Africa re(de)fines the climate dialogue
The African Union's 10-country meeting attempting to establish a united front on climate change marks a potentially intriguing step along what has become a forgotten avenue of the UN climate process.
It's a circuitous route; but hop on board, and I'll tell you why.
Back in 1992, at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, countries signing the UN climate convention endorsed the principle that countries should act to curb human-induced climate change according to their "common but differentiated responsibilities".
Put simply, the rich should do more than the poor.
By the time the Kyoto Protocol emerged five years later, that notion had been simplified down just about as far as it could go, into a world with just two types of country.
Either you were rich (Annex One, in the jargon), in which case you would accept a firm target for reducing emissions, or you were poor, in which case you would not have a firm target.
Through a variety of mechanisms, money from those defined as rich would flow to those defined as poor (though some could also flow back to the rich) to provide clean technology, reforestation and protection from impacts of climate change.
This simplistic picture worked politically, but was a distorted representation of a much more nuanced real world.
And since 1997, things have become a little more complex; some countries in the "poor" box are now quite as rich as some bearing the "rich" label.
At $19,690, the per-capita gross national income (GNI) of South Korea, which has no mandated emissions targets, dwarfs that of Bulgaria ($4,590), or Latvia ($9,930), for example, which do.
Some smaller "poor" countries provide even more striking examples. Singapore ($32,470) and Kuwait ($31,640) are by this measure more deserving of emissions targets than New Zealand ($28,780) - but do not have any.
(I'm citing here World Bank figures for 2007, by the way, which is what the BBC News website's country profiles use - by other measures, including the CIA World Factbook, countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Israel and even Equatorial Guinea emerge comfortably ahead of some nations with firm emission targets.)
The realities are recognised by the World Bank, which classifies Singapore and the UAE and Israel and Kuwait as high-income economies; but it's found no place in the politics of the UN climate negotiations.
Among developed nations, there's been a view for some time that the bipolar world is outdated and that some differentiating needs to be done within the single monolithic "Kyoto poor" category.
This was reflected in discussions leading up to last December's UN climate conference in Poland.
But by the time we arrived at the conference itself, the notion had disappeared from formal and informal agendas - according to European delegates, because the powerful G77/China bloc, which tends to determine the "developing world" position, saw differentiation as something that would lessen the bloc's power, and so would not countenance any talk of it.
The G77/China bloc, despite its name, now has 130 members. In terms of per-capita wealth they range from Singapore and Kuwait, Brunei and the UAE down to the Democratic Republic of Congo ($140), Burundi ($110) - and Somalia, for which the World Bank is unable to set a figure.
It includes major oil and gas producers and those without fossil energy reserves. It includes those that are selling natural resources and those that are buying them. It includes countries projected to be highly vulnerable to climate impacts and others projected to be robust.
Clearly, no single grouping can reflect all these diverse interests.
And there is dissent. At the UN climate talks in Nairobi in 2006, one delegate from a medium-sized Asian country complained long and bitterly to me about "bullying" from more powerful members of the bloc.
Yet so far, G77/China has remained the dominant lobbying vehicle of the "developing world". Its remit stretches far beyond climate change, and its members fear losing the only voice they have if they bring dissent into the open.
I would argue that if the UN negotiations taking place in Copenhagen in December, and indeed the whole process, are to be properly democratic, the differing needs and capacities of "developing" countries have to come out into the open.
Which is why the African Union initiative is interesting. The continent is the world's poorest, the least able to protect its societies and economies against any harmful impacts of climate change.
Yet it is also likely, if the projections of climate models hold true, to feel some of the most significant impacts, including reductions in agricultural output and salinisation of water supplies.
So the continent clearly has a case to make. Its concerns find some synergies with the concerns of small island developing states (SIDS) ,and some with South Asian nations that are looking at sea level rise and reductions in crop yield with a measure of alarm; but there are differences too.
Whether an entire continent can speak with one voice isn't yet clear. Africa itself encompasses a wide range of economic development, natural environment and political systems.
And as G77/China president, Sudan - which is not represented, apparently, at the African Union meeting - will have its own views on the priorities for the continent and how any distinctly African case should sit alongside the wider G77 agenda.
A number of factors, not least lack of capacity and government resources, mean African interests have not always received the attention they needed in the UN climate process.
The African Union initiative might help.
And by pointing up the differences in wealth and capacity between the richest and poorest "developing countries", it might also push the UN climate process towards a more meaningful and just manifestation of "common but differentiated responsibilities" than exists today.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
So where is all the money to come from to pay for these plans?
Lets be clear carbon trading, carbon compensation and carbon taxes will only result in the creation of carbon billionaires, see a huge growth in fraud and corruption at international level and will ultimately crash the world economy.
Trading on thin CO2 air will not solve the problems of the world's poor.
Complain about this comment
@minuend
of course it will, minuend, pooring millions into africa over several decades has already worked wonders for those nations
Complain about this comment
The "cap and trade" is a prolonging of the problem. It is not a very good enviornmental mitigation strategy and certainly was never intended to be a redistribution of the wealth scheme, or maybe it was. Efforts should be on developing clean energy sources and not setting up systems that actually will support the continuation of fossil fuels. This is an illusion that something is being done when it only adds a price to the product, to be added to the users bill, and that price does not reflect the real costs. Looks like the same plan being used by the Somalia pirates...pollution ransom....nothing changes, just some money changes hands. If all funds were put directly into research for clean energy development, it might make sense but it will be used for anything that may be in a governmental budget as that is how governments work. Africa seems to think that shaking down industrial nations is best done as a group...they don't seem to be able to agree on anything else..except killing each other.
Complain about this comment
"if the projections of climate models hold true". Of course they won't hold true. All the climate models are different and all are based on assumptions which have no scientific basis. GIGO. Why would anyone base decisions on unvalidated climate models which have no physical basis?
Complain about this comment
I've just finished "Climate Wars,", by Gwynne Dyer (2008), a Canadian war and strategy teacher and author. To date it is the most down to Earth treatment that I have read.
Mr. Dyer concludes by imagining that if we do manage to make it though the twenty-first century "without triggering runaway warming and a massive population dieback," it would be a world "with much greater equality of wealth between the old rich countries and the Majority World, because that is a precondition for making it through the crisis."
His concluding metaphor is that of a final exam, with our entire environment at stake. He notes:
"It's not just about knowledge and technical ability; it is also about self-restraint and the ability to cooperate. Grown-up values, if you like."
Interesting - Saint-Exupery's "responsible man."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
What's this: African pols whinging and begging again ?
Next up: Wild bears still using informal bathroom arrangements...
Complain about this comment
New Zealand, ca. 2175 Anno Domini: (global temperature 9 deg C warmer)
Favored few status - along with the UK., Patagonia, Newfoundland and the shores of the Arctic Ocean.
- densely populated -
- Manysummits -
Do you have a big fence?
Complain about this comment
Alarmists are blind to the realities in africa. They babble on like fools over the theoretical, worst case scenario in which tens of millions MIGHT die an early death...because they think temperature might cause disease or that sea level rise that takes four generations will drown them.
Here's the reality. Right now the average life expectancy in africa is around 50. In many african nations it's in the 40's or even the 30's. This means that while alarmists worry about potential early deaths from climate change, they currently face (essentially) certain death due to lack of infrastructure. We should let the develop by just about any means possible...not just the ultra-expensive and unreliable "clean" (carbon free) alternatives. If they WERE developed, adaptation would be a trivial matter for them, just as it is for the west.
This is the ONLY strategy for africa that makes any sense. If it turns out that man is causing substantial climate change they'll be able to adapt. If it turns out man's impact from CO2 isn't very significant (which appears to be the case) their development won't have been disrupted just because the rich nations went off on some wild goose chase.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#7
New Zealand, ca. 2175 Anno Domini: (global temperature 9 deg C warmer)
Sounds like a fevered imagination, rather than realty or perhaps you do have evidence? No, didn't think so
Complain about this comment
if the projections of climate models hold true
which one?
oh, that's right, the only one that gives the "right" answer is the average of all the others (according to Gavin Schmidt)
Complain about this comment
This is a very good description of the way in which 'environment' has become hijacked by politics, and why many people are resistive to it.
If the agenda is REALLY 'climate change' then a molecule of CO2 knows no borders and no politics. A molecule of CO2 from my vilified car is no more dangerous than the largely ignored molecule of CO2 from an Indonesian burning down the forest. Everyone needs to cut emissions.
But as you correctly report, these rather silly conferences are about poverty and equality etc etc
The sooner people start ignoring these 'set a target then ignore it' conferences and get on with the technology to actually cut dependence on fossil fuel the better off we will be.
Complain about this comment
The truth is we in the developed world are more responsible for climate change. We have emitted more greenhouse gases for longer and done much more to cause it than the developing nations, some of which are already suffering the effects of climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
We simply must do more to help the poorer countries adapt cleaner technologies
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK #'s 9 & 10 et al:
"Fevered Imagination":
You've got the imagination part right. They're called 'scenarios.'
From Gwynne Dyer's book, "Climate Wars." In turn, he bases his scenarios on interviews around the world with leading climate scientists, and with department of defense and national secuity people. He says the most readily available of these studies is:
"The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change," co-published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) in Nov/07.
'CSIS' is supervised by the board of trustees, and the "fevered imaginations" of:
- Richard Armitage, former U.S. deputy secretary of state.
- Harold Brown, former US secretary of defense.
- William S. Cohen, former US secretary of defense.
- Zbigniew Brezinski, former US national security advisor.
- Henry Kissinger, former US secretary of state.
- Joseph Nye, former US assisstant secretary of state.
- James Schlesinger, former US secretary of defense.
- General Brent Scowcroft, USAF (ret), former US national security advisor, etc...
CNAS board of directors includes the "fevered imaginations" of:
- William Perry, former US secretary of defense.
- Madeleine Albright, former US secretary of state.
- Richard Danzig, former US secretary of the Navy.
- William Lynn, former US undersecretary of defense
- General Greg Newbold, USMC (ret), former director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Have a good day, Mango ChutneyUKOK et al,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
sce·nar·i·o
- n. (pl. -os) a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes: imagine the scenarios for four short stories.
- a postulated sequence or development of events: a possible scenario is that he was attacked after opening the front door.
- a setting, in particular for a work of art or literature: the scenario is World War II
of course, if there was evidence to support the scary scenarios offered up by the IPCC etc, we could take them seriously
Complain about this comment
Those who profess that spewing hundreds of millions of tons of chemicals into the air and water for over a hundred years has no impact on the environment are the same people who think the individuals signing bad loan agreeements created the financial crisis and not the unethical dealings of bankers. We have these little certainties, like West Nile virus every spreading Northward from Africa to Europe and North America and with slight increases in air temperture becomes more deadly, children raised close to coal generated power plants have lower IQ's and various specises of fish have become dangerous to eat because of high concentrations of mercury. Apparently you believe that most governments and their sceintist are all part of some great conspiracy and that those scientist in the employ of the coal industry and chemical manufacturers should be trusted....like the tobacco industry scientist. You seem to confuse your political beliefs with science and reject any science that may conflict with your political views. I am sure you would have been advocating for self-flagilation rather than killing rats as the bubonic plague killed over a quarter of the people in Europe.
Complain about this comment
@ghostofsichuan
#15
There is a big difference between pollutants in the air and water and the claim that man made CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. You see we have empirical evidence to show the connection between fish, water and mercury. We can measure the level of mercury in the water and the fish and show that the two are connected, but we have been unable, so far, to show empirically that man made CO2 drives climate.
With regard to the West Nile virus, I would question the connection between rising temperatures and the spread of the virus is not proven, especially between continents, and would suggest an alternative could be the spread of international flights. Of course, I have no empirical evidence to support this statement, but perhaps if enough of us agree (say 2500), we could claim it was the consensus and ask for lots of money to investigate the problem?
But if you do have any evidence to support your claims please post the links, i would be fascinated to read them
Complain about this comment
simple link to the national academy of science museum. If you wish to question all supportive science or question this or that method that is up to you but the Journal of Nature and other national and international journals clearly support human CO2 as contributing factor to climate change. A virus carried by mosquitoes will not survive in northern regions if the temperatures in those regions are not high enough to support that life form. What is factual is that that these mosquitoes are at higher elevations and in countries that have never in the past expereinced these viruses because the temperatures were too low to support the vectors. Air travel may get them there but without positive tempertures they die. At the time there was no scientific evidence that rats and fleas were carrying the plague, just lots of people dying.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes01.jsp
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutnetUKOK #14:
You wrote:
"of course, if there was evidence to support the scary scenarios offered up by the IPCC etc, we could take them seriously"
------------
Who is we?
I take them seriously. Obviously the list of persons on the boards of trustees and directors which I took the trouble to present in detail - obviously these very serious people take this very seriously.
I will reproduce this list again - perhaps you are unfamiliar with the political situation over the last forty years in the United States of America, and are thus unfamiliar with the persons in this list? I have added links so that you can familiarize yourself with these organizations and the full report.
"The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change," co-published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) in Nov/07.
http://www.pewclimate.org/federal/memo/national-security-implications
(this link will also provide a pdf link for the full report)
'CSIS' board of trustees:
- Richard Armitage, former U.S. deputy secretary of state.
- Harold Brown, former US secretary of defense.
- William S. Cohen, former US secretary of defense.
- Zbigniew Brezinski, former US national security advisor.
- Henry Kissinger, former US secretary of state.
- Joseph Nye, former US assisstant secretary of state.
- James Schlesinger, former US secretary of defense.
- General Brent Scowcroft, USAF (ret), former US national security advisor, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies
CNAS board of directors:
- William Perry, former US secretary of defense.
- Madeleine Albright, former US secretary of state.
- Richard Danzig, former US secretary of the Navy.
- William Lynn, former US undersecretary of defense
- General Greg Newbold, USMC (ret), former director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_a_New_American_Security
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@ghostofsichuan #17
I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, of course a warmer world may aid the spread of viruses carried by mosquitos. What I am questioning is how this spread is caused by man made warming.
The world may be warming, but there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim that the warming is caused by mans CO2 emissions.
You have made a non-existant link between virus spread and emissions
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #18
I'm surprised you quote a right wing think tank, but hey, it's your quote.
These people are commenting on security issues for the USA, which could happen if the world were to warm beyond a certain part - aren't these scenarios normally called war games and haven't the armed forces always played warm games?
The point is they are being told the earth is going to warm by x degrees C and there will be water shortages, food shortages, oil shortages, shortage shortages, and have gone away to play their warm games. They are preparing for action should these scary scenarios actually happen.
If you told them you had a computer model that suggested scenario A - 100 little green men from Mars were invading in 2030, B - 1000 little green men were invading in 2030 and C - 100000000 little green men were invading, they would go away and present their own scary scenarios, based on their perception of the risk to the national security of the USA.
But still no evidence that any of this warming is caused by mans emissions.
Complain about this comment
12. At 10:15am on 25 Aug 2009, FateFound wrote:
The truth is we in the developed world are more responsible for climate change.
============================
Unfortunately you don't mention that at the top of your league table is China - biggest emitter and growing fast, but somewhat bizarrely counted as 'poor' and it's emissions deamed harmless.
Unfortunately you also fail to mention that your league table is emissions from fossil fuels only. Figures which include emissions from burning forests look quite different - forest burning may be responsible for as much as 20% of emissions. Don't forget forest burning is a double whammy: CO2 emitted AND CO2 absorbing trees lost for ever.
What is this REALLY about? Is it climate? Or is it climate used as an excuse for anti-capitalist politics?
Complain about this comment
Welcome to post-modernism.
In the Po-Mo world your views and opinions are whatever makes you feel smug and good about yourself. Ideas don't have to be based on personal experience or rational analysis. They don't even have to be coherent. No it's just feelgood stuff.
So you can pretend to care about the planet or pretend to care about Africa or pretend to care about polar bears - but no need to actually do anything.
You can tut-tut about supermarkets and carbon and exploitation while driving to Tesco to buy low-cost clothes made in the 3rd world.
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK et al #20:
The list continues to grow, doesn't it.
So many ill-informed people in the world - all the scientists of the IPCC, and of course, anyone who takes them seriously, including the mlitary establisments of the United States and Great Britain.
And all basing their decisions on a lack of empirical evidence, in your opinion and that of many other in the denial camp.
How extraordinarily irresponsible of them to do this.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #23
The list continues to grow, doesn't it
you must inhabit a strange world where you think telling a bunch of security advisers that climate is changing, food shortages will occur etc and asking them to report on the consequences, constitutes proof that global warming is caused by mans CO2 emissions
even the words co2 emissions only appear once in the document.
if you were to tell these guys the earth would be entering the next ice age in 12 months time, they would come up with similar scenarios, plus they would probably want to cull the polar bears to keep them away from populated areas
Complain about this comment
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...it is probably a duck.
There are always other factors when looking at global systems. Man-made Co2 is one of those factors. Politicians believe it, military believes it, most scientist believe it. There were plenty of economist, who upon receiving generous stiepends, lauded the financial services industry for their creative financial structures at national and international banking conferences...that was before the collapse.
Not doubt that the planet changes, continents shift and the planet is terminal. We do know that small changes in air temperature allows for more deadly and widely spread vector borne diseases. Those unwilling to accept climate change as a result of CO2 may wish to defend some positive impact of hundreds of millions of tons of chemicals and polluants into the eco-system. The need for clean energy are many.
Complain about this comment
@ghostofsichuan #25
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...it is probably a duck
The ugly duckling turned out to be a swan
Politicians believe it, military believes it, most scientist believe it
Belief isn't proof. Millions, maybe billions, world wide believe in God of some description - does that prove the existence of God?
Those unwilling to accept climate change as a result of CO2 may wish to defend some positive impact of hundreds of millions of tons of chemicals and pollutants into the ecosystem. The need for clean energy are many
Agreed, but why call CO2 a pollutant and create a market literally out of thin air, when there is no empirical proof that CO2 is the main driver of climate change?
Complain about this comment
23. At 11:49am on 26 Aug 2009, manysummits wrote:
"So many ill-informed people in the world - all the scientists of the IPCC, and of course, anyone who takes them seriously, including the mlitary establisments of the United States and Great Britain."
========================
Are these the same scientists that told me it was going to be a 'barbecue summer' this year?
Or the same military establishments who told me there was WMD in Iraq?
Complain about this comment
There is no "proof" that you exist. You could be an illusion or as the Chinese philosopher asked "a butterfly dreaming you are a man."; or as they say in the famous movie line: Proof! We don't need no stinking proof!
Complain about this comment
To jon112uk # 27:
It wasn't the military who said there were WMD in Iraq - it was two leaders of the free world, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who happen to be, what is the correct word, the politically correct word - I know - Christians.
The military in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada would like nothing more than to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, for they know when they are being used politically, in the negative sense.
---------
To MangoChutneyUKOK:
How brave we are in the blogosphere. And would you tell your leading military commanders how gullible they are, face to face, or would you say this to a judge in a court of law? Or do you seriously think they are that naive?
It's not your science that bothers me, for you demonstrably have none - it is your attitude towards your fellow man which tells me much of what I need to know about you.
It is not proper to disparge or impune men and women without cause. That's an instance, I would like to think, of 'jus cogens,' or compelling law.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
For those few who may have been following the 'empirical evidence for AGW' proceedings on the previous blog, here is some of what I would consider 'empirical evidence.' It is empirical because different observers would probably see the same results, i.e., trees advancing to higher altitudes and latitudes at x number of sights.
Contrary to popular belief, I think, thermometers do not actually measure temperature. Take an alcohol or mercury thermometer, for example. Different observers would see the alcohol, perhaps colored red, or the mercury, perhaps silver gray, react and move, either up or down. This is the dataset, the empirical part. The attribution of temperature via gradation marks on the thermometer is an invention, the product of a scientific discovery - an hypothesis, at some level of probability.
-----------
Anyway, here is another piece of data:
Trees advance in a warming world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8218000/8218335.stm
"Trees around the world are colonising new territories in response to higher temperatures.
From the US west coast to northern Siberia and south-east Asia, trees are growing at higher elevations, and at higher latitudes as the climate warms.
Of 166 sites studied, trees are advancing at more than half, while they are receding at just two sites.
The shift is revealed by the first global analysis of treelines published in the journal Ecology Letters.
However, the trees aren't responding quite how scientists expected.
Instead of advancing as summer temperatures rise, the trees' ability to colonise new areas appears to be more dependent on whether winter temperatures warm."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Richard Black's last paragraph - this blog:
"And by pointing up the differences in wealth and capacity between the richest and poorest "developing countries", it might also push the UN climate process towards a more meaningful and just manifestation of "common but differentiated responsibilities" than exists today."
Here is an article, sent to me by a friend, which is tangentially relevant to this blog and this paragraph:
Fiji Water: So cool, so fresh, so bad for the environment?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/24/tale-of-fiji-water-too-familiar-sounds-like-industrial-colonial/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #30
An, almost, scary thought: I was planning on making a very similar point about thermometers 'measuring' temperature.
-----
Changing topic, there is an intriguing opinion piece under the headline 'No, Greenpeace Did Not Predict Ice-Free Arctic by 2030' in "Opposing Views". It discusses the 'HardTalk' interview between Gerd Leipold of Greenpeace and Stephen Sackur of the BBC.
I say intriguing because it was posted by someone from a group that is very skeptical about climate change - the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The author himself states that he thinks Greenpeace spreads exaggeration and alarmism about global warming. But he also goes on to note that Sackur “built his case on false evidence” and that Greenpeace did not make the error it is accused of doing.
It begins by noting that a “factoid is rapidly making the rounds in climate skeptic circles”. By this the author means a “piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented to the press as factual . . . and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.”
Sackur cited a Greenpeace press in which Greenpeace warns that, because of global warming, ”we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.” Sackur focused on this claim and pointed out that ”the Arctic” includes the Greenland Ice Sheet and that “there is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear” in 20 or 30 years.
And now the claim that Leipold confessed to misleading the public is making the rounds at skeptical blog sites and conservative newspapers.
The author argues that this is incorrect, noting that Leipold said he did not recall the press release at issue, and thus neither affirmed nor denied that it said what Sackur says it said. Second, and more importantly, Sackur took the sentence he quoted out of context. The press release warning of ice-free summers as early as 2030 clearly concerns floating polar sea ice, not Greenland ice.
The concluding words of advice from the piece are: “I don’t usually defend Greenpeace and don’t plan to make a habit of it. My point is not that Greenpeace is a reliable source but that we skeptics must exercise due diligence. If something looks too good to be true (in this case, a confession of fraud by a political adversary), it probably is. Stick to exposing true lies and do not peddle factoids. Alarmists are gunning for us everyday. The last thing we need to do is shoot ourselves in the foot!”
The column, with all sorts of links, can be found at: http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-no-greenpeace-did-not-predict-ice-free-arctic-by-2030
Complain about this comment
Hi Simon Swede and welcome to this blog.
You are correct about the Sackur interview - he sets up a point that GreenPeace may or may not have said then attacks it.
But it's very hard to pin down what the 'climate' hypothesis really is. It's like a schizophrenic chameleon - you think you know what it looks like and where it is then shazzam it's changed and moved.
One easy example of the change is the re-branding from 'global warming' into 'climate change'.
And now it's moved on from 'stopping the climate from changing too much' into 'all that plus solving all of Africa's problems and re-building our own economies as well'.
It's like one of those infomercials that goes on and on with all kinds of bonuses and extra features and easy ways to pay and you have lost track of what the product really is or the price tag.
Maybe you can help ? By defining the creed.
Complain about this comment
@ghostofsichuan #28
There is no "proof" that you exist
I think, therefore I am
@manysummits #29
I don't think these people are naive, i think they have been given a set of scenarios dreamt up by alarmists and asked to comment on the security implications for the USA. Not one of them is qualified to comment on the science, so they can only comment on the consequences if these dreams come true.
#30
Again, it is mere conjecture to link trees at higher altitudes to man made CO2 driven global warming. Global warming yes, but how does this prove it is man made?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/08/it_comes_from_an_unexpected.html#P84908311
Complain about this comment
Jack_Hughes_NZ at #33
Hi Jack!
I'm not sure about the rebranding example you give. I remember from my early discussions with people working on the issue before Rio, in the late-80s, that the term 'global warming' was already anathema to many.
So, it maybe that the 'climate change' term has been replacing 'global warming' in the popular media, but it does not necessarily reflect any change of understanding amongst those working in the field. To pursue your infomercial analogy somewhat, the ad may have changed, but it is still the same product: rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHG will have an increasing impact on the earth's climate.
Complain about this comment
And zooming from the Arctic to the Antarctic:
Antarctic glacier 'thinning fast'
One of the largest glaciers in Antarctica is thinning four times faster than it was 10 years ago, according to research seen by the BBC.
Very alarming stuff - part of the BBC's daily drumbeat.
But the writer forgets to mention that there is a volcano very near this glacier.
Do you think the writer knows about this volcano ?
Wikipedia tells us
...steam was reported in 1974, and an unconfirmed report of an eruption detected by satellite in 1985, the Hudson Mountains [volcano] may be active.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK at #34 and earlier,
Your comments about the security assessment document being simply a bunch of hypothetical response scenarios is not borne out by a look at the document itself. Yes, the authors appear to accept that climate change is occurring, but that fact alone does not diminish their analysis of what they think ought to be a considered response to this problem.
Complain about this comment
Jack_Hughes_NZ at #36
You ask "Do you think the writer knows about this volcano?"
I don't know, but common sense suggests it is rather unlikely to have been missed. Apart from anything else, the team is doing monitoring on a rather large scale. The region of the Pine Island Glacier affected today covers 5,400 square kilometres and they have used continuous satellite measurements over the past 15 years to track the glacier’s development.
Complain about this comment
29. At 10:49pm on 26 Aug 2009, manysummits wrote:
To jon112uk # 27:
It wasn't the military who said there were WMD in Iraq
===============================
The person who was at the forefront of stating WMD in Iraq was a 'slam dunk' was George Tennet - who eventually lost his job as head of the lead 'military establishment' intelligence organisation, the CIA.
I'm just waiting for a dodgy dossier to push me into a climate of fear over global heating. Someone could copy and paste it off the internet.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #37
If the Heartland Institute asked them to produce a report on security issues for the USA in a cooling world, leading to the next ice age, do you think their report would be completely difference or broadly similar?
Complain about this comment
In the legal system many have been found guilty based on the "preponderance of evidence." Not exactly proof, but reasonable thinking people can use to reach a similar conclusion. If the negative were asked "provide proof that man-made CO2 does not contribute to global warming", it may be interesting to hear the case to be made. Of course you would need to provide the Proof.
Complain about this comment
science doesn't work that way
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #30. I was following the previous blog on temperature and posted there but will add a comment here:
You say:
"The attribution of temperature via gradation marks on the thermometer is an invention, the product of a scientific discovery - an hypothesis, at some level of probability".
I agree with you that measured temperature can be used as "empirical evidence". Like length, time etc. we define our yardsticks. Temperature defines the freezing point of water as 0c, boiling point as 100c etc. and everybody agrees that is what we will use. No science inventions much here (just changing methods) it's what we have always done.
Trees on the other hand have been advancing and retreating for a multidude of natural reason since time immororial.
Anyway we are now replacing real trees with man-made trees so we can control them and they will behave in a reasonable manner that we can predict. So you don't have to worry anymore. We are fixing it!! See story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8223528.stm
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK at #40
You ask what would they write "If the Heartland Institute asked them to produce a report on security issues for the USA in a cooling world, leading to the next ice age..." .
Given what they wrote in the first assessment, I doubt that they would take such a commission. But then again, I can think that the Heartland Institute would know other authors who would willingly take it on!
Complain about this comment
simon-swede wrote:
// To pursue your infomercial analogy somewhat, the ad may have changed, but it is still the same product: rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHG will have an increasing impact on the earth's climate.
You make my point very well here. This definition of the 'problem' is so broad and vague that it's almost meaningless. It does not include any idea of severity or timescales. Or even if the 'impacts' will be good or bad.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #32: wrote "Manysummits at #30. An, almost, scary thought: I was planning on making a very similar point about thermometers 'measuring' temperature."
Even more scary. I too, had contemplated posting a comment discussing the thermometer as a device for measuring temperature; but held back.
The following comment however broke my patience.
timjenvey #43: wrote "I agree with you that measured temperature can be used as 'empirical evidence'. Like length, time etc. we define our yardsticks. Temperature defines the freezing point of water as 0c, boiling point as 100c etc. and everybody agrees that is what we will use. No science inventions much here (just changing methods) it's what we have always done."
That's an extremely poor description of scientific measurements and how they are made. timjenvey, you clearly do not understand the basic principles involved. So any judgements you make on the subject are invalid and meaningless beyond your own personal sphere of subjective belief.
If you want a proper, correct and logical explanation of the principles of scientific measurement then I'll give you one. But at the moment, and considering attitudes of some on this blog, I doubt it is worth my effort.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #46:
So perhaps I should have added "at normal atmospheric pressure". Would that have made it more accurate? I was just referencing Manysummits use of temperature.
Seriously. What are you saying here?
Complain about this comment
Following the financial crisis with the loss of $12 trillion worldwide, it's not just the climate change compensation that will be rethought; but the Doha trade agenda, aid and millennium goals as well.
Some of the economics will be discussed next month at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #46:
I feel like I made some personal progress using the 'empirical...AGW' blog. There is a gulf between the denial lobby and an understanding of science, what it is, and how it works. And I am not sure explaining it will help, at least not to the denial group. We seem to be dealing with deep rooted psychological mindsets, arrived at how, I don't know.
I bought a newspaper this morning, a rare occurrence for me, because of the front page picture of the three brothers, John, Edward and Robert Kennedy. I just looked and looked at that picture, taken in 1963. They were so young and full of life. Did I ever tell you I lived in Barnstable, Cape Cod, for a time back in the nineties? It is very close to Hyannis, and Hyannis Port. I remember seeing Edward's sailboat 'Mya' sitting at anchor.
The topic now is climate change - but really, what kind of world do we all inhabit? I feel like telling stories davblo, but not about climate change, at least not right now.
- Pensive in Calgary, Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Thermometers are a great way to measure temperature. Used by scientists all over the world and in space as well.
Your local hardware shop will carry a great range of thermometers to suit different uses and budgets. For situations like extreme temperatures or for continuous logging then specialist suppliers will have something to suit.
Try Google or maybe Yellow Pages to find these outlets.
Complain about this comment
#47...#50
I did write a reply but it just vapourised when I posted.
Maybe tomorrow....
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #51. That's a bummer. I get really annoyed when that happens.
Maybe you could purchase one of Jacks thermometers and keep an eye on the increasing temperature to get some control before it reaches a vaporizing state.
I apologize in advance. Just feeling mischief. Looking forward to your comment.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Jack_Hughes_NZ at #45
In my message at #35 I was simply questioning your suggestion that there had been a shifting goal post brought about by some sort of rebranding from global warming to climate change. My response was to suggest that the focus had always being the same and I wasn't offering a "problem definition".
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 at #46.
:-)
Complain about this comment
all this talk about thermometers is confusing me ;)
are we now saying thermometers don't give us a measure of temperature and does that mean the 150 year record of temperature is now redundant? is that why the met office lost all the data it had been keeping, which showed rising temperatures?
so what do we base global warming on now?
btw if it's a bad attitude to ask for evidence, then i plead guilty, but i note when we mentioned yeah_whatever's attitude (was he evenually banned?), nobody on the agw side asked him to tone it down.
Complain about this comment
Anyone read Kyoto2? I'd love to know what you think . . .
http://www.kyoto2.org/page5.html
Clearcut policy strategy on upstream regulations and emphasis on simplicity and efficiency while raising US$1 trillion for a climate change fund to help with adaptation and mitigation particularly in developing countries.
Kyoto2 is a framework for a new climate agreement under the Climate Convention (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC), intended to replace the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.
It aims to be:
effective - to deliver the Objective of the Climate Convention: to "to achieve ... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system ... within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."
efficient - using auction, open markets, targetted expenditures and appropriate regulation, while minimising accounting and compliance overheads, to provide 'the gain without the pain'.
equitable - addressing the needs of poor people and poor countries, and mitigating the impacts of climate change for the benefit of both present and future generations.
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK #55:
re: yeah_whatever: You are wrong, as usual. I asked him twice, if memory serves, and one of my pithy admonitions was subsequently removed by the moderators.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#55 mango
you going on about 'evidence' all the time reiminds me of category errors from my philosophy days. i think it was gilbert ryle who used the example of a hospital, i can show you the operating theatres, wards, corridors etc but you could still ask, ad infinitum, 'where is the hospital?'.
3.5mm, 7oC, -7m, 22oE it's all factual evidence but what is important is the interpretation and that's what science is. what we're all doing here is most definitely not science (entertaining though it is).
and on the philosophical front, you have as much chance of convincing a solipsist as i have a denier (or you an alarmist...thought i'd say it before you did!) and by applying cartesian doubt you can only really be sure that thinking occurs not that 'i' exist.
Complain about this comment
To whatfuture #56: (Kyoto2)
I'll read your link - perhaps later in the day - rushed just now.
James Hansen's safe limit has already been exceeded - 350 ppm CO2.
see:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (go to Scholarly Publications - "Target Atmospheric CO2)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To rossglory, re: evidence:
Reminds me of the movie, "A Few Good Men."
They're going over pre-trial proceedures, and reviewing the evidence:
"What evidence do you have for ...?
"Oh, the dead body"
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
re: yeah_whatever: You are wrong, as usual. ouch! but i will let it go I asked him twice, if memory serves, and one of my pithy admonitions was subsequently removed by the moderators.
- Manysummits -
In that case, manysummits, i stand corrected. 1 alarmist did ask yeah_whatever to tone it down
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #58
i completely disagree that evidence to show AGW isn't required or can't be empirical. The IPCC tell us is there is empirical proof of AGW waiting to be found - the models predict it, so bring it on, until then, there is absolutely no reason to class CO2 as any kind of pollutant.
@manysummits #59
that's funny, CO2 has been much higher in the past, but there was no runaway global warming. Perhaps Hansen should explain?
@manysummits #60
so where's the dead body?
Complain about this comment
perhaps Richard Black is able to settle this argument for us - he must have access to the scientific community
Richard,
where is the empirical evidence to support the IPCC's claims that in Chapter 9, Page 675, Figure 1?
Thanks
Mango
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK at #63
Really, this is a bore! You pluck one thing from a large report and say if this one thing is not to your satisfaction, then nothing is of value. As far as I can see, you are not looking for answers, you are being childish.
And, in any case, if you mean the two figures (9.1 and 9.2) on page 675 of the contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, references are given in the legends to the figures. More detail is given in the main text. It is clearly stated that the figures are the products of simulations.
Complain about this comment
Aid payments in general are a bone of contention, never mind compensation payments for climate change. [see #48]
Rich countries should immediately mobilise billions of dollars in development aid to the poorest nations to win their trust in the run-up to global climate talks in Copenhagen, says a draft report being prepared by the European Commission and the Swedish presidency. Reuters tells us the report urges OECD countries to fulfil their existing commitments on overseas aid, which would more than double those aid flows to poor nations to around $280 billion annually by 2015.
Oxfam International goes further. It says climate funds should come on top of the $280 billion commitments, rather than the $120 billion that is actually paid.
For 2007, the aid donations as a %age of gross national income were:
Norway 0.95; Sweden 0.93; Luxembourg 0.9; Denmark 0.81; Netherlands 0.81; Ireland 0.54; Austria 0.49; Belgium 0.43; Spain 0.41; Finland 0.4; France 0.39; Germany 0.37; Switzerland 0.37; UK 0.36; Australia 0.3; Canada 0.28; New Zealand 0.27; Italy 0.19; Portugal 0.19; Japan 0.17; Greece 0.16; USA 0.16.
The commitment some years ago was 0.7%.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #55: "but i note when we mentioned yeah_whatever's attitude (was he eventually banned?), nobody on the agw side asked him to tone it down."
MangoChutneyUKOK #61: "In that case, manysummits, i stand corrected. 1 alarmist did ask yeah_whatever to tone it down"
Wrong and still wrong. You made your statement in #55 without once verifying it, just because you thought it would be correct and you could get away with it. If you took the trouble to check you'd find that I and others had many "tussles" with YW on previous blogs, and on one occasion I apologised to a newcomer YW insulted.
Your a great one for asking for proof when you don't even get your own facts right.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits: thought you might like to read;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06591.html
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #64
Really, this is a bore!
I'm sorry, simon, i didn't realise asking for evidence was boorish
You pluck one thing from a large report and say if this one thing is not to your satisfaction, then nothing is of value.
imho, this is a pretty important point.
Chapter 9 of AR4 is called "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". If the IPCC tell us the climate models have shown the AGW fingerprint will be found as indicated in figure 1 (f) "the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right).....Based on Santer et al (2003a)", and the observational data clearly shows this has not happened, then questions need to be asked repeatedly until we get a proper answer.
Either the climate models must be wrong, because they are predicting this pattern, in which case we can't rely on their ability to produce accurate scenarios or man's CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming.
It can't be both, so which is it to be?
As far as I can see, you are not looking for answers, you are being childish.
I am looking for answers and i think all of us should be asking these questions, not blindly accepting what we are told by an elite bunch of climate scientists who think they should be able to influence the worlds energy policies.
I accept i could be wrong, but without evidence to support claims by the alarmists, all we have is conjecture
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #66
ok, i'm wrong again, several contributers to this blog asked yeah_whatever to tone it down
Complain about this comment
#62 mangochutneyuk
"i completely disagree that evidence to show AGW isn't required or can't be empirical."
Erm, I also completely disagree that evidence to show AGW isn't required or can't be empirical. I didn't claim otherwise. What I did say was that evidence consists in empirical measurement and scientific interpretation and that exists in spades, in the form of peer reviewed papers, almost all of which support the AGW hypothesis.
You banging on about the odd paper here and there or the odd figure in an IPCC report doesn;t make any of that disappear.
It would be extremely easy for me to switch from an alarmist to a sceptic, all it would take would be for the Royal Academy to post an item on their website (assume it hadn;t been hacked) stating that their current stance is wrong and that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 is insignificant. But then I still wouldn;t be a sceptic because I would be supporting the scientific community consensus.
Shame yet another of Richard's pieces has been hijacked by all this.
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan #67:
Thank you for the link - I have just read it. I picked out one point in particular:
"The terrestrial biosphere does not respond to a mean climate but to the concrete time series of actual weather conditions. Consequently, anticipated reactions to gradual mean changes in climate components and atmospheric concentrations of trace gases might be misleading if variability and extremes are not considered. A recent wake-up call in this respect was the European heatwave in the summer of 2003, when the cumulative European carbon sequestration of five years was undone within a few months through the reaction of the terrestrial biosphere to these extreme hydrological and climatic conditions6.
-http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06591.html
--------------
There is a significant discussion of modelling in this article, but modelling is not my forte.
However, the basic conclusion fits with my reading of the deep past and of the Pleistocene as regards paleoclimatic trends. In both cases, it is obvious to many observers that our models are probably too conservative. And almost without exception, incoming empirical data supports this diagnosis.
"Overall, it is likely that, at least on a global scale, terrestrial ecosystems will provide a positive, amplifying feedback in a warming world, albeit of uncertain magnitude." (see link above)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK # 62:
You wrote:
"that's funny, CO2 has been much higher in the past, but there was no runaway global warming. Perhaps Hansen should explain?"
-------------
Or perhaps Wikipedia???
"The Paleocene/Eocene boundary, 55.8 million years ago, was marked by the most rapid and significant climatic disturbance of the Cenozoic Era. A sudden global warming event, leading to the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum",[1] (IETM/LPTM)), is associated with changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulation, the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera, and a major turnover in mammalian life on land which is coincident with the emergence of many of today's major mammalian orders."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Aren't you the least chagrined by repeated claims such as the one I quoted from your post?
- Manysummits -
PS: Do you know anything at all about paleoclimatology - that would be the empirical data?
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #52: "Maybe you could purchase one of Jacks thermometers and keep an eye on the increasing temperature to get some control before it reaches a vaporizing state."
Thanks for maintaining a sense of humour. I shall try to keep cool.
I'm still short on time; but will try some quick comments.
The quest for the "holy grail", empirical evidence of AGW has been bugging me. Empirical simply means "by observation or experience" as opposed to pure theory. There is clearly no shortage of observational data going into the reports the IPCC assesses, so all that is left is whether the "evidence" derived from this data proves AGW. As rossglory has explained to you, the processing of the data and the derivation of a meaningful result is no simple task. So why would you expect to get a simplified version which you can understand handed to you on a plate? Would you expect to understand the recent verifications of Einsteins theories from new observational data? I think not.
Then the topic of temperature measurement we stumbled across.
After rejecting other types of measurement such as carbon dating you said temperature measurements could be accepted as empirical (observational) data. Do you know how many ways there are of measuring temperature? I wouldn't attempt to guess. Some are as simple as the mercury thermometer, then you have thermocouples with digital electronic displays, then some, like measuring the temperature at the surface of the sun will be much more complex and based on completely different scientific principles. They will all involve conversion of observed data into a reading of temperature, with more or less scientific expertise involved. In some cases you will be able to understand the scientific principles involved, in other cases you will be out of your depth.
If a scientist uses an advanced and complex method to measure the temperature at the centre of a fusion reactor plasma he will tell you the result, the precision and the accuracy. How can you expect to comment on the validity of the techniques he uses when you do not understand them? Just because you can understand the simple cases and say "oh, we use the expansion of mercury, I accept that", doesn't mean you can reject more advance scientific method which you do not understand. You either accept what the scientist says, or you go on a course and learn the subject well enough to be a valid critic.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To whatfutre #56: Re: 'Kyoto2'
I've read over the material in your posted link. From what I can see - it looks promising, at least from the climate science perspective and its general tone.
In detail, we have resident 'experts' who might be persuaded to have a look, especially at the economic assertions. I am thinking of 'simon-swede' and 'davblo2'.
Here is the link form your previous post:
http://www.kyoto2.org/page5.html
-------------
And here is a comment from the report which I very much support:
"In particular it is essential to recognise the atmosphere as a global commons to be managed for the general benefit of humanity."
--------------
I will add a quote from a former United States President, Theodore Roosevelt:
"Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."
-------------
And a personal note:
Since the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, his brother Robert Francis Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, North America, in fits and starts, has aged and drifted right politically.
It is time to reverse this trend.
Following the recent death of Edward Kennedy, the only one of the four brothers to live to a ripe old age, I have discovered in myself something of the relentless seeker after justice that was Simon Wiesenthal, the Nazi-hunter.
I do not buy the official reports on the agents of destruction of the two Kennedy brothers, never did, never will. When will justice be done?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To rossglory #70:
"Shame yet another of Richard's pieces has been hijacked by all this."
Indeed!
If Africa could unite, there would be a power to contend with.
"E pluribus unum", Wikipedia tells us: - Latin for: "Out of Many, One."
A simple poll - "Who is for a United Africa, and who against?"
Manysummits - For
Complain about this comment
Davblo #73: Thanks for a cool explanation.
Temperature measurements to the standards we define are not the issue. Since time immemorial the weights and measures folks have been an integral part of civilized society. My grandfather owned a grocers shop and the local weights and measure inspector came around and checked his scales with his kit of standards so everybody in the neighborhood could have a good degree of certainty they were not being ripped off. The same goes for temperature. If it meets the yardstick then whatever you engineer to measure it must be set against that yardstick and if it passes the test we can all observe it and agree. Simple calibration techniques nothing to do with the fact it’s the latest super duper new new thing .
On the other hand we have proxy measurements like trees which have no yard sticks, only theory and hypothesis. We all know the shenanigans of the Hockey Stick, we all know that trees respond to a multitude of variables in their growth and we see huge anomalies in the past like the Carboniferous times that there was quirky behaviors suggesting a climate totally unlike today. So there is no yardstick we can apply here to tie temperature or age to trees without a lot of assumptions which if any one turns out to be false the whole ‘theory’ is to be held to account. Same with radiometrics. I read up on manysummits suggestion and there are many limitations to its uses and needs assumptions and theories any one of which could, and does, throw huge errors into the results. No calibration possible just trust me!!! With politicians, media, business and the like cashing in on science any trust I may have had has totally gone and suspicion is rife.
So to our request for empirical evidence:
All that’s needed is a calibrated thermometer placed at that ‘hot spot’ and we can all observe the increase of temperature predicted by the models. That would be empirical evidence and would need to be considered seriously. If it doesn’t then something has failed in the theory. That seems so simple to me and all I get in response is you’re not a scientist so you can’t be expected to understand, just believe us!!!!!
You say “there is clearly no shortage of observational data”.
I’d much appreciate if you could please identify some of the stronger observations. In my world the alarmism of a few years ago is just going in the opposite direction to that forecast.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
#76 timjenvey
wrt the hotspot which seems to be taking up so much space here. i don't know if it has or has not been verified and if not why not. however, from my brief reading of some of the info on the web i cannot see how the hotspot is evidence in support of agw, rather than just warming.
let us assume that a paper was published tomorrow that gave good evidence of the hotspot (say we sent up 1,000 balloons with members of the heartland institute in them with thermometers from my local hardware store).
would you then become an alarmist or would you switch to the next tactic which, imho, would be 'oh, but the hotspot could be caused by sunspots warming concrete that no scientist has thought about' or some such.
please stop looking for a simple answer to this, it just does not exist. this is complicated (sometimes messy) science not religion.
Complain about this comment
Elemental Monbiot
"To fish from a kayak is to become an animal: calm, cunning and free...
Lots of energy expended; one or two near-death experiences. A tough way to feed myself. But very much alive."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/08/26/fishing-for-life/
-------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder I like George Monbiot so much!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Richard Black & 'The Limits to Growth'
I really enjoyed your excellent article Richard!
'Rossglory' - Have you read this one?
"Hijacked by climate change?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8223611.stm (by Richard Black)
-------------------------------------------------------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
The importance of the missing hotspot
Over 20 years ago, the newish discipline of climate science told us each cause of global warming heats up the atmosphere in a distinctive pattern, referred to as its signature.
The IPCC tells us, the signature of carbon emissions and the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming both include a prominent hotspot at about 10 – 12 km in the air over the tropics. The observed warming pattern during the recent global warming contains no trace of any such hotspot.
So, The IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4), 2007, Chapter 9. Figure 9.1, in
Section 9.2.2.1, page 675, shows six greenhouse signature diagrams.
Diagram a) shows moderate warming through an increase in solar irradiation (sun getting warmer),
Diagram b) shows a large volcanic eruption that emits huge clouds of ash and fumes. There would be moderate warming above 14 km, and moderate cooling below that.
Diagram c) shows an increase in well-mixed greenhouse gases (such as due to carbon emissions). Warming would be concentrated in a distinct “hot spot” about 8 – 12 km up over the tropics, less warming further away, turning to cooling above 18 km,
Diagram d) shows ozone depletion (both tropospheric and stratospheric). Moderate warming below 12 km, moderate cooling above 12 km,
Diagram e) shows increased industrial pollution (specifically, of direct sulphate aerosols). Moderate cooling below 14 km mainly in the northern hemisphere, moderate warming above 14 km over the tropics, and
Diagram f) shows the theoretical signature expected by the IPCC, found by combining the five signatures above in the proportions the IPCC believe those causes contributed to global warming. The distinct hotpot 8 – 12 km up over the tropics due to increased greenhouse warming dominates the theoretical combined signature.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.
With me so far? Great :)
For over 20 years the climate scientists have told us f) would be positive proof of AGW. To-date, thousands of radiosondes have searched for this signature, but have been unable to find it.
This shows the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming is false and / or the computer models used to predict this signature is wrong.
Please read the link below, which gives a summary of why the missing hotspot is so important:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK at #80
You write "This shows the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming is false and / or the computer models used to predict this signature is wrong."
Actually, it does neither.
Complain about this comment
because belief in AGW means never having to show evidence?
Complain about this comment
@mangochutneyUKOK #80
my thoughts too
Complain about this comment
#81 simon-swede
my thoughts too
Complain about this comment
#80 mangochutneyuk
ho, ho i've wasted an hour or so to track this down and this appears to be an old chestnut from the eccentric viscount.
so what you want to do is ignore a huge body of science and focus on one piece of evidence as if that's going convince the denialosphere. ok.
the hotspots for agw and solar forcing look virtually identical (not surprising since they both reflect surface warming) and are based on a long term equilibrium and in the short term will be influenced by all manner of events.....are you still with me? so once again your quest for a janet and john level of evidence is going to be fruitless....at least on timescales that could be relevant to solving this problem.
as i've posted before this is complex science and your zeal for certainty based on simplicity strikes me as verging on the religious.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #85
i've wasted an hour or so to track this down and this appears to be an old chestnut from the eccentric viscount
actually it wasn't monckton i was thinking about, but it speaks volumes that you assume the eccentric viscount is wrong. Stop trying to attack the man and attack his science instead.
the hotspots for agw and solar forcing look virtually identical
really! you think that diagram a looks the same as diagram c and f? there is no way on earth that those diagrams can even begin to be described as "virtually identical". You are looking at the correct diagrams aren't you? Perhaps, i'm reading the wrong IPCC report.
your quest for a janet and john level of evidence is going to be fruitless
hey, don't blame me. it the climate scientists that told us in 1988 that CO2 induced global warming would have a definite signature!
as i've posted before this is complex science and your zeal for certainty based on simplicity strikes me as verging on the religious
as far as i am concerned, requiring real evidence before we start any kind of geo-engineering or social-engineering exercises, is an absolute must. I find it shocking that people can just accept this nonsense without asking for evidence that doesn't involve "a flower germinated further north than usual, so it must be man made CO2 emissions"
btw, i deliberately put in an incorrect link, that tries to refute what i am saying, but clearly you guys have minds so closed that you didn't even bother to read the link.
Complain about this comment
#79 manysummits
i did read that piece and i do agree to some degree that agw has hijacked the wider environmental agenda. sometimes i find the whole issue of human impact on the planet almost overwhelming, but as monbiot has pointed out we all live in state of denial.
that said, even if agw has hijacked the political agenda there is still virtually nothing being done to resolve it. using agw as a political tool has a long and sordid history going all the way back to thatcher who tried to use it to help defeat the coal miners. i must say i was stunned when i saw the coverage of her speech but didn't realise the sub-context and of course it didn;t stop her creating the great british car economy that has (to mix metaphors) well and truly hit the buffers !!
personally i don;t think blair or brown have had any intention of actually doing anything about co2 levels, more interestd in new roads, runways, coal power stations etc.
although i don;t understand why the likes of cuckootoo are so sure agw is a scam i can understand their frustration when it is used to sideline very important issues such as biodiversity loss.
wrt a united africa, i can;t really see it happening but if it could help give the african people a powerful voice in the world i'd be all for it. individually every country african or not (apart from a few) are likely to be victims of global corporate manipulation and there really needs to be a political counterbalance that represents us as individuals and communities.
Complain about this comment
#86 mangochutneyuk
yep you're right i didn't follow your link (you rascal) and if you'd bothered to read some of my previous posts you'd have known i wouldn;t and why.
wrt to evidence before social-engineering i think you'll find the whole of human history is social-engineering, including the current 'end of history' that is pumping so much co2 into the atmosphere...could i please have your evidence of a non-agw signal....if not then stop pumping.
you keep whingeing 'but they promised me in 1988 there would be proof' but i keep saying it ain't that simple. if you can't accept or understand the complexities and nuances in the science that i've pointed out then that's your problem....the world is going to move on without you.
also i'll reiterate some of my other comments. it makes absolutey no difference at all whether you (mr chutney?) want 'janet and john' evidence or whether i produce something you're happy with. the scientific community isn't mortified about this manufactured debate and those reading this that have a more open mind might be interested why.
is it because it is a big issue and is being deliberately ignored by scientists greedy for massive research grants or a passion for 'social-engineering'?
is it because the scientific community is too stupid to understand what a certain eccentric member of the british aristocracy with somewhat strong political and religious views has postulated?
or could it be that the aforementioned eccentric wanted to manufacture a debate for his own purposes?
i know what i believe, i'll leave it up to any readers to hunt around and make a decision and i'd suggest you don;t bother to follow links on comment boards. but bear in mind we're all making appeals to authority here (this is not original research by prof chutney).
Complain about this comment
Science vs 'business as usual'
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
- "The Road not Taken," Robert Frost
------------------------------------
I have often wondered why some choose science, and some not; why some who have not, nevertheless believe in science, or is it in scientists, yet some do not.
I have realized how significant my own "road less traveled" has been to me. Our civilization appears to have been hijacked (popular metaphor these days) by the 'business as usual' group, whom Theodore Roosevelt called a 'plutocracy.' He was scathing in his criticism of this group - scathing. Abraham Lincoln was of a similar mind. The list is in fact long, of those who view and have viewed a plutocracy as perverse, in part inhuman, and in part pathological.
I will add myself to this list.
Perhaps this is why I react so strongly, and at times impusively, to the remarks of some of our denialists. Would it be politically incorrect to say that I can smell a plutocrat a mile away?
Here is the quote from Lincoln:
"But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."[15]
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/23.2/schwartz_e.html
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This back and forth, with one side talking science, and the other talking turkey, has me looking around Wikipedia. Here is something to chew on:
"Sir David King
In 2007, the UK government’s chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, laid out a ‘universal code of ethics' for researchers across the globe.[5] The UK government has already adopted them.
The seven principles of the code, intended to guide scientist's actions, are:
Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct.
Declare conflicts of interest.
Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.
Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_Scientists
Apparently, the University of Toronto, Canada, is the first to actually have their graduating science students declare such an oath upon graduation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_Scientists#Uptake_within_the_Scientific_Community
The wanton declarations of some of the denialists on this board are either laughable or pathetic, depending upon one's mood at the time.
I sense in the 'alarmists' responses a strained politeness, when the situation may well call for something else. Call this the 'pent up fury of the responsible', to paraphrase a former UK national leader.
Naturally, we are all too grown-up for that? Yet 'wunarik' was telling me just today of some forty deaths in his village in Africa from a tribal conflict.
Are we deluding ourselves being polite, I wonder? So easy to say that we are 'civilized.' Civilized, and watching the planet burn. Maybe civilized is not the epitome of progress?
Since Africa is the topic in this blog, I thought to include it in various ways. Here is another.
Libya will apparently mark the fortieth anniversary of Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi's seizing of power:
"On 1 September 1969, a small group of military officers led by Gaddafi staged a bloodless coup d'état against King Idris I, while he was in Kamena Vourla, a Greek resort, for medical treatment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Khaddafi
----------------------------------------------
Apparently there is objection to his setting up his tent in New Jersey...
Why?
'Business as usual' perhaps? Self-righteousness perhaps? How soon we forget our own pasts.
"Gaddafi has earned the praise of Nelson Mandela and others, and is always a prominent figure in various pan-African organizations, such as the Organisation of African Unity (now replaced by the African Union). In February 2009, upon being elected chairman of the African Union in Ethiopia, Gaddafi told the assembled African leaders: "I shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa."
- Wikipedia, same link as above
--------------------------------
I'm tired of business as usual, including on this blog. There has to be something we can do in addition to just refuting absurd claims.
Let's move on. Suggestions?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
The job of a skeptic is to find errors or mistakes in a hypothesis. You don't need to provide a better hypothesis or a different explanation of the world.
It's like being the defending side in a court - you don't need to find another suspect or a different explanation of the crime.
Sometimes this is easy. Like Al Gore's claim that a Pacific Island has been evacuated to New Zealand because of global warming. Quite easy to refute this one because no such evacuation has ever taken place.
Sometimes it's harder - like projections of the temperature in 90 years time. Especially when there are so many versions of these projections.
Or we look at the IPCC report which must count as the definitive creed for the alarmists. Or maybe not ? I guess a paid-up alarmist would have to agree with most of it rather than just pick'n'mix agreeing with some parts and disowning other bits.
Let's start with the idea that the IPCC authors are 90% certain of their conclusions. This could count as an example of knowingly misleading others about scientific matters.
In science we can apply statistical tests to data that will give a percentage confidence to the results. This kind of test has never been applied to the IPCC conclusions. They later on admit that '90% certain' just means they are 'very certain'. They are using the language of science to describe their feelings and emotions.
Then if you read the IPCC report you get all kinds of rubbish like this bit:
alterations in disturbance regimes of forests due to fires and pests
What on earth does this sentence mean ? More fires ? Fewer fires ? Bigger fires ? More pests ? Bigger pests ? It's so vague that we could meet up in 10 years time and not be sure if this prediction had come true. Or not.
Reading on...
Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C
Welcome to VagueVille. They could equally just write: "Bad stuff may happen".
Complain about this comment
To all you scientist that believe your stuff is too complicated for the Joe’s. Take some guidance from your mentors:
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.
(Albert Einstein)
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
(Leonardo da Vinci)
Science is not consensus, that’s anathema. Because you’re not doing science then the deniers will and are doing it for you. You should expect no less. That’s the balance that our human instincts naturally engender.
Then you say:
“This back and forth, with one side talking science and the other talking turkey”.
If you’re wanting the stronger language to start I say your arrogance is insulting.
Too late for more.
Night, night.
Complain about this comment
Jack_Hughes_NZ at #91
If the job of the sceptic is to find error or mistakes (not quite sure why is it "errors or mistakes"), then surely a good sceptic would apply him or herself equally to the arguments underlying that scepticism. Otherwise you would be simply risking propogating more errors (or mistakes).
Mango_Chutney_UKOK at #
Did actually read quite a bit of the link you gave at #80, before giving my response, I was puzzled why you had proposed that particular link. Now I understand it was a deliberate mistake (your note at #86). Thanks for wasting my time. The point I made at #81, still stands.
Complain about this comment
Tmjenvey at #92
Lack of understanding should not be the basis for rejecting the science.
Being aware of the limits to scientific understanding is a central part of making informed decisions. But so too is being aware of what knowledge science can impart.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #93
so why didn't you point it out to me in your response #81?
and the point i made in #82 stands too.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #88
yep you're right i didn't follow your link
not just you, ross, simon didn't bother either, although now he tells us he did, but didn't point it out in his response.
could i please have your evidence of a non-agw signal
yes, of course, but you're not going to like it:
IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4), 2007, Chapter 9. Figure 9.1, in
Section 9.2.2.1, page 675, shows six greenhouse signature diagrams.
Diagram f) shows the theoretical signature expected by the IPCC, found by combining the five signatures a) to e) in the proportions the IPCC believe those causes contributed to global warming. The distinct hotpot 8 – 12 km up over the tropics due to increased greenhouse warming dominates the theoretical combined signature.
anything other signature means it isn't greenhouse warming caused by mans emissions.
go to the following link:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/
open the pdf called "final report"
page 39 shows the same diagrams as the IPCC report, but if you go to page 116 you will see 5 diagrams similar to the IPCC report. The 5th diagram shows the real data recorded by radiosondes (only up to 1999, which, when the report was produced, was the most up to date) and clearly shows no warming caused by man made emissions. There is no hotspot.
you keep whingeing 'but they promised me in 1988 there would be proof' but i keep saying it ain't that simple.
one mans whinge is another mans quest for the truth
and it is that simple, ross. If it isn't that simple, why does Santer strive continuously to "prove" the existence of the hotspot (most recent was 2008, but Santer has attempted on several occasions to show empirical evidence of the existence of the hotspot)?
if you can't accept or understand the complexities and nuances in the science
i may be simple minded, ross, but i know if i was bald and a doctor told me to rub snake oil into my scalp to cure my baldness, 20 years later, if there was no sign of hair growth, i would say the doctor has no idea what he was talking about.
the scientific community isn't mortified about this manufactured debate and those reading this that have a more open mind might be interested why.
i disagree, the pro-agw scientists have tried to prove the existence of the hotspot for over 20 years and failed. The IPCC's continued use of the hotspot as irrefutable evidence of mans culpability, clearly shows this is not a manufactured debate. I would hope readers of this blog, would be open minded enough to investigate this further and satisfy themselves to the validity of my questions.
is it because the scientific community is too stupid to understand what a certain eccentric member of the british aristocracy with somewhat strong political and religious views has postulated?
or could it be that the aforementioned eccentric wanted to manufacture a debate for his own purposes?
by all means, attack the science, but please stop attacking the man. Is his science right or wrong?
bear in mind we're all making appeals to authority here (this is not original research by prof chutney)
isn't an appeal to authority more along the lines of "the authority said so, so therefore it must be right", rather than "I've read the available papers and i can see no reason to accept AGW is real"?
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #90
Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
Is this meant to mean, my scientists are honest and truthful, but yours aren't, because if it is, here is a reminder of what your scientists think of the debate:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
the quote is also on his web page, but it's a pdf
Complain about this comment
can i ask a question?
why is it, people who believe AGW is real and do understand the science, assume those of us who are sceptical don't understand the science and people who believe AGW is real and don't understand the science, assume those of us who are sceptical are simply lying?
Complain about this comment
oops #97 got caught by the mods because of a reference to a filetype we can't use, try this:
@manysummits #90
Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
Is this meant to mean, my scientists are honest and truthful, but yours aren't, because if it is, here is a reminder of what your scientists think of the debate:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.
And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
the quote is also on his web page
Complain about this comment
the cost of protecting the population from climate change $150-500b per annum:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8224823.stm
number of deaths per annum directly attributable to AGW - zero
the cost of saving the lives of 1 billion people without access to clean water:
$25 per person ($25b covers their whole life, not just per annum)
http://water.org/billion/
number of people per annum dying from lack of clean water - 3.5 million
(please, lets not argue what constitutes death by AGW - pick any figure you like, it doesn't matter)
Complain about this comment
hey mangochutneyuk, i can't see this going anywhere.
let's just say you understand it all and are happy to carry on pumping trillions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere until such time as you have cast iron evidence that it's causing a problem.
i, on the other hand, would rather not (despite some considerable upheaval to our current knackered old culture).
maybe we can agree on that (not gonna hold my breath though).
Complain about this comment
To 'ghostofsichuan' - The Winds of Change ?
'Major win' for Japan opposition'
"The DPJ says it will shift the focus of government from supporting corporations to helping consumers and workers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8229368.stm
---------------------------------------------------
"Man is by nature a political animal."
"Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all."
"Money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle#Politics
-----------------------------------------------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
i have never said it's a bad idea to cut emissions of pollutants and CO2, but if we are going to do this, it must be for the right reasons and only once we have viable options in place, otherwise we are literally urinating into the wind
(not sure why my other posts were referred, i don't think they contained anything offensive etc and only contained a response to many summits - i guess i will find out in due course)
Complain about this comment
To 'simon-swede':
At the risk of being too personal, would you share a thought or two regarding the following?:
--------------------------------
I have often argued that civilized mans' divorce from nature is the primary cause of our current state of the planet predicament.
Yet many of us, myself included, have allowed ourselves to become divorced from politics, except as more or less interested observers.
We may have viewed politics as too obscene to take active part in, perhaps as a result of the assassination binge of the sixties, the unspeakable tragedy of which profoundly affected many of us.
We withdrew, deceiving ourselves with the notion that nature, or science, or the environment were somehow purer.
Yet some of the men I have admired the most were politicians, despite their significant human flaws. Who amongst us is free of these very human tendencies?
But politicians, a few of them very good men and women, enter the fray, despite the glare of public scrutiny, and knowledge of their own shortcomings.
Perhaps too many of us have been hiding out. Perhaps we have been irresponsible in doing this?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I always read the Sunday commentary of Eric Margolis, a small 'c' conservative businessman and journalist, with a special interest in the Middle East.
I thought I would continue with the thread of the disussion, with a quote or two concerning money and big business:
"America has reveled for two decades in an orgy of debt... America’s enormous global power is based as much on its financial might as military muscle. Wall Street has been the vehicle and policeman of America’s hegemony...
Americans will have to relearn the hard truth that you can’t borrow your way to prosperity.."
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/us-orgy-of-debt.aspx
----------------------------
His commentary today is on Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and the forty year history of relations with the West, including the Lockerbie bombing. I will comment on this 'African' theme tomorrow, when his website will have available the full text of his article.
- Manysummits -
PS - To 'rossglory':
I wonder if all this talk, debate etc... on AGW is not really about distracting us from politics and the means of real change, which may or may not mean politics as usual? 'Ghostofsichuan' has advocated thinking small in a previous blog. I am thinking of 'Desertec', the CSP project in the Sahara desert - of the big money involvement. Necessary, but perhaps this should be considered more as inevitable.
I like those new bendable photovoltaic panels - available to all, installable everywhere.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
The recent election in Afghanistan
We are thinking in terms of internationalism on this blog;
Richard Black's "Africa re(de)fines the climate dialogue."
Afghanistan in not a part of Africa, but the assertion by Eric Margolis that:
"An election held under the guns of a foreign occupation army cannot be called legitimate or democratic. That’s a basic tenet of international law."
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/how-to-bring-peace-to-afghanistan.aspx
...is surely relevant to this discussion on Africa, as the same players are involved.
We may or may not agree with the leadership of Libya, but here is a country which is standing on its own two feet, a precarious situation in the early twenty-first century.
And I like his tent!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
We may or may not agree with the leadership of Libya, but here is a country which is standing on its own two feet, a precarious situation in the early twenty-first century.
And I like his tent!
wow, manysummits, this must rate as the most insensitive comment in the history of blogs!
Complain about this comment
To #107:
Do I detect a neo-colonial attiude here - or is it just my imagination?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#103 mangochutney - don't get the impression either that i like the idea of rapid decarbonisation....not that it's about to happen anytime soon. it amuses me that you guys argue like victims but have been spectacularly successful at preventing real action.
#105 manysummits - i agree the big picture is not going to change much. i had hopes that obama would be pushing through change but he's gone quite recently....guess he has a lot on his plate :o(
also i have a feeling that the recession is going to push a number of countries towards nationalism and protectionism. i was just reading that iceland is more than likely to re-elect the mob that got them into the mess they're in because they're just started to feel some real pain (deferred in a similar way to the uk). these types of govt are hardly likely to push through drastic environmental policies.
personally i'm just trying to be a small part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. but it's not easy in a western culture without totally dropping out.....and the uk is a bit short of remote summits to retreat to!!!
Complain about this comment
it's your imagination
i'm thinking about the poor people, mostly american, who lost there lives in the lockerbie bombing. On 16 August 2003 Libya formally admitted responsibility for Pan Am Flight 103 in a letter presented to the president of the United Nations Security Council.
The bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was released last week and was given a heroes welcome at Tripoli airport by the Libyan people.
now do you see why i think your comments are insensitive?
Complain about this comment
So I guess you believers have thrown in the towel on this one. Having failed to win the argument you’ve done with the name calling and gone off into a huff.
If you want some ideas on saving the world I think Cuckatoo has a very practical, cheap and workable solution (#100. Clean water and sanitation). And here's an organization that will manage it on non-profit direct-aid basis trying to make sure that your efforts don't get compromised by bureaucrats and crooks.
www.technoserve.org
If you have skills they will put them to excellent practical help where it's needed. Sign up today.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #110: "...given a heroes welcome at Tripoli airport by the Libyan people"
Careful!
"the Libyan people"? Were they all there?
You mean "some of the Libyan people"
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#111 timjenvey - ho, ho you're wascals the lot of you. no, i haven't conceded a thing. the hotspot argument is nonsense on stilts as so many here have tried to explain and i'm not going to be foolish enough to try again. as i've said before the arguments here are nothing like the real scientific debate in the climate community....wonder why that is?
nope the fact that some of you guys 'appear' to be too dense to get it is why we've thrown in the towel. it's like you've been punched to a standstill but are unable to go down.....bit like those kiddies toys weebles.
so add some more posts here if you like crowing about a victory. but i'm happy to move on to richard's next piece and hope we can keep the comments to the topic.......i live in hope not expectation.
for anyone open minded who really is interested in science rather than this psedo-scientific slanging match I apologise. there is lots of good science on the net just have to be careful who you believe!!
cheers,
Complain about this comment
fair enough, davblo2, but in future if you ever say "climate scientists think" or anything similar, please remember to add "some" in every reference, because there sure isn't any kind of consensus on climate issues
for your information, Libya ranks joint 143rd out of 150 of democratic countries, well below China and just above Zimbabwe, so i'm guessing the warm welcome wasn't spontaneous.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #76: "Temperature measurements..." etc.
Leapfrogging intervening posts; I finally got back to respond.
You mention "yardsticks" and lack of them....
"If it meets the yardstick then whatever you engineer to measure it must be set against that yardstick and if it passes the test we can all observe it and agree"
There are no simple magical yardsticks. What you refer to are merely scientific instruments designed and built to higher standards to achieve higher precision and accuracy than the simpler devices used in the grocers shop.
How do you think the standard "yardstick" is ever calibrated? It isn't, it defines the standard; and to define the standard you have to understand all the intricacies and influences involved in the operation of the instrument. For example, a temperature standard could use the triple point of water as a fixed point and derive a degree scale from a constant volume gas thermometer. Much skilled work would go into achieving the required equipment and measurements.
So when you talk of proxy measurements and say...
"So there is no yardstick we can apply here to tie temperature or age to trees without a lot of assumptions..."
These problems and assumptions "parallel" the ones confronting someone trying to set up the temperature "yardstick"; ie a thorough knowledge and understanding of influences involved.
The work in those areas is effectively laying out new yardsticks which further work can then use. As long as the results produced are suitably qualified with precision and accuracy detail then you should have no reason to doubt them any more than you doubt the "weights and measures" standards.
Did you ever worry about the principle of the constant volume gas thermometer and the assumptions involved in its use when setting the temperature "yardstick". If those assumptions are one day found lacking then the implications for temperature measurement would be serious.
Do you trust the definition of the metre?
"The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299 792 458 of a second."
How would you set about verifying that yourself?
Do you know the assumptions and restrictions involved in that standard?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
as i've said before the arguments here are nothing like the real scientific debate in the climate community
clearly you don't read enough about this subject or you would know this is a big topic. Maybe not at realclimate. They constantly try to prove the existence of the hotspot, fail miserably when an "amateur" points out where they went wrong, and then say it doesn't really matter anyway, which begs the question, why try to prove the existence of something for over 20 years, if it doesn't matter?
so add some more posts here if you like crowing about a victory
you won't get me crowing about anything, until AGW has been exposed for the nonsense it is
i'm happy to move on to richard's next piece and hope we can keep the comments to the topic.......i live in hope not expectation
as long as Richards blogs refer to climate change, it's fair game in my opinion, because every reference to AGW that goes unchallenged reinforces an economy with the truth
for anyone open minded who really is interested in science rather than this psedo-scientific slanging match
that's interesting
i ask a perfectly legitimate question that involves "science" and you say it's a "pseudo-scientific slanging match".
basically your saying that no evidence whatsoever will convince you, that AGW is false. Does that go for everybody here or are some a little more open minded?
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #114: "...so i'm guessing..."
"Guessing" being the operative, and dangerous, word.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
actually one good thing came out of this. i understand the concept of adiabatic lapse rates pretty well (being a glider pilot it can help spot a good day) but i also got looking at real hotspots (i.e. geological ones like the hawaian islands) and was reminded they're also impacted by adiabatic lapse rates which was a problem i was looking at a while ago. synchronicity!!
Complain about this comment
guessing doesn't seem to bother the pro-AGW climate scientists, oops, sorry, some pro-AGW climate sscientists, hence the poor performance of the computer climate models
Complain about this comment
lol@rossglory
good to see you've learnt something and kept your sense of humour
Complain about this comment
manysummits #79: "Have you read this one? 'Hijacked by climate change?'".
Following up on this report of Richard's I found the actual radio programme is available: "The Great Climate Change Hijack". (Hear the voices behind the words...)
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
To mango #110:
I'll have more for you tomorrow, as I said, on Lockerbie...
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #115. Thanks for response. It got me thinking.
In the glory days of the British Empire everything was measured in Imperial cricket pitches. How civilized can you get??
- 1 cricket pitch = 1 Chain
- 10 cricket pitches = 1 Furlong
- 80 cricket pitches = 1 mile.
Now everybody was content and happy because they understood cricket.
Then the French came along and boringly came up with the meter.
- 1 meter = 1 ten-millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole on a line through Paris.
I mean, only the French could have thought of that
But it amazingly caught on and the Brits conceded a few years ago. Now it’s just us Yanks holding out but we do differentiate between Imperial and US.
So taking your example when you say:
"The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299 792 458 of a second."
That’s because the French decided that a meter was “1 ten-millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole on a line through Paris”.
If you use the cricket pitch as your standard light would take 20.12 (two places of decimal) times that amount. You would have:
- Area = squared cricket pitches
- Volume = cubic cricket pitches
- Weight = 1 cubic cricket pitch of water (names will be considered)
As the cricket pitch will survive the end of the universe I vote that it should be our universal standard.
You ask me:
“Did you ever worry about the principle of the constant volume gas thermometer and the assumptions involved in its use when setting the temperature "yardstick".”
If the yardstick is defined as the average temperature on an English summer afternoon of cricket I have no worries and will sleep well.
I hope you see where my little bit of fun is taking me.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
#123 missed this.
Meant to add that the temperature device to measure English afternoon cricket matches needs to be calibrated to the freezing and boiling points of water for standard atmospheric pressure.
Night, night......
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #111
You wrote “I guess you believers have thrown in the towel on this one”. Nope, you guessed wrong. I just didn’t see the point of adding any more. But once again temptation got the better of me. Not that I ever expect to get the last word on this (or any other) topic! ;-)
When someone claims that they are able to "show” something, I expect them to be able to make a good case. For those that say they are AGW sceptics, I expect them to do the same.
But when I read Mango_Chutney’s‘hotspot’ posting at #80, I concluded that he hadn’t given a sufficient basis to claim that the fact that one hasn’t been found “shows the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming is false and / or the computer models used to predict this signature is wrong.”
Here’s why I concluded that he had established neither.
- As far as I can follow Mango_Chutney's argument, the claim that this “shows” that CO2 is not causing global warming is based on the following chain: if the hotspot was found, [Mango_Chutney believes] this would be incontrovertible proof that AGW is occurring; ergo, if one has not been found, this is incontrovertible evidence that it is not. This is flawed logic. One is not necessarily the corollary of the other. Since the posting did not establish this, it follows that it hasn’t been “shown” that the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming is false. All Mango_Chutney’s post did was assert his view that this is so.
- I don’t agree with his argument about the models either, but for a different reason. It is because I think it is setting up a straw target, only to knock it down. All models are “wrong” in the sense that they are simplifications of reality - a “model” that was "perfect" would be reality itself. A better question to ask might be: “does the fact that a hotspot hasn’t been found mean that these models are useless?” The posting certainly does not establish this, and as far as I can see the models, even though imperfect, serve a useful purpose in helping us better understand what is happening with the climate.
All that has been “shown” is that there is some debate on how significant is the fact that a hotspot hasn’t been found. And as far as I can see, this debate is pretty marginal.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #104
My take is that these are matters for personal reflection and choices.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just for a laugh…
Do a search for “The international kilogram crisis” (Jia-Rui Chong, LA Times, 17 April 2008) for a piece about the standard kilogram, used as the basis for numerous reference points, from gravity to the ampere to Planck's constant and so on. As the article points out, no one really knows today what a kilogram is.
The kilogram is the last of seven base units in the International System of Units that is still based on a physical object. The article describes how scientists are searching for some property of nature or scientific constant, in the same way as the vibrations of a cesium atom now used to define a second.
It's not only the cricket fans (see Timjenvey's note at #123) that are unhappy with the French standards of more than a century ago. "The real problem is, people in other areas of science don't want to measure, say, fundamental constants with respect to this artifact made in the 19th century," said Richard Davis, head of the mass section at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France. Besides, Jabbour added: "You could drop it."
Complain about this comment
Davblo at #115
Even the definition of a metre you gave also may be subject to further change...!
Apparently, the current definition (which dates from 1983) may need to be revised if even more accuracy becomes necessary. For example, the speed of light in a vacuum is affected by the strength of the gravitational field, and the definition does not take such factors into account.
See: http://www.sizes.com/units/meter.htm
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #128: "The international kilogram crisis"
Thanks a lot for that reference; a laugh maybe, but a perfect example of one of the points I was trying to get over to timjenvey in my #115 (before he digressed into cricket).
On the third page of the article...
"At the heart of the chamber hummed Steiner's hulking machinery he hopes will lead to the next kilogram -- a two-story device with a pair of superconducting magnets the size of fire hydrants."
"The problem with Steiner's watt balance is that it can be finicky. Distant earthquakes, motors from nearby office buildings and tides have shaken up the measurements, he said. There are about 20 potential sources of error, including the buoyancy of air, electrical current leaks and the changes in local gravity"
So you see timjenvey; the unravelling of interacting effects, which causes your misgivings in such areas as tree rings and carbon dating, are just the kind of things which scientists are continuously dealing with, as in this example, just behind the scenes, with the standards and measurements you trust and take for granted.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #129: "...definition of a metre..."
(I missed your #129 when I posted #130)
Yes indeed.
That led me to seek out a list of the current definitions.
I found a good one here "Definitions of the SI base units"
(Not a cricket pitch in sight)
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 at #131
Nice link - thanks for the tip!
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #121:
Yes, I read the "Hijacked by Climate Change" article the day it came out.
And I listened to the start of the audio link - good to hear the voice behind the blog!
--------------
Throw in the Towel??
No - and climate sensitivity long term is probably six degrees. (Hansen)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
A simple internet search came up with the link above.
And simple searches would answer satisfactorily most of the questions posted by the denial lobby.
I'll re-post the link above as many times as necessary.
Now how about an intelligent and thoughtful discussion?
On north African Libya, for example, which will be celebrating forty years of independence September 1.
The Eric Margolis article is not yet available on the internet, as soon as it is, I will provide some second hand perspecive on Lockerbie ...
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
There is a review of a new book about risk assessment published in the current issue of Science. The book looks good, but even the review itself is worth a read as it touches on issues raised regularly in this blog. For the review, see “Risk Analysis: Five "Easy" Questions”, Garry D. Brewer, in SCIENCE, 28 August 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5944, pp. 1075 – 1076.
The book is a National Research Council (NRC) publication which focuses on the theories, methods, and practices of risk assessment in public health at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
"Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment"
by the National Research Council, Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #90
please view my post #97, which was referred to the mods, but now released
---------------
@cuckootoo #100
exactly
---------------
@simon-swede #125
it's very difficult to write down everything in a blog like this, because most people simply won't read it, so you stick to salient points and hope people will follow.
Try this link:
http://sciencespeak.com/
The missing hotspot (major update 22 Mar 2009, minor update 1 July 2009) converted us from being merely skeptical to being pretty certain that carbon emissions were not the cause of the recent global warming (1975 to 2001). The missing hotspot proves that (1) the IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong, and (2) to the extent that the IPCC climate theory is correct in predicting a hotspot due to extra non-water-vapor greenhouse gases, we know that carbon emissions did not cause the recent global warming. So if the world already knows this, why is carbon emission reduction going ahead anyway? Who benefits? The biggest vested interest, far bigger than the bureaucrats, scientists, and greens dealing with the "problem" of carbon emissions, is carbon trading. Carbon emissions will soon be the world's biggest commodity market, exceeding oil, wheat, etc. Furthermore, carbon emission permits are similar to modern bank money and fiat base money: all are created out of thin air by some fortunate folks, get traded profitably by big financial institutions, then sold to the rest of us. The accompanying Powerpoint presentation discusses the same issues more simply.
follow the links, please
---------------
@manysummits #133
No - and climate sensitivity long term is probably six degrees. (Hansen)
1 - where does it say on your link that Hansen thinks sensitivity is 6C or are you talking 6F?
2 - the link you give shows sensitivity varying between 1.5-6.5C. Hansen in 1979 actually gives sensitivity as 1.5-4.5C.
3 - this site is clearly biased, because there is no reference whatsoever to work by Christy, Spencer, Shaviv etc, all of whom show sensitivity to be much lower. I did actually give a link to shaviv's work previously, but perhaps this was another case of not following the links. Here it is again:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
Please read the entire article including the part "What is the evidence for an anthropogenic effect?"
4 - the link you give has a long list of "evidence" that CO2 is the main driver for global warming, but, as i have repeatedly said, just because an event happens, this does not prove the event was caused by CO2 induced warming. Warming, yes, but not, I repeat, not CO2 driven warming.
5 - if you read the comments below your link, you will see arguments why the article is simply wrong
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #135: "I did actually give a link to shaviv's work previously, but perhaps this was another case of not following the links. ... Please read the entire article including the part "What is the evidence for an anthropogenic effect?""
We already discussed this "report" in an earlier blog.
I told you the article wasn't convincing. I also posted a link to a New Scientist article which gave it the thumbs down.
So it won't help bringing it up again.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Manysummits:
Gald you found the article interesting. I think the main idea I gained was that certain conditions related to co2 can cause extreme weather events. Remarkable planet that it can adjust to the fluctuations. Seems to indicate that systems collapse can occur as conditions or heat, evaporation, etc all reseach a point in an area. This makes climate change less predictable as the concentrations tend to be based on a number of factors. Of course the nay-sayers want a direct link to CO2 as the sole contributor when it is a contributor. I would think that the plant life at earlier points in time was much more abundant and would have had some mitigating impact on high levels of CO2 during historic periods.
Japan will be interesting to watch. It has been changing for some time but only now has the political process matured to allow other parties to win. Corruption has been a big part of Japanese politics so my main concern will be the ability of the DPJ to stay clean or at least cleaner. Bureaucrats run the show in Japan and that will be the other challenge. Young voters and female candidates seemed to be leading the calls for change. Still a very conservative country and has a set of problems. They have about 5.4% unemployment and find that unacceptable so you can see the expectations for government are high. It is my issue with the global economy, it seems to destroy cultures and force national economies to adhere to process that may not be in the interest of that national economy but can create great profit for a few. Criminal bankers and corrupt politicans are leading the charge. It will all crash again as nothing has been put in place so that it does not. Personally, I was surprised that there were not riots in the streets after it was announced that the banks were reducing individual retirement accounts by 30% or more because of their own corrupt decisions. I think public hangings at worldwide financial centers would have been justified rather than having the thieves being made whole with tax dollars from the very people they robbed. Couldn't rely on governments to do anything because the banks own the governments. Global economy: no one will be held accountable. Seems to be the model adopted for climate change as well.
Complain about this comment
manysummits #133: "The Eric Margolis article is not yet available on the internet, as soon as it is, I will provide some second hand perspecive on Lockerbie ..."
I don't want to pre-empt your "perspective", but in the interest of being prepared I kept an "eye out" for the article MUAMMAR QADDAFI: MAD LIKE A FOX which is now available on Margolis web site. I'm only half way through, but it seems well worth a read.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede thanks for the link to the kilogram crisis.
I'll take the final sentance as my profound thought for the week.
"There's always a whole lot more digits out there."
Do you think tought of cricket pitches?
Complain about this comment
Whoops. It just posted on me. Can't remember exactly where I got to.
Anyways got to go so will check later
Thanks again for starting my week with that thought.
Tim
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #134: "There is a review of a new book about risk assessment published in the current issue of Science..."
I tried, but couldn't get near it without a subscription... :-(
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
#138 cont'd
With "keywords" from Margolis' article similar write-ups are just a "Google" away...
Muammar al-Gaddafi
(Has references to External links listed at the end)
Timeline Libya
(Brief timeline notes)
The Middle East Calls the Shots
(Includes notes and references)
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
#123 timjenvey
i believe the chain and furlong preceded cricket pitches. i think the chain was defined by the turning circle of a yoked oxen and a furlong a convenient point to turn around and come back (furlong=furrow). 1 acre = 10 x 1 chains which was deemed a reasonable field that could be ploughed in a day (not sure if that included his ploghman's lunch).
Complain about this comment
#100 - cuckootoo
i entirely agree that we need to get the developing world out of poverty as fast as possible.....whilst reducing co2 emissions of course :o)
in fact those are the main points of nicholas stern's book, reduce co2 emissions without locking the 'majority' world into permanent poverty. tough but not impossible.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #... "cricket"
Just in case you miss it now it's drifted so far back; my #130 contains a response to you about the "not-cricket" aspects of scientific measurements and standards.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Talking about the 3rd world and especially Africa is a strange way to frame the debate.
The underlying assumption is that there are 2 groups of countries and peoples:
1) The grown-ups: responsible countries capable of taking decisions and taking the consequences of those decisions. Able to look after themselves.
2) The children: incapable of looking after themselves.
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK #135, re released post #97:
I have reviewed it. They are talking and thinking points. I'm not even sure I advocate them. The Hippocratic Oath has not prevented legions of doctors from becoming little more than pill-pushers for the pharmaceutical industry - and my own experience and research indicates this is probably not in the interests of the patients.
#135: (Climate sensitivity six deg Celcius)
It is not in the link I posted. They are using a more conservative climate sensitivity, or a short-term climate sensitivity.
See:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Under 'Scholarly Publications - "Target Atmospheric CO2...) - it's free, but a pdf.
Remark: Any one seriously following climate change science would know precisely where to find the six degree climate sensitivity. You did not. That tells me you are not connected to climate science except as a denialist with your own agenda. That's a little blunt - I'll repent if you can tell me why in the world you, blogging in front of a world-wide audience, and trashing the IPCC etc, did not know about who and where the six degree climate sensitivity came from, being that Dr. Hansen is widely regarded as one of the foremost climate scientists on Earth.
As for your Dr.Schneider and his remarks on scientists looking for a way to connect with the public, it's rubish. I have personally read closely and carefully many of the articles he is undoubtedly referring to, and while the headlines etc may be attention grabbing, the science is sterling, not overstated one bit, and if you think otherwise, post an example verbatim and in context. Have you ever read Dr. Alley's book "The Two Mile Time Machine?" Do you know who he is. Have you read any of his popular articles, any of his scolarly publications?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockerbie, Libya, Iran and Europe
"...my sense is that Megrahi was probably innocent and indeed framed, as he claimed. Scotland was right to release him."
- Eric Margolis, Aug 31/2009.
http://ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/muammar-qaddafi-mad-like-a-fox.aspx
----------
"However, Mr MacAskill's decision received backing from Nelson Mandela, former First Minister Henry McLeish and the former lord advocate of Scotland, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, who launched the case against Megrahi."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8230332.stm
-------------------------------------------------------
"An eye for an eye..." is a form of justice, some would say. If you read Eric Margolis's column, you may find yourself seeing Lockerbie in a different light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye
It is a shame, and a pity, that the people aboard Pan-Am 103 died, as it is a shame that Mr. Khaddafi's two year old daughter and some eighty others died when a bomb was dropped on his quarters. Are you not a little concerned that these actions all smack of 'crimes against humanity', but that they are not restricted to the desert bedouin?
There is much more food for thought in Mr. Margolis's column, and I am ready to discuss this further.
Africa is the theme of this blog, and the heliacal rising of Sirius is being celebrated in Egypt, as the Nile often floods at this time from rains in Ethiopia's highland, the source of the Blue Nile, and the giver of life to those downriver.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan #137:
I was just reading an article in "Knowledge," a BBC publication apparently, which I had never seen before - October issue, 2009.
One of the articles was discussing the "Carrington Event," an enormous solar flare on September 1, 1859 (150 years ago). Apparently this was to date the largest solar flare since then, and a repeat would be catastrophic. There is a climate connection too, still very problematic. Thought you might be interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_event
Japan
Thanks for your insights!
There is so much to follow and keep track of, I find myself looking for patterns rather than detail. The pattern I see emerging now is change - significant change - despite Copenhagen, despite the financial fiasco, etc. If Africa ever got their act together, in the sense of western thinking, a new world power would emerge. I am ambivalent. I know personnaly now several African Sudanese, which is really a misnomer, for these men, and I use that term in its highest form, are really tribal - and so much a breath of fresh air, I can hardly overstate it.
I shudder to think that they can, and may, become just like us. But I think not. I think this diaspora of people and culture will have a net positive effect. It has on me! I have been invited to go to Africa, to these villages, and I hope that time and circumstance will see myself and my family do so.
I am a hopeless romantic I suppose, and remember the words of Sir Richard Francis Burton, on setting out from Zanzibar to seek the source of the White Nile:
"Of the gladest moments in human life, methinks is the departure upon a distant journey to unknown lands. Shaking off with one mighty effort the fetters of habit, the leaden weight of Routine, the cloak of many Cares and the Slavery of Home, man feels once more happy. The blood flows with the fast circulation of childhood....afresh dawns the morn of life...
Journal Entry (2 December 1856)"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton
Good day, ghostofsichuan,
- Manysummits -
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #138:
re: Eric Margolis on Lockerbie.
Yes, I thought so. Mr. Margolis is an interesting man. I believe he owns part of a vitamin supplement firm, and yet he travels the Middle East, in peril of his life, and writes this weekly column. I have come to respect his work tremendously, even though we are politically apart.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
It's whacko time at Britain's Royal Society:
Man-made volcanoes may cool Earth
THE Royal Society is backing research into simulated volcanic eruptions, spraying millions of tons of dust into the air, in an attempt to stave off climate change.
The society will this week call for a global programme of studies into geo-engineering — the manipulation of the Earth’s climate to counteract global warming — as the world struggles to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
It will suggest in a report that pouring sulphur-based particles into the upper atmosphere could be one of the few options available to humanity to keep the world cool.
Maybe we could all start wearing tinfoil hats as well ;-)
Hat-tip (not a tinfoil hat) to WattsUpWithThat
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #145. I did see your post at #130 this morning but just have had no time today.
I have dealt with Weights, Measures, Standards, Calibration comformance etc. in my professional career when doing due diligence and portfolio assessments in HiTech companies and am familiar with R&D. The difference between what I have worked with and what you are telling me with tree's and radiometric data is light years apart (give or take the odd nano second of course). If that's your assessment of how science operates then we are doomed and Joe public has every reason to be worried. Very worried.
Now ask yourself the question: why have we all these skeptics? I'll proffer that you scientists are not doing your jobs as real science. If you said that 1700 of the worlds prominent scientist working for an independent body are diligently researching to find holes in our current belief in the theory of AGW I think you would get buy in. As you are clearly not doing science folks have and will carry on surfacing and will do it for you (aka. CA and WUWT etc.etc.etc.). Your very arrogant pronouncement that “the science is settled” is against all precepts of what science is and what job you need to do and be seen as diligently doing.
Having defined and agreed standards that can be used and verified is an integral part of a free and open society. You telling me that it’s too complicated to understand, I will say: ‘up yours and go back to your test tubes and bunsen burners and come back when you can’. And don’t bother me with your half cocked/baked theories in the mean time. If AGW were a business you would have been sapped years ago.
Sheesh. Sorry about the rant. Don’t take it personally.
And on Africa, Manysummits you say:
“I shudder to think that they can, and may, become just like us”.
You mean having clean water, sanitation and the opportunity to write on blogs???? Where are you resident Manysummits?
And take a caution from my daughters experience working in Kenyan schools: the last people on earth they want to see are do gooding tourists and celebrities. Be very careful of your motives Manysummits.
And sheesh again. Sorry for the rant and sorry it’s not very scientific. I hope I have held up bit of a dusty mirror to how you are presenting yourselves.
Jack_Hughes_NZ #150 Man made volcanoes!!!!!!! Says it all.
Reminds me of the same folks back in the 1970’swanting to scatter soot over the polar ice to stop us descending into catastrophic cooling…
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey #151
I see the IPCC as an 'independent' intergovernmental body, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meterological Organisation (WMO) - and it is open to all member countries of the UN and WMO. You don't, but it seems to be because of teh views it expresses, rather than ow it is made up. I guess that - for now at least - we will simly have to agree to disagree about that.
I think your message gives a misleading impression where it seems to imply that the contributors to the IPCC are somehow beholden to it as their employer. I say this, because you write "If you said that 1700 of the worlds prominent scientist working for an independent body are diligently researching to find holes in our current belief in the theory of AGW I think you would get buy in."
I hope you do realise that the vast majority of the scientists who contribute to the work of the IPCC are NOT employed by the IPCC, but by a wide range of institutions, both public and private, around the globe?
Surely this enhances independance, rather than reduces it? Remembering, also, that there is a rather cut-throat (in a professional sense) competition within and between these institutions for funding too!
Lastly, perhaps here is something we can agree on:
“Any philosophy that in its quest for certainty ignores the reality of the uncertain in the ongoing processes of nature denies the conditions out of which it arises.” - John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, 1929
That, and of coursem the undisputable fact that cricket on a wonderful summers day is a truly enjoyable activity!
Complain about this comment
Hi Davblo! (with reference to your message at #141)
Sorry you can’ access the SCIENCE review of “Science & Decisions” by the US National Research Council. The good news is that the chapters of the book can be viewed (but not downloaded) for free on the NAP website, at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12209#toc.
Below I have attempted to précis some of the highlights of the review that I think are relevant to the discussion in this blog.
The review emphasises that the rational expectations and technical strengths of risk assessment can create problems when they overshadow the human, often "irrational" and emotional, complications that are manifest in and define risk perception. These distinctions are not trivial, as these perceptions are the reality decision-makers must confront and manage. The author of the review identifies five "easy" questions which he believes a decision-maker perspective must attempt to answer in order to address this challenge. They are:
- "What's the problem?" Here the author notes that problems involving risk are socially constructed and so “depend on diverse perceptions mediated through numerous sets of human values”. Some problems have no definite formulation and no clear point at which they are solved. Problem definition is therefore crucial.
- "For whom is something a problem?" Here the review emphasises that 'the problem' is not simply "what a study's sponsor or consultant's client wants it to be, nor is it limited to what different scientists think, know, and state it to be. It is equally what those implicated in it imagine it to be."
- "Who is the decision-maker?" The author believes it to be all too common that we “[b]lithely postulat[e] the existence of some powerful person who ‘makes decisions’ and then not figuring out who that might be”.
- "Why do risk analysis if we already know what to do?" Here the author points out that there is no particular need to carry out a thorough risk assessment in many cases as the risks are well-known. So why are they done? He suggests that such risk assessments are often undertaken as a way of trying to avoid the 'real' issues, which are “human, emotional, intentional, and political — not analytical”.
- "So what?" Here he emphasises the need to consider what is the real value-added from risk assessments. The implied answer is 'not much', if "what passes for risk assessment [is] primarily pursuing spurious rigor, using increasingly incomprehensible (to the public and to ‘decision-makers’) techniques, in an effort to limit discussion and to control decision-making”.
And as the reviewer freely admits, these five “easy” are truly hard to answer.
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #151
There is a big difference between 'a spirit of enquiry' (healthy scepticism) and 'a spirit of decrial' (scepticism for its own sake).
If all 'your' scientists are doing is "diligently researching to find holes in our current belief" they will never build anything other than discord.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #136
We already discussed this "report" in an earlier blog.
I told you the article wasn't convincing. I also posted a link to a New Scientist article which gave it the thumbs down.
And i replied "But, as far as i am aware, no paper was produced to back up there claims, so until somebody produces something to show Shaviv is wrong, I think i will stick with Shaviv" here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/07/if_youve_read_my_previous.html#P83603721
So, until somebody is able to refute Shaviv in a published paper, i will continue to stick with Shaviv, rather that just an "article" in a "magazine", thank you
Besides which, i was referring to Shaviv's work (amongst others) that shows climate sensitivity is a lot lower than that guessed at by the IPCC
@manysummits #147
Remark: Any one seriously following climate change science would know precisely where to find the six degree climate sensitivity. You did not. That tells me you are not connected to climate science except as a denialist with your own agenda.
lol, i read a lot on both sides of the argument. You trying to break down my argument, because i couldn't recall a piece by a man who's rhetoric reaches epic proportions, doesn't cut ice as far as i'm concerned. The link you provided tells us your hero used to think sensitivity lay between 1.5-4.5C, but now he thinks 6C. Does that mean he got it wrong first time or it's scarier to say 6C?
Tell me something, did you even know about the hotspot before i mentioned it? It's ok to say no, because most people don't know about the hotspot or why it's so important. Do you actually understand the problem, if so, please provide a proper answer to my questions and stop pontificating. Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion that pro-AGW climate scientists are correct about CO2's ability to drive the climate? By evidence i don't mean "the arctic is melting!". This may be evidence of warming, but not of man made CO2 influencing the temperature.
while the headlines etc may be attention grabbing, the science is sterling, not overstated one bit, and if you think otherwise, post an example verbatim and in context.
how about the IPCC's scenarios?
and as far as the "science being sterling", post proof that CO2 is the driver of climate - anything else doesn't melt ice
Have you ever read Dr. Alley's book "The Two Mile Time Machine?"
No i haven't, but i do know, and this is agreed between alarmists and sceptics, CO2 rise lags behind temperature rise by approx 800 years. Alarmists believe the CO2 rise amplifies the temperature rise, but don't seem to realise the temperature rise started the CO2 rise, so the temperature rise must have been caused by something other than CO2.
As far as Libya is concerned, i really don't care if margolis thinks Gaddifi is some kind of hero or not. Libya admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, which means your comments on liking Gaddafi's tent were very insensitive at this moment. If Megrahi was innocent, then it's a shame he spent most of his life as a symbol of Gaddafi's regiem, but Libya was, by their own admission, guilty of killing 270 innocent people.
Megrahi reception at Tripoli was led by Gaddafi's son representing the people of Libya, not some of the people of Libya.
@Jack_Hughes_NZ #150
Man made volcanoes! Excellent idea - of course i've been to Las Vegas and seen one for my self, so clearly the idea will work ;)
Seriously, the alarmists are busy trying to think of ways of engineering our way out of a crises that without empirical evidence doesn't exist - makes me laugh
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney at #155 writes "i read a lot on both sides of the argument"
Maybe, but sometimes your reading (or at least what you make of what you read) looks rather one-sided.
For example, in your posting #99, you you write “here is a reminder of what your scientists think of the debate” and then quote Stephen Schneider – noting he even puts this quote in his blog - implying that he believes it’s okay to be misleading. It’s an example of how the meaning is completely distorted by selectively quoting something out of context.
Schneider acknowledges that he did say these things in an interview with Discover magazine in October 1989. But what you leave out is that he also goes on to say “I confess: those were SOME of my words, yet their meaning is completely distorted when viewed out of context like this. You will find hundreds of places — especially on the web sites of industrial or economic growth advocates opposed to global warming policies that might harm their or their clients' interests — in which I am similarly (mis)quoted alongside a declaration that my environmental cronies and I should never be trusted.”
Indeed.
And as Schneider asserts “intentionally distorting the likelihoods of certain outcomes is just dishonest. Balancing the need to be effective in sound-bite situations with the responsibility to be ‘honest’ (i.e., fully disclosing complexities) is what I call the ‘double ethical bind’.”
For those who actually want to reflect on such issues, I think it is worth reading the section of his blog which discusses them in-depth.
See: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html
Complain about this comment
Mango_Chutney at #135 asks me to “follow the links, please” to the ’sciencespeak’ website, and within it to the ’hotspot’ link it offers.
Hoping that this time it was not another (“deliberately put in an incorrect link” ), I did so.
Once again, this does not prove your argument. It simpy reasserts your view at greater length.
Once again (see also #125) I'll try to explain why I believe that you haven’t made your case. It is poor reasoning to try to simply argue that the apparent absence of one thing proves another - you need to establish why this is so. Neither your posting nor the ‘sciencespeak’ link builds a sufficient case that the apparent lack of a hotspot “shows” that the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming is false. Asserting this repeatedly does not make it necessarily so.
I am intrigued that you offer ‘sciencespeak’ to be an authoritative source as I would have expected you to be a little ‘sceptical’ about their general approach. In their own words, “Science Speak is a scientific modeling and mathematical research company, and we speak about some science issues.”
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #153: "the NAP website"
Thanks for the link!
I spent some time looking through the book.
It's strange to see so much written about a subject which I would try very hard to keep as simple and logical as possible. Not being "versed" in the subject a lot of it (400 pages) looks (to me) like verbose waffle. There's long been an idea that we should use risk analysis in our work here, but it's never got of the ground. Trying to make something concrete out of so many unknowns seems like very frustrating work. I'm more at home with data and logic I can handle.
I found one comment in the Summary section...
"Decision-making based on risk assessment is also bogged down. Uncertainty, an inherent property of scientific data, continues to lead to multiple interpretations and contribute to decision-making gridlock. Stakeholders—including community groups, environmental organizations, industry, and consumers—are often disengaged from the risk-assessment process at a time when risk assessment is increasingly intertwined with societal concerns. Disconnects between the available scientific data and the information needs of decision-makers hinder the use of risk assessment as a decision-making tool."
All the best: davblo2
Complain about this comment
timjenvey 151: "Having defined and agreed standards that can be used and verified is an integral part of a free and open society. You telling me that it’s too complicated to understand, I will say..."
What is so difficult about something being too complicated for you to understand?
If you trace back from many of the media reports you often find papers with much more obscure titles and much more obscure contents. It's the job of the science reporters to figure out enough of the meaning to present it to the public. If they have difficulty with the paper then they interview the authors to get a simplified account.
Do your clients fully understand the work you do for them, the data and reasoning you use in constructing plans (or whatever you give them)? If you understood all the science, and your clients understood all your work then both scientists and you would be out of a job.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
MangoC #155: "So, until somebody is able to refute Shaviv in a published paper, i will continue to stick with Shaviv, rather that just an 'article' in a 'magazine', thank you".
So you don't refute published papers (since you don't publish either)?
That's good. You'd better start reading a few more of them.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #...
Here's another one for you to get your teeth into...
The Sermilik fjord in Greenland: a chilling view of a warming world
"'When we arrived there was no glacier to be seen. It was way up the fjord,' he says. 'We thought we'd made some stupid goof with the co-ordinates, but we were where we were supposed to be.' It was the glacier that was in the wrong place"
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Interesting piece in the Guardian about that Semilik glacier.
They have overdone the special FX a bit - it's like a scary episode of Doctor Who.
How about this bit:
"Four years ago he [Hamilton] hit upon the daring idea of landing on a moving glacier in a helicopter to measure its speed."
This is tosh. I remember landing on a glacier in a helicopter in 1983. It was fun - but not at all daring. And not novel: to the pilot it was routine.
And the 'speed' and 'acceleration' of the glacier. The piece suggests that the glacier is zooming around. Not really - you've got plenty of time to move your tent before it gets you.
Complain about this comment
Wikipedia describes a different glacier in Greenland:
"It [Jakobshavn] is also one of the fastest moving glaciers, flowing at its terminus at speeds of around 20 metres per day."
That's below one metre per hour for one of the fastest glaciers in the world.
The guardian story is an exaggeration. Landing on a 'moving' glacier. Yeah. One metre per hour.
Complain about this comment
Jack-Hughes at #162
Wow, I agree with you on something - the language in the Guardian piece is rather over the top in places, including in the bit about the helicopter landing on a glacier.
However, I think you'll find that the "daring" refers to the new techniques used for the measurements, not the landing. Perhaps not daring exactly, but the approach was new.
See, or example, the section on glacier surface velocity mapping in the article "Multispectral imaging contributions to global land ice measurements from space", in Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume 99, Issues 1-2, 15 November 2005, Pages 187-219.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #156
I was quoting Schneiders interview from the Discovery piece in 1989, not the Detroit news. Schneider had ample time to set the record straight if he thought the piece had misconstrued his remarks (say the month after it was published?). If Schneider feels with hindsight, that it was an unfortunate thing to say, perhaps he should have chosen his words more wisely.
"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
By stating a balance between effectiveness and honesty, Schneider is essentially saying his hope for honesty and effectiveness to happily coexist would in reality not always be the case, and trade-offs would have to be made. Schneider is saying it is a personal decision for the scientist to be honest or to offer scary scenarios. I thought science was supposed to be about presenting a work of fact, not a work of fiction.
@simon-swede #157
putting aside your apparent dislike of anybody or anything that doesn't agree with your view of global warming, can you tell exactly what is wrong with the science at science speak? Please try to keep your answer to refuting the discussion of the hotspot, without attacking the authors.
@davblo2 #161
I don't have a problem with The Guardian article, they are reporting, with a little artistic license, what the scientists found. Of course, some of it tries to implies that it's all our fault with our nasty emissions, but, correct me if i am wrong, neither the article not the scientists show any evidence that ice melt is due to AGW - warming, yes, but not man made.
I'm actually surprised that you guys don't understand that just because ice melts a little earlier than usual or a little more than normal, all it means is there is warming
One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day;
Aristotle
Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede / manysummits
talking of honesty amongst scientists
A week or so ago, Spencer took NOAA to task for making errors in their work. He checked their data and pointed out exactly where they had gone wrong:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-warming-in-new-noaa-ocean-temperature-product-the-smoking-gun/
yesterday, he posted a retraction:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-sst-warming-revisited/
because he had checked his results and realised he had made an honest mistake
"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
I guess we know what he decided was the right course of action
Complain about this comment
Mango_Chutney at #165
You wrote: I was quoting Schneider's interview from the Discovery piece in 1989, not the Detroit news.
And if you 'follow the link' you'll see that is exactly what he is discussing.
As for 'sciencespeak' I didn't attack the authors. I merely was expressing (rather tongue-in-cheek, I admit) that I found it curious you refer to the site given your scepticism about the value of modelling.
My point of contention about your claim and the link is that it nowhere 'shows' (your term) the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming is false. It claims it, it doesn't 'show' it.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #165: "...a little more than normal, all it means is..."
"Little" ?
"all..." ?
I think they know the difference between a little and a lot (with respect to significance), and it means a lot more that just "there is warming".
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #166: "Spencer took NOAA to task for making errors in their work...yesterday, he posted a retraction"
Thanks for the link. Interesting.
It's also an excellent example for timjenvey who trusts temperature measurements because he understands them, but trusts nothing more complicated.
timjenvey #151 "You telling me that it’s too complicated to understand, I will say: ‘up yours and go back to your test tubes and bunsen burners and come back when you can’."
Have a look at this piece of work and tell me you trust it because you understand it. It's only temperature measurements.
(Oh, and Bunsen has a big "B".)
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Sorry, MangoChutney, I posted #167 by mistake before it was finished.
Concerning Schneider, I wished to make the point that you continue to quote him in a way that is misleading.
Yes, he said:
I hope that means being both.
Complain about this comment
Third time lucky... maybe?
Yes Schneider said: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
His very next sentence was: "I hope that means being both."
Complain about this comment
On Spencer's retraction, thanks for posting this. All credit to him.
I also like that he advises applying a skeptical eye to one's own work, not just that of others (“Always question your results… even after finding the obvious errors.”).
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #169
I offer a public aplogoy to Mr Bunsen......
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #169: You say:
"Have a look at 'this piece of work' (Roy Spencer) and tell me you trust it because you understand it. It's only temperature measurements.
It's an excellent example of 'defect analysis'. Something you look for when you carry out due diligence. Car researchers smash their inventions into brick walls; oil companies test their oils by running engines to destruction. If I do not see evidence of these practices it's a call to an independent subject matter expert to investigate. That's how I've worked.
I think we are on a different wavelength here. I do not need to know the intricaies of the subject to understand if the product has a sound basis.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
mannysumits:
The history of the earth shows that environmental events, some catastrophic, are regular. During 5 thousand years of organized society we have seen and recorded only some of these events as experience carries memories better than geological research. Object bombardments seem to be fairly regular, large volcanic eruptions, massive earthquakes and tsunami's. Earth tends to adjust and recover but will be interesting to see how well mankind will do. In those 5 thousand years the human race has yet to figure out how to get along. I would think Africa, for the many problems, would be interesting and enlightening. Brutal countries, corruption on a very large scale and violence and neglect everywhere. My own expereinces have taught me that people are people, eager to share and as confused as everyone else as to why the world works with such negative forces. But mothers love their children and there are always arts and the spirit of the human being excels in horrid conditions. I retain great hope for human beings, but always am reserved about the powerful and governments that actively suppress and abuse people. There is much less distance between the tribal chief in Africa and the Leaders of the modern countries than one would like to admit. Drives are the same, weapons are different. Point a spear at my head and steal my money or some banker pressing a digital delete button on my account, the results are the same, as is the lack of accountability. So far the West has brought technology and violence to the third world and seemingly is puzzeled by the results. Marx was wrong about socialism as he did not recognize human selfishness and probably right about captialism in that unrestrained selfishness leads to consolidation of wealth and abusive power. I prefer the poems of Li Po and Du Fu.
Hope your opportunities open and you can climb some different mountains and enjoy a different culture...when you reach out and clasp another human beings hand, there is always bonding. Travel in safety, avoid entanglements with large coprorations.
Complain about this comment
Mango_Chutney at #155 and Davblo at #136
Mango_Chutney writes: “So, until somebody is able to refute Shaviv in a published paper, i will continue to stick with Shaviv, rather that just an "article" in a "magazine", thank you.”
I’ve read the link to Shaviv's work that Mango_Chutney gives in #155. As I understand it, Shaviv’s theme here is that solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming. Shaviv states: “Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity …” Shaviv goes on to say: “The leading mechanism to explain the large solar induced climate variability is through solar wind modulation of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth, which affects climate through modulation of the amount of atmospheric ionization.”
You may want to have a look at the following.
In ‘Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?’, Solanki and Krivova conclude that the solar influence on climate was not a dominant factor for this period. The basis of this study was an empirical approach using time series of the total and UV irradiance between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999, based on direct measurements wherever possible. These time series are compared with the climate record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption they then repeated the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. They conclude: “This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant.” See: Solanki, S. K., and N. A. Krivova (2003), Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?, J. Geophys. Res., 108(A5), 1200.
A related letter was also published in Nature by Solanki et al as ‘Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years’. They note that “Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.” See: Nature 431, 1084-1087, 28 October 2004.
Priest et al, in ‘Does the Sun affect the Earth's climate?’ note that it is well established that there was indeed a correlation between the Earth's climate and solar activity, at least before 1970. However they also point out that from about 1970 onwards the Earth's temperature has gone up much more rapidly than you would expect from the Sun and that “there is strong evidence that since 1985 all the changes in the Sun have been in the opposite direction to that required to warm the Earth”. They conclude that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for ongoing global warming. See: Astronomy and Geophysics, vol 48, issue 3, 12 June 2007, page 3.07.
Similarly, Lockwood and Frolich have concluded that “over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.” See: ‘Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences, 8 October 2007, 463:2447-2460.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan #175:
“when you reach out and clasp another human beings hand, there is always bonding”.
A profound and perceptive post. Thanks.
My second this week! (First one came through Simon-swede #139).
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #167
I think the climate models are currently incapable of projecting into the future, because of clouds, sensitivity, amongst other reasons. That is not to say that modelling has no business in science, just that where models are employed, they need to be based on empirical evidence not best guesses, after-all the climate system is very complex ;)
@davblo2 #168
however anybody wants to phrase it, melting ice or all the other "evidence" alarmists show to "prove" AGW is evidence of warming, not evidence of CO2 driven warming
@davblo2 #169
You're very welcome - i think it takes a very big man to admit his mistakes
I also like the way he put a note, right at the top of his previous piece, directing people to the update - if somebody comes across the first article by mistake, they will be directed straight to the revised piece
good for you Roy Spencer
@simon-swede #171
Ok, but essentially he is still saying it's ok to be economical with the truth, if it brings attention
@simon-swede #172
I also like that he advises applying a skeptical eye to one's own work, not just that of others (“Always question your results… even after finding the obvious errors.”).
it's a shame that others don't follow his lead ;)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
@timjenvey
I offer a public aplogoy to Mr Bunsen......
if you are going to say sorry, at least spell it right man!
(joking, tim)
;)
@simon-swede #176
on my way out, will try to respond later, but thanks for the papers - should be an interesting evening :)
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan at #175
I think you might like the following too:
"We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals, we now know that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run, economic morality pays."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, Second Inaugural Address, 1937
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney at #178 (re: Shaviv’s work)
Thanks, I hope you enjoy the papers! Here are a couple more…
As part of the link you refer to, Shaviv writes about the primary importance of comic ray flux variations over geological time scales. Referring to his work published in the Geological Society of America’s GSA Today (Shaviv and Vezier, 2003), he notes: “It was shown by the author … that these intrinsic variation in the cosmic ray flux are clearly evident in the geological paleoclimate data.”
Royer et al, in a 2004 article which also appeared in GSA Today, dispute the conclusion of that cosmic ray flux may have been the major driver of Phanerozoic climate. They found that the global temperatures inferred from the cosmic ray flux model of Shaviv and Veizer do not correlate in amplitude with the temperatures recorded, when corrected for past changes in oceanic pH. They note that their findings strongly suggest that CO2 the primary driver of climate over these timescales and that cosmic ray flux is likely to be only of second-order significance.
Other problems with Shaviv and Vezier’s correlation were identified by Rahmstorf et al (2004), although Shaviv has since disputed some of their criticisms. However, in addition to their concerns about the correlation – and independent of them - Rahmstorf et al also concluded that the Shaviv and Vezier “provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.”
The references:
Rahmstorf et al, 2004, ‘Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide, and climate’, Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 85, p. 38, 41.
Royer et al, 2004, ‘CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate’, GSA Today, v. 14, no. 3, p. 4–10.
Shaviv, N.J., and Veizer, J., 2003, Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?: GSA Today, v. 13, no. 7, p. 4–10.
Note that as a follow-up to the original articles, correspondence in the form of a letter from Shaviv & Vezier and a reply from Royer et al., also appear in GSA Today, 7 July 2004, vol 14, no 7, p. 18.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #176
Without trying to side-step what you are saying, when i originally re-posted the link to Shaviv, because manysummits and i were discussing climate sensitivity. However, if you read the opening paragraphs, Shaviv does say he thinks 1/3rd of the warming is due to anthropogenic causes:
"As I try to demonstrate below, the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."
but note, he still doesn't think the warming is due to emissions of CO2:
"Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
"Clearly, the incrimination of CO2 (and other GHGs) is primarily because we expect it to warm (see fig. 4), and we do see warming (see fig. 3), but it turns out that there are other suspects."
Shaviv also clearly states, we need to curb our reliance on fossil fuels and also states that he thinks solar is responsible for some (Davblo2 will like that one!) of the warming, not all.
Solanki and Krivova state that solar may have contributed up to 30% of the recorded temperature rise. (Apologies because i have only read the abstract at the moment). Given their paper was published in 2003 and new evidence has been produced by Svensmark, amongst others, I don't think this is incompatible with what Shaviv is saying. See here for a description of the experiment (i can't give you the link to the direct experiment, because it seems to be broken):
http://www.sciencebits.com/SkyResults
I'm a little confused by Solankis letter, because at the beginning he states:
"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades"
but then don't offer any explanation of how they came to that conclusion
They state:
"In ref. 3, reconstructions of solar total and spectral irradiance as well as of cosmic ray flux were compared with surface temperature records covering approximately 150 years. It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin."
and
"The current level of high solar activity has now already lasted close to 65 years and is marked by the arrow on the figure. This implies that not only is the current state of solar activity unusually high, but also this high level of activity has lasted unusually long."
but i couldn't see how they arrived at that conclusion - perhaps i missed it on first reading. I'll try again, when i am less tired.
Shaviv mentions Solanki here (the whole article is interesting too):
http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants#comment-591
The interesting thing, from my point of view, is Priest at least acknowledges Svensmarks theory on Cosmic rays has some merit, even if they are not as yet convinced. At least the CLOUD experiment should point us in the right direction on this one.
Apologies, but i couldn't get at the Lockwood and Frolich paper, so i am unable to comment.
Now getting back to sensitivity, Shaviv gives an introduction to climate sensitivity here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
I would urge you to look around Shaviv's web site, he has interesting thoughts on climate change and mans role
sorry for the long post, but you gave me some interesting papers to read, so i thought it deserved a proper answer or at least as proper as my simple mind can manage ;)
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #180
thanks simon - i appreciate your efforts to give proper links to back up your argument.
one thing to note about Shaviv's work is he doesn't claim solar is the only driver of global warming.
my own personal view and i don't have a shred of evidence to back this up, is global warming is most likely to be caused by a combination of factors, both natural and (here's a surprise for you guys) anthropogenic. You see I do recognise that man is capable of changing the climate (deforestation, land use for examples), but, from what i have read and understand, I don't think CO2 is the primary driver of global warming.
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK:
Here are two of your recent comments. I have numbered them for brief discussion:
1) "No i haven't, but i do know, and this is agreed between alarmists and sceptics, CO2 rise lags behind temperature rise by approx 800 years. Alarmists believe the CO2 rise amplifies the temperature rise, but don't seem to realise the temperature rise started the CO2 rise, so the temperature rise must have been caused by something other than CO2."
2) "my own personal view and i don't have a shred of evidence to back this up, is global warming is most likely to be caused by a combination of factors, both natural and (here's a surprise for you guys) anthropogenic. You see I do recognise that man is capable of changing the climate (deforestation, land use for examples), but, from what i have read and understand, I don't think CO2 is the primary driver of global warming."
#1) In some cases - yes. I see in the past many-posts discussion of the role of the Sun, cosmic rays etc. Undoubtedly these all play a role, sometimes ahead of CO2 which then is an amplifying feedback. Agreed! However, it appears there are times when CO2 is very possibly the lead driver. Flood basalt events are very rare, chronologicallly correlated with mass extinctions of various magnitudes, and also produce extraordinary quantities of CO2 and sulphur oxides, amongst other effects. The situation is complicated by the chronological correlation with impact events. For example, the K/T event, which marks the end of the Cretaceous and the Mesozoic, also saw the demise of the dinosaurs, and ushered in the Cenozoic and the niche-filling mammals, one of whose descendants is now blogging - to another descendant. Two events occurred at this termination - a giant bolide impact, sufficient in size to produce, according to models, an impact winter. However, also at this time is one of those gigantic and rare flood basalt provinces, the Deccan Traps in India. (see Wikipedia)
So - we agree, and yet we don't agree, because, as davblo2 has pointed out - things are not as simple as many would like them to be.
#2) I agree - again, with reservations. The amount of CO2 that we have injected into the atmosphere, and the rapidity with which we have done this - is geologic in extent, if I may be permitted a metaphor. We have become terraformers, inadvertently, and while the more normal climate drivers of say, solar variability, or Milankovitch cycles, have not ceased to operate, they have been overwhelmed by man's activities, especially in the period since the mid-seventies. And the anthropogenic effect is accelerating as our numbers describe a population curve which would make any biologist shudder.
We are awaiting the inevitable 'unexpected event, or series of events', which will be possibly catastropj=hic in extent. In my opinion, no sane person would tempt fate as we are presently doing.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To ghostofsichuan #175:
I'll try again!
---------------
Every now and then something very nice happens.
Your post, for example.
I tried to paste a "Thank You" in Mandarin, but apparently this is againt the "House Rules."
So here is a Canadian Thank You in its place,
Manysummits
PS: I'll try and track down your two poets. Underacanoe, Cloudrunner and I have two very beautiful Chinese wall hangings in our bedroom.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney at #181 and #182
Thanks for your comments, I'm glad you are finding the material interesting. It was an interesting exercise for me, as I put the papers together in light of the exchange between you and Davblo2, not being familar beforehand with any of the papers and webpages mentioned by either of you.
I hope you will be able to get the remaining papers and be able to read the Solanki and Krivova paper in full, instead of just the abstract. As I recall, Svensmark's work is addressed in several of the papers I have listed. And note that the papers from Priest et al and from Lockwood & Frolich date from as recently as 2007, and take account of more recent work than that cited by Shaviv and by Solanki in 2003 and 2004.
I wonder if you may be seeing a degree of convergence between Shaviv and the other papers that isn't there. Yes, all the authors agree that historically cosmic flux has been a significant factor - no problem there. But when it comes to Shaviv's contention that cosmic flux continues to be the dominant factor, the others reject this (and through using empirical data) categorically reject the notion that cosmic flux can be the main driver of warming since 1970. Instead, they explicitly attribute the dominant role to CO2 and to other greenhouse gas emissions - directly the opposite of Shaviv's main contention.
Anyway, thanks again!
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #183
#1) weren't the Deccan Traps formed at the end of the Cretaceous, a time when CO2 levels were at least double todays levels? Do you have anything to show the CO2 levels rose first and were then followed by the rise in temperature, because as far as i know, climate scientists of all colours agree CO2 rise lags temperature
#2) what about the missing CO2 sink or has that been found now?
In my opinion, no sane person would tempt fate as we are presently doing
in my opinion, no sane person would do anything that could mess up our climate without having sufficient, verified, empirical evidence, which I guess makes me insane ;)
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #186
i saw that the others stated they thought the main driver was CO2, but i couldn't see where or how they drew that conclusion, perhaps i was a little tired last night, so could you point it out for me, please? It seemed like a statement of belief rather than a real conclusion based on the data
I guess we will know more about CR influence when the CLOUD experiment is run properly, but i did hear the initial run was promising.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey 174: "If I do not see evidence of these practices it's a call to an independent subject matter expert to investigate."
You mean like the IPCC. So what's the problem?
Or maybe you don't trust all "independent subject matter experts".
Again, it seems you trust what you want to trust.
But more seriously, re: #174 "I think we are on a different wavelength here. I do not need to know the intricacies of the subject to understand if the product has a sound basis"
I see your concern is more related to the working practices of the individuals or institutions involved in the research or assessment. I suppose this is because of your line of work, being at the planning level rather than the "doing" level.
Do you see signs of some lack of good working practice at the IPCC? Aren't they are experts assessing the impact of available scientific reports? What do you think they are doing wrong?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #186: "I'm glad you are finding the material interesting. It was an interesting exercise for me, as I put the papers together in light of the exchange between you and Davblo2, not being familar beforehand with any of the papers and webpages mentioned by either of you."
Thanks for your efforts! davblo2
Complain about this comment
Mango_Chutney at #188
The main focus of the first set of papers I cited was an examination of the claim by Shaviv and Vezier that their data showed that cosmic ray flux was the dominant driver of warming. These were the citations I gave in #176. In particular, the detailed information and analysis presented by Solanki and Krivova (2003) and Solanki et al (2004) make a strong case that it cannot be cosmic ray flux as the dominant driver. In doing so, they give less attention to establishing the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, as you rightly point out.
The focus of teh second set of papers, posted at #180, was Shaviv’s specific assertion on the web-site that cosmic flux was a major driver of Phanerozoic climate. Here, the papers provide both empirical data and analysis to not only challenge Shaviv’s claim about cosmic ray flux, but also to show the role of CO2 specifically.
On the web-site, Shaviv states: “It was shown by the author, that these intrinsic variation in the cosmic ray flux are clearly evident in the geological paleoclimate data.” He goes on to say “that cosmic ray flux variations explain about two thirds of the variance in the reconstructed temperature signal. Thus, cosmic rays undoubtedly affect climate, and on geological time scales are the most dominant climate driver.” It is this claim is contradicted by the published articles by Royer et al (2004), and by Rahmstorf et al (2004). These focus on the analysis presented in the Shaviv and Vezier (2003) paper, which is the main basis for Shaviv’s claim.
The paper by Royer et al (2004) presents data and analysis concerning the possible role of cosmic ray flux AND the possible role of CO2. They not only look at the cosmic ray flux data assembled by Shavi and Vezier, they also examine closely the CO2 records. Their findings ‘strongly suggest’ that CO2 was the primary driver of climate over these timescales and that cosmic ray flux is likely to be only of second-order significance.
The focus of the paper by Rahmstorf et al is not to build a case for CO2, but to consider the claims made by Shaviv and Vezier (2003). Like Royer et al, they conclude that Shaviv’s purported correlation between cosmic ray flux and warming is not borne out by the data. However on CO2, they limit their other conclusion to stating that Shaviv and Vezier “provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide”.
In my posting #180, I described and gave references to the Royer et al (2004) and Rahmstorf et al (2004) papers. I also gave the reference to the subsequent correspondence between Shaviv and Vezier, and Royer et al, also published in GSA Today, later in 2004.
I can now add an additional, more recent, paper which focuses specifically on the role of CO2 during the Phanerozoic. Here, a “pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found… indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.” See: Dana L. Royer, ‘CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol 70, issue 23, 1 December 2006, Pages 5665-5675.
Hope this helps? Now, I must get back to work!
Complain about this comment
Davblo #189. You ask 3 very good questions:
1/. "Do you see signs of some lack of good working practice at the IPCC?
Yes.
Are they continually driving the theory into a brick wall to find it’s breaking points? Are they testing them to destruction?
No. They say ‘the science is in’. That's not scientific or to be trusted.
2/. "Aren't they are experts assessing the impact of available scientific reports?"
Some of them.
If they were to positively engaged the growing numbers of skeptics, open up public debates etc. Folks have to resign if they want to seriously oppose.
3/. "What do you think they are doing wrong?"
1/ and 2/ above for starters. On such a controversial subject with the whole world impacted they should be using every available subject matter expert and encouraging continuous open debate.
But no. The IPCC says “THE SCIENCE IS IN”. Bad science. They themselves admit a small margin of uncertainty. If they believe that, every available resource should be openly trying to break and destruct the theory. Just like a car manufacturer designing your breaks. Would you be happy knowing a 10% potential failure rate and then them say ‘the science is in’ so you will have to accept that.
I wouldn’t for one. I’d go somewhere else for my car.
The net effect is that there is mistrust. The mistrust is evident on the blogs and as we’ve seen recently in places like the US Business Bureau. The IPCC is failing badly in these areas. It's not as if folks are not going to be seriously impacted by their work. They need to change or the skeptics/deniers and Joe public will carry on raising their voices in opposition. It’s just human nature and I do not think the IPCC has taken that much into account.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
#192 Whoops....
'brakes' not 'breaks'
Aplogoy!! LOL
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #192: "On such a controversial subject with the whole world impacted they should be using every available subject matter expert and encouraging continuous open debate."
Could the problem be caused by the fact that politicians are running the show? Nothing will happen unless the IPCC presents the politicians with a definitive answer. If the IPCC go on "encouraging continuous open debate" the politicians would just say "Ok, let us know when you decide for sure"; and it would go on ad-infinitum.
At some point the IPCC must have had to say "enough", we have to make a decision; and it was "Yes".
What do you think?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #194.
An excellent point.
I agree we are in the political stage now. If I could drop into calling AGW their 'product' they can move from research to development and improvement. The whole emphasis should now shift to the 10% uncertainty. It should continuously monitor and report. To my knowledge nothing has been set. Can you point me? They could start researching some of the areas we so often come across on this blog e.g:
The reason there is no hotspot?
Temperatures have missed the most pessimistic forecast?
Sea level predications have missed the most pessimistic forecasts?
Skeptical scientists are increasing in numbers?
Skeptical blogs are prevalent?
etc. etc.
They should have been doing this earlier and now they should be working on this full time. That's how R&D works. This then acts as a continuous feed into design to engineering to manufacture and continues throughout the products life. Recalls, if necessary, become a fact of life I'm afraid but Joe public can have confidence in the product knowing that this is being done.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #195: "They could start researching some of the areas we so often come across on this blog..."
Sounds very reasonable.
I shall need to read up more on how the IPCC operate, but I understand that they don't do the research themselves. They monitor and assess reports from "ordinary" active researchers. So they probably can't determine exactly which areas are researched.
Isn't it possible that they do study and consider all the reports, including the dissenting ones? If their own subsequent "position" is based on the reports they deem to be "good", then would they necessarily comment on the ones they deem "bad"?
Does your car manufacturer tell you about all the "bad" crash tests which went wrong? Don't they generally publicise just the successful ones?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK #187:
You wrote:
"in my opinion, no sane person would do anything that could mess up our climate without having sufficient, verified, empirical evidence, which I guess makes me insane ;)"
--------------------------
Agreed! (bit of humor)
By burning fossil fuels we began to add CO2 and other gases and aerosols and particulate matter to our atmosphere. At first, this might have seemed benign, especially as the power fossil fuels released to the human being became apparent.
Scientists and concerned citizens began to worry, however, as the amount of fossil fuels burned increased to prodigious amounts, even on a geologic or planetary scale.
One could argue that continuing to 'mess up or atmosphere' once we had realized this was the first indication of a neuosis, or even of a psychotic behavior, in our planetary civilizations, because we did and do have empirical and theoretical information to back up these claims, not only of global warming due primarily to CO2, but also of the deleterious effects of the other substances released into our atmosphere.
As we speak, we are fishing the world ocean's edible fish species to collapse. What would you call this behavior if not neurotic at least, or psychotic or suicidal?
I could mention many other behaviors which would qualify us for the padded cell, but I trust to your imagination, and that of others, to supply these.
So our "Plan B" discussion on the most current blog is a reaction to a past failure to address neurotic behavior on a planetary scale. What do you expect of humankind, the very source of the problem?
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cretaceous Termination:
You asked:
"#1) weren't the Deccan Traps formed at the end of the Cretaceous, a time when CO2 levels were at least double todays levels? Do you have anything to show the CO2 levels rose first and were then followed by the rise in temperature, because as far as i know, climate scientists of all colours agree CO2 rise lags temperature
#2) what about the missing CO2 sink or has that been found now?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
You also wrote in post #14:
"of course, if there was evidence to support the scary scenarios offered up by the IPCC etc, we could take them seriously"
-----------
Am I to believe, given your dismissal of the empirical evidence aready presented in previous posts, that you are asking me to provide you with answers to those two questions of yours?
Any answer I could give would be a redirect to experts in the relevant fields, scientists all. Why would you believe them, but not the IPCC scientists?
There is a major inherent disconnect here. Or is this just a leading question, with something other than a quest for knowledge as the agenda?
Wikipedia is easy to access, on these questions of yours and many others.
For the deep past, you would be talking of the Long Term Carbon Cycle. I will furnish one link, to a scientist at Yale, in case you are interested, or perhaps others are:
Berner, R.A., 2003, The long-term carbon cycle, fossil fuels and atmospheric composition. Nature, v. 426, 323-326..
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~berner/
--------------------------------------
In addition, the paleontologist Peter D. Ward, at the University of Washington, in his book "Out of Thin Air," has some wonderful graphs of the evolution of the atmosphere througout the Phanerozoic, and his book is perhaps more accessible than some of Dr. Berner's work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Ward
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
DSavblo2 #196. You ask:
"Does your car manufacturer tell you about all the "bad" crash tests which went wrong? Don't they generally publicize just the successful ones?"
They publicize the fact that they have a process and how it works. One of the highlights of any company who are asking their clients to invest heavily is to show them how this works. I've worked as a product manager for a global IT company and one of the top selling points was their 'service management' (defect handling and product improvement) processes. When you buy an aircraft you also buy the maintenance history which records every tweak of a nut and bolt and service checks. I could go on and on and on but I hope you get my point. This is part of the foundation any successful business does to build trust and partnership with its clients. We are the IPCC clients and IMO it does an appalling job.
As for your other points they are to do with transparency. I'd like to see a lot more of that. So please point me. I am willing to listen otherwise I would not bother to reply.
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #189
timjenvey 174: "If I do not see evidence of these practices it's a call to an independent subject matter expert to investigate."
You mean like the IPCC. So what's the problem?
I think a body whose mission statement until very recently was to establish impact of human induced climate change is hardly sitting on the fence in this issue.
Do you see signs of some lack of good working practice at the IPCC? Aren't they are experts assessing the impact of available scientific reports? What do you think they are doing wrong?
The IPCC relies on the work of all sorts of scientists to prepare their "report". Some of these scientists, and you should know who I mean, have failed miserably to exercise any kind of quality control over their data, have made significant errors in their work, which was missed by their own checking measures and by their peers, have "lost" the original raw data, or refused to hand over the orginal raw data.
Personally, I think that shows that some of the scientists show some lack of good working practice, don't you?
@davblo2 #196
Isn't it possible that they do study and consider all the reports, including the dissenting ones? If their own subsequent "position" is based on the reports they deem to be "good", then would they necessarily comment on the ones they deem "bad"?
If only that was he case! The IPCC have a history of ignoring some published sceptical papers, whilst acknowledging papers that are still in review, even though these papers have supporting papers that are not even submitted for publication (refer to Casper and the Jesus Paper). They have also dismissed sceptical comments out of hand according to the authors of the comments and several sceptical scientists have resigned from the IPCC over the treatment of sceptical papers not being considered.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC gave a presentation in Australia lasr November, and claimed global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever and showed a graph to "prove" it. Even the vast majority of pro-AGW advocates will concede, temperatures since 1998 have moved sideways and over the last 18 months they have clearly begun a downward trend.
So, do i think the IPCC look at the "bad" papers? sometimes
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #197
Am I to believe, given your dismissal of the empirical evidence aready presented in previous posts, that you are asking me to provide you with answers to those two questions of yours
with all due respect, manysummits, those that don't understand these issues, won't understand your discussions of how we got here and those that have some understanding of how we got here, don't need lessons on earth history, solar cycles etc
We know the physical capabilities of CO2, so the question is really simple: "Is CO2 capable of raising global temperature significantly, taking into account positive and negative feedbacks"
I cannot recall you having addressed that question satisfactorily, if at all
Any answer I could give would be a redirect to experts in the relevant fields, scientists all. Why would you believe them, but not the IPCC scientists?
Please redirect, I'm always willing to learn, but please limit your redirections to the relevant question on CO2 - anything else is just a redirection. One of your previous links was to a website listing "evidence", none of which was evidence for AGW.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
i meant to say, Pielke, a believer in AGW, but not CO2 induced (from memory!) points out conflict of interest that is present in the IPCC assessment process:
The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment… Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research.
Pielke is another who i think is a good read along with Shaviv - both AGW believers (would we call them "wet alarmists" after "wet tories"?), but from a different perspective than Hansen etc
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 at #196
You give a pretty good description of how the IPCC works in practice.
In particular, you are absolutely correct that the IPCC does not do the research itself. While it is absolutely correct to have quality-control and peer review processes described above, these controls should be applied to the actual research itself - the same as it should be in every field of research.
Why should climate be any different? There are multiple levels of checks and balances on the work of the myriad individuals and institutes and groups of researchers that contribute to the IPCC's reports. And the "sceptical" scientists form part of this system of checks and balances too. If some of their work is not accepted by their peers, is it perhaps because it does not stand up to their scrutiny?
(I put "sceptical" inside "_" because, in my opinion, all scientists should be genuinely sceptical, so "climate sceptic" doesn't necessarily equate with "sceptical scientist".)
Much of the IPCC-directed criticism seems to me to be because of the results it produces, not because of the way it actually operates. Also, in criticising the IPCC, the arguments used range from some reasonable criticims, to half-truths to distortions and outright propganda! Should one even try to respond to the latter, even if they are so often repeated they become sort of "true" to those that repeat them?
At the level of the IPCC itself, the ultimate checks and controls are established and maintained by the IPCC's "real" clients - the member states of the UN and WMO who established the IPCC!
Lastly, I am unconvinced by the "test to destruction" analogy being used here. Yes, assumptions and conclusions should be intently examined, questioned, and reassessed in the light of new information. But the purpose should be to reduce the errors, not to destroy.
Complain about this comment
what do you guys think of this?
New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162
A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #202
simon, you often talk good sense, even if i don't agree with everythin you say, but when you say there are checks and balances on individual works, i have to disagree.
NOAA, NASA, Hadley have all admitted they have little quality control or checks on data that either comes into their offices or out of their offices. Hadley can't even find most of the temperature data prior to 1980. That's not good quality control
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney at #204
Thank you. If I may offer a similar complement and criticism back to you, you sometimes combine good insightful comments with sweeping assertions that are not well-founded.
For example: "NOAA, NASA, Hadley have all admitted they have little quality control or checks on data that either comes into their offices or out of their offices"
Perhaps they may have admitted a problem with specific instances, but it cannot be the general situation. I know for a fact that both NASA and NOAA have sophisticated internal controls on quality control and data. In addition, as US government agencies, they are required to comply with federal regulations governing this.
Leaving aside what happens within particular institutions, think about what happens in the wider scientific community. Where a paper and data is submitted to a peer-reviewed publication, it goes through a formal peer review process. The quality of these peer review processes varies from journal to journal, but they are there. It doesn't matter if the authors are from NOAA or NASA or anywhere else - including "sceptics" - the peer review is done. This is the normal process of scientific publishing and a process where both trivial and serious errors are regularly detected. And once it is published, material is subject to broader scrutiny - and here it is not just accuracy and quality that is scrutinised, but also where disageements of the interpretation and conclusions can be aired by all who care to do so. I don't see why climate-related research should be treated any differently from any other field of reasearch.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
i beg to differ, NASA's Gavin Schmidt has already confirmed there is nobody employed full time to carry out quality control for GISS temperatures
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4325
and the peer review process amongst climate science is a little incestuous according to Wegman, mostly due to the science being a very young subject
so, whilst i agree with you that climate science should not be any different to any other science, in reality, it seems there is a general lack of quality control, hiding of data under "confidentiality" agreements and a general reluctance to release data that may be held up to scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
Mango_Chutney at #206
Err, and that isn't a "specific instance" (as opposed to NASA research as a whole)?
Complain about this comment
Mango_Chutney at #206
"and the peer review process amongst climate science is a little incestuous"
The same can be said for a host of other fields. Is there really substantial evidence that it is especially bad for climate-related research?
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #208. You say:
"The same can be said for a host of other fields. Is there really substantial evidence that it is especially bad for climate-related research?"
Substantial evidence or not, considering the enormity of the impact of their deliberations I would expect the utmost rigor in this respect.
Just one example: The hockey stick was the emblem of the IPCC. It was removed. I may be wrong here so I expect you to correct me and I will immediately withdraw. What has the IPCC response been?
Has there been an investigation?
Have there been lessons learned?
Have those lesson been incorporated right through their processes.
How are impacts on future risk/prevention being administered.
These are just a few of the questions that I would be asking after such an incident. A business would be closed down if it didn’t address these (in fact the EPA would make sure of that if it was in their jurisdiction which I find odd). They need to be totally transparent here, if they are not they will generate growing mistrust. It’s basics we are talking here.
Has the IPCC looked at all of the previous forecasts and compared to current data? What are the results? What are the variances?
This is basic stuff. Am I off the rails here or could you say there is at least some areas for improvement.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Mango_Chutney at #209
I agree with you that the utmost rigor is needed. But I do not see a difference here between climate and any other field of research.
I'm confident that you can answer your rhetorical questions without any help from me or anyone else!
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #210.
Actually it was me posting #209
So when you say:
"I agree with you that the utmost rigor is needed. But I do not see a difference here between climate and any other field of research".
I take from that you are saying that these issues permeate the whole field of research.
That tends to be my experience, particularly the 'R' in R&D.
Now you may understand more of why I'm so skeptical and why I belive science research is arrogant and oversold.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Re #209 and #211! Ooops! Sorry Tim!
I agree that rigour is needed. I disagree that because these issues are real, that science as a whole is arrogant and oversold.
At the "end of the day", we need to take decisions, and science can help inform these decisions. Where I think we might agree, is that when one is using science in decision-making (irrespective what is the specific context of the decision-making), there is a need to be aware of the weaknesses, assumptions, and limitations of the science, as well as its strengths, etc. In short, we need to think about the limits to science and what input it can/cannot and should/should not have into our decisions.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede. Re. 212
We do agree. Business executives are generally aware of the limitations and strengths that you list. There is a thin line between engendering creativity and process compliance.
Generally this does not matter too much because the issues get picked up in design and engineering.
There are some professional research outfits who just do research and they have controls as their business will depend on them. Without those controls "R's' run amok and that's where the arrogance spreads and they start to act like gods.
I see this taking place in the IPCC. They need a good program manager!!!!
Nice to agree to agree.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Add to 213.
Also I was interested when you said:
"In short, we need to think about the limits to science and what input it can/cannot and should/should not have into our decisions".
I'd be very interested to know any work that's being done in this area. It sounds up your street and wonder if you have anything to share.
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
Tim at #214
There is, as I think you can imagination, a mountain of material around in this area.
I have one suggestion for you. A somewhat provocative piece, of about 80 pages "Citizen scientists: reconnecting scientists with society" by Jack Stilgoe. This was published in March 2009 by 'demos' a "think-tank" based in the UK.
Stilgoe's core argument is that science and innovation need to be able to draw on diverse knowledge, diverse practices and diverse people. This needs to happen at a time when the private motivations for science have grown louder than those that are public, curiosity-driven, value-driven and needs-driven. Stilgoe concludes that it is time for scientists to reconnect their work and expertise with a wider role in society, to become what he calls "Citizen Scientists".
The 'pamphlet' - that is what demos call it - can be downloaded free from: http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/citizenscientists
I'd be intrigued to hear what you make of it!
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #215
Thanks for the link. I will take a read over our holiday weekend.
I'll report back here.
Have a good one.
Tim........
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #215:"Citizen scientists: reconnecting scientists with society"
Thanks simon-swede!
timjenvey 216: "I will take a read over our holiday weekend"
Likewise...
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #180 & 191
ok, we seem to agree Solanki didn't show the dominant role of CO2 in global warming.
In the abstract Shaviv states:
We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the longterm “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.
So, Shaviv does think CO2 is a driver of climate, although not nearly as important as other primary drivers and thinks there is an upper limit to the role that CO2 can play. As i am sure you are aware, the ability of CO2 to raise the temperature diminishes with each additional ppm, so i think Shaviv is referring to climate sensitivity here.
You state:
"Royer et al, in a 2004 article which also appeared in GSA Today, dispute the conclusion of that cosmic ray flux may have been the major driver of Phanerozoic climate. They found that the global temperatures inferred from the cosmic ray flux model of Shaviv and Veizer do not correlate in amplitude with the temperatures recorded, when corrected for past changes in oceanic pH. They note that their findings strongly suggest that CO2 the primary driver of climate over these timescales and that cosmic ray flux is likely to be only of second-order significance."
From the abstract:
The CO2 record compares predictably with the glacial record, with low values (less than500 ppm) during periods of intense and long-lived glaciation (Permo-Carboniferous [330–260 Ma] and late Cenozoic [past 30 m.y.]) and high values (greater than 1000 ppm) at all other times. The late Ordovician (∼440 Ma) represents the only interval during which glacial conditions apparently coexisted with a CO2-rich atmosphere.
How does that statement sit with current levels of CO2 and CO2 being a driver of climate? I know Dromart suggests a temporary draw down of CO2 levels to explain the mini-ice ages, but something must have caused the draw down, something more important than CO2 and the question remains, did the temperature take a nose dive first or CO2 levels. The ice cores suggest temperature first and i couldn't see any evidence in the papers to suggest otherwise.
You state:
Other problems with Shaviv and Vezier’s correlation were identified by Rahmstorf et al (2004), although Shaviv has since disputed some of their criticisms. However, in addition to their concerns about the correlation – and independent of them - Rahmstorf et al also concluded that the Shaviv and Vezier “provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.”
It's not just Shaviv that disputes Rahmstorf's criticisms. Stockwell has disputed Rahmstorf's smoothing technique and shown that the algorithim used by Rahmstorf is a kind of Mannian algorithm on steroids.
You state:
"I can now add an additional, more recent, paper which focuses specifically on the role of CO2 during the Phanerozoic. Here, a “pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found… indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.” See: Dana L. Royer, ‘CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol 70, issue 23, 1 December 2006, Pages 5665-5675."
The introduction tells us exactly where the authors stand, although in fairness they do say "partly":
It is now generally accepted that the 36% rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1860 (280–380 ppm) is partly responsible for the concomitant rise in global surface temperatures
The author states that previous correlations were on a 10 million year timescale and in this paper were shown on a 1-5 million year timescale. Do you think these proxies have sufficient resolution to discriminate between temperature and CO2 rise, in the same way that we can read and is known from the ice cores?
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney at #218
My main conclusion is that papers published in peer-reviewed journals show that there is insufficient basis for the claims made on Shaviv's website that cosmic ray flux is the dominant driver of warming.
My second conclusion is that, on Shaviv's assertion that cosmic ray flux was the major driver of Phanerozoic climate, there is considerable and growing published evidence which indicates that not only is he wrong about the significance of cosmic rays during this period, but also that the dominant driver was carbon dioxide.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
Whilst not disagreeing with your statement, i think those papers do not show evidence of CO2 being a primary driver either. I think we will return to the CRF hypothesis once the CLOUD experiment produces data, especially as Svensmark has already demonstrated cosmic rays can influence cloud cover.
All of which deflected us from my main bone of contention - the missing AGW signature
If Santer and many others have been trying so hard to prove the existance of the AGW signature and failing, why do they continue to do so, if it is insignificant?
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede. Feedback on Citizen Scientist.
Thanks for taking the time to come up with some reading that is not only relevant but also at my level of understanding. It describes many of the issues I see in the area of scientific research, which you had probably picked up from my previous posts, so the linkage was good. Very intuitive of you. I felt better that I’m not a lone voice in this area.
You say you will be ‘intrigued” to hear my thoughts. You’ve asked for it now, so here goes:
The title of the pamphlet threw me a bit and it took a few moments while I adjusted. My understanding of a Citizen Scientist was those non trained folks that supported scientist in field work from observations and feeding scientists with the data. However, having adjusted and associating Citizen Scientist with actual scientist that come from science I was able to get their drift. From this pamphlet it appeared to me that the authors were advocating the encouraging and developing of such folks from the scientific community. They gave examples like Tamino and Hillbeck, It was stated a few times that scientists moving from pure science to citizen scientist was a very rare occurrence which is something I observe. I generally see scientist focus on an area and go deeper and deeper into that area. This is when the issues start to arise. They end up in a very small community of like mind colleagues and this, as the pamphlet points out in areas like peer review, gets incestuous and does not easily get cross discipline input. I think one of the reasons that lie behind this disconnect is that over time, science has developed into academia. So research institutions separated professional scientists from amateur scientists and gradually moved into their ivory towers. This had the effect of isolating academics from the daily life of ‘citizenry’. With this separation came a belief that amateur citizens could not be involved in “real” research because they are not trained scientists.
When I was school there was a lot of emphasis on “Applied Science”. This may have been the reaction to the situation as it appeared at the time. It was more to do with design, development and engineering and linked closely with research. My first job was with the research division of a British oil company and I did a course of study in “Applied Chemistry”. As you can probably imagine this was heavy going and I could not imagine a career of it. Needless to say I drifted away into the practical application and lost touch with research.
So the question appears to be how to connect research with the practical everyday. Do we try to do it from within the scientific community by encouraging Citizen Scientist like the pamphlet suggests or do we encourage non-trained scientists to do the job of connection. Reading from the pamphlet it appears that moving from academic scientist to citizen scientist requires very specific types of individual who are few and far between. Personally I think there is a lot to be said for encouraging non-trained scientists who have an interest in the sciences. When I was a lad I used to love my chemistry and electrical sets. My parents bought me magazines with experiments and I would build all sorts of things from crystal sets to steam engines.. I think more could be done to teach and encourage interested non-scientists to ask the questions and not be put off by the aurora of academia. There are some blogs out there that operate like this and are very popular. I hesitate to mention “What’s Up with That” but it’s very successful example IMO. BBC blogs like this one and The Blog of Bloom offer this experience and there are countless others in all sorts of disciplines. Scientists could do their part in these by joining in and engaging with citizens and keeping in touch, and not to be discourteous, come down from the ivory towers. Those that are already doing this really add to the whole and everybody gains. Blogs like RealClimate on the other hand IMO demonstrates the arrogance of the ivory tower mentality. The technology is there to help us make it happen, we just need to join hands on it.
Thanks very much for initiating. I hope my response ‘intrigued” you.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Hi Tim!
Very interesting, indeed. It's wee bit late for me just now, and I'll have a bit of a think before I get backto you, but I will do so.
Cheers!
Simon
Complain about this comment
Hi Simon #222: Interested in your thoughts.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Although the United States represents about 5 percent of the world’s population yet we contribute 45 percent of the worlds emission of carbon dioxide, which is the main contributor to global warming. Africa on the other hand represents about 13.75 of the world’s population as of 2005 and is constantly growing; yet they don’t emit even a fraction of what the United States is. How is it fair that Africa should have to pay the same amount of money to deal with our environmental problems as the United States when they are emitting a fraction of what the US is? The answer is it’s not. That’s why I believe that Africa has the right to ask to pay less to deal with global warming especially when global warming will affect Africa in more profound ways than it will affect the US. Africa also has fewer resources available to them to deal with climate change.
I found post number 44 interesting. I guess I have never thought of the use of thermometers of a way to gain empirical evidence on climate change. If empirical evidence is what people need and desire to gain an understanding that yes, climate change is real, is this a way of going about it? That post lead me to the article “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Bases.” For anyone doubting climate change or needing a comprehensive understanding of the science of climate change its worth to check out. The article was published by Cambridge University for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For those arguing that climate change is not man made I also suggest looking at this article, especially the part on advancing understanding. We need to strengthen our understanding, that yes humans take a part in advancing climate change, i.e.: the use of aerosol cans. Perhaps post number 40 can also benefit from the empirical evidence presented. Here is a link to the paper. Enjoy.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Re #65:
MDG's, aid payments, compensation for climate change etc.
The head of the United Nations Development Programme, Helen Clark, was interviewed on BBC's Hardtalk this week.
The millennium goals? She'd just like the 2005 G8 Gleneagles pledges delivered: the G8 countries are about 90% short in delivering for Africa.
Complain about this comment
the G8 countries are about 90% short in delivering for Africa
Britain stalls on new deal to rescue Africa is the lead in today's 'Independent'.
This will be a subject for discussion at the G20, which takes place in the United States this week. However London and Washington are likely to continue to block additional aid.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS