Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days
When activists and journalists can't get hold of government documents, you know things have turned serious.
OK, I'm exaggerating a bit. But it is a trend that you notice as a reporter; the more things actually matter - the closer events move to what governments really hold to be important, rather than what might seem important from some agenda or fancy formal title - the closer they guard information.
So it's interesting just how little has leaked out this week about the contents of two contrasting visions presented to a gathering of "select" countries in Copenhagen - visions that put forward radically different versions of the political deal that might be done over the next two weeks (given that discussions on the formal treaty text aren't expected now to approach conclusion).
In one corner were the Danish hosts, with a formulation that reportedly repeated the attempt made at July's G8 summit to get major developing countries to adopt the goal of halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and accept 2020 as the date by which they should peak.
It was turned down in July, and it's been turned down again.
An analysis presented at last year's UN summit in Poznan calculated that if developed nations vowed 80% cuts by 2050 - which most subsequently have, at the G8 summit - population growth in the developing world meant developing countries would have to make per-capita cuts of about 60% by 2050 in order to meet the global 50% target.
And it's too much for developing countries to countenance. Although a 50% target wouldn't be legally binding in any meaningful sense, it would indicate that major developing economies were preparing to accept emissions cuts when their main contention is that Western nations continue to proffer too little.
Details of what precisely is in the counter-proposal - put forward by the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) - are even more sketchy.
They are thought to include a rejection of any binding constraints on emissions for developing countries, opposition to international verification of those constraints, opposition to the notion of trade tariffs on countries unwilling to curb emissions, and the continuation of emission reductions from developed nations under the Kyoto Protocol rather than any new framework, which is anathema to the US.
The BASIC nations are said to be prepared to walk out of the Copenhagen chamber if these demands are not met, presumably accompanied by other developing countries.
But as I said, discovering exactly what is written on these pieces of paper is a task that's been beyond just about everyone outside tight government circles - an indication that the real powerplay has begun.
The waters muddied further when the Danish government denied having put a proposal forward - despite the fact that Reuters journalists had seen a text of what appeared to be such a document, and that developing country delegates had commented on what appeared to be such a document.
On Thursday, India became the last major player to put a proposal on the table, vowing to cut carbon intensity by 20-25% by 2020.
Initial reports suggested the figure was conditional on international financial support, but Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh made it clear that it is unilateral and independent of anything that anyone else might offer at Copenhagen.
As to what will be on offer financially, the US said this week that it would pay its "fair share" of the $10bn per year fund that various people (including UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and UN climate convention executive secretary Yvo de Boer) think is needed now, to show developing countries that the West is serious about helping others and to begin putting money into "no-brainer" issues such as reducing deforestation.
What does a "US fair share" look like? Senator John Kerry reckons $3bn; like every other ingredient of these negotiations, you can bet that the Obama administration has a figure in mind, but in the best traditions of summit brinkmanship, has no intention of revealing it just yet.
Something that has intrigued runes-readers this week is the last-minute change of travel plans by President Obama himself.
Having initially decided to slot in a quick Copenhagen visit in the middle of the first week, en route to picking up his Nobel peace Prize in Oslo, it now appears he will be there for the summit's final hours - which led Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to opine:
"This is a very significant development, which in substance and symbolism greatly enhances the prospects of a satisfactory agreement at Copenhagen."
Dr Pachauri has been busy on another front during the week as well, calling for an investigation into the so-called "ClimateGate" affair - the hack, or leak, of e-mails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, repository of one of the important records of global temperatures.
The university has commissioned an independent review into the issue, the most important of its terms of reference being to determine whether there is evidence of suppression or manipulation of data at odds with acceptable scientific practice which "may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes".
The fact that the review is in the most embryonic of stages has not held some observers back from asserting that the issue either undermines the entire fabric of climate science, or that it makes no difference at all to the overall picture and is simply the latest and nastiest in a long line of smear tactics from "sceptics".
But during the week we had the first sign that it might influence the Copenhagen negotiations, with Saudi Arabia's lead negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban telling the BBC that:
"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change."
This has been condemned in some quarters - not least by the UK government - as manifestly untrue, and mere "nonsense". Gordon Brown told The Guardian newspaper:
"We mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics."
In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how Mr Al-Sabban's comments play out inside the wider bloc of developing countries, which includes many governments very convinced by the science of rising sea levels and scorched farmland, and very keen to see a strong deal in Copenhagen.
The ClimateGate issue appears to have gained more political traction in the US Senate, where Republicans maintain it's the "last nail in the coffin" for the Boxer-Kerry bill, which aims to limit national emissions.
Senator James Inhofe, the leading opponent, revealed this week that he too would be in Copenhagen to make sure people know "there is no way that the US is going to ratify any kind of treaty that is anything at all like Kyoto".
Since my last post, the Australian opposition Liberal Party has elected a new leader, the overtly climate-sceptical Tony Abbott, following a rift over whether to support or block the government's cap-and-trade bill in the Senate.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd plans to have another go at passing the bill next year. But it does mean that he - like Mr Obama - will not have a guarantee of domestic legislation in his hand when he arrives in Copenhagen.
OK - if I've missed anything of note over the past seven days, do post a comment.
I've another request, too - if you can restrain yourselves from plastering this thread with stuff about ClimateGate, please do.
There are more than 700 comments on the previous thread, the vast majority related to it. I know from e-mails that some readers find endless picking over of climate science repetitive and boring - and when they do, they don't read through the comments. Fresh, pertinent and interesting are my suggestions.
See you next from Copenhagen - or should that be the Emerald City? We've spent so long getting there, it almost feels like it...
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.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
@Richard OK - agreed on the comments, keep short and relevant, but "700 comments on the previous thread" & " some readers find endless picking over of climate science repetitive and boring" - what's your point there? People obviously need to debate this and find 'the science is settled' a contentious point.
One gripe - Newsnight failed completedtly to analyse the code, only the emails - and I agree with Prof. Watson - makes it look like an exercise in character assassination.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's comments in the Guardian will not calm anything.
"With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics," Brown told the Guardian. "We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal."
This looks like the comments from someone who has only has a cursory look at the science, the issues & the debate - main point "flat-earth climate sceptics" - I think you mean 'flat-earth climate deniers'. That will annoy many - it annoys me.
In one comment he has managed to put all dissenting voices (politically) into a convenient 'against us' camp. Politics of 'them & us' - sad.
Complain about this comment
So Gordon Brown proves he can't see the wood for the trees - big deal, he really is a lightweight when it comes to anything serious.
ClimateGate is serious because it shows a level of deviousness in the scientific community that takes ones breath away.
That so many academics can be tainted by so few shows why you had 700 comments that you and the BBC found uncomfortable to swallow.
Copenhagen should be called NoHopenhagen.
CO2 emissions are not what should be debated. The truth about manipulation of scientific data to suit a political end which involves huge sums of taxpayers money and the scam of energy renewables is what I want to see on the table.
Fat chance with the "The Science is settled" brigade. History will show, as in the past with Tulip Trading/Witches/Faeries/Fool's Gold etc., that Man made Global Warming is simply not a reality.
About a real as Papal Indulgences are to Carbon Offset Trading.
Complain about this comment
Not being able to get hold of documents seems like "business as usual" in the climate change game. From start to finish -- and I hope we are nearly at the end now -- it has been secretive, authoritarian and conformist.
Complain about this comment
Richard is right.
Let's not mention ClimateGate any more.
Complain about this comment
Harry the subject "that shall not be named" Voldermort.
Richard, Piers Corbyn reports
"WeatherAction releases free long range forecast for Copenhagen"
Climate summit to be hit by blustery deluges, probably turning to snow or blizzards and icy blasts in the region at times - especially heavy when President Obama visits
Better take the long johns
Complain about this comment
I'm happy enough not mentioning the Thing that Shall Not be Mentioned, because I think it detracts attention from the real problem: what philosophers of science call "inductivism".
Only a scientific illiterate would think you start off with data and then bend over backwards to get a "model" to fit them. But climatologists are scientific illiterates, apparently.
Real science starts off with hypotheses, which it then TESTS.
Complain about this comment
Excellent coverage on Newswatch this morning - Richard Black and two members of the public who very ably put the viewers perspective on the 'Climategate' coverage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8396579.stm
Complain about this comment
I'm waiting for the usual Winterville occurance of the country grinding to a halt with 2 inches of snow.
But of course this Government thinks it can actually control the whole global weather/climate in a controlled manageable way as to keep all its inhabitants in perfect heavenly eden.
What next? capping volcano's, bending the jet stream in one direction, stapling up the tectonic plates, human sacrifice to make sure the sun rises each morning?
When you get to Copenhagen Richard be sure to ask the Wizzards from each nation what 80% personal lifestyle sacifices they are going to implement.
Merry Winterville
Complain about this comment
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data it used to construct its historical global temperatures.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
“The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.”
“The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination.”
Following the exposure of the alleged fraudulent behaviour at the CRU, the Government should be supporting and facilitating a full re-appraisal of all data sources used in the global warming analyses to prevent the meltdown in public confidence in all matters relating to climate science.
Agreements made at Copenhagen will be difficult to implement without substantial public support.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Many of the 700+ comments on the previous thread which seem to perturb you so much are written by BBC licence fee payers who have genuine concerns that the UK government is steamrolling ahead with an agreement that has the potential to severely damage the economy, and to restrict the lives of UK citizens.
What's more, doubts have been raised about the data being used to justify why the agreement is needed and politicians have no desire to even consider whether or not this should impact on their stance. Their eagerness to carry on regardless speaks volumes.
There is also a genuine concern that the BBC has allowed itself to assume a politicised stance towards climate change, and cannot or will not report on the subject in a 50/50 fair and balanced way, excusing this behaviour by hiding behind the IPCC "consensus" of scientists, the existence of which is accepted without question.
If you do not wish comments regarding these genuine concerns to clutter up your nice green blog, could you please suggest to which forum on the BBC these licence fee payers should address them?
Complain about this comment
re #1
Some would say the psuedoskeptics have also failed to analyze the code.
Skim-reading and coming to remarkably off-the-wall conclusions seems to be their trade.
Complain about this comment
Re 11:
There certainly were over 700 comments on the last post, but these were largely all made by a handful of the same commenters.
And I am still wondering if we have sock puppets (ie people with multiple accounts) posting..
Complain about this comment
Re #12. At 12:13pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity
Hardly 'skim-reading' Infinity,
http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/
Complain about this comment
Infinity #13 wrote:
"I am still wondering if we have sock puppets (ie people with multiple accounts) posting.."
It should be reasonably easy to find out. Hardly anyone writes without individual idiosyncracies of English usage, especially grammatical or punctuation errors. As an ex-academic, I have quite a lot of experience of finding plagiarists among students. I've half a mind to see if I can root a few sock-puppets out!
Complain about this comment
Forget about possible data manipulation. The important thing is, it's good thing that countries are looking at taking responsible approach towards emissions and nature protection. Even if the sea levels do not rise because of what humans do, I am sure you yourselves experienced other disagreeable results of undenieably human infliction.
Get out on to a street in any major city over the world during an inversion, take a deep breath and you'll know what I mean. Nowdays it's mostly only on low air pressure days in big towns. If nothing is done, soon it might be everywhere, all the time.
Complain about this comment
re 14:
That is precisely the kind of shoddy analysis by psuedoskeptics I am talkin about. It is a weak and pathetic illogical argument in which code has been skim read and then all sort of assumptions (no evidence provided) are made that it was used in published results. The claims are also contradictory, some claim the code was used to adjust temperature records, other claim it was used to adjust paleo reconstructions, other claim it was used in climate models.
And psuedoskeptics call this shoddy level of analysis "proof". It's funny how they set the bar so low for their self-promoted "climategate" when they set the bar ridiculously high for climate science.
Note that they haven't even bothered to track down the publication this work was used in. That would be the first necessary requirement of any half-decent analysis.
The allegations that skeptics are throwing around are based on this kind of shoddy analysis. It's a fabricated, self-propelled "scandal" made by people who couldn't care less about the truth. They just want to do as much damage as possible and if that means jumping to conclusions - they'll happily do that.
See this for a better analysis of the same code that actually bothers to track down the publication the code was used for, and finds the adjustment array was not used in any published results:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php
It's going to take the real critical thinkers to actually investigate these claims it seems.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Just ignore the troublemakers. The Met Office is going to reconstruct the data using the data that they destroyed in the summer.
I'm going to be in the Copenhagen Holiday Inn - see you at the bar...
Complain about this comment
The big problem is that all the hoo-hah about CO2 being the primary cause of recent global warming (and trying to reduce that gas) is detracting from the fact that we have been in a global warming phase since the 1600s which will continue until 2100 irrespective of what we do. So the world should be concentrating its efforts in allieviating the effects of those changes, ie increased sea-levels and rainfall pattern changes. BUT of cause that is far more difficult so they decide to concentrate on something else and one in which money can change hands.
Complain about this comment
Climate change is happening, if you think that it isn't you are wrong, glaiers are shrinking and the world is warming up. The vast majority of scientifically trained people agree.
AGW is happening, there are arguments as to the degree by which it is happening but the vast majority of scientifically trained people agree.
It is an esstablished theory.
General reltivity has its detractors, most highly qualified and well respected scientists, however it is the establised theory.
The teory that the universe is expanding has it's detractor, most highly qualified and well respected scientists, however it is the establised theory.
The theory of AGW is based on facts. It's not even based on particularly complicated science (Mind you people think rocket science is hard and theirs only 2 or 3 equations you need to work things out).
The sceptics will shout, rant and rave about the subject untill the proof is gievn to them and then they'll ignore it and rant and rave some more. Alot of sceptics accuse climate scientists of not havng an open mind, yet they are some of the most closed minded individuals on the planet, afraid their life will have to change slightly and terrified by the prospect.
The incorrect, ill-informed and ignorant minority will always shout lounder and longer to be heard but a single word from the knowledgeable, well informed and open minded will last much longer in the minds of those that are willing to hear it.
Complain about this comment
17. At 12:36pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity
But infinity you've simply cited a link given in one of the comments in my original link, so a detailed analysis is indeed ongoing which is exactly what this needs and what Steve McIntyre has been trying to achieve since he first started looking at the AGW reports some years ago, and has met with strong resistance from the AGW camp who refused to allow access to the data.
And look at what Anthony Watts (one of the blogs AGW supporters love to criticise) said about the original article
"NOTE: While there are some interesting points raised here, it is important to note a couple of caveats. First, the adjustment shown above is applied to the tree ring proxy data (proxy for temperature) not the actual instrumental temperature data. Second, we don’t know the use context of this code. It may be a test procedure of some sort, it may be something that was tried and then discarded, or it may be part of final production output. We simply don’t know. This is why a complete disclosure and open accounting is needed, so that the process can be fully traced and debugged. Hopefully, one of the official investigations will bring the complete collection of code out so that this can be fully examined in the complete context. – Anthony "
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
So I repeat - this is hardly 'skim-reading'
My question would be why on earth was CRU producing such code anyway.
Complain about this comment
The problem I have with the idea that recent CO2 is causing significant global warming is that basic number do not add up. As a physicists who worked with computer modelling for many years I know that when it comes to a conflict between basic physics and computer models, its the basic physics that wins every time.
The 2007 IPCC report had conclusions that didn't match the numbers contained in the report. The main point being that all the man made effects lead to a radiative forcing of 1.6W per sq metre (to put that in context - that's equivalent to trying to heat a (6m*4m)room with a 40w light bulb). Now the heat reaching the surface from the sun is 168W per sq m. and the back radiation from the 'normal' greenhouse effect is 324W per sq m (*). (ie a total of 492 W per sq m.) and we are being asked to believe that a increase of a mere 1.6W can cause a significant increase.
Sorry folks but it can not - all that sort of extra energy could manage is less than a quarter of a degree.
(*) this 324W is the energy required to raise the earth's surface temperature from around -19C to +20C.
(and before anyone asks - all numbers are from the 2007 IPCC report)
Complain about this comment
It is estimated that reducing C02 enough to counteract the effects of AGW, assuming that it is human C02 that is causing it which is far from being proven, it would cost the world economy around $5 trillion per year, out of a global economy of around $70 trillion. In contrast the amount of money needed to be spent on stopping/solving the problems that it may cause is around $800 billion to $1.2 trillion per year. I think ill go with the second option. :)
Complain about this comment
The BIG NEWS story is this:
UK Government to block Met Office review into the science of climate-change.
No openess, no transparency here, no attempt to come clean with a growingly sceptical public, but a crude political attempt to keep secret the machinations of a group of scientists who themselves have been blocking others to get at the raw data.
It was not the crime that brought Nixon down, it was the cover up.
Climategate justs gets bigger and bigger.
Complain about this comment
Colonicus42 wrote:
"The theory of AGW is based on facts."
This betrays a profound lack of understanding of how science works. No scientific theory is "based on facts" or implied by data or anything of that sort. A theory is a "bold conjecture" about things, most of which cannot be seen directly. Such a conjecture yields predictions of things that can be observed. Experiment/observation allows us to "check" whether or not the predictions are accurate. If they are, the theory passes a test; if not, the theory is discredited.
There is no "proof"; nothing is "based on facts"; all theory remains conjecture.
Did you study science in the same school as Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband?
Complain about this comment
The BBC claims there is no bias towards AGW as envisaged by the IPCC, but what about this piece by Richard Black here analysing the last 800 thousand years of changing climate :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
although, I do admit, he shows some caution.
To prove that there is no bias I would like to see him do a similar piece on the information found here based on CO2 levels for the last 600 million years :-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
If these graphs are correct, then they seem to show that CO2 has very little, or no, effect on the Earth’s climate.
I would also like to see his calculations of the “carbon footprint” of the Copenhagen Conference – I suspect that it will use enough fossil fuel to last me several millenia!
Complain about this comment
Re Infinity:
So, because one blogger apparently got the wrong end of the stick, you write us all off as 'pseudosceptics' - to be ridiculed and ignored? It so happens that, although the 'offending' code was commented out in one file, it wasn't in another file - so much for your thoroughness then.
Many of us are doing a more thorough analysis of the code, and you will be seeing a lot more in due course.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Man-made global warming is a fraud.
More and more of the public were beginning to realise that before Climategate and were starting to resent the lecturing style of environmentalists like Johnathon Porritt, journalists like Richard Black and politicians like Gordon Brown.
Now after Climategate people can barely hide their contempt in the way that scientists and the AGW lobby have conspired to mislead the general public.
Climategate is a start of a process that will end scientific careers, undermine public support for organisations like the UN, BBC and Greenpeace, and topple governments who dare to impose swinging green taxes.
Politicians can make all the promises they want at Copenhagen, their electorates will ensure that such promises will never see the light of day.
Complain about this comment
Al Gore before Congress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNzBRiAyn8o
Complain about this comment
Whoops IPCC caught again using non peer-reviewed data in it's reports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
The way it's going the whole 2007 report will collapse before it snows in Hopenhagen
Complain about this comment
RE: 'Climategate'
Just as it is virtually impossible to get funding to investigate anything contradicting climate change (its self a scientific fraud!) the whole exposer of fraud within the scientific community involving climate change has received relatively little, in my opinion, coverage. Methinks people don't want to finally admit they were wrong. :)
Complain about this comment
Re:25
The theory does not get discredited because predictions are innacurate. You asses why the predictions were incorrect and improve your theory if there are factors which were not taken into account. You do not throw away a theory because someone made the wrong prediction, or in this case that the prediction was too large a change.
You make a prediction/assumption, test it, then improve it.
I was merely trying to avoid using language that could be understood by those who arn't from a scientific background.
Complain about this comment
I have just watched Jordan Maxwells latest video which arrived today from the States. this and the last three videos by Alex Jones, should be compulsory reading and watching for every person who has any care for what is happening in the world around them.
there is a saying, 'hidden in plain sight' but how many see what is there right in front of them? seeing as this anthropomorphic climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled on people by those who are in power, then Copenhagen is nothing more than a set of pretexts to bring in the new world order which is nothing short of fascism, sadly this is the only conclusion that can be drawn.
how many so called greens are under the delusion that the earth will be saved by this treaty? I have news, the earth does not need saving, save from our greed, destruction, but certainly not from the carbon dioxide, we emit. how easily we are brainwashed by all this drivel about Copenhagen so many going about with half closed eyes like sheep being led to some future slaughter. or enslavement. I wonder. God help us after Christmas has gone.
Complain about this comment
Re 21: sparklet
So you are using the fact that people like me are having to correct the pseudoskeptic's spurious conclusions as evidence that "analysis is ongoing"? Too funny. I was kind of demanding the pseudoskeptics undertook the necessary analysis in the first place before they reached conclusions of fraud. Not the otherway round.
As it is, the pseudoskeptics are spewing out conclusions before they've even carried out such analysis.
Quote from the very blog you linked to:
"As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred."
That's an unwarranted conclusion based on a lack of analysis.
The title of the blog post was "The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To"
This isn't analysis in progress, it's psuedoskeptics minds made up without analysis. Note the word "proof" too, care to explain to me what that blog post proved?
That link is being used all over the internet by pseudoskeptics as proof that scientists have fraudulently altered data. Read the comments in the WUWT post you link to. Includes
"I can’t comprehend their justification for this obvious blatant fraud"
and a lot more to that effect.
And this is the shoddy analysis which the mountain that pseudoskeptics call "climategate" is made from.
Complain about this comment
See Paul McCartney take on the world got kicked out of Brussels with is multi-millionaire approach to AGW
QUOTE British MEP Richard Ashworth, a former dairy farmer, condemned the singer's plans, accusing the music legend of "selling vegetarianism on the basis it can save the world."
He also branded McCartney's statistics "muddled, misleading and wrong."
Mac mate:
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be,
Give us a break like la,calm down calm down
Complain about this comment
re 27: the psuedoskeptics ridicule themselves with their actions. Note how that blog post which you admit "got the wrong end of the stick" (I think that's an understatement - accusing scientists of fraud without any evidence is far from "getting the wrong end of the stick") has been spread far and wide over the internet.
So much for critical review. Pseudoskeptics rely on such wild unsubstantiated conclusions to prop up their "climategate" meme.
Complain about this comment
Re:34
Sorry, got distracted while typing.
Should have read, "I was merely trying to use language that could be understood by those who arn't from a scientific background".
Complain about this comment
Whoops again: Denmark seems to be getting cold feet (pun intended)on AGW
This from the parlimentary speaker:
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Infinity: I hope thats not a hockey stick you got hold of.
Apart from that the response you gave me on a previous post was the biggest load of hogwash I have seen. Not even Gavin the "gnome" came up with such utter rubbish. Perhaps you could compare your points to those made about Eugenics to aid everybody.
Complain about this comment
More news from Norfolk:
Norwich Crime Rate Falls
I wonder is that because the UEA CRU is basically closed down at the moment????
Complain about this comment
Won't matter what happens at Copenhagen - in the UK we'll get hammered with green taxes anyway. I see Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband are now referring to "Climate Denial" in the same breathless, indignant tones as Holocaust denial. How long will it be before disagreeing with crazed eco-fascists is deemed to be a serious criminal offence ? Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Richard Black:
Thanks for the ongoing countdown to the Copenhagen summit....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
I've long held the view that most of the UK's politicians accept the reality of MMGW -- it's just that knowing a majority of their constituents think it's all a hoax designed to raise taxes does rather dent their confidence when it comes to taking a lead. Here's the view of Dr. Nick Palmer, the Labour MP for the constituency in which my business is located. As a comment it's thoughtful, rational and he makes some good points of which the sceptics and deniers ought to take heed. It also happens to be pretty much my position too....
"Climate change: what should Britain's position be?
This is going to dominate the news in the coming week. What should Britain's position be?
I understand statistics but I'm not a climatologist, so I'm not going to offer my own interpretation, and I'm slightly bemused by the way that some people read an article somewhere and become instantly certain that it's the only possible truth. But it's possible to make some objective comments:
• The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, though not all, believe that there is a global warming process in train, that human activity is mainly the cause, that its consequences will be catastrophic, and that it's still possible to ameliorate it, though not prevent it altogether.
• Scientists are not always right, and there are past cases where the overwhelming majority view turned out to be mistaken.
• If the perceived problem is to be tackled, it needs to done globally. There are things that Britain can solve on its own, but this isn't one of them.
Given this starting point, what should British politicians say? It seems to me that we have to work on the assumption for now that the scientific advice is correct. If it's correct and we do nothing, we are quite literally betraying our children. If it's incorrect and we take unnecessary action, we are spending money that could have been spent on something else. That's a pity, but not catastrophic, and the actions generally have some useful benefits in themselves. For example, by switching away from fossil fuels, we reduce carbon emissions, but we also reduce dependence on imports of gas from places like Iran, Algeria and Russia whose long-term amiability it is…well… difficult to guarantee.
There is a place here for Britain setting an example and taking a lead, as we've done with the Climate Change Bill, but primarily we need to do all we can to broker a global agreement, since that's the only thing that will really work. So even if a deal in Copenhagen depends on us making painful steps ourselves, I'm in principle in favour of it (obviously we need to look at the details).
All the main parties agree on this – David Cameron commented similarly last week after a scientist was found to have written cynical emails: Cameron simply said that the overwhelming majority remained convinced of the danger. So it looks as though the policy will be similar whichever party is in power, and on this issue I agree with Cameron. But what about the sceptics? These are grouped on the Right – UKIP and the BNP are opposed to the whole idea, and David Davis and our local Conservative Euro-MP Roger Helmer have broken with their party's position on this. It's not obvious why this is – there is nothing especially left-wing about worrying that we're ruining the planet, since if it's true it'll be bad for everyone, left or right. But I think they react against the messengers on this issue – because the early campaigners were anti-capitalist greens, they feel the whole thing is just a ramp of what they see as eco-nutters and self-interested scientists after funding for their work.
One can never be sure about trends or about science, as I said above, and we should continue to monitor the latest findings. But I don't think we can responsibly ignore the advice: the downside if we did and it was wrong is just too large."
Complain about this comment
Re #36. At 2:34pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity
Infinity,
This blogger who declares himself to be "a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming" puts forward a theory, shows his detailed workings to all with conclusions and then invites comment. In the debate he concedes that his analysis "doesn’t prove anything except the fact that[as far as the CRU is concerned] we need to throw out the existing research and start over."
but that it is "evidence enough to show the potential for foul play and they they deliberately hand-coded methods that skewed climate data towards a hockey-stick type shape"
and yet you declare this process to be 'skim-reading' !!!
And the 'sceptic' stance as portrayed by Anthony Watts
"NOTE: While there are some interesting points raised here, it is important to note a couple of caveats. First, the adjustment shown above is applied to the tree ring proxy data (proxy for temperature) not the actual instrumental temperature data. Second, we don’t know the use context of this code. It may be a test procedure of some sort, it may be something that was tried and then discarded, or it may be part of final production output. We simply don’t know. This is why a complete disclosure and open accounting is needed, so that the process can be fully traced and debugged. Hopefully, one of the official investigations will bring the complete collection of code out so that this can be fully examined in the complete context. – Anthony"
Compare this to the hockey stick Team who have consistently refused to show their data and detailed workings and the AGW proponents who declare the science to be 'settled' .
[Although many, many scientists disagree with them -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
]
Now tell me - who have been the more 'scientific'?
And again the question - why was the CRU producing code such as this?
Complain about this comment
Those of us unfairly labelled 'Climate Change Deniers' by the quasi-religious believers in Anththropic Global Warming, could retaliate by labelling them 'Green Meanies'.
Climate change and the Seasons, like the weather, will continue irrespective of what politicians and government-funded experts think or do, and we certainly do not deny that fact. What we do deny however, is that human activity is main cause of 'Global Warming'.
According to Milankovitch, (one of the giants listed, upon whose shoulders we are supposed to be standing), Earth reached the Perihelion some 10 - 11years ago, and in approximately 12,500 years time will reach the Aphelion in the middle of the next Ice Age. Earth is therefore in the first phase of cooling; consequently, it would be reasonable to expect that the continued effects of perceived warming are the results of Residual Heat gained as she approached the perihelion.
This appears to have been siezed upon by unscrupulous politicians and Meanies with the object of parting the general public from their cash.
Is Milutin Milankovitch no longer politically correct?
Dave Griffiths
South Devon. uk.
Complain about this comment
@infinity wrote:
"And psuedoskeptics call this shoddy level of analysis "proof". It's funny how they set the bar so low for their self-promoted "climategate" when they set the bar ridiculously high for climate science."
--------------------------------
First, what exactly is a 'psuedoskeptic'? I am curios as to the meaning of this new label for those who are skeptical. In my view, every good scientist is skeptical. When there is no longer room nor acceptance for skepticism in science, it is not longer science.
I must strongly disagree with this assessment. The 'bar' for climate science is set incredibly low. Climate science is considered a hard science, with every other scientific discipline, before results and conclusions are accepted, they must be reproducible. This is not the case with climate science, we are presented with results and conclusions, but we don't get the raw data, the correction algorithms used on that data, nor do we get the 'corrected data' or the models used to produce the results and draw the dire conclusions.
In any other discipline, this would be considered unacceptable. Papers would be returned with the suggestion that they be submitted to "The Journal of Irreproducible Results".
If the consequences are so dire - why should we not have transparency. If it is truly as bad as we are told, should not all the data, models, algorithms, etc be publicly available to every researcher out there? Or for that matter, anyone.
I think if the situation is truly as dire as we are told and the science is as 'strong' as we are led to believe, we should create a repository for researchers - a library so to speak, which contains all the raw data, algorithms, corrected data and models used to create these results and dire conclusions. No paper should be accepted for publication without all the data, algorithms, models, assumptions, etc being presented for all to see and review.
This would not only lend credibility to the science but also allow for the science to advance much more rapidly. But this is not the case. We don't get the raw data, nor the corrections, nor the corrected data, nor the models - all we get are wild predictions - and 'trust us'. Well, sorry, I am not a trusting person - show me.
In this case - there are literally trillions of dollars at stake. Massive changes are required or we will all bake - poppycock. Before I spend a dime, I want to see the money, so to speak. I want transparency with regards to climate science.
I think a big part of it is that most climate scientists don't want their work to be scrutinized. Most academics write 'garbage code'. They are not professional programmers, they don't adhere to standards. For example, the GISS model was actually written in fortran IV, much of it is 25 years old and has been modified and added to in a haphazard fashion. According to one of the Sr. Developers working for Mr. Hansen, the code is extremely difficult to even get it to run.
I was on the team, led by Prof John Junkins which developed the first algorithms for implementing parallel processing for the finite element method - these algorithms still form the basis for most all the climate models today - and that was done 20 years ago. My specialty was modeling chaotic dynamic systems. After leaving academia, I created climate models for trading companies to use in pricing climate options, as well as developing models for many other systems. So, I would suggest that I have an understanding of the subject.
Today, we simply do not know enough to model Earth's climate system in any meaningful way. As a chaotic dynamic system, while it is deterministic, it is also unpredictable. To think that we can make meaningful predictions is just plain crazy. To think we can 'control climate change' is absolutely insane in my opinion.
Please, provide me with an acceptable rational for not requiring complete transparency with regards to climate science - as we do with all the other hard sciences. You can't can you?
Particularly as the consequences are so 'dire' - should we not have this transparency? We are told we must spend trillions of dollars and drastically change most every aspect of our lives for climate change. Well as long as the results are not reproducible and the data, algorithms , models and science are kept super-secret, I will continue to be skeptical, and rightly so.
Scientists have always been under great pressures - the peer review process and requirement that results are reproducible has kept scientists honest - this is the case with EVERY OTHER HARD SCIENCE - so why should this not be the case with climatology?
Oh, and btw, rocket science generally involves a set of 6 equations - which except in very simple cases, are non-linear and not solvable. Solutions are found using iterative techniques and approximation theory. And compared to Earth's climate system - these non-linear, unsolvable equations are child's play.
So, please, tell me why we should accept climate science on faith when we don't allow that for any other scientific discipline.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
try looking into maurice strong
http://www.mindanaoexaminer.com/news.php?news_id=20091204091052
and cashing in on carbon trading
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
his establishment of a sustainable, interfaith retreat community
http://www.transition-dynamics.com/crestone/9crestonecolorado.html
and the 'leadership courses run there
http://www.transition-dynamics.com/crestone/7seminars.html
and his views on democracy and that 'Western democracies needed to consider "licences to have babies."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/maurice-strongs-authoritarian-saviour/article1367576/
Complain about this comment
If no honest attempt is made to predict anything concrete, it is not subject to tests at all. It should laughed out of court. It's a stupid joke that only the very gullible and/or the religiously disturbed don't "get".
Global climate change "science" is thus regarded as gospel by all the main establishment figures -- the churches, the BBC, the British Government and Opposition, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian and almost everything in between, and of course that great judge of cutting edge science himself, Charlie "grey goo" Windsor. The people who realize what a cartload of old horse manure it is are the general public and -- yes -- scientists. I have yet to meet a genuine mainstream physicist, biologist, chemist or geologist who thinks it is anything other than a sham and a fraud. Did I mention horse manure already?
Complain about this comment
@Richard,
There were two things that happened this week of interest that you have not picked up on. First, Climate change actually made the news here in the US. Of course it was 'climate gate' of course. The news was not good for the 'climate change gang'.
It also snowed here where I live - on the coastal plain of Texas - in early December no less. While it does snow here - and we get flurries every few years, we typically get real snow about once every 20 years or so. The last time was about 5 years ago, on Christmas Eve. The last time before that, was Christmas Eve in '83. It snowed and accumulated 4 inches in parts of Houston. As a matter of fact, this was the earliest snowfall ever recorded here.
Snow also came early this year to Colorado and the Northeast. Everyone is worried about a very cold harsh winter. While the UK has what we used to call a "Marine" climate - typically mild, the Northern US has very cold, harsh winters. Where I live, in Texas, it is sub-tropically, with very hot and humid summers. This summer was very mild here, and this winter is already setting records.
Of course, the party line is that this is just natural variability which is masking 'global warming - of the man made variety'. Poppycock.
Regardless of statements made by President Obama's climate czar - an economics major and not a scientist - the US is not going to ratify any crazy scheme that comes out of Copenhagen.
Perhaps next year, you will return to the real environmental issues we face in the world. Then again, I am not holding my breath.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
re 47 sparklet:
"This blogger who declares himself to be 'a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming' puts forward a theory, shows his detailed workings to all with conclusions and then invites comment."
His accusations of fraud were not supported by his skim reading of the code. He didn't analyze what published results the code was used for.
"In the debate he concedes that his analysis 'doesn’t prove anything except the fact that[as far as the CRU is concerned] we need to throw out the existing research and start over.'"
It doesn't even prove that. It proves nothing. It's not even evidence of fraud.
Here is the accusation of fraud, unsupported by the code:
"As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred."
Real skeptics would ignore such a shoddy analysis. They certainly wouldn't be pushing it all over the internet. Psuedoskeptics are not true skeptics however.
Complain about this comment
re 48:
Milankovitch cycles affect temperature trends over thousands of years, they have no bearing on temperature changes of the past century or recent decades.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Pseudoskeptic?? I object to this word on the grounds that it is not in English!
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke
It is also worth noting that the Wall Street Journal reported Steve Mackwell as saying that Mann had tried to prevent GRL from publishing McIntyre's paper.
Complain about this comment
Great Blog Richard. The OPT have been campaigning for some time to get even a mention of the OVERPOPULATION problem at Copenhagen, but it is proving difficult. Even though it is the root cause of all these problems and offers the easiest and cheapest solution, it is still very difficult for most politicians and scientists to deal with. All we are talking about is better education and help with family planning. If we acted now then we might approach 2050 with 1 billion fewer people. That's 1 billion fewer to feed and house. One billion fewer consumers and polluters. It's got to make things easier. Our new offsetting initiative is recognised as the most cost-effective way forward, without the side-effects of other methods: http://www.popoffsets.com/ . I'm not holding my breath with Copenhagen, it already looks like Obama intends to arrive at the end and tell the world that America would loose too much money if they did anything, but I'm hoping to be proved wrong.
Complain about this comment
54. At 4:46pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity
Infinity,
You've avoided answering my simple, basic question -
Why on earth would the CRU be producing code such as this?
Complain about this comment
Re:59
Totally agree that operpopulation needs to be addressed and comprise part of the overall effort to avoid climate change. However it's no silver bullet and needs to be addressed in a sensitive and lightweight approach to avoid causing more problems than it would solve.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re 49:
The difference between skepticism and pseudoskeptism is much the same as between science and psuedoscience. Pseudoskeptism is an attempt to exploit the good name of skepticism without actually practicing it.
"Climate science is considered a hard science, with every other scientific discipline, before results and conclusions are accepted, they must be reproducible."
They are reproducable. NASA GISS and NOAA have reproduced the results of the CRU global surface temperature record for example.
RSS and UAH produce independent satellite temperature records, which largely agree - in effect reproducing each other's results.
In science results must be reproducable, not exact replication of all steps to get there. That is the best way as the result should not be dependent on method. For example for model results to be any good they should be robust across different implementations. I believe this is how it works in most, if not all scientific fields.
As for data - the raw surface station temperature data has been available from the GHCN ftp site for years. The GISTEMP surface temperature record source code is also available online and the GISS ModelE climate model source code is available on google code.
It's clear that we do know enough to model Earth's climate in a meaningful way. Multiple models written by different teams paint a similar picture. If there was a big possibility of co2 not causing significant warming, I would have expected that to have been demonstrated in a model.
Complain about this comment
re 60:
Given the filename, the code was probably used in
Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris, Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998:
Psuedoskeptics making accusations of fraud should have figured this out themselves before even thinking of alledging fraud.
Complain about this comment
Mr Black, your invocation of the "Emerald City" at the end is a touch stressing, as it would be better that were not some prophetic insight into a deflating denouement.
It is clear from what you describe that sabotage is in the air, and there are some shameless enough to attempt to ram it through and then gift-wrap it (another American specialty) in seasonal tinsel and proclaim "a great consensus has been achieved; have a nice day."
A consensus to Do Nothing -- to stall further -- or perhaps to have an American President "take the lead on climate" as Leader of Humankind -- is not going to be anything to write home about. It will merely accelerate our demise. And the serious people in this serious conversation -- Lord Stern, yourself, the many other brave figures who have fought for so long, so hard -- all know it is, indeed, demise that is on the table.
Maybe the Saudi Arabian delegation would rather asphyxiate slowly on their riches and oil fields than give up some potential revenue in the interest of survival?
Someone very serious has to go into a closed room with the obstructionist contingent and present them with the real numbers: the ones we all know exist, that were quashed at the last IPCC all-nighter, and that are continuously being calumnied by the hired guns of special interests. You know, Those Numbers. The "worst- case scenario" that is actually pretty quickly unfolding.
There is an ultimate lever the rest of us have, a sort of 'secret weapon" we can invoke: a Boycott. We can simply slug this debate out in very real terms, in the marketplaces of the planet. Those of us who are appalled by the failure of the worst offenders to act soberly -- after already having made a killing after a killing at everyone else's expense, through their obscene waste, overproduction, overmarketing and pollution -- enabled by utter moral depravity, a shameless sense of entitlement and an addiction to money that is simply revolting to behold -- can simply choose to go Full Stop on their products.
And Protectionism be damned. You can't force me to buy the dangerous stuff being sold by someone who literally wants me to suffocate!
If we have the courage to fight for the future of our children, we must have the courage to tell the truth about the people who are standing in their way, who would literally suck the very oxygen from their lungs. If we need to tell people they ought to take a hard look at their stock portfolios and their shopping habits, and perhaps send a powerful message back to the Arrogant Ones who think they have us all over a barrel, then by no means should we hesitate to do so.
The purchasing power of Europeans is enormous. Factor in the Japanese, and enlightened people everywhere, and you have a proper way to run this conference towards an acceptable outcome.
I think this may well be the defining moment Europe has been waiting for since the end of the last, awful war (God grant it truly was the last).
Lots of people need to put their feet down, quite hard, and be blunt to the pack of bullies.
Since when does Brazil, much less South Africa, tell the rest of us how to live? And what of India, that struggles to feed her hungry children and needs us to provide her with jobs & investments to do so?
I Strongly Urge the enlightened powers and voices that indeed represent the Future & the Health of the planet not to allow their efforts to get derailed by a gang of blustering buffoons that depend on us -- on you -- for literally every day of their survival. Especially those "leaders" who have attained their high office largely thanks to the support of Western interests in the developed countries.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about Chopsticks.
Disposable Chopsticks are destroying old-growth forests, literally chewing them up. This is inexcusable. It must stop. There is no reason why Asians who insist on Chopsticks cannot use reusable one, made of porcelain, glass, steel or even plastic.
Not to mention the fact that it is not any disgrace to any race to switch to reusable non-traditional (for Asia) flatware. This is a painless switch and I would expect the Chinese leaders to show some proper initiative by making that statement to their nation.
Almost two billion people on earth prefer to use Chopsticks. Much of the time, they use disposable ones. And there is no excuse for this crime. Which is what it is.
Those trees are not coming back. None of us has the several centuries of time needed to grow some of this timber back. Stop acting like there's no Tomorrow: there is. It's here. Push has come to shove.
Get it done: no holds barred.
Complain about this comment
ScudLewis, No. 2: And what exactly did you expect?
A tea party? Cucumber sandwiches?
It has become an "Us vs. You" issue -- very much so. Y'all made sure of That.
What particularly takes the cake is how those of you who are scratching your heads over "science" and "numbers" after thinking it would all go away on its own, like last weekend's hangover, are scolding us for actually knowing something you don't.
Sorry, life doesn't work that way. Not even after Georgie got "No Child Left Behind" passed.
Have a crumpet.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Larry Kealey, No. 53. Glad you're enjoying the snow. In Texas.
What you are not clear on is the physics of melting ice sheets.
In a warming system, once the ice melts, there will be a rising layer of fresh water that will create a thin (relative to the atmosphere; significant, relative to the height of your house) layer of fresh water sitting atop the salt water normally in the Gulf (next to you) or in the oceans (further away).
The melting ice will add this layer of super-chilled water that will play havoc with your normal currents. It will react to the pressure of the normal-temperature (warmer) salt water it is sitting on by Evaporating and Precipitating -- even as snow, or hail, or ice.
This is Not -- most emphatically Not -- a sign the "warming is over." It simply means monumental amounts of previously frozen water have been dumped into your neighbourhood, and are now evaporating.
And they will soon melt, and be lost forever, when your spring returns in about eight weeks, and you have another period of extremely hot weather.
That fresh water that had been formerly held as ice will be gone Forever.
No, it is not good news. Far from it: only the very superficial thinker would imagine it is a "good sign" that you have had snow in Texas in late November.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black doesn't want us to talk about IT.
The Today Programme this morning talked about IT, quoting several of the leaked e****s in detail.
Any Questions discussed IT, with most of the panel in agreement that IT was a serious problem.
So why is RB still in denial about the massive impact IT is having in the UK and elsewhere?
Complain about this comment
RICHARD you write: "...But as I said, discovering exactly what is written on these pieces of paper is a task that's been beyond just about everyone...."
Now you know how it feels trying to get reasonable responses out of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Hot Spots - Real Stories from The Real World ///
I think the reason the 'business as usual lobbyists' often prefer to argue the science of climate change is because they sense that this is the weak point.
And I think they are correct in this feeling.
The public is not comfortable with science in the main. It is arcane and full of fancy words, and the history of science is one theory being replaced by a more current one.
Scientists, both professional and amateur, thrive on this. Being at the tip of the spearpoint of new knowledge is what keeps us going. I love being there, and pitting my intelligence and knowledge base against the mysteries in the natural world.
But many voters are confused or just uninterested in this way of life.
For example, let's say that instead of climate science, we were on this blog in the year 1943, and debating th merits of the theory of nuclear chain reactions - let us say the splitting of the Uranium nucleus or of Plutonium, and we were well into the debate as to whether the U-235 isotope or the Plutonium-239 isotope were better for initiating a 'gigantic' explosion. And then there would be the hypothesis that fusing the known universe's lighest element, Hydrogen, was not the way to go - making an even bigger 'bang' possible.
The sceptics would be having a field day.
The difference between climate science and fission and fusion science is the demonstation of the one, versus the demostration of the other.
A video of the Trinity site fission bomb in the desert, or of a Pacific atoll evaporating as a five megaton thermonuclear reaction was initiated would convince even the most die-hard sceptic, I think. It would certainly convince the public.
Melting glaciers, incremental sea-level rise, the statistical corrections to the instrumental record, expanding deserts, these are significant, but not Hollywood.
So we have a problem.
But I suggest we are beating ourselves to death by arguing the details of science.
Henceforth, I shall attempt to balance relevant science with real stories from the real world. Empirical evidence - that is a fancy and arcane word, best left where it belongs - in the scientific literature and in similar targeted audiences.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Was interested to see Melanie Phillips (another cheer leader for the contrarians) got virtually no reaction from the audience when touting the same nonsense you see here. But Marcus Brigstock got lots of support when he injected some reality from his visit to the Arctic.
Maybe the UK public is not as gullible as the contrarians here, and Gordo really does have a mandate.
Complain about this comment
As a skeptic, both about the EU and the Climate Change debate and the human input to the change, I find the link given by commentator 26 Crowcatcher, very interesting. I am of the opinion that like all other things that this government has jumped on this is nothing more or less than a means of increasing tax. The fact that the EU has also jumped on this with swinging fines for those not complying is also indicitave of the same mind set. AS bot the EU and the Labour government have run out of money my premis is that give a few crumbs to a few scientists and have them mock up a theory and then give us enough evidence to increase tax against all opposition. Unfortunately the government and the EU are obvfiously paying for the media to continue the scam.
Complain about this comment
When politician's and scientist's careers rely on a specific outcome expect proof that outcome is wrong to be suppressed. Also, the flat earth accusation is the wrong way round, the established thinking at the time was that the earth was flat and the minority of dissenters believed it to be round. So the people who do not believe in mans role in climate change should be called "round earthers".
Complain about this comment
roly gross writes: '.....and Gordo really does have a mandate.....'
Dream on! You know a politician is in deep trouble when he resorts to name-calling!
(as in 'Climate sceptics are flat-earthers') Really makes you proud to be British, eh?
Complain about this comment
44. At 3:20pm on 05 Dec 2009, Caledonian Comment wrote: I see Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband are now referring to "Climate Denial" in the same breathless, indignant tones as Holocaust denial. How long will it be before disagreeing ... is deemed to be a serious criminal offence ?
Well of course it was not long ago that this was advocated here, allowed through by moderators and decided acceptable by the powers that be... as a notion... along with suspending democracy, as it was throwing up results that were inconvenient to some. Much as having opinions that are different can spoil the party for others.
I am sure Copenhagen will be much more...'empathetic' to those flying in from around the world. 35 from here. 20,000 from there. Cosy.
I never was one who wanted it 'obstructed', in one of the more mild words of such as Mr. Miliband*, but certainly would wish it well informed so that any deals cut are indeed good for planet and not too poor for the pockets of those who are already taxed by regimes who have neatly divorced the consequences of their professional actions from their personal pay, perks and pensions.. in perpetuity. Or those with world, saving, legacy issues and little time left to leave a mark on the stage that is much more than a stain of a certain colour.
So I now await the detail.
However, I remain concerned that there are some who see mob-stirring rhetoric as a legitimate, and wise political avenue to pursue.
The last time I recall being warned of 'saboteurs under the bed' was by a certain senator in the US in the 50s. And what he stirred up in the cause of casting doubt on those with other views, was not a great precedent to follow.
11. At 12:04pm on 05 Dec 2009, Researcher 14175758 wrote:
Richard,
Many of the 700+ comments on the previous thread which seem to perturb you so much are written by BBC licence fee payers who have genuine concerns that the UK government is steamrolling ahead with an agreement that has the potential to severely damage the economy, and to restrict the lives of UK citizens.
Indeed.
Or are, in my case, also questions based on a commitment to enviROI, which challenges initiatives to actually benefit the environment, and not just tick a box, shunt some money around, meet a target, skim in the name of green or a bunch of other 'tricks' that our lately green 'leadership' seem to be rather keen on whilst running around pointing at a vague 'IT' that 'they' are now here to save 'us' from, and are being thwarted by an evil cabal who, as far as I can gather, are being incorrectly and illogically claimed like a stuck 'straw man' record as denying the climate changes.
And far from being questioned on the facts, much less the ethics of that stance, seem almost egged on by a media that can often seem 'obliging'. At best.
*http://www.the-daily-politics.com/2009/12/climategate-fraser-nelson-takes-on-bob.html - 4th screen
Complain about this comment
I just realised that Global Warming has only been an issue since the EU started to interfere with our lives and hold its talking shop in both Brussels and Strasburg. May be igf the EU was disbanded the problem of global warming would then be fixed.
Complain about this comment
"I've another request, too - if you can restrain yourselves from plastering this thread with stuff about ClimateGate, please do."
That pretty much summarizes the BBC's approach to the whole global warming debate. The organization is so absolutely blinkered when it comes to opposing views.
ClimateGate is a critical issue leading up to Copenhagen and the BBC has just not done this investigation justice. The e-mails illustrate the shonky ethics behind the shonky science.
All of these people who are blindingly insisting on cut to CO2 emissions may as well stand on a street corner and yell "Tax me Tax me"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Richard,
I enjoy your comments and insights on the climate discussion, I thought the level of conversation on these very important matters and also your insights has been invaluable, "EDUCATED, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE".
I believe the key issue regarding the sharing of information and is foundational for resolving not just climate change, but also other key global issues is Authentic Leadership.
A crucial element of creating a functioning society, is open educated conversation that is inclusive and transparent, that serves all versus a few, focused on resolving the issues versus lining the pockets and appeasing the victim in us.
To be informed once a year at chistmas time what a Annus horribilis it has been, when we already know, doesnt build credibility, its not leadership, it doesnt create clarity, it doesnt resolve fear and it doesnt show either a government or power that is in service of the people and one that is educated, also it just not timely!!
Dont the leaders realise that silence doesnt create a functioning society versus dysfunctional, the old adiage "You cant handle the truth" is based upon boomer generational values and levels of awareness, I suppose it understandable that while most Leaders are boomers they are not going to get this.
We need to get real authentic with ourselves and each others, then wouldnt get caught up in the collusion of this victim and martyr energy that just doesnt achieve anything, and ironically even this sounds victimee!
The performance of a society is directly attributable to the fear and happiness (and I dont mean materialism) level of a society, silence only leads to fear.
Authentic Leadership I believe is the most fundermental vital foundation required to creating a functioning global society. see http://www.joyfulleadership.com
PLEASE talk about this with your colleagues, a conversation is so needed to get individuals opinions and thoughts on open Authentic Leadership out into the main stream, I know I am not the only one who believes this as I have spoken to thousands and they all agree.
Complain about this comment
SnoddersB #73: "As a skeptic, both about the EU and the Climate Change debate and the human input to the change." and "Unfortunately the government and the EU are obviously paying for the media to continue the scam."
Deja vu.
I claim a foul.
A sceptic questions and doubts.
You are stating that AGW is a scam.
You are not a sceptic you are hard line anti-AGW.
You hereby loose the right to call yourself a sceptic.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
\\\ Hot Spot - Bolivia, South America ///
David Shukman's article and especially the audio-video supplement will be my first example of what I mean (my post #71).
1) The capital city of La Paz highlights the flight to the cities happening all over the world.
2) The shortage of water, and the consequences of further worsening of this water shortage, is also a worldwide phenomenon.
3) Lastly, the 'pattern' I spoke of in an earlier post, of reality continually happening at a rate faster than the conservative predictions of science, is demonstrated in this quote from the article:
-----------
"We made the steep journey up to the site of one glacier on the mountain Chacaltaya. At an altitude of 5,300 metres, it used to be the world's highest ski resort.
All that's left of the glacier now is a tiny patch of white amid a vast sweep of bare grey rock...
Back in 2005, glaciologist Edson Ramirez, from the University of San Andres in La Paz, predicted that the Chacaltaya glacier would vanish by 2015.
In fact it's happened several years sooner."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394324.stm
--------------
I would urge all visitors to this site to view the audio/video attached to this article, and send it to a friend or two, as I have just done.
- Manysummits, Calgary, where the Athabasca Glacier of the Columbia Icefields has been retreating for many years, and the glaciers of "Glacier National Park" in the Montana are also vanishing -
PS: Here is a link to one of the world's leading mountain glaciologists and his research group:
http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/front-page.html
Complain about this comment
Freudian slip, Mr Black?
'...the overtly climate-sceptical Tony Abbott'
Precisely what function does the adjective 'overtly' serve in that, and what does it say about your objectivity?
And...
'...to have another go at passing the bill next year'
What? So I have to read between the lines and assume the Aussies threw it out? Why don't you explictly state that in your article then?
Give us a break, man.
Complain about this comment
Researcher 14175758 #79: "...[unrepeatable]..."
My first reaction was to complain and have your comment removed.
But on second thoughts it's probably just as well that you've shown your true colours.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
JeffM #83: "Precisely what function does the adjective 'overtly' serve in that,..."
Well JeffM; overtly means "done or shown openly", so I guess Tony Abbott has made his scepticism about climate change know publicly as opposed to keeping it to himself.
Does that help you?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Manysummits wrote:
"The difference between climate science and fission and fusion science is the demonstation of the one, versus the demostration of the other."
Only someone who has never studied physics would make such a ridiculous claim. Atomic physics is a field that employs the very best minds in science. Theorists have produced breathtaking explanatory hypotheses, and experimentalists have devised cunning ways of testing them. There is beauty and brilliance in atomic physics. Above all, there is a feeling of "the key turning in the lock". (A feeling one also gets from other branches of mainstream sceince, by the way, such as evolutionary theory.)
I don't believe anyone has ever come across anything like that in "climate change science". It's a plodding, possibly fraudulent bit of unintelligent method-following. And it's the wrong method!
No genuine scientist has the slightest respect for "climate change science". It never makes people say "aha! -- now I get it -- I wish I had thought of that!" The supposed "consensus" doesn't matter for anything but political purposes, but for what it's worth I'm sure it simply doesn't exist. The Al Gore types who invented the "consensus" probably asked a bunch of sociologists or psychologists rather than physicists and biologists.
Explanation and prediction is what real science provides, and "climate change science" doesn't cut it! No wonder most of the people who are pushing this half-baked porridge down our throats have non-scientific backgrounds. Has Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, the Archbishop of Canturbury, Prince Charles, or any BBC science correspondent actually studied a bit of physics or biology?
Complain about this comment
@ (19) 84
I live by every colour of the rainbow, petal - get used to it and hang loose. Perhaps your answer lies on eebay, just search for "sense of humor" and make a generous bid.
Sorry, hon, can't stay and chat, a cheque from Big Coal's jus been delivered, and I've got an appointment in a well known department store, where they've been keepin some foundation garments under the counter for me for far too long.
It's time to liberate them.
Complain about this comment
When activists and journalists can't get hold of government documents, you know ... they have not done their job properly?
I know it's a cheap shot, and that declining journalistic resources makes this kind of thing increasingly difficult, and I also have no illusions about why or when documents are leaked, but still.
I find this oddly concerning. Does the general collapse of the media model herald an age of increasing government control over the most crucial information?
Complain about this comment
@davblo
"overtly means 'done or shown openly'"
Ahhh. Like I'm a denialist dummy heretic, eh?
Revisit the question. I don't need a shill to offer a definition of the word. I'm questioning the motive behind its use.
And why does Oz have to 'have another go at passing the bill next year?' This article fails to inform me.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re:- 49 LarryKealey
"Oh, and btw, rocket science generally involves a set of 6 equations - which except in very simple cases, are non-linear and not solvable. Solutions are found using iterative techniques and approximation theory. And compared to Earth's climate system - these non-linear, unsolvable equations are child's play.
So, please, tell me why we should accept climate science on faith when we don't allow that for any other scientific discipline."
Larry, I read this contribution of yours with a lot of interest. Once again, as I have said before, the science is way above me so I won't even try to debate that but I think you have demonstrated in your comments (to me at least) that it is absolutely impossible with the current state of the science to prove with certainty , one way or the other, that mankind's activities with respect to "greenhouse gas" emissions and in particular Carbon Dioxide has anything to do with "Global Warming".
The next scenario, then is "Will it ever be proven?" one way or the other!
If so.....When?
In the meantime, what do you and others who make up what I refer to as the anti-AGW lobby expect decision makers to do?
It is my understanding, having worked for the last 35 years of my life under the auspices of the Precautionary Principle in relation to the management of hazardous substances that in 1992 at Rio the decision was adopted to use the precautionary approach with "Climate Change" and with the updated report from IPCC stating "90% probability", the decisiom makers have no alternative UNLESS (and the anti-AGW lobby have had 17 years to do this!) the anti-AGW lobby can demonstrate (note......NOT prove) that the probability is greater for any identified "climate change" to be simply "natural events".
Obviously, as far as the decision makers are concerned, this they have failed to do. otherwise Copenhagen would not be taking place next week.
Complain about this comment
XGM #91
Does the precautionary principle apply if the science has been misrepresented by the proponents of AGW?
According to Lord Monckton
"The scientists’ final draft of the 1995 IPCC report contained five clear statements to the effect that humankind’s influence on global temperature was not yet discernible. They are as follows –
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] change to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively identified all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.”
“While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
“When will the anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know.’”
However, the IPCC bureaucracy did not find the scientists’ repeatedly-stated conclusion acceptable. Without reference back to all of the scientists who had collaborated in producing that final draft, the bureaucracy invited an accommodating scientist to excise these five conclusions, to make numerous other alterations, and to replace the deleted conclusions with the following:
“The body of ... evidence now points to a discernible influence on global climate.”
end Monckton quote
--------------------------------------------------------
Given the recent revelations form CRU one might be forgiven for thinking that the science has been misrepresented over a long period of time
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Black,
In your next blog, please could you write us a short note telling us whether your are a reporter on environmental affairs or a commentator on these issues. I ask this because you evidently think it is your brief to prosetylise on behalf of the case for man-made climate change and to denigrate those who take an opposing view and the data that supports them. If a correspondent in any other other field covered by the BBC, from business to politics, ever took such a partisan view, they would obviously be fired. So, what are you? A reporter or a commentator?
Thank you,
Hubertgrove
Complain about this comment
What gives me some hope is that the BBC News front page says Science and Environment! That says it all: there's a whole CND / Greenpeace activist movement out there that shouts loudly and which is increasingly political. This is not science.
Problem is, weather and climate are complex systems colonicus. When you switch on a computer, quantum mechanics applies the same rules to your key tap every time in a controlled manner in the silicon chip. Climate has LOTS of complex and subtle inputs to a global system not just dependent on CO2 levels, which we still know relatively little about. Compare this to "hard science" topics you refer to such as general relativity which can often be measured repeatedly to a high degree of accuracy. Interestingly, general relativity was empirically unproven for many years, and yes still isnt all encompassing, as most scientific theories, but a number of experiments (all in wiki..) demonstrated the predicted effect in real experiments to a high degree of accuracy. That is why most scientists accept this theory.
Those (including IPCC) interested in a few of the inputs (human generated) need to be put in context of the overall inputs and mechanisms of change (solar, naturally earth-generated, e.g. volcano eruptions) by a more rigorous scientific body / group that assesses research across ALL areas of climate study fairly and without political bias or ego as to the apparently huge importance man has in this ecosystem we know so little about, so that a more solid scientific assessment can be made. Otherwise we risk spending $bns and focussing peoples livelihoods wrongly to counter effects on climate change that could be completely irrelevant compared to a few sun spots or other phenomena outside our control.
Complain about this comment
Richard
Never mind the e-mails look at the raw data, sure climate change is real but natural solar and ocean cycles along with cloud formation have largely been discounted from the algorithms used to predict climate catastrophe. The BBC risks losing its credibility by the clear lack of impartiality on this issue. I agree that we should produce energy as efficiently as possible and conserve our consumption, but we are all missing the key issues of deforestation and general unsustainable use of resources. Fossil fuels will be gone in @ 100 years this will be a disaster for mankind though not for the planet it will certainly recover we however will not. Honesty is what is required and funding academic institutions to find a given outcome will not yield the result. Science should be funded independently without government preconditions and third party funding scrutinized to insure impartiality.
Complain about this comment
in 91 extragrumpymike2 says
"with the updated report from IPCC stating "90% probability", the decisiom makers have no alternative UNLESS (and the anti-AGW lobby have had 17 years to do this!) the anti-AGW lobby can demonstrate (note......NOT prove) that the probability is greater for any identified "climate change" to be simply "natural events".
But this is the dodgy area: the 2007 IPCC report SAYS 90% probability BUT the numbers in the report do NOT support than conclusion. It says that the total extra energy from ALL human activities is 1.6W per sq m - and that is far too small to have any noticeable effects. So why should the anti-AGW lobby have to do anything when the pro-AGW case is internally inconsistent.
Now if you can explain to me a mechanism whereby a mere 1.6W per sq m. could generate a temperature rise that was significant then I'll be prepared to listen; but until it is quite clear that AGW occurs only in the small to negligible range.
Complain about this comment
extragrumpymike, No. 91; As far back as September of 1975, "the greenhouse effect" -- Not a Theory, a Phenomenon -- was taught at Harvard University as part of the Natural Science curriculum, and included in any number of courses that related to geophysics, astrophysics, hydroscience, biology... These were courses taught by Nobel Prize laureates America was proud to proclaim her own.
The year I studied it, a large team of senior faculty came, from MIT, to join their Harvard colleagues, and explain the threats posed by the Greenhouse Effect to all of us students (in my class there were something like 700; it was one of the best attended courses on campus). The data that was already available then was presented to us from a variety of perspectives: chemical engineering, resource management, demographics, energy estimates... Not to mention biology, human physiology and morbidity.
FYI, that was already TWO years after I first heard of "the greenhouse effect" -- and studied it -- during my AP Chemistry class in 11th grade.
During those years, there were debates about the impact of chlorofluorocarbons, and -- guess what? -- CFCs were banned. Laws were passed regulating freons. California tightened its emissions standards. There was nothing like the petulance being exhibited by the people today who are determined to prevent anyone from doing something good for anyone else.
The only people who imagine the Greenhouse Effect phenomenon to be "a theory" are the ones who live rather sheltered lives (relative to everyone else present) and whose own rather limited experience of life's hardships limits how much they care about what happens to the afflicted masses who were unfortunate enough to be born far away, in some compromised ecosystem.
That is to say, until the day the climate refugees arrive, and require support from the local taxpayers. Then, all of a sudden, all kinds of people will start caring: when it is literally in their own backyard.
How much proof do we need of human beings' cavalier approach to uncertainties? The Ninth Ward in New Orleans might have been spared if the levees had been maintained adequately before the storm of many centuries suddenly hit.
The Chernobyl meltdown might never have happened if there hadn't been sceptics in the Control Room who actually had the temerity to question whether the "safety margins were real." (That was the specific nature of the "experiment" being carried out at the Chernobyl plant that day: a deliberate rejection of established procedures and declared safety margins by people who thought the prescribed tolerances had "simply been made up by someone to make their live difficult.")
All kinds of people keep smoking, or driving while intoxicated, never imagining it will kill them someday, in some horrible way.
One expects mature people -- much less people who believe themselves qualified to pass judgement on trained specialists -- to factor in a little humility, and accept that the "worst-case scenario" does indeed sometimes occur: even to the Nicest People.
These are not climate models that were constructed first and then had data 'tailored to fit' as someone here has proposed, earlier. Far from it.
I met with scientists in 1983 who had already been working on the subject for some years, in light of the collapse of the fragile Aral Sea, and because they were working on figuring out a way to save Lake Baikal from its toxic behemoth of a paper mill (dumping directly into the pristine Lake itself), and because they needed to verify the stability of the permafrost for the various drilling, mining & extraction operations going on. These were not scientists associated with any of the "interests" on either side of this debate, as articulated here. The lead scientist on that Biosphere team died over ten years ago; but his colleagues and successors carry on.
These brilliant men made some observations, saw some startling things, formulated a hypothesis, and then carefully tested it: again, and again, and again.
At the time, the work was hugely unpopular. They persisted. Then the Chernobyl catastrophe sounded a clarion call of sorts, indicating to assorted elites that maybe the system could not be counted on, 100%.
The facts about human damage to the habitat we depend on have been around a long time, in terms of an average human lifespan. Actually, we have projections made by some able scientists that go back to the very onset of the Industrial Revolution; revisited at every key bend in the road: when the oil boom struck, when rubber (caoutchouc) became commercially abundant, when munitions entered the modern age of armament, when the private automobile became ubiquitous, when flight became cheap and convenient, when satellites went up, and finally when the personal computer terminal brought the Information Age into billions of households and everything went digital...
Look at how many satellites we have studded the sky with! Consider how many movies are made, worldwide -- how many TV stations beam content to how many TVs in how many homes?
All this consumes energy & finite resources. How can anyone call AGW anything but a Reality staring you in the face? It's everywhere. We cause it. We run the power grids. We consume. We heat. We breathe. We exhale.
During the so-called "green revolution" we allowed native varieties of wheat to be replaced by hybrids developed in US labs -- hybrids that are "dwarf" varieties, and being considerably less tall, absorb considerably less carbon dioxide while releasing considerably less oxygen...
These were huge business decisions that made all kinds of people vast fortunes. But they also did a great deal of environmental damage while making someone rich. We used to have native wheats all over the world that were "native" precisely because they fit the habitat they originated in. They did not need interventions, fertilisers, pesticides... And gluten intolerance was unheard of.
We are the people who, for the sake of someone's revenue stream, are willing to compromise the health of our children: the single most precious asset universally recognised by all human beings.
It's us. That's all it is. And we are the only ones who can make up our minds to reduce the enormity of our consumption & production long enough to keep breathing another couple of decades -- and perhaps, in the interim, finding some other way of balancing our true biological needs -- for Health -- with our whims: mere caprices and a lust for more creature comforts than we genuinely require.
Complain about this comment
Two weeks ago CNN came to my house to interview me on a solution to global warming. The answer is one simple idea. Everyone is juggling within they they think will benefit their country and meet the minimum they can do to stabilize a run-a-way climate train. In stead we could focus on what will benefit the most number of people world wide and solve climate change forever. Countries are trying to keep agriculture out of the negotiations but the need to be at the core, because with humans activively engaged in putting carbon back in the ground as biochar, we can solve world hunger, grow our energy needs, increase oxygen levels, eliminate farm chemical runoff, grow nutrient dense foods and allow the world's poorest to save the planet. Past this link into your quicktime player and watch my video of CNN interviewing me.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
I have often heard that the BBC has lost it's reputation for neutrality. Having read your article I have to agree with this. The degree of arrogance in your article is only matched by Gordon Brown's stupid comments. Yes, he has got it wrong again and many more people than he realises have now the title "flat earther". These people also vote, but not or no longer for Gordon.
You seem to be unfamiliar with corruption of data by so called scientist although this phenomenon is nothing new. The smoking ban discussion is literally littered with junk science and the presence of big pharma in government a long established when regretable fact.
When Enron tried to use global warming to con big bucks the USA had to destroy the corrupt company but others saw the way to making a lot of money. This is what it is all about Richard. Global warming or cooling or whatever stage the earth is going through is just an excuse to milk Joe Public. The problem for you and our unelected leader is that Joe has figured it out and Copenhagen is dead. The rot in politics, science and especially the Health and Safety depts. has to be rooted out. Joe is fed up with all the masquerading con artists and he is not as stupid as you would like to think.
Complain about this comment
@Maria Ashot I guess you were 'having a pop' at me for being a denier. You simply missed my point about not understanding nuance or balance - but at the same time - completely reinforced my point. Bravo!!
Complain about this comment
you know, the more i read about these emails and code released into the wild by what appears to be a whistle blower, the more i realise the whole ClimateGate situation is WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!
Complain about this comment
@JunkkMale @Caledonian - "I remain concerned that there are some who see mob-stirring rhetoric as a legitimate, and wise political avenue to pursue" & "I see Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband are now referring to "Climate Denial" in the same breathless, indignant tones as Holocaust denial." Agreed. Gordon Brown's comments "we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics" - this either shows ignorance or is calculated to confuse and create a false issue.
Complain about this comment
First we had climate-gate.
Now we have a respectable scientist publishing claims that the IPCC 'accidentally' got the predicted date for himalayan glaciers to melt (2350) wrong and stated it would be 2035.
How many 'accidents' and 'misunderstandings' will have to be exposed before people realise what is going on?
Complain about this comment
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
"But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?"
Ok - more evidence of 'us & them'? Why not the title the piece 'The debate on Climate Science' - why the focus on 'sceptics'?
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot #97:
"the greenhouse effect" -- Not a Theory, a Phenomenon"
"The only people who imagine the Greenhouse Effect phenomenon to be "a theory" are the ones who live rather sheltered lives"
Despite what His Holiness the Pope and Maria Ashot tell us, a theory never becomes anything other than a theory. It may be a true theory, or a theory that has great explanatory or predictive power, but it always, always remains just a theory, because a theory is an idea or a bit of language that purports to describe reality. It can never, ever become the reality it purports to describe.
Why would anyone fantasize that an idea could become something more than an idea? -- This sort of categorical confusion is nearly always the symptom of a disease called yearning for certainty. But science does not and cannot give us certainty, and it is a mistake to hope that it can. It can yield explanations, and predictions, and truth. But not certainty.
Almost everyone agrees that the greenhouse effect is real. But our knowledge of it is a theory. Far fewer people agree that the greenhouse effect will cause the sort of super-mega-collossal religious apocalypse Maria Alshot envisages, or that those who disagree with her and her co-religionists "would literally suck the very oxygen from their lungs"(!) That too is a theory., and if I may say so it's a rather stupid one.
If you want an intelligent discussion about carbon dioxide and oxygen and the greenouse effect, get real and stop looking for certainties, and stop claiming certainty for disturbed sadistic fantasies that are deeply scientifically misinformed.
Complain about this comment
Re:-
96. At 11:47pm on 05 Dec 2009, oldterry2 wrote:
"So why should the anti-AGW lobby have to do anything when the pro-AGW case is internally inconsistent."
The answer to that is simple........because that's how the "precautionary approach" works. Check it out for yourself. It's not difficult to do. First look for Rio Earth Summit principle 15. then check "precautionary principle" in Wiki or wherever you choose and you will find (if you can read ) that what I say just happens to be correct.
In other words, if you can demonstrate in a convincing manner to those that matter (and that means the "decision makers" not the contributors to this "blog") that the 2000 plus persons that contributed to the initial and subsequent IPCC reports got it all wrong and that there is absolutely no need to do anything, then we can all go home and sleep easy in our beds. By "all" I mean those that support AGW and those that don't. That's called a win win situation.
However, the simple fact that most of the world's decision makers will be attending at Copenhagen next week suggests that neither you nor anyone else has bothered to put the anti-AGW case TO THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE IN THE APPROPRIATE MANNER.If on the other hand they have done that, then it would appear that they haven't convinced the "decision makers" (aka THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE)
If you believe that yakking away on this "blog" site is going to have any effect whatsoever I suggest you are being seriously delusional.
Lets just try a different approach, see how you feel about this. (for this I admit I am making the assumption that like myself you are not a climate scientist currently working in the discipline but are taking guidance from those that are)
Firstly, your bitch is not with me. I am just a messenger who knows nothing about climate science but having worked for over 35 years under the "precautionary principle" in another discipline (which was also on the agenda at Rio) I am very experienced in the "process".
Secondly, if there are scientists out there (as I am sure there are!) who are well qualified and experienced in climate sciences and who disagree violently (verbally speaking) with the IPCC reports, then they have a responsibility to convince the "decision makers" that IPCC got it wrong and since so far they haven't done that, your bitch is actually with them for failing in that responsibility, NOT with the pro-AGW lobby.
Complain about this comment
\\\\\\ Climate Scientists' Xmas Appeal //////
Spare a thought for those more fortunate than you at this time of year.
= Just £2 buys a box of 5-inch floppy disks so they don't have to keep deleting data
= £3 gets a pack of tarot cards
= £10 pays for a brand-new hockey stick
= £15 buys tools and seeds for top academics now on gardening leave
Complain about this comment
Don't talk about Climategate?
Erm, in the politest terms I can summon up, how dare you Richard?
"the more things actually matter - the closer events move to what governments really hold to be important, rather than what might seem important from some agenda or fancy formal title - the closer they guard information."
Uhuh - can I suggest another alternative? one you really should have figured out by this dispicable government's past history - "the closer they hide their info, the more likely it is to be pure bunk". Dodgy dossier? And I love the way you glide past the Aussie story - those liberals elected a new leader did they? And *why* did they have to do that? Oh yes, cus the last one was *obliterated* because of his warmist leanings. Isn't the BBC supposed to give us the full story?
And can we get any comment from the BBC, or yourself, on why climategate was a taboo subject for a fortnight, and then was *suddenly*, overnight,leading news bulletins? The story hadn't changed. Even the info Susan Watts presented on newsnight regarding the models being hopeless was common knowledge on the blogs within 48 hours of the leak - how come if the *story* hadn't changed, suddenly the BBC started covering it?
Shameb by the blogs? Instructions from your lizard-people overlords? Hmm?
BTW, "moderate" this and I'll only blog about it, so....
Complain about this comment
To mitigate/solve the negative effects of adverse climate change is going to take money.
Lots.
Assuming it is possible.
Hence I take a keen interest on who wants it, And for what.
Words and deeds in the past leave many today wanting as trustworthy proxies in this regard.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/flat-earth-climate-change-copenhagen
The planet, and my kids' future upon it, is too important to leave to vague rallying cries that mean little, especially when made by folk whose records suggest that wherever that money goes they might not be the best to direct it.
There are a lot of ways to lose it down green holes that tick boxes, meet targets, score bonuses and forge lucrative careers if people are not careful in holding representatives who think they are rulers to account.
And some in the media can be complicit, either through ideology or ignorance.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-power-of-10-helping-to-counter-global-warming-1835073.html
And I do have a concern when some see themselves as in need of sidelining a few others:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/6737353/Only-one-in-two-voters-accepts-man-made-climate-change-according-to-new-poll.html
If the message is that important, either change it such that people an engage, or change the messengers. Don't try and blame everyone else for not getting with the programme and try on a bullying, bum's rush, moving on, inquiry when it's over 'too late now' style of politics.
Complain about this comment
"Was interested to see Melanie Phillips (another cheer leader for the contrarians) got virtually no reaction from the audience when touting the same nonsense you see here. But Marcus Brigstock got lots of support when he injected some reality from his visit to the Arctic.Maybe the UK public is not as gullible as the contrarians here, and Gordo really does have a mandate."
Amazing how the BBC handpicking the QuestionTime audience for "balance" can consistently skew the mood eh? Who would have thought it? Oh and if you recall, when Mel was on the global gag was still in place - climategate was *verboten* on news bulletins and only those who searched out info from the blogs would have known the full story.
There's something very familiar about all this. Total control of the broadcast media, rewriting, unwriting and rewriting history again, "public" meetings packed with government stooges, dissidents branded by government as "sabouteurs" and "lunatics".... Maybe I just dreamed all that stuff about the Berlin Wall coming down?
Complain about this comment
hmmmm, here's a theory and since i have no evidence to show it's real, it must be true ;)
We haven't heard from Yeah_whatever in a very long time, b ut previously he spent most of the day posting here, trying to convince people AGW was real. We also know he was a computer programmer.
My theory is the whistle blower is Yeah_whatever! It all fits, YW gets caught posting here all day instead of manipulating the data, gets fired, takes revenge by blowing the whole thing wide open
I have correlation on my side, therefore my theory must be true!
Complain about this comment
Re:- 97. At 11:56pm on 05 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
So much in this comment of yours, I'm not sure I understand all of it.
Are you suggesting that I have claimed that "climate Science" commenced 17 years ago? If so, either I haven't been too clear or you are reading into my comment #91 something that isn't there. What I am pointing out to Larry (your countryman?) is that the "process" for dealing with AGW was formalised at Rio in 1992 (ie that the Precautionary approach would be used , Principle 15.) That is 17 years ago and that established the responsibility of the "anti"-AGW lobby to come up with evidence to prove the IPCC "got it wrong".
However, may I recommend that you don't try to "teach grandad to suck eggs" ....it's an excellent way to lose friends! You start to loose credibility when you quote California's emission standards alongside the Montreal Protocol banning the use of CFC's etc. I am aware that California was still using significant quantities of Methyl Bromide at least 10 years after the protocol came into force and I believe (have no recent proof of this but..) that the practice continues. As a person who has just had a successful operation to remove a melanoma I have to state I am not impressed!
Not withstanding all that, most of what you say I totally agree with (just try to restrain your emotions just a bit!) In the immortal words of the ABBA song:-
Money, Money Money,
It's a rich man's world!
Or as Mahatma Gandhi said:-
"Nature can supply our needs but not our greed"
Complain about this comment
Nice propaganda on the BBC this morning showing 2 jars. One is slowly filled with copious amounts of CO2 and the temperature rises faster in that jar than in the jar without the CO2.
Very scientific.
Care to try the same experiment with just a trace of CO2 or with water vapour for example?
No, thought not.
Complain about this comment
XGM #106
My last riposte to one of your posts did not make it past the moderators for reasons I do not understand. Hey ho.
@ 106 you make a point that I know you have made before and which, on face value, I think is valid. I do not expect Gordon, Ed, Angela or Barack are tuned in to this blog hanging on our every word. Neither are the people that advise them. However, the people that elect them do seem to get their news from the internet. How else can we explain the level of scepticism in countries like the UK the USA and OZ?
We have also witnessed an amazing transformation at the BBC over the last week or so. They now give airtime to people who do not accept the AGW hypothesis. This is clearly a response to public opinion and it seems to me that public opinion is more and more formed on blogs like this.
I visited David Cameron’s blog recently and it was interesting to read the comments. I would guess that 90% of the posters were telling Cameron to drop AGW. This is not something that DC can do easily as he has gone out of his way to present a green façade. U turn never looks good on a politician’s CV. However, public opinion, currently driven by leaked emails and interesting coding practices from deepest Norfolk, may just cause our Dave to think again. And he has the perfect opportunity to rethink his position if it turns out that the science is not quite as good as it should be. He will have someone to blame. Something else beloved of politicians.
The current situation will all take some time to unravel. One of the problems with the internet is that we all expect things to happen instantly. But we will have to await the results of investigations, senate hearings and the like before we know the real state of play.
The delegates in Copenhagen will be attempting the impossible. I doubt that they will achieve it.
One thing for sure – we live in interesting times.
Complain about this comment
82 Manysummits I posted about this terrible lie and propaganda on the previous thread. SO WHAT is all I can say. The UK was under ice to a point just south of Oxford when this very small Bolivian glacier formed. Perhaps you would like to ask the people of Oxford "would they like their glacier back?"
Complain about this comment
Janeinbasingstoke,
Interesting response from James Saiers I wonder if that has anything to do with his boss, who happens to be an IPCC railway engineer?
Complain about this comment
Climategate: The Impact
Less than 30,000 people turned up for the climate change protests across the UK on Saturday. The protest organisers were predicting 5 times that number would turn up.
As both the UK government and the BBC had featured this protest as part of their build up to the Copenhagen such a dismal turn out will no doubt cause concern that the public are no longer interested in climate change. It is not a vote winner.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
"I've another request, too - if you can restrain yourselves from plastering this thread with stuff about ClimateGate, please do."
There are more than 700 comments on the previous thread, the vast majority related to it. I know from e-mails that some readers find endless picking over of climate science repetitive and boring - and when they do, they don't read through the comments. Fresh, pertinent and interesting are my suggestions."
Richard - I find your request quite baffling. The leaking or theft of emails which contain information that is controvertial enough to warrant an inquiry (UEA, Sir Muir Russell), surely merit discussion on an environment related blog such as yours?
I can't think of another example of the BBC asking blog commentators to stop commenting about a subject that is controvertial enough for an inquiry - Iraq? David Kelly? MPs Expenses were 'leaked' documents that contained controvertial information. I don't recall a BBC journalist telling commentators to stop commentating as the 'nit-picking' was all getting a bit 'boring'.
Whatever the arguments about Climate Change, it is a complex area and it is surely a topic for open, democratic debate, and the BBC is tasked to allow this to happen. That's how we enrich our understanding. I would resepectfully ask you to review your request to close the debate surrounding research into climate.
Complain about this comment
We are wasting our time saying anything on this blog. Richard quite clearly neither reads nor wishes to understand anything we or any of the other licence fee payers are asying.
If you want evidence for that just look at his Q&A where after everything that has been said you will still find a full blown Mannian "hockeystick". The only possible comment is Victor Meldrew's.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Very good demonstration of the greenhouse effect by scientist Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock from EADS Astrium visiting the Royal Institution's new Young Scientist Centre to carry out a simple experiment that shows how CO2 traps heat.
See it (video) here under ‘Science Explained: Greenhouse effect in a bottle’:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
Also more here on how the old noisy inefficient internal combustion engine will be rapidly replaced by much quieter electric vehicles. It’s all good news; as such vehicles would mean that streets where people live will be much quieter, with almost no local air pollution. This will be good for people with lung disease such as asthma and COPD. See item here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/8395971.stm
It seems all the ‘sceptic’ arguments on here are becoming ever more irrelevant, as new inventors and entrepreneurs move rapidly ahead with new technologies.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
"I've another request, too - if you can restrain yourselves from plastering this thread with stuff about ClimateGate, please do."
I think he is concerned that this is covered by the Official Secrets Act.
CRU has been caught with weapons of math destruction in their code,
and paraphrasing Tony Blair, which allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh, irrelevant as usual, says at #115:-
‘...The UK was under ice to a point just south of Oxford when this very small Bolivian glacier formed. Perhaps you would like to ask the people of Oxford "would they like their glacier back?" ’
I didn’t think anybody lived in what we now called Oxford, then. How does his rhetorical question have any bearing on conditions necessary for modern, complex, human civilisation.
Always bringing up what the Australians would call a ‘furphy’ is our Kamboshigh.
Complain about this comment
Spanglerboy at # 114 says
‘How else can we explain the level of scepticism in countries like the UK the USA and OZ?’
Three words, Spanglerboy,
‘Fear of change’ exacerbated by your goodselves, climate sceptic blogs run by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests.
In fact, people have nothing to fear from new technology, which will rapidly supplant the old economy anyway. It was ever thus in human affairs or we’d still be heating food over an open fire.
I believe everyone should rejoice in doing things differently, makes life exciting don’t you think?
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #124 wrote of
"those sceptics that don't believe in any greenhouse effect at all"
How do such people explain greenhouses?
I didn't know there were people who don't believe in any greenhouse effect at all. After all, greenhouses trap heat, and frost forms at night when there aren't any clouds. Such people would be denying the obvious -- perhaps such people really do deserve the word 'denier'!
Please note that most sensible sceptics like myself merely reject the idea that the greenhouse effect generated by CO2 at less than 400 parts per million can have all that significant an effect on our climate, compared to the Sun, say. When I was a child I used to project an image of the Sun onto paper and look at the sunspots. I haven't been able to do that with my own children yet, although I have been able to point out aurora borealis while staying in Iceland. These are things that can be observed pretty directly by an amateur, unlike a 0.00005 change in the concentration of an invisible, mostly benign gas.
Complain about this comment
" I've another request, too - if you can restrain yourselves from plastering this thread with stuff about ClimateGate, please do."
Dear Mr Black
I am happy to do this if you and the BBC are willing to do the following:-
1 Stop referring to climate change on almost every news item.
2 Provide some balance to people who do not support the disproven alarmist view of dangerous global warming due to man made CO2 emissions.
3 Most importantly explain why the BBC did not publish these emails when they first received them.
I will not hold my breath but before this story broke 51% of people polled did not consider global warming to be a problem. That number will rise and rise as people become more aware of this manipulation of data, supression of the release of data and conspiracy.
So finally, why should I pay a license fee to an organisation that campaigns on an issue and provides an inferior news service on the same issue. I can obtain free news on the web. Google hits 32 million for the name that we should not mention?
Complain about this comment
soveryodd #128 wrote:
"‘Fear of change’ exacerbated by your goodselves, climate sceptic blogs run by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests."
Huh? I thought the whole climate change industry was aimed at preventing (or minimizing) change, presumably because you assume change is bad and we should be frightened of it!
Complain about this comment
@ADMac
"CRU using weapons of math destruction"
Quality !
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke
Jane,
I don't think anybody doubts the greenhouse effect or that CO2 is a green house gas. Idso (1998 i think) demonstrated empirically that climate sensitivity was around 0.4C and recently Lindzen has also emppirically showed climate sensitivity in the tropics to be 0.5C
Only non-empirical calculation suggest climate sensitivity is high
This is why i keep repeating CO2 is incapable of raising temperature significantly
Also, the IPCC have been telling us since the first report, that AGW will have a specific signature (AR4, Chapter 9 P675 from memory), predicted by the computer models and illustrated in the diagrams in chapter 9. Despite searching for the signature for over 2 decades, it hasn't been found. What does that tell you?
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd #128
‘Fear of change’ exacerbated by your goodselves, climate sceptic blogs run by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests.
LMAO! And alarmists think we're all tin-foil hat wearing idiots!
Soveryodd, what about the fact that over 20 years BIG OIL has funded the sceptics to the tune of a few millions and governments across the world have funded the alarmists to the tune of $80 billion? And for what? There is still no proof!
Complain about this comment
Carbon trading was cooked up by the oil companies in 1997 when Enron and BP persuaded Al Gore and it was inserted into article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol. Ever since then, the corporate media have ben telling us that the science is settled
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/10/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-2c
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s410744.htm
Climategate 'victim' Mick Kelly was sponsored by Shell to promote carbon trading. Shell are also the principal sponsors of the Guardian's voluminous environment section on its website.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
The Exxon sponsoring climate 'deniers' was basically a convenient fiction created by over excited Greenpeace activists who discovered that Exxon suported right wing think tanks, which is hardly a surprise.
The Carbon trading market will be twice as big as the oil market within the next decade and is based on the same derivative model that collapsed the financial system.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/could-cap-and-trade-cause-another-market-meltdown?page=1
Comprehensive links to articles on the history of carbon trading.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm
Complain about this comment
Oldterry at #96, read this, it is one of many questions ‘sceptics’ ask and why it is not true is described in the text:-
‘Sceptics question’
CO2 exists only in very low concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore it cannot have significant effects.
False. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 280 ppm (parts per million) at the start of the industrial revolution in about 1750 to around 388 ppm today – a 39% increase. Nevertheless, 388 ppm constitutes just 0.0388% of the atmosphere by volume and it is sometimes asserted that the increase in concentration can’t possibly have any significant effect – simply because it is such a low concentration. This assertion is simply an error of logic, since it presumes that, by definition, a small cause cannot have a large impact, which is demonstrably false. To take just one example, a drop of the nerve agent VX around the size of a grain of sand is enough to kill an adult. It cannot be asserted that just because the concentration of a substance is low, it therefore cannot have major effects on the system it is interacting with. The potential impact of the substance on the system must be examined and understood before any comment can be made on the likely effects of different concentrations.
Why then do scientists believe that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could be warming the planet? Isn’t water vapour the most important greenhouse gas? Yes it is, by a long way. But direct human influence on the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is negligible – it is largely a feedback response to temperature changes, since warmer air can hold more moisture. The warm tropics therefore already experience a strong greenhouse effect, so adding more greenhouse gases impacts the drier polar regions more than the humid tropics. At the poles, the warmer air can hold significantly more water vapour than before, which acts to reinforce the warming due to the addition of other greenhouse gases such as CO2.
If water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, then what role does CO2 play? To answer this question, a brief discussion of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect is needed. The sun emits most of its radiation, including the ultraviolet, visible light and near-infrared light, with wavelengths of around 0.2-4 mm. The longwave radiation that is reflected back from Earth as heat is emitted at wavelengths of 4-100 mm. Our atmosphere consists overwhelmingly of simple gas molecules in the proportions: Nitrogen, N2, (78.08%), Oxygen, O2, (20.95%) and Argon, Ar, (0.93%). The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – water vapour (H2O), carbon-dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3) and others – absorb some of the radiation from the surface, emitting some of it back to the surface, which causes more warming, and emitting the rest back to space. If it were not for the greenhouse effect of these gases, the average temperature of the Earth would be around -18ºC, rather than 15ºC.
Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases the altitude from which heat radiation escapes back into space. At the higher altitude, temperatures are cooler and so emission temperatures and rates of radiation emission to space will be lower than they would have been without the additional greenhouse gas. To restore thermal equilibrium, temperatures in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the Earth’s surface increase until the incoming solar radiation is once again balanced with the outgoing heat radiation.
The effectiveness of a greenhouse gas depends on a number of factors, including the wavelength at which the gas absorbs radiation, the gas concentration, the strength of the absorption per molecule and also whether other gases are already strongly absorbing at that particular wavelength. These factors are important because it means that different gases absorb radiation at different wavelengths.
See also : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Water vapour for example, absorbs across a large number of bands, but particularly strongly near 6.3 mm and 2.7 mm due to changes in molecular vibrational energy, and also at wavelengths greater than 18 mm because of changes in rotational energy. CO2 on the other hand, absorbs around 4.3 mm, only weakly between 8-12 mm and most strongly in the 13-17 mm zone, centred on 15 mm (but also with significant absorption at 13.9 mm and 16.2 mm), which is right near the peak of the longwave radiation spectrum and causes more than 90% of the warming due to CO2. From about 7.7 mm to 12 mm, the so called “atmospheric window”, absorption by water vapour and CO2 is weak and other trace gases such as ozone (with a peak around 9.6 mm), methane (7.7 mm) and nitrous oxide (7.8 mm) absorb more strongly, despite their low concentrations. Other greenhouse gases such as the chlorofluorocarbons are present only in low concentrations but they are very powerful greenhouse gases and they absorb strongly in the atmospheric window where water vapour and CO2 are weak, at wavelengths such as 8.7 mm, 9.1 mm, 9.2 mm, 10.9 mm and 11.8 mm.
It is important to emphasise that the atmospheric physics of the various greenhouse gases, including their effects on different wavelengths of outgoing longwave radiation, is well established both empirically and theoretically.
It is simply incorrect to assert that gases such as CO2 must have little effect because of their low concentrations compared to the main atmospheric gases.
Complain about this comment
". . . if you can restrain yourselves from plastering this thread with stuff about ClimateGate, please do."
This is a public forum, ClimateGate is a hugely important story and I'm one of those higher-rate taxpayers whose money is used to fund the Beeb and pay your wages.
If I want to sound off about the scandal and its implications, I will do so.
Complain about this comment
The subject that must not be mentioned was on the Politics Show today.
The arrogance and appeal to authority of Miliband was breath-taking. There will be no dissenting from the voice of authority (he who is right and he who must be obeyed).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
xtragrumpymike, No. 112: No argument about the "processes." Been to a few of these things, the processes are never going to be any better than the lowest common denominator of the people who put them together and drive the action (such as it were). Yes, I get the part about "the Precautionary approach" -- but one could also argue that it cuts both ways: isn't it more "precautionary" to act prudently ahead of adverse events, than to "err on the side of caution" all the way until we finally see harvest after harvest lost to drought or blight, while "cautious" ones demand further proof?
"Process" often becomes an excuse for procedural quagmire. Recognising the pitfalls, it becomes even more important for things (meetings, discussions, agreements) to actually run smoothly. And I do mean Run. The tendency for inertia, especially when dealing with large groups, plus factoring in the language veils (from verbiage & lexicon not to mention everyone is not using their mother tongue, translations are notoriously wobbly, documents voluminous) inevitably works against Results.
The most important achievement that came out of Kyoto was unanimity -- or pretty darn close to it. It signaled a collective Willingness to try to act in a coherent, positive way. That, in and of itself, was novel.
Per capita, it is the USA that remains the worst offender; it is the USA where there is the most waste built into the system (China's emission problems principally have to do with creaky infrastructure, as do Russia's and of course India's); it is the USA that promotes a profoundly dysfunctional lifestyle with every glitzy ad, film, music video, publication. And much of this is bought hook-line-and-sinker by some of the other super-aggressive Polluters in the oil-producing Gulf states.
In many ways, the problem which I define as and Addiction to Excess (multiplied by) Greed (multiplied by) Pollution -- call it AGW, call it "climate change", call it "capitalism-on-crack," call it anything you want -- originates in the hugely irresponsible lifestyle that has been sold to the entire human race via Hollywood & Madison Avenue ever since the US of A emerged out of the horrors of WWII in the position of greatest advantage, and influence.
That influence could have been used to promote all kinds of concepts, e.g. Culture or Education or Justice. Instead it was used principally to promote Manic Acquisition, Overproduction (complete with "built-in obsolescence") and Continuous Upgrading (most notably of of non-biodegradables such as automobiles, computers, homes, private jets, superyachts, luxuries etc. etc.)
America has been exceedingly effective at promoting the American way of life (excess) to everyone else, so that people in Mexico or Argentina, for example, no longer feel "worthy" if they are occupying the family home of the past century, or driving a 10-year old car (or no car at all) -- because their cousins and colleagues in Los Angeles or San Diego don't live that way.
And we see the same exact thing going on with the newly affluent from India, China, Russia: they all take their cues from Hollywood or North American-based relations. Instead of spreading the wealth around to more of their own compatriots, they instantly succumb to the selfishness and excess Americans have made seem glamorous -- even 'virtuous'. And obviously that is an unsustainable model.
The wisest things Americans could do now is scale back on the glitz-pushing.
Consider the latest tragedy in Russia: almost 200 casualties, it appears, in an utterly unnecessary conflagration at a Siberian nightclub. Could that have happened there 30 years ago? No. The concept of "club night" at the time would have been a smoke-filled room with a single guitar onstage & a singer singing protest songs... Life, and even "entertainment" was about Content, not Special Effects. Today, even in the backwaters of Siberia, young people take their cues about "how life is to be led" from YouTube and Hollywood. Crazy club life has become de rigeur -- even in remote Perm! -- and it would never occur to any self-respecting act on a stage here that they can have fun & make music without doing something as terminally imbecilic as setting off fireworks from the stage in a packed wooden shack...
As for Methyl Bromide: well, you are preaching to the choir, there.
Far from holding up California as any kind of model, I know not nearly enough has been done -- even in this state that presumably stands at the forefront of "pro-environmental policy."
I do certainly mean that if China, or Russia, had the California automobile emissions standards in place as their own, these gigantic countries would have considerably cleaner air over their most populated parts.
But you are completely correct about Methyl Bromide. And it is, to my view of things, quite irresponsible of the pro-Copenhagen teams to focus so narrowly on CO2, when Ethyl Methyls -- from Methyl Bromide, amongst other toxic chemicals we generate to our own detriment -- are actually having an enormous impact on overall air quality and consequently our collective health.
Another thing the so-called sceptics (actually 'flat-earthists,' I agree) lose sight of: all it takes is one severely ill family member (whether with cancer, autism or even "just" asthma) to join the side of the people demanding the Everyone Do Something About All That Pollution! Which is ultimately all this fight is about: cleaning up.
Complain about this comment
Tomdickharry at #94, read this, it is one of many questions ‘sceptics’ ask and why it is not true is described in the text:-
‘Sceptics question’
9. Climate models are unreliable
False. No-one claims that climate models are perfect, but they are based on sound science and have been able to replicate past observations to a good degree of accuracy and have also anticipated effects such as the global cooling effects resulting from major volcanic eruptions such as Mt Agung in Bali in 1963 and Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, as well as the more recent partial offsetting of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels by natural internal variability.
Some commentators however, misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent the purpose of modeling complex systems such as the climate. For any chaotic or complex system it is not possible to construct a simulation that will precisely predict the future time path of the system, except under very strict conditions such as complete, accurate knowledge of all initial parameters and a short prediction horizon. That is why the weather is so hard to forecast over more than a few days. In an overview of chaotic complex systems, the authors asked their readers to imagine an idealised game of billiards where the balls move across a frictionless surface and collide with negligible loss of energy. They then asked us to guess for how long an expert player with perfect strike control could precisely predict the cue ball’s trajectory. Their answer: “If the player ignored an effect even as miniscule as the gravitational attraction of an electron at the edge of the galaxy, the prediction would become wrong after one minute!”
The future trajectories of complex nonlinear systems like the climate are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Long-term modeling of complex systems therefore focuses, not on a precise single ‘prediction’ of a system’s future time path, but on modeling suites of possible scenarios across a range of parameter values using hundreds or thousands of simulation runs. This process yields a set of scenarios within which the future path of the system is highly likely to lie. If the system is well understood, the set of likely scenarios will be relatively narrow and there will be high confidence that the evolution of the actual system’s path will fall within that set of scenarios. All complex systems scientists understand this approach as it is common across a range of scientific disciplines.
When people disparage climate models because they have not ‘predicted’ the evolution of the temperature path in one particular locality, they reveal that they do not understand climate modelling or complex systems modeling more generally. It is also extremely misleading to give people the impression that because models can’t necessarily ‘predict’ the future temperature paths precisely, that the models are therefore useless as guides for policy. If, as is the case currently, a large number of model scenarios from a large number of different models all yield dire projections for future climate scenarios, then it strongly suggests we have a problem.
It should also be noted that it is not possible for anyone, including those who deny the human influence on climate, to make assertions about the future relationship between greenhouse gases and global climate without some explicit or implicit reference to a model of how the world’s climate works. So when someone asserts definitively that greenhouse gases will have no effect on climate, or only a minor effect that is not worth worrying about, we are entitled to ask: How do they know? They can only make that assertion based on some more or less sophisticated understanding of how the climate system works – in other words, a model. But where are these climate models? Where are the models which show that human greenhouse emissions will have little or no effect on the world’s climate?
Lastly, it is also worth mentioning how striking it is that so often the same people who deny the validity of climate models, place so much faith in the minority of economic models which suggest that mitigating climate change would be terrible for our economies. Most economic models in fact have far less claim to scientific validity than climate models.
Complain about this comment
@coldplay #130 part 3
Paul Hudson has mentioned this early receipt of the leaked emails twice. The first time his wording was ambiguous. The second time he was more clear that he received them legitimately, i.e. not as part of an early leak. I quote from that second mention (highlights mine):
As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, 'Whatever happened to global warming ?'
These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
Complain about this comment
Hubertgrove at #93 says to Richard Black:-
‘If a correspondent in any other other field covered by the BBC, from business to politics, ever took such a partisan view, they would obviously be fired. So, what are you? A reporter or a commentator?’
Then tell me, Hubertgrove, why wasn’t Hannity on Fox News fired for blatantly faking the news – See Hannity apologizes for faking news on Youtube.
Good old commercial news networks, they tell us the truth don’t they?
Complain about this comment
No. 136, Oxygen has not been 20.95% for a while... That is part of the problem that is being missed here.
Nor does it matter what the "average" concentration of Oxygen in the air is. None of us lives on Antarctica, or over the vast uninhabited expanse of the Pacific.
People need to be made aware of the actually detectably falling Oxygen concentrations in the places where human beings live in greatest numbers. This was briefly considered ahead of the Beijing Olympics; the Chinese instituted a policy of restricting driving -- and that had a positive effect.
But now we need to look at the oxygen level status all around the most populated areas of the world.
When the concentration of oxygen in the blood falls between 88%, hypoxia sets in. This can have, for example, a devastating effect on a pregnancy even if the period of low-oxygen is not prolonged.
This is not an area that has received sufficient attention: it warrants greater interest.
Your argument merely further illustrates the critical role that is played by having the right numbers in the calculations. Having the right data on Oxygen is simply not something we can get squishy on.
Complain about this comment
SnoddersB says at #77:-
‘I just realised that Global Warming has only been an issue since the EU started to interfere with our lives and hold its talking shop in both Brussels and Strasburg. May be if the EU was disbanded the problem of global warming would then be fixed.’
Snodders, you do realise that many of the employment rights for ordinary people have come from legisalation in the EU, not from the British government. Our wonderful CBI has fought tooth and nail against these rights.
Complain about this comment
Soveryodd #128
If people really do fear change then why do the AGW scaremongers constantly predict ludicrous doomsday scenarios? Is that the best way to encourage people to accept change?
And I note that you cannot resist proselytising ‘…climate sceptic blogs run by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests.’ Can you not see that such remarks undermine the credibility of those sensible remarks that you do make.
For instance, I fully support your belief in the advance of human technology. That is why I believe that adaptation is a far better solution than attempting the impossible ie trying to control the climate.
Complain about this comment
@Maria Ashot
Is all this stuff about oxygen just a wind up? Cos it's winding me up and I believe in the threat of global warming.
If not, please post a link.
Complain about this comment
Junkmale at #76 says:-
’.. The last time I recall being warned of 'saboteurs under the bed' was by a certain senator in the US in the 50s. And what he stirred up in the cause of casting doubt on those with other views, was not a great precedent to follow.’
If you are talking about US Senator Joseph McCarthy, I think you’ve got things the wrong way round. It was him who was looking for communist conspiracies everywhere. McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread communist subversion. He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate.
Guess what? He was a Republican senator too, just like James Inhofe.
Complain about this comment
Soveryodd # 148
there you go again. I assume that Senator James Inhofe has different political views to yours. Whilst I am sure yours are 'better'on any objective basis, what is the relevance?
Different people have different views. Why should anyone think your views have any more validity that Inhofes?
Where I come from this is called arrogance.
Complain about this comment
Soveryodd 141
"If, as is the case currently, a large number of model scenarios from a large number of different models all yield dire projections for future climate scenarios, then it strongly suggests we have a problem." More likely it suggests that all models contain the same assumption of positive watervapour feedback, an assumption pure and simple and which runs counter to all the historic evidence that there have been no positive feedbacks during previous warming episodes.
Complain about this comment
Waterntor at #48 says:-
‘Those of us unfairly labelled 'Climate Change Deniers' by the quasi-religious believers in Anththropic Global Warming could retaliate by labelling them 'Green Meanies'.’
Apart from this post being childish nonsense, I think you’ll find that many ‘sceptics’ in public office are way more ‘religious’ than the thousands of scientists working in this field. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Senator James Inhofe who is trying to scupper the climate bill in the US Senate:-
‘He (Inhofe) is among the most vocal global warming skeptics in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his positions on various political issues.[2]’
Another well known ‘sceptic’is Ian Wishart in New Zealand who has a weblog in this subject. Wikipedia says:-
‘Wishart is a conservative Christian who generally advocates "right-wing" values....... More recently Ian Wishart has been critical of the teaching of evolution in schools and the theory of human induced climate change.’
We also have the new leader of the Liberal Party in Australia, known as the ‘Mad Monk’ who has just engineered the failure of their climate change bill through the Senate.
By the way, the word is ‘Anthropogenic’. I hope your level of scientific understanding is better than this. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Sorry about my contribution to the Climategate posts. But as your colleague Richard Harrabin put it:
"In the absence of any formal inquiry, trial by internet will continue. For better or for worse."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8377465.stm
And so far that inquiry has not started.
Complain about this comment
Nick-ynysmon says at #35
‘....this anthropomorphic climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled on people....’
I think your use of the word ‘anthropomorphic’ is one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled on people. I wish you ‘highly literate’ ‘sceptics’ would check a dictionary.
I sincerely hope your lack of ability to express yourselves in English doesn’t spill over into your ‘scientific’ understanding. That, after all, would mean you are talking unadulterated rubbish.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Complain about this comment
Billy999 Says at #33:-
‘Just as it is virtually impossible to get funding to investigate anything contradicting climate change’
I don’t know. I think the fossil fuel industry is funding plenty of ‘activities’ in the ‘blogosphere’.
Complain about this comment
Now long now before the eco greenies start smashing up Copenhagen.
Merry Winterville
Complain about this comment
To Maria Ashot:
I am enjoying your commentary enormously, and I hope you can find the time to keep it up.
Who are you?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
148. At 2:10pm on 06 Dec 2009, soveryodd wrote:
Junkmale at #76 That's.. JunkkMale. Cut and paste should avoid such errors, unless the intention was to try and alter things to suit another agenda.
Not being party political, nor feeling this issue should be political at all, I am afraid I must maintain my point based on the actions I see and hear, not the tribal affiliations that some seem to find reassuring to solely work around.
No matter what point in history you choose, or in some cases regrettably choose to repeat, there have been those who advanced their causes by painting those they disagreed with them, and with whom, perhaps as a consequence, they disagreed, in terms calculated to stir the passions of the masses.
I fear that on top of deniers, lumping all who have/had questions on policy and motivations under 'saboteurs' does seem a further escalation in rhetoric over argument, and hardly appropriate for a senior government officer to come out with.
Hence I feel the analogy with another bully, if from the other side of the political divide (as well as the pond), is still relevant.
Along with having an ongoing interest in, and concern for 'tactics and... inability to substantiate.. claims', which in the circumstances, seems apt, if not pretty ironic.
Complain about this comment
"I've another request, too - if you can restrain yourselves from plastering this thread with stuff about ClimateGate, please do.
There are more than 700 comments on the previous thread, the vast majority related to it. I know from e-mails that some readers find endless picking over of climate science repetitive and boring - and when they do, they don't read through the comments. Fresh, pertinent and interesting are my suggestions."
Read : Stop disagreeing with the big boys who tell you what you need to know.
In your "The arguments made by climate change sceptics " piece it was said that the Medieval warm period evidence:
""The idea of a global or hemispheric Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect.""
Hmmm, ok so lets consider the information here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/
So that is all lies and false data then is it?
The reason people want to debate this and are swamping places like this is simply because the BBC has proven that their team are following the protocal that "climate change is down to mankind - supply information to prove it".
Complain about this comment
\\\ Back to Glaciers - Bolivia, & the 'Chacaltaya' glacier ///
(Addendum to my post # 82)
I looked up the Chacaltaya Glacier at the 'World Glacier Monitoring Service', and from the 'pdf' file (2000-2005):
-----------------
World Glacier Monitoring Service; 2000 - 2005 report:
BOLIVIA (BO)
Chacaltaya (BO5180) glacier disintegration
During the observation period (2000–2005) the glaciar lost all the 15 stakes and split into parts
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/fog.html
---------------------
As mountains are my passion, why not concentrate on them!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
BBC faking it again
Copenhagen climate change talks set to begin
The photo is of ... St Petersburg in Russia.
Complain about this comment
"Great Blog Richard. The OPT have been campaigning for some time to get even a mention of the OVERPOPULATION problem at Copenhagen, but it is proving difficult."
Of course the OPT would not have had to exist if the Catholic church had not spent the past 100 years telling people that family planning was wrong.
Complain about this comment
@65. At 5:52pm on 05 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot
Would that be the same Lord Stern who stands to gain a fortune through his chairmanship of the Carbon Ratings Agency he set-up? The same Lord Stern who recently lectured of "opportunities for investors" in climate change, and the same Lord Stern who advises HSBC on climate change for a healthy annual fee?
Yes you are right he is a knight in shining armour.
Follow the money, always.
Complain about this comment
JaneB, As I have repeatedly recommended, oxygen level detectors are not difficult to find.
No, Oxygen levels are not at 20.95%. That is a number frequently cited (with a footnote to some textbook of a couple of decades back) by people who are hell-bent on preventing actual policy shifts designed to force more responsible use of resources and better oversight of egregious industrial pollution... Including "Agribusiness USA" as an industry, by the way.
For details: look at healthoxygen.com, the weatheroutlook.com (that's from a quick google search of "oxygen levels in cities 2009")
Also Peter Tatchell writing in the Guardian on 13 Aug 2008 "The oxygen crisis"
CNN Money had a story about "America's 25 most polluted cities" on 29 April 2009
The "20.95%" number is a "planetary average" -- and actually I am not sure it is any longer valid even as an "average."
You have to sift through data because there has been quite a bit of distracting material being put forth (as even Mr Black has pointed out, on this blog).
But it really makes perfect sense. We were warning about this in the USA even 20 years ago, in the reports on traffic congestion -- and that was before traffic jams in Beijing, Moscow and South Asia were even on the radar. Air Quality: how much of a stretch is it to make the connection between tots in strollers at exhaust pipe levels in major urban areas; passive smoking in homes with poor ventilation; or living near an oil refinery or a coal-processing plant? The impact on health is self-evident: use your own lungs and see for yourself. Nowadays you have to practically head to the beach on a windy day, in the States, to inhale real fresh air... Or maybe travel to some wilderness area near the Canadian border.
What still fewer Americans have heard of is the effect of all those chemicals that are sitting on the farmlands and across the feed lots, in the USA, but certainly other countries as well.
Far from being "excited" that the same people who came up with "The Green Revolution" by hybridizing wheats are now working on "new versions" of rice, we should be terrified. (That is a reference to a report in yesterday's Guardian.)
Wiki "The Green Revolution," Jane: it is a very alarming story. Using the excuse of "fighting famine" the decision was made by primarily American scientists (working of course with cheaper scientific labour from other countries who needed the money and the food at the time) to create completely new strains of cereals -- that coincidentally also created a vast demand for shipping, chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides and of course "scientific experts" (from America) -- undermining an existing, balanced agricultural food chain that, far from being "backward" in fact acted as a significant deterrent on population growth.
We would not have the population crisis we have today had American scientists not been quite to eager to "feed the starving billions" of the planet.
While of course one does not want to say "famines are a good form of controlling population," it is also a fact that creating the illusion that "there will always be enough cheap food for everyone" discourages families from making reasonable decisions about how often they ought to procreate.
And as a result, we have millions upon millions of people around the world who get by with a daily ration of some staple grain food (bread, tortillas, rice), with the occasional ration of oil or vegetables, and more rarely meat or fish. And many of them think having eight or nine kids is "virtuous" and "responsible."
If we had bit the bullet back in the mid-1960s and merely fed the starving populations -- but not actually changed the way food was produced -- we would have conveyed the message that the next population, certainly, could not have unlimited numbers of offspring due to a far more limited -- but ultimately healthier -- availability of cereals.
And if you read Michael Pollan's superb book, Omnivore's Dilemma, you will learn from this justly celebrated NYTimes journalist, that a great deal of American food industry exists entirely to prop up the powerful corn lobby. Corn growers in Nebraska and other Midwestern states consistently overproduce because somehow there is always a way to cram their product into the marketplace (most recently via ethanol).
So, in America, in Mexico (which is the USA's hired hand), and now in other places of increased US influence, we overproduce cattle so that we have more animals to eat all that excess corn. Then we slaughter more than we need (with little concern for safety), deliver more than we need to supermarkets (using fuel & energy all the way), push-push-push the stuff down the throats of consumers (via more energy-consuming, emissions-generating commercials, seductive marketing & product placement) -- and destroy the roughly 40% (most recent findings published by LiveScience.com) that remains unsold.
And that kind of unforgivable unintelligence, in a nutshell, is why our oxygen supplies are indeed decreasing over the parts of the planet where people actually live. Not to mention the effects of the thinning and at times missing protective ozone layer, that allows now precious supplies to escape into space, while also allowing the chilling effects of space to also play a part in the "perceived cooling" people keep pointing to.
The thinning ozone is exactly like a frayed, tattered blanket with holes on it. Only you can't buy a replacement at the nearest Walmart.
Complain about this comment
I don’t know. I think the fossil fuel industry is funding plenty of ‘activities’ in the ‘blogosphere’.
The same fossil fuel industry who the CRU emails prove were courted by the CRU for funding in 2000 onwards? Yes even Ess, international brand name for Exxon.
Grabbing the oil cash is not the preserve of either side.
Complain about this comment
Two things have annoyed me intensely about this whole issue. Firstly, the juvenile comments by Gordon Brown recently about those who don't buy this whole global warming scam. Secondly, the BBC's obsession with the IPCC position. An article in today's Energy Tribune demolishes much of the AGW hype yet, as always, the BBC ignores the opposing views.
A very balanced comment in Friday's Today programme by Professor Scott pointed out that the number of scientists on the IPCC is less than 50. He described it as an inverted pyramid. We also know - from their names and qualifications published elsewhere - that very many of the sceptics are Class-A scientists.
The new religion of AGW has its high priests who will defend their views to the end, regardless of the facts.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown dismisses man-made global warming sceptics as anti-science flat earthers, declaring ‘We hear the science’. So may I remind our Prime Minister of two sets of statements by scientists?
In one of the leaked UEA Emails from US climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the US Center for Atmospheric research he states: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Or how about the recent open letters from the American Physical Society (the professional body of US physicists) to U.S. Senate and Congress that include: “the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years.” ....... “The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.”
In my day-job, had I altered or deleted raw data, or adjusted a computer model to engineer a desired outcome contrary to reality, I would have been dismissed. Times have obviously changed.
Complain about this comment
MANYSUMMITS
SOVERYODD
USGS: report on Bolivian Glaciers please read and learn something. Then just for fun google Chacaltaya Glacier and see what your propagenda says: Science I do not think so
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386i/bolivia/index.html
what do Austrialians call Sheep?
Complain about this comment
Isn't the following extract from one of the leaked UEA documents so hilariously prophetic:-
Quote
From 1998 UEA Document – Creating our Future
It is evident that UEA has a serious problem with its image and national visibility.
Data on the frequency with which particular institutions were mentioned in a recent survey of young applicants to HE showed UEA at the bottom of the list. Only 1.1% of young applicants mentioned UEA; the highest ranked, Durham and Manchester, were mentioned by 30% and 25% of applicants respectively.
• Even where UEA is mentioned in the national domain, it is more often than not in the context of “The University of Easy Access” or for certain very high-profile courses, the obvious example being Creative Writing
Every piece of information we have, whether from external reports or internal surveys, indicates that UEA has a severe image problem, that is causing real harm to every area of our core business.
Unquote
Good to see that its leading lights have obviously done well on the Creative Writing course
Complain about this comment
re 166:
Trenberth's "hide the decline" comment is reflected in a paper he published. Trenberth accepts manmade global warming.
The American Physical Society's stance on manmade global warming is:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now"
As much as I dislike Brown he is correctly following the scientific opinion on the matter here.
The open letter was made by a small minority of American Physical Society members who had previously attempted and failed to change the APS stance on climate change. Besides their arguments against manmade global warming truely suck.
Complain about this comment
There is something odd with all these comments. The pro GW group appear to also be pro EU. The anti group are mainly anti EU and anti business/government propaganda. The former group seem much smaller but try to give the impression that they are much larger (e.g. approx. 50 IPCC climatologists versus the rest).
The corruption of science for political ends nows seems widespread and not only on this issue. The corruption of democracy seems to be keeping pace.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see Artic sea Ice GROWTH is well on course and seems to be tracking 2004. If nature keeps the storms down 2004 extent will be exceeded
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Maybe in Nopenhagen some one can send a plane to get the ice for the gin and tonics
Complain about this comment
Re 167:
Small glaciers disappearing in the tropical Andes: a case-study in Bolivia: Glaciar Chacaltaya (16 S)
Journal of Glaciology, Volume 47, Number 157, March 2001
Abstract: "Glaciar Chacaltaya is an easily accessible glacier located close to La Paz, Bolivia. Since 1991, information has been collected about the evolution of this glacier since the Little Ice Age, with a focus on the last six decades. The data considered in this study are monthly mass-balance measurements, yearly mappings of the surface topography and a map of the glacier bed given by ground-penetrating radar survey. A drastic shrinkage of ice has been observed since the early 1980s, with a mean deficit about 1m a-1 w.e. From 1992 to 1998, the glacier lost 40% of its average thickness and two-thirds of its total volume, and the surface area was reduced by >40%. With a mean estimated equilibrium-line altitude lying above its upper reach, the glacier has been continuously exposed to a dominant ablation on the whole surface area. If the recent climatic conditions continue, a complete extinction of this glacier in the next 15 years can be expected. Glaciar Chacaltaya is representative of the glaciers of the Bolivian eastern cordilleras, 80% of which are small glaciers (0.5 km2). A probable extinction of these glaciers in the near future could seriously affect the hydrological regime and the water resources of the high-elevation basins."
Complain about this comment
Well I have just stopped crying, from laughing at the sheer hypocrisy of not only the BBC but also those politicians how about this:
Blair is paid thousands of pounds to 'endorse' a fossil-fuel power plant
Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/blair-is-paid-thousands-of-pounds-to-endorse-a-fossilfuel-power-plant-1835042.html
Infinity, soveryodd ross glory and the rest your comments please.
"Trust me, trust me that is not what the emails say", shake head with cheese grin.
Complain about this comment
Infinity, half truth so what has it got to do with CO2? Been reading from the Gnome again I see, when you have some science I will discuss glaciers with you. Please do not peddle propaganda it makes you look foolish and frieghts the children
Complain about this comment
re 170 whiteowl:
The vast majority of the irrelevant emotionally political statements like "it's all about taxes!" and "it's just an excuse for wealth redistribution" and "the EU/UN just wants introduce a socialist world government!" are coming from anti-GWs. I think many of their views on the science are entirely based on such political beliefs.
The IPCC reports reference work done by thousands of scientists. Obviously thousands of scientists are not going to write the report itself in a "one sentence only then pass the pen on" style, so the number of authors being about 50 sounds about right.
Complain about this comment
ABOUT THE COPENHAGEN IPCC CONFERENCE THIS FROM WARWICK HUGHES
Google has set up this site showyourvote.org
Avoid it, there is no opportunity to register a vote sceptical of the IPCC process. Once you click on the “Submit” button you have voted for the IPCC. Can some IT guru set up a page where sceptics can vote no to the entire IPCC process ? Thanks
Way to build support, I've just been it seems to be true.
Complain about this comment
Malcolm #168
When I was at school applying to go to university (in the 60s) we could put down 6 choices, with the last one being a university that would take anyone who just scraped their A levels. Most people (myself included) put UEA as the choice of last resort. Fortunately I got my first choice. Nothing much seems to have changed at UEA in over 40 years.
Complain about this comment
kambos I voted conservative in 1997, 2001 and in 2005 so I don't feel I am a suitable position to defend whatever Blair or Brown do
Complain about this comment
Re 174:
Glaciers worldwide overall are receeding with accelerated decline in recent years/decades. That is to be expected in a warming world from whatever cause. It doesn't prove co2 is the cause of recent warming, it is what is expected to continue as the Earth gets warmer from continued ghg emissions.
So the case of Chacaltaya highlights not only the decline in glaciers - but the endpoint where some of them will disapear.
Complain about this comment
@infinity re: #63
I think you have it backwards mate - skeptics are skeptical - it is 'climate science' which is the 'pseudoscience'. Spoken like a true believer - you have no doubts with regards to your position. Even Einstein was skeptical of his own theories - he was known to have said, the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.
You failed to answer the primary question: why do we not have real transparency with regard to 'climate science'? I would like to hear your argument, please don't tell me that we do have transparency.
And yes, we should be able to take the work of a 'climatologist' and reproduce his results step by step.
With regards to your assertion that we do know enough to create meaningful models of Earth's climate system - I am dumbfounded, are you daft man? The Earth's climate system is incredibly complex, with processes and mechanisms which we have yet to even discover, much less understand. The PDO was not even discovered until about ten years ago - and it is certainly not understood well enough at this point to make meaningful models. It is doubtful that we will ever be able to truly model earth's climate system - aside from gross predictions based upon overwhelmingly massive inputs - which in and of themselves, change the system. For example, it would be a reasonable prediction that following a massive volcanic eruption, we could expect temperatures to cool for some period of time - how much cooling and for how long - well that would be a SWAG.
It is apparent that you know very little regarding modeling of chaotic dynamic systems. Back in the '50's there was a researcher at MIT by the name of Lorenz - he was a pioneer in the field of climate modeling. (he is also famous for the Lorenz attractor - do a little reading about it and you will find it to be quite interesting - three simple equations and yet, we cannot even today predict the trajectory of the solution in phase space - we only know that it will lie within the attractor). In addition to being a pioneer with regards to climate science and modeling, Lorenz was also one of the pioneers of chaos theory.
One day, in running one of his climate models, Lorenz decided to start the model in the middle, rather than from his original starting point. He carefully wrote down all the values for the variables at the point at which he wished to resume the model run. He got up and went for a cup of coffee and when he returned, he found that the new run of his model had diverged significantly from the previous run. He was stunned - what had he done wrong? He double checked all of his work, the values he put in for initial conditions were all correct. Everything seemed to be correct, yet his results were completely unexpected. After a great deal of investigation, he reached the conclusion that while the values for his variables were correct - to eight decimal places, it was the very small difference between the digital values in the computer and the 'real' analog values which had caused the change.
This led rise to one of the basic tenets of chaos theory - sensitivity to initial conditions. Tweek the initial conditions (the starting values in your model) just a tiny bit - and the results can change dramatically. This is exemplified by the 'butterfly effect'. In case you have never heard of it - it goes like this - a butterfly flaps his wings somewhere in China, and those small perturbations are amplified and cause a massive storm in the US and Canada.
So, take your model of Earth's Climate System and change the initial conditions just a bit, and you will get quite different results. The simple fact is, that we cannot even measure the initial conditions for such a model with the accuracy to make any results meaningful - that would be assuming that we had a reasonable model to begin with - which we don't. There is simply too much that we don't understand.
Lorenz reached a conclusion, which I believe still holds true today - that while we can affect the climate (or weather) system with inputs, we cannot predict the outcome of those inputs on the system. At the time, 'weather control' was all the rage in research. Now, its 'controlling climate change' - well, good luck with that one.
Modeling Earth's climate system involves literally thousands of inter-related variables, and as many coefficients and constants - many of which we really don't understand and mechanisms which we have yet to even discover, much less understand.
Another basic tenet of chaotic dynamic systems, is that while they are deterministic, they are unpredictable. I'll leave that one for you to figure out.
But, getting back to the point, while some models agree, others do not. Additionally, while some code is available, most is not - as is true of raw temperature data and 'correction algorithms'. The Met office has refused for years to release the raw data and the correction algorithms which they use.
So, please, once again, TELL ME WHY IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO ESTABLISH A REPOSITORY / LIBRARY WHICH CONTAINS ALL THE RAW DATA, CORRECTIONS AND MODELS USED BY CLIMATOLOGISTS TO OBTAIN THEIR RESULTS AND DRAW THEIR DIRE CONCLUSIONS. I AM DYING TO HEAR YOUR RATIONAL.
Once again, would this not lend credibility to the 'pseudoscience' and also allow for much more rapid development of our understanding of Earth's climate system?
When I was in academia and published papers - my results had to be peer-reviewed and reproducible - and that means that I provide enough data and information for my work to be reproduced, step by step.
Your postings appear to be those of a 'true believer' - you appear to take it on faith. Well, I am a 'show me the money' kind of guy. I want to see it with my own eyes, reproduce the results with my own hands...what is wrong with that?
We have a saying around here: "put up or shut up" and thats exactly how I feel about 'climate science'. To believe that CO2 is the primary driver for Earth's climate system - dwarfing all others - is just plain simple minded. In reality, we don't even know the climate forcing associated with CO2, and I would expect that forcing is not a constant - as used in the climate models, but varies and is dependent upon a great many other factors. I mean get real - the value of 4 used by the IPCC was derived by taking an average of the SWAGs used by a variety of models.
With Trillions of dollars at stake, I think we deserve more.
Please stop your diversionary tactics and answer the question. If the situation is so dire - should we not have complete transparency and reproducible results?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Richard "See you next from Copenhagen - or should that be the Emerald City?"
Some say "something is rotten in the state of Denmark".
Others say it is the home of "Fairy tales" by Hans Christian Andersen.
All we know is they call it the Scam.
Complain about this comment
@ Larry Kealey
How the devil are you?
This is the last paragraph of a letter from a scientist, Pofessor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen,to the FT:-
"Second, I would like to encourage a thought experiment. What climate research (at Met Offices) and what research and development (especially in the energy sector) would governments have funded if science had “predicted” global cooling, as had indeed been the fashion among climatologists in the 1970s?"
Interesting?
The truth will out.
Trick or Cheat?
Complain about this comment
@Richard (BBC) Cheers for the CO2 experiment - nicely shows CO2 and warming effect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
One question - how much (PPM) was the other bottle that showed the warming - that is how much CO2 was needed to raise the temp by 5 degrees Celsius?
Does this experiment reflect the real world situation?
Complain about this comment
Re 180:
"Spoken like a true believer - you have no doubts with regards to your position. Even Einstein was skeptical of his own theories - he was known to have said, the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know."
I keep an open mind on manmade global warming, I am aware of reasonable problems and also the unreasonable ones.
I also acknowledge the well known wise warning that if you open your mind too much your brains fall out. I think many psuedoskeptics well overstep reasonable skepticism. That's why I call them pseudoskeptics. Moon landing conspiracy theorists have very open minds and are very skeptical indeed, but not of their own claims which often fold easily under basic scrutiny. The difference between genuine skeptism and psuedoskepticism is a mile apart.
"You failed to answer the primary question: why do we not have real transparency with regard to 'climate science'?"
There's the same transparency in climate science as with other fields of science. It's all bourne from the same evolution of scientific process over centuries. It could always be more transparent, all fields of science could. But the answer why it is not is historical and nothing specific to climate science.
"And yes, we should be able to take the work of a 'climatologist' and reproduce his results step by step."
You can take the data and methodology and reproduce the results. But "step by step" as in use the exact source code they used has never been part of reproducing science. I would welcome such a change.
When scientists published papers decades ago before computers they didn't attach a copy of all their working out. Other scientists had to do their own working out if they wanted to reproduce the results.
"With regards to your assertion that we do know enough to create meaningful models of Earth's climate system - I am dumbfounded, are you daft man? The Earth's climate system is incredibly complex, with processes and mechanisms which we have yet to even discover, much less understand."
And yet we *do* create meaningful models of Earth's climate system, so factually your statement is incorrect. You are trying to write off models by setting the bar too high. We don't need to understand all the details in order to create models that capture a good deal of the behavior of the climate. Furthermore where there is uncertainty that can be explored to see how it affects results.
"For example, it would be a reasonable prediction that following a massive volcanic eruption, we could expect temperatures to cool for some period of time - how much cooling and for how long - well that would be a SWAG."
And yet the models predicted the length and magnitude of the Pinatubo cooling in 1991.
"So, take your model of Earth's Climate System and change the initial conditions just a bit, and you will get quite different results"
Yet climate models don't show quite different results when initial conditions are changed. That's because climate prediction is a boundary condition problem and precise initial conditions don't make a big difference to the climate trend over long periods of time. Weather is chaotic and Lorenz's observations were with weather forcasting. Climate seen as an average of weather has properties that are predictable. Chaotic systems can and do have predictable statistical properties. They are not completely unpredictable.
"But, getting back to the point, while some models agree, others do not. Additionally, while some code is available, most is not - as is true of raw temperature data and 'correction algorithms'. "
It would be nice if all source code and data was available online, but as this isn't true of any other field of science I can understand why it hasn't been done for climate science. Science is using the internet more and more these days, but it all takes time, it's not going to happen all at once.
"When I was in academia and published papers - my results had to be peer-reviewed and reproducible - and that means that I provide enough data and information for my work to be reproduced, step by step."
The key there is "enough" data and information. Ie you didn't have to provide all scribled notes, emails (or equivalent) or source code (or equivalent). You only had to provide enough so others could reproduce your results.
But what do you do if people demand your emails and hand written scrawlings? It's not unscientific to refuse.
"To believe that CO2 is the primary driver for Earth's climate system - dwarfing all others - is just plain simple minded. In reality, we don't even know the climate forcing associated with CO2"
Roughly it's 4wm-2, but more accurately it's 3.7wm-2 per doubling +- a few tenths wm-2
"I mean get real - the value of 4 used by the IPCC was derived by taking an average of the SWAGs used by a variety of models."
The radiative forcing from doubling co2 is calculated from line by line radiative transfer models of the atmosphere, which have been built up over decades from absorption databases which in turn have been compiled by acedemia and the military from atmospheric and lab observations. All of which has been constantly tested against observations and refined, to the point that the 3.7wm-2 figure is quite accurate.
Accusing this process of being a SWAG in fact to be sounds like a SWAG of your own.
Complain about this comment
re 182:
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s predicting global cooling. Google "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus"
Complain about this comment
@xtragumpymike re #91
First, regarding your labeling of me as part of the "Anti-AGW Lobby" as you put it, I must disagree with your assessment. I do believe man has had an effect on climate, particularly on a local and regional scale. However, I do not believe CO2 emissions are the primary culprit. I am of the belief that land use has had a much greater impact.
The current theories on AGW and Climate Change are all based upon a 'casual relationship' between temperatures and CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution. And the biggest supporting argument is 'what else could it be' - so everything else is ignored. Well, I ain't buying it.
Let us consider that another effect of the industrial revolution is that we (man) has had the ability to dramatically change the landscape. I would question whether man made emissions are the primary driver for the rise in CO2 concentrations. It seems at least as likely that natural effects and land use (or mis-use) have probably had at least as significant impact on CO2 concentrations, if not a greater impact.
Consider the Vostok Ice cores - generally accepted to be one of the best proxies we currently have for past temperature changes. The ice cores show that rises in CO2 generally lag temperature increases by about 6-800 years. If one accepts that the MWP was real, then the timing would be just about right for this natural variation to have an impact upon CO2 concentrations since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Couple that with dramatic changes in land use, such as deforestation, desertification, etc, and we can account for much of the increases which have been observed. Also note, CO2 concentrations are not constant. Got to a corn field in Iowa and measure CO2 at ground level at daybreak, then measure the concentration at say 50 ft above the ground - you will find them to be very close. Wait a couple of hours, and you will find that CO2 concentrations at ground level have dropped dramatically while those at 50 ft have changed very little (on a calm day).
Now consider the natural CO2 cycle in the atmosphere - it is estimated that on an annual basis, about 600 M tonnes of CO2 are involved in the cycle annually, with that much being released by natural sources and about the same being absorbed by natural sinks. This represents about 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Now consider that man-made emissions contribute about 3% to this natural cycle - so about 0.12% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, the question arises, what is really the causes of the observed increases in CO2 concentrations and how much is a result of emissions, how much from the dramatic changes in land use and how much is natural variability. These are questions, which I believe the "AGW - CO2" crowd have largely ignored.
Another issue which disturbs me is the climate forcing associated with CO2. While the IPCC places this value at 4 - i.e., a doubling of CO2 will cause a 4 degree temperature rise. I view this as being overly simplistic. First, I don't think the forcing is a constant - I believe it varies dependent upon a variety of factors and conditions.
Also, related to CO2 forcing, there are a number of researchers and scientists who believe that it is actually negative - meaning ultimately, increased CO2 affects other mechanisms and atmospheric processes which eventually cause the temp to decrease with increased CO2, while this may seem counter-intuitive, there are many processes in nature which on the surface seem counter-intuitive.
For example, if we examine the Vostok ice cores, we find that after each peak in CO2 concentrations, we see a dramatic decrease in temperatures. The peaks in CO2 concentrations occur just before the onset of each ice age. So, one has to wonder - what are we missing here?
U;timately, while I do believe CO2 plays a role, I believe there are many other factors involved - some man made, some natural.
My issue is that all the other environmental and humanistic issues which have existed throughout my life - and have been basically ignored throughout my lifetime - are again being ignored because of the 'great evil' of CO2 - and I am just not buying it. It is much more complex than this simplistic view.
Additionally, addressing these 'old environmental and humanistic' issues will have a significant impact upon CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Ultimately, the root cause of most of the environmental issues we face today revolve around the population explosion. Particularly in the developing world. Failure to address this issue, will mean continued rape of the environment, deteriorating conditions and continued suffering and strife in most of the world. Development has been shown to be the only effective mechanism in reducing population growth. In some developed populations, population growth has actually become negative. It is my belief that our best hope for the future lies in developing the third world, with cheap energy and cheap food. Education, jobs and reduced corruption will follow. It will also allow for much more opportunity to preserve natural environments and ecosystems and even restore many environments.
I have asked this question many times and have yet to receive a response: which has a greater impact: a single coal plant providing cheap energy for 200,000 families in Africa, or those 200,000 families burning wood, dung, and whatever else they can find for heating and cooking? Also of note is that the energy provided by a coal and a refinery could provide the energy needed to greatly improve agriculture in the third world. In developed nations it takes about one-tenth of the land to feed one person as it does in the undeveloped world.
With regards to the precautionary principle - while one can argue 'better safe than sorry', one must also assess the risk and the cost benefit of 'precautionary programs'. Reality - we don't even know enough to make meaningful assessments of the risk, nor the benefits. The cost - well that would be just about every penny we have in this case. Applying the precautionary principle, people should not live on the coast because of storms, people should abandon Indonesia, Japan, Turkey and many other places because of the risk of earthquakes and tsunami's - so how far do you go with it? Also, applying the precautionary principle, should we not be focused on addressing population explosion and other environmental issues? These are all much better understood than Earth's climate system - yet are virtually ignored because of the perceived threat of CO2.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
MIKE'S TRICK OR CHEAT - LATEST ANALYSIS
Complain about this comment
Re #64. At 5:36pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity wrote:
re 60:
Given the filename, the code was probably used in
Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris, Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998:
Psuedoskeptics making accusations of fraud should have figured this out themselves before even thinking of alledging fraud.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, Infinity, in your comment in #17 you claim "That is precisely the kind of shoddy analysis by psuedoskeptics I am talkin about. It is a weak and pathetic illogical argument in which code has been skim read and then all sort of assumptions (no evidence provided) are made that it was used in published results".
and yet now you say above that it WAS used in the published results???
Odd - perhaps you'd like to explain.
Complain about this comment
@infinity #184
Really not even worth my time to respond. You have it all figured out - and your belief is unshakable. rather than address the primary question - is CO2 in fact the primary driver for Earth's climate system - you respond with a blank argument that you know what the forcing associated with CO2 is - well news flash - it is not a constant, but depends upon many factors.
Don't bother to respond - your mind is completely made up - and I have no desire to argue religious beliefs. I on the other hand, am skeptical, and for good reason.
Your response to my suggestion that result be reproducible garnered the same silly response one would expect of a true believer - no, my notes and emails are not relevant - but my data, algorithms, corrections, models, etc are. We don't get that with climate science.
And once again, you have failed to answer the primary questions posed.
Good Day to You Sir.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@sparklet re #188
Unfortunately, there is no point in arguing religion with a true believer, in this case, the religion of AGW and the true believer infinity.
He/she has their faith to rely upon. They have no doubts nor skepticism, nor will they tolerate any. They will defend their position to the end.
I am skeptical of many things. It amazes me that those such as infinity have no doubts nor skepticism with regards to the 'science'. But then again, I am not a true believe and do not have my faith there to comfort me and remove all doubts from my mind.
Good luck to you.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
190. At 7:14pm on 06 Dec 2009, LarryKealey
Hi Kealey,
Thanks - but please never give up in debate for there will be many more following the exchange who recognise the sense of what you say. There are many powerful vested interests at play and their lies needs to be exposed.
Complain about this comment
Larry the difference between me and you is that I look for answers to my questions, I don't just assume that science has no answers when I get confused. I don't extrapolate my lack of understanding or bafflement over something to mean science in general hasn't got a clue about it.
You must look for answers to your questions, not assume they do not exist. Don't fall into the trap of believing your instinct or common sense can inform you alone. Your question of whether recent co2 rise is human cause is easily settled. You simply need to read up on it, a lot of the stuff is not intuitive but makes sense afterwards.
If this is such an important issue as you say thene you should abolutely be looking up the answers to your questions. You'll find a lot of answers simply by googling "why does atmospheric co2 rise" for a start.
Complain about this comment
Re 188: The code was used to make a graph in that published result, but the adjustment array ie "fudge factor" plot was not included.
Complain about this comment
The quality of posts on here is getting lower,
E.g. Malcolm Latarche at #168 says, claiming to quote from a 1998 document:-
‘.. Even where UEA is mentioned in the national domain, it is more often than not in the context of “The University of Easy Access” or for certain very high-profile courses, the obvious example being Creative Writing’
In fact, according to The Times Good University Guide 2009, UEA is the 25th top university (out of 105) in Computer Science and 13th in Geography and Environmental Science. Its ‘quality of research’ rating scores 3.3 (8th) behind only Queen Mary, Leeds, University College London, Bristol, Durham, Oxford and Cambridge.
I can’t see what sneering falsehoods add to the debate. It just serves to illustrate the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the ‘Sceptic’ position.
Complain about this comment
Whiteowl at #170 says:-
‘The anti group are mainly anti EU and anti business/government propaganda.’
This is a very simplistic dare I say ‘analysis’. I am personally against all propaganda and exploitation whether by business, government or individuals. I believe in democracy.
I also believe in the science of anthropogenic global warming, as do almost all scientists in the US (about 85%) and an even greater proportion in the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh at # 171 says:-
‘Nice to see Arctic sea Ice GROWTH is well on course and seems to be tracking 2004. If nature keeps the storms down 2004 extent will be exceeded’
This comment is designed to confuse a casual observer. It is now almost completely dark in the Arctic now and thus the air temperatures are well below freezing. We would expect freezing to happen apace at this time of year.
It is the summer sea ice melt that is causing the concern, when the sun shines in the Arctic. As the following diagram shows the summer ice melt is now set well below the long term solid line. See:-
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure2.png
There is still not much ice in the lower latitudes, specifically Hudson Bay even now in December!
Complain about this comment
ScudLewis #181
I hope you didn't believe that nonsense with the bottles of CO2. Don't you recognise an April Fool's joke when you see one? Ask yourself 'is the earth's atmosphere in a bottle'?
They should at least finish with a warning that you have been watching junk science in action.
Complain about this comment
Re:-140. At 1:39pm on 06 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
Maria.....I suspect that you have not clearly understood the implications of the precautionary principle as applied to "climate change" policy.
Let me refer you to your comment
"isn't it more "precautionary" to act prudently ahead of adverse events,"
That is exactly what the precautionary principle demands.
"....than to "err on the side of caution" all the way until we finally see harvest after harvest lost to drought or blight, while "cautious" ones demand further proof?"
That is NOT what the precautionary principle demands!
Using your nomenclature,the "cautious" ones you refer to are actually the IPCC (and this is where the sceptics disagree strongly) who (in 1992,updated version of the original 1990 report) have provided sufficient proof that a serious risk exists and it is then the obligation of the "sceptics" (maybe you would rename these...:the non-cautious ones")to demonstrate "further proof TO THE CONTRARY". They do not have the luxury of "demanding further proof (from the pro AGW lobby)"
Principle 15 (states)
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,(like global warming...my addition) lack of full scientific certainty (IPCC 90% probability is deemed sufficient...........my addition again)shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
If you now look up the interpretation of "precautionary principle" you will find the sentence:-
"The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed ONLY IF further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation"
In other words.........the Precautionary principle is actually working in YOUR favour and not in favour of the sceptics until such time as they come up with that evidence. Which...of course.....today they have failed to do in the appropriate manner.So..you can sit back ..........unemotionally.....and point out to the "sceptics" that the ball is actually in THEIR court. It is now THEIR responsibility to prove you wrong and NOT you prove yourself to be right and you will realise that they have left it a bit late!
So.........it's already Monday morning here in NZ...........in a few hours it will be Monday morning in Copenhagen....then the "Horse Trading" will commence.
Complain about this comment
To anyone who believes Phil Jones and hockey sticks are full of truth, read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/#more-13783
Complain about this comment
So Jasonsceptic at #164, if the smear you and our old friend ‘Wattsupwiththat’ are trying to run on 4th December 2009 is true, it means you have found evidence from November 2000 that ‘Big Oil’ knew that CO2 emissions by mankind were a cause of global warming.
I found this from the ‘American Spectator’:-
‘LONDON -- BP Amoco Plc, the world's No. 3 publicly traded oil
company, and Ford Motor Co. said they will give Princeton
University $20 million over 10 years to study ways to reduce
carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. BP said it will give
$15 million. Ford, the world's second-biggest automaker, is
donating $5 million. The gift is part of a partnership between the
companies aimed at addressing concerns about climate change.
Carbon dioxide is the most common of the greenhouse gases believed
to contribute to global warming.’
They claim to have got this quote via Bloomberg News.
So the ‘sceptic’ position is completely nullified.
Complain about this comment
Thanks, Infinity for your post #172.
Very interesting information on glacier mass loss in Bolivia. Very similar to what the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network are finding, as in this diagram:-
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/index.html
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey at #180.
Maybe you could discuss the science posted before at #141.
I will repost it here and I hope you read it and see if you have any pertinent comment.
‘Sceptics question’
Climate models are unreliable
False. No-one claims that climate models are perfect, but they are based on sound science and have been able to replicate past observations to a good degree of accuracy and have also anticipated effects such as the global cooling effects resulting from major volcanic eruptions such as Mt Agung in Bali in 1963 and Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, as well as the more recent partial offsetting of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels by natural internal variability.
Some commentators however, misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent the purpose of modeling complex systems such as the climate. For any chaotic or complex system it is not possible to construct a simulation that will precisely predict the future time path of the system, except under very strict conditions such as complete, accurate knowledge of all initial parameters and a short prediction horizon. That is why the weather is so hard to forecast over more than a few days. In an overview of chaotic complex systems, the authors asked their readers to imagine an idealised game of billiards where the balls move across a frictionless surface and collide with negligible loss of energy. They then asked us to guess for how long an expert player with perfect strike control could precisely predict the cue ball’s trajectory. Their answer: “If the player ignored an effect even as miniscule as the gravitational attraction of an electron at the edge of the galaxy, the prediction would become wrong after one minute!”
The future trajectories of complex nonlinear systems like the climate are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Long-term modeling of complex systems therefore focuses, not on a precise single ‘prediction’ of a system’s future time path, but on modeling suites of possible scenarios across a range of parameter values using hundreds or thousands of simulation runs. This process yields a set of scenarios within which the future path of the system is highly likely to lie. If the system is well understood, the set of likely scenarios will be relatively narrow and there will be high confidence that the evolution of the actual system’s path will fall within that set of scenarios. All complex systems scientists understand this approach as it is common across a range of scientific disciplines.
When people disparage climate models because they have not ‘predicted’ the evolution of the temperature path in one particular locality, they reveal that they do not understand climate modelling or complex systems modeling more generally. It is also extremely misleading to give people the impression that because models can’t necessarily ‘predict’ the future temperature paths precisely, that the models are therefore useless as guides for policy. If, as is the case currently, a large number of model scenarios from a large number of different models all yield dire projections for future climate scenarios, then it strongly suggests we have a problem.
It should also be noted that it is not possible for anyone, including those who deny the human influence on climate, to make assertions about the future relationship between greenhouse gases and global climate without some explicit or implicit reference to a model of how the world’s climate works. So when someone asserts definitively that greenhouse gases will have no effect on climate, or only a minor effect that is not worth worrying about, we are entitled to ask: How do they know? They can only make that assertion based on some more or less sophisticated understanding of how the climate system works – in other words, a model. But where are these climate models? Where are the models which show that human greenhouse emissions will have little or no effect on the world’s climate?
Lastly, it is also worth mentioning how striking it is that so often the same people who deny the validity of climate models, place so much faith in the minority of economic models which suggest that mitigating climate change would be terrible for our economies. Most economic models in fact have far less claim to scientific validity than climate models.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey at #180. Says:-
‘Don't bother to respond - your mind is completely made up - and I have no desire to argue religious beliefs. I on the other hand, am skeptical, and for good reason.’
Larry, will you argue religious beliefs with ‘sceptic’ Senator James Inhofe. Wikipedia says of that gentleman:-
‘He is among the most vocal global warming skeptics in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his positions on various political issues.[2] ‘
If you need information on CO2 as a GHG, please go to my post #136. See what you think.
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd
"Climate models are unreliable
False"
Maybe.
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm
This doesn't fill me with confidence about the IPCC governance though. What do you think?
Complain about this comment
@infinity #192
LOL - I would be happy to compare bona-fides with you anytime you like.
This is a topic I have followed and even researched professionally for the last 30 years.
Still you fail to answer the questions posed...no answers???
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd
Disagree with your assessment of the current state of climate models - will respond later, no time at the present...dinner w/gf...;)
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
in 136 soveryodd introduces a long (and a bit flaky in parts) discussion of why CO2 causes warming - fair enough BUT that was not the point I was making.
Given all the reasons why CO2 causes warming - the IPCC reports calculates the extent of the warming and it is the answer from THEIR calculations that is far TOO small to cause any significant temperature rise. You can see thsi by trying to measure how much a 40w bulb heats a typical (24 sq m) room.
Complain about this comment
in 106 xtragrumpymike2 says I am missing the point. No he is. The fact is that the IPCC report itself gives the heating amount due to CO2 and gives it at a level that just CAN NOT cause the effects that are being claimed. However fancy the models being used and whatever results are forthcoming, remember it is not possible to change the underlying physics and that says temperature effect from the CO2 heating amount (which the IPCC says is 1.6W) has to be less tha a quarter of a degree C.
Complain about this comment
in 184 infinity says the CO2 climate forcings is roughly 4wm-2, but more accurately it's 3.7wm-2 per doubling +- a few tenths wm-2 - which is fair enough - but it has not doubled! so it is still much less than 3.7w/m2. Even when it gets up to 3.7w, that will still only cause a maximum temperature rise of half a degree.
Complain about this comment
in 201 soveryodd mentions the swiss glacier monitoring service.
One of the results that they publish is a graph of the lengths of four glaciers since 1870. Three of these show a close to linear reduction since 1870 (so they have been melting since well before the recent CO2 rise). The fourth (trient) has been bouncing around - increasing in the periods 1870 - 1900, 1920-1930, and 1955 -1990 - and decreasing in the periods 1900 -1920, 1930 - 1955 and since 1990. Neither melting pattern matches that expected from purely CO2 forcing.
Complain about this comment
@infinity @oldterry2
You can both site your numbers and theories - but I am very skeptical of both of your opinions and numbers. The simple fact is that we don't know enough about Earth's climate system to know whether
a) Doubling of CO2 would cause a measurably significant rise in temperature
b) Doubling of CO2 would cause a negligable effect on global temperatures
c) Doubling of C)2 would casue a measurably significant decrease in temperature
There are plenty of people out there claiming a) is true, plenty of other people claim b) is true and another group claims c) is true.
Well, to be honest, I don't think we know which one of the three is true, nor which one is more likely to be true. It is a very poorly understood and very complex dynamic system. If one were to use well established methods for determining probabilities for dynamic systems upon the 'best' and most complex models, one would find the probability of an accurate result to be extremely low (using established methods of approximation theory on dynamic systems).
I will continue to be skeptical because I do have a good grasp of what we really know - and a very good inkling of what we don't know - kinda like an iceberg, while we have explored the ten percent that lies above the water, we have no idea of the ninety percent which lies below.
Keep quoting your numbers, btw - I happen to have a golden bridge for sale on the west coast of the US, hardly used...cheap...;)
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd #202 writes:
(asking me for a response)
The future trajectories of complex nonlinear systems like the climate are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Long-term modeling of complex systems therefore focuses, not on a precise single ‘prediction’ of a system’s future time path, but on modeling suites of possible scenarios across a range of parameter values using hundreds or thousands of simulation runs. This process yields a set of scenarios within which the future path of the system is highly likely to lie. If the system is well understood, the set of likely scenarios will be relatively narrow and there will be high confidence that the evolution of the actual system’s path will fall within that set of scenarios. All complex systems scientists understand this approach as it is common across a range of scientific disciplines.
When people disparage climate models because they have not ‘predicted’ the evolution of the temperature path in one particular locality, they reveal that they do not understand climate modelling or complex systems modeling more generally. It is also extremely misleading to give people the impression that because models can’t necessarily ‘predict’ the future temperature paths precisely, that the models are therefore useless as guides for policy. If, as is the case currently, a large number of model scenarios from a large number of different models all yield dire projections for future climate scenarios, then it strongly suggests we have a problem.
It should also be noted that it is not possible for anyone, including those who deny the human influence on climate, to make assertions about the future relationship between greenhouse gases and global climate without some explicit or implicit reference to a model of how the world’s climate works. So when someone asserts definitively that greenhouse gases will have no effect on climate, or only a minor effect that is not worth worrying about, we are entitled to ask: How do they know? They can only make that assertion based on some more or less sophisticated understanding of how the climate system works – in other words, a model. But where are these climate models? Where are the models which show that human greenhouse emissions will have little or no effect on the world’s climate?
--------end of excerpt----------------------------------------------
I will agree with you on a couple of points:
First, in a round about way, you site two of the tenants of Chaos Theory, with regards to chaotic dynamic systems - such as earth's climate system, namely:
Sensitivity to initial conditions - change the initial conditions just a tiny bit and the trajectory of the system in phase space will diverge quite rapidly.
and
Chaotic dynamic systems are deterministic, yet inherently unpredictable - that is to stay, that while the trajectory of the system in phase space will lie within the 'attractor' - the path it will follow is inherently unpredictable. Meaning, if we have our equations right, we know that the trajectory (in this case - the climate state) will lie within a certain region of phase space, we cannot predict where the trajectory will go next.
With regards to your assertion that making thousands of runs of a model and averaging the results will yield an answer with a high probability of being correct - I must disagree.
First, this approach (as used by the Met Office, for their dire projections - they were careful not to use the word predictions) for 2080 is not a scientific exercise - it is an exercise in statistics. In the real world, the results are meaningless.
With regards to the models, and the system. First, I will state unequivocally, that the chaotic dynamic system in question, namely Earth's climate system, is very poorly understood. To even suggest that we have 'good' models of this system in my view is very arrogant indeed. There are processes and mechanisms within this system which are very poorly understood, and I have no doubts that there are process which we have yet to have even discovered. The PDO, certainly a significant process with regards to Earth's climate was only discovered about ten years ago. There is very much we have yet to understand.
In practice, we call these processes and inputs to the system 'unmodeled' inputs and account for them within our models. However, that does not mean that we obtain meaningful results.
While I do believe the models have their uses - making predictions is not one of them. The models are better used for identifying that which we don't know, rather than making predictions based upon what we do know (which, in my humble opinion, is very little).
Further, lets return to sensitivity to initial conditions. We have yet to even really define what the 'global temperature' really means or is. So, if we cannot even agree upon, nor measure accurately, one of the key variables in the model - how can we expect to enter accurate initial conditions?
We know so little about our oceans, which cover three-fourths of the planet. Most of which has not even been explored yet. We also no very little regarding heat transport within the oceans - how can we model that effectively? I really want to know.
Lets look at glaciers for a moment. Even today, scientists are baffled by glaciers which are in retreat, when nearby, another glacier is in advance. The processes and mechanisms which drive this are not understood at all.
In my view, those who hold no doubts, no skepticism are indeed nothing more than arrogant fools - ignorant of their own ignorance - it must be blissful.
It was Einstein I believe, who said - the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know. Even after 80 years of research, scientists are still trying to verify and validate Einsteins theory of relativity (and special relativity) - much of which cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics, thus the ongoing search for the 'holy grail' of physics - The Unified Theory - which still eludes us.
I would also like to point out one of the key postulates of science - science does not prove anything, only disproves. Those theories which are currently accepted today, are those which have yet to be disproven - none of which has every really been proven. Newton's Laws were widely accepted for hundreds of years, and are even taught and used today for many applications; however, they have been disproven - by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. I have no doubts that at some point, much of Einstein's Theory of Relativity will be proven incorrect and supplanted by a new theory - which in time, will be disproven and supplanted itself.
The models in use today for modeling Earth's Climate System are far to simplistic to be of any predictive value. For goodness sake, the models use a constant for the forcing associated with CO2 - just a little thinking should lead one to the conclusion that it is not in fact a constant - as reported by the IPCC (the value of which was derived by a statistical exercise), but a complex variable, dependent upon a great many factors. Just think about it for a moment.
While I have been called a lot of derogatory names on this and other blogs, I am simply a realist and a skeptic. I am also an environmentalist. I care very deeply about Earth's environments and ecosystems. It hurts to see that the same environmental issues (which are pretty well understood, as opposed to climate change) have remained basically unaddressed during my entire lifetime - now because 'if we don't tackle climate change, nothing else will matter' - well poppycock. I am not buying it.
If you read my last post, you will find I blasted two other bloggers, on opposing sides of the debate. They both quote numbers and make statements which are unsupportable.
Regardless of your position on this issue, the root cause of most all our environmental and humanistic issues is the continued population explosion. Our utter failure to address this issue will make attempts to address any other issues ineffective. Its like putting a band-aid on a leaking dam - it ain't gonna work.
Further, even if you are an ardent believer in the current theories of climate change and global warming, which all revolve around CO2, none of the mechanisms currently on the table to 'solve the problem' will not address the issue. Empty promises, cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes and the UN CDM mechanism have no hope of working.
For example, during the energy crisis of the late 70's, here in the US, many people turned to burning wood to stay warm. I fear that if cap and trade or carbon taxes are implemented, many people will turn once again to burning wood to stay warm - because they can not afford anything else. In my view, that would be a horrible step backwards for the environment.
I do believe man has had an effect upon the climate, to what degree, I am unsure - but I do not believe the main effect man has had on the climate is a result of CO2 emissions, but rather, land use. Take a look at what we have done to environments the world over in the last hundred years - and the magnitude of those changes. I was in Sumatra several during the early 90/mid 90's - when the rainforests were burned constantly for years, to the degree that people more than a thousand miles away had to wear surgical masks to even breathe. It brought tears to my eyes - in more ways than one.
Well, I think I have said enough, I do hope that you at least consider my words.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd
One additional comment, when we see supposed environmentalists, politicians, and industry teaming up - as we see now with AGW?MMCCC, I get really scared.
Those who don't believe that industry has teamed up with the environmental groups, are just deluding themselves. There are a great many companies out there who have positioned themselves to take advantage of climate change legislation - and if those who think these companies are out to save the world are really delusional. Companies like Duke Energy, with their large nuclear portfolio, GE (one of the largest companies in the world) is also poised to make billions from climate change legislations.
And as always, who will be left out? The worlds poor, as always. The programs on the table will only add to corruption in the third world. The monies earmarked for 'helping' these people, will never reach these people, it will land in the hands of corrupt leaders in the third world.
Very scary indeed.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS