims that the warming observed to date could quite easily be caused by El Nino events, volcanic eruptions or changes in solar radiation. Is this correct?

He says that Europe was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. Is that correct?

He says that the Greenland Icesheet is actually expanding and that the Greenland temperature is now lower than it was in 1940 and is little changed since records were first taken in 1780. True?

(I know I promised Barnabus I'd stay out of this, but I am mortal, and weak...)

1. Not easily, especially since atmospheric sulphur (from volcanoes) has a cooling effect, and that's gone down.

2. That's debatable, too. The latest results suggest that we're warmer now than the Middle Ages.

3. Yes. That's exactly what the data says. Also, the Greenland ice sheet is getting thicker in the middle. It isn't expanding though - the loss of ice around the edges is greater than the gain in the centre.

All of this from the published record. No one seems to be hiding the data.

I'd also like to note that China - who, let's face it, tends to plough its own furrow on most matters - is setting carbon limits.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You claim to have looked objectively at both sides of the argument. You've repeatedly trotted out the 800year lag inthe Vostok core as though this somehow destroys the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and artificially increasing the concentration of CO2 is driving the current climate change. I've repeatedly explained that scientists a) acknowledge the time lag in the ice core records, b) understand where the lag comes from using their climate theory (ie it's not anomalous data that invalidates the theory, but is something the theory predicts and so supports the theory) and c) that the current scenario is different and so the same lag isn't to be expected.

The theory doesn't predict any such thing...

That there is a time lag is objective from all kinds of research, whether your models include it or not is subjective.

You keep saying the current scenario is different, but you offer no proof of it being so.

Why is it different? Why should CO2 suddenly behave out of character?

You really have to do better than simply say it does.


quote:
Of course, you may not be convinced by the arguments I've presented. But, if you've failed to understand them (and, I've tried hard to make it fairly clear), especially if you've failed to ask questions about the bits you don't understand to help you understand, then you can't claim to have looked objectively at the argument.
Your arguments are like the above, you make a statement contrary to observable fact and then refuse to follow through with any explanation backed by scientific method and logic.

Why don't you understand that my refusal to accept people playing with models which continually fail to include observable fact are not scientific?

You can be impressed as you like that different scenarios are created at whim, but doubling CO2 does not double warming, for example, neither does ignoring water vapour except as some, by now mythical in its worst sense of fictional, idea that its only importance is in feedback as a multiplier of CO2 'blanket' reflecting heat back down to earth!

Take one bathroom and run a bath of cold water, put into bathroom small background heat source, open a window, close the door and pump in CO2 through the keyhole. How long do you think it will take to a) warm the bathroom b) warm the water, at 400 ppm relative to the amount of heat and conditions in said bathroom?

Bear in mind that closed greenhouse conditions such as widely used in growing food, CO2 is food for plants, we are carbon life forms, show no runnaway temperature rises at 1000 ppm.

quote:
I don't know what you mean by a lag of several centuries, Vostok is fairly standard results for our own conditions and that's c800 years.
quote:
Other ice records vary a bit on the length of the lag, and it changes a bit for each glacial/interglacial interface. 800 years is several centuries, so is 500 years or 1000.
Uggh, tiredness tells.

"Now, what's the issue with the scientific description of why there's a lag of several centuries between the start of warming and the rise in CO2 concentrations? Or, why scientists don't consider the current situation to be the same?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be more specific. I don't know what you mean by a lag of several centuries being an issue, Vostok is fairly standard results for our own conditions and that's c800 years and there's nothing to show this is going to be any different in the future in our conditions.

We're still back to your "and why scientists don't consider the current situation to be the same".

Extrapolate, show me how they've come to whatever conclusions you're promoting here, prove that CO2 is acting out of character of well known pattern. In other words, tell me exactly what the claim is and show me exactly the research that has been done to verify such a claim.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, I'm at a bit of a loss over how to continue this debate constructively. I know that the subject can easily inflame tempers, which is why I normally stay away from it - I don't trust myself not to lose my temper and start arguing emotionally. In my experience, when this happens any opportunity for communication or mutual understanding is lost. If I have come over as personally insulting or testy, I apologise. From the tone of your last post, it certainly seems like something has made you angry.

Chris, no, not angry, a bit abrupt perhaps 'cause tired. Sorry it came across like that.


quote:
However, it's not anger that bothers me, so much as statements like:
quote:
They [hockey sticks] were created to destroy our real climate history.
quote:
put back the MWP obliterated by these scientific frauds
quote:
I do not accept the deliberate frauds and cover up by more dishonest tweaking of Mann et al and the IPCC
quote:
Sigh, NOAA is corrupt. If you had even the slightest idea of how they screw temperature you'd not give them the time of day
quote:
They're foremost charlatans. They've been shown to be this from the beginning of the IPCC certainly, the only question is, who is pulling their strings?
quote:
That there have been countless coverups and mad attacks against anyone contradicting the claims
I'm sorry, Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist.

I do wish people would stop and think before they use the attack 'conspiracy theorists' as a defence..

The very sad fact of the matter here is that these people have shown themselves time and again to have manipulated data. I have spent considerable time looking at this. The current emails confirm 'out of their own mouths' what has been noted for years and years and blanked out by those arguing for AGW. That they have withheld data, that they suggest destroying data so their malpractice is hidden. How is this not a conspiracy?

Yes, if cover up of bad scientific practice makes those like me think there is a conspiracy to con us then we're conspiracy theorists and proud of it! The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.


quote:
If you systematically discount anyone who disagrees with you - especially professional researchers in the field, who produced the very data that the "junk science" sites you favour twist into their own alternative theories - then you are in a place where you cannot and will not listen to anyone who knows the science better than you and might be in a position to change your mind.
Well, you see, I have no reason from the research I've done to consider these professional researchers.. I see them for what they are, con men, because they are conning us with created scenarios bearing no relation to observable fact or scientific method. I'm not going to go a fetch all the examples again, the emails if looked at objectively show this scientific method for what it is.

How can anyone possibly look at the deconstruction of the Hockey Sticks, Mann and Briffa, and not see they have cherry picked data and created an analysis engine to produce hockey sticks? Why anyone with any love at all for science, and I'm one of these, would take them seriously as scientists having known how they've manipulated data is quite beyond my ken. That anyone in any scientific field himself wouldn't be immediately appalled by these machinations rather than find excuses for them is even more puzzling. This is worse than Piltdown man, this is scientists world wide deliberately colluding with the fraud, the majority by intimidation I'll give, but still.



quote:
The dwarves are for the dwarves, to take a quote out of context.

Given that you don't trust the CRU, NOAA, NASA or Mann and anyone he's ever published with, are there any sources of actual scientific information that you regard as valid? If the answer is "none," then it's pointless me trying to engage with you further, as we have no common ground in sources of information that we both agree are valid.

Give me actual research which proves this scenario. All I'm getting is what I get from Alan, 'it exists but I'm not giving you any details of how it exists'. Give me scientific backing, especially from these I don't trust, that CO2 has changed its character and is now driving global warming. (Yes, I got the term wrong, it's logarithmic. Thank you Latchkey Kid)


quote:
The trouble - from my POV - is that that list of things distrusted seems to include 1st year degree textbooks in your case, and crank websites in mine.
Well, since CO2 has never been shown to have any driving capability on global climate nor that it becomes 'a blanket' reflecting heat back down to earth nor that its effects double as its amount doubles, you must be using different first year text books.



quote:
Have you actually read the debunking? Tell me what you think when you've read it.
quote:
I read the paper which was written and thought it raised some valid points, although it did come over as having an agenda. Looking at the background of the authors (one of whom was an economist, not a scientist) didn't give me a great deal of confidence. I then read the follow up paper that I quoted, which took their criticisms into account, allowed for them, and then showed that the conclusions were unchanged. I also found a lot of similar studies done subsequently that also found similar conclusions.

Just because someone has "debunked" a paper doesn't mean they have the last word. What they did was publish a paper that disagreed with the research, which in the normal process of scientific to-and-fro (which can get pretty personal and heated even in less controversial areas btw, scientists being human) was subsequently shown not to invalidate the original paper. Subsequent work showed that the conclusions of the original were valid. Why should I pay any more attention to your "debunking?" It's old hat.

That these were used to present a picture of our climate history at complete variance with well known and continually confirmed by more research understanding that our climate has not been level hockey stick handle until some blip caused it to shoot up uncharacteristically, I have to wonder how they came to the conclusion it has.

What I've found is a whole industry creating illusory backing for it and intimidating those calling for it to be exposed as such.

It's interesting, for me at least, that it took an economist to spot what system Mann used to create his hockey stick, because he was used to seeing in his own field how data can be manipulated to create this illusion, and I came to spot it by using skills in my own erstwhile field, the knowledge of how it's possible to lie with statistics in marketing and advertising, in presentation. 9 out of 10 cats prefer to the more involved fiddling around.

Here's an example I what I can see easily, though I was a bit rusty to begin with:

quote:
In his book An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore ignores this time lag in order to create a false image of a frightening rise in temperature caused by CO2 emissions today. He graphs CO2 and temperatures as rising and falling in parallel, thus depicting the “repeating correlation” that Patterson questioned: the two lines move in tandem, and the spike in CO2 to over 350ppm today runs ominously off the graph. This is visually powerful—but is it accurate?
Gore’s graph distorts the issue in two ways. First, it does not accommodate the earlier CO2 levels of up to 5000ppm, or 16 times those of today. The graph I presented in this article, Figure 1 above, has a higher vertical CO2 axis, and depicts today’s CO2 variations in accurate proportion to earlier changes: as tiny waves at the bottom right-hand side of the graph. Gore also omits values on the temperature axis, an egregious omission that makes it impossible to quantify the scale of temperature variations. Second, Gore conflates correlation with causation. His parallel CO2 and temperature lines obscure the fact that large temperature rises preceded small CO2 rises by 500 to 1500 years. Perhaps it is inconvenient for Gore to accept that the huge 22°F temperature changes in the Vostok ice core samples cannot be explained by the tiny—100ppm—changes in CO2 that followed those temperature changes. Readers may properly conclude that Gore’s CO2 / temperature graph is a distortion of the historical record designed to elicit an emotional response for a political purpose. (Taken from the John David Lewis link I posted above)

I've lost count of the number of such manipulations I've seen in my research into this subject. It takes careful reading to spot these, and I gave up checking finally because I found these methods to be a recurring pattern in all such presentations, from NOAA and IPCC to sensationalist reporters picking up on a good story. This method hides the lack of actual scientific discipline.

Hence my standard question - prove that CO2 drives global warming. Still no answer. Care to have a go..?


quote:
The thing is, if none of the sources I depend on as reliable (the peer-reviewed scientific literature, what I know of my degree subject, articles by people who have academic posts at respectable universities who are studying the field in question) are the same are the ones you rely upon (make your own list here) then we're never going to agree. I only note in passing that if you think all of academia is so corrupt, who do you think wrote the textbooks you used at school? Looks like all your education was worthless too. Good think we have the internet...

- Chris.

Well again, what's peer reviewed? When that same coterie peer review each other's work and do their utmost to block any dissent?


quote:
. In a minority report issued December 20, 2007, members of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported that “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.”

Many of these scientists were expert reviewers for the UN IPCC—an Intergovernmental and not an Interscientific panel—which ignored their comments and critiques when they disagreed with the IPCC’s political mission.

The scientists include IPCC 2007 expert reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Canadian PhD meteorologist with over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography. He wrote: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Again from the John David Lewis link.

Which is actually a very good summary of how the AGW continually violates first year textbook anything..

Again an example I gave in the other doggy thread, what do you make of the American Meteorological Association giving its top prize to AGW's while in its teaching syllabus on its website debunking anthropogenic global warming?

The only conclusion I can reach, which has reason on its side, because there are and have been too many examples of the treatment Khandekar received and this coupled with the proven junk science of the hockey stick type promoted above dissenting expert voices, is that we are being manipulated. And those at the top of organisations are complicit in the manipulation regardless of dissenting voices of their own professional members.

And science, and therefore all of us, is the loser.

quote:
Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on drafts of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change,” wrote for the Senate committee: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”
Why should I believe your sources and not the likes of these?


Myrrh
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I thought this article written 2 years ago says it all:-

Article

How could they allow a rabid AGW denier like that to teach at a place like MIT?! He's thicker than the Greenland ice sheet! (Oh wait...scratch that...poor comparison)

Obviously, he should be sacked, and all his professional credentials revoked. If I see him, I may just punch him right in the face!

Professor of meteorology....my arse.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist.

I do wish people would stop and think before they use the attack 'conspiracy theorists' as a defence..

..............

I've lost count of the number of such manipulations I've seen in my research into this subject. It takes careful reading to spot these, and I gave up checking finally because I found these methods to be a recurring pattern in all such presentations, from NOAA and IPCC to sensationalist reporters picking up on a good story. This method hides the lack of actual scientific discipline.

.........

The only conclusion I can reach, which has reason on its side .... is that we are being manipulated.

.......

Why should I believe your sources and not the likes of these?


Myrrh

Myrrh, you sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist. In your own words, above.

"The only conclusion"?

Of course that is not the only conclusion which can be drawn, which has reason on its side, from the evidence in the public domain. You ruin any case you may have by such obvious over-statements. It may indeed be the only conclusion you can draw. But unfortunately, that says more about you than the evidence you have considered.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
He claims that the warming observed to date could quite easily be caused by El Nino events, volcanic eruptions or changes in solar radiation. Is this correct?

Few scientists in the field currently seem to believe this is true. These events neatly explain warming up to about 1980-ish, but the general opinion is that they're inadequate to explain the last few decades.

As far as I know, nobody (including the sceptics) has managed to produce a robust climate model that explains current warming without incorporating CO2. Lindzen's position is primarily "We don't know enough to say what's going on", but he doesn't go into details of an alternative.
quote:
He says that Europe was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. Is that correct?
Some people say European temperatures now are a bit higher than the middle ages, some say a bit lower. There's not a huge amount in it, especially considering the uncertainties involved. There's reason to believe the original 'hockey stick' underestimated this variation. There's more controversy about whether the Medieval Warm Period was global or just a regional fluctuation though.

Also, it's widely agreed - including by Lindzen - that the oceans have absorbed much of the current warming, meaning we'll probably see about +0.5C over the next 30 years even if all human emissions stopped right now. As I understand it, this is analogous to the way the sea is warmer at the end of the summer than the start - its thermal mass creates a lag.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Clint wrote,
quote:
Rather more heat will not be a good thing overall but some people still claim that it'll be lovely, having more CO2 and higher temperatures, either because they either know nothing about it or because someone is paying them to say so.
Or they own a lot of land in Siberia. Global warming would be bad for some and good for others. People like Rush Limbaugh and the entire population of Bangladesh will lose their homes, but huge areas in Central Asia, Canada, and the U.S. will become more habitable.

Somehow I'm not shocked that it was Russian hackers that broke the email scandal.

Alwyn, pointing out that were in this together and should work together to solve potential problems is so twentieth century. Here in the twenty-first century the world is about media drama and conflict. But I'm an old fashioned guy, so I'll sign up.

I mostly like the treaty provisions. It does seem to include a lot of language that could be used to support a global government framework. Most of this is needed, but some of it makes no sense.

Specifically, why is economic and social development placed as the "first and overriding" priority?

For that matter, what is social development? Does that mean we get to burn down all the fast food restaurants, or is there some objective measure of social development I'm missing?

I find it odd that a treaty on global warming should place it's first priority as doing things that are at best tangentially related to global warming. (One might even argue that economic development is anti-global warming.)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist.

I do wish people would stop and think before they use the attack 'conspiracy theorists' as a defence..

..............

I've lost count of the number of such manipulations I've seen in my research into this subject. It takes careful reading to spot these, and I gave up checking finally because I found these methods to be a recurring pattern in all such presentations, from NOAA and IPCC to sensationalist reporters picking up on a good story. This method hides the lack of actual scientific discipline.

.........

The only conclusion I can reach, which has reason on its side .... is that we are being manipulated.

.......

Why should I believe your sources and not the likes of these?


Myrrh

Myrrh, you sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist. In your own words, above.

"The only conclusion"?

Of course that is not the only conclusion which can be drawn, which has reason on its side, from the evidence in the public domain. You ruin any case you may have by such obvious over-statements. It may indeed be the only conclusion you can draw. But unfortunately, that says more about you than the evidence you have considered.

I have admitted to being a conspiracy theorist!

Which you have edited out of quoting me.


There is a conspiracy to con us by producing an ideology to be believed regardless that its base as 'scientific peer reviewed consensus' is shown at every stage to be manufactured and not science at all..

What other conclusion can I come to?

You might like, as some here do, that I pretend there is still some debate about the reality of AGM, but there isn't.

If you think there is any basis to this claim then have a go at convincing me that CO2 is proved to have changed its chemical properties and historic characterists re climate during thousands and millions of years and has now become a driver of global warming.

Good luck looking for such evidence to back the claim..


Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm not sure you even see the impact of your own posts, Myrrh. Here is what you said.
quote:
Yes, if cover up of bad scientific practice makes those like me think there is a conspiracy to con us then we're conspiracy theorists and proud of it! The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Note the rhetorical "if". As I read your post at this point, you mix assertion with conviction, conclude conspiracy and are proud of it. Classic conspiracy theory behaviour. It's OK for shooting the breeze here, but it doesn't fly in a court of law, or anywhere where rules of evidence are respected, because it amounts to a blanket demeaning of others. So it damages your overall argument.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you think there is any basis to this claim then have a go at convincing me that [...]

I don't think many people believe they can convince you of anything. You don't understand the basics of the carbon cycle, and can't decide if breathing adds CO2 to the atmosphere or not. You invent nonsense like CO2 is "algorithmic" or "The 3rd law: heat cannot be trapped", then have the arrogance to say to Alan:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You really expect me to take you seriously as a scientist
[...]
You lost all credibility for me
[...]
Those who [don't agree with me about the Hockey Stick] are not scientists, and since they continue to promote a falsified hypothesis are party to the deception, the con.

It's highly entertaining. Please, can you explain again why CO2 saturation is "algorithmic"? I suspect it's a bad word because it almost starts in "Al Gore".
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Classic conspiracy theory behaviour.

Barnabas, Myrrh's hinted that climate scientists deliberately crashed a brand new satellite to hide some data. If that isn't a magnificent conspiracy theory, what is?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm smacking my own hand at this point, Hiro. I didn't want to derail arguments about the science into discussions about conspiracy theory! But I take the satellite point.

I guess I'm frustrated. It's an important topic and there is scope for discussing scepticism about the significance of "man-made" contributions to the ongoing processes of climate change, without recourse to broad-brushing folks who see things differently to ourselves. I just see these things as getting in the way.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Spawn you say
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I have no idea as to what sort of scenario you think we should be responding to.

It's nonsense to say I'm judging science by how alarming it is (if that even makes sense). And it's no good asking me about the future, I don't have a clue, and I seriously don't think anybody has. But we are causing some warming, so there's a productive debate to be had around adaptation and mitigation, on technological solutions as well as cutting-down emissions. But there's absolutely no point in panic and scare-mongering. [/QB]
I have highlighted the relevant parts of you post. Here you seem to be saying that the predictions of the climate modellers (arguably the top scientists in the world in this area) have no more validity than your predictions. I must admit that seems an amazing statement to me. You really think they are all that clueless. So I have written a little explaining my understanding of how climate models interface with weather forecasts to show why I think they may be a little less clueless than you believe. (It is quite long! And I am sure that one or two of the professional scientists here will correct me if I am wildly wrong.)

This is my understanding from a non-expert point of view but thought I would give it a go - the different levels of confidence we can have in short term weather forecasts, long term weather forecasts and climate predictions.

1. Short term weather forecasts
have significantly improved over the past 20 years. – four day weather forecasts are now as accurate as next day weather forecasts used to be. The problem is that the public perception of the accuracy of short term weather forecasts is often inaccurate. Some will notice the one day in ten where the weather forecast is wildly inaccurate or complain that because a cloud burst occurred 5 miles down the road that meant that a forecast of heavy showers was totally wrong.

2. Long term weather forecasts.
These are a lot less accurate and are normally given with a great deal less certainty. When I heard about the ‘barbecue summer’ forecast this summer, the version I heard mentioned the 60% probability. The fact that much of the press left this out is hardly the met offices fault. (I believe the ‘barbecue summer phrase’ was in actual fact the tourist industry’s.)

3. Climate predictions.
Some evidence suggests that these can be a lot more accurate than the long term weather forecasts though obviously not as accurate as short term weather forecasts. There are reasons for this. Some factors make it difficult to predict. One of the main variables in this area appear to be the behaviour of certain phenomena linked with the pacific ocean – primarily El Nino and La Nina. These may not be easy to predict with any accuracy but when they are underway they are observable and measurable.

Whilst variations in yearly temperatures can seem a little all over the place - the ‘trends’ over the past decade are pretty close to what was predicted. When there has been an El Nino the temperatures have been particularly high and when there has been a La Nina then temperatures tend to be below the trend line.

This means that providing the point in the El Nino cycle can be accurately judged, then global temperatures can be predicted very accurately over one to two year periods, this provides a good way of testing the accuracy of the climate models that have been developed. This has been done a number of times most notably by Hansen following the Pintubo eruption when he predicted an increase in northern hemisphere predictions of 0.5 degrees over the following 18 months – a prediction that turned out to be very accurate. Similar studies – three I am aware of – have also shown that in years when the previously mentioned phenomena aren’t affecting the weather in unpredictable ways, the models have proved accurate.

This is also the reason why it is difficult to make highly specific predictions at less predictable / stable points in the cycle. Since 2000 there have been no cases where such specific predictions have turned out to be significantly wide of the mark. This is because you need a phenomenon that has a measurable impact on global temperatures e.g. a large volcanic eruption and the other variables behaving predictably. Obviously a number of the years have not met these criteria and therefore no highly specific prediction was made.

To illustrate why the difference between long term weather forecasts and climate change predictions is so important is that when Hansen made his very accurate predition re the 0.5 degree rise didn’t mean that long term weather forecasts during this time were significantly more accurate. We can have significantly warmer temperatures in the northern hemisphere and yet in Britain the weather can be lousy. The jet stream is incredibly difficult to predict and whilst it may have a profound effect on
British weather it won’t in any significant way affect global temperatures.

Perhaps an analogy is useful here. If I make a crème anglais and pop some cream, milk and sugar in a pan stir a few times then heat I rarely have any idea where exactly the cream will catch on the bottom of the pan first that however I can still predict the likely problem with a high degree of confidence.

I hope that persuades you Spawn that the climate modellers may have more of an idea of future developments in climate than you!
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
Why do I find myself as skeptical about this conspiracy of colluding scientists as I am about AGW?...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Chris, you're not responsible for my lack of self restraint. I just can't stop myself correcting obvious mistakes (I don't imagine myself explaining things to Myrrh, but there are more people reading and if what I say helps them understand something better then that's good). Although, I'm trying to avoid repeating the scientific explanations I've given repeatedly and just engage with the issue of whether one can objectively look at both sides of a discussion without attempting to understand one side (as evidenced by repeatedly making assertions that have already been addressed).

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That there is a time lag is objective from all kinds of research, whether your models include it or not is subjective.

Yes, the time lag is an objective observation. The models don't include the time lag, they predict it. It's an intrinsic property of oceanic circulation.

quote:
You keep saying the current scenario is different, but you offer no proof of it being so.

Why is it different? Why should CO2 suddenly behave out of character?

Of course CO2 isn't behaving out of character. I've never said CO2 is behaving any different now than at any other time in history. Tell me where I've even suggested such an absurdity.

What I have said is that the cause of increased CO2 concentrations is different. It's now due to burning fossil fuels, rather than outgasing from oceans bringing CO2 from deep reservoirs.

quote:
"Now, what's the issue with the scientific description of why there's a lag of several centuries between the start of warming and the rise in CO2 concentrations? Or, why scientists don't consider the current situation to be the same?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be more specific. I don't know what you mean by a lag of several centuries being an issue, Vostok is fairly standard results for our own conditions and that's c800 years and there's nothing to show this is going to be any different in the future in our conditions.

The time lag isn't an issue for me.

The issue I was referencing is the one you clearly have. Namely that I have, repeatedly, given a scientific explanation for why the models predict a time lag. You clearly have an issue with that explanation, as evidenced by your repeated use of the time lag as though it was some sort of invalidation of the science. Yet, I don't have a clue what your issue is because you've never asked any question about the scientific explanation or otherwise indicated what you find unsatisfactory about my description of it.

The same could be said about other aspects of the science. Even when you've raised questions it's been painfully obvious that you're not understanding. And, often it seems you're not even attempting to understand. That's why I've decided not to try and explain science to you, it's just not worth spending the time writing stuff that doesn't even seem to be read beyond the level of seeking something to hang another paranoid diatribe on.

If anyone else wants to try and understand the science better, just ask. I'll do my best to explain it. And, if someone does understand it and still has good reasons to not accept the conclusions I'll be interested to read those and think about them seriously.
 
Posted by Shubenacadie (# 5796) on :
 
As a belated response to Luke's post a couple of days ago saying:

quote:
Does anyone really have a complete handle on all the global warming science? I personally haven't gone beyond reading articles in the paper, one book and a few blogs...
I'd suggest that the 'New Scientist' page on the subject might be a useful source for anyone wanting to get to grips with the basics. I'm sure it won't convince the diehard conspiracy theorists, but then probably nothing will.

I found this newspaper article the other week quite interesting; it reports various climate scientists saying that exaggerated claims are a problem, not because there's nothing to worry about, but because there is a real and serious issue that needs dealing with, and over-confident claims are counter-productive.

Given that even some of the less extreme predictions are quite seriously worrying, I'm sure I can't be alone in wishing that the sceptics and deniers were right -- a cartoon I saw a few weeks or months ago made this point quite well* -- but so far the evidence is against them.

*Is there anyone who also remembers it and could provide a link? -- I seem to remember it being on xkcd.com, but I couldn't find it there when I looked.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
... after reading the Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge a climate scientist with the CSIRO ...

I found a thoughtful review by Richard D North who "very much wanted to like The Climate Caper on the grounds that its sceptical case seems pretty reasonable".

The reviewer found that "Dr Paltridge accepts that there will be some warming as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases. But he thinks the evidence suggests that the effect may not be large or awful. He makes two main suggestions as to why so many scientists are in the alarmed camp. One is that they have succumbed to the herd mentality which large funding and political nudges will produce. The other is that so much of the work depends on climate computer models whose predictions are fallible mostly because they are highly susceptible both to the quality of the data put in and to the tweaking which can and perhaps must be done to make them accord with present reality.

It is easy to imagine these arguments are important, and they are put attractively in this book. But it’s hopeless, really. Some of Dr Paltridge’s case is weak because purely anecdotal: he thinks he has come across closed minds amongst alarmists during personal run-ins with the mainstream. The rest of his case is weak on much more important grounds. Again and again he asserts failings and weaknesses in computer models or the real-world assumptions which form their input, but either can’t or won’t back it up by reference to anyone else’s work."

I don't think North was entirely fair to Paltridge. Paltridge's anecdotal evidence is from his area of expertise showing that "consensus" is possibly the product of group-think, something it seems the leaked emails support. It's also disingenuous of North to claim Paltridge fails to "back it up." The book is meant to be polemical, it's about being skeptical about global warming and asking questions for the man on the street such as myself.

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Luke, thanks for the temperate tone of your response.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your gracious response. It's increasingly become a heated [pardon the pun] debate here in Australia as the government prepares to change our economy leading up the Copenhagen Conference. I want think about the issue sensibly, I'm not dumb but I don't have access to all the relevant information and am still working out who the reliable commentators are and where the reliable sources of information are.

quote:
... I think it's true that contrarian publishers have a hart time getting into print in peer-reviewed journals. There's a number of reasons this could be true:I think the first two are reasonable, and the last isn't. I'm sure the "over unity" (perpetual motion machine scams) brigade have similar complaints about finding it difficult to get published in engineering journals! I do note that scientists like Lindzen can and have been published, despite disagreeing with some of the consensus. It does seem to be a minority view amongst actual climate scientists though, according to a 2007 survey I posted earlier - it's not that they disagree and can't get published.
I know the OP suggests a conspiracy but that'd require too many people being in the know. It's also an interesting question where does crank science end and real science begin. I guess the outer boundaries of cosmology are like that as well. However knowing human nature and the 'herd' mentality and the dangerous mix of politics and science, I'd say that global warming is a more complex and less apocalyptic then we realize.

quote:

To clarify, I didn't say that cap and trade was a solution: I said that it had been put forward as one. I don't really have an opinion on c&t, as I don't know enough about it.

Sorry, the combatants on this thread sometimes blend together. (I think that the C&T seems like a large expensive change for small future gain.)
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
Thanks for the links Shubenacadie.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure you even see the impact of your own posts, Myrrh. Here is what you said.
quote:
Yes, if cover up of bad scientific practice makes those like me think there is a conspiracy to con us then we're conspiracy theorists and proud of it! The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Note the rhetorical "if". As I read your post at this point, you mix assertion with conviction, conclude conspiracy and are proud of it. Classic conspiracy theory behaviour. It's OK for shooting the breeze here, but it doesn't fly in a court of law, or anywhere where rules of evidence are respected, because it amounts to a blanket demeaning of others. So it damages your overall argument.
Not quite following you here, Barnabas. The reply is to being told I sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist, by Chris, who referenced something in particular I said. Since many of posts have shown examples of it, I then replied, etc.

"If" it is "these examples" that get me labelled as a conspiracy theorists, then certainly I am that. Because many of my examples have been to show precisely that there is a conspiracy of cover up. Earlier I even posted a definition of the word:

Conspiracy (COD) Act of conspiring; combination for unlawful purpose, plot;

Since I am posting classic examples of conspiracy cover ups, what's the problem? I'm not denying that I am a conspiracy theorist.

The problem perhaps, is that some here see the term in such a derogatory way that they are trying to avoid using it of me? In which case, thank you, but please don't worry, I'm not offended. It's just irritating because it keeps misreading the point I'm making by discussion about the finger and not what I'm pointing to.

I sometimes ask these things as questions - more in the hope of not eliciting a torrent of abuse in the category 'conspiracy theorist', because that appears to act as a further mental block to rational thinking about this, than in expecting it not be that. But as this discussion has progressed I have become less inclined to bother.

Hiro still hasn't grasped what I've written about the satellite data. I don't expect him to as he has shown remarkable consistency in the past of mis-reading or simply assuming I'm saying something and getting lost in it, and that's become not worth bothering about either.

But for your understanding here, and any others interested, let me just explain that by ranting on about it as me making a conspiracy accusation, he has missed what was actually said in the last we heard from this data source, which as I posted also from its own page, was to be made freely available to all who requested it.


Since water vapour is the bug bear of 'climate modelers', they don't include it in its own right but only as a 'feedback to enhance CO2 effects', which is balderdash, but actually AGM exclude because it is the highest, most dominant, greenhouse gas.

This new figure from the state of art satellite data has thrown a spanner into the works from which there is no sensible way of recovering the momentum of 'CO2 driven global warming'.

In other words, not only were the models junk to start with because they excluded water vapour in its own right as a greenhouse gas, but they have blocked its existence out of their thinking completely. And then their state of the art machinery insists they take notice of it. What are those who are promoting AGM to do?

They manage to avoid all reference to water vapour's exclusion from calculations in their propaganda, but this is "their own data" and should have confirmed their 'assumptions', instead it's destroyed AGW.

So yes, it is a bloody obvious conspiracy to hide the facts, because this state of the art data gatherer which was working so well until it came up with this bomb shell is crashed, we've been told. No more data. Now, I haven't been able to find anything on this on their website, it is however still available as cached pages on an archive machine. So far they haven't blocked it, at least to the day I recovered it. (It's still up).

Some here no doubt will continue to find excuses for this, but I think this calls for a suspension of common sense beyond the rational because these years of promoting AGM have shown us a whole slew of such examples as this tampering of data. The latest emails in the long line of these.

The emperor still isn't wearing any clothes.


quote:
AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time

It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases. AIRS advanced technology makes it the most advanced water vapor sensor ever built. Beyond water vapor, AIRS measures all the other primary greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide, methane, and ozone.
What is AIRS

So what we have Barnabas, is not science. As of the end 2008 this data is still not freely available.

Instead we have a new religion, a new belief system where only those agreeing with are given any credibility for rational thought - however irrational the arguments, the promotion, the science. However often this is pointed out.

For every genuine criticism, which in any other scientific field would clearly demolish a theory, we have tweaking and more tweaking and fudging and destruction of data because the continual refusal, unheard of in real scientific work, to show how conclusions were reached have been proved junk science when finally made available.

Why such extreme reactions against those who dissent from this AGW scenario? The Farce of Global Warming

If any scientist here, with hand on heart, can say that the following is perfectly acceptable, then they are in something new created which cannot be called science, because the observable has ceased to be relevant:

quote:
In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability. New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
How was your summer?

quote:
In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998).
..
Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).

Other aspects of the data are just as stunning.

Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)

Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940

The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900

1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.

1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998). NASA Revises Temperature Data

and this:

quote:
Let’s pause for a second. The IPCC has said that the authors of the scientific papers will have to change their findings if they depart from the summary in order to bring them into line with it. In other words, research which apparently shows that the panic over man-made global warming is exaggerated misleading and wrong is to be altered to support the summary’s view that man-made global warming is even worse than previously thought.

There have been protests. Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl has written:

"These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations." Why do they have to lie?

Why do they have to lie?


Perhaps because, back to the OP, there really is a conspiracy to keep it going for a completely different agenda?

quote:
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."
..
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"

..

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article 'State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era,' that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. 'Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function,' says Haass. 'Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves...'

Holocaust Or Hoax? - The Global
Warming Debate Heats Up By Leland Lehrman

Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

You keep saying the current scenario is different, but you offer no proof of it being so.

Why is it different? Why should CO2 suddenly behave out of character?

Of course CO2 isn't behaving out of character. I've never said CO2 is behaving any different now than at any other time in history. Tell me where I've even suggested such an absurdity.

What I have said is that the cause of increased CO2 concentrations is different. It's now due to burning fossil fuels, rather than outgasing from oceans bringing CO2 from deep reservoirs.

? You've missed my point. You're saying CO2 is behaving out of character, I'm telling you are saying this, because you're saying it is now driving global warming, when never in our history has research ever shown it to do this.

So there are greater amounts of it from our use now? So what? Since it has never been shown to be a driver of global warming why should it be so now?


quote:


The same could be said about other aspects of the science. Even when you've raised questions it's been painfully obvious that you're not understanding. And, often it seems you're not even attempting to understand. That's why I've decided not to try and explain science to you, it's just not worth spending the time writing stuff that doesn't even seem to be read beyond the level of seeking something to hang another paranoid diatribe on.

If anyone else wants to try and understand the science better, just ask. I'll do my best to explain it. And, if someone does understand it and still has good reasons to not accept the conclusions I'll be interested to read those and think about them seriously.

You're welcome to ask him.

But since he is still unable to prove to me that CO2 drives global warming I would appreciate it if you asked him too..

For those interested in the facts of this, a bit of history.

The Medieval Warm Period existed.

From the last link:
quote:
The 2001 report asserts that the medieval warming period was fiction, and that its inclusion in 1996 was erroneous. However, the scientists at co2science.org have assembled a massive amount of data supporting the presence of the medieval warming period. The problem with the medieval warming period is that if it existed, then the industrial use of CO2 emitting fossil fuels cannot be considered the sole or even dominant cause of global warming.
It's because it existed in 1996 that the Hockey Stick was created, so it could be denied in 2001.

I posted before, Hiro, on the paragraph taken out of the orginal report which said there wasn't such a thing as AGW. That was before Mann and coterie took it over.

You make up your own minds which scientists to believe, and whether or not this is a conspiracy to cover up by the AGW scientists themselves because they've screwed up or because they are part of, or just being used, by bigger players on the world stage.

If, after this compilation and explanation, you dismiss this without giving it any thought, then it's not me who is not engaging in and doesn't understand the science.



Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You're saying CO2 is behaving out of character

I'm NOT saying that. It doesn't help any discussion to put words into other peoples mouth, especially when they've been saying the exact opposite.

CO2 is CO2, it'll behave in the atmosphere the way it behaves. Which is, it absorbs IR (in defined energy ranges) and transfers that energy to the atmosphere where it is re-irradiated as black-body radiation. Hence, it (along with some other gases) increases IR absorption into the atmosphere, and raises air temperatures.

quote:
you're saying it is now driving global warming, when never in our history has research ever shown it to do this.
What I've said (on previous threads, I don't recall directly addressing it here) is that human activity is currently increasing the concentration of CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) in the atmosphere directly. In the records from ice cores etc we see CO2 concentrations changing in response to other influences (eg: outgasing of dissolved CO2 from warming oceans). In both cases CO2 does the same thing in the atmosphere - make the air warmer by absorbing IR radiation (see above).

CO2 drives global warming. It always has done (OK, the loss of CO2 from the atmosphere drives global cooling). The reasons why CO2 concentrations change in the atmosphere differ at different times in the history of the Earth.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You're saying CO2 is behaving out of character

I'm NOT saying that. It doesn't help any discussion to put words into other peoples mouth, especially when they've been saying the exact opposite.
? You are saying that CO2 drives global warming. CO2 is shown never to have done so in the past. Therefore, 'what you are actually saying is that CO2 is behaving uncharacteristically'.

I am asking you to explain why you make this uncharacteristic of CO2 claim for it.


quote:
CO2 is CO2, it'll behave in the atmosphere the way it behaves. Which is, it absorbs IR (in defined energy ranges) and transfers that energy to the atmosphere where it is re-irradiated as black-body radiation. Hence, it (along with some other gases) increases IR absorption into the atmosphere, and raises air temperatures.
That's it? How does that explain it being billed by AGW as the main driver of global temperature? To the point we're now getting 6% rise in temperature doom predictions?

Surely you can do better than this? If you a scientist and AGW supporter can give no logical science for CO2 driving temperature, neither in the past historic nor in actual method to prove it is capable of doing so, why are you arguing for AGW?


quote:
you're saying it is now driving global warming, when never in our history has research ever shown it to do this.
quote:
What I've said (on previous threads, I don't recall directly addressing it here) is that human activity is currently increasing the concentration of CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) in the atmosphere directly. In the records from ice cores etc we see CO2 concentrations changing in response to other influences (eg: outgasing of dissolved CO2 from warming oceans). In both cases CO2 does the same thing in the atmosphere - make the air warmer by absorbing IR radiation (see above).
So what if we're increasing CO2 now? What happens next? How does CO2 drive these massive temperature rises when it has not shown itself doing that in the past? It lags temperature rises by c.800 years. By the time it catches up temperatures have been dropping for c.800 years. Is this magic?

That as it follows the drop in temperature it somehow as it itself lessens in amount causes the next rise in temperature? 800 years later?

Then how can you say that greater amounts of it will cause greater rises in temperature?

I'm sorry Alan, it just doesn't make any sense.

quote:
CO2 drives global warming. It always has done (OK, the loss of CO2 from the atmosphere drives global cooling).
No it's not bloody OK.

It has not always done. It is shown to never have done.


quote:
The reasons why CO2 concentrations change in the atmosphere differ at different times in the history of the Earth.
I'm getting a bit pissed off with your arrogant condescension and ridicule here while never giving me a straight answer. How does CO2 drive global warming?


Myrrh

[ 28. November 2009, 07:26: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Myrrh

I am saying that your assertion of conspiracy demeans your arguments about the science. It adds nothing to those arguments but detracts from the credibility of your posts in so far as they comment about the science.

I don't think there is much to be gained from discussing whether you are a part (unwitting or otherwise) of an unproven global counter-conspiracy against this unproven global conspiracy.

Basically my considered answer to the OP is that the proposition advanced by Lord Monckton is a most unlikely conspiracy theory. Neither his scepticism about the science nor his previous involvement in government make such an assertion in the least likely. The evidence of the continuing behaviour of governments in support of their national interests, coupled with their weak co-operation over international matters, is impressive enough to rule it out - unless one has an a priori penchant for minority views and conspiracies. Monckton-like assertions simply scratch where some people itch. So I am very sceptical about that on the basis of non-scientific evidence (the long term, continuing and obvious behaviour of heads of government in the national self-interest). But I am not part of a counter-conspiracy of sceptics.

I'm going to leave any further discussion about the science to those with the necessary background.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Myrrh, I'm afraid the sheer volume of your postings makes it very difficult to keep up with. I'm afraid this doesn't mean that I agree with all of your previous statements [Smile] .

In the short time I have available, I'd just like to look in a bit of detail about a couple of the claims you made in your penultimate message.
quote:
posted by Myrrh:
Since water vapour is the bug bear of 'climate modelers', they don't include it in its own right but only as a 'feedback to enhance CO2 effects', which is balderdash, but actually AGM exclude because it is the highest, most dominant, greenhouse gas.

I don't like flat contradiction, but what you've posted here is just not true: water vapour is acknowledged as a greenhouse gas, and is included in climate models. Here is a climate scientist describing how his models treat water vapour. The "feedback" thing is because the hydrological cycle brings the water vapour in the earth's atmosphere back to equilibrium within days. Compare this with CO2, with has an atmospheric lifetime of decades to centuries, or CH4, which is decades. Your statement makes me think you misunderstand what they mean by feedback in this context - which I wasn't clear on until I looked it up.

Incidentally, H2O is a greenhouse gas for exactly the same reasons that CO2 is. Can I take it that you therefore acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore capable of warming the earth? I mention it as this has relevance to the question you asked Alan.

Please stop saying that climate scientists "ignore" water vapour. It's not true.

Now to this much vaunted "senate minority report" - which seems the creation of Senator Inhofe, who has outspoken views on the subject. The text itself is an extremely partisan document masquerading as a report, butwhat really worries me are sections like the one you quote:
quote:
from the Inhofe report:
"In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures...

(emphasis mine).Now in the original document, that link goes to the website of the NZ Climate Science Coalition. As you can see by following that last link, the article makes no mention of the UK Met Office. Whether this amounts to misrepresenting your sources, or just a proofing error I'll leave it to you to decide. It is certainly misrepresenting the views of the Met Office!

In fact, the "Climate Science Coalition" referenced is a pressure group, not above fiddling the figures to further their political agenda. That's a bit of a long article, but worth reading to the end. The duplicity and mishandling of the data dwarves anything in the CRU leak. These are the people you'd have us uncritically believe? I should direct your scepticism a little more carefully!

A word to anyone who thinks the data has "flatlined" - this is not true. I have downloaded the data myself, and run rolling 11-year linear regressions on it, but really it's not necessary to do anything more than stick a moving average on it in Excel to show that an upward trend is clearly in place. It's a noisy data series and as such has spikes. Some are there for well-known reasons, such as el Nino in 1998. Even taking the period staring at 1998, the linear trend is still upwards: in fact the last linear 11 year trend that wasn't upwards was in the 1970s.

Anyone who doesn't understand that noisy data won't be monotonic (mathematical sense) should educate themselves or shut up: they have no business making misleading statements in the public sphere. At that level, making incorrect statements through wilful ignorance is tantamount to lying, IMHO.

About conspiracy theorists: I didn't make the allegation lightly, or as a cheap ad hominem (I hope). I meant that your post displayed the mindset where everything and everyone that disagrees with your views is treated with a huge degree of scepticism and suspicion, both as to the data and the motives of the people involved, but that everything that favours your worldview is taken uncritically, even when the credibility of the sources is questionable, and there may be conflicts of interest. How many of your sources are part of pressure groups which have received funding from the energy industry? Have you even looked into this? The money involved there is huge compared to government research grants...

- Chris.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Sanityman, the link you provide on how climate scientists model water vapor is the sort of science that makes me doubt the climate models. In it they look at "long wave radiation". They treat it as a single thing.

The truth is that the radiation exists across a spectrum. It behaves differently at different frequencies (wavelengths). One of these effects is that much more energy is contained in the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) where there is little absorption from CO2.

This is a technical point that I know from my work in radar design. It's not common knowledge across all fields of science. The point is that it's an easy and honest mistake to make. But it demolishes models which fail to take it into account.

How many other unrealized effects are there that the modelers missed? I don't know, and neither do they.

Rather than modeling, let's test. Lets build a satellite that measures the radiation the Earth is receiving and the radiation it's giving off. Subtract one from the other and you're done.

Such a satellite could give valuable information about what types of terrain/weather patterns are better at warming or cooling. We could then make smart, economical choices about the costs of mitigation instead of running around like Chicken Little.

But that would be a rational solution that would fly in the face of the IPCC's core mandate, to provide scientific evidence in support of it's pre-chosen policy.

Looking at the founding documents and governing structures of the climate change movement is difficult. There seems to be a labyrinth here. For example, the IPCC is directed to perform tasks set by the WMO executive council, UNEP governing council, and UN framework convention.

Those who don't toe the line are force to resign like Christopher Landsea. There's a philosophical question wether this is a bad thing. An organization needs to work together after all. Then there's the danger of group think.

The WMO has a congress of the participating countries (most countries participate), an executive committee, and executive president both elected by the congress. Alexander Bedritsky (Russian Federation) is the current president.

UNEP is run by it's executive director, Achim Steiner. Mr Steiner was born in Brazil, schooled at Oxford, and calls Germany his home while directing environmental projects across five continents. His position is apparently appointed by the UN Secretary General.

The UN framework convention is run by conferences of parties. These meet infrequently and appoint a Subsidiary Board of Scientific and Technological Advice which I assume sets tasks for the IPCC.

All in all it looks like bureaucracy gone wild. I have to assume that the typical amounts of graft are occurring. Do we really want to surrender our political will to such a hodgepodge?

It does sort of dismiss theories of a dark global conspiracy though. Or maybe the mind control ray got to me when I took off the tinfoil hat?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Myrrh

I am saying that your assertion of conspiracy demeans your arguments about the science. It adds nothing to those arguments but detracts from the credibility of your posts in so far as they comment about the science.

I obviously can't do anything right...

This thread is asking the question, Is "climate change" being used to bring in global Government?

The arguments I'm having about the science is within this question. I think yes to question. Whether those using the science to get control care whether the science is there or not I doubt very much, but that in using it they, whover 'they' are, would be keen to keep the momentum going if it is shown not to be there, I don't doubt.

I can't see any other obvious explanation for the top eschalons of major meteriological societies pushing for AGW while the majority of their members also familiar with the science scratch their heads wondering what the hell is happening.


quote:
I don't think there is much to be gained from discussing whether you are a part (unwitting or otherwise) of an unproven global counter-conspiracy against this unproven global conspiracy.

Basically my considered answer to the OP is that the proposition advanced by Lord Monckton is a most unlikely conspiracy theory. Neither his scepticism about the science nor his previous involvement in government make such an assertion in the least likely. The evidence of the continuing behaviour of governments in support of their national interests, coupled with their weak co-operation over international matters, is impressive enough to rule it out - unless one has an a priori penchant for minority views and conspiracies. Monckton-like assertions simply scratch where some people itch. So I am very sceptical about that on the basis of non-scientific evidence (the long term, continuing and obvious behaviour of heads of government in the national self-interest). But I am not part of a counter-conspiracy of sceptics.

Not even in existence when the stated aims of those proposing such control are know to exist? So you're dismissing such organisations as the Club of Rome as a figment of my imagination..?

There is certainly a move towards the idea of global government, how that includes or encompasses national self-interest is already stated by them to be that these should give up any idea of sovereignty thereby gaining protection for themselves. That this has been a project long in the planning and relentless in achieving objectives isn't in dispute, I think.

The European Union was planned to be that from the beginning, achieved by first creating an 'economic unity' which most people bought into, dismissing even if they ever heard the rumours at the time that this was only a step to the idea of the member countries giving up sovereignty to the greater idea of a European State. Look now. Every country signing the Lisbon Treaty has given up sovereignty.

Here in Ireland that was what we were arguing about. Why should Ireland sign away its sovereignty so recently gained after centuries of brutal rule by the British? Fear from the threat of economic isolation swung the vote the second time round. Britain itself has already signed away sovereignty. And none of us plebs have any idea who is now in control of us, who is setting the agendas and laws we must obey and to whom we will now begin paying direct taxes.

We have given up any idea of national interest to this greater idea to x who are not accountable to us in any way. They haven't taken us as anything but plebs to be manipulated for years now, no actual accounts produced for scrutiny even. If a company didn't produce such they would be done for fraud, but no one who gets 'sent to Europe' ever complains. Do you recall Kinnock's rants about this? Then he went to Europe and not a peep. How are all these people who should be presenting national interests sucked into it? The same way the head of associations like the meteriological? Of course there's a conspiracy, we the plebs haven't been groomed to know anything about it.

The opposite of that would be along the lines JohnPaul II proposed, from an argument back in RCC history, that individual countries should be given the same kind of rights as individuals under the UN Charter for Human Rights, that countries should have protection under these rights from interference from the others, from military and economic invasion and so on.

quote:
I'm going to leave any further discussion about the science to those with the necessary background.
There is no science, is all you need to know... [Smile]


Myrrh

Chris, not only to avoid making this another long post, will come back to this later this weekend.

M.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:

Those who don't toe the line are force to resign like Christopher Landsea.

I'm not sure why you say 'forced to resign'. Landsea chose to resign. I think the comment on this page puts his resignation in perspective:

quote:
1. Mr. Landsea maintained that the lead author of the IPCC reports should not voice any opinions on climate change issues. The IPCC refused to muzzle anybody; they have a "freedom of speech" policy.


[ 28. November 2009, 16:03: Message edited by: Inger ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Rather than modeling, let's test. Lets build a satellite that measures the radiation the Earth is receiving and the radiation it's giving off. Subtract one from the other and you're done.

Such a satellite could give valuable information about what types of terrain/weather patterns are better at warming or cooling. We could then make smart, economical choices about the costs of mitigation instead of running around like Chicken Little.

Yes, someone should tell scientists that satellites exist so they could do something like that. If only this idea had occurred to someone!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We have given up any idea of national interest to this greater idea to x who are not accountable to us in any way.

<snip>

The opposite of that would be along the lines John Paul II proposed . . .

Is it just me, or do arguments about accountability in government ring just a little hollow when citing someone as completely unaccountable to his followers as the Pope?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
There seems to be a labyrinth here. For example, the IPCC is directed to perform tasks set by the WMO executive council, UNEP governing council, and UN framework convention.
[...]
All in all it looks like bureaucracy gone wild.

I think you exaggerate the role of the IPCC Jeff. As I understand it, they don't do much research themselves: they primarily gather and summarise the work done independently by other researchers.

The science would go on without the IPCC. The US, the UK, Germany, Norway, China, Australian etc all fund their own researchers. The IPCC simply attempts to reflect their collective opinions.
 
Posted by Full of Chips (# 13669) on :
 
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Take one bathroom and run a bath of cold water, put into bathroom small background heat source, open a window, close the door and pump in CO2 through the keyhole. How long do you think it will take to a) warm the bathroom b) warm the water, at 400 ppm relative to the amount of heat and conditions in said bathroom?
Well it is good to see Myrrh that you accept the idea that complex systems can be understood by much simpler models and small scale experimentation. However I am concerned that you do not explicitly mention the effects of water vapour which in my experience is a significant factor in any bathroom, particularly when it condenses on my shaving mirror.

Doubtless though, the global science community, if equipped with appropriately furnished bathrooms, would do a much better job on climate change modelling than they can ever hope to with their biased and inadequate computer models.

I am convinced that jealousy of you and the desire to obtain lavishly-equipped bathrooms for their climate experiments are what drive the global scientific AGW conspiracy.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Sanityman, the link you provide on how climate scientists model water vapor is the sort of science that makes me doubt the climate models. In it they look at "long wave radiation". They treat it as a single thing.

What gives you the idea that the radiative transfer code in atmospheric models is that simple? If you'd like to read up on it, this Wikipedia page might be a good place to start.

quote:
The truth is that the radiation exists across a spectrum. It behaves differently at different frequencies (wavelengths). One of these effects is that much more energy is contained in the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) where there is little absorption from CO2.

This is a technical point that I know from my work in radar design. It's not common knowledge across all fields of science. The point is that it's an easy and honest mistake to make. But it demolishes models which fail to take it into account.

That absorption varies with frequency is NOT specialist knowledge. I learned it in A-level Chemistry. I expect there are one or two climate scientists who have an A-level in Chemistry. They will have warned the rest by now.


quote:
Rather than modeling, let's test. Lets build a satellite that measures the radiation the Earth is receiving and the radiation it's giving off. Subtract one from the other and you're done.
Great idea!

*wanders off muttering I wasn't going to get involved*

[ 28. November 2009, 16:56: Message edited by: rufiki ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Whether those using the science to get control care whether the science is there or not I doubt very much, but that in using it they, whover 'they' are, would be keen to keep the momentum going if it is shown not to be there, I don't doubt.
[Italics mine - B62]

.........

There is no science, is all you need to know... [Smile]

At this point, I give up, Myrrh. Convictions such as yours are way past the point of serious discussion.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
Doubtless though, the global science community, if equipped with appropriately furnished bathrooms, would do a much better job on climate change modelling than they can ever hope to with their biased and inadequate computer models.

Myrrh seems to miss the basic point that the atmosphere is thousands of times deeper than a typical bathroom.

The CO2-bathroom experimental community will need to build the Hadron Large Bathroom.
 
Posted by Full of Chips (# 13669) on :
 
That will be the first job of the new supernational World Government! It all fits!!!
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Sanityman, the link you provide on how climate scientists model water vapor is the sort of science that makes me doubt the climate models. In it they look at "long wave radiation". They treat it as a single thing.

The truth is that the radiation exists across a spectrum. It behaves differently at different frequencies (wavelengths). One of these effects is that much more energy is contained in the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) where there is little absorption from CO2.

This is a technical point that I know from my work in radar design. It's not common knowledge across all fields of science. The point is that it's an easy and honest mistake to make. But it demolishes models which fail to take it into account.

Dmpling Jeff, thanks for your reply. I think it illustrates nicely a conundrum for specialists trying to communicate to those outside their field of knowledge. There's two choices available:Now, what you said is entirely correct (I presume you were referring to the Planck relationship between energy and frequency), but I think your assumption that the model is over-simplified because they used over-simplified language when trying to explain it is unwarranted. You're a specialist in radar design, which gives you technical knowledge that's not available to the layman,which is who the article was aimed at. I don't know if the model treats the radiation from the earth as a black-body curve, or if it does something more sophisticated, but as a non-scientific explanation, "short-wave radiation in, long-wave radiation out" is a reasonable first pass at what our planet does with solar radiation. I'm sure a proper scientist could give a more in-depth explanation if you're interested.

- Chris.

---
[1]Like describing the greenhouse effect as a "blanket" for example!
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
It's too easy to dismiss something based on a misunderstanding. Myrrh does it all the time and quite erroneously believes it's all rubbish based on getting things confused.

In this case, I believe Jeff assumes long and short wave refer to a much wider range of values than is likely to be meant by someone considering only infrared.

The problem is whether we give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has no reason to lie or cheat, or start by unreasonably assuming they MUST be wrong (not saying this of you Jeff) and that therefore some misunderstanding is "yet another example of the kind of trickery these types get up to".
.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Thank you sanityman. I think you're right and choosing proper language is a problem.

I was referring to the model you linked, and not all models. I assume more advanced models have more advanced treatment of radiation.

Looking at the frequency absorption patterns presented earlier, water vapor dominates at the high energy end of the black body curve. That's what makes me interested in seeing the radiation coming off the earth, not just the temperature as Croesos's link provided.

Thanks for getting involved Rufki. Your link to that NASA site is fascinating. It does seem to support the theory that hot deserts emit much more heat than wetter areas. If CO2 were the major factor, this would be less true, I think. I also noticed deserts with more irrigation (the American South West) output less heat.

I strongly suspect that wide scale irrigation is at least as important a factor in GW as CO2. I think it's effect is downplayed for political reasons.

In any case, I trust measurements much more than I trust models.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It may be underplayed politically, but scientific outputs such as the IPCC Technical Reports spend a considerable amount of space to issues of changes in land use. Some of those changes, of course, have direct bearing on global greenhouse gas concentrations (eg: deforestation removing carbon sinks and often with associated burning). But others have no direct connection. Not only would that include extensive irrigation (produces local water vapour increases and changes the albido), but urbanisation and other changes in land use.

Part of the reason that they're downplayed politically is that if they don't significantly impact the global atmosphere then they're inherently local effects. They're also usually very difficult to fit into models of the global climate. Added to which, of course, is that some changes have different effects that might balance out to some extent - irrigation of deserts produces local water vapour increases, but also increases the land surface with plants and acts as a small CO2 sink; what's going to be more important the warming impact from albido and water vapour or the cooling from CO2 sequestration?
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alan, taking a ten thousand square mile block of land and reducing it's IR sink by 30% is going to leave more heat in the atmosphere on a global level. To call it local is IMO the same as calling a coal fired power plant local because all the burning takes place in the furnace.

It may be hard to model the varying effects of irrigation. (So does that mean you support my claim that the models are incomplete?) But radiation measurement is not impossible. Irrigated land does seem (at first glance of the linked map) to seriously reduce the IR sink of that land. Why abandon direct measurements for models?

To me the political difference is trying to sell the idea that growing more food is a bad thing. In countries where people starve, it's not going to sell.

The concentration on CO2 as opposed to other factors as causes does seem to support the theory that a global government is trying to acquire the property rights on air.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
So does that mean you support my claim that the models are incomplete?

Of course they're incomplete: that's inherent in the fact that they're models and not the real thing. This is not a controversial point.

The question you need to be asking is "is there anything missing from the models that would mean the results they give would differ greatly from the real environment given the same initial conditions?"

Which is nowhere near as snappy, but much more informative - and it's something any scientist asks themselves when they model a complex system.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I hope that persuades you Spawn that the climate modellers may have more of an idea of future developments in climate than you!

I hope you didn't waste too much valuable time writing your reflections on weather forecasting and climate modelling. They were a bit wasted because they didn't engage with what I've been saying. Climate modellers know much more about the climate than I do, but they're as bad as me at predicting the future.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Since water vapour is the bug bear of 'climate modelers', they don't include it in its own right but only as a 'feedback to enhance CO2 effects', which is balderdash, but actually AGM exclude because it is the highest, most dominant, greenhouse gas.

This new figure from the state of art satellite data has thrown a spanner into the works from which there is no sensible way of recovering the momentum of 'CO2 driven global warming'.

In other words, not only were the models junk to start with because they excluded water vapour in its own right as a greenhouse gas, but they have blocked its existence out of their thinking completely. And then their state of the art machinery insists they take notice of it. What are those who are promoting AGM to do?

They manage to avoid all reference to water vapour's exclusion from calculations in their propaganda, but this is "their own data" and should have confirmed their 'assumptions', instead it's destroyed AGW.

So yes, it is a bloody obvious conspiracy to hide the facts, because this state of the art data gatherer which was working so well until it came up with this bomb shell is crashed, we've been told. No more data. Now, I haven't been able to find anything on this on their website, it is however still available as cached pages on an archive machine. So far they haven't blocked it, at least to the day I recovered it. (It's still up).

Some here no doubt will continue to find excuses for this, but I think this calls for a suspension of common sense beyond the rational because these years of promoting AGM have shown us a whole slew of such examples as this tampering of data. The latest emails in the long line of these.

The emperor still isn't wearing any clothes.


quote:
AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time

It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases. AIRS advanced technology makes it the most advanced water vapor sensor ever built. Beyond water vapor, AIRS measures all the other primary greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide, methane, and ozone.
What is AIRS

So what we have Barnabas, is not science. As of the end 2008 this data is still not freely available.

It appears to be freely available to those able to figure out how to use a web browser. It took me less than 30 seconds to find the data page for the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Pretty crappy fact hiding, if you ask me. (You know, in the old days, NASA could fake moon landings. Moon landings, I tell you! Now they're reduced to hiding web pages from people who don't know their algorithms from their logarithms. How the mighty have fallen...)

Wherever did you get the idea that the Aqua satellite carrying AIRS had crashed, anyway?

And as for this:
quote:
I think this calls for a suspension of common sense beyond the rational
Far, far beyond, it appears.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alan, the weather is complex in a mathematical sense of the word. In fact the butterfly effect is so named because even an uncounted butterfly's wing can throw predictions off in weather modeling.

Now you admit the models are weak in some areas. Are the missing parts less important than a single butterfly?

When I was in school twenty years ago, chaos theory was all the rage. I had professors sit in an air conditioned room and tell me that weather control and prediction was impossible with the same amount of conviction you are now telling me global warming is happening because weather models predict it.

I called bullshit then because they had misapplied the theory. Limited weather control is certainly possible, at least inside buildings.

Now you want me to ignore measurements in favor of numeric models where the math says there is no numeric solution. Or am I missing something?

The world of science sure did change during the last twenty years.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
ETA: x-posted with Dumpling Jeff - what measurements are you being asked to ignore? The weather/climate and chaos questions are good ones, but see what New Scientist has to say.

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
It appears to be freely available to those able to figure out how to use a web browser. It took me less than 30 seconds to find the data page for the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)

Intersting co-incidence: a page summarising data sources has been put up by the Cabal™ members at realClimate:
quote:
Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.
On a side-note, I noticed another article, by Peter Laut, emeritus professor of physics at The Technical University of Denmark, showing the bad science and misrepresentation in claims by two Copenhagen climatologists,Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen. These two are part of Inhofe's much vaunted "400 international scientists" in that senate minority report mentioned earlier (given that that list incorporated non-specialists, weathermen and shills for the energy industry, this may come as no surprise). Their 1996 paper (yes, that out of date) has been paraded by global warming sceptics seeking to "prove" that solar cycles were behind the warming trend. Unfortunately, their analysis was based on a short data sample, and was shown by subsequent observations (i.e. a larger data set) to be spurious; further details in the linked article.

I haven't heard people talking about solar cycles on this thread, but it's a good example of old, invalid papers being claimed to "disprove" the current understanding, which are then used in the popular media to sow doubt and confusion - for example, the infamous Channel 4 documentary.

- Chris.


 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Now you admit the models are weak in some areas. Are the missing parts less important than a single butterfly?

When designing an experiment to test an idea, one of the things you'll always need to try and consider is sensitivity to parameters. If, say you were trying to measure the rate of a chemical reaction with respect to temperature you'll need to find out whether the quality of reagants is a controlling factor - you're data are going to be meaningless if half way through you're experiment you open a new bottle of acid that's marginally less strong and find that it has a very large impact on the reaction rate.

The same is true when designing climate experiments. You run the experiment with each parameter constant except one that you vary slightly. That tells you what parameters you need to know most precisely, and help define uncertainties on the results of each experimental run.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Whether those using the science to get control care whether the science is there or not I doubt very much, but that in using it they, whover 'they' are, would be keen to keep the momentum going if it is shown not to be there, I don't doubt.
[Italics mine - B62]

.........

There is no science, is all you need to know... [Smile]

At this point, I give up, Myrrh. Convictions such as yours are way past the point of serious discussion.
Oh please, don't give up Barnabas!

How do you explain the following?

quote:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !

Let's take this back to the beginning of the corruption of the IPCC because I take this discussion seriously.

IPCC history

Page 299 which is page 3 or 31 in this extract pdf file.


So why should I believe there is anything real about the AGW science when it's certainly clear to me if not others that there is fraudulent practice masquerading as science here? The IPCC was nobbled.

In 1985, when this great scaremongering campaign was still being formulated, we had results like this:

quote:
B.Idsol

B. Idso1

(1) Department of Agriculture, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 4331 East Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85040, AZ, USA

Received: 30 January 1984

Summary Several natural experiments are analyzed to yield equilibrium values of a surface air temperature response function and a feedback factor for Earths atmosphere. The former parameter, the change in surface air temperature induced by a change in radiant energy absorbed at the surface, is demonstrated to have a value of about 0.1 K (Wm–2)–1; while the latter parameter, the ratio of feedback-induced change in radiant energy to the surface of the Earth divided by an initial or primary change in radiant energy to the Earths surface, is demonstrated to have a value of about 1.25. These two numbers imply that the maximum warming to be expected from a doubling of Earths atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm is only about 0.1 K, a result so small as to possibly be completely counter-balanced by the CO2-induced reduction of solar radiation transmission to the Earths surface.


It was the like of this which first informed the IPCC to say there was no problem of AGW, but the paragraph was removed in subsequent reports.


Why should I believe any of the AGW arguments when they still cannot explain how CO2 is a driving force of global warming when it has never been that in the past?

Why should I not rather look to see who is producing this corrupt data and why?

Since the scientific method is testing and observation and testing and observation has proved that it is corrupt and cannot be called science?

In science if a hypothesis is falsified, by contradictory data for example, the hypothesis is no more, it is dead hypothesis.

What else is there to discuss about it except, who done it and why?


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
posted by Myrrh:
Since water vapour is the bug bear of 'climate modelers', they don't include it in its own right but only as a 'feedback to enhance CO2 effects', which is balderdash, but actually AGM exclude because it is the highest, most dominant, greenhouse gas.

I don't like flat contradiction, but what you've posted here is just not true: water vapour is acknowledged as a greenhouse gas, and is included in climate models. Here is a climate scientist describing how his models treat water vapour. The "feedback" thing is because the hydrological cycle brings the water vapour in the earth's atmosphere back to equilibrium within days. Compare this with CO2, with has an atmospheric lifetime of decades to centuries, or CH4, which is decades. Your statement makes me think you misunderstand what they mean by feedback in this context - which I wasn't clear on until I looked it up.

Incidentally, H2O is a greenhouse gas for exactly the same reasons that CO2 is. Can I take it that you therefore acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore capable of warming the earth? I mention it as this has relevance to the question you asked Alan.

Please stop saying that climate scientists "ignore" water vapour. It's not true.

?! What you've just posted confirms it's true. It's telling you the models don't include water vapour as a greenhouse gas! If water vapour isn't, why is CO2?

This is what I've been trying to point out.

I'm having problems with my computer and lost my reply to you.

But on thinking about it, and the other posts following, I've decided this is all pretty much a waste of time on my part. My reason for quitting such discussions before was the frustration of having exchanges about this with people who made excuses for dishonesty in science. Before, it was always dismissed as 'hearsay' or some such or simply ignored, but even now with the main culprits condemning themselves, not one of you has stopped to think what this actually means. Instead you keep referring to sources party to the deception as if there is no problem with them.

Fine, let noise stand for whatever doesn't correspond to any computer model prediction and CO2 stand for any dramatic rise in temperature like El Nino which the majority can be conned into believing is the hottest year because of CO2.

Find the AIRS data, let's see it.

Where's the data you downloaded? Let's see it. I haven't been able to find it online. The page is missing as far as I can tell.

I'm going to post one last example of this con and if you still think that whatever data you receive from your sources should be accepted uncritically then there is not the slightest reason for me to think any of you here are capable of objective thinking about this.

icecap.us

quote:
Nov 25, 2009
Are we feeling warmer yet?
Study by New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years.

But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?

Now, look at the graphs, and note particularly how the falsified one came into existence.

quote:
Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK) and it has been updated with the most recent data. It’s published on NIWA’s website and in their climate-related publications.
East Anglia again. And look how long ago the process of duplicity began.

That you can take any of these people seriously as scientists after their own emails shows how corrupt they are in fixing data and the admitted machinations they will employ to avoid providing raw data and methods and excluding any who would examine them, is quite simply beyond belief. That you think this is science is very sad. Especially for science.

And you're still not able to show me how CO2 drives warming.

What are the properties of CO2?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A question was asked earlier (I think by Dumpling Jeff, but I'm not seeing the actual post) about why political agreements tend to concentrate on CO2 emissions rather than land use changes and other impacts on the environment.

As already said, certainly one reason is that land use changes for reasons that usually directly benefit people - to provide more farmland for food, more housing for them to live in, more factories and offices for them to work in etc. Which makes any action on such activities politically unattractive. Not that that prevents the need for environmental impact statements and the like to be included in the planning process for the approvals of new building - which, in the EU at least would include an estimate of the carbon footprint.

But, probably the main reason is that CO2 (and methane etc) behave in a very simple manner that can be easily modelled. Which relates to my previous post about the uncertainties in climate experiments. Increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and you increase IR absorption in a precisely predictable manner. Admittedly, the impact of that increased IR absorption is more complex. On the other hand, land use changes are inherently more complex with less well defined parameters within the models. Some, such as forestry changes, have direct impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations and can thus be modelled as sources/sinks of CO2 (with other factors such as albido secondary). Also, most CO2 production can be easily measured - if you know how much coal your power stations burn then you can have a good estimate of how much CO2 they produce. That makes CO2 emissions a convenient starting point for international agreements on climate change.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
quote:
One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. This process begins with the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the details of the experiment. This description of the experiment is then read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the original experiment. If the results are similar enough then the experiment has been replicated. This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent on local conditions, and that the written description of the experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the experiment. From Rand and Wilensky 2006
Guest post by Willis Eschenbach – originally posted on Omniclimate with an updated version here per Willis’ request.


UPDATED 11/24/09 8:30PM PST

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. ...To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.

.....


OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a scientific work, no problem. But as he found more inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005 Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied: ......


The Scientific Method

Chris - this is the man who first filed to see the raw data via the FOI act, unless anyone knows of an earlier one.

Is this what you found?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
The AIRS link worked fine for me. Here's a pretty picture of some data

Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

This is the satellite which crashed.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I had professors sit in an air conditioned room and tell me that weather control and prediction was impossible with the same amount of conviction you are now telling me global warming is happening because weather models predict it.

I called bullshit then because they had misapplied the theory. Limited weather control is certainly possible, at least inside buildings.

[My italics.] I don't understand this story Jeff. Twenty years ago, were your lecturers really implying chaos theory made it impossible to air-condition a building? You must have had some pretty odd lecturers.
[Confused]
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
?! What you've just posted confirms it's true. It's telling you the models don't include water vapour as a greenhouse gas! If water vapour isn't, why is CO2?

This is what I've been trying to point out.

I'm a bit confused by your reply. From the article I quoted
quote:
Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models
I may be being stupid, but I genuinely don't see how you get from that quote to "the models don't include H2O as a greenhouse gas." It's worth noting that, if the models didn't include H2O, the IPCC figure for climate sensitivity to CO2 would be lower, because the greenhouse effect due to H2O accentuates the warming effect. The only reason it does this is because H2O is a greenhouse gas.
quote:
I'm having problems with my computer and lost my reply to you.
I'm sorry to hear that - I know how irritating it is.

I can't really contribute much to your assertion that all these climate scientists are corrupt: it's gets to the "yes they are" "no they aren't" level quickly. However, I do note that you go on to quote a study by the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" (a pressure group affiliated to the International Climate Science Coalition, whose stated aim is to "Sway public opinion, as well as perceptions of public opinion, against costly climate control plans").

I can understand you not reading all the links in my previous post, but I advise you to read this one. It shows how the NZ Climate Science Coalition mangled the data to obtain their desired result:
quote:
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.
NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

(my emphasis). If you want junk science, look no further than the NZ Climate Science Coalition. This is such an obvious error, it's difficult to believe it's not an intentional misrepresentation. Never mind how corrupt East Anglia may or may not be - the link you provided is to bogus science.

I ask again: why aren't you as critical of these sources as you are to academia?
quote:
posted by Myrrh:
And you're still not able to show me how CO2 drives warming.

What are the properties of CO2?

I've tried to do this before, and so has Alan, but it obviously didn't do much good. I'll tell you what: could you explain to me your understanding of the greenhouse effect? Then I can try to explain in terms that you accept and are familiar with.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I hope that persuades you Spawn that the climate modellers may have more of an idea of future developments in climate than you!

I hope you didn't waste too much valuable time writing your reflections on weather forecasting and climate modelling. They were a bit wasted because they didn't engage with what I've been saying. Climate modellers know much more about the climate than I do, but they're as bad as me at predicting the future.
Perhaps you read it too quickly as the entire point of the post is to point out why I think that those who know a great deal about the climate have a much greater chance of anticipating many of the future possible outcomes and their probability than someone for whom it would be (I presume) a random guess.

"They're as bad as me at predicting the future." Strikes me as either a statement of phenomenal polymath abilities or as extreme arrogance. I am struggling to think of another interpretation. If you know as much as them about the future lets hear some of your predictions.

As to it being a wasted of time - maybe you knew all about how the climate modellers have tested their models over the past 20 years - but in my experience it isn't widely known.

[ 30. November 2009, 09:51: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
How do you explain the following?

quote:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !


It's a bit of a confusing email, or part of an email. It covers several issues.

Issue one - documentation of data to maintain traceability of the record. Clearly Scott had previously failed to do so, and some records were 'lost' (ie: he couldn't find them - they'd still exist in the original location but he'd have needed to get them again). I've heard claims about deletion of data. Clearly this isn't such an example (the data weren't deleted, at least not deliberately, and it only relates to one copy of them).

Data security. ie: don't leave stuff on ftp sites. This is valuable data. Someone has paid good money for it to be collected and their professional reputation and potentially some future income streams depend upon it. It makes no sense leaving it somewhere where it's relatively easy for someone to steal it.

There's some concerns about the extent to which the FOIA empowers people to gain access to data. Note, he recognises the role of precedent in the enforcement of the act. That's because the FOIA conflicts with other legislation, and it'll take court decisions to decide what takes priority. For a scientist, or group of scientist, or even their legal advisors to respond to a FOIA request in 20 days is unreasonable when to do so would potentially fall foul of the Data Protection Act and various legal contracts that accompanied the supply of that data. Not to mention potentially disrupt the flow of data between scientists on which scientific progress depends.

That last point is important so I'll expand on it a bit. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the life blood of the scientific method is the free flow of information among peers, including publications (within and outwith the peer-reviewed journals) and experimental results. But, there are also questions relating to professional status and trust. The nature of complex data sets is that they're prone to being misinterpreted. It's very easy to take a data set and have it appear to say several different things depending on how you manipulate the data (an example would be if you take the temperature record of the last 15-20 years you would see a rise to the late 90s and then a slight cooling. If you take the same record over the last 100 years you would see a warming trend with various wiggles around it, with the last 10 years being consistent with those wiggles. In one case you see a world that's cooling, in the other a world that's warming. Just from the choice of data you present). Various organisations provided CRU with data so that CRU could do what they themselves couldn't - put their data into the context of other data sets and produce meaningful results that account for the uncertainties and variabilities within and between data sets etc. If those data were released to be freely used by anyone, not just those qualified to do a good job with them, then you're going to see more of the same sort of cherry picking misrepresentation of the data. No scientist is going to want his or her work used by cranks to misrepresent their work. If CRU were forced to release all the data they'd been given then would other scientists trust them with more data? Phil Jones appears to consider maintaining the trust of other professional scientists is more important than pandering to the FOI requests of amateurs and non-specialists (let alone Joe Public who wouldn't know the difference between Celcius and Kelvin). Of course, it's possible that if he did delete data then a court could rule against him and he'd get a hefty fine (and, then he'd also very likely lose his job - or prefer to resign). There's no suggestion any data actually was deleted, or even that Jones would actually do so.

And, part of that comes under Intellectual Property Rights. Again, it's clear that there was disagreement within CRU/UEA about the relative importance of IPR v FOI. But, that's to be expected when the law isn't clear itself about what that relationship is.

What the whole sorry affair really highlights is a whole mess of conflicting legislation and moral obligations which no one seems to understand. I've read about a proposed Royal Society investigation. One thing the RS should be in a good place to sort out is exactly where the lines between DPA, FOIA, IPR and other factors lie. And, hopefully provide clear advice for scientists about how to deal with FOI requests, hopefully that's acceptable to the scientists who rely on IPR for their livelihood.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


Data security. ie: don't leave stuff on ftp sites. This is valuable data. Someone has paid good money for it to be collected and their professional reputation and potentially some future income streams depend upon it. It makes no sense leaving it somewhere where it's relatively easy for someone to steal it.

What you seem to failing to understand here is this already is public data, but I get your point about care being needed, for example the NZ corruption. Another member of this self-confessed dishonest in scientific practice producing a graph bearing no relation to the raw data. Luckily for us he wasn't able to hide, delete, or otherwise tamper with the raw data, unlike these charlatans.

Wasn't it?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Is there even a suggestion that the raw data has been "hidden, deleted or tampered with"?

To conclude from a statement like "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" that a file would be deleted is stretching things beyond credibility. You might as well conclude that if I said "I'd rather die than live under a Conservative government" that come the next election I'd be buying a good bit of rope if there was a Tory majority in Parliament.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To conclude from a statement like "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" that a file would be deleted is stretching things beyond credibility. You might as well conclude that if I said "I'd rather die than live under a Conservative government" that come the next election I'd be buying a good bit of rope if there was a Tory majority in Parliament.

I don't think that Myrrh is stretching things beyond credibility here. For one thing, "I'd rather die than..." is a common expression , while "I'd rather delete data than..." isn't. Also, deleting data rather than releasing it is a perfectly credible threat; killing yourself if the Tories get in isn't.

That doesn't mean he did intend to delete data. It might have been a flippant joke, or a comment made in anger to friends who knew he'd not do that. But it's also quite possible he meant exactly what he said.

It seems to me that the scientists have got into a confrontational position, partly thanks to the extreme rhetoric of the sceptic movement's loony wing. When you and your colleagues are being accused of lying and fraud all the over internet (and some news media) by people who often don't understand the first part of the debate, it must be very easy to get overly defensive.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Regarding this 'cooling' since 1998. The HadCRU data has 1998 as the warmest year but it does not include data from the Arctic. The NASA GISS data does include data from the Arctic and found 2005 to be warmer than 1998 and found 2007 to be as warm as 1998. There is no warming as far as I understand it.

Thanks, Hiro's Leap, for the info on the satellite.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
I see from the excellent article in yesterday's Sunday Times that East Anglia destroyed all their original climate data from which the massaged data had been produced.

Oh dear!
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
See this:-

Sunday Times article
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Looking at the AIRS data on CO2 and comparing it with the outgoing radiation, I seem to see a negative correlation between CO2 and the greenhouse effect. This might be misleading for a number of reasons not the least of which is the very slight variation in CO2 level (less than 1%).

I can see why direct measurement isn't used. It seems to say the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Areas with higher CO2 are actually cooling faster than areas with lower CO2.

It almost seems like moist areas that support forests and other CO2 absorbers radiate less well than dry areas. But that would be blaspheme.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I see from the excellent article in yesterday's Sunday Times that East Anglia destroyed all their original climate data from which the massaged data had been produced.

Oh dear!

Fortunately you can get the original data from the same people that East Anglia did No need to worry. Just pay up.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Which exactly illustrates why a "I'd rather delete the data than give it away" is a meaningless threat. The most Phil Jones would be able to do is delete copies of the data held at CRU. There are several copies of the data, and they're not all in places where he has access to the file servers. If he was to delete any file all it would do would be delay the release of the data, at great personal cost to himself. He'd have better luck delaying the release of the data by challenging the FOI request on the basis that it violates other legal agreements.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Regarding this 'cooling' since 1998. The HadCRU data has 1998 as the warmest year but it does not include data from the Arctic. The NASA GISS data does include data from the Arctic and found 2005 to be warmer than 1998 and found 2007 to be as warm as 1998. There is no warming as far as I understand it.

Thanks, Hiro's Leap, for the info on the satellite.

Help, help. The NWO got to me. I meant to write There is no cooling as far as I understand it. Oh, the irony.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which exactly illustrates why a "I'd rather delete the data than give it away" is a meaningless threat. The most Phil Jones would be able to do is delete copies of the data held at CRU. There are several copies of the data, and they're not all in places where he has access to the file servers. If he was to delete any file all it would do would be delay the release of the data, at great personal cost to himself. He'd have better luck delaying the release of the data by challenging the FOI request on the basis that it violates other legal agreements.

My understanding is that while the raw data from all the weather stations throughout the world can be obtained onerously for anyone who is interested, the particular data that was requested from Phil Jones was the subset of the weather stations he actually used. To replicate his work, any other climate scientists would need this data.

I'm amazed you take such a relaxed attitude to examples of potential malpractice. In one of the other 'climategate' emails, Jones actually asks the recipients to delete a particular email, so there is evidence to suggest he wasn't just uttering an exasperated, throwaway threat.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Regarding this 'cooling' since 1998. The HadCRU data has 1998 as the warmest year but it does not include data from the Arctic. The NASA GISS data does include data from the Arctic and found 2005 to be warmer than 1998 and found 2007 to be as warm as 1998.

Do you know what that means? It means that if CRU massaged the data to show global warming they were incompetant. All they needed to do was include Arctic data!
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
To replicate his work, any other climate scientists would need this data.

That's my understanding too. Here's what seems to have happened:There was no serious wrong-doing from CRU, but they just didn't want to be open about the loss of the data. It's worth reading Roger Pielke Jr's blog on this, since he's the person refered to in the Sunday Times article:
quote:
Pielke's suggestions to CRU:

I suggest instead being open and simply saying that in the 1980s and even 1990s no one could have known that maintaining this data in its original form would have been necessary. Since it was not done, then efforts should be made to collect it and make it available (which I see CRU is doing). Ultimately, that will probably mean an open-source global temperature record will be created.


 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
To replicate his work, any other climate scientists would need this data.

That's my understanding too. Here's what seems to have happened:There was no serious wrong-doing from CRU, but they just didn't want to be open about the loss of the data. It's worth reading Roger Pielke Jr's blog on this, since he's the person refered to in the Sunday Times article:
quote:
Pielke's suggestions to CRU:

I suggest instead being open and simply saying that in the 1980s and even 1990s no one could have known that maintaining this data in its original form would have been necessary. Since it was not done, then efforts should be made to collect it and make it available (which I see CRU is doing). Ultimately, that will probably mean an open-source global temperature record will be created.


It all seems a bit iffy to me. Here we have people publishing material based on data that is lost which means that the conclusions can no longer be verified by a third party. Are the world's taxpayers expected to back policies which will cost billions - nay trillions of dollars - based on such a shambles?

Have the Norfolk Turnips taken over the University of East Anglia?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It all seems a bit iffy to me. Here we have people publishing material based on data that is lost which means that the conclusions can no longer be verified by a third party.

No doubt one of the scientists here can answer you better, but I'm not sure how much difference the raw temperature data would make here. As I understand it, all the original data is still intact at the Met Office so other researchers can create their own temperature record. It wouldn't perfectly match the CRU record because of different correction factors, but they can still do it OK.

This is a fairly old story, dug up because it's kicking season for the CRU. It's not great ("a bit iffy" is fair), but AFAIK doesn't change any fundamentals.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Hiro's Leap, thanks for that - a breath of fresh air. My only concern is that "an open-source global temperature record" sounds like a really good idea (and is, in an ideal world) - but then look at what happened in New Zealand. Ironically, Myrrh and myself both mentioned the same issue, but to make opposite points!

To summarise: NIWA is the official body, the NZ Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) is a denialist pressure group - yes those terms are couched in emotionally loaded language, but let's call a spade a spade for once. The NZCSC allege that
quote:
the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming
This was because the data came from different stations at different altitudes. It gets colder as you go higher, of course, so to combine the measurements a correction must be made. this short NIWA page graphically shows how it was done.

The NZCSC seem to think that using the raw, uncorrected data is valid, despite having been told some years ago that they're doing it wrong. In fact, it is necessary to use "manipulated" data to perform a valid comparison[1]. Giving people like that raw data to play with is like giving your toddler a box of matches.

So: either global open-source database has properly corrected figures - in which case denialists will claim they have been "tampered with" - or they are raw data, in which case we've seen what happens.

The sickening thing is that the whole NZ temperature debacle is being used by the denialists to accuse NIWA of corruption, when it should be the other way around: the NZCSC made an elementary error dealing with the data, making their conclusions invalid. They were told about it, but persist in spreading their false conclusions. This makes them either pig-headed incompetents or liars.

- Chris.

--
[1]: a note to anyone without a science background: scientists often say to "data manipulation" when they refer to valid transformations and corrections needed to get the raw data into a meaningful and coherent data set. The word doesn't have any of the connotations of "fiddle" or "distort" that it may have in everyday usage.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The results of the original analysis would have been published somewhere (or at the very least an internal CRU report produced), and that would have included a summary (at least) of the methodology employed, including the criteria on which data were selected and/or weighted. Anyone sufficiently competant to follow that description should be able to repeat the analysis, all they'd need is access to the original data files and some time (I'd expect that an inexpensive computer out of PC World would outperform whatever the original analysis was done on, so at least you wouldn't need to wait and wait and wait for the results).
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sanityman:
[QB] In fact, [b]it is necessary to use "manipulated" data to perform a valid comparison[1].

That is not the basis of UEAs's failings. If the data is being manipulated then there has to be a way of checking that the manipulations are reasonable or, in the light of future developments and understandings, can be revised or corrected if necessary. If the original data on which the manipulated data is based is lost then the evidence connecting the manipulated data to reality is lost and it cannot be properly scrutinised. How can anyone test whether the manipulations showed partiality or impartiality?

Clearly UEA seem to have realised that -why else would they have been so cagey when fobbing off requests to see the original data?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Anyone sufficiently competant to follow that description should be able to repeat the analysis

There seems to be a range of attitudes towards original data, e.g.:
  1. Publish only a broad method and results. Other teams can then attempt to replicate this, probably using a slightly different technique.
  2. Make detailed results available. Include full methodology, computer code and extensive data.
IMO there's currently a cultural clash between these two groups. As far as I can see, physicists (and climate scientists) often tend to be type 1, and so see no particular reason to share detailed data. Steve McIntyre and many other engineers / scientists are type 2; they genuinely want to inspect the details. Type 1 scientists respond by saying "Here's the outline, you do the analysis".
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which exactly illustrates why a "I'd rather delete the data than give it away" is a meaningless threat. The most Phil Jones would be able to do is delete copies of the data held at CRU. There are several copies of the data, and they're not all in places where he has access to the file servers. If he was to delete any file all it would do would be delay the release of the data, at great personal cost to himself. He'd have better luck delaying the release of the data by challenging the FOI request on the basis that it violates other legal agreements.

My understanding is that while the raw data from all the weather stations throughout the world can be obtained onerously for anyone who is interested, the particular data that was requested from Phil Jones was the subset of the weather stations he actually used. To replicate his work, any other climate scientists would need this data.

I'm amazed you take such a relaxed attitude to examples of potential malpractice. In one of the other 'climategate' emails, Jones actually asks the recipients to delete a particular email, so there is evidence to suggest he wasn't just uttering an exasperated, throwaway threat.

Yes, I too am amazed.

There seems to be a disjunct here with even scientists like Alan not understanding that testing anothers results means getting the data they actually used.

This, finally, was how the Hockey Stick was shown to be a complete farce. And Briffa's lone tree and other machinations.

Only by checking that they were actually using the base data can their results be verified, or shown to be manipulated and so the hypothesis falsified.

I am at a loss to understand why in pro AGW the basic rules of science have been jettisoned and excuse after excuse piled up in defence of this malpractice.

Not understanding the basics it seems is why they are failing to appreciate the seriousness of the problem as admitted in the emails. That they fail to be open to checking by witholding data followed by smear campaigns and every means possible to block access to legitimate scientific debate, shows they have no interest in actual climate science, but only in promoting a falsified hypothesis on behalf of a particular agenda.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The AIRS link worked fine for me. Here's a pretty picture of some data

Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

Oh well done! The same one page of the same one picture of 2004 and you're happy.

All they have to do is change the heading..

Where's the rest? Where's the data that corresponds to the colours?


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
?! What you've just posted confirms it's true. It's telling you the models don't include water vapour as a greenhouse gas! If water vapour isn't, why is CO2?

This is what I've been trying to point out.

I'm a bit confused by your reply. From the article I quoted
quote:
Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models
I may be being stupid, but I genuinely don't see how you get from that quote to "the models don't include H2O as a greenhouse gas." It's worth noting that, if the models didn't include H2O, the IPCC figure for climate sensitivity to CO2 would be lower, because the greenhouse effect due to H2O accentuates the warming effect. The only reason it does this is because H2O is a greenhouse gas.

Because they're telling you water vapour is not included as a 'forcing' agent, i.e. not as a greenhouse gas in its own right. They only include it in something designated 'feedback' which means they pick a figure to times CO2 to make CO2 a greater number to the figure they give for it being a 'forcing' agent as a greenhouse gas.

So, if they don't include water vapour as a greenhouse gas, they shouldn't be including CO2.




quote:
I can't really contribute much to your assertion that all these climate scientists are corrupt: it's gets to the "yes they are" "no they aren't" level quickly. However, I do note that you go on to quote a study by the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" (a pressure group affiliated to the International Climate Science Coalition, whose stated aim is to "Sway public opinion, as well as perceptions of public opinion, against costly climate control plans").

I can understand you not reading all the links in my previous post, but I advise you to read this one. It shows how the NZ Climate Science Coalition mangled the data to obtain their desired result:
quote:
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, ....
(my emphasis). If you want junk science, look no further than the NZ Climate Science Coalition. This is such an obvious error, it's difficult to believe it's not an intentional misrepresentation. Never mind how corrupt East Anglia may or may not be - the link you provided is to bogus science.

I ask again: why aren't you as critical of these sources as you are to academia?

The problem is Chris, the replies from proAGW show consistent tweaking plus more manipulation. The whole sad and sorry saga of the Mann Hockey Stick showed this. By the time you get to the end of the rebuttals trail it becomes obvious, as the emails show, they will go to any lengths to corrupt data. They are not in themselves a reliable source of information.

You have to bear in mind something here, I'm not denying that there has been a warming, I'm just saying it is in the natural pattern we're in coming out of the LIA. What the Hockey Stick and all these machinations have done, and are still doing, is to hide that. It was only by consistent and detailed probing by many that NOAA finally admitted to different figures which showed the warmest year where it belonged, in the 1930's, in small print. Yet, are AGW's aware of that? Or are they still using the faked data to promote this 1998 El Nino year as the hottest and proof of CO2 driving global warming?

This is a propaganda campaign. Unless that is appreciated AGW supporters will continue mistaking it for science. As it unfolds the enormity of the project is staggeringly mindblowing. So to the OP question. To pull of a scam of this grandeur, what's the conman term? The long play? Takes some organisation.


quote:
posted by Myrrh:
And you're still not able to show me how CO2 drives warming.

What are the properties of CO2?

quote:
I've tried to do this before, and so has Alan, but it obviously didn't do much good. I'll tell you what: could you explain to me your understanding of the greenhouse effect? Then I can try to explain in terms that you accept and are familiar with.

- Chris.

No. I'm asking you to explain, to show me how exactly CO2 is proved to be the main driver of global warming. So far Alan is reduced to saying CO2 absorbs part of the spectrum of IR and releases IR. He's rejecting explaining it as a blanket effect (as a trap or reflective blanket which is that still being touted by AGM), but hasn't elaborated further.

So let's start with the properties of CO2. How are these properties capable of driving these huge amounts of global warming? What is the evidence that they do so?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was only by consistent and detailed probing by many that NOAA finally admitted to different figures which showed the warmest year where it belonged, in the 1930's, in small print. Yet, are AGW's aware of that? Or are they still using the faked data to promote this 1998 El Nino year as the hottest and proof of CO2 driving global warming?

Are you saying NOAA states that global temperatures in the 1930s were warmer than 1998? That's simply miles out.
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
wow! Eight pages and we're still discussing the science of global warming. How many times have I been told that "the science of global warming is settled"? Doesn't seem to be true on this ship!
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
What does "The science is settled" mean? It seems like it's a phrase that both sides taunt each other with, but it's rarely explained what is settled.

[ 30. November 2009, 16:33: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
I think it's unlikely there was any deliberate malpractice in the data destruction. (But given emails threatening the destruction of data this should be examined more carefully.)

Assuming the destruction was not deliberate, it still calls into question the validity of the conclusions. Perhaps there was a misplaced variable or an improperly rounded constant in the computer code used to manipulate the data. How can we know if we can't access the original data set and check the results?

Science must be replicable.

So now all the studies need to be redone with the old data on a new data subset. It's a terrible waste of effort, but that's what happens when you're sloppy.

I understand the desire to keep information in house. Profits can be lost if the information is made open source. But spreading information is at the core of science.

Imagine if Newton had thought to use his new laws to start an artillery company instead of publishing it. He would have been far richer and we would be far poorer.

Ivan Polzunov, the inventor of the first two cylinder steam engine died just before his 32 hp engine was finished. It worked for three months, then broke. Since he didn't publish the details it couldn't be fixed. Now James Watt gets the glory.

I guess these "scientists" need to decide what they want out of life. Do they want to be scientists who teach and spread knowledge or do they want to be people of business who horde knowledge and seek advancement?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Chris, some of the history of the IPCC is in the link I posted to Barnabas, I've now forgotten the man's name, but the head of it was ousted around the time these changes were made to the report, when Mann came to the fore in it.

quote:
The dense 300–400 page IPCC Scientific Assessment Reports are generally good compilations of global warming science. But only experts read them. The UN IPCC’s voice to the public, press and policy makers regarding climate science is through summaries; in particular, the brief, politically approved “Summaries for Policymakers” (SPM), which have become notorious for their bias, tendency to overstate problems and penchant for simplifying and dramatizing scientific speculation. A classic example is the claim in the 1996 IPCC SPM (Houghton et al., 1996, p. 4): “the balance of evidence suggest that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The so called “evidence” cited in Chapter 8 of the main report was based on one paper that at the time had not been published in the refereed scientific literature. Moreover, one of the authors of this paper was also the convening lead author of the Chapter 8 that supported the “human influence” claim. A hearing in August 1998 on the subject of global warming before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business, chaired by Republican James Talent, publicized the fact that the 1996 IPCC scientific report (Houghton et al., 1996) was altered to convey the misleading impression to the public that there is a “discernible human influence on global climate” which will lead to catastrophic warming. The background to this is as follows.

The “discernible influence” statement of the IPCC’s 1996 report (Houghton et al., 1996) was based on what are called “fingerprinting” studies. .....

Following publication of the 1996 IPCC scientific report, and in the wake of mounting criticism of the “discernible influence” claim, a paper by Santer et al.(1996) was published that endeavoured to defend the claim. Subsequently, the results of a re-analysis of the data used in this work were published in an article by Michaels and Knappenberger (1996). It showed that the research on which the IPCC “discernible influence” statement is based had used only a portion of the available atmospheric temperature data. When the full data set was used, the previously identified warming trend disappeared.

In light of the widespread use of the “discernible influence” statement to imply that there is proof of global warming, the matter was of great concern (Fig. 1). Not surprisingly, this damaged the credibility of the IPCC.

My bold. The manipulation of data bases and efforts to hide such acts has become more bold since then. Briffa witheld his data for 10 years.

But didn't damage it enough.. This is when the propaganda campaign went into full swing, when Mann's Hockey Stick was created to prove AGW.


quote:
BRINGING INTEGRITY BACK TO THE IPCC PROCESS
November 15, 2005

The flaws in the IPCC process began to manifest themselves in the first assessment, but did so in earnest when the IPCC issued its second assessment report in 1996. The most obvious was the altering of the document on the central question of whether man is causing global warming.

Here is what Chapter 8 – the key chapter in the report – stated on this central question in the final version accepted by reviewing scientists:


“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes.”

But when the final version was published, this and similar phrases in 15 sections of the chapter were deleted or modified. Nearly all the changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that human activities are having a major impact on global warming.

In the Summary for Policy Makers – which is the only part of the report that reporters and policy makers read – a single phrase was inserted. It reads:

“The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

........

In 2001, the third assessment report was published. Compared with the flaws in the third assessment, those in the second assessment appear modest. The most famous is the graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann and others. Their study concluded that the 20th century was the warmest on record in the last 1,000 years, showing flat temperatures until 1900 and then spiking upward – in short, it looked like a hockey stick. It achieved instant fame as proof of man’s causation of global warming because it was featured prominently in the Summary Report read by the media.

Since then, the hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math and impermissible practices. Dr. Hans von Storch, a prominent German researcher with the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research – who, I’m told, believes in global warming – put it this way:

“Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish.”

In fact, a pair of Canadian researchers showed that when random data is fed into Michael Mann’s mathematical construct, it produces a hockey stick more than 99 percent of the time. Yet the IPCC immortalized the hockey stick as the proof positive of catastrophic global warming.

How can such a thing occur? Sadly, it is due to the institutional structure of the IPCC itself – it breeds manipulation.

First, the IPCC is a political institution. Its charter is to support the efforts of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has the basic mission of eliminating the threat of global warming. This clearly creates a conflict of interest with the standard scientific goal of assessing scientific data in an objective manner.

The IPCC process itself illustrates the problem. The Summary Report for Policymakers is not approved by the scientists and economists who contribute to the report. It is approved by Intergovernmental delegates – in short, politicians. It doesn’t take a leap of imagination to realize that politicians will insist the report support their political agenda.

Can you or any other pro AGW supporter read the above and still have any confidence in this as science?

The current arguments are part of the same manipulative process, I can't trust your sources for the very good reason they are proved time and again to be untrustworthy.

That's scientific method, observation and proof.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
What does "The science is settled" mean? It seems like it's a phrase that both sides taunt each other with, but it's rarely explained what is settled.

I've only ever heard it used in the context of "lets stop discussing the science and move on to doing something about it" (which normally involves giving the state more power, but that may be co-incidental). It's a classic attempt to close down discussion because discussion may lead to people changing their mind again, which you don't want if you've just won them over. But I can see it could be used by whichever side in an argument thinks they have the upper hand.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Anyone sufficiently competant to follow that description should be able to repeat the analysis

There seems to be a range of attitudes towards original data, e.g.:
  1. Publish only a broad method and results. Other teams can then attempt to replicate this, probably using a slightly different technique.
  2. Make detailed results available. Include full methodology, computer code and extensive data.

I've never come across a field of science where the second form of publication was common, let alone the norm. Journal articles, by their very nature, are brief summaries and fall well within the first category. So, we're into the realms of full reports of work, which will almost always be produced for some funding agency (eg: a government department) who aren't actually able to do anything with the full data, so that would also be the first form. The only places where you'll definitely find the second form of publication would be some formal analysis that may be used in legal action (and, even then the data may simply be in the form of a few graphs in a report rather than an electronic file that others can manipulate), and internal archival reports which document the full data set and processing steps used to produce the reduced output - but, very few organisations keep such reports (again, if you're doing analysis that might end up in court you may be required to do so). Of course, there'll be a variety of internal procedures, lab note books, working files etc that will always exist ... but putting those together into a coherent description of what was done is a major task, especially several years after the event when some of the original staff have moved on and no-one can read their handwriting.

quote:
IMO there's currently a cultural clash between these two groups. As far as I can see, physicists (and climate scientists) often tend to be type 1, and so see no particular reason to share detailed data. Steve McIntyre and many other engineers / scientists are type 2; they genuinely want to inspect the details. Type 1 scientists respond by saying "Here's the outline, you do the analysis".
If there are people who genuinely fall into the second group, then yes I see there's a culture clash. It'll be interesting to see how McIntyre responds to a request to see every little detail of a large research project he completed 5-10 years ago - I bet it'll be a major effort for him to locate all of his notes, working files and data.

Besides, there are very few sciences where access to the original data and procedures are necessary. The subset of data sets which are genuinely unique and unrepeatable is very small - some cosmology/astrophysics with observations of very rare events like some super-novae, paleontology where there may be only one example of a particular species in the fossil record, etc. Climate science isn't one of them; there are large numbers of instruments recording the weather, and large numbers of means of measuring the paleoclimate. The results of one analysis can be confirmed by other analyses on independent data sets using independent methods. Regardless of the shortcomings of one analysis, the overall picture from all of them will be consistent if there's a genuine underlying phenomenum. Which is why the 'Hockey Stick' isn't dead - despite the flaws in the analysis the results were, and are, broadly consistent with the same general picture of fluctuations around a basically constant temperature for 1000 years with a rapid rise in temperature in the last 50 or so years.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The AIRS link worked fine for me. Here's a pretty picture of some data

Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

Oh well done! The same one page of the same one picture of 2004 and you're happy.

All they have to do is change the heading..

Where's the rest? Where's the data that corresponds to the colours?

It's right here. All you had to do was scroll down and follow the link that says "GES DISC Data Holdings: Data description summary, access to CO2 data". Pretty clear, I would have thought. Perhaps your browser is somehow unable to follow links to actual data?

By the way - is this the satellite you thought had crashed?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was only by consistent and detailed probing by many that NOAA finally admitted to different figures which showed the warmest year where it belonged, in the 1930's, in small print. Yet, are AGW's aware of that? Or are they still using the faked data to promote this 1998 El Nino year as the hottest and proof of CO2 driving global warming?

Are you saying NOAA states that global temperatures in the 1930s were warmer than 1998? That's simply miles out.
Sorry, missed this post. And sorry, acronymn overload, I meant NASA. They finally conceded defeat and oh dear their mistake, combining two data sources that shouldn't have been combined or something, anyway, those furious who remembered the dust bowl years vindicated, four (?)of the hottest US years now back where they belong in the 1930's.

You might recall I mentioned the page from the US Met which had a module teaching there was no CO2 induced warming? The page was taken down, disappeared for a couple of days, must have been some row, and reappeared without it.

quote:
Controversial NOAA Climate Change Page Returns-Missing Original Skeptical Text by Tony HakeWed Nov 18 2009,

Originally posted Two weeks ago the Climate Change Examiner reported about an online lesson from NOAA’s National Weather Service discussing climate change that questioned CO2’s effect on the climate. The page was removed within 48 hours but has recently been restored – without the controversial comments.

The original lesson, titled “It’s a Gas Man”, was part of a series of lessons on the atmosphere. In it, the lesson stated, that, “there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.” It further went on to say, “The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will [sic] the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.”

Two days later, on November 4th, the entire lesson was removed from the National Weather Service’s website and returned a ‘page not found’ error message. Email inquiries to the page’s webmaster questioning the page’s removal were not returned.

Now, the page has been restored however it is missing virtually the entire discussion section that had in depth analysis regarding the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. The time stamp at the bottom of the page maintains the same modified date - September 1, 2009 - however the content has been changed considerably.

See a before and after comparison of the page below

It will be interesting to see if there's any rebellion by the level headed teachers here..


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

Yes, I could only find it on an archive page and as at end 2008 they were still not releasing any of the data. I'd actually forgotten about the CO2 crashed one..

quote:
It's right here. All you had to do was scroll down and follow the link that says "GES DISC Data Holdings: Data description summary, access to CO2 data". Pretty clear, I would have thought. Perhaps your browser is somehow unable to follow links to actual data?

The link didn't work, I pressed it to get the data and there was no link. Glad you found it. Though, could be my computer still hiccupping, I'm having a hard time getting it. Pressed select all and it appears to have seized up.

Not that I hold out any hope that it will be worth retrieving, the last they said on it, after years of not making it available, was that they needed to adjust the figures. We all should know by now what that means.


So, how does CO2 drive global warming?

What are the properties of CO2?


Myrrh


P.S.
quote:
DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

"Hansen's conclusions that the majority of the 10 hottest years occurred since 1990 are false," Burnett said. "While Hansen's original declaration made headlines, NASA's correction has been ignored."

According to NASA's newly published data:

The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred. NASA backtracks on 1998 Warmest Year Claim

m.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I'll start the ball rolling, shall I?

PROPERTIES OF CO2
_________________


1. Heavier than air.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Constituent of air. Most properties of pure CO2 gas therefore are largely irrelevant.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
Let's not trivialise by listing properties of CO2 that are irrelevant to the climate.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was only by consistent and detailed probing by many that NOAA finally admitted to different figures which showed the warmest year where it belonged, in the 1930's, in small print. Yet, are AGW's aware of that? Or are they still using the faked data to promote this 1998 El Nino year as the hottest and proof of CO2 driving global warming?

Are you saying NOAA states that global temperatures in the 1930s were warmer than 1998? That's simply miles out.
Sorry, missed this post. And sorry, acronymn overload, I meant NASA. They finally conceded defeat and oh dear their mistake, combining two data sources that shouldn't have been combined or something, anyway, those furious who remembered the dust bowl years vindicated, four (?)of the hottest US years now back where they belong in the 1930's.

According to GISS NASA the 10 warmest years globally have all been since 1997. It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top. And we are talking about global warming, I think?

See a table from GISS here
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Not irrelevant. Tell that to those who die when it pools from eruptions, happens fairly frequently in some areas.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
]According to GISS NASA the 10 warmest years globally have all been since 1997. It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top. And we are talking about global warming, I think? [/QB]
? We're always being sold that was the global high. It wasn't in the US. What's global in AGW? Where were the Bristlecone Pines?
Where are temperature stations are there? How many of them are there in each country? How many have disappeared since x?


What are we actually measuring?

Will we ever know as we're finding that more data are destroyed, witheld?

What should be noted here, the thing of interest and following the same pattern of crap science being created by an agenda, is that the data sets were manipulated to give a certain result. It was only because they hadn't the nous to realise what they were saying by this that they missed the seriousness of this decade dust bowl in the American psyche, the memories of those who'd lived through it etc.

They were forced to this.


Myrrh


Come on, let's discover what we can about CO2. Heavier than air is fact, it sinks. What else?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top. And we are talking about global warming, I think?

See a table from GISS here

NASA now admits the hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998

How do you get equal top?

Myrrh
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Not irrelevant. Tell that to those who die when it pools from eruptions, happens fairly frequently in some areas.

Irrelevant to discussion of climate, unless you contend that it remains pooled and does not eventually mix with the atmosphere. In which case you'd be wrong.

Come on, Myrrh, this is a ridiculous distraction. If you have a point, come out with it, or stop spamming the discussion.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top. And we are talking about global warming, I think?

See a table from GISS here

NASA now admits the hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998

How do you get equal top?

Myrrh

Where does GISS now say that 1934 is the hottest?
In the GISS table I linked to we find that globally 2005 is the hottest, 1998 and 2007 rank equal second and 1934 is nowhere to be seen. It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I keep asking you how does CO2 drive global warming. No one here seems capable of answering me. Don't know why, there must be loads of AGW material on this.

All I've got so far is Alan distancing himself from 'blanket' models.

So, I'm trying to work it out. What are the properties of CO2?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've never come across a field of science where the second form of publication was common, let alone the norm.
[...]
It'll be interesting to see how McIntyre responds to a request to see every little detail of a large research project he completed 5-10 years ago

According to McIntyre it's the norm for his field, mineral prospecting, when looking for investment funds. He acknowledges this isn't science, but argues this level of accountability is useful. When CRU loses important information like this, it sounds like he's got a point.

Also, this isn't only about how much information is published initially, it's about the researchers' reaction to people wanting more details. You're obviously in a far better position to tell, but there seem to be a lot of scientists on a wide range of web forums who are genuinely angry at the lack of transparency from CRU. (There are also a lot who say "meh, I'd do the same", hence I'm suggesting a culture clash.)

Regardless, I think climate scientists are doing a poor job of putting their case. The meme "It's public data, we have a right to it" is very powerful, and currently they're coming across as secretive.
quote:
Besides, there are very few sciences where access to the original data and procedures are necessary.[...] Climate science isn't one of them; there are large numbers of instruments recording the weather, and large numbers of means of measuring the paleoclimate.
You still need access to the original data. Ice cores are hugely expensive to drill, some of the trees used for proxy tree data have restricted access, and the instrumental temperature record can never be repeated.

Ultimately, climate science isn't like other branches of science. The implications of the research affect all of us and the costs will be significant (albeit much less than opponents predict). Unfortunately it seems likely the basic conclusions of climate science are robust, but IMO an unusually high degree of transparency would be useful in assuaging some doubts. "Trust me, I'm an expert" doesn't work well these days.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We're always being sold that was the global high. It wasn't in the US. What's global in AGW?

You're conflating the US temperature record with the global temperature record. In the US the 1930s were a very similar temperature to 1998; for the rest of the world this isn't remotely true.

US temperatures aren't particularly relevant discussing about global climate, since the US only constitutes a small proportion of the Earth's surface. (They do have a disproportionate influence on American perceptions of climate change though.)
quote:
Come on, let's discover what we can about CO2. Heavier than air is fact, it sinks.
As Alan points out, it is a constituent in air. Have you noticed the atmosphere doesn't have separate layers of each gas, arranged by molecular weight?
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I keep asking you how does CO2 drive global warming. No one here seems capable of answering me. Don't know why, there must be loads of AGW material on this.

All I've got so far is Alan distancing himself from 'blanket' models.

So, I'm trying to work it out. What are the properties of CO2?

Myrrh

"Blanket" isn't a model, it's a metaphor. A profoundly unhelpful one for you it seems.

Properties of CO2 relevant to it's role in global warming: it's a molecule that consists of OCO in a straight line. Because of this, it's not polar, but some of it's vibrational modes (different ways of vibrating: it has 3 of them) cause an oscillating dipole moment. Because of this, it can absorb IR radiation at some wavelengths. O2 and N2 cannot do this (H2O can which is why, it's a greenhouse gas).

Earth is warm (fortunately for us). It is warm because the sun warms it. Being very hot, most of the sun's radiation is at higher (visible) wavelengths - see Wien's law, look it up. the Earth absorbs these as it's not transparent. It radiates at lower wavelengths because it's not as hot as the sun (fortunately for us).

These lower wavelengths are in the IR region, and some of them are absorbed by CO2 (and others by H2O) in the atmosphere. What happens after that was covered very nicely by Alan in a previous post, which I suggest you find and stop making me do all your research for you, whist sitting there bleating about "no-one can explain it for me!"

Thanks.

- Chris.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've never come across a field of science where the second form of publication was common, let alone the norm.
[...]
It'll be interesting to see how McIntyre responds to a request to see every little detail of a large research project he completed 5-10 years ago

According to McIntyre it's the norm for his field, mineral prospecting, when looking for investment funds. He acknowledges this isn't science, but argues this level of accountability is useful.
OK, so he can come up with one field where there is a high level of data archival and reporting. I wonder whether that's in the form of a hefty paper report with accompanying DVD(s) of data, and whether that's freely available or just given to potential investors to study to decide whether to proceed with further work towards mineral exploitation. Of course, if some of that data is in the form of sampling of rocks or sediments, then complete disclosure of the data would also include handing over retained samples for analysis rather than just the data collected on them. Making provision for the supply of data on that scale is expensive, it may be justified when there's a commercial interest willing to pay for it ... is it when the tax payer is burdened with it? The tax payer is generally suspicious of paying for beaurocracy, why should this case be any different?

In the work I do it's our practice to supply the sponsors of our work with reduced data sets. We map the dispersion of radioactivity in the environment, and what we supply is data that gives the activity concentrations of measured isotopes at different locations ... on only one occasion have we supplied the spectra from which those concentrations are derived - and that was for a small piece of work where one of the things of interest was spectral shape. And, even then I'd removed a large part of the data set as it wasn't really properly registered (the GPS dropped out so we didn't have position, the aircraft was too high or low, the aircraft was banking so the radar altimeter mis-registered the height etc). Our sponsor would be unable to actually do anything with the data, though they can pass it on to others who might be capable of doing something with it.

quote:
When CRU loses important information like this, it sounds like he's got a point.
There was certainly a failure in internal archival procedure at CRU. But, one doesn't need to go to the extent that McIntyre does with his mineral exploration data to prevent that. Besides, I doubt the data is entirely lost - it's just going to take some effort to recreate it. The raw data would still be with whoever supplied it in the first place, or others who have had copies of it. The processing that was done on that would have followed some defined procedure, and any variation on that would have been noted somewhere (most labs still do that by hand in a book ... though maybe it was the stack of old lab books that didn't survive the move). But, I don't see anyone willing to pay to recreate a processed data set that's already been reported ... I can see someone potentially paying to reprocess the data using procedures that have been developed since the original analysis to see what impact that would have. But, for that all you need is the original data not the data that seems to have been misplaced.

quote:
Also, this isn't only about how much information is published initially, it's about the researchers' reaction to people wanting more details. You're obviously in a far better position to tell, but there seem to be a lot of scientists on a wide range of web forums who are genuinely angry at the lack of transparency from CRU. (There are also a lot who say "meh, I'd do the same", hence I'm suggesting a culture clash.)
From what I've read, the CRU have been reasonably open about their results. They've been widely reported (prior to the theft of emails), and those results are available for others to critique. What they've been less open with is releasing raw data that they've been lent but don't own (yeah, well, no surprise there ... if it's not their data they're not free to make it public are they?), they've not been entirely open about a few failures of archival procedure (it's not entirely unusual for people to want to cover up minor mistakes, no one actually wants to look human), and they've not wanted to disclose the content of private correspondence between individuals within the CRU and beyond (well, they're private, why should anyone want to read them anyway?).

quote:
The meme "It's public data, we have a right to it" is very powerful, and currently they're coming across as secretive.
The whole problem is, why should the public have the right to data that they can't do anything sensible with anyway? Would anyone here know how to make adjustments to temperature data to account for the difference in height of different measurement locations, or proximity to urban areas? Would you know how to take data from 1000s of locations and produce a meaningful average temeperature? Would you know how to take measurements spanning an entire day and produce a meaningful average temperature for that day? And, repeat that for measurements throughout a week, month or year? Would you have access to the supercomputers to collect experimental data to compare with the observations to help understand the system? I know that "trust me I'm an expert" doesn't send the right messages to many people. But, sometimes it takes an expert to make sense of things, especially something as complex as raw climate observations.

quote:

quote:
Besides, there are very few sciences where access to the original data and procedures are necessary.[...] Climate science isn't one of them; there are large numbers of instruments recording the weather, and large numbers of means of measuring the paleoclimate.
You still need access to the original data. Ice cores are hugely expensive to drill, some of the trees used for proxy tree data have restricted access, and the instrumental temperature record can never be repeated.
But, there are several independent ice cores. And, many independent sets of tree-ring proxy data. And, several independent sets of climate instruments. Thus, it isn't necessary for scientists to have access to all the raw data, comparing the published (processed) data from one set with the others is more than adequate to allow the peer review process and transparency of science to work. And, as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to samples the only way you can actually go back to the original data is to get your hands on the actual sample (preferably before anyone else touched it ... but it's already been studied so you can't do that). That's simply not going to be possible except for a very small number of people who will have to make their case for a re-examination very strongly as in most cases that re-examination will reduce the amount of retained sample available for any further work.

quote:
it seems likely the basic conclusions of climate science are robust, but IMO an unusually high degree of transparency would be useful in assuaging some doubts. "Trust me, I'm an expert" doesn't work well these days.
I'm not too sure how much more transparency would be needed. The results of a wide range of climate science are already available, OK many peer reviewed papers are restricted to those who subscribe to the journals but those results are usually reproduced elsewhere anyway. The IPCC reports contain extensive summaries of the work done (although they're relatively infrequent publications so the latest work is excluded because it was done since the last report). There are several good blogs where the climate scientists try to explain what they're doing to the non-expert (with greater or lesser degree of success ... communication of science to non-experts is a talent that very few scientists actually have, unfortunately).

Free access to data that is meaningless to the vast majority of the population, and usually already available to the few who are qualified to examine it properly, just doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. It might have the benefit of sending the cranks back to their sheds for a while as they spend months downloading the stuff though!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Not irrelevant. Tell that to those who die when it pools from eruptions, happens fairly frequently in some areas.

Irrelevant to discussion of climate, unless you contend that it remains pooled and does not eventually mix with the atmosphere. In which case you'd be wrong.

Come on, Myrrh, this is a ridiculous distraction. If you have a point, come out with it, or stop spamming the discussion.

- Chris.

AGW says CO2 DRIVES global warming, that is the claim. IT HAS NEVER DONE SO IN ITS HISTORY FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

It's a reasonable question to ask.

There isn't one straight explanation of how this can happen.

Instead we get explanations like 'CO2 has been level for 600,000 years' until the industrial revolution sent CO2 levels up creating global warming.

If that doesn't compute for you, welcome to the club.

It, therefore, had nothing to do with the vast temperature changes we've had in that time period, like the beginning of our Holocene period, when temperature went up some 7 degrees in around a DECADE and sea levels rose hundreds of feet. That's why we have the North Sea and the English Channel.

But what logic do you say it's creating it now?

If, you don't go with this expert's opinion from AGW and you go with what science has shown us, that in this hundreds of thousands of years of dramatic glacials and interglacials like the above CO2 followed temperature rises by c 800 years. It rose and fell following temperature rises. How then, by what logic, can you say it drove any of these temperature rises? If it didn't then, why is it now?

If you can't answer these logically, reasonably, without producing data which is proven to be corrupt, from proven to corrupt, charlatan scientists, then, grow up, stop bugging us with stupid climate models which have no basis in reality.

Go back to playing with Nintendo or whatever games you played as children, and stop screwing with our adult lives.

I have to go out now, will come back to this later.

Nina
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
That's a challenge isn't it. Explain the science, cite authorities to support that science, but don't both with anyone who is qualified in atmospheric physics or chemistry (or any other branch of science relevant to the climate). Since you dismiss every hard working, professional, competant and dilligent scientist as a "charlatan" you've set us an impossible task.

Well, not 'us', because I've given up.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Luckily for us he wasn't able to hide, delete, or otherwise tamper with the raw data, unlike these charlatans ... promoting a falsified hypothesis on behalf of a particular agenda ... manipulative process ... crap science being created by an agenda ... corrupt, charlatan scientists ...

Interesting. So manipulation of the evidence discredits the side that uses it?

Then, as as shown on p.2 of this thread, your side of the argument has already been discredited: Philip Cooney "made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change" while working in the White House.

If you want to make this about manipulation of evidence, what about the pro-sceptic TV programme that "altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940"?

What about the report by Ian Enting (accessible from here)that climate sceptic Ian Plimer:

"... misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
- has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
- has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
- has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included
in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source..."

Do you really want to make this about altering and misrepresenting data?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Making provision for the supply of data on that scale is expensive, it may be justified when there's a commercial interest willing to pay for it ... is it when the tax payer is burdened with it? The tax payer is generally suspicious of paying for beaurocracy, why should this case be any different?

It seems to me that what the tax-payer is funding should be competent science, good record keeping, archiving and compliance with the law of the land on information and data. In the case of CRU there are question marks over some of these, if not all.

quote:
From what I've read, the CRU have been reasonably open about their results. They've been widely reported (prior to the theft of emails), and those results are available for others to critique. What they've been less open with is releasing raw data that they've been lent but don't own (yeah, well, no surprise there ... if it's not their data they're not free to make it public are they?), they've not been entirely open about a few failures of archival procedure (it's not entirely unusual for people to want to cover up minor mistakes, no one actually wants to look human), and they've not wanted to disclose the content of private correspondence between individuals within the CRU and beyond (well, they're private, why should anyone want to read them anyway?).
You've already said you haven't read the emails (apart from what has been reported) and yet you're prepared to draw all these conclusions. I've read various sequences of emails on the various blogs and have drawn the conclusion that publicly-funded scientists are playing hard and fast with their obligations on Freedom of Information. You also don't seem to understand the difference between public and private. Emails and all correspondence written in the course of their work between individuals can be the legitimate subject of Freedom of Information requests.

quote:
The whole problem is, why should the public have the right to data that they can't do anything sensible with anyway?
Well thankfully, you don't get to decide what the public has a right to. It's evident that the arrogance of scientists at the CRU is widespread. The fact is that the CRU datasets and results are an important part of a publicly-funded investigation into climate which has massive cost and policy potential. Other scientists need to be able to verify and if necessary replicate this work in such an important public debate.

And lastly, measuring temperature is not rocket science. An intelligent layperson can understand what is going on when it is explained properly. A statistician with a scientific background can check the data and results, and it wouldn't take much for an able scientist from another field to familiarise themselves with the special knowledge, reading and expertise required.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, so he can come up with one field where there is a high level of data archival and reporting.

This is a widely circulated article by McIntyre describing some of his rationale. I'd be interesting in your (and anyone else still reading this thread) opinions. One comment he makes is:
quote:
I've found that scientists strongly resent any attempt to verify their results. One of the typical reactions is: don't check our studies, do your own study.
[...]
Climate scientists cannot expect to be the beneficiaries of public money and to influence public policy without also accepting the responsibility of providing much more adequate disclosure and due diligence.

I don't think he's arguing that all research should comply with those standards, but key papers should. I don't know if he's right, but the idea doesn't sound inherently stupid to me.

I also think that we (i.e. supporters of the consensus) make a serious mistake by assuming sceptics are ignorant or corrupt. Some are, but IMO many are honest and bright. Whether or not McIntrye is genuine, he deserves to be treated as such.
quote:
The whole problem is, why should the public have the right to data that they can't do anything sensible with anyway?
Yes, that's an issue, as is the cost of presenting data or code in a format that's suitable for external use. But the sceptics have flagged some valid issues. McIntyre spotted a problem with the NASA temperature data a year or two ago, and although it was minor, he was right.

Maybe it's impractical, but I'd love to see an Open Source climate model contest, code made public after judging. Give $250,000 to the first team to produce a convincing GCM that doesn't involve CO2 - no fudging parameters, you can only use known physical properties. AFAIK none of the sceptics have managed to create a remotely plausible alternative model of climate, but if they do, that's great.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alwyn, it is about manipulating the data. The problem is both sides do it.

Unlike some posters, I think most people on both sides honestly believe in their side. Judgements get clouded and group think occurs. The data doesn't line up (for good reasons) so adjustments are made. Unconscious assumptions are made. Models are formed based on untested hypothesis.

In an ideal world, both sides meet and discuss things. Hypotheses get tested as do assumptions. Nay sayers listen to the group and are listened to in turn.

In the real world, goals vary. Salaries of executives or grant money depends on carrying the banner. Talking to the other side is seen as a sellout, seriously considering their positions a career destroyer.

Both sides have left the ideal of science behind. Neither side is to be trusted.

How do we decide? How do we govern? The issues are far too technical for traditional democracy. Giving scientist power seems to make them into something other than scientists. Listening to corporate executives is clearly a path to destruction.

We need a better form of governance than we've developed in the past. We need something new.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
...But the sceptics have flagged some valid issues. McIntyre spotted a problem with the NASA temperature data a year or two ago, and although it was minor, he was right.

This is a key point for me. All the errors that have been found are minor, but are broadcast as major, as overturning AGW. You know the way they are published and discussed in Watts etc. And when the error turns out not to be major, this is not given equal space (understandable!) but it gives the impression, as Myrrh demonstrates, that AGW is overturned. The hockeystick being a case in point; the sceptics points have been answered and answered well, but Myrrh doesn't appear to know that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
This is a widely circulated article by McIntyre describing some of his rationale. I'd be interesting in your (and anyone else still reading this thread) opinions. One comment he makes is:
quote:
I've found that scientists strongly resent any attempt to verify their results. One of the typical reactions is: don't check our studies, do your own study.
[...]
Climate scientists cannot expect to be the beneficiaries of public money and to influence public policy without also accepting the responsibility of providing much more adequate disclosure and due diligence.

I don't think he's arguing that all research should comply with those standards, but key papers should. I don't know if he's right, but the idea doesn't sound inherently stupid to me.
I'll try and find time to read the linked article, I just don't know when that'll be.

In the meantime, the quoted section is worthy of some comment. I can understand, to an extent, the "do your own analysis" comments. A group of scientists have spent considerable time and effort doing a bit of original work producing a means of making sense from a complex set of data. They then go to the effort of writing up a paper giving their results, and present it to a journal for publication. A couple of referees come along and point out a series of problems with the paper, so they go back and do some more work to revise it and get it right (by now almost certainly while employed to be doing something else - it's quite normal for science funding to not include the time to write research papers, let alone respond to referees, and so such important parts of the scientific process are done in spare time or after hours). Then, after they published it with sufficient information for anyone to follow what they've done (or, anyone qualified to do so at least) someone comes along and not only questions what they've done (fair enough, that's science) but practically demands assistance to repeat all that work. Naturally, when you're busy on another project you're not really going to be that keen on helping someone else repeat your work.

If scientists in receipt of public money are to be more open about their work then that's going to take time away from doing new work. Which for people who have entered a career dedicated to finding out new stuff is frustrating. And, it also means that the funding of science is going to have to change to reflect that extra workload - projects will need to have some component that will cover future expense related to public information etc. That's probably a good thing, and science funding is in some cases heading in that direction (the UK Research Councils now have a section on 'public impact' in proposal applications, and there it is expected that the proposal should include some of the costs of achieving impact beyond the immediate scientific community). But it costs money, and there'll always be resentment that, with budgets always tight, extra spending in an area such as aiding public understanding will result in some scientists not getting the funding for their research. We'd all love it if money wasn't an issue, and that there was sufficient money for both research and public information ... unfortunately there isn't even enough money for all the really good research people want to do.

quote:
Whether or not McIntrye is genuine, he deserves to be treated as such ... But the sceptics have flagged some valid issues. McIntyre spotted a problem with the NASA temperature data a year or two ago, and although it was minor, he was right.
I think the majority of sensible people accept that McIntyre is genuine, and a smart guy. And, some of his calls for more openness in climate science are good ideas - even if the practicalities of putting them into effect are substantial. And, of course he has made a valuable contribution to the science by identifying some flaws (scientists are human, and despite our best efforts the occasional mistake will happen - that's why everything is open to peer review). And, his criticisms of some work have been published in the peer reviewed literature (so much for a cabal of climate scientists controlling the journal editors to prevent 'sceptic' authors publishing). Science needs people like him to provide a critical eye on what's published.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The hockeystick being a case in point; the sceptics points have been answered and answered well, but Myrrh doesn't appear to know that.

Ah, but you need to understand that the answers to the sceptics have been written by a bunch of charlatans. They must be charlatans because they don't accept the sceptics points about the hockeystick.

I think I've tried to explain the answers to the criticisms of the hockey stick about as many times as I've tried to explain the 800y lag in CO2 cf temperature at the glacial/interglacial interfaces, or the properties of CO2 that makes it a greenhouse gas, or that water vapour is included in the models as a greenhouse gas, and several other points too.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Alwyn, it is about manipulating the data. The problem is both sides do it ...

You're right - manipulation matters and there is evidence of manipulation on both sides (whether or not you believe that data manipulation on either side was proper behaviour).

My point was that, for either side to claim 'Look - your side manipulates data! We win!' just invites the other side to reply along the lines of 'Aha! But you manipulate data too! We win!'

So this type of argument leads us back towards entrenched positions. Hence my earlier suggestion of a 'meeting of moderate minds' (thank you to sanityman, aumbry and Dumpling Jeff for your support for this idea.)

For me, there is at least a possibility that the climate scientists are right. If they are right, we should act now. However, not everyone accepts the climate science - even after a long debate.

This thread shows how easily we can get stuck in an endless fight between the right (who tend to see climate science as a Trojan Horse for big government and more taxes) and the left (who tend to see climate scepticism as the promotion of a corporate agenda, a crank view or a refusal to recognise that our living standards won't increase forever if we continue to live this way). If we get stuck in political trench warfare, we won't act.

Hence the idea of using a different justification for action, a justification that we can agree on despite our differences on climate science. If we can agree that Earth's resources are finite - could there be a consensus for a more sustainable way of living?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'll try and find time to read the linked article, I just don't know when that'll be.

No worries. I'm going away for a while anyway.
quote:
I can understand, to an extent, the "do your own analysis" comments. [...] someone comes along and not only questions what they've done (fair enough, that's science) but practically demands assistance to repeat all that work.
Not only that. Spencer Weart, author of the excellent History of Global Warming, recently wrote:
quote:
[Scientists] more recently they have had to spend far too much of their time defending their personal reputations against ignorant or slanderous attacks.

The theft and use of the emails [is] a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: [...] we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.

Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming [...] are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers. Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.

This is all undeniable. Climate researchers have had a hell of a storm, and much of what you see in these emails is a reaction against this. Still, it seems to me that openness (and the public perception of openness) is very important in winning trust. Prof. Mike Hulme (founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA) writes:
quote:
This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
[...]
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course.

I'm never sure what to make of Mike Hulme and I've no idea if he's right, but it's interesting to hear a major figure talking like this. I'd happily see an alliance of National Academies take over from the IPCC - from a PR-perspective, we wouldn't be struggling against anti-UN prejudice then.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
All the errors that have been found are minor, but are broadcast as major, as overturning AGW. You know the way they are published and discussed in Watts etc.

Absolutely. When the NASA GCM code was released, sceptic coders were promising huge errors would be found. At far, there's been nothing of any consequence. The same is true of Anthony Watts' survey of the temperature stations - the scientists' error calibrations are looking pretty good.

I appreciate that the scientists are in a no-win situation here. If they release raw data, some non-specialists will inevitably misinterpret it; if the scientists don't, they'll be accused of conspiracy. IMO the latter is currently more damaging, especially at the moment. At least if you're open, the more neutral sceptics will be able to contribute bug reports.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alwyn, the problem is that we don't agree that the Earth's resources are limited. At least not in a meaningful way.

For millions of years proto-humans struggled with a limited resource base. Some smart ones came and developed fire, agriculture, language, etc. Then there were more than enough resources -- until population growth caught up.

Then the tribes struggled for a few thousand years until new advances in law allowed cities to form and empires to be built. Then the population caught up and we struggled.

Then someone had the brilliant idea of allowing patents of new ideas. Suddenly people could make livings thinking up new ideas. New resources followed. We have not yet reached the new resource limit.

Yet new ideas develop new resources. Don't ask me how, that's why they're considered new. As far as I can tell we can continue expanding the human population until about half of the carbon on the planet is in human bodies.

But by that time we might have left our bodies behind.

We go along as a race and explore and develop. Yes often we make bad choices and entire civilizations have been wiped out by simple mistakes. But that doesn't mean we need to make bad choices. Our future is in our own hands. Will we do what we need to grow?

In the end, I see no hard limits on our resources that we don't set for ourselves.

Caps on resource use is not the answer. Finding ways to use them better is.
 
Posted by aggg (# 13727) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Absolutely. When the NASA GCM code was released, sceptic coders were promising huge errors would be found. At far, there's been nothing of any consequence. The same is true of Anthony Watts' survey of the temperature stations - the scientists' error calibrations are looking pretty good.

I appreciate that the scientists are in a no-win situation here. If they release raw data, some non-specialists will inevitably misinterpret it; if the scientists don't, they'll be accused of conspiracy. IMO the latter is currently more damaging, especially at the moment. At least if you're open, the more neutral sceptics will be able to contribute bug reports.

I was interested to read
this from Clive Crook and I think he makes a good point.

I don't know how many statisticians are involved in the IPCC, but I can't see how it would hurt to have someone who is an expert in data handling handle the data.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
I'm listening this morning to the (Australian) Senate debate about passing the ETS. Steve Fielding a conservative senator is arguing against passing the legislation. One of his reasons is that it's not clear whether or not human activity is causing global warming. He cites an IPCC graph showing increasing carbon levels but decreasing temperature.

What do I make of this?
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
The graph covers quite a short period (why choose those years?) and plots data from one place in Hawaii apparently (unhelpfully (deliberately?) small text) against global temperature so who can say it means anything much? I expect anyone could find a short run of genuine figures and claim it means whatever they want to claim.

Maybe someone else wants to comment.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
That doesn't help very much, because you misread the graph. In the small print below the graph it says carbon measurements are taken just from Hawaii, while the temperature measurements seems to be some sort of global average sourced from the IPCC. Showing only ten years for the purposes of Steve Fielding's question is sufficient. He's wondering why, if carbon has been building up for a while, has there been a recent decrease in temperature? (Isn't the whole point of global warming meant to be an increase in temperature?)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
That doesn't help very much, because you misread the graph. In the small print below the graph it says carbon measurements are taken just from Hawaii, while the temperature measurements seems to be some sort of global average sourced from the IPCC. Showing only ten years for the purposes of Steve Fielding's question is sufficient. He's wondering why, if carbon has been building up for a while, has there been a recent decrease in temperature? (Isn't the whole point of global warming meant to be an increase in temperature?)

Global warming doesn't postulate that every single year will be warmer than the year previous to it, just the warming will occur over time. The graph cited is akin to "disproving" that Earth's northern hemisphere warms up during the month of April by showing that the temperature on April 16 was lower than the temperature on April 15.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
Hi Croesus,

I don't understand the analogy with Northern hemisphere. I also thought the global warming hypothesis meant that the temperature would increase, because of a direct correlation with the increase of carbon. However the graph shows the average global temperature decreasing with a corresponding increase in carbon.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Luke, the first thing to bear in mind is that temperature is noisy - i.e. the random noise of year-to-year variations is large compared to the overall trends. Have a look at this graph to see what I mean. CO2 is much smoother in comparison.

Because temperature is noisy, there will always be periods where temperature appears to stall. Between 1980 and 1994 in the above graph temperature could have been seen as roughly stationary - but if you look at a wider timescale it's clear this wasn't true. The same could be said of other periods.

There is also some debate between the scientists if the current lull in warming could be more than just random noise, and might represent an unexpected feature in the climate system. It's fair to say this is still contentious, and 2009 seems to have been quite warm.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I don't understand the analogy with Northern hemisphere. I also thought the global warming hypothesis meant that the temperature would increase, because of a direct correlation with the increase of carbon.

Croesos' point is as follows. Somebody says that it gets warmer through the spring because the days get longer and heat from the sun hits the earth at a more direct angle etc.

Suppose that there is a warm spell at the beginning of April and a cold spell at the beginning of May. If you plot a graph of average temperature that starts in the middle of the warm spell and ends in the middle of the cold spell you'll see that the temperature has decreased even though the days have got longer and the sun has hit the earth at a more direct angle.

If you're looking at the average temperature from January to June (*) you don't expect it to rise steadily week on week. You expect there to be dips and spurts. The thing is that the dips in May never dip as far as the dips in February.

So basically just because the average temperature is going down over the last few years doesn't mean that the temperature isn't rising overall. We might be just in a dip. Or we could have just been in a peak the last few years. Climate scientists need to do statistics to work out whether it's just a dip, or whether temperatures are actually going down. They've done the statistics, and the vast consensus is that it's just a temporary dip. The underlying trend is still going up.

(*) in temperate climates in the Northern Hemisphere, temperate climates.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
I see, thanks for explaining the analogy. Thanks also Hiro's Leap, for pointing me to that graph and remarking on the nature of graphing temperature.

So while this graph cited by Fielding seems legit, it doesn't disprove the global warming hypothesis, we need more time to verify if the current decrease is merely a glitch or the start of a more substantial trend.

While everyone is being so helpful, I've got another question. If the global warming hypothesis is true, why is a cap and trade system more beneficial then adapting to the changes global warming will bring? (I'm asking because they'll be an election next year in Australia about this issue, since our senate rejected the bill just before lunch today.)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
In other words, beware someone flogging what looks like an artificially shortened data set. It's usually a sign that they're cherry-picking data. He seems to have taken what would have been the rightmost 10% of this graph and claimed it was definitive of the whole data set.

(Note: the graph at the link above was compiled with 1998, an abnormally warm year even by global warming standards, as the most recent year. As such it suffers the reverse situation, but the overall effect is lessened by having ten times as many years to form a valid trendline.)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I keep asking you how does CO2 drive global warming. No one here seems capable of answering me. Don't know why, there must be loads of AGW material on this.

All I've got so far is Alan distancing himself from 'blanket' models.

So, I'm trying to work it out. What are the properties of CO2?

Myrrh

"Blanket" isn't a model, it's a metaphor. A profoundly unhelpful one for you it seems.
I'm getting really tired of this evasion, this is how AGW is sold, here's the description:

quote:
* Life on earth is made possible by energy from the sun, which arrives mainly in the form of visible light. About 30 per cent of sunlight is scattered back into space by the outer atmosphere, but the rest reaches the earth's surface, which reflects it in the form of a calmer, more slow-moving type of energy called infrared radiation. (This is the sort of heat thrown off by an electric grill before the bars begin to grow red.) Infrared radiation is carried slowly aloft by air currents, and its eventual escape into space is delayed by greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, and methane.

* Greenhouse gases make up only about 1 per cent of the atmosphere, but they act like a blanket around the earth, or like the glass roof of a greenhouse -- they trap heat and keep the planet some 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise.

* Human activities are making the blanket "thicker" -- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

quote:
The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide. The two most abundant constituents of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – have no such effect. Clouds, on the other hand, do exert a blanketing effect similar to that of the greenhouse gases; The IPCC explains... Earth's Climate System
Defend what the spiel is rather than trying to wriggle out of it by pretending it's something else, not that you've managed to produce anything else except via Alan's, 'CO2 absorbs and radiates IR'.

Without the blanket, how do you explain CO2 driving temperatures?

'Like the roof of a greenhouse, like a blanket, trapping the heat.'

Deal with it.


quote:
Properties of CO2 relevant to it's role in global warming: it's a molecule that consists of OCO in a straight line. Because of this, it's not polar, but some of it's vibrational modes (different ways of vibrating: it has 3 of them) cause an oscillating dipole moment. Because of this, it can absorb IR radiation at some wavelengths. O2 and N2 cannot do this (H2O can which is why, it's a greenhouse gas).

Earth is warm (fortunately for us). It is warm because the sun warms it. Being very hot, most of the sun's radiation is at higher (visible) wavelengths - see Wien's law, look it up. the Earth absorbs these as it's not transparent. It radiates at lower wavelengths because it's not as hot as the sun (fortunately for us).

These lower wavelengths are in the IR region, and some of them are absorbed by CO2 (and others by H2O) in the atmosphere. What happens after that was covered very nicely by Alan in a previous post, which I suggest you find and stop making me do all your research for you, whist sitting there bleating about "no-one can explain it for me!"

Thanks.

All he's said is that it absorbs etc. and it's not a blanket. He won't elaborate.


Properties of CO2 relevant to warming; coefficent of less than 1, heavier than air, logarithmic not linear heating.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Come on, let's discover what we can about CO2. Heavier than air is fact, it sinks.

As Alan points out, it is a constituent in air. Have you noticed the atmosphere doesn't have separate layers of each gas, arranged by molecular weight?
From the UN link above:

quote:
but after 150 years of industrialization, global warming has momentum, and it will continue to affect the earth's natural systems for hundreds of years even if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and atmospheric levels stop rising.
And, other mentions here by AGW team, that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

But, it's heavier than air, therefore, its motion will be downwards.

It can be transported upwards by wind and such.

Otherwise it will sink.

For example:


Continued/
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Hiro Continued/2


The earth is not a greenhouse, it is open to space. Whatever IR is not absorbed goes on out into space. Heat rises.


Simple thermodynamics, heat rises. Take one flushed with warmth CO2 molecule, it will keep the heat until it reaches something colder and then it will give away its heat. With a coefficient less than one it heats very quickly and gives away heat as quickly, practically instant.

It is not capable of trapping heat for any length of time to be of any use as a greenhouse gas, it is not a cloud or water vapour, as I posted before:

quote:
Still, CO2 does get hotter than normal air according to the first experiment. So I thought it would be prudent to take a closer look at CO2 and other substances. The following are some specific heat coefficients (J/g*deg. K) from highest to lowest:

Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395

Water is the best for delaying release of heat, clouds and water vapour are capable of forming a 'blanket', then Methane. CO2 however, is useless, gives it up immediately.

It is not capable of acting 'like a blanket' or 'a greenhouse roof'. That is simply absurd because it doesn't have any properties which could even make that a viable metaphor.

It always tends to sink.

quote:
From people who understand CO2Carbon dioxide..used for:

Water treatment – to aid dissolution of lime in soft water to produce a less corrosive and more healthy water supply.
Waste treatment – a safer-to-handle alternative to mineral acids for pH control in aqueous waste and streams from sodium hydroxide operations such as bottle washing, fruit peeling and textile processing.
Life support – mixed with oxygen and other gases to stimulate deeper and faster breathing in human and help the treatment of respiratory problems.
Enhanced photosynthesis – by boosting the carbon dioxide concentration in greenhouses and plastic tunnels.
Industries that use carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide’s properties give it a key role across many industries such as:

..
Healthcare – to treat respiratory disorders and for surgical dilation.
Environment, water and waste – for drinking water treatment and waste water pH control.
…see our full list of industries

Safety Information
Carbon dioxide is an inert gas that can cause oxygen depletion inducing asphyxiation and death. The risk of asphyxiation is exacerbated by the fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than air which allows it to flow downwards and collect in low lying areas far from its origin. Data Sheet for further information.

People who use CO2 and real scientists know it's heavier than air.

Your blanket greenhouse out in space for hundreds of years is shear unadulterated nonsense!

From the USGovernment Science volcano watch.

quote:
Scientists have known for a long time that carbon dioxide bubbles out of magma deep beneath the floor of volcanoes like Kilauea - thousands of tons each day. Humans produce carbon dioxide when we exhale and we even consume it in soda, beer, and champagne. What's the big deal?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, nearly odorless gas that is denser than air. While toxic at very high concentrations, it can kill at lower concentrations by displacing oxygen, causing asphyxiation. CO2 makes up less than 1 percent of the air we normally breathe in and about 4.5 percent of each breath we exhale. Breathing air that is more than 7 percent CO2 can produce unconsciousness in just a few minutes.

Usually the large amounts of carbon dioxide released by Kilauea get dispersed by winds so we can breathe nice, healthy, oxygen-rich air on the caldera floor. Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn't readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas. In the summit caldera these areas include underground openings, such as lava tubes, pits, and underground vaults. In such places, simple filter masks cannot protect individuals from asphyxiation. Don't daydream in low-lying places in Kilauea caldera

And you still think to call this AGW, science?


quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's a challenge isn't it. Explain the science, cite authorities to support that science, but don't both with anyone who is qualified in atmospheric physics or chemistry (or any other branch of science relevant to the climate). Since you dismiss every hard working, professional, competant and dilligent scientist as a "charlatan" you've set us an impossible task.

Well, not 'us', because I've given up.

Yes, it is quite a challenge. That's why I'm asking you here to do it.

You have singularly failed to provide any method for this claim against observation and properties of CO2.

How does CO2 drive temperature?


So many scientists promoting AGW and completely ignorant about CO2.


Remember this link from Inger on a previous page?

quote:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.

The East Anglia connection again. So, how are they whipping everyone up for self-flagellation now? "the carbon sinks are failing"!!


Now that's what I call funny.


Myrrh
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Its worse than I thought:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

The earth is not a greenhouse, it is open to space. Whatever IR is not absorbed goes on out into space. Heat rises.

Simple thermodynamics, heat rises. Take one flushed with warmth CO2 molecule, it will keep the heat until it reaches something colder and then it will give away its heat.

I know Myrrh won't be interested in the truth of it, but if anyone else is still reading:

Heat does not rise. Hot air (or other fluids or gas) can rise through cooler air because it expands and so is less dense and more bouyant. That can move heat around - though strictly speaking its not thermodymamics.

A single molecule is not going to rise because it is warm - its a property of a mass of gas.

And its not (in any significant amount) going to rise above the atmosphere. Or meet anything cooler than it up there. Because its a near vacuum up there.

And from there on Myrrh's post went even further downhill. Its such nonsense its not even wrong.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
What Ken said:

Especially about heat rising. Let's use scientific language to talk about science.

CO2 is slightly denser than N2 and O2. That doesn't mean that the CO2 you have breathed out during the night will have pooled close to the floor of your bedroom. The movement of gas molecules will ensure a thorough mixing.

The chart of specific heats is spurious as the CO2 absorbs radiation energy which is then conducted to other atmospheric gases. There is no requirement for CO2 to store a lot of heat.

The list of CO2 uses is also irrelevant. (BTW, it is not inert like the inert gases He, Ar, Ne etc. Try putting out a potassium fire with CO2.)

I agree that the terms 'blanket' and 'greenhouse' are not being used scientifically, but the science does not require them. They are useful figures of speech for communication, just like saying that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
I'd just like to reassure anyone who might be worried about going to the dead sea, that while it is the lowest place on earth, there is no danger of suffocation from CO2.
No need to worry about Myrrh's toxic, inert gas. [Yipee]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
What, is our atmosphere hot all the way up? Like turtles, CO2 blankets all the way up?

It's everything to do with thermodynamics. The universe is a closed system, earth and its atmosphere isn't. Energy comes in from the outside, sun mainly, and energy goes out.

There are laws governing this:

quote:
Heat always tries to disorganize itself by moving from a hot place to a cold place, spreading itself out as evenly as possible.

Natural processes cannot violate these laws.


Thermodynamics


Logarithmic, another explanation, you probably didn't read the last link so:

quote:
CO2's greenhouse capacity follows a logarithmic function - A declining returns function. Each incremental addition of CO2 yields less greenhouse warming than the prior increment.

270 ppmv gives us just about all of the greenhouse warming as 2700 ppmv. Otherwise Earth's temperatures would have tracked CO2 over the last 600 million years and it would be a lot warmer now than it was 128,000 years ago and 1,000 years ago.

The ice core data over the last 600,000 years show that atmospheric CO2 has increased from ~190 ppmv to ~270-300 ppmv as the Earth warmed up from Pleistocene glacial episodes. Plant stomata data show that since the end of the last Pleistocene glaciation, CO2 levels have increased from ~270 ppmv to ~320-360 ppmv during each warming episode of the ~1,500-yr climate cycle.

armchairgeneral


CO2 always lags temperature rise. It never drives it.

What we should be asking is why? That takes us to its properties. What little 'greenhouse' effect it has is inconsequential, it releases heat immediately in the law that says it always moves to do that, etc.

CO2 is a reaction, not a cause, of rising temperatures.

Look at any map showing the cycles over the last half million years or so, if you can seriously look at this and still argue CO2 from the industrial revolution (minus of course the LIA for AGW as eliminated by Mann and Briffa), is driving global warming now, then you not concentrating.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I'd just like to reassure anyone who might be worried about going to the dead sea, that while it is the lowest place on earth, there is no danger of suffocation from CO2.
No need to worry about Myrrh's toxic, inert gas. [Yipee]

[Smile] , been there, done that, still breathing..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
He cites an IPCC graph showing increasing carbon levels but decreasing temperature.

What do I make of this?

One thing to note, is that isn't a graph produced by the IPCC, all the IPCC plots run for a considerably longer period than ten years so as to avoid bias from just a few years observations (that will fluctuate a few degrees around the temperature trend, with fluctuations often lasting several years). I'm going to assume that you misunderstood, because the caption clearly states it's from data sources that the IPCC also use to produce their graphs (although the IPCC use additional temperature data sources as well).

Don't be thrown by the Muana Loa location for the CO2 data. This is the standard location for CO2 concentration measurements - it's located a considerable distance from sources and sinks of CO2 (factories, coal power stations, forests, ocean surface waters etc) and so measures the well mixed CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere* without too much in the way of local influences, it's nearly on the equator so shouldn't have too much of a bias for one hemisphere over the other (air from each hemisphere mixes fairly quickly, mixing between hemispheres is a bit slower), and conveniently has a lot of scientists and their equipment already there to make the measurements.

* note to those who need to remember that CO2 mixes with other gases to form air that has physical properties different from pure CO2 gas.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
Like everyone, I often have an agenda but in this case I didn't mean to imply that just because the graph used IPCC data that it was an official IPCC graph. Thanks for the explanation of the Hawaii location, I figured it was something like a central 'clean' location.

I've got another question. If the global warming hypothesis is true, why is a cap and trade system more beneficial then adapting to the changes global warming will bring?
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Alwyn, the problem is that we don't agree that the Earth's resources are limited ...

Fair enough - then my idea won't work, because it would lead to another version of the polarised debate between science and scepticism.

Meanwhile, as I arrived at the news stand to buy my paper, I noticed today's Daily Express headline. (For non-UK readers, this newspaper is a keener sidekick of the Daily Mail Imagine that someone had started a TV news network, wanting it to be like Fox News but without the self-doubt [Big Grin] ).

According to the Daily Express a "leading academic" has decided that climate science is a "fraud"'. Reading this, I imagined that some academic who has long been pondering both sides of the debate had finally chosen scepticism. Imagine my surprise when I found that the 'leading academic' is long-established sceptic Professor Ian Plimer.

I've already posted a link to Ian Enting's critique of Plimer's arguments. Professor Barry Brook describes Ian Plimer as "a nice bloke, friendly and genial"; he has also some reservations about Plimer's arguments.
 
Posted by Kid Who Cracked (# 13963) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Like everyone, I often have an agenda but in this case I didn't mean to imply that just because the graph used IPCC data that it was an official IPCC graph. Thanks for the explanation of the Hawaii location, I figured it was something like a central 'clean' location.

I've got another question. If the global warming hypothesis is true, why is a cap and trade system more beneficial then adapting to the changes global warming will bring?

Global Warming is an issue for several reasons, such as the Sahara Desert moving south.

Another aspect of climate change (that may have been mentioned) due to our CO2 emissions (which, although perhaps less than nature's, is enough to be a huge problem) is the acidification of the ocean, which harms some aquatic organisms and could throw the ocean's ecosystem out of balance.

I've done some research, but not a lot. When the international scientific community agrees on a science-related issue, then a political group comes along and says they're all wrong, I side with the scientists. Gullible, I know.

[ 02. December 2009, 07:37: Message edited by: Kid Who Cracked ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I've got another question. If the global warming hypothesis is true, why is a cap and trade system more beneficial then adapting to the changes global warming will bring?

Good question.

Essentially there are three strategies for dealing with climate change:
Geoengineering is an option for the future but there are a lot of uncertainties. Is it possible? How expensive would it be with new technologies? What are the risks? There can be serious unintended consequences to messing around like this, as the cane toad shows. If this went wrong, it'd be on a much bigger scale. Still, it's worth considering.

Cap-and-trade is an example of a policy aimed at mitigation, although there are many other possible ones.

Everyone agrees some adaptation will be necessary. Even if we instantly stopped releasing all CO2, temperatures would continue to rise for the next 30 years or so, because the ocean has absorbed part of the heat that would have otherwise stayed in the atmosphere. And of course we're not going to stop emitting CO2 immediately - even if there was the political will, it takes a long time to develop alternative infrastructure.

Some people argue that adaptation will be enough. This is fine if we're talking about the medium term - say, 30-50 years. However, beyond that it's going to be harder and harder to adapt to the sort of changes we're likely to see. Adapting to a 0.3m sea level rise is fine; adapting to 5.0m is much harder. The same applies to rainfall patterns, forest fires and drought.

One obvious question is: "If adaptation is sufficient for the next 30-50 years, why not wait till then to worry about reducing CO2?" The trouble is that these things take time. Building low energy houses; retrofitting old ones; developing transport infrastructure; researching / constructing renewables or new nuclear power. It's a slow process, and we've left it late already by doing nothing for the last 20 years.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I agree with recent contributors who have pointed out that the use of the term "greenhouse effect" is misleading. Basically because the retention of heat by atmospheres works in a very different way to the retention of heat by greenhouses. But I suppose there is no escaping its colloquial use.

The argument is not about the creation of a (so-called) "greenhouse effect", it is whether human actions have produced an enhanced (so-called) "greenhouse effect". The evidence for (so-called) "greenhouse effects" is impressive, not just on planet earth but elsewhere in our solar system. In my admittedly limited and lay understanding, one of the things that atmospheres do is ameliorate the effects of radiation. I think the mean surface temperature of the earth would be much lower if the earth did not have an atmosphere.

So the science which seeks to investigate in some detail why atmospheres behave in this way, and what might cause the behaviour of atmospheres to change, has a long pedigree.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I've got another question. If the global warming hypothesis is true, why is a cap and trade system more beneficial then adapting to the changes global warming will bring?

There's a saying that's often true - prevention is better than cure. It's a lot cheaper, and causes considerably less suffering to people, to run a vaccination programme than treat the disease outbreaks that would otherwise occur.

Likewise, the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon sinks by reforestation etc is less than what it would cost to adapt to a warmer changing climate. And, that's just financial costs - the costs associated with the suffering of displaced people and food shortages can't carry a price tag. Though, the costs of cutting our carbon footprint will be now rather than 20-50 years in the future, and will be felt particularly by large producers of CO2 whereas a disproportionate amount of the costs of adaption will be borne by the poor who aren't a significant cause of the problem. Unfortunately, the longer it takes to start making significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions the more costly they become, and the more we will have to spend in mitigation as well. Given that the scientific case has been compelling for over 20 years, we're almost that long behind where we should be in making the necessary changes.

Whether cap and trade is a sensible measure to reduce CO2 emissions is a different question. It was introduced following Kyoto, where the initial plan of putting a simple reduction in emissions target was modified to allow consideration of increasing carbon sinks and for those who exceed their targets to 'sell' some of their spare 'allowance' to those who failed to reach their target. Ironically, those concepts of trading carbon credits were introduced primarily inorder to allow the US (under the Clinton administration) to sign up to the deal ... and then the US failed to do so.

Cap and trade has the advantage of allowing a price to be put on carbon emissions, and hence allows accountants to add more than just fuel bill reductions to the gains from efficiency measures and changing to low-carbon energy sources. It is probably a way of transfering money to developing nations where they can use that to develop low-carbon economies and offset the costs by trading carbon credits.

It has the disadvantages of being beaurocratically complex (part of which is related to the difficulty of assessing the impact of increasing carbon sinks) and when energy demand falls (eg: during a recession) then the price of carbon credits plummet and the incentive they give to reduce carbon emissions evaporates - and so to does a source of income that could be used to develop low-carbon economies.

There are other approaches to reducing carbon emissions. One would be carbon taxes - increase the taxation on fossil fuels, and use that to either offset tax on low-carbon energy or invest in a low carbon economy. Although some people seem to have an irrational dislike of that because it puts the revenue raising and spending through government, whereas C&T puts that power in the hands of a market. Personally, I'd much rather have a democratically elected and accountable government handling the money than the markets.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are other approaches to reducing carbon emissions. One would be carbon taxes - increase the taxation on fossil fuels, and use that to either offset tax on low-carbon energy or invest in a low carbon economy. Although some people seem to have an irrational dislike of that because it puts the revenue raising and spending through government, whereas C&T puts that power in the hands of a market. Personally, I'd much rather have a democratically elected and accountable government handling the money than the markets.

It's a case of both/and rather than either/or. Governments aren't necessarily going to be terribly good at innovation and developing new technology - though they may have a part in funding such innovation. The markets can't tax and incentivise in the same way as governments. I'd prefer to see the balance put on incentives rather than taxes - placing further tax burdens on businesses and homes will fossilise the economy rather than freeing us up to respond. In any case, there's no need to panic we can make the changes we need to make over a period of time without causing unnecessary pain and hardship by ratcheting up debt even more.

Thankfully, the signs are that Copenhagen will not produce any particularly radical deal.

Btw, are you dodging the stuff I've been saying about Freedom of Information?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Cap and trade:
Carbon tax:In economic theory cap-and-trade is more efficient, but in reality a tax might be easier to implement. IMO the main disadvantage of a carbon tax is that there'd be constant political pressure to keep it so low it'd be useless.

There's actually relatively little difference between the two ideas, and once you start complicating the basic concept (e.g. setting a ceiling to the trading price) they blur even further.

I'm a big fan of cap-and-dividend (or tax-and-dividend). The main idea is that all revenue is returned directly to the taxpayers, and the Government keeps nothing. It's counter-intuitive, but IMO brilliant.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'd prefer to see the balance put on incentives rather than taxes - placing further tax burdens on businesses and homes will fossilise the economy rather than freeing us up to respond.

Carbon taxes would also increase government revenue and hence allow them to reduce other taxes. ISTM the important thing is to ensure they weren't a stealth tax, and the clearest way to do that is to hand all the money back.

Also, pricing carbon (through taxes or an auction) is the free-market solution. It'll automatically drive investment into low carbon technology, letting the market get on with innovating.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Carbon taxes would also increase government revenue and hence allow them to reduce other taxes. ISTM the important thing is to ensure they weren't a stealth tax, and the clearest way to do that is to hand all the money back.

Pie in the sky. We've got so much debt for the foreseeable future that any new tax revenues will service that debt. Furthermore since 1997, just about every single tax change has been a stealth tax. I'm too cynical to expect anything different.

But if we break the link between the science and the campaigning we might get some sensible political, economic and technological solutions.
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
That's a mis-characterisation of the debate Kid Who Cracked, the global warming hypothesis is a majority position, not a case of "science" versus a political group. Both the majority and the minority positions are each making a political case for themselves.

Thanks Alan and Hiro's Leap. ISTM that a large bureaucratic system is open to abuse (authoritarian countries say yes but do only 'eye wash'), mismanagement or politicization (United Nations Human Rights at Durban). Neither is the market run solution perfect either, with the recent Global Financial Crisis an example of letting the market take care of itself and the world. I think Spawn makes a good point, incentives (and moderate legislation) would go a long way. In Australia today the new (conservative) leader of the opposition suggested nuclear power as a viable option.

It just seems the global cap and trade scheme is an awfully large and sudden investment when we don't know what the ultimate effects of global warming are. Wouldn't it be better (but less apocalyptic) to argue that everyone whats a nicer planet to live on so lets all try to live more sustainably, with just a little carrot and stick from the government.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Btw, are you dodging the stuff I've been saying about Freedom of Information?

No, sorry. I'm just not sure where else to take the discussion on that. There's clearly a balance between the FOIA and other legislation, and it's not clear what the decisions in respect to any FOI request would fall. This is clear from the facts that the CRU (presumably under legal advice) haven't simply handed over data upon receipt of a request, and there doesn't appear to have been any court action yet to force a decision. In the meantime, it's clear that the CRU are attempting to go down a middle route of negotiating with the owners of the data they hold to put that in the public domain (presumably available via the CRU website) so as to avoid the need for any further FOI requests and the expense of legal routes. Clearly those decisions must include an assessment of the form of the data to release, whether it's entirely raw or slightly processed and what information on the processing to include. Whether there's any further FOI requests for additional data is, I'm certain, going to depend on what data is made freely available.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Thanks Alan and Hiro's Leap.

No, thanks for asking the question. Climate threads tend to degenerate into the same old "denier versus warmist" arguments, and it's nice getting to debate other issues.
quote:
ISTM that a large bureaucratic system is open to abuse [...] Neither is the market run solution perfect either, with the recent Global Financial Crisis an example of letting the market take care of itself and the world.
In principle, taxing carbon isn't bureaucratic, it's relatively simple. There are only a few places where it's burned, e.g.:That covers most of it - pretty simply really. This isn't a radical left-wing idea: the bulk of mainstream economists say this most efficient way to deal with the problem. What happens is:
  1. The cost of burning carbon rises, reflecting it's true cost - i.e. including its damage.
  2. Consumers start switching to alternatives, so there's increased investment in low carbon solutions.
  3. Businesses that cut their carbon will make more money than their rivals. New business models will emerge.
This is a pro-business, pro-market solution. The alternative is much more heavy handed: ban anything 'bad'.
quote:
Wouldn't it be better (but less apocalyptic) to argue that everyone whats a nicer planet to live on so lets all try to live more sustainably, with just a little carrot and stick from the government.
Sure, except we've had 20 years of this and emissions have constantly risen. If you want to achieve changes, voluntary measures have done nothing.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, sorry. I'm just not sure where else to take the discussion on that. There's clearly a balance between the FOIA and other legislation, and it's not clear what the decisions in respect to any FOI request would fall. This is clear from the facts that the CRU (presumably under legal advice) haven't simply handed over data upon receipt of a request, and there doesn't appear to have been any court action yet to force a decision. In the meantime, it's clear that the CRU are attempting to go down a middle route of negotiating with the owners of the data they hold to put that in the public domain (presumably available via the CRU website) so as to avoid the need for any further FOI requests and the expense of legal routes. Clearly those decisions must include an assessment of the form of the data to release, whether it's entirely raw or slightly processed and what information on the processing to include. Whether there's any further FOI requests for additional data is, I'm certain, going to depend on what data is made freely available.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Most of the raw data is already out there so I think CRU is rather hiding behind that issue. My understanding is that the FOI requests are more about the particular subset of data which CRU processed to create an influential temperature record. One of the requests concerned the list of weather stations used to construct the record. This information was not forthcoming even though UEA's Freedom of Information officer was telling the scientists not to delete data and encouraging them to comply with the requests. Given that this is such a crucial aspect of publicly funded science with policy implications, the obligation on the scientists is transparency and openness.

I can sympathise with the scientists wanting the sceptics to construct their own temperature records rather than simply criticising the existing work. A lot of time and work is invested in this. But you need the Steve McIntyres alongside the Phil Jones' of this world.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I have found this whole thread - particularly the emails - fascinating as it addresses one of my key questions - how can non-specialists evaluate evidence. Here I mean judge when an answer is a non-sequitur from either side not how can we analyse the data - clearly something beyond the vast majority of the public. It has given me an insight into how scientists work in terms of publishing raw data, analysis etc.

Clearly coming to a conclusion on some of the emails is difficult at this stage as we know so little about the true context but there do seem to be a number of observations that can be made. For example, 'hide the decline' is being assumed by many deniers to refer to the (supposed) lack of warming since 1998 even though it was written in 1999 - so presumably we can rule that out. As far as I can make out it is about reconciling temperatures with proxies. The sceptics should at least have noticed this.

However this is from the Paul Jay / Monbiot interview where Monbiot is asked about the email where Trenberth talks about how in Boulder, Colorado, where he is, it is actually getting cooler in October, not warmer with record cool temperatures. Jay says the key line in the emails is:

'"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." So that raises two very critical questions. Is the data being manipulated to prove a theory, that man has caused climate change? And to what extent is data that contradicts the thesis being suppressed?'

Now as far as I understand very few climate scientists are concerned about local variations, these happen all the time so the lack of warming and yet the comment seems to be about lack of warming in a specific location. Anyone know anything on this one?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It's a fair point, Spawn. All things being equal, transparency and openness are reasonable standards to expect, even if the openness amounts to "no you can't see that just yet for reason x".

I imagine the CRU (which is a pretty small outfit) is rather at sixes and sevens at the moment. I doubt whether there is much "effortless administration of the totally unexpected" going on there at present.

[xposted with Luigi]

[ 02. December 2009, 11:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Now as far as I understand very few climate scientists are concerned about local variations, these happen all the time

Just as an aside (I know it doesn't necessarily address the emails at all), but climate scientists have to have a concern for local variations from the global average. It's long been recognised that an increase in average global temperatures doesn't mean that temperatures everywhere will increase, nor that they'll increase by the same rate. So, when combining temperature records you need to assess the expected local variation from the global - you don't want to bias your data by over representing locations which warm faster or slower than average, or cool when the average gets warmer.

Also, in the last 20-30 years climate scientists have been concentrating on the global picture. What will average temperatures do as we increase CO2 in the atmosphere? What do we need to do to stabilise the global average temperature? How much will sea levels rise? That sort of big question. However, as the impacts of climate change begin to become more significant the models are going to be pushed towards more local predictions as planning for adaptations suitable to particular localities are needed. So, just because it's already been mentioned, Colorado isn't going to be impacted by sea level rises so that's not going to be important to the people of Colorado. But, will the average temperature increase or decrease, and how will that pan out across the seasons? What about rainfall/snowfall? Will authorities need to invest in more snowploughs to keep winter roads open, and the ski centres invest in expanding their operations? Will they be expecting an earlier sping melt with increased run off and need to prepare for more severe flash floods? Or, will they need to start building reservoirs to hold winter rains and snow melt for summer irrigation? That sort of planning needs reliable modelling of future trends at an appropriately local scale, which will keep climate modellers busy for many years to come.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My understanding is that the FOI requests are more about the particular subset of data which CRU processed to create an influential temperature record. One of the requests concerned the list of weather stations used to construct the record. This information was not forthcoming even though UEA's Freedom of Information officer was telling the scientists not to delete data and encouraging them to comply with the requests.

As the requests weren't immediately complied with I guess one of two things happened.
1) UEA's contracts people pointed out that the data requested weren't entirely owned by CRU (whoever paid for that work would also be an owner, and the work would almost certainly have IP considerations within the contracts), and they were still sorting out that potential legal tangle.
2) CRU were in the process of sorting all the data into a form suitable for free release and were holding of the FOI requests until that was ready to respond to all the requests at once rather than one at a time (which would be a big saving in effort for the CRU).
3) (I know I said two) something else was going on to delay compliance with the FOI requests. I'm sure that would be entirely reasonable, and not some sort of bizarre conspiracy.

As far as I know (and certainly the bits of emails I have read don't contradict that) no data was deleted, and no personal communications subject to an FOI request were destroyed. Comments about deleting files in an email doesn't mean anything was actually deleted.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Alan - thanks for the response - informative as ever.

Perhaps I should have said something more nuanced like: most scientists don't seem overly concerned with local variations in terms of them assuming that a specific locality cooling will inevitably also mean global cooling.

In actual fact Alan I mentioned in my original draft that it might well be to do with scientists being frustrated at not being able to model local developments more accurately but I then deleted it as it was getting too long. Obviously such a deletion should be interpreted as me trying to hide something!
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
[Note to hosts: I'm linking to this because it's important to the debate, and because the emails have been so widely disseminated already. Technically it's private, but at this stage I don't think many people are worrying. You might beg to differ, of course. [Smile] ]
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Jay says the key line in the emails is:

'"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
[...]
So that raises two very critical questions. Is the data being manipulated to prove a theory, that man has caused climate change? And to what extent is data that contradicts the thesis being suppressed?'

Here is the email in question. There's no hint of any data being manipulated - it's simply the type of debate I refered to above. A paraphrase of the conversation goes:You can see the scientists co-ordinating their involvement with the media, which may or may not be appropriate depending on your perspective. There's absolutely no hint of anything untoward though.

This isn't remotely news. Here's a mainstream article from Nature last year asking exactly the same thing:
quote:
Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
i.e. Standard open debate in a scientific journal. I can't see any story here at all.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
KWC wrote,
quote:
Global Warming is an issue for several reasons, such as the Sahara Desert moving south.
Why would the desert move south?

I understand that cyclical systems tend to handle increased load by phase shift rather than magnitude increase. Since the earth is a sphere, this might indicate a shift in the desert belt. But why south? I would think north is both more likely and more dangerous.

The main desert belt is formed when because warm, equatorial air rises. As it rises it cools and dumps rain in the tropical rain forests. It then moves away from the equator and falls back to the surface. As it falls, it heats. Lacking water, it's dry.

In many ways this is like a heat engine. The heat from the equator is circulated north to where the sun strikes at less of an angle.

If there's more heat in the air, wouldn't the air stay up longer and move further north?

Of course a northward movement places the biggest desert region on top of the Mediterranean. It can then quickly reload with water which is the main greenhouse gas...

Still the movement should only be a few miles. I hope.

Still if it becomes a burden, we can dump a few gallons of long chain alcohols on the water where it will impede evaporation.

If it does move south, it would back away from the sea so we're good on a global level anyway. (It sucks to be a poor African though.)

Alan, this speaks to your point about prevention being better than curing. I would ask, "For who?"

Certainly the poor in low lying coastal regions are in trouble. But rain falls and global warming will likely increase that rain. It would fall in different places. Owners of lush farm land could find themselves in deserts, but desert owners would benefit.

It's not at all clear to me that the net effect would be bad.

Also, one of the strongest arguments against global warming is the lack of a rush in the real estate markets to adjust to the possibility of global warming. Smart money seems to be discounting global warming. Of course smart money has been wrong before...
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
It's not at all clear to me that the net effect would be bad.

In measuring the net effect, do you take into account the increased severity of hurricanes, effects on human health and the overall effect on our global food supply?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Smart money seems to be discounting global warming.

That's untrue. The insurance industry is massive, smart, and gradually becoming very concerned.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
Until recently the increase in the size of the Sahara was put down, without any controversy, to over-grazing mostly by goats.

I see that global warming is trying to get in on the act now.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Smart money seems to be discounting global warming.

That's untrue. The insurance industry is massive, smart, and gradually becoming very concerned.
Anything that scares policyholders into paying higher premiums will be welcomed by the Insurance Industry.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thermodynamics

Oh dear.

You quoted a creationist website.

Was this a mistake, or do you really think they have something to add to a debate on science? This marks a new low in the quality of information sources which you seem prepared to accept as authoritative.

I notice that you are once again quoting heat capacities in an attempt to dispute 100-year old, extremely well-known and non-controversial science which has nothing to do with heat capacities. As this was the point that I came in back on page 3, I think I'm almost done here. I'm truly sorry that nothing you've read in this thread here has altered your stance at all - I had no expectation of changing your mind about the reality of AGW or anything to do with public policy, but I had hope that you'd take some of the basic science that you were getting wrong on board. I always find that if one wishes to have a strong opinion on an issue, it helps to know what one is talking about.

Donning my Columbo raincoat, I just have one more question. Given that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect as stated in textbooks the world over, how do you explain the surface temperature of the planet being +14 Celsius?

Some background: The earth has an albedo of 0.3, meaning that it reflects 30% of the suns radiation, and absorbs 70% of it. The sun gives us an average of 342 Watts/metre squared, so the earth absorbs 70% of this, which is 239 W/m^2 (NB: I'm including the atmosphere in "the earth" here and below).

If the earth kept on accumulating heat from the sun, it would have boiled away into space long ago: it has to get rid of this energy somehow. There are 3 ways a body can lose heat: conduction, convection and radiation. The first two don't apply to a body in the vacuum of space (as ken pointed out), so it must radiate.

There's a nifty little relationship called Stefan's Law (or the Stefan-Boltzman Law if you must): a 19th century bit of experimental science which states:
quote:
the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time ... is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T
In other words, the apparent temperature of the earth, as seen from space, can be simply calculated given this figure of 239 W/m^2. The answer is 255 Kelvin, which is -18 Celsius (I think the linked site assumes 240 rather than 239. This really doesn't matter).

So: from space, a passing alien would think that the earth has a temperature of -18 degrees C. However, the actual surface temperature is 32 degrees warmer than this, at +14 degrees C.

If you reject the greenhouse effect "hypothesis", the burden is on you to come up with an alternative explanation that can account for the facts. You'll notice that "heat rises" doesn't get you very far here.

- Chris.

PS: For those interested, there's a lot of background in Wikipedia under Earth's Energy Budget - you do need to divide their solar flux figure by 2 to allow for the fact that only half the earth is illuminated at any time. For the True Believer™ I would recommend the IPCC AR4 FAQ, which much to my surprise is a really good read.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Smart money seems to be discounting global warming.

That's untrue. The insurance industry is massive, smart, and gradually becoming very concerned.
Anything that scares policyholders into paying higher premiums will be welcomed by the Insurance Industry.
Anything? What if it is more powerful storms, more uncertain weather because of the extra energy in the system? Sounds a high price to pay if you gain a bit more in premiums but have to pay out billions for infrastructure damage from the weather.

What is your take on that Times article about the destruction of data now that the article has been shown to be in error?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks very much, sanityman (Chris). Since I made this earlier comment

quote:
The evidence for (so-called) "greenhouse effects" is impressive, not just on planet earth but elsewhere in our solar system. In my admittedly limited and lay understanding, one of the things that atmospheres do is ameliorate the effects of radiation. I think the mean surface temperature of the earth would be much lower if the earth did not have an atmosphere.
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.

I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.

But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
You quoted a creationist website. [...] This marks a new low in the quality of information sources which you seem prepared to accept as authoritative.

Not even close. On a thread about immigration she quoted from a website which - according to the lurid flashing home page - was written by a unicorn. It was the best source ever.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.

Actually... [Biased]

Glass is transparent to shorter wavelength light, but opaque to long IR. So sunlight goes through, is converted to thermal energy, and is unable to escape.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Glass is transparent to shorter wavelength light, but opaque to long IR. So sunlight goes through, is converted to thermal energy, and is unable to escape.

But that isn't a greenhouse's main warming mechanism. The most important aspect is that air is trapped, allowing it to heat up without being blown away.

This was demonstrated in the 19th century. Some salt crystals are transparent to IR, but a box made from salt heats up as effectively as a glass box. People have been complaining about the inaccurate name for a long time now. [Biased]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yes, that's right, Doc Tor, I spoke too simply. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about convection - the greenhouse roof and walls act as a barrier. Still don't like the metaphor ...
[xposted with Hiro, who said it better!]

[ 02. December 2009, 15:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Yes, the name "Greenhouse Effect" is unfortunate as it gives deniers ammunition as they can claim that scientists believe silly, clearly incorrect things about CO2 heating up the earth.

A few months ago I heard an arse called Stott on the subject on BBC Radio 4. He's a professor of something, but not climate science, though it doesn't stop him pontificating on any subject, on the strength of his title. Geography, I think is his area. When an audience member asked the panel about the Greenhouse Effect, his answer was that there isn't a physical barrier at the top of the atmosphere, so global warming isn't happening (or at least isn't our fault). Clearly he's either a complete arse or deeply disingenuous and I can't decide which is worse for a professor. He's the Home Planet programme's resident denier.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Alwyn, yes I am including those. Hurricanes are extreme events. They are loosely related to global warming, if at all. Broader effects will dominate.

Human health concerns are complex, but they are less related to climate than ever before. Most people live in drywall boxes anyway. It's called urbanization.

Local rather than global effects would seem to apply. Look at the rise in disease after the Aswan High Dam was built for an example of the sort of problem that might arise. But reductions in malaria are also possible. It's hard to say which will dominate.

From your link,
quote:
Even without climate change, population pressure alone will cause a spike in food prices without intervention, according to IFPRI's economic model
Without "intervention" this will happen. I might define intervention as building new farms in the thousands of square miles of farmland opened up by rising temperatures.

Unfortunately for the food supply, global warming may not occur. Climate change certainly will though. The climate always does change. We will need to make new farms and make the ones we have better.

If global warming is occurring and man made, it is IMO far more likely to be due to human irrigation than CO2. If this is true, the proposed treaty may require the destruction of major parts of our food supply.

We've chosen the route of government intervention.

It's now illegal in the U.S. to raise food without signing on to a government plan. What happens when ADM decides it needs higher prices and sabotages the food supply through backing poor legislation? Intervention is not always for the good.

The human economy is mathematically complex like the weather. Predicting either is difficult. The only constant seems to be change.

This brings us to what I like about the treaty. It demands that decisions be based on science. As long as we stick to science as being the application of the scientific method (rather than "value added" science) we should do fine with it. The truth will win in the end.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.

I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.

But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.

Right, now I'm quitting this discussion. You're all in denial.

Of course the earth's atmosphere doesn't work this way, that's why the whole idea of us creating global warming by our rising output of CO2 is absolute bloody nonsense


But, this is the way AGW is sold, this is not a metaphor for the United Nations and IPCC links I posted explaining the blanket, this is what they say is actually happening.

This is what they say the problem is, CO2 builds up in the air like blanket and traps heat and radiates it back to earth, so it's all our fault.

Argue against what is actually being said, not the straw man excuses you're concocting.

If you're all trying to deny it by saying it isn't like a blanket, then welcome to the skeptics corner.

CO2 isn't capable of being that. Man made global warming is junk science. This is political propaganda designed to fool the majority who take science on trust.

Why add to it?

Myrrh
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks very much, sanityman (Chris). Since I made this earlier comment

quote:
The evidence for (so-called) "greenhouse effects" is impressive, not just on planet earth but elsewhere in our solar system. In my admittedly limited and lay understanding, one of the things that atmospheres do is ameliorate the effects of radiation. I think the mean surface temperature of the earth would be much lower if the earth did not have an atmosphere.
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.

I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.

But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.

Barnabas 62, sorry - I meant to reference your post, as you got me thinking about the difference in the mean surface temperature thing. Thanks!

Incidentally, realClimate have just posted The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps, and their step (1) is basically what I was trying to say. I prefer my explanation, but I think they're writing for a more technical audience.

Cheers,

- Chris.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you're all trying to deny it by saying it isn't like a blanket, then welcome to the skeptics corner.

All scientists are inherently sceptics. That's what makes us scientists. We want to understand what makes something work, and we fiddle with stuff until we've proved to our satisfaction that either the existing theory is right, or it's wrong and we get a Nobel prize.

But as someone on another forum said:
quote:
Ignoring the facts doesn't make you a sceptic. It makes you a tosser.
You've impugned every single scientist who doesn't happen to agree with your unscientific understanding of a complex multi-disciplinary phenomena. Guess where I'm putting my trust?
 
Posted by Kid Who Cracked (# 13963) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
KWC wrote,
quote:
Global Warming is an issue for several reasons, such as the Sahara Desert moving south.
Why would the desert move south?

I understand that cyclical systems tend to handle increased load by phase shift rather than magnitude increase. Since the earth is a sphere, this might indicate a shift in the desert belt. But why south? I would think north is both more likely and more dangerous.

The main desert belt is formed when because warm, equatorial air rises. As it rises it cools and dumps rain in the tropical rain forests. It then moves away from the equator and falls back to the surface. As it falls, it heats. Lacking water, it's dry.

In many ways this is like a heat engine. The heat from the equator is circulated north to where the sun strikes at less of an angle.

If there's more heat in the air, wouldn't the air stay up longer and move further north?

Of course a northward movement places the biggest desert region on top of the Mediterranean. It can then quickly reload with water which is the main greenhouse gas...

Still the movement should only be a few miles. I hope.

Still if it becomes a burden, we can dump a few gallons of long chain alcohols on the water where it will impede evaporation.

If it does move south, it would back away from the sea so we're good on a global level anyway. (It sucks to be a poor African though.)

Alan, this speaks to your point about prevention being better than curing. I would ask, "For who?"

Certainly the poor in low lying coastal regions are in trouble. But rain falls and global warming will likely increase that rain. It would fall in different places. Owners of lush farm land could find themselves in deserts, but desert owners would benefit.

It's not at all clear to me that the net effect would be bad.

Here is one article concerning it. Here is another, if you're interested.
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
That's a mis-characterisation of the debate Kid Who Cracked, the global warming hypothesis is a majority position, not a case of "science" versus a political group. Both the majority and the minority positions are each making a political case for themselves.

Are you sure? It's not a political issue, although it has turned into that. It's an objective, scientific issue. What to do about it is a political issue. Yet many of the climate change deniers seem to have conservative agendas. The scientific community is in great agreement about it. Try this article for instance. I've also checked many of the top science publications, and all seem to be in agreement (try Discover, Science, Scientific American). They could all be wrong, but I find that hard to believe.

Can you give an example of a reputable scientific source that denies man-made global warming or global warming in general?

Sorry if I come off as elitist. I admit I don't know a lot, and I don't have the tools to do research on my own, so I have to trust someone else. I feel I'm in good company.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.

I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.

But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.

Right, now I'm quitting this discussion. You're all in denial.

Of course the earth's atmosphere doesn't work this way, that's why the whole idea of us creating global warming by our rising output of CO2 is absolute bloody nonsense

Too hasty, Myrrh. Clearly you did not see this

quote:
The argument is not about the creation of a (so-called) "greenhouse effect", it is whether human actions have produced an enhanced (so-called) "greenhouse effect". The evidence for (so-called) "greenhouse effects" is impressive, not just on planet earth but elsewhere in our solar system. In my admittedly limited and lay understanding, one of the things that atmospheres do is ameliorate the effects of radiation. I think the mean surface temperature of the earth would be much lower if the earth did not have an atmosphere.

So the science which seeks to investigate in some detail why atmospheres behave in this way, and what might cause the behaviour of atmospheres to change, has a long pedigree.

That's a quote from a post by me on p9 of this thread. Note the word "enhanced". A proper understanding of the way atmospheres work leaves wide open the issue of what effects changes to atmospheres may produce. So there is scope for sceptics, believers and in-betweeners. But I think the clarification of terms is useful. And I must say that your "heat rises" and "thermodynamics" posts did not exactly fill me with confidence that you had a clear understanding of these matters. Read sanityman's post again.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Barnabas, 'enhanced' is goobledegook, if there's no greenhouse, then enhanced is nonsense.

What I'm seeing here is support for AGW against all reasonable science and then apologetics denying the very premise of this claim for CO2!

For example Alan and others saying Greenhouse is just a metaphor, but then unable to provide any way that CO2 can achieve this so called ability to drive global warming, but still saying AGW is real.

So, us skeptics argue that the science isn't there for the actual method that is officially stated and of course any reasonably intelligent explorer would agree, but to then keep making unwarranted support for it with attendant belittling of opponents to it by destroying the base on which this claim is made is simply absurd.

And annoying. When I've made valid points that CO2 is incapable of doing this in the official method claiming it does, then I expect better than the the comments I've had here from some.

The point remains, if those supporting AGW are not arguing from the official method of explaining this, which is impossible to uphold, then how do they then explain CO2 drives global warming.

The reason I'm not getting any replies, except the usual denigration, is that there is no way it can.

Denial that earth's atmosphere is a greenhouse immediately takes one into skeptics, that's the denial I'm seeing played out here.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
For example Alan and others saying Greenhouse is just a metaphor, but then unable to provide any way that CO2 can achieve this so called ability to drive global warming, but still saying AGW is real.

Erm, I have tried to explain how CO2 (and other molecules in the atmosphere) causes the so-called greenhouse effect. These molecules absorb sections of the IR radiation spectrum, and pass that energy on to the air they're parts of. The effect is like a greenhouse or blanket because it reduces heat transfer from the surface of the planet to space, just as a blanket reduces heat flow from your sleeping body to the bedroom and a greenhouse reduces heat flow from around your prize tomatoes to the garden. The effect is unlike these metaphors because the mechanism is different - blankets and greenhouses work by reducing convection, CO2 etc work by reducing radiation.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
There's a general consensus that some type of human caused global warming is happening. (That doesn't mean I believe it, just that most scientists do.)

Local effects are much more problematic. Wild claims about much hotter and dryer deserts are silly though. As this map of outgoing radiation shows, the desert regions emit about 50% more heat than the wetter regions.

Since the amount of heat hitting the Earth is mostly a constant, any large increase in outgoing radiation surface would cause significant cooling.

In addition radiative energy is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. An 8 K increase would also increase cooling. This extra cooling would take place at frequencies covered by water vapor rather than CO2. Because of this hotter wet areas might not emit as well as deserts would.

There could be some small extra desert area formed. But any large scale changes would need to be offset by shrinking deserts elsewhere. More likely is a shrinking of current deserts and a growth of new desert regions in wealthier areas.

Of course Africa will be hurt the worst in human terms because they are the poorest. But lacking a huge military intervention, that's not likely to change.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Editorial from Nature on the CRU email leak stuff.

"A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
DJ - Deserts are the product of rainfall patterns, not direct heating.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Croesos, tell that to those who equate desertification to global warming.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Barnabas, 'enhanced' is goobledegook, if there's no greenhouse, then enhanced is nonsense.
<snip>
Denial that earth's atmosphere is a greenhouse immediately takes one into skeptics, that's the denial I'm seeing played out here.


You're wrong. To my mind, there would appear to be at least two categories of sceptics

1. Those who accept the mechanism that Alan and sanityman and others have described as a valid explanation (in part or in whole) for natural so-called greenhouse effects (i.e. a reason why an atmosphere keeps planets warmer than they would be if there were no atmosphere) but deny, or are not yet sure, that the effects of human activities have made any significant difference to this natural effect.

2. Those who deny the validity of that explanation altogether.

Any in category 2 would strengthen their cause by finding an answer to the non-trivial conundrum sanityman posed here. After he donned his Columbo raincoat.

[ 02. December 2009, 22:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Kid Who Cracked (# 13963) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, tell that to those who equate desertification to global warming.

Climate changes affect rainfall though, according to the first article I mentioned. Help me out scientists, is this the case? I did find a National Geographic article that does suggest some places are getting greener. In any case, it's just one issue among several with climate change, and even if desertification is not a problem, global warming still is.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
As this map of outgoing radiation shows, the desert regions emit about 50% more heat than the wetter regions.


Really? By color code, it looks like the longwave radiation from the Indian Ocean is at least as high as any desert. I think I'm on fairly safe ground in considering this to be one of the "wetter regions", so your interpretation seems pretty weak.

Fortunately, people who would like a more considered summary of the vulnerability of deserts (and other ecosystems) to climate change can read this chapter of the "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability" volume of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
 
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :
 
Dave, here's a nice picture of macro-circulation of the atmosphere. As you can see the "hot" spot over the Arabian Sea seems to be coming off India.

In any case the down-drafts from the meeting of the Ferrel and Hadley Cells are the cause of he dry air. But dry air landing on water creates wet air downwind faster than such air landing on deserts.

Also, keep in mind the radiation graph data was taken on a single day. Mountains, land use, El Ninos and hundreds of other things affect this as well.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
For example Alan and others saying Greenhouse is just a metaphor, but then unable to provide any way that CO2 can achieve this so called ability to drive global warming, but still saying AGW is real.

Erm, I have tried to explain how CO2 (and other molecules in the atmosphere) causes the so-called greenhouse effect. These molecules absorb sections of the IR radiation spectrum, and pass that energy on to the air they're parts of. The effect is like a greenhouse or blanket because it reduces heat transfer from the surface of the planet to space, just as a blanket reduces heat flow from your sleeping body to the bedroom and a greenhouse reduces heat flow from around your prize tomatoes to the garden. The effect is unlike these metaphors because the mechanism is different - blankets and greenhouses work by reducing convection, CO2 etc work by reducing radiation.