Tough love in a troubled climate
Forget the Norfolk police's criminal investigation, reviews commissioned by universities in the UK and US, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) internal deliberations.
Governments have now demanded - and will get - an independent review into how the IPCC conducts its work and how well its conclusions stand up to scrutiny.
The precise terms of reference are being decided even now.
But the decision - taken at the governing council meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Bali - potentially offers everyone a way out of the mire currently engulfing climate science, from top-name researchers to the Joe and Joanna Public whose taxes fund them and who expect them to get things right.
The review should be finished within about six months, and the results discussed - and changes instituted - at the IPCC's meeting in October.
This would allow the organisation to re-shape itself prior to major work beginning on the next big global assessment, due out in 2013.
In some quarters this is being touted as an investigation of IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri, who certainly annoyed some (not least in the Indian government) when he initially rebutted criticism of the Himalayan glacier date error in a manner lacking much diplomacy.
In fact, though, it is envisaged as a process that will be thorough and rigorous, but constructive; what you might summarise as "tough love".
There is no point in governments either soft-soaping or lambasting the organisation to the extent that it loses all its credibility. After all, its conclusions should in principle have a major role in determining what policy options those self-same governments pursue in the arenas of disaster preparedness and energy supply.
So yes, it is possible that Dr Pachauri will not survive the process; and indeed it is possible that he will not want to, if the job description gets so heavily amended that continuing would result in him having to give up all his other interests.
But there are more important questions to be addressed.
To what extent do conclusions of the IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4) from 2007 stand up to scrutiny?
Should its processes for gathering and sifting information be amended - and in particular, is there a case for excluding "grey literature" (anything other than peer-reviewed science)?
Does it select its major contributors as objectively as it should? Does it communicate its conclusions effectively to policymakers and the public?
"Climate-sceptical" organisations may already be in ecstasy about a process that - they will argue - may bring down the IPCC, and by extension block political moves towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
And this, in turn, may prompt some people involved with the IPCC to put their heads in their hands and complain that the last thing they need is another process that will see lances levelled at the edifice of anthropogenic climate change.
That, I suggest, would be a mistake. Many commentators sympathetic to the organisation have insisted in recent months that it could do with a dose of reform; so why not have reforms recommended by a review that aims for a constructive outcome, rather than by a host of unsympathetic and unaccountable bloggers whose scientific or pseudo-scientific utterings are sometimes impelled by political theologies?
As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, reform ideas for the IPCC produced by sympathetic academics so far include producing shorter, more focused and more intelligible reports; setting itself up as a wiki-form web-based platform; and farming out parts of its function to regional organisations or national science academies.
There are some who've argued that because the actual number of mistakes in the AR4 was triflingly small, there is no need for review or reform.
But in significant parts of politics, the media and the public, that argument has already been lost, and now it has been lost in reality as well; the review will happen.
What we can expect from it depends on its precise terms of reference. But conclusions we might expect, I suggest, would include:
- unequivocal backing for the overall conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is happening and does present real dangers to some societies
- "professionalisation" of the IPCC - ie having full-time staff dominating the process rather than a disparate grouping of academics, many of whom give their services gratis
- tightening of rules for using "grey literature" - abandoning it entirely is not really feasible given that the IPCC's remit includes areas such as economics where data has to be drawn from government agencies
- streamlining the process of disseminating conclusions. A partial example of how that might be done emerged last week with the publication of a "consensus" study into climate change and hurricanes, which observers with long memories will note saw academics previously opposed, Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea, joined in academic embrace. And the World Meteorological Organization has just signalled a push for much greater transparency and clarity in providing data.
Tantalising questions remain. Will long-time critics be invited on board, either for the review or during the compilation of future reports?
Is there a way to involve the Roger Pielkes and the Steve McIntyres more constructively, making use of their expertise while also ensuring that the conclusions of self-appointed climate auditors are subject to audit themselves?
Do we need all major scientific papers on climate to be available to all, rather than hidden from most behind the subscription-only business plans of journals such as Nature and Science?
Another reason for getting such a review up and running now is that in June, governments are due to decide whether they will establish an organisation loosely modelled on the IPCC that will collate and sift scientific evidence on biodiversity loss.
Proper assessment of the IPCC's qualities and faults should help build a strong foundation for that organisation, if it comes into existence. Continued doubts over the IPCC could, on the other hand, make governments less likely to sanction investment in a parallel body.
Although governments have decided the IPCC needs a review, they have also decided that the world needs an IPCC. And that should come as welcome news to those who feared that a tide of "denialism" was about to swamp the world's body politic.
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~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Man-made climate change has hit a Himalayan iceberg. The IPCC titanic is sinking and nearly everyone with a moral compass is abandoning ship. It is about time that everyone understood that climate science is extremely complex and there is no evidence to support any of the extreme alarmists claims. The whole thing is a giant academic institutional funding exercise - drum up scare stories and grab more taxpayer funding.
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/ipcc_titanic.jpg
Capt Pachauri should go and pursue his other career - writing steamy romance fiction rather than steamy climate fiction.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to make three points.
1. If, as you suspect, the review concludes with "unequivocal backing for the overall conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is happening and does present real dangers to some societies" then it will have signally missed the point. The IPCC should be there to establish first and foremost whether this is true. Unfortunately, if it were to decide that it is not, it has done itself out of a job, so it will never conclude that itself. Just like the NGOs, carbon traders and other aspects of the environmental-political complex, it will act to preserve itself, and someone on the outside needs to guard against that.
2. If it were not for the utter failure of the peer-reviewed science journals and the IPCC to stop nonsense such as the MBH "hockey stick" achieving currency, there'd be no need for "self-appointed climate auditors".
3. These climate auditors carry out their entire work in the blaze of public scrutiny, in postings on blogs that everyone can see and comment on. This is in stark contrast to the "proper" scientists, who - as the CRU e-mails show clearly - work in secret, deliberately (and allegedly unlawfully) frustrated attempts by anyone they saw as critical to reproduce their work, leaned on the editors of the journals, and traduced their critics.
Anyone who wants their eyes opened to what's really going on should read Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Complain about this comment
The sceptics will never accept the science. Many are really just conspiracy types who see some group or individuals shaping the world to their liking. It is best to dismiss them. There are efforts by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the science but that is profit and self-interest driven and should be exspected as the tobacco industry did with health effects of smoking. The truth is never a necessary rationale in politics. The report is needed to go back to moving forward. The politicans jumped at this opportunity to question the science because it impacted their big money supporters and would have required allocations away from their pet projects and into something else. Politics is about keeping your position. What we have always known is that sceintist are not very good at politics.
Complain about this comment
The climate scam is out in the open and this genie will not go back in the bottle. Money grabbing, ego inflated acedemics who have been on this gravy train have been outed. They are assisted by the anti capitalists who have changed their red flag for green.
Complain about this comment
Richard wrote:
"
I suggest, would include:
* unequivocal backing for the overall conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is happening and does present real dangers to some societies
"
Look, if you set out to group together (highly dubious!) data that suggests that climate changes over time - which is not I think in dispute, with the suggestion that man's activities have 'caused' the climate to change then you a guilty of prejudging the outcome of the investigation!
From the papers I have read there are so many 'facts' that are in fact not worthy of being called facts at all and, further, the basic science built upon a one sided interpretation of these 'facts' is so full of errors that the result tests our credulity.
We are dependent upon very inadequate climate models that just do not stack up and further all other explanations of climate variability have to be ignored in these models for the 'predictions' to have a reasonable certainty.
On the basis of this very flimsy un-scientific condemnation of CO2 we are setting about economic destruction, yet, for example, water vapour is a far greater modifier of climate that CO2 and no one dare suggest that air travel should be curtailed in the upper atmosphere. Although I do recall the incident of a petition for the banning of Dihydrogen Monoxide - don't think you are a bit wet for not having heard about it!!!! Both this and CO2 are vital to life and historically have been at far higher levels in the atmosphere that they are now - but the climate models don't seem to unconcerned with the facts!
Complain about this comment
This is a station announcement:-
The IPCC gravy train is leaving platform one. All departing passengers are advised to board with as much public money as possible. We will shortly be leaving to the next quick buck scam to ensure your bank accounts are thoroughly constantly bulging.
Those currently under investigation please wave goodbyes to those not caught yet.
Have a very profitable journey.
Complain about this comment
@2 1. If, as you suspect, the review concludes with "unequivocal backing for the overall conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is happening and does present real dangers to some societies" then it will have signally missed the point. The IPCC should be there to establish first and foremost whether this is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what the review will look at. As much as the sceptics would hope a fresh look at the evidence will change the overall conclusion, it simply won't.
I still have no idea how a a few wrong references and a simple mistake about when Himalayan glaciers will melt changes anything about the thousands of peer reviewed publications that add considerable weight to the view that man made emissions are most probably responsible for the recent warming. Still, someone needs to explain that one to me.
Complain about this comment
QUOTE: "professionalisation" of the IPCC - ie having full-time staff dominating the process rather than a disparate grouping of academics, many of whom give their services gratis "
Are they joking? Take the science from "independents" and hand it over to a governementally biased opinion....oh yeah that is a great idea!!! (sarcasm)
Complain about this comment
"There is no point in governments either soft-soaping or lambasting the organisation to the extent that it loses all its credibility."
Bit late to worry about that, surely?
Complain about this comment
"The world needs an IPCC"
...NOT
The world need rigorous, transparent science - and a lot more of it before conclusions can be drawn from the whole CO2 emissions thing. The world needs integrity and real peer review back in climate science.
What good is peer-review when it is your 'buddies' who review your work? How many criminals would get off free if the 'jury of their peers' was composed of their co-conspirators in crime?
What good is opening up subscription only articles on Science and Nature when the editors and reviewers are biased and reject articles which 'don't fit' with their own idealistic agenda, when nothing which cast doubt can be published?
Certainly there are many many governments who want the IPCC to continue - they can then continue to blame their woes on the lifestyles and energy consumption which makes that lifestyle possible in the West. They want money, and lots of it. Don't get me wrong, I do believe we should spend money on developing the third world, but we should not be handing over monies to corrupt governments, nor through the corrupt CDM process - which actually rewards horrible polluters with vast amounts of money for installing cheap GHG scrubbers, while they continue to spew out noxious chemicals into the air, the soil and the water table.
We need to realize that the IPCC approach on consensus is not good science, nor is it a good way to define policy.
We need rigor and good science - and a great deal of it before we could possibly declare 'crisis'. And lets face it, with regards to 'climate science' - we don't have good science - we don't even have any real 'good' data to work with.
Everything out there has 'corrections' applied to it - how can we trust it? We here 'oh, this equipment tends to show cooler temps, so we have to adjust upwards...blah blah blah..."
We don't have good science and data with which to draw conclusions upon nor make recommendations. And as far as recommendations, I have yet to see any that are viable and realistic.
What we really need is to go back - and re-review the 'science' which has been presented through the seriously flawed 'peer-review' process. We need to go back to all those doomsday papers and say - lets see your assumptions, your raw data, your corrections algorithms and justifications, corrected data, models, uncertainties - all of it - and if you can't produce it - well it goes into the garbage, where it belongs.
I do not buy the 'we lost the raw data line' - not one iota. At first we were told that we can't see the data, because they bought it - so it is still out there, the people they bought it from still have it. It should be easy to recompile - what they did lose is the list of data they cherry-picked from all that raw data to make their points.
Even if the raw data were really lost - should a scientist not be able to go back to his correction algorithms and reverse the application to reproduce the raw data? If not, sounds like really sloppy 'science' to me.
No, we don't need the IPCC nor another intergovernmental political science committee. We need good robust science. It will speak for itself without the UN being involved. Please point to me all the success of the UN? For every little success, I can show many instances of failure and corruption.
At least here in the US, we have hope - Obama will not get his climate bill and he looks to be a one-termer.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Richard to pick up on a few points:
1-""Climate-sceptical" organisations may already be in ecstasy about a process that - they will argue - may bring down the IPCC, and by extension block political moves towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions."
i don't think anyone denies greenhouse gas emissions need curbing. it's the reasoning, and methods that are most at question
2-". But conclusions we might expect, I suggest, would include:
•unequivocal backing for the overall conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is happening and does present real dangers to some societies"
so you are suggesting that the review is going to be a sham then? Surely that's the only outcome if we know what the results are going to be before it is finished? Some review if it isn't even going to look into the claims made.
3 -"•tightening of rules for using "grey literature" - abandoning it entirely is not really feasible given that the IPCC's remit includes areas such as economics where data has to be drawn from government agencies"
100% disagree with this point, for the scientific matters NO GREY matter at all should be used. if you want to include economical projections- keep it seperate, and advertise it as such.
4-"Do we need all major scientific papers on climate to be available to all, rather than hidden from most behind the subscription-only business plans of journals such as Nature and Science"
i don't think this is necessary- all i (and sceptics ask) is for the raw data to be published WITH the paper. that way the relevant people can test, and review the data. that's simply not the case at the present. Which is dishonest and unscientific.
5-"And that should come as welcome news to those who feared that a tide of "denialism" was about to swamp the world's body politic.
"
nice to see where you've set your stall out richrad. you really do love those derogatory terms don't you?
Complain about this comment
Snake oil scam.
Gordon Brown has secretly blown another £60 million of taxpayer’s money the nation can ill-afford to spend on “buying carbon credits from the Third World for the use of government buildings and other official purposes – so that our civil servants can continue to benefit from the CO2 emissions needed to keep their offices warm and lit.”
________________________________________________
£60m bill for the CO2 of our political class
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7280348/60m-bill-for-the-CO2-of-our-political-class.html
Complain about this comment
@Shadorne
It is much more than a 'funding scam'. It started with Hansen's wacko hysterics - and then began to steamroll. For so many of the scientists - it is not just the money - but the celebrity, fame, adulation, prestige.
Then you have those green rich left-wing liberals, flying around the world in the private jets pouring it on these scientists - and preaching a hypocritical 'green line' all the while.
You then have major corporations who say they are 'green' - like Duke Energy, because it has a very large nuclear portfolio, encouraging this ridiculousness so as to pass legislation which will greatly enhance their bottom line with carbon credits.
Then you have all these poor nations, who can now blame all their ills on the lifestyle and energy richness of the West - and demand compensation.
It is much bigger than just the 'funding game' - it is a sickness which must be purged from across many levels of our society.
Certainly, the fact that most of our 'Institutions of Higher Learning' are bastions of liberalism does not help...but it goes far beyond there.
There are many who believe in this stuff, and have their hearts in the right place, but it don't make it right, nor does it make it so. There are so many others who stand to benefit upon it being correct. As pointed out in Post number 2 - if the IPCC were to conclude anything but a dire threat - it would conclude itself out of a job.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
As a scientist i am appalled by the level of political and religious fervor that is being put in to the climate change debate and whether it is caused by man. Facts are facts whether the person stating the fact is irrelevnt. But, for a fact to be proven it needs scientific proof through experiment. If you want to refute global warming present some scientific evidence. I have looked and have only found evidence for global warming via anthropomorphic carbon and emission. So if you have some evidence that the climate is not warming I would love to see it.
The claim that the science is being hidden from the public behind expensive subscriptions to science journals is simply stupid. If you want to read science or nature or any of the myriad of journals go to a library, most local libraries and all university libraries have these journals and any one can walk into a library and read a journal. Try it, you'll like it.
While everybody wants to look at the climate gate emails and the UN study with their minor errors, they should be considering the other independent studies such as NASA studies which support the data the climate is warming and the major source is human emissions.
If you want to know what the average scientist thinks check our the Union of Concerned Scientists who are a grassroots orginization of scientists.
And finally quit the person bashing. If you have to resort to insulting you opponent you have lost the argument.
Complain about this comment
#3 No ghost we are not employed by anybody, we are described recently as an "Army of Davids" who want truth and at last truth is coming out.
Richard links to a Washington Post article regarding hurricanes this study is yet another nail in the coffin of the IPCC. Here is the take on it from somebody Richard mentions above.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/updated-wmo-consensus-perspective-on.html
A very serious point from the paper itself;
"The short time period of the data does not allow any definitive statements regarding separation of anthropogenic changes from natural decadal variability or the existence of longer-term trends and possible links to greenhouse warming. Furthermore, intensity changes may result from a systematic change in storm duration, which is another route by which the storm environment can affect intensity that has not been studied extensively.
The intensity changes projected by various modelling studies of the effects of greenhouse-gas-induced warming (Supplementary Table S2) are small in the sense that detection of an intensity change of a magnitude consistent with model projections should be very unlikely at this time37,38, given data limitations and the large interannual variability relative to the projected changes. Uncertain relationships between tropical cyclones and internal climate variability, including factors related to the SST distribution, such as vertical wind shear, also reduce our ability to confidently attribute observed intensity changes to greenhouse warming. The most significant cyclone intensity increases are found for the Atlantic Ocean basin43, but the relative contributions to this increase from multidecadal variability44 (whether internal or aerosol forced) versus greenhouse-forced warming cannot yet be confidently determined."
Complain about this comment
Is the new IPCC going to base its findings on lifestyle magazines and discussions with unnamed ski instructors in a bar ?
Or will it use beer-review where you get your mates to OK your dodgy work.
Complain about this comment
I think this review is a step in the right direction.
I also think a move away from the perceived idea of a need for concensus in science is in order.
James Lovelock argues forcefully that concensus is foreign to science, and in a way, I agree.
I would like a reputable forum for the world's top scientists to express their opinions. Whether this is under the auspices of the IPCC or the Interacademy Panel on International Issues is perhaps of lesser importance.
These scientists have already spoken out - I am thinking of James Hansen, James Lovelock, Peter D. Ward, Lord Martin Rees, Johan Rockstrom, Wallace Broecker, etc...
What is needed urgently now is to make their views as widely known and accessible as possible, with the necessary support of either the United Nations, in the guise of the IPCC and World Meteorological Organization, or of the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, or both - why not?
I have no problem with skeptical arguments being presented as well, as long as they are scrutinized to the same degree as the way of science requires.
The public will then decide - there is no way around this if one is a democrat.
Richard Black - you wrote:
"Do we need all major scientific papers on climate to be available to all, rather than hidden from most behind the subscription-only business plans of journals such as Nature and Science?"
---------------
Yes, emphatically!
Here the power of the internet can and should be used.
'Nature,' perhaps one of the most pre-eminent scientific journals in the world, has done much already.
I will post links to three "News Features" from this journal which are brilliantly conceived and presented, in my opinion, and get right to the heart of the matter as regards climate science.
These articles are all available without subscription, and the obvious quality of the design and execution is I think apparent - in fact - a testament to Robert Pirsig's 'metaphysics of quality.' All are available as html (posted below), or as pdf's (see final link).
I would like to commend Nature's editors in public for these articles, and the actual authors of each news feature. I note that the third news feature author has actually moved on to actual scientific research "on the topic," (Oliver Morton)
Please note that these are news features - not the same as original refereed scientific articles - which is exactly why we need that the original science articles be available without subscription as well!
I would be willing to have my taxes pay for this.
-------------------------------------------------
Climate crunch: A burden beyond bearing
"The climate situation may be even worse than you think. In the first of three features, Richard Monastersky looks at evidence that keeping carbon dioxide beneath dangerous levels is tougher than previously thought."
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090429/full/4581091a.html
Climate crunch: Sucking it up
"It's simple to mop carbon dioxide out of the air, but it could cost a lot of money. In the second of three features on the carbon challenge, Nicola Jones talks with the scientists pursuing this strategy."
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090429/full/4581094a.html
Climate crunch: Great white hope
"Geoengineering schemes, such as brightening clouds, are being talked about ever more widely. In the third of three features, Oliver Morton looks at how likely they are to work."
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090429/full/4581097a.html
Final link (for those who want the pdf versions):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/
------------------------------------------------
I hope and pray that citizens will take the time and effort to print these off, read and study them.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits;
http://www.fordham.edu/academics/office_of_research/research_centers__in/center_for_ethics_ed/center_events/2010_moral_heat_conf/index.asp
I found this site and thought you might wish to follow. I will try to find out if a web-based conclusions or papers will be available.
Complain about this comment
Larry Kealey writes in #10:
"What good is peer-review when it is your 'buddies' who review your work? How many criminals would get off free if the 'jury of their peers' was composed of their co-conspirators in crime?
What good is opening up subscription only articles on Science and Nature when the editors and reviewers are biased and reject articles which 'don't fit' with their own idealistic agenda, when nothing which cast doubt can be published?"
-----------------------------
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe I read in one of your previous posts that you had a Ph.D. in science and a number of peer-reviewed articles in publication, but 'classified.' ???
If the above is true, then for me it strains credulity to believe it.
I welcome your rebuttal.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Sorry Bowman another gate is breaking in the USA NCDC Urbangate. Oh Manysummits will be upset, GISSgate and it also looks like they are covering themselves as 1934 is once again the hottest year on record in the USA.
By the way Richard I hope your radio collegues were suitably ticked off by management, when at 5.15am this morning "5 Live" newsreaders giggled their way through "January was the hottest ever on record"
Complain about this comment
SR @7:
1. Peer review is not the gold standard it is supposed by many to be. Check out Montford's book. The hockey stick is junk science, yet it passed peer review and went on to hold sway for almost a decade. And it was the poster child of the IPCC's third assessment report - because it fitted the narrative.
2. No one disputes that, other things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer. But the IPCC is predicting catastrophic (or at least harmful) man-made warming. For that you have to establish that CO2 is a dominant factor. The case for that is very weak - it rests on models that it is claimed "post-dict" (i.e. reproduce in retrospect) the temperature history only when man-made CO2 is factored in. (Go and read s9.4 of the WG1 part of IPCC AR4 - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4.html, which says this in a very roundabout way.) But that assumes the models correctly account for everything else, which is highly speculative, and that their assumption of positive feedback (i.e. a sensitive climate) is correct, also far from conclusively proved. To my mind, "we can't think of anything else it might be" is a totally inadequate basis for policy decisions affecting billions of people and the expenditure of trillions of dollars.
Complain about this comment
First 20 posts:
Contrarians:
1) Shadorne (#1)
2) texasfrank (#2)
3) AuntieLeft (#4)
4) John_from_Hendon (#5)
5) Jack Frost (#6)
6) Howard (#8)
7) LarryKealey (#10)
8) LabMunkey (#11)
9) Jack Frost (#12)
10) Larry Kealey (#13)
11) Kamboshigh (#15)
12) Jack Hughes (#16)
13) Kamboshigh (#20)
--------------------
Total: 13 (thirteen out of twenty, i.e., 65%)
- Manysummits (lists are helpful davblo!) -
Complain about this comment
#7 SR wrote:
"As much as the sceptics would hope a fresh look at the evidence will change the overall conclusion, it simply won't."
I agree -- it won't as long as what is counted as evidence is whatever can function as a basis for the desired conclusion.
Real evidence doesn't work like that at all. Real evidence is like a "hurdle" that a theory or model has to "get over". The real scandal of our age is the failure of specialists, politicians and journalists to see that, despite its being common knowledge among the general public using common sense.
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
I stated that I have published 5 peer reviewed articles during my days in academia, then moved on and worked for AFOSR, NUSC & NPGS - on classified projects, then into the business world. If you go to the University Library, you can find my publications.
Cheers.
Kealey
PS - I didn't get a PhD, and never claimed to have - you can click on my name and read all my previous posts. I didn't see the payback, nor did I want to work in academia my entire life...
Complain about this comment
@Jack
Beer-review - I like it...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan #18:
Thank you Ghost.
This intersection of science and economics is what I am studying now.
If, as is possible, the global community finally awakes from the current nightmare, we will move to a world in which population is declining, and the fossil fuel industry is dying.
The ramifications are huge.
Here is an article I found which is my own personal start on this thinking - what kind of world is possible when 'growth' in the business as usual sense is no longer the dominant paradigm?
I found the 'counterpoint' inset very illuminating. We are all on new ground here, I think.)
I would like to commend Scientific American in public for this excellent article, another 'metaphysics of quality' type!
Perhaps it is high time we give credit where credit is due. We so often criticize.
Economics in a Full World
"The global economy is now so large that society can no longer safely pretend it operates within a limitless ecosystem. Developing an economy that can be sustained within the finite biosphere requires new ways of thinking"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=economics-in-a-full-world
--------
A full color pdf version is available:
http://steadystate.org/discover/reading-list/
(scroll down to "Articles in the Popular Press"
Daly, Herman. 2005. “Economics in a Full World.” Scientific American, September 2005, pages 100-107)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@#14
"The claim that the science is being hidden from the public behind expensive subscriptions to science journals is simply stupid. If you want to read science or nature or any of the myriad of journals go to a library, most local libraries and all university libraries have these journals and any one can walk into a library and read a journal. Try it, you'll like it"
that's not the argument. it is the lack of raw data that is the issue. any scientist would know that.
Also, the fact the world is refusing to follow predictions- seems to disprove the theory.
Complain about this comment
I've had 3 friends die from cancer. Each had a long battle with the disease. A scan would seem to be OK and they spent a few weeks at home hoping against hope that it was good news. Every time we heard good news it gave us hope and temporary happiness.
Nobody got a secret thrill from hearing or relaying bad news. Nobody.
Why do some people want to hear bad news about the climate - even when it turns out to be rubbish?
Complain about this comment
Hello Richard,
Interesting article, read your personal wish-list of things that should come out of the discussions, however, I felt that you should also have added two more:
That any IPCC claim is supported by the releasing of the raw data, this would allow any interested party to check how scientists came up with their results.
Any scientist who publishes should also be made to reveal which organisation / government paid for the research.
I think these additional points are fair, however, I am more than willing to be corrected if someone thinks the opposite.
Complain about this comment
Since man-made climate change is now good and dead, it would be best to get rid of the whole edifice and save lots of dosh to spend on real pronblems.
Complain about this comment
#29 Jack Hughes wrote:
"Why do some people want to hear bad news about the climate - even when it turns out to be rubbish?"
That's a good question, and I would ask the same about all of the apocalyptic visions that seem to be a central part of all religions. Another crucial ingredient of these visions is that they always seem to involve the idea that "man is about to get his comeuppance because it's all man's fault".
These visions are so universal that they probably serve some evolutionary purpose, although we can only speculate what that purpose might be. Speculating, then, I'd guess it has to do with the need for moral rules to seem to be "backed up" by sanctions.
Complain about this comment
The main problem in the past is that climate scientists have been mainly drawn from the ranks of environmental science, i.e. not a real science. These subjects tend to draw environmental activists of mediocre ability. Climate science is a sub-branch of physics and the best brains have rightly kept away from the lack of scientific rigour employed by environmental scientists masquerading as real scientists. Check out Phil Jones - a mediocre environmental scientist with none of the skills or abilities to be a proper scientist.
The whole of climate science has been full of charlatans who have not employed the proper scientific methodology as given by Popper (falsifiability). No wonder they kept their science hidden from public view.
Complain about this comment
I too recommend Andrew Montford's book "The Hockey Stick Illusion". I have read it twice. You should read it Richard, as should your comrades in the BBC.
Complain about this comment
The entire IPCC evaluation process is flawed to the point of fraudulence. The Summary for Policymakers was finalised and published before the WG1 (Science) section. The editors of the latter were under implicit pressure and in some cases ,I believe explicit instructions to make the latter fit the former instead of the other way around as should have been the case.Where this was not done the conclusions of WG1 were simply ignored by the editors of the Summary. The most egregious case goes to the heart of and in fact destroys the entire AGW paradigm. The key part of the science is in section WG1 8.6 which deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
Nobody ever seems to read or quote the WG1 report- certainly not the compilers of the Summary. In spite of the WG1 8.6.4. conclusion the Summary says:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved sincethe TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 "
This statement is fraudulent on its face when compared to 8.6.4. Any investigation should explore how 8.6.4 morphed into the Policy statment of very high confidence.
Those of us interested in objective science should try to see that the 8.6.4 conclusion gets as much exposure as possible. It deserves to be quoted by the BBC ,on the front page of the NY Times, and the Guardian and read into the Congressional record in the USA.
Complain about this comment
The IPCC has done a lot of good work, but it is a toothless talking shop. What we need is action like banning the use of palm oil, banning carbon trading, banning biofuels made from food crops, reducing consumption in general and meat in particular and reducing population growth (by non-coersive means). Difficult with the business-as-usual, profit-based, nothing-is-happening attitudes of the few. We have so little time.
Complain about this comment
#33 Flatearther wrote:
"The whole of climate science has been full of charlatans who have not employed the proper scientific methodology as given by Popper (falsifiability)."
Alas, I just can't imagine a UN panel being remotely interested in asking any really penetrating or fundamental questions about falsification, although of course they should. That sort of body tends to be in the grip of the "cult of the expert". If they want to find something out, they'll call in a big-shot, mainstream, establishment, intellectually complacent fat cat "expert in the field" who is constitutionally incapable of asking fundamental questions. What they really should be doing is inviting non-experts to ask simple-minded questions of the sort that none of the experts had thought of before. Then watch the house of cards collapse.
The "cult of the expert" is a tragedy for science, I think. It prevents the intrusion of new ideas that can stir things up.
Complain about this comment
@21 1. Peer review is not the gold standard it is supposed by many to be. Check out Montford's book. The hockey stick is junk science, yet it passed peer review and went on to hold sway for almost a decade. And it was the poster child of the IPCC's third assessment report - because it fitted the narrative.
------------------------------------------------------
Will you summarise Montford's reasoning behihd dismissing the hockey sticks as junk science. It is my understanding that the hockey stick, or hockey stick shape reconstructions have been produced independently by dozens of researchers, each using slightly different methods. These methods have been vindicated time and time again and are valid up to the uncertainty bands that the scientists themselves admit exist.
It is ridiculously easy for a rank amateur to poke holes in something complicated they do not understand. Andrew Montford is not a climate scientist, he wouldn't know a proxy from a pixie and his knowledge of the statistical techniques is limited to that of a lay person with a chemistry degree. I'll ask you - who is perpetuating junk science?, this guy or the thousands of climate scientists and statisticians who work tirelessly and methodically to improve on the techniques for reconstructing past temperature.
Complain about this comment
manysummits:
Interesting article. The true costs are never revealed. Governments subsides of big business are much larger and often hidden than those to correct the problems created by them. Energy producers always talk about the cheap costs of their products but in reality the costs are not included. Governments provide them with many benefits and tax breaks and turn away from regulation. The multi-nationals are able to define their own processes and escape oversight as they prey on underdeveloped economies with bribes and environmental abuse. The people do have a right to control both the size and the regulations of industries although most hide behind some philosophical arguement about free markets and consumner demand as if they have rights to abuse both people and the environment while they work to restrict competition and hide those costs that will be passed to the public. It is difficult to regulate ethics and honesty so there are courts...unfortunately they are hardly ever used for the purpose of holding big business accountable for the costs they pass on to the public. All governments profess to be organized for the welfare of the people, yet very few are. As long as there have been organized governments there has been corruption...we currently have reached a high point in that process.
It will be interesting when the science is confirmed again and the sceptics cry foul...again.
Complain about this comment
@35
This statement is fraudulent on its face when compared to 8.6.4. Any investigation should explore how 8.6.4 morphed into the Policy statment of very high confidence.
------------------------------------------
You aren't interpreting this correctly. The statement on the reliability of models is specifically to do with feedback and the holy grail of model verification: comparison with observational data.
This has been possible with radiative forcing models because we KNOW the amount of aerosol, CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and have a time series for these that corrosponds to global temperature (going back a good few decades). This provides very, very good confidence that the warming in the past 100 years could not be anything other than the CO2 produced by man (as CO2 went up from 288 to 388ppm).
The bit you are fixating on is the other type of model which des the harder job of looking at the very complex feedback mechanisms driving climate. You don't actually need to know this to be confident that CO2 has driven the warming in the past century. Just read the journals more closely, it's so obvious. You, and many others can be forgiven for misinterpreting cherry picked parts of the IPCC because you aren't climate scientists and you don't understand the basic reasons why scientists are so confident. It's unfortumate the scientific literacy of this country is so shockingly low.
Complain about this comment
38 SR wrote:
"It is ridiculously easy for a rank amateur to poke holes in something complicated they do not understand. Andrew Montford is not a climate scientist, he wouldn't know a proxy from a pixie and his knowledge of the statistical techniques is limited to that of a lay person with a chemistry degree."
These are the words of a priest, defending his Holy Trinity, or whichever "mystery" ordinary people are too stupid to grasp.
Complain about this comment
@37
The "cult of the expert" is a tragedy for science, I think. It prevents the intrusion of new ideas that can stir things up.
-----------------------------------------------------
Or is the REAL tragedy the cult of the layman who despite thinking they know enough about a topic to contribute, actually understand very little about the nuances and serve as little more than a link in the daisy chain of misinformation, falsities and convincingly packaged lies.
People should know their limitations.
Complain about this comment
It's well worth while reading the Institute of Physics submission to the parliamentary inquiry into climategate. No punches pulled by real scientists.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
Also the Information Commissioner pulls no punches.
I would say CRU is under the cosh.
Complain about this comment
To add to my previous comment, the IoP said:
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.
Complain about this comment
#42 SR wrote:
"Or is the REAL tragedy the cult of the layman who despite thinking they know enough about a topic to contribute, actually understand very little about the nuances"
Ah, the "nuances" -- would these be anything like the "quiddities of being" for which the "angelic doctor" is rightly famous?
Complain about this comment
#40 SR wrote:
"the holy grail of model verification: comparison with observational data."
Oho! -- And would this Holy Grail be reached via comparison with future events as they actually unfold, or via comparison with "the record" as it already exists and for which the model was specifically written?
In other words: What do you mean by "observational data"?
Complain about this comment
SR wrote:
"I'll ask you - who is perpetuating junk science?, this guy or the thousands of climate scientists and statisticians who work tirelessly"
You are the junk-merchant, as is evident from your use of words like "tirelessly". It shows you worship at a shrine to saints. You simply cannot have had any experience of real science done by real scientists in the real world.
Complain about this comment
The UK Institute of Physics really slams the climategaters at CRU.
Their submission to Parliament:
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. ... The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers...
They don't mince their words.
Complain about this comment
#43 Flatearther wrote:
"It's well worth while reading the Institute of Physics submission to the parliamentary inquiry into climategate. No punches pulled by real scientists."
This (from the above) is especially relevant to our blog:
"The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers."
Complain about this comment
@ 40 SR wrote
"This has been possible with radiative forcing models because we KNOW the amount of aerosol, CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and have a time series for these that corrosponds to global temperature (going back a good few decades). This provides very, very good confidence that the warming in the past 100 years could not be anything other than the CO2 produced by man (as CO2 went up from 288 to 388ppm)."
This statement is simply untrue see the recent Soloman Jan 2010 paper which seems to have just discovered that increase in water vapour accounted for 30 % of the warming in the 1990s. No doubt you will be amazed at some time to discover that negative feed back from low level clouds accounts for a large percentage of other temperature changes leaving little left to be attributed to anthropogenic CO2.
My main point really is the hubris and overconfidence of the modellers in their AR4 projections.Always remember that great philosopher Don Rumsfeld's concerns about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns,
Complain about this comment
Richard Black.
"There is no point in governments either soft-soaping or lambasting the organisation [IPCC] to the extent that it loses all its credibility. After all, its conclusions should in principle have a major role in determining what policy options those self-same governments pursue in the arenas of disaster preparedness and energy supply."
isn't that just a pipe-dream?
here in the UK we have currently a similar situation, albeit on a different issue and a smaller scale: the government's vehement denial of Lord Neuberger's conclusions with regard to MI5; proof, if any was needed, that when an independent body (in this case the judiciary) presents a view which the government/establishment are unwilling to take on board, it will be belittled and/or ignored at best.
"And that should come as welcome news to those who feared that a tide of "denialism" was about to swamp the world's body politic."
wrong tense, 'denialism' is firmly entrenched already.
Complain about this comment
@38 SR:
If you want to know the story, buy the book! Note - I am not Andrew Montford, nor am I getting a single penny for saying this. It is just that I have never seen such a lucid explanation both of the defects in the science here and of the extraordinary lengths to which the palaeoclimate establishment closed ranks to defend its view.
From memory, so I may have some details slightly wrong or left stuff out, these studies all suffer from some combination of the following defects:
* heavy dependence on tree-ring chronologies (where it's doubtful that they actually respond to temperature), including a type (so called strip-bark trees) which are regarded as particularly unreliable
* use of other proxies with known issues (e.g. a lake sediment record that was corrupted by recent human intervention - oh, and it was inverted in the reconstruction, to boot)
* cherry-picking the particular sites and even trees to use (subsequent samples at the same sites produced totally different results - even different cores taken from the same tree produce different results in some cases) - one gem from the book: a witness to one of the panels of enquiry set up by the US Congress to investigate the original hockey stick actually said that dendroclimatology (reconstructing climate from trees) is uniquely privileged in that you can choose your input data, and another said "you have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie" (this is not science, it is sorcery)
* choosing to use outdated versions of particular data series (when coincidentally the more up to date ones don't have the hockey-stick shape)
* apparently arbitrary infilling of missing data
* mis-application of a statistical technique called principal component analysis which is intended to extract patterns from large amounts of data
* a calibration step that selects data series with a strong rising trend near the present day, which has been shown to produce hockey-stick shaped graphs from random data 99% of the time.
Another point made very forcefully in Montford's book is that all these corroborating reconstructions are not independent. They use a lot of the same data, they involve a lot of the same people in different combinations, and the peer reviewers used are part of the same relatively small circle of palaeoclimatologists, and often lack proper statistical training.
To some extent, the small size of the field and the limited amount of input data available makes this inevitable. However, this means that there is even more need for external scrutiny, and it makes it even more unforgivable that, as seems to be the case, they actively sought to prevent this at every turn.
Complain about this comment
@34 Flatearther: perhaps we should club together and buy the BBC's environment reporting team a few copies. :-)
Complain about this comment
@38 SR again:
Montford's book is based on thousands of hours of work by people like Steve McIntyre, who have pieced together, despite years of obstruction by the "Hockey Team", how the hockey-stick studies were done.
McIntyre himself has been published at least three times in peer-reviewed journals (for those that attach great weight to this), and his work - all done in public on his blog - has survived intense scrutiny.
The book is not just some author "going off on one". Why don't you buy it and see for yourself? It's only £8 from Amazon.
Complain about this comment
@Texasfrank: Yes but would they read it and if they did, would they understand it? It's unpalatable reading for a true believer in the religion of AGW.
Complain about this comment
I can do no better than refer all contributors to the comments of Dr Norman Page. COMMENT NO 35. In my opinion this comment gets to the very essence of the problem.
I wish that i had written it.
Complain about this comment
They act too late Richard, the IPCC is junk, the Blogosphere has decided for better or worse.
There is no way back.
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #24 re #19:
Thank you for your reply.
My mistake in thinking you had a Ph.D.
Appreciate your answer.
I looked up your acronyms, and I think I have got them right. You were doing research for the US military, I presume?
1) AFOSR - "Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)" ( ? )
2) NUSC - NUSC Naval Underwater Systems Center ( ? )
NUSC Net Universal Service Cost (basic telephony cost)
NUSC Newcastle United Supporters Club (UK)
NUSC Naval Underwater Systems Command
NUSC Newport Uskmouth Sailing Club (Gwent, South Wales)
NUSC National Unified Services Command, Inc. (Washington, DC)
3) NPGS - NPGS Naval Post Graduate School ( ? )
-------------
I have been unable to nail down University Library??
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
A thousand pardons re my #17 links to 'Nature' articles:
I thought the articles were available without a subscription, as I was using an Internet Explorer connection, but it was from a University, and obviously the magazine Nature recognized the source computer, and thus gave it to me in full.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@50" This statement is simply untrue see the recent Soloman Jan 2010 paper which seems to have just discovered that increase in water vapour accounted for 30 % of the warming in the 1990s. No doubt you will be amazed at some time to discover that negative feed back from low level clouds accounts for a large percentage of other temperature changes leaving little left to be attributed to anthropogenic CO2.
My main point really is the hubris and overconfidence of the modellers in their AR4 projections.Always remember that great philosopher Don Rumsfeld's concerns about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns,"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Solomon's paper explains a fairly recent phenomena heavily linked to el nino/la nina. It neatly explans part of why warming has not continued at a rate predicted by the models, even though a lot of what has happened can indeed be explained by large scale effects as the energy in the earth is circulated between the sea and the various layers of the atmosphere. Solomon stated in this paper that the conclusions in her paper had to effect on the overall concensus that CO2 is the cause of the underlying warming. We know there is natural variability like el nino/la nina, and other sources of variability. Fundamental to all this is the pretty obvious underlying warming trend and models looking at radiative forcing cannot explain the warming without taking into account the increase in CO2.
To all those who believe the scepticism perpetuated by books like Montford's, especially relating to the tree ring chronologies, you really are taking second hand information from people who are out of their depth in this field. McCormack and Mcintyre have attempted to prove that the proxy reconstructions are on shaky ground for years, but ultimately they have failed. They attempted to cast at doubt on Briffa's reconstruction and the use of the Yamal tree ring data, however, they subsequently withdrew their most scathing attacks and publically apologised, in effect - withdrawing the comment that Briffa had picked the data. This comment by McIntyre will not appear in Montford's book, or indeed any of the sceptic 'literature'':
"While there is much to criticise in the handling of this [Yamal] data, the results do not in any way show that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is a 'fraud', nor that this particular study was a 'fraud'. There are many serious scientists who are honestly concerned about AGW and your commentary … is unfair to them."
I'm afraid Montford does not understand dendroclimatology. He has a book to sale and unfortunately, it's being plugged in this blog. The process usually plays out like this:1)A slight doubt is cast on the methodology used by the scientist - 2)the methodology is robustly defended (as Mann's hockey stick reconstruction has been in more than a few independent inquiries), 3)The doubt, even though it has been cast aside by true science, is amplified man times over by an hysteric internet community 4)Bloggers like Montford, who incidentally have no training in climate science, capitilise by flogging more books to the gullible, scientifcally illiterate (or at least not balanced in the information they have) 5) The whole cycle perpetuates itself.
Learn about paleoclimatology, read the journals, think for yourself. Until you do all 3 of these steps, you really have to right to comment.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
You got the acronyms correct. I was actually offered a permanent post at NPGS, however the Navy did not pay extremely well - and Monterrey, CA was very expensive...
Regarding University Library - You do have Universities up there? If you wish to review my publications, go to your local University (preferably one with an Engineering College) and you will find them....
BTW - It would appear that the 'religion of the true believers in the one great evil' is down to posting only 35%.
I view as cause for celebration.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
"The book is not just some author "going off on one". Why don't you buy it and see for yourself? It's only £8 from Amazon."
I've already been over all the arguments put forward by Montford in that book. Once you scratch the surface and apply some background knowledge in the basic statistical techniques used in dendroclimatology, the arguments simply do not carry any weight. They are designed to sway the layman with no background knowledge or training in the field.
This is why the net effect of Montford is zero on science, yet disproportionately high on the layman community.
McKintrye and McCormack have had a few publications, but some of their conclusions have been disproven by subsequent researchers, and the papers don't really change much in the field, only allude to possibility of slightly more doubt than is commonly thought. For instance, their paper on the Urban Heat island effect in growing built up areas has been ripped to shreds - really, it has. I am being completely objective about this and followed both sides of the argument - they were off the mark, and further work that came out quite recently has completely obliterated Antony Watt's campaign to highlight flaws in the US surface data record (due to poor location and urban heat effect). The results actually show a cooling bias in the suspect stations!! You won't hear about things like this in sceptic literature or internet community, but it's true and those who value objectivity in debates like this should think long and hard about the pro-MMGW arguments and how they get lost in the noise.
Complain about this comment
First 60 comments:
Contrarians 42, by my count. (70%)
That's up 5% from the first 20 comments (see #22), which came in at 65%.
Roughly, contrarian to non-contrarian posts are running at two to one.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Larry Kealey #61:
Thank you again - that helps.
At least we have the acronyms right - US military all the way.
I have no problem with that, by the way. My father was an American Marine, as was my cousin.
However, I do have a problem with your comments as regards the peer-review process:
Your #10 - again:
"What good is peer-review when it is your 'buddies' who review your work? How many criminals would get off free if the 'jury of their peers' was composed of their co-conspirators in crime? (my emphasis)
What good is opening up subscription only articles on Science and Nature when the editors and reviewers are biased and reject articles which 'don't fit' with their own idealistic agenda, when nothing which cast doubt can be published?" (my emphasis) (LarryKealey)
-----------------------------
I submit that the emphasized parts of your statement are without foundation, further, that you would be required to retract them publicly in a court of law.
As this is not the place for either of the above remedies, I submit that you are towing a tried and true line - that of the contrarian lobby.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To SR - all comments:
You appear to be a professional climate scientist?
I would appreciate your views on James Lovelock's most recent book, "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," in particular his simple climate model, which shows a sudden change of state, in effect, a bifurcation.
My understanding, largely from James Lovelock's own words, are that the large climate models currently in use fail to show this effect??
His main contention, if I may be so bold, is that sea level is rising at approximately one point six (1.6) times the IPCC prediction, which he considers of vital importance.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Thank you for maintaining the tally - it would seem you have a lot of time on your hands.
Wow, we gained 5% in just 44 posts - very nice.
Please, if you are going to refer to skeptics as 'contrarian' at least have the courtesy refer to your association as 'true believers'...
Otherwise, I believe skeptics vs. pro-AGW would be more appropriate.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #66:
I've used a variety of labels for what you prefer to call 'skeptics.'
In fact, I've used that term before.
James Hansen, and I believe James Lovelock, often refer to 'contrarians,' rather than 'skeptics.'
I lean towards contrarians because I think many people are in fact skeptical of the pro-AGW science, i.e., they are truly puzzled, or skeptical, or perhaps in denial, natural enough when somebody tells you that 'the end is near.'
However, having blogged here for over a year, a devotion if you will, comparable to my seven years as a devoted mountaineer, I have seen over and over again the same type of 'skeptical' argument, and my pattern recognition apparatus being what it is, I have come to the conclusion that no sane person could be so impervious to logical and well presented information (SR for example), with appropriate links to the top scientific literature in the world, without being - well - in-sane!
There is of course one other candidate, if we exclude insanity.
And that is a lobby or professional disinformation, organized by the best.
As you are a military man, or were, I presume, you might be more aware than I of the spectacular abilities of disinformation in controlling a world community of subservient nations which may not want to be controlled, but which are in effect pieces on the US chess board.
No argument against this is likely to sway me.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights graces the covers of my main 'thinking binder', and I have copies of the original documents of the United States Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and of John Kennedy's Peace Speech at American University always within easy reach.
Were you true to these, and not to modern ideas of 'patriot acts' and preemptive strikes against third word nations, which coincidentally have oil under their soil, I would be less inclined to find fault with the United States, which I have admired in the past, and hope to again in the future.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Some here may be interested to know that over at Realclimate Dr Ben Santer has posted a lengthy response to a recent article in the Guardian from Fred Pearce:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/#more-3041
There's a lot of detail there covering allegations made by the Global Climate Coalition regarding the 1995 IPCC Report. However Santer also gives some interesting insight into more recent exchanges with Steve McIntyre of the Climateaudit blog.
Santer concludes:
"My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain – the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”. I hope that someone has the courage to tell this story."
Personally, I have no problem with the IPCC being reformed or with the science of AGW being reviewed by an independent team of objective scientists. However, given the increasing power and influence of the self-styled "auditors", perhaps it is time that their activities too should be similarly scrutinised...... and the findings well publicised.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@65
"You appear to be a professional climate scientist?"
No, i'm not a climate scientist, but i'm willing to carry the torch for objectivity. That leaves me open a bit given the nature of my previous comments but all of what I say can be backed up in the scientific literature. I've read a lot on this topic in the past 12 months, especially in the areas of paleoclimatology. I have a mathematical/statistical background so know how the techniques work and why they are necessary. I find some of the attacks by the sceptics slightly amusing because it's like a schoolboy arguing about black holes with Hawking; they simply have no clue about the field, have no interest in learning about it (besides being spoon fed lies by fellow sceptics also with no training in the field) and yet feel they've somehow hit upon a fraud. It makes no sense, but i guess that's the internet for you.
In terms of Lovelock's comments, i'm not aware of that comment, sorry - but I would say that a lot of scientists are very worried about runaway positive feedback. We really have no way of saying for sure how much more carbon will be purged as temperatures rise, but we do know from the ice core data that there is definitely a natural positive feedback force, though this time we're forcing temperatures to rise at rates that far exceed those observed in the slow natural feedback cycle. It's so irresponsible for people to turn a blind eye to this, especially if they haven't got the experience or background to understand the problem. Whatever people say, climate scientists are best placed to shed light on the scale of this problem. If not them, who? The consensus in 97% amongst climate scientists, if we discount them, all we're left with is amateurs shooting in the dark.
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits #64
No, not all military - if you look up my publications at the University, you will find none of them related to work I did for the Military. I also continued my career in the corporate world - Solomon Bros., NACM, Platinum Software (Business Intelligence), Noram Enery Services, Relaint Energy Services, Ibadrola, Unisys, Dunn & Bradstreet, Duke Energy, Severn Trent, JP Morgan, many others....
Regarding my opinion of the state of the 'peer review' process - get real. This is an opinion blog. My opinion related to this matter is defined by what I have seen, read and heard. I would be happy to defend myself if you could get past filing a frivolous lawsuit.
I mean really now...Look at the three articles you posted about on this thread - doesn't look like any room for skepticism there. It does not seem that their is room for skepticism in those mags...or would you like to tally articles and rank by certainties over the last ten years and present us with your findings?
I think I might be able to entice Jack to assist me with the beer-review.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
To SR #69:
Gracias Amigo!
Got to go, they're closing the library doors on me.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Latest from the BBC - "Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn"
And the answer? Well, bring big fishing into the whole carbon credit scams. Issue carbon credits for fishing quotas - and let countries buy and sell them...now, everyone who has read my posts knows I am very in favor of not only saving the whales, but restoring and better managing all our fisheries...but this is just pure ridiculousness.
Scientists need to be talking and worrying about the state of our fisheries, what closures should be made, what indicators we can use to allow for a catch which is both sustainable and will help stocks improve, the interrelations between overfishing of specific species and those effects on other marine life - not economic solutions around carbon credit trading schemes...I means really, now...LOL
I mean really - my view would be that if a country does not use its fishing quota, they should lose it - in the longer run, in improves the stocks and will allow for a better quota later...
It would seem that so many have latched onto this whole 'carbon economy' thing and want to make the 'new world currency' based upon carbon credits. Well, our wonderful financial institutions as well as many companies, and third world dictators would stand to benefit greatly from this - but who will pay for it all? The average taxpayer in the west. The rich will get richer - the poor will get poorer and the real problems of the third world and so many deserving environmental issues will continue to be unaddressed.
Last week I believe it was, UK company moves plant to third world country subsidiary - makes money off carbon credits, still emits same GHG's, net loss sixteen hundred UK jobs...company nets nice bit of cash up front, more lax regulation on real pollutants and environmental monitoring, pays lower wages, big bucks in their pocket - and they are green??? Well, I am sure they had to pay a few kickbacks over there in the third world...some small consolation? NOT
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #70:
Your candor is disarming.
I did come across your name in one of the companies you mentioned - 'Reliant' I believe.
You are then former military - and later, from your list - 'big business - as usual.'
My opinion - you are either a 'Big Gun' for the lobby, or are simply not up to speed on the science - climate science that is.
I favor the 'Big Gun' hypothesis.
As far as getting real - your own military is on side with AGW, and has formulated plans accordingly.
You would have to know this if you are as well connected as I suspect.
You are big business, and you are working to an agenda - that agenda has nothing to do with science.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
With what definition do you refer to with regards to 'bifurcation'?
In mathematics a bifurcation is generally considered to be the period doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc of a system undergoing a transition to a chaotic state. As most on both sides of the debate would admit - the dynamic system we call Earth's Climate System is a chaotic system - so I fail to see the relevance. Please enlighten me.
Oh, regarding your previous post - would it be fair to say you agree with the term 'contrarian' because anyone who is skeptical of AGW, Hansen or Lovelock is either a moron, an idiot or a paid hack for big fossil fuel lobby?
And silly, me - here I have been thinking that skepticism was a healthy thing my whole life. Of course that was something I suppose I was taught - like when my father used to say - if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Or when my grandmother used to say 'take it with a grain of salt' or mother: 'don't believe everything you see on tv'. Then of course, later, during my formal education and academic career...
Well, I am very happy for you in your unshakable beliefs and complete lack of need to have any doubts whatsoever in your position. I really do envy you in certain ways - much as religious zealots are unshakable in their beliefs - provides complete justification and all that is required is complete faith. Well, I just don't have that - and I don't envy you enough to want it...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
regarding last post - I forgot to include 'insane' to the classifications by which you describe those who are skeptical? Am I getting this correct? Should that be added to the descriptive list of contrarains (those who express skepticism)?
It would appear (to get back on topic with the article) that there are many right now - all across the world - who are expressing skepticism and concern with the IPCC process. Why else would governments around the world be demanding an investigation and changes as Richard suggests in his article? Are they also 'contrarians'?
I believe the article states: 'demanding an independent investigation' and reshape the IPCC process before the next round...sure sounds like skepticism regarding the IPCC process and previous deliverables to me...
Kindest Regards.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Computer simulation and computer modeling were used to forecast the profitability and risk assessments for the design of derivatives and credit default swaps for the financial industry. In that case the results were laughably incorrect. After this example we are asked to assume that the AGW modeling programs must be flawless, guaranteed and worth ruining nations and industries.
It seems apparent that GW suits the needs and desires of many groups. Green groups want more donations. Government seeks greater control over society and sees a unique opportunity to raise taxes in historic quantities. Globalists and dictators see it as a chance to hurt the US and remove it as a threat to their goals and ambitions. "Academics" see it as a cash cow for government grants. And anyone who questions or doubts these promoters is ridiculed as unenlightened, or worse, conservative. As an older citizen of this world I can tell you that whenever an idea is sold to you as "you must act now, before it is too late, there is no time to ask questions" you will always find that you are listening to either a salesman or a liar, and normally they are both. Too many here seem too young to have learned that yet. I have never seen it fail to be true.
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #74:
from the Latin 'bifurcus': 'bi' (two) 'furcus' (forks); thus 'having two branches or peaks, forked.
- Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition
In the case of the Earth's climate, a sudden rather than gradual change of state.
see "Early-warning signals for critical transitions," Marten Scheffer et al; Nature; vol 461; 3 Sept 2009; doi:101038/nature08227
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/abs/nature08227.html
--------------
You have got me going, haven't you.
Fell for it again. Answering questions - which anyone could look up on Wikipedia...
You are unique, I'll give you that.
A self-avowed high level member of the US military/industrial/financial complex, using your own name, front and center on this very public weblog.
To what purpose I wonder?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
SR Wrote: For instance, their paper on the Urban Heat island effect in growing built up areas has been ripped to shreds - really, it has. I am being completely objective about this and followed both sides of the argument - they were off the mark, and further work that came out quite recently has completely obliterated Antony Watt's campaign to highlight flaws in the US surface data record (due to poor location and urban heat effect). The results actually show a cooling bias in the suspect stations!!
Well then you will enjoy reading this
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/temperature_trends.html
Can any of you alarmists spell fraud?
Complain about this comment
77. At 04:16am on 27 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:
"You have got me going, haven't you.
Fell for it again. Answering questions -......"
Manysummits are you beginning to understand what I have been trying to say to you!
Every time to put yourself forward as an "Aunt Sally", Larry and Co. take great delight in taking pot-shots at you.
Not very productive.
Earlier I was speaking about actions speaking louder than words. In the same "blog" I concurred with Larry (which I do often when he's not pontificating about coal for Africa but about other environmental issues) with regard his "shot across the bows" technique". However, I hope no-one took either of us too seriously because that is NOT the type of action I promote, effective as it may be!
Am I a "closet-contrarian"? Definitely not (you were way out on your perception of SR, too).
Am I sitting on the fence? Yes........maybe to some degree.....yes. But please don't adopt that rather silly attitude..."If you're not with us, you are against us"
I have my own concerns re- air borne pollution (now watch all those pile in on top of me informing me CO2 is NOT pollution!) and my preferred solution, (my opinion) falls very much in line with the two "Jims". I think I must be the first in my town to have read Hansen's book. The library had to acquire it at my request.
I also use this site to sharpen what I call my "porkie filter". I do a lot of research on "who" they are or "who" they quote rather than "what" they say. That way I get a good idea where they are coming from. That helps me evaluate their contributions.
For example no doubt you have already checked on Mr. McIntyre, referred to in Paul Briscoe #68. If not, do so. Interesting associations, particularly with GMI. Yet Mr. McIntyre is looked on as one of the "leading" sceptics!
If you are convinced (which I believe you are)that you too have sorted out the "porkies" from the genuine, then surely you will also have concluded that there is NO WAY you or any other pro-AGW supporter have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing Larry or any other anti-AGW contributor of the error of their ways. And in turn, I am sure they don't have a similar chance of converting you.
So, what will you achieve by this same old same old.
How ell informed are your local community? How many of them are participating on this site? Where are they getting their information from? I bet most of them read the papers or watch TV or listen to "mates". How well are they being informed or mis-informed? Would your local community be a more fertile target group? Your local government representative? Would your time be more productive in these alternative directions?
Now my animals need feeding.
Complain about this comment
#69 SR wrote:
"No, i'm not a climate scientist, but i'm willing to carry the torch for objectivity."
I'd be interested to know what you understand by "objectivity", and what you understand by "comparison with observational data."
So I ask again:
Is "comparison with observational data" comparison with future events as they actually unfold, or comparison with "the record" as it already exists and for which the model was specifically written?
Complain about this comment
Shadorne @ #74
Anthony Watts and the grandly titled "Science and Public Policy Institute" are hardly sources of objective and reliable information on this subject. If you are going to accuse the scientists of using flawed data you need to use sources that don't have a vested interest in proving that they are.
In fact, the NCDC has already recognised the shortcomings of some of its measuring stations in a Site Information Handbook and NOAA have produced a document entitled "Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable". Unfortunately, I can't link directly to either as they are PDF documents, but the latter shows that even if you completely exclude all the stations Anthony Watts has identified as questionable, the overall data barely changes.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Above there are several attempts to categorise everyone as either with us or against us. This is a very dangerous and misleading thing to do.
I, for example, (listed as a 'sceptic') do believe that climate change is a serious challenge to us all and something that we should do out best not to ignore - however I find the simplistic "CO2 is the problem" as the answer, simply does not stand up to any from of proper scientific examination.
So, pro green, and the planet, but I do not believe that the case against CO2 has been proved at all and further I do not believe that there is any factual scientific evidence that CO2 is the cause of anything at all. (Indeed, I see that limiting, or trying to limit CO2 may do far more harm than good.)
Complain about this comment
Panel Discussion on “Climategate” – Haas School
What Should We Learn from Climategate? Panel discussion with Maximilian Auffhammer, Associate Professor, Agricultural & Resource Economics; Bill Collins, Department Head, Climate Science, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Rich Muller, Professor of Physics, author, Physics for Future Presidents; Margaret Torn, Program Head, Climate and Carbon Sciences, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on questions about the integrity of the peer review process for climate change research. Presented at the Haas School, UC Berkeley, by the Energy Institute at Haas, Berkeley Energy & Resources Collaborative, and Climate & Energy Policy Institute. Moderated by Severin Borenstein, Co-Director, Energy Institute at Haas. (January 26, 2010)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itE2NiZZH_k
Complain about this comment
Is "comparison with observational data" comparison with future events as they actually unfold, or comparison with "the record" as it already exists and for which the model was specifically written?
All you climate change "experts" can continue to ignore this question, because you haven't heard it discussed before in the "climate change community". But if you do continue to ignore it, you're making the mistake of your life!
If the models simply model "data" that have already been "collected", and you hope to extrapolate from them to the future, you will need some assurance that the past is representative of the future in respect of the climate. Where is that assurance? What form does it take?
Complain about this comment
@69, SR wrote:
“
I have a mathematical/statistical background so know how the techniques work and why they are necessary.
“
Excellent!
Perhaps you can explain the need for short-centred PC analysis.
I would also be interested to know why a significant number of dendroclimatoligists consider the failure of R2 verification statistics to be immaterial.
Complain about this comment
To xtragrumpmike2 #79:
Thanks for that Mike!
I needed that. Yes, I am becoming very polarized, precisely because I see the issue as so important. It is a natural trait to de-humanize your enemies. I presume this is an evolutionary trait designed to help one focus and win.
I am glad you are not a 'closet contrarian,' and I apologize.
Your idea of going local is something I have thought about. In fact, I am considering 'working for the environment,' which is another way of saying - for all of 'us,' as a way of life, in the time I have left.
I am glad you have read the two Jim's!
It's probably re-stating the obvious, but as a geologist who actually likes geology, rather than just 'made a living' from it, and who is a lifelong 'Limits to Growth' man, the current state of affairs is not unexpected, but still surprising, as the magnitude of change which the two Jim's (and of course others) speak of is a shocker.
I have tried to foster dialogues like this very one rather than 'debate' the contrarians, for I think I know them very well.
But I fell for it again, and there are only a few, a very few, who have taken me up on the 'dialogue' idea.
The presence here of a figure such as LarryKealey is a bit intimidating, and perhaps that is the intent.
I am a student of history, a natural thing for a dyed in the wool geologist, when you think about it, and my rather eclectic working life and travels have given me a first hand look at much of human nature.
There is good and there is bad. The good can be quite excellent, and the bad can sink one to despair.
In the middle is normal - an unflattering condition, but the lot of most of us.
I thank you again for your mature reply, and wish you well,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Paul: Unfortunately, I can't link directly to either as they are PDF documents, but the latter shows that even if you completely exclude all the stations Anthony Watts has identified as questionable, the overall data barely changes
Even children are aware of the obvious data issues in the temperature database relating to urban heat effect. Why are the alarmists so keen to bury this under the carpet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04
Of course this does not change the story about recent warming. However, many of the claims of of record breaking warm temperatures become highly dubious.
Let's face it - there is nothing at all unprecedented about the rise in recent temperatures - the is however an unprecedented problem: fraudulent manipulation and specious alarmist statements regarding man-made warming.
Complain about this comment
@Paul #81:
"...but the latter shows that even if you completely exclude all the stations Anthony Watts has identified as questionable, the overall data barely changes."
Doesn't the 'fact' that 'the overall data barely changes' sound just a wee bit suspicious?
I think it's only fair that you check out the other side of the story before making your mind up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
Complain about this comment
So who is going to do this 'review'??? Some more 'climate scientists' - all doing very nicely on government grants? Or perhaps some 'independent' people from governments dependent on 'green' taxes?
You just dont get it. It is not the 'science' that is the problem.
Masses of ordinary people - 3/4 of the population - are not revolting against some obscure scientific theory. The uprising is against the use of that theory as an excuse for taxes and the destruction of their way of life. No matter what climate of fear is created, people are not buying that package.
Allow people to continue their way of life with new, non-fossil energy sources. Watch the resistance disapear.
Complain about this comment
Independent review into how the IPCC conducts its work and how well its conclusions stand up to scrutiny.
The precise terms of reference are being decided even now.
WHAT A RED HERRING!
What does it matter if the climate is going up or down, IF the climate itself is being manipulated - a weather WMD?
e.g. It is my personal belief that the earthquake in Haiti was a false flag operation. Before you decide that I’m “mad", please read on:
Haiti has huge reserves of oil and gas; it has precious metal reserves, gold, silver and copper. It has cheap labour. How did this false flag happen? What would be so powerful as to devastate Haiti?
HAARP - project being run jointly by both the University of Alaska and the US Department of Defense.
Not a word was/is mentioned about this program: The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska - jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy.
There is also a smaller American facility - UCLA at the HIPAS Observatory.
The Arecibo Observatory can operate its transmitters as an ionospheric heater, but being located at a much lower latitude, it does not have the ability to stimulate the highly active auroral areas of the ionosphere.
Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war."
This is exactly what the Americans are doing.
The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations is never considered as relevant. Military analysts are mute. Meteorologists are not investigating; environmentalists are stuck on global warming.
HAARP has been in existence since 1992. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
Renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet."
The USA very likely is planning to carry out scientific experiments under HAARP
- not controlled by the global community,
- capable of breaking radio communication lines
- causing serious accidents in electricity networks and
- literally, God knows what else.
The news media is silent. The news media has failed to note the number of unusual and dramatic climatic changes that have occurred in countries that don't cooperate with the United States. E.g.
- North Korea ince the mid-1990s by a succession of droughts, followed by floods
- Iraq, Iran and Syria, a devastating drought occurred in 1999
- Afghanistan, four years of drought in years preceding the US led invasion, 2001.
In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of to trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction.
So, please, let the red herring go.
The world must catch HAARP before it's simply too late.
Complain about this comment
LOLOLO! Achim Steine, UNEP boss, vigorously defended the IPCC on the Himalayan "error". "IPCC error was a typo, argues UN Environment
chief" Monday, February 8, 2010,13 in IndiaOnline, for example. And now his organization is going to lead an "independent investigation"1
Complain about this comment
One thing that's missing from this debate is an acknowledgement of the economic, financial and technological benefits countries stand to derive from the low carbon economy and green jobs. Those of us who want action on climate change don't necessarily want the world to wear hair shirts - I think most of us are doing it because we want humanity and our civilisation to continue rather than risk collapse and disappearance. I think that's rather a positive message, than the negative "hair-shirted" and tax-raising allegations that get bandied around. To quote the illness analogy quoted earlier, if you knew there a blip in your test results, wouldn't you want to know earlier rather than later so you can take evasive action even if there's only a chance of a life-threatening illness developing, rather than deal with it if and when it does?
The low-carbon innovations already being made by companies and organisations are already worth £3-4 trillion globally and set to continue to rise. Where is this a case of the greens wanting to make everyone miserable? Personally, in a recession I think it's a brilliant solution and stops us going back to the dangerous option of putting all our economic eggs in what has been shown to be the very leaky basket of the financial sector.
Adapt, prosper and thrive with at least a chance of broadly shared economic, environmental and social benefits for the majority or take a risk that catastrophe doesn't happen, which is the wiser choice for a species supposed to be distinguished by its ability to show foresight??
Complain about this comment
#89 jon112uk wrote:
"Masses of ordinary people - 3/4 of the population - are not revolting against some obscure scientific theory. The uprising is against the use of that theory as an excuse for taxes and the destruction of their way of life."
There may be some of that, but I think there is also considerable suspicion about the "incestuousness" of "experts checking their own work". The general public knows that bankers cannot be trusted to check bankers' bonuses, that MPs cannot be trusted to check MPs' expenses, that the met office cannot be trusted to check met office handouts for "another job well done", and so on.
So the general public rightly wonder about climate scientists' ability to check climate scientists' prophecies of doom.
When non-specialists ask for an exlanation, they are told that it's all far too arcane and fabulously complicated for the great unwashed to understand, and told: "don't you worry your pretty little head about the details, just take my expert word for it that we're all about to die screaming!"
Climate scientists throw words like 'evidence' and 'objective' around like they know what they're talking about, but as soon as specialists of a non-climate-science sort start to ask questions about "evidence" and "objective", they clam up. Obviously, climate scientists haven't a clue about such things, probably because all they do is have cosy little peer-reviewed chinwags with other climate scientists. Most of them wouldn't know their roundy bit from their pointy bit when it comes to "evidence", "objective", and all the other stuff they throw around as if they have some grasp of these concepts.
I think that sort of thing has a bad smell to the general public. Most ordinary people were quite prepared to pay taxes and make other sacrifices when fighting the Third Reich. They would be quite happy to do the same to "save the planet", if they thought it needed saving. But they're quite good at recognizing another "church" pumping another apocalypse when they see one.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne @ #87
Peter317 @ #88
I suppose it all comes down to whether you consider Anthony Watts to be a more reliable source of information than NOAA........ frankly, I do not. Why?
For a start, there's this, which shows that Anthony Watts tried to censor a video. Censorship is something he consistently accuses the scientific community of:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/30/climate-change-deniers-monbiot
The video adds a little additional background and explains that the NCDC and NOAA are already "on the case" with regard to the possible effects of UHI (note the "Climate Reference" sites). Also, the fact that Watts' original report was published by the The Heartland Institute does nothing for its credibility in my eyes!
Peter, why would it be suspicious that the 2 plots look so similar when the basic TREND in temperatures would be expected to be the same whether sites are urban or not?
Now let's take a look at some of the other articles which have appeared on Watts' blog........
Here's a very unfortunate one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
I won't post the rebuttal here unless you really want to see it, but the claim regarding the fiddling of the Darwin temperature data was completely false. This is exactly the kind of thing which Watts is accusing the scientists of........ yet have we seen any retraction?
Here's another one:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/a-brief-tale-of-three-sites/
...... and here's another which I picked up on myself:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/18/the-ipcc-hiding-the-decline-in-the-future-global-population-at-risk-of-water-shortage/
This last one LOOKS convincing until you actually look into the detail from the original paper (Arnell, N.W. (2004)):
http://en.scientificcommons.org/7502969
The reason why the data shows some large populations as being under reduced water stress is because large areas of SE Asia (with huge populations) are forecast to have increased rainfall. The problem is that pretty well ALL of this rain comes in the form of the monsoon...... which, of course, poses the risk of increased flooding. Consequently, any increase in rainfall is unlikely to be at all welcome. In practice, therefore, the extra rainfall is very unlikely to be of real benefit to the populations affected because of its very seasonal nature.
I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to find more examples if I really started to look. However, the big problem is that Watts, like most of the bloggers, never admits it when he gets something wrong...... and rather than posting a retraction he leaves the original articles on his blog to mislead the unwary.
I have no doubt you'll say that the scientists are guilty of the same thing (as if that was any excuse for the above), but can you actually PROVE any of the claims of fraud? We already know from Ben Santer that Steve McIntyre continues to post FOIA requests even when he already has the data he needs. So who is REALLY telling the truth here? On the balance of real evidence I've seen, I'm far more inclined to believe the scientists.
Paul
Complain about this comment
#92 Esperance74 wrote:
"we want humanity and our civilisation to continue rather than risk collapse and disappearance"
But -- pretending for a moment that climate change is the big deal you think it is -- how do you think either of these things would result from climate change?
If fewer humans are the result of rising sea levels, or temperatures that rise as marginally as what you get on holiday a few degrees further south, how is that different from the effects of contraception? Isn't the goal of fewer humans something valuable that we should welcome?
It's just science-fiction to suppose that every single man and woman would get wiped out by some sort of climate change armageddon. What's all this stuff about the total "disappearance" of humanity? Have you been hob-nobbing around Tenessee or somewhere like that?
If you think civilization would "collapse" just by having a bit of warm weather, let me remind you that all of the various "cradles of civilization" occurred in warm climates.
Complain about this comment
The institute of Physics submission to the 'climategate' enquiry:
No punches pulled.......
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/26/institute-of-physics-submission/
Complain about this comment
Isn't it time to unplug HAARP?
If the American Government's terrible earthquake/tsunami machine (HAARP) in Alaska was unplugged, maybe the earth’s weather would normalize.
Another mega-earthquake, this time in Chile. The Chile quake was felt as far north as Santiago and as far east as Mendoza, Argentina.
The quake was centered 22 miles deep into the Earth. It was a silent quake – no rumbling, just an eerie quiet - and then wham! Apparently, the depth of this quake set off a tsunami with warnings spanning the Pacific Basin including Hawaii and southern California. In total tsunami warnings are in effect for 53 countries across the Pacific Basin.
The quake comes at a time when Chile is in the midst of a Presidential transition. Sebastián Piñera, the first right of center candidate to be elected President in Chile since 1958 and the first conservative since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship, is to assume the oath of office on March 11th. Outgoing President Michelle Bachelet has declared a "state of emergency".
The quake comes just after South America formed its own organization, exclusive of the United States and Canada.
How long before the "humanitarin" United States of America sends in its humanitarin military assistance, as it did for Haiti.
More important: Who’s next to be HAARP-ooned? IRAN, Venezuela, Bolivia? Just wait and we'll see…
HAARP needs to be unplugged.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, missed that the physics one had been posted:
Steve Mcintyres submission to the 'climategate' enquiry is interesting as well:
Quoted in part below,full text, references and diagrams at the end of a link
Memorandum submitted by Stephen McIntyre (CRU 32)
Summary
1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly "independent" of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment ("bodging"), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data. The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices - the resistance being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual incidents. My submission today will not comment on these individual incidents (some of which I've commented on already at Climate Audit), but to try to place the incidents into context and show why they matter to the research record. I will not comment in this submission on CRUTEM issues only for space reasons.
Introduction
2. Together with Ross McKitrick, I have published several peer-reviewed articles on 1000-year reconstructions and reconstructions, made invited presentations to a panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to a subcommittee of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and a Union Session of the American Geophysical Union and have in-depth personal knowledge of CRU proxy reconstructions. I was a reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report. I am the "editor" of a prominent climate blog, www.climateaudit.org, which analyzes proxy reconstructions. I am discussed in many Climategate Letters.
Temperature Reconstructions
3. Keith Briffa was Lead Author of the IPCC 2007 section on "recent" paleoclimatology, the Climategate Letters showing that he worked closely with Mann associate, Eugene Wahl (not a listed IPCC expert reviewer). Mann was Lead Author of the corresponding IPCC 2001 section, with the Climategate Letters showing that he worked closely with Briffa and Jones.
4. Jones, Briffa and Osborn were on the editorial boards of multiple climate journals and participated actively both in peer review and the assignment of peer reviewers.
5. CRU scientists (and Climategate correspondent Michael Mann) were coauthors of all three reconstructions in the IPCC 2001 report and coauthors of six (of ten) multiproxy reconstructions in the IPCC 2007 report.
6. CRU tree ring proxies (in particular, Tornetrask, Yamal/Polar Urals, Taymir) were used in all ten IPCC 2007 multiproxy reconstructions.
"Bodging"
7. One of the underlying problems in trying to use tree ring width/density chronologies for temperature reconstructions is a decline in 20th century values at many sites - Briffa's 1992 density (MXD) chronology for the influential Tornetrask site is shown at left below. The MXD chronology had a very high correlation to temperature, but went down in the 20th century relative to what it was "expected" to do and relative to the ring width (RW) chronology (which had a lower correlation to temperature.) So Briffa "adjusted" the MXD chronology, by a linear increase to the latter values (middle), thereby reducing the medieval-modern differential. This adjustment was described in private as the "Briffa bodge" (Melvin and Briffa 2008).
Figure 1. Tornetrask from Briffa (1992). Left - MXD chronology. Middle - "Briffa bodge" ; right - Briffa 1992 "adjusted".
8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
9. Although the bodge was reported in the original article, the bodge was not reported in the numerous multiproxy studies relying on the Tornetrask reconstruction nor in the IPCC reports nor was it considered in calculation of confidence intervals.
Withholding Adverse Data
10. There are many incidents in the Climategate Letters of withholding data. I'll review one incident which, in my opinion, has a direct impact on the research record.
11. Briffa et al. (1995) produced an influential chronology from the Polar Urals site (Figure 2- left), which combated the idea of a widespread Medieval Warm Period, supposedly showing a very cold 11th century in Siberia, with 1032 supposedly being the coldest year of the millennium. Further measurements (Figure 2- right) yielded a chronology in which the 11th century was warmer than the 20th century. Neither CRU nor any other climate scientist ever published this update. The data at right has never been publicly archived and was obtained only through quasi-litigation at Science. (One of the Climategate Letters expresses regret that the data was made available.)
Figure 2. Urals tree ring chronologies. Left - Briffa (1995). Right - updated Polar Urals version used in Esper et al (2002).
12. The failure to publish this data set has two important adverse results. The inconsistency between different tree ring chronologies is disguised. In addition, the data set was unavailable for third parties interested in producing multiproxy reconstructions.
"Cherry-picking"
13. There has been considerable suspicion that CRU cherry-picked the Yamal chronology over the updated Polar Urals chronology or a still unavailable combined chronology attested in Climategate Letter 1146252894.txt.
14. Instead of showing the updated Polar Urals chronology (figure 3-left), Briffa (2000) replaced it without discussion with a chronology from nearby Yamal, one with an extremely pronounced hockey stick shape. This chronology became a mainstay of subsequent multiproxy reconstructions, while the unpublished Polar Urals chronology was ignored. Measurement data for the three Briffa (2000) chronologies - Yamal, Taymir and Tornetrask - was not archived at the international tree ring measurement archive. Briffa resisted requests to archive the measurement data, which was not archived until September 2009 (and then only after Phil Trans B was asked to require its archiving.)
Figure 3. Urals tree ring chronologies. Left - updated Polar Urals version used in Esper et al (2002). right - Yamal from Briffa (2000).
15. Replacement of the Yamal chronology with the Polar Urals chronology alters the ranking of the medieval and modern periods in, for example, the Briffa (2000) composite reconstruction, impacting IPCC assertions in respect to the confidence of their belief in unprecedented modern warmth. As an IPCC reviewer, I requested that this be disclosed. In his capacity as IPCC Lead Author, Briffa refused. In the absence of any explanation of the substitution, there is reason to be concerned about the reasons for using one series rather than the other.
16. The Yamal chronology was very much in the news just before Climategate broke, with questions being asked at Climate Audit about replication and homogeneity, neither of which had been previously addressed in peer reviewed literature.
17. The Climategate Letters (e.g. 878654527.txt) also show evidence that Briffa's concern over non-linear recent growth - a concern that was not disclosed in Briffa (2000).
18. A similar cherry-picking issue arises with the preferential use in multiproxy studies of the Briffa (2000) Tornetrask version in preference to the Grudd (2006) version, which has a medieval period that is relatively "warmer" than the modern period.
Figure 1. Tornetrask reconstructions. Left - Grudd 2006, 2008; right - Briffa 2000.
Impact on Reconstructions
19. The above examples show influential CRU site chronologies. However, the number of proxies in a typical IPCC multiproxy reconstruction is sufficiently small that the choice between two versions of a single site chronology can impact the overall reconstruction. For example, Figure 5 compares the published Briffa (2000) reconstruction (left) with a version derived merely by substituting the Polar Urals update for Yamal(right). The medieval-modern differential changes with one seemingly inconsequential change of version.
Figure 5. Briffa (2000) Reconstruction (before fitting to temperature). Left - version from Briffa (2000); right - varying the Tornetrask and Urals versions to newer versions.
The "Trick ... to Hide the Decline"
20. Climate scientists have argued that the term "trick" can denote a clever way "to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." (Penn State Inquiry). This is incorrect as applied to representations of the Briffa MXD reconstruction.
21. The "trick" arose in the context of pressure on IPCC 2001 authors to present a "nice tidy story" and to avoid a situation where the Briffa reconstruction "diluted the message" (see http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/) . Two different variants of the "trick" appear in contemporary graphics.
22. Figure 6 (left) shows the actual Briffa MXD reconstruction (data available for the first time in the Climategate Letters) and (right) the version in IPCC 2001 Fig 2-21 (digitized on right. The IPCC "trick" was not a "clever" mathematical method - it was merely the deletion of inconvenient data after 1960. Post-1960 values were even deleted in the reconstruction archived version at NOAA[1].
Figure 6. Left - Briffa MXD reconstruction re-scaled to IPCC scale with 40-point Hamming filter smooth. Right - Digitized from IPCC 2001 graphic.
23. The deletion of post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD reconstruction gave the IPCC (2001) temperature reconstructions a rhetorical appearance of consistency that did not exist in the underlying data (as shown below)
Figure 7. IPCC 2001 Figure 2-21. The Briffa MXD reconstruction (green) terminates in 1960.
24. A somewhat different "trick" was used in the World Meteorological Organization 1999 report (shown in Figure 8 below). Jones substituted instrumental temperatures for MXD reconstruction values after 1960, resulting in an entirely false rhetorical impression of the efficacy of tree ring reconstructions. Far from this technique being "legitimate", Mann himself at realclimate[2] had stated precisely the opposite about the splicing of temperatures and reconstructions into a single graft:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
Figure 8. WMO 1999, with the spliced Briffa reconstruction (green).
Conduct
25. The Climategate Letters obviously contain many dispiriting examples of poor conduct, including the following.
26. Withholding of data from potential critics:
Jones: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.[3]
Osborn to Science: I don't have any core measurement data and therefore have none to give out! [4] [Climategate Letters and documents show that CRU had the requested measurement data[5]]
Mann to Osborn: I'm providing these [MBH residuals] for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things.[6]
27. Use of the peer review process to suppress or delay adverse publications:
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically[7]
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised[8]
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting[9]
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! [10]
28. Soft reviews of submissions by close associates. The Climategate documents provide multiple examples of soft reviews of submissions by colleagues Mann[11], Schmidt[12], Santer[13] and Wahl and Ammann[14]. Presumably there are many others. The review of articles in which a reviewer has a personal relationship is a recognized conflict of interest in medical journals. For example, the World Associate of Medical Editors statement[15] says:
a reviewer may have difficulty providing an unbiased review of articles by investigators who have been working colleagues. Similarly, he or she may find it difficult to be unbiased when reviewing the work of competitors
29. The Climategate Letters are replete with examples of unprofessional language, which on occasion rises to defamation:
The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.[16]
If *others* want to say that their actions represent scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets let *them* make these charges for us![17]
some cool statement can be made saying we believe the "***** have really ****** up someway" - and that the premature publication of their paper is reprehensible.[18]
I'm saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to NCAR, NSF, NAS, IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won't ever respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way..
personally, I don't see why you should make any concessions for this moron.[19]
Mr. Fraudit never goes away does he? How often has he been told that we don't have permission? Ho hum. Oh, I heard that fraudit's Santer et al comment got rejected. That'll brighten your day at least a teensy bit?[20]
I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii[21]:
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.[22]
Hi Andy, The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. [23]
I've seen this junk already. Look at the co-authors! DeFrietas, Bob Carter: a couple of frauds.[24]
30. One of the most dispiriting aspects of the Climategate Letters is the evidence of CRU's contribution to the poisoned atmosphere of present climate science. In 2003, CRU criticized us for supposedly not attempting to reconcile differences between our methodology and Mann's methodology. In October 2003, Osborn observed:
The single worst thing about the whole M&M saga is not that they did their study, not that they did things wrong (deliberately or by accident), but that neither they nor the journal took the necessary step of investigating whether the difference between their results and yours could be explained simply by some error or set of errors in their use of the data or in their implementation of your method. [25]
31. Osborn proposed a draft statement, which, had it been accepted by CRU, would probably have prevented much, if not most, of the following controversy:
... we are withholding further comments until we can - by collaboration with M&M if possible - be certain of exactly what changes to data and method were made by M&M, whether these changes can really explain the differences in the results, and eventually which (if any) of these changes can be justified as equally valid (given the various uncertainties that exist) and which are simply errors that
invalidate their results.[26]
32. In November 2003, I entered into negotiations with CRU, agreeing to their review of our pending follow-up to our 2003 article, on the condition that CRU agreed to issue a short statement if their review confirmed that we had raised valid concerns:
If you identify any flaws in our document, we will rectify them, and you are at liberty to hold us to public account if we fail to do so....
If you find our document raises valid and meritorious concerns, you will give us a short statement to that effect which we are entitled to publish.
33. In a follow-up email, I re-assured CRU that I did not have the faintest interest in publishing results that were at cross-purposes.
We have entered into discussions about a possible review by UEA/CRU in complete good faith. We do not have the slightest interest in presenting incorrect or defective results or to create debate which is merely at cross-purposes.
34. CRU then refused to carry out the review, choosing to attempt to frustrate us in secret behind the scenes. Jones, as a member of the editorial board of Climatic Change, actively lobbied so that Mann would not be required to disclose source code and supporting data that would have enabled us to reconcile results. Despite his adverse interest, Jones appears (according to a Climategate Letter) to have acted as a reviewer of our 2004 submission to Nature, intervening not to ensure the reconciliation of results proposed by Osborn, but to frustrate any criticism of the Mann reconstruction.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/26/mcintyre-submission-with-figures/
Complain about this comment
~95 - In response. I'd be less worried about Tennesee disappearing than I would about our global technical civilisation collapsing under the perfect strain of resource shortage made worse by simultaneous climate shifts - e.g. increasing shortage of drinkable water, strain on food resources and production through changes in weather patterns and demand levels, increased regional conflict over water/agricultural land (as has recently started to occur this year in Kenya), spilling over into refugee crises and population shifts that the developed world is unable to cope with. The combination of a number of pressures, each one of which is probably weatherable on its own, is the thing to worry about - to use a historical example, it brought down the Roman Empire (overexploitation of resources, population shifts, regional instabilities and revolts) - why would our civilisation, for all its comparable technical brilliance, be so very different to every single civilisation that's gone down this path before?
I'm not someone who sees an either/or, though, between development needs and managing climate change - if we're as smart a species are we seem to think we are, we really ought to be more than capable of eliminating world poverty, ensuring a livable existance for 99% of humanity without famine, disease and climate change reducing numbers, and manage climate change through developing the economic, social and technological advances necessary to do so. Or are we really not so adaptable as we think?
Complain about this comment
@Paul #94:
"For a start, there's this, which shows that Anthony Watts tried to censor a video."
Once again, it's only fair to check out his side of that story, before jumping to conclusions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/#more-9650
"Peter, why would it be suspicious that the 2 plots look so similar when the basic TREND in temperatures would be expected to be the same whether sites are urban or not?"
Firstly, this is NOT about urban vs rural stations, it's about the quality of the stations.
Secondly, if you look at the plots, it's not just the trend that's similar, but the entire plot all the way in. The two thermometers in my office don't even track each other nearly as closely.
Complain about this comment
@62 SR:
Indulge me - show how Montford is wrong for each of the bullet points I listed in item 52, or tell me why it's not an issue. I'd be particularly impressed if you could defend a technique that has been shown to produce hockey sticks out of red noise.
Palaeoclimatology is conceptually very simple. You get a load of proxies for temperature (for times before there are instrumental records), and then you calibrate them against temperature for a period where you do have good records - i.e. you work out the relationship between them. You then take another period where you have records and check that the same relationship exists. If it does, then you apply the relationship in reverse to reconstruct the temperatures from before the instrumental records.
However, this only works if all the following hold.
- Your input data genuinely are temperature proxies. This is not obviously true. Tree ring widrh, for example, is affected by precipitation, by disease, by other nearby trees, as well as temperature.
- Because of limitations in the statistical techniques, the relationship between your proxy and temperature needs to be linear, which in the case of trees is not necessarily true.
- The relationship between the proxy and temperature needs to be consistent over time. This is one of the most damning things about the recent hockey stick studies: recent tree-ring data don't show an uptick along with recent increased temperatures, so the dendroclimatologists just assert without any supporting evidence that the relationship must have broken down for some reason; they also truncate the proxy records before this "divergence problem" appears, one of the ways to "hide the decline" (a notorious quote from the "climategate" e-mails).
- The correlation in the verification period needs to be good. It's no good coming up with a reconstruction if it fails standard statistical tests.
Further, you have to do the statistics properly, and not (for example) misapply principal component analysis, as in the case of MBH98, or choose an algorithm (which I'll emphasize again) "mines" for hockey sticks even given random data.
Complain about this comment
A link to the House of Commons website, with a lists (and links to) all the submissions to the CRU - 'climategate' enquiry
Supporters as well as complainants:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
Complain about this comment
@94 Paul: Please post the rebuttal of "Smoking gun at Darwin Zero". Thanks.
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
Me - I have never self avowed myself as a 'high level member' of the US military/industrial/financial complex. That would imply that I was a 'guy calling the shots' - and while I have managed a number of multimillion dollar projects, I was never at the top of the food chain. My entire career has been pretty much project based - I enjoy projects that I can sink my teeth into, so to speak. When the project (and real challenge) is done, I have always moved on...
And I certainly feel no need to hide myself behind some silly moniker on here - like "CrazyLarry" (or CharlieLima) as some know me by. I will admit that my forte has always been analysis and mathematics - basically problem solving, complex problems, usually with complex mathematics and analysis (and of course, a team and lot of computers...;). I also did some time in the jungle, when I was young, but that is not relevant here. You can find my home page on the guardian profile (lkealey) - feel free to check it out.
I am certainly not trying to be intimidating either - although at times (and please forgive me, we all do it) I to get a bit testy with some of those who disseminate garbage.
To what purpose? Why quite simply, in what little time is allotted to my lifetime, I would dearly like to see more progress on the real environmental and humanistic issues which have plagued our planet for my entire lifetime. As I have been ill for almost a year and a half now, there is not really a whole lot I can do, except my studies, write and perhaps incite people to think - to broaden their perspective - to take a step back and look at the bigger picture - to open their eyes to the realization that we are not as smart as so many think that we are - that we have no right to be arrogant. That every question answered just yields more questions behind it...that we don't even know about that which we don't even know...which is so much more than we do know...
I too consider myself a student of history - and have traveled much of the world as well - seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I do have hope for the future as well, though.
My real issue here is that this CO2 thing takes precedence over everything else - as if CO2 is the only issue we need deal with - at times, I too 'fall for it'...and get a bit feisty about it.
I will admit, that when you started pontificating about a 'war footing' in the previous threads - I did start baiting you a bit - to try and see what that is all about. While we have always been an aggressive and warlike species, a true warrior abhors war. Most of those whom I have known who are career soldiers do so from a sense of duty, and because they can - and believe in the ultimate good of what they are doing (please separate this from the politics).
I also agree completely with going 'local'. I live in a subdivision in Sugar Land, TX, just outside of Houston, small property - but I do have a compost pile, along with tropical gardens in my back yard. I have done a number of passive upgrades to my house to reduce my cooling costs in the summer and use Natural gas for everything that I can within my house.
While I am not against Nuclear Power - I would hardly call it green. I view both Nuclear (fission) and Coal as stepping stones to a new energy future - both very necessary if we are to get to that 'new energy future' quickly, and reliably, and with a vibrant economy in tact.
This year, we expect to create the first Nuclear Fusion reaction (at Los Alamos or Lawrence Livermore - escapes me at the moment) which will produce more energy that required to initiate the fusion. [see BBC article from a couple of weeks ago - major stumbling block crossed]. As I see it, with what so many call BAU, we can be in a position where the vast majority of our baseload electricity is generated by clean fusion in 50-60 years, and at the same time, the electric car will have almost completely displaced the gasoline engine for most ground transportation needs (except perhaps heavy trucking).
One think that does 'chap my hide' is this whole - absolutely no more coal thing. We have spent the last thirty years cleaning up the coal industry here - the reason you can complain about the holding ponds with heavy metals such as mercury at coal plants - to store ash, is because these noxious chemicals are removed from the exhaust. In time, I expect that this ash will be mined and reprocessed to extract these elements for industrial applications - of which there are many.
At the same time, China (aside from a couple of 'flagship' projects) is building coal plants using 70's technology and bringing them on at a rate of 2 or more per week - that would be a good fight to fight.
I am also not a big fan of windmills - for a number of reasons: reliability, cost, etc - but also because of environmental impacts. It is interesting (and very disappointing in my view) that the 'real environmental impacts of these windfarms are not truly assessed nor compared 'apples to apples' with a coal plant. Think of all the bogs filled in, roads required for service, all the lines and substations required to connect them to the grid - a hundred thousand windmills spread across the countryside vs. a single coal plant situated on ten acres of land. The coal plants are blocked by endless court challenges until utilities give up - yet the windmill farms are not challenged just as rigorously - as they should be.
I suppose the other point I would like to make here is that when doing a project (whatever the scale and scope) it is important to define what you are going to accomplish, how you are going to accomplish it, define metrics to measure your progress, etc. How can we do this with CO2 and climate change? We turn our economy upside down to reduce CO2 - but that is the only metric we have to measure by - we won't see direct results in temperatures or climate. Too many other factors and drivers are involved and interrelated for us to really understand what is going on nor the real impacts of these efforts.
And, regardless of what we do in the West, CO2 emissions cuts will be greatly outstripped by China and India - using old, dirty technology. Emissions will continue to rise no matter what we do - it is a hopeless battle. And regarless of this - I have yet to see a real, viable plan that would 'solve this problem'.
I also tire of the lies and 'half-truths' associated with so many of the 'green' energy solutions - take the ethanol scam. So far, in the US over a hundred billion in taxpayer subsidies pumped into it - with a net economic cost probably approaching 500 billion - higher food prices, transportation costs, etc - and the numbers just don't add up - even if you are just looking at carbon footprint, and certainly not when you look at the energy equation - but got sold big time as 'green' - garbage.
So lets take a longer view, and work on the 50 year transition with investments to make fusion and other viable 'clean' technologies mainstream - like possibly geothermal or possibly electromagnetic or gravitational (farther down the road). It will take massive investments to achieve this - and the longer we waste big money on these non-viable, interim solutions, the longer it will take us to get there.
In the meantime, (sorry for pontificating once again xtragrumpymike), there are a great many environmental issues which can have a real impact upon. Ones which we understand enough to make a real (viable) plan, be able to define real metrics to measure progress and have a real lasting impact – a better world for the generations to come.
As a final note, I have been following climate science (and done actually climate and weather modeling in my career) for 30 years. I personally am not impressed with Dr. Hansen. In my view, he has become much more of an activist rather than a scientist. I won't get into the 'climate models' of today - as I think you are already well aware of my opinions.
Oh, btw, did you by chance pick up Sun Tsu's 'The Art of War' - I do believe (based upon the philosophical aspects of your blogging) that you would indeed find it quite interesting and enlightening.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Re:-
82. At 10:17am on 27 Feb 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
Above there are several attempts to categorise everyone as either with us or against us. This is a very dangerous and misleading thing to do.
"I, for example, (listed as a 'sceptic') do believe that climate change is a serious challenge to us all and something that we should do out best not to ignore - however I find the simplistic "CO2 is the problem" as the answer, simply does not stand up to any from of proper scientific examination.
So, pro green, and the planet, but I do not believe that the case against CO2 has been proved at all and further I do not believe that there is any factual scientific evidence that CO2 is the cause of anything at all. (Indeed, I see that limiting, or trying to limit CO2 may do far more harm than good.)"
OK, John fair comment. Now lets expand on it a bit.
By far and away the biggest contribution of (man-made) CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning coal to produce energy. Energy which is necessary in the modern lifestyle which no-one wants to see changed (downwards!).
However, when we burn coal, CO2 isn't the only product of combustion. Other products are pollutants in their own right. So, if we take CO2 out of the equation on the basis that we haven't PROVED that is a serious threat, we are still left with the other pollutants in the exhaust stream.
But it doesn't end there. In fact it doesn't start there, either!
I challenge anyone to PROVE that mining coal is "clean" and non-polluting. Here in NZ we have environmental debate and controversy over "visual pollution" of massive wind farms! When was the last time we took tourists to see "open caste" coal mining operations? Want to compare the two for "visual pollution"?
What about the waste produced at the mine? Care to get that analysed and see if there any known pollutants that can (and do) pollute waterways etc.Not to mention the effects on local communities.
I have already mentioned there are other pollutants in the exhaust gases from coal-fired power stations.(leaving out CO2) but what about the solid waste? Care to get that analysed? Interested to know if there are any pollution problems with that?
There have been many improvements by the coal industry over the years. most have come about far from willingly but coal is still the "dirtiest" fuel used in power production.
There are massive reserves of coal, which form a very big income stream for those with vested interests in the industry, both now and in the future for some very long time.As "Ghost" has mentioned on so many occasions, these people have significant influence on government decision making.
Check out this link:-
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100222/australia-group-rolls-out-plan-100-renewable-energy-2020
Then find out how much electricity in Australia comes from coal.
Who will lose out IF Australia were to move to "Plan 100%"?
Who do you think will put up all the barriers they possibly can?
A famous American Management Consutant, Peter Drucker, once wrote:-
"The first responsibility of business is to survive."
Fair enough, but at whose expense?
Don't forget, in this discussion I have left CO2 OUT of the equation and focused on the other "dirty" aspects of coal.
You could ,of course, do your own research, that's where the internet and search engines are really helpful.
Complain about this comment
I don't agree with Paul Briscoe, long before Climate Audit came into being, my own personal experience of trying to get the AGW climate science community to correct errors or misleading statements that even I could find, leaves me believing Steve Mc, and not the climate science community.
Ben Santer has only himself to blame, even if rather unjustly, nobody believes a word he says. We all recognise evasion, overblown ego's, and opinion maquerading as fact. His post at Real climate contains them all!
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that two diametrically opposed hidden agenda groups have jumped on the climate change band wagon. On the one hand there is the people hating “save the amoeba” brigade while on the other hand there are those who seek to impoverish the successful to feed the feckless. Both of these groups now have to jump ship quick or they will go down with AGW.
Complain about this comment
Lets suppose for a moment that the case for AGW has been greatly over stated, that Bangladesh is not being inundated by the sea, that Africa is not turning to desert and that the earth is only getting slightly warmer, pleasantly warm for many of us. What chance is there of making the man in the street give up his greedy ways so that people far away can be feed? none at all, he will not care that they starve, but he will care if he is told that his grand children will starve. The events of the last few weeks have gone over the heads of most people, they don’t read these blogs, they just watch sport & soap, the newspapers will soon move on & there is an election to distract people. Renew the campaign at the height of summer & keep it simple, people need complex issues simplified, if it’s hot it must be getting warmer. Keep it simple stupid.
Complain about this comment
#105. xtragrumpymike2 wrote:
"OK, John fair comment...."
Almost everything and every human or natural activity has a downside and an upside.
You challenge anyone to 'prove' that coal is a clean energy resource in all its aspects. I would question your challenge on the grounds that what one should really show is what is the least worse source of energy - not that any particular source of energy is clean in any absolute way. This is of course a hugely complex question.
Really I would suggest the question should really be to show that coal is better or worse than say biofuels. This is a multivariate question of comparative benefit and relative harm. I know something of the form of mathematics (asymptotics) that can be used to be rational about the choices, but I also know that the question is not likely to have time-invariant answers and that there are many value judgements involved.
Is it better to cut down virgin rain forest to grow fuel plants, for example? Or dig up coal? How much cleaner can one make biofeuls compared to coal and at what price for the planet and its flora and fauna?
Let me briefly defend coal, seeing as you ask the question. Coal, that is, if it was able to be combusted to form just CO2 (that is we actually could clean up coal as a fuel.) At least we know how to handle coal and its natural pollutants so the technology does not have to be developed completely from scratch and we understand many of coal's disadvantages. It is also plentiful, easily extracted with known technology and it does not take away valuable agricultural land from food production. etc. etc.
You will already know that I do not believe that there is any valid scientific case for considering that anthropogenic CO2 contributes significantly to global climate change. (Based on actually looking at the data used in the very flawed peer-reviewed studies. The most shocking thing I have found from scientific point of view in these studies is the very poor quality of the data that is used, but the high degree of accuracy ascribed to the results - that is, the proper consideration of error makes the published studies not worth the paper they are written on.)
I also believe that there is a far better culprit for causing climate change and that is the impact of extra planetary effects - solar wind and orbital dynamics (changes in obliquity for example) - it is just rather inconvenient that no banker can make money of trading solar wind credits! - but I am sure they will try as soon as the current silly preoccupation with carbon credit trading dies a natural death.
Complain about this comment
#108. Wolfiewoods wrote:
"Lets suppose for a moment that the case for AGW has been greatly over stated, that Bangladesh is not being inundated by the sea, that Africa is not turning to desert and ..."
May I suggest that we should leave out the 'A' from AGW and consider that the planet may indeed be getting warmer (even given the very flaky evidence). Then I suggest we see that what is needed is to work at ameliorating the effect of climate change. (That would include building floating homes for villages endangered by flooding - however as that would actually help the poor the rich nations are not interested as their financial community cannot make a profit on it!)
Complain about this comment
OK, remember Amazongate?
I am not clear whether some of the sceptics here will know the details about how Amazongate is about missing citations and not exaggerated figures.
The missing citation from the grey literature source (Rowell and Moore 2000) was
Nepstad et al 1994
The additional missing citation from IPCC AR4 was
Nepstad et al 2004
which is backed up by
Nepstad et al 2007
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/essays/2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.htm
Note, the full title of Nepstad et al 2004 is "Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: a basin-wide analysis". So it is definitely about drought rather than logging.
And IPCC AR4 does cite Nepstad et al 2004 elsewhere in the same chapter (WG2 Chapter 13), the IPCC authors must have been familiar with it.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-2.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-5-1-2.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-6.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html
So c***-up, yes. Lying, no.
Complain about this comment
Peter317 @ #100
I did have a good look at Anthony Watts comments. His main objection to NOAA's response appears to be the fact that they used homogenised data. However, anyone who knows anything about the collation of temperature data from a wide variety of different sources knows that comparison of non-homogenised data is pretty well meaningless - this was where William Eschenbach came a cropper!
You may find the following helpful in understanding some of the calculations used:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php
"Firstly, this is NOT about urban vs rural stations, it's about the quality of the stations. Secondly, if you look at the plots, it's not just the trend that's similar, but the entire plot all the way in. The two thermometers in my office don't even track each other nearly as closely."
Well, there have been 2 objections made. The first relates to the UHI problems (which GISS already make allowance for). I take your point about this not specifically being an UHI issue. Rather it is about micro-site effects. In fairness, though, I think a lot of these are still urban sites, so there will be a much increased proportion of rural sites in the "best" set of stations. You also need to remember that the data presented was the mean of the homogenised data, so you would probably expect some smoothing....... and let's face it, if there had been any fiddling going on Steve McIntyre would have found it pretty quickly!
Paul
Complain about this comment
Texasfrank,
I didn't post the rebuttal because I know some people (myself included!) are not entirely comfortable with some of the language used. So having posted that apology in advance, here it is:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
It's quite obvious that there was a sudden and pronounced discontinuity in the temperature data. It seems that this was caused by a change in the type of thermometer chamber used early in the 20th century. This type of problem (and often even the physical moving of sites) is commonplace in earlier temperature data, as the sites were not originally set up to measure long term trends. Consequently, the raw data has to be carefully analysed and homogenised to make it useable. The technique used is described in the NCDC/NOAA paper linked to (PDF document). This is sound science just as long as the adjustment is correctly validated, as it has been here.
Perhaps Willis Eschenbach doesn't like homogenisation of temperature data. Even so, it would be surprising if he didn't realise that this was what had been done.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Mrgrump @ #106
"I don't agree with Paul Briscoe, long before Climate Audit came into being, my own personal experience of trying to get the AGW climate science community to correct errors or misleading statements that even I could find, leaves me believing Steve Mc, and not the climate science community.
Ben Santer has only himself to blame, even if rather unjustly, nobody believes a word he says. We all recognise evasion, overblown ego's, and opinion maquerading as fact. His post at Real climate contains them all!"
Again, it all comes down to who you want to believe. Before Climateaudit, there was the Global Climate Coalition and its publicity machine, using the same tactics (manufacture of doubt) as the Tobacco Industry had a few years earlier....... and of course, even the Bush administration did its best to surpress the science.
Paul
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #104:
Thank you for that reply.
I think I can recognize an honest post when I receive it, and so I consider yours.
I am sorry to hear that you are ill.
I myself am turning sixty tomorrow.
I'll get back to you as soon as time permits.
Regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Not too sure what's happening with this site!
In between watching Canada win another Gold. Curling. it took me an hour to concoct a post only to be told there was an html error!
Then the lot disappeared!
Perhaps I got too verbose.Let's start again.
Firstly, Larry must be psychic with post #104 one minute before my #105.
So...this for Larry and John from Hendon.
My intention of #105 was to assess the total environmental impact of coal as an energy producer.This, as a result of your comment, John, in #82:-
"So, pro green, and the planet"
In my assessment I deliberately excluded CO2 and looked solely at other environmental concerns, some of which I identified in a somewhat simplistic manner.
In #105 I acknowledged the improvements made over the years in technology to clean-up coal, some of which were identified by Larry in #104. However now we are fast approaching the Law of Diminishing Returns which states simply that future improvements will only come at vastly increased costs.
So, John , you decide that we should compare fuels rather than try to "prove" anything one way or another. I agree with your comment re- my word there but it was used as it frequently appears in other contexts and it is so easy to make a claim such as "coal is clean" without justifying that claim.
Your desire to compare coal with biofuels is not relevant as the purpose of each fuel is significantly different.Coal is used almost exclusively for electrical power generation and biofuels MAY make a useful contribution to transport.
On a global basis, no other fuel compares with coal as a source of electrical energy BUT there are many alternatives so if we wish to compare apples with apples then we should compare coal with any or all of those other alternatives from an environmental aspect.
Now, as Larry points out, there are vastly different grades of coal with significantly different environmental impacts. Not to mention different technologies used to process the coal again with different environmental impacts.
Most of the improvements appear to have been addressed to flue gas emissions, in particular re: Sulphur.But there are still significant environmental issues surrounding mining and solid waste management apart from flue gas emissions.
So what about alternatives? As you point out John, there are pro's and con's with any system and it just depends how you compare the various systems.
Nuclear and the environment? Issues with mining, safety and waste stabilisation and storage. Despite the industry being in a 30 year doldrums in both UK and America other countries, notably France and now China and India are taking a positive interest particularly in later technologies to the earlier reactors. That doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow! Now both UK and America are renewing interest.Will it be "cleaner"?
The link I posted in Australia looks interesting.For Australia but not necessarily for other countries.
Here in NZ we are looking at wind power, and tidal power and to a lesser extent, home solar water heating (waiting for my plumber to upgrade my new but already rusting panel) We already have substantial investment in Hydro as well as significant investment in geo-thermal.Coal is not a significant contributor here. Are these cleaner than coal?
But there is no "silver bullet" solution that will be appropriate everywhere.
However, the biggest hurdle in my mind for any technology that looks like competing severely with coal is the enormous financial investments of the coal industry.
Lets put it like this. If you had a very significant income stream coming from investments in coal, would you give it away without a fight?
Complain about this comment
@SR #38: You like the hockey stick representation of temperature changes for the last millenium, and you also accept the tree ring chronology approach in determining past temperatures.
In central coastal California, a long-lived slow growing tree - the Bristle Cone pine - has consistently shown by its tree rings that between 1000 AD and 1200 AD, that part of California had a 55 year drought followed a few years later by a 50 year drought. For this purpose a year of drought was a year with less than four inches of precipitation. We know that a tree needs water (precipitation) to grow. How can tree ring widths serve the double purpose of ALSO providing evidence of temperatures during a year? The Carmel-Monterey area in the last couple of centuries has had no extreme weather: no ice and snow, virtually no 100 F degree days.
Also, the advocates for AGW continue to ignore widespread anecdotal evidence for a Medieval Warming Period lasting about four centuries, followed by a Little Ice Age ending near 1775 AD. And their hockey stick replaces these curves by a straight line graduation with a TOTALLY ARBITRARY starting temperature at 1000 AD that is not representative of temperatures of that time period. IMO that is verging on unprofessional conduct for a scientist.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
@Bluesberry #90: Your post is the greatest conspiracy theory since Joe McCarthy (Wisconsin senator, not NY Yankee baseball manager) inferred that every mistake made by US govt employees was a communist plot.
First, every large organization has some employees working at cross purposes with others.
Second, any government employee who stumbled upon evidence of such activity would be quick to leak it to establishment TV networks, the LA Times, the NY Times or Fox News. With the singular exception of the Manhattan Project in WW II, govt. employees in this country cannot keep secrets.
I suggest you submit this to Vince Flynn, a renowned author of somewhat violent but well written spy novels, c/o Simon & Schuster, Inc., NY, NY.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
#104 LarryKealey wrote:
"the 'real environmental impacts of these windfarms are not truly assessed nor compared 'apples to apples' with a coal plant."
In terms of their visual impact they can already be assessed, directly, by the human eye. Some of the places I value most highly have already been badly damaged by the presence of these overly "busy" marks of humanity.
I trust that the pro-"peaceful protest" brigade will consider it perfectly legitimate when some of us start taking them down by force -- without any risk to human life, of course!
Complain about this comment
Whilst I understand the political differences amongst those of you who contribute messages to this blog, it is not clear to me exactly where you differ in terms of the science.
From following the literature, I conclude the following general facts:
1) Carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, etc. are greenhouse gases.
2) Over the last 250 years, emissions of these gases have increased due to human activities.
3) Over the last 250 years, atmospheric concentrations of these gases have increased.
4) Over the last 250 years, there has been an increase in the average global surface temperature.
5) Observable climate change has occurred.
6) The relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and their atmospheric concentrations is non-linear and incompletley understood.
7) The relationship between atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change is complex and not completely understood.
8) There are uncertainties in the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.
I would be interested to learn from those of you who feel qualified to understand the science, on where the differences amongst you are in relation to the above list.
Complain about this comment
Bowman @ #120
We have found something we agree on!
It may surprise you to know that I too do not believe that windfarms are a viable solution. Denmark has adopted them in a big way, yet I understand that its carbon emissions have actually increased.
When I was at university back in the late 70's, our prof (Prof Tony Bradshaw) was already of the view that nuclear power was the only viable alternative to fossil fuels, simply because green technologies would not be capable of meeting demand. I'm sure that renewable power generation has improved somewhat since then, but short of condemning a whole generation to a much lower standard of living, it's hard to see how we can avoid embracing nuclear if we want to reduce carbon emissions. In my opinion, renewable energy is probably most viable for local applications (eg small hydro plants on rivers). Tidal power might also play a part, certainly here in the UK.
There are, of course, other things which can be done and many have already been mentioned by Larry. Having spent some time in industry I know that there can be huge energy savings made if you're prepared to use a bit of lateral thinking. I also think that moving back towards a more locally based economy is an essential step, but this runs counter to current business models and hence will inevitably be opposed by powerful lobby groups.
Whether or not you believe in AGW, I'm sure that most of the above would ultimately benefit humanity. Some probably would argue that nuclear power would not, but I'm not sure that we have any option.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Re:-
120. At 08:56am on 28 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#104 LarryKealey wrote:
"the 'real environmental impacts of these windfarms are not truly assessed nor compared 'apples to apples' with a coal plant."
Obviously you have never viewed open caste mining!
No coal mining....no coal fired power station.
How single minded can you get.
Not to mention the toxic side effects of the tailings.
Complain about this comment
#122 Paul Briscoe wrote:
"We have found something we agree on!"
Yes, it looks like that.
"it's hard to see how we can avoid embracing nuclear if we want to reduce carbon emissions."
There are other advantages too, such as a reduction in the number of deaths caused by coal mining. I don't have the figure in front of me, but a fairly steady stream of Chinese coal workers dies every month.
"moving back towards a more locally based economy is an essential step, but this runs counter to current business models and hence will inevitably be opposed by powerful lobby groups."
I'm not sure what a "locally based" economy means. I'm all in favour of people working at home and using the internet to communicate with each other -- this is what I do myself. When I leave the house, as often as not it is on a biike. But I buy most things online too, from Amazon, etc., and if I lived a long way away from a Tesco I would order food from them and have them deliver it rather than paying exorbitant prices at local shops with little variety.
As far as I can see, the lobby groups are all protectionists trying to keep Tesco et al out of their local area (they drive 4x4s and live in houses whose prices would be affected badly by riff-raff coming and going to a local Tesco).
I really hate the idea of living off locally-grown and overpriced swedes, turnips, etc. instead of having exotic stuff flown in from Africa, where poorer farmers probably appreciate my custom more anyway.
Complain about this comment
MrSkipp@ 121: The "facts" you quote may indeed be perfectly correct, but who was carrying out precise measurements 250 years ago from which we can make proper comparisons? Many of the historic "facts" are derived from proxy data and it is over the reliability of that that much of the current argument is centred.
"Observable climate change has occurred"; indeed it has - today is a nicer day than it was on Friday but I cannot extrapolate anything from that simple observation.
There is also a serious problem over causal links or the lack of them: "My car has done 160,000 miles" and "My wife and I are having lunch out today". Both statements are true, but there is absolutely no causal relationship between them, and it would be quite wrong of me to try to invent one. Yet there are suspicions that climate scientists have been less than scrupulous in attributing certain effects to certain causes (with more than one possible meaning to the word "certain") and this has thrown the entire process of analysing climate change into uncertainty.
The UAE CRU email debacle has only served to heighten suspicions that the entire process was being manipulated to make the observed (or assumed) "facts" fit a predetermined conclusion rather than the conclusion being unambiguously based on the facts, irrespective of what the conclusion actually might be. Now it may be that the conclusions of the CRU are entirely correct, but if that is the case why did they go to so much trouble to conceal their basic data and the "corrections" that they applied to it? That is simply bad science and bad project management. If I recall correctly the most recent "excuse" is that they are so disorganised that while they haven't lost any of the original data they don't actually know where it is. In my view their actions have cast the validity of their conclusions into serious doubt, and all the work they (and others?) have done over the last ?? years (lots!) may have to be scrapped and the whole process gone over again.
We have all been badly served by this; government and international policies have been based on conclusions that can be seen as seriously questionable. Are you happy to let that continue? For the avoidance of doubt, I am not.
Complain about this comment
#121. MrSkipp wrote:
As list of "general facts":
May I suggest that you re-examine many of you so called facts:
for example these are also facts
1. The mean lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years (not the 250 years used by climate CO2 fanatics)
2. The data used to show global warming is very inaccurate with huge errors that basically render it almost completely meaningless over more than a few decades.
3. The relationship of atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature (in so far as the data has any accuracy at all) suggests strongly that CO2 rises (or did rise) AFTER temperature. (i.e. there is NO CAUSALITY)
4. CO2 is vital to all life on our planet.
5. CO2 levels (insofar as it can be determined with any accuracy) have been several multiples of the present levels on our planet in the past, but temperatures have always allowed liquid water to exist somewhere otherwise life would have become extinct - and you may have noticed it hasn't!
In short CO2 has no scientifically valid relationship with planetary temperature (or climate) and in consequence I would qualify your first 4 'facts'.
I do however agree with your that climate has changed and will continue to change.
Complain about this comment
I think you may be partially correct, Rustigjongens, in suggesting that more open data release will stem from this IPCC review - especially because the World Meteorological Organization is already pushing for it. I say "partially" because the original data doesn't fall under the IPCC's aegis, but under those of other research organisations, universities, etc - so whether this review can actually mandate it, I don't know.
The only thing I'd take issue with you on is suggesting that the list I made was a "wish-list" - absolutely not, it's a list of suggestions for conclusions I believe to be likely based on contact I've had with relevant parties. I could be wrong, of course - it does happen occasionally...
"The blogosphere has decided", mrgrump? Nicely put!
Complain about this comment
Just popped in to say hello,
It looks as if I have missed a lot of conversation since my last visit here. What caught my eye today was headline news that I was entirely unaware of until this morning. Another big earthquake. I don't know much about earthquakes but surely, two big earth quakes in such a short space of time, must trigger off movement in other weak fault lines? While we are sitting here chatting, others are wondering if they will survive the next few hours, let alone eat and drink and sleep.
How we prioritize what is important changes as our circumstances change. I think it is rather a luxury to only have to worry about the price of swede and turnips.
Complain about this comment
@Paul #112:
But that's the whole point.
Homogenisation has its uses, but using it when comparing two datasets is questionable, to say the least. It's a bit like comparing the taste of apples and oranges having first put both of them in a blender - hmm, they taste the same to me.
Complain about this comment
@SG #128:
"How we prioritize what is important changes as our circumstances change. I think it is rather a luxury to only have to worry about the price of swede and turnips."
Yes indeed. We should also spare a thought for all those Corus workers whose circumstances are about to change very much for the worse, all for the price of £600 million worth of carbon credits.
Complain about this comment
What makes me laugh is that the "deniers" are portrayed as agrressive right wingers with no interest in the truth. However, just go and read the commentes that Gavin Schmidt gives in reply to questions on the Real Climate blog, and you will see that when it comes to aggression and seeing this as a war/cursade, the pro-AGW people are way out there.
This can be fixed by climate science showing the world how they came to their results. For example the NOAA 120km-smoothed global temperature maps - list the stations used, why they were selected, and the code used to massage the raw data and why it was applied. Simple stuff that would stop us asking inconvenient questions like "Why do NOAA only use one station in Chile in their results, which results in a massive red blob over the country on their maps?".
Complain about this comment
The UEA emails, depite the "nothing to see here, move along" chirps of the pro-AGW crowd clearly show evidence of some very non-scientific behavoius, while the methods used to manipulate the data are far from clear, or reasonable (harry read me).
Even the Institute of Physics has now waded in and basically said "we are not convinced these people acted like scientists, so their data are suspect".
Add to that Pachuari saying people who questioned his "facts" should rub asbestos in their faces, while the doomed Gordon Brown called people "flat earthers" and you can see that the bile, hate and fear is in ONE camp only.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone see the report on NEws24 last night about climate in Australia? One of the co-authors of the Stern Report now runs a successful carbon advisory company out in Oz.
And people like Richard are asking why people are growing sceptical of the motives behind funded science being the base for the worlds largest gravy train.
Complain about this comment
17. At 3:51pm on 26 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:
Quoting Nature links and claiming they are fair and unbiased?
Come on!
Philip Campbell, Nature editor had to step down from the review when it was proven he was as impartial as Goebels.
Complain about this comment
#108. Wolfiewoods wrote:
"Lets suppose for a moment that the case for AGW has been greatly over stated, that Bangladesh is not being inundated by the sea, that Africa is not turning to desert and ..."
Bangladesh is actually increasing in landmass, and has ALWAYS suffered from floods due to its location and the huge river running through it (go on look at a map and read).
As for Africa, the Sahara is RECEDING, and the fact areas turn to desert is actually MOSTLY down the poor land management as people take the easier option and run for the cities, leaving it unmanaged.
Read and learn rather than spouting unproven nonsense spread by the greens.
Complain about this comment
121. At 09:15am on 28 Feb 2010, MrSkipp wrote:
The problem with such simplistic conclusions is that you could apply the same statements to the record for the past 1000-5000 years and still be correct, even using cursory evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
Complain about this comment
128. At 10:47am on 28 Feb 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:
This has been my point all along. When we saw the crying girl at Copenhagen because she thinks here island is going to disappear under the sea in her lifetime, is was sickening. however the reality is that she is far more likely to get carried away by a tsunami in her lifetime than to watch her island disappear under a metre of sea level rise.
Priorities and grasping reality.
Complain about this comment
I'm back from my little diversion and there is obviously a lot of catching up to do! Obviously it will be difficult to read everything, so if anybody has a specific post they would like me to address, please let me know
@Richard Black
I'm disappointed that you have chosen not to give a blow by blow account on the shenanigans happening in the Muir Russell investigation. Perhaps a round up would be in order?
/mango
Complain about this comment
Thanks to those who replied to my #121. Very helpful. As you probably noticed I am not trying to be clever, just trying to understand the dispute.
#125 Radiowonk
I understand the point you make about proxy data, but for the last 150 years we do have instrument measurements. Would public access to CRU data solve the reliability problem?
#126 John_from_Hendon
I am surprised that you call into question that CO2, etc., are greenhouse gases and that their emissions have increased due to human activity. Is it not the causal connection with climmate change that you question? But I see your point about atmospheric emissions and temperature. Can these things be monitored with adequate accuracy? Why have thy not been?
#136 jasonsceptic
Are you saying that human society does not emit greenhouse gas emissions? And human activity has not been responible for an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions?
Complain about this comment
It is good to see that the BBC has at long last given reasonable air-time to the sceptical side of the debate over The (UN-inspired human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Long may it continue. The half-hour item on the rising tide of scepticism in Australia is long over-due. Previously the BBC has doggedly stuck to promoting the UN propaganda which has nothing to do with trynmg to control global climates but much to do with:
- redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
- establishment of a framework for global governance,
- enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
The voting public is waking up to the fact that our use of fossil fuels has negligible impact upon global climates and that schemes that have been introduced by dishonest politicians on the pretext of controlling climates are another political (and financial) scam. The EU that we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into is a leading political organisation that has charged ahead with raising money from taxpayers by taxing the emission of that essential life-supporting substance carbon dioxide. It may be too late for us gullible idiots in the EU but countries like Australia, China, India, etc. have wisely hung back and can now reap the benefits of our stupidity.
We in the UK will be suffering for years from this scam, not only through paying much higher prices for our energy than is necessary but from energy shortages. These will be starting during the next few years because instead of investing in natural gas, clean coal and nuclear generation, this government has allowed itself to be forced by the EU into investing in renewable energy sources like those ridiculous off-shore wind farms. What a joke!
Complain about this comment
Peter317 @ #129
"But that's the whole point. Homogenisation has its uses, but using it when comparing two datasets is questionable, to say the least. It's a bit like comparing the taste of apples and oranges having first put both of them in a blender - hmm, they taste the same to me."
We may have to agree to disagree on this. Your view would probably be the one held by Steve McIntyre and the majority of sceptics. However, if you use non-homogenised raw data, all you do is increase the heterogeneity of the data to the point where it is impossible to detect trends - perhaps this is why McIntyre, Watts et al argue against homogenising data!
As long as homogenisation is done properly and correctly validated, there is nothing unscientific about it. It is used in medical research for the same reason.
Also, I suppose NOAA would argue that since their existing temperature trends use homogenised data, it is entirely proper that the comparison with Watts' reduced number of high quality sites should do the same.
Paul
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #104:
I take this opportunity to respond to your long and insightful post.
Firstly, you appear capable of 'changing personalities.' Post #104 is well written, thoughtful, and I think - from the heart in the main.
Yet you align yourself rather dramatically with posts from what I refer to as 'contrarians,' such as #126 from "John_from_Hendon", who wrote:
-------
"for example these are also facts
1. The mean lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years (not the 250 years used by climate CO2 fanatics)
2. The data used to show global warming is very inaccurate with huge errors that basically render it almost completely meaningless over more than a few decades.
3. The relationship of atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature (in so far as the data has any accuracy at all) suggests strongly that CO2 rises (or did rise) AFTER temperature. (i.e. there is NO CAUSALITY)
4. CO2 is vital to all life on our planet.
5. CO2 levels (insofar as it can be determined with any accuracy) have been several multiples of the present levels on our planet in the past, but temperatures have always allowed liquid water to exist somewhere otherwise life would have become extinct - and you may have noticed it hasn't!
In short CO2 has no scientifically valid relationship with planetary temperature (or climate) and in consequence I would qualify your first 4 'facts'."
-------------
You would prefer that you, and presumably others of like mind, be referred to as 'skeptics.'
This despite repeated posts in the preceeding few weeks by pro-AGW bloggers, of Richard Alley's December 2009 American Geophysical Union presentation on the latest scientific perception of CO2 throughout the Phanerozoic, i.e., the last 500 to 600 million years, the time of 'visible large life.' This is highest quality science, presented in the most open way possible.
The information presented at that meeting, in that presentation, covers the Phanerozoic in one hour. Obviously this is a Heculean task, but I thought Richard Alley, one of America's, and the world's, finest glaciologists, who has himself testified before Congress on the 'state of the planet,' as per his particular field of expertise, did a commendable job.
I have the paper before me, referred to in that talk:
"Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the last 20 Million Years," Ardhana K. Tripati et al; Science; vol 326; 4 Dec 2009; pp 1394-1397.
What is one to think, after your derogatory remarks on peer-reviewed science, and in light of your alignment with the type of misinformation presented in John_from_Hendon's post, and, of course, others - of similar style?
The attack is on the whole edifice of science - to make a long story short. Ben Santer's 'letter to colleagues' sums up the situation nicely in referring specifically to the 'Climategate' e-mails, and subsequent internet campaign of character assassination.
You have represented yourself in post #104:
"I will admit that my forte has always been analysis and mathematics - basically problem solving, complex problems, usually with complex mathematics and analysis (and of course, a team and lot of computers...;)." (#104)
-----------------------
Yet you mock the 'monickers' most of us assume here on this blog in the preceeding sentence, despite knowing, I presume, that we do this at the invocation of the BBC, for what I think are obvious reasons.
OK - you say you can be 'a bit testy,' etc...
Fair enough.
The main point I wish to make here is that demeaning the global temperature records of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the United Kingdom's Met Office will not wash if you are a skeptic, rather than a contrarian.
This is the best of the best, and you would have to be partially deaf, dumb and blind to not see the melting of the world's ice, both in the Arctic and in the Antarctic, and virtually every mountain glacier in the world, along with rising sea levels at a rate consistent with the empirical evidence of mass loss from the ice sheets derived from America's own satellites, and other empirical data, as confirmation that the planet is indeed warming.
In fact, the only recourse, I suggest, left open to a contrarian, is to do exactly what they are doing, to demean the entire scientific community, and the edifice of science itself, which is of course the same science which built the atomic bomb, and put Americans on the Moon.
This is farce and hypocsisy on a grand scale, and I urge you to speak with one voice, and not align yourself with what I term, - 'the lobby.'
As for the details of coal and energy supply, your experience with models etc:
It is I think not recognized by the skeptics, and willfully distorted by the contrarians, that the negative predictions of climatology on our collective future come primarily and overwhelmingly from:
1) Empirical data of the changes occurring now and in the recent past from a suite of highest quality data acquisition instrumentation, and highest quality processing of same, by, I would argue, some of the best scientific minds in the world, who have 'gone climate', having recognized the potential catastrophe we are all facing.
2) The paleoclimatic record.
In my lifetime in geology, the resolution of the past has increased by an order of magnitude at least overall, and much more in individual cases. The information coming in daily is now a flood, and a 'slow as a turtle' approach such as the IPCC is in my opinion a waste of resourses.
This is getting long, so I will close with a few suggestions, all designed to increase your knowledge base on geology:
1) The Tripati paper referred to earlier.
2) "The long-term carbon cycle, fossil fuels and atmospheric composition," Robert A. Berner; Nature; Nov 20, 2003; 426; pp 323-326.
3) "Impact from the Deep", by Peter D. Ward, Scientific American, October 2006.
4) "Under a Green Sky," by Peter D. Ward, 2007.
5) "An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics," by James Zachos et al; Nature; vol 451; 17 Jan 2008; pp 279-283.
Greenhouse extinctions are where it is at right now Larry. There is an essentially inverse relationship between CO2 and Oxygen over the Phanerozoic - oxygen is dropping slowly as we speak in tandem with rising CO2. (see Berner, Ward, Keeling the younger...) If this subject is of interest, see Nick Lane's latest on the evolution of the Earth's atmosphere over the last four billion years in 'New Scientist', 6 February 2010, and Peter Ward's "Out of Thin Air" book.
Regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #141
I don't have a problem with the use of raw data that has been manipulated to produce a result - it happens all the time. What i have a problem with is anybody, on either side of the fence, refusing to release the raw data and showing the method of achieving the result.
Repeatability
I said as much on RC, when they ran their campaign to get Scarfetta to release his code.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/please-show-us-your-code/
/mango
Complain about this comment
For some reason my comment (140. At 2:00pm) was attributd to “you” instead of “Pete Ridley”.
This time I hope that it says “Pete Ridley wrote:”
John_from_Hendon, may I just point out what may well be an unintentional misrepresentation in your comment at 10:23am on 28 Feb 2010. You said QUOTE: In short CO2 has no scientifically valid relationship with planetary temperature UNQUOTE. I think that you are well aware that there is strong evidence, from the reconstruction of ancient air composition using air trapped in ice sheets, that increases in CO2 concentration have lagged temperature increases by many years (up to 1000 or so). On this evidence a strong relationship does seem to exist, but the cause appears to be the rising temperature and not the other way round.
I must add that not everyone is convinced that the reconstructed concentrations from ice cores are what Professor Richard Alley calls “The Gold Standard” for paleo-atmospheric air composition. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski has repeatedly challenged this claim since the 1990’s but has received the usual ridicule from supporters of The Hypothesis. I am researching this matter (as a retired engineer, not a scientist) and find a lot of evidence that those air samples trapped in ice cores for hundreds and thousands of years may well be subjected to preferential fractionation in which the smaller CO2 molecules are able to move within the ice when larger molecule like N2 and O2 cannot. There is empirical evidence from the energy industry (natural gas purification) and materials research (measurement of porosity in solids) that this could occur.
As I’m not a materials scientist, ice mechanics expert or chemist any help would be appreciated. Contributions could be made to Chris Colose’s blog “Richard Alley at AGU 2009: The Biggest Control Knob” at http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
Complain about this comment
@Jane #111:
The way I read it is, paraphrasing:
"A prolonged and severe drought around 1998 left 40% of the Amazon basin highly vulnerable to forest fires"
somehow got morphed to, also paraphrasing:
"A slight reduction in precipitation could see up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest being transformed into savannah"
Lying? perhaps not. Misleading? you decide.
Complain about this comment
Paul (Briscoe) in saying QUOTE As long as homogenisation is done properly and correctly validated, there is nothing unscientific about it UNQUOTE I think that you have unwittingly hit the nail on the head as to why we have to be so suspicious of anything coming out of the UN’s IPCC. The statistical manipulations of raw data before arriving at average global for temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the computer models used as the basis for global temperature and climate change “projections” have never been subjected to independent and professional validation procedures. The IPCC reports are not subjected to independent peer review and the Summaries for Policymakers are not even reviewed by the contributing scientists. That is why it was possible for the UN’s IPCC to mislead politicians, the media and the public, as has been shown by all of those IPCC-gates that have been flooding the Internet (and at long last the mainstream media) since the leaking of those UEA CRU files.
The lid has come of Pandora’s box and there’s a lot more to come out. Nothing produced by the IPCC can be accepted as being valid until all of the evidence has been subjected to full, open and independent scrutiny.
Manysummits, I missed your comment 142 when posting mine on Professor Alley and his “Gold Standard” so I include you in the invitation to join in the debate on Chris Colose’s blog. You seem to have some understanding of the reconstructin of paleo-atmospheres so please enlighten me with your expertise, particularly on adsorption phenomena in ice.
Complain about this comment
@MS #142:
"oxygen is dropping slowly as we speak in tandem with rising CO2."
How is a 0.1% reduction in oxygen levels for a doubling of CO2 supposed to be scary?
You probably experience a greater reduction than that by going upstairs.
Complain about this comment
Pete Ridley said:
Peter317, we also experience CO2 levels of 1000ppm or more in our work places and homes without any catastrophes arising. On top of that plants thrive in greenhouses set to that concentratin level. It's all a big political scare about nothing being used as a basis for UN propaganda in support of other agenda, supported by politicians, environmentalists and financial speculators/manipulatorswith their own agenda, n oneof which has anything to do with controlling glovbal climaes.
Complain about this comment
#manysunmmits
@larrykealy
"PS - I didn't get a PhD, and never claimed to have - you can click on my name and read all my previous posts. I didn't see the payback, nor did I want to work in academia my entire life..."
since he considers a bsc in environmental science a 'baby degree' yet doesnt have a phd (i also assumed he had) what is there inbetween that gives him such a confident air do you think?
that said, at least he puts an intelligable argument together *with some arguably emotional outbursts) unlike most of the 'lobby' you mentioned.
Complain about this comment
If you ‘re looking for a real scare (rather than that catastrophic global climate change one dreamed up by the UN) try this. QUOTE: Thursday, Feb 25, 2010 - The UK Pound is on the brink of a collapse which will herald a downturn worse than 2008/9, it could well happen within weeks and the British government is powerless to prevent it. And this in turn will foreshadow a global economic winter that could come before the end of 2010 and make the last two years seem like a mild spring day.
This is the dire prediction of the legendary George Soros' former business partner, respected billionaire financier Jim Rogers, together with millionaire investment adviser and best-selling author Dr Marc Faber and the controversial millionaire trader and coach Vince Stanzione, ahead of their keynote appearances at next month's Global Trading Day seminar in Westminster.
As the UK economy stands on the brink of its much heralded double dip after a dismal January and rumblings about its credit rating, as Swiss Bank UBS speculates the risk of a run on the pound*, and as sterling hit a nine month low against the dollar on Friday, the three experts - who all have reputations for making much of their fortunes from predicting and riding economic downturns - are forecasting that a currency crash and then a full scale global "shakedown" are almost inevitable. UNQUOTE.
(see http://media.einnews.com/article.php?pid=73800 – 25th Feb).
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #149
that said, at least he puts an intelligable argument together *with some arguably emotional outbursts) unlike most of the 'lobby' you mentioned
so you think it's ok for AGWers to try to claim the moral high ground - "if not for yourselves, for the children and grand children" - but its not ok for sceptics to get emotional?
Having said that, I wish sceptics would stick to the known science too and accept that i am not perfect in this respect(perfect in every other respect obviously ;) )
/mango
Complain about this comment
#142. manysummits
OK back into battle with those who seem to think that data that shows higher levels of CO2 AFTER temperatures have risen (and then not always) shows that AFTER CO2 rises THEN temperatures rise. (See the ice core data.)
CAUSALITY requires that the switch is flipped FIRST before the dependent event happens. (Go on someone argue that it is the other way round!)
This by itself refutes the CO2 hypothesis (let alone the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis).
I am not even going to progress to refuting the relationship between CO2 and temperature - but see my argument about the existence of life on the planet. (above)
The AGW side of the argument are probably well intentioned, but it is they who are barking up a rotten tree that has fallen down long ago. Indeed it is they who are putting the planet at risk....
Complain about this comment
131 jasonsceptic wrote:
"What makes me laugh is that the "deniers" are portrayed as agrressive right wingers with no interest in the truth."
Scepticism would be even more popular than it is already if it weren't for its reputation as "right-winger's" opinion.
I've had a similar problem with Darwin -- students thinking Darwin was "all about racism".
Well, we're not all right wing, but I'd say sceptics are more inclined to form their opinions by looking at the opinion rather than asking: "What are the other people who have this opinion like?"
Complain about this comment
MrSkipp @ 139: Obviously I accept that "more recently" (I will not argue precise details about the "last 150 years" or so) there are records available, but by some accounts these records have themselves been manipulated to take account of various other factors. Now how justified any correction factors are is outwith my knowledge, but it does not seem unreasonable to believe that those with the knowledge and experience to assess the calculations made on them should have access to the raw data and to the various correction factors so that the "peer review" can be based on all the data and not just the already fudged version.
Public access to the raw CRU data might not reveal much, but if those with the appropriate background are given the opportunity to look at that raw data (and I do not pretend to be one of them) to enable a full review to be carried out them I would see that as a major step in the right direction. If then the "qualified sceptics" then reported that "yes, there does appear to be a correlation" then I would be more willing to accept the apocalyptic conclusions that are currently being bandied about.
If the case that has been made by the CRU and others is watertight then what useful purpose is served by their being secretive about the data from which their conclusions have been drawn? Their reluctance to let others see the base data and the corrections and calculations applied thereupon is highly suggestive of sharp practice somewhere; justice must not only be done, but must be *seen* to be done is as relevant here as it is in the application of the law. What have they got to hide?
I may be wrong but I suspect that the majority of posters on this blog are as unhappy with what appears to have happened as I am. I think the trend in the listed submissions to the HoC enquiry is encouraging in terms of trying to establish the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Time will tell.
Complain about this comment
Pete Ridley (not You) wrote:
I’ve just had a closer look at the original article here and would suggest that any hopes that an enquiry carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) will be QUOTE: a process that will be thorough and rigorous, but constructive UNQUOTE is envisaged only by dreamers and presented as such only by politicians. When was an enquiry set up by politicians to investigate their own questionable political activities (like the Iraq war) ever been processed in an honest, impartial and open manner? The words “honest” and “political” are mutually exclusive. Who in their right minds considers these to be other than attempts at a whitewash? That UNEP investigation will be no different.
The UN is a political organisation run by politicians for politicians. The UN’s UNEP, along with the UN’s WMO, set up the UN’s IPCC. That alone is enough to make us suspicious of the IPCC. Add to that the IPCC’s terms of reference, made clear in their 2004 report “.16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the Climate Convention “ which explains that QUOTE: .. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process. .. UNQUOTE. Note also that “climate change” in IPCC terms is that caused by humans.
Read the document and ask yourself if the evidence disclosed by all of the recent IPCC-gates shows that the IPCC operates in accordance with its defined role. In other words, is there an inclination to:
- not worry too much about all of those poorly understood natural climate processes and drivers,
- concentrate on and exaggerate as much as possible, by whatever means possible, those minor human impacts such as possible melting of Himalayan glaciers, etc.
- hide declines, manipulate raw data,
- avoid paying much if any attention to any sceptical science.
After all, the UN, being political, would not want fact getting in the way of its version of the truth, would it.
That same document says in “Procedures for preparing IPCC Reports” QUOTE: The preparation of IPCC Reports follows strict procedures that have been agreed by the Panel. The reports are prepared by teams of authors, which have been selected specifically for this task, based on their expertise. They undergo a two-stage review, a first review by experts and a second by experts and governments. Final reports are accepted at a Plenary session and the Summaries for Policymakers are approved line by line UNQUOTE.
It says on the IPCC web site (http://www.ipcc.ch/) QUOTE: The IPCC has started work on the preparation of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). We are currently looking for experts who can act as authors: UNQUOTE. Who selects those authors, politicians, so can we depend upon them being impartial? – NO! Can we depend upon the 5th Assessment Report being any less biased than the 4th? – NO!
The only way to ensure this is to have the next Climate Change Assessment Report produced quite independently of the UN, its related organisations, any politicians or their QUANGOs or NGOs that are funded by political organisations, environmentalist or related activist movements, any investors in carbon trading schemes, renewable energy or other “green” industrial or commercial organisations. Hm, that doesn’t leave much to choose from – another load of propaganda is likely, or maybe I’m just being a little bit cynical about politicians.
Complain about this comment
MrSkip @ #121,
(and John_from_Hendon at #126)
If you want a good basic guide to the science of AGW, I suggest you check out the articles in the New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
The second link covers most of the common myths and actually explains why most of the points made by John_from_Hendon at #126 are oversimplifications of the true facts.
Let's consider the points in turn:
"1. The mean lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years (not the 250 years used by climate CO2 fanatics)"
May be true, for the simple reason that over 90% of annual emissions are non anthropogenic. However, this ignores some very important points:
The carbon cycle was in balance before Man started burning fossil fuels. So although Man made emissions are only a small part of the total, the existing cycles cannot cope with the extra CO2. Almost 50% of anthropogenic emmissions are absorbed by the oceans and biosphere, but the rest remains in the atmosphere - this is why CO2 levels are currently rising at a rate of around 3ppm per year. The rate of increase is gradually accelerating.
"2. The data used to show global warming is very inaccurate with huge errors that basically render it almost completely meaningless over more than a few decades."
Well this is the wrong way around. It is true that there is large variability in the data due to natural cycles (mainly ocean and solar). However, this actually means that the longer the period over which you have valid data, the greater the chance of achieving statistical significance.
"3. The relationship of atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature (in so far as the data has any accuracy at all) suggests strongly that CO2 rises (or did rise) AFTER temperature. (i.e. there is NO CAUSALITY)"
Again, this is true as far as it goes. However, it does NOT directly relate to the present situation for the reasons described here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html?full=true
"4. CO2 is vital to all life on our planet."
No problem with that!
"5. CO2 levels (insofar as it can be determined with any accuracy) have been several multiples of the present levels on our planet in the past, but temperatures have always allowed liquid water to exist somewhere otherwise life would have become extinct - and you may have noticed it hasn't!"
Also true, but we have no way of knowing what the global climate conditions were back so far into pre-history........ let alone whether such conditions could have supported and fed almost 7 billion humans.
This shows how important it is to look at a multi-dimensional level into the detail. This is something that climate scientists have trained many years to be able to do, but most of us are in danger of being tripped up by ignoring important details.
Paul
Complain about this comment
The 'you' is just something you see for your own posts when you are logged in; everyone else sees your name.
Except when it gets confused and says U123456 and only you can't tell ;)
Complain about this comment
Pete Ridley @ #146
If you're wanting an explanation of why homogenisation of data is so important, I suggest that you have a read of the following article which explains what can go wrong if you don't use it:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
It may be unfair to use the word "lie", but it certainly shows the dangers of letting amateur bloggers loose on raw data.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@ Paul Briscoe #158:
Do you really expect anyone who leans to the left to read beyond the following great big green political expectoration?
"to cash in on the far-right driven furore about the Hadley CRU data theft."
So it's "cashing in", it's "far-right", and it's "theft", all in one sentence.
I'm a sceptic on the LEFT, thank you very much, and I've stolen nothing, nor cashed in on anything. If your New Zealand "buddies" aren't interested in finding out why, good luck to them -- they're intellectual zeroes.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney @ #143,
I don't have any problem with full disclosure, just as long as it covers everyone on both sides of the debate. I'm sure the majority of the scientists feel the same way.
My only real worry with full disclosure of data is that some of the bloggers quite clearly lack the competence to analyse the data properly and hence are coming to very misleading conclusions (which their readers seem to take as gospel).
Another concern I have is that Steve McIntyre, who has appointed himself as a self-styled auditor, is not subject to the same close scrutiny. He (and his followers) can make whatever claims they like without ever being required to account for them. It's now clear that he continues to post FOIA requests even when he already has the data he needs, giving his readers the IMPRESSION that scientists are not cooperating. He then loudly shouts when he claims to have found something wrong....... yet when he finds nothing wrong he stays peculiarly quiet. He also conspicuously fails to check the statistical analysis of any work by sceptic scientists....... even though this is frequently far from sound.
The above hardly represents a balanced and objective "audit" process! No wonder the scientists hate him so much!
I'm sure that one of the outcomes of the ongoing reviews will be the full disclosure of data. I just hope that somone also starts to apply a little more scrutiny to the activities of the bloggers!
Paul
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #145
Firstly I am not happy with your paraphrasing of Nepstad et al 2004, which includes phrases such as:
"This study points to the widespread effect of drought on Amazon forests, and the vulnerability of Amazon forests to small declines in rainfall or increases in ET [evapotranspiration]."
and
"The increase in forest flammability associated with severe drought poses one of the greatest threats to the ecological integrity of Amazon forests."
This has created a context problem with your paraphrasing of the IPCC.
Your context combined with your paraphrasing of the IPCC's "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation" makes the IPCC's "slight reduction in precipitation" look like "short and mild drought". Yet from their context I'd say the IPCC was referring to the same "small declines in rainfall" as Nepstad.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4.html
Complain about this comment
#156 Paul Briscoe wrote:
"If you want a good basic guide to the science of AGW, I suggest you check out the articles in the New Scientist"
And as you check them out, I suggest you simultaneously check out the New Scientist's references to solar activity during the deepest solar minimum in living memory.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon @ #152
"OK back into battle with those who seem to think that data that shows higher levels of CO2 AFTER temperatures have risen (and then not always) shows that AFTER CO2 rises THEN temperatures rise. (See the ice core data.)
CAUSALITY requires that the switch is flipped FIRST before the dependent event happens. (Go on someone argue that it is the other way round!)
This by itself refutes the CO2 hypothesis (let alone the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis)."
I draw your attention to my post at #156, which has a link to the New Scientist.
You might also want to take a look at the following (see "Myth 2"):
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m2
Paul
Complain about this comment
@158, Paul Briscoe:
From your link NIWA says:
“ …...
Enter the Wellington airport series. Like Thorndon, the station is very near sea level, and warmer at all times than Kelburn although the “ups and downs” of the record are the same. It’s a relatively easy matter to work out the difference: 0.79ºC. So if you lower both the airport and Thorndon series by that amount, you get: …..
“
You get someone applying the same correction to a rural site as they have to an airport.
Complain about this comment
Paul Briscoe wrote: Another concern I have is that Steve McIntyre, who has appointed himself as a self-styled auditor, is not subject to the same close scrutiny. He (and his followers) can make whatever claims they like without ever being required to account for them. It's now clear that he continues to post FOIA requests even when he already has the data he needs, giving his readers the IMPRESSION that scientists are not cooperating. He then loudly shouts when he claims to have found something wrong....... yet when he finds nothing wrong he stays peculiarly quiet. He also conspicuously fails to check the statistical analysis of any work by sceptic scientists....... even though this is frequently far from sound.
Why not simply admit it. You hate Steve McIntyre because he was one of those responsible for showing that man-made warming (and particularly the "unprecedented warming Hockey Stick") is a complete and utter fraud.
Your views are quite is blindingly obvious to everyone reading your posts.
As for us skeptics, we are simply tired of the alarmists nonsense. We have no problem with man-made CO2 being a minor factor in our climate (no doubt it does something even if we can't see any effects) but the alarmists are blowing everything out of all proportion and that is no longer acceptable. Climate will go on changing as it always has...no need for scare-mongering and heavy taxes to drive up cost of energy, food and to force poverty on hundreds of millions - terrible damage to living standards everywhere. The potential damage hatt could be caused by alarmists, my friend, is far far more serous than Steve McIntyre hurting the feelings and egos of some arrogant climate researchers who have made a pretense out of the dire danger of man-made CO2. Fortunately, as the world seems to be coming to its senses - man-made global warming will simply go down in history as a colossal waste of taxpayers' money.
Complain about this comment
Bowman @ #159,
I prefer to look beyond the rhetoric (which both sides of this debate are using, sadly) to the CONTENT. I've already made it clear that I don't like the language any more than you do. However, this article makes some very important points which some here could do with reading.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #144
How can CO2 (structure O=C=O) be smaller than O2 (structure O=O)?
Complain about this comment
#163. Paul Briscoe wrote:
"You might also want to take a look at the following (see "Myth 2"):"
Rubbish - Look, there is only one way that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can cause a greenhouse effect and that is to see a rise in CO2 BEFORE temperature rise. All the nonsense referred to in your reference should have been done before publishing the data (which by the way I don't find at all reliable and all far to error prone.) The so called 'debunking of a myth' is logically and scientifically flawed.
Complain about this comment
Rob Wansbeck @ #164
"You get someone applying the same correction to a rural site as they have to an airport."
You'll note that all 3 stations are in Wellington, so none of them are rural. It's plain to see that the data follow the same pattern over a period of at least 40 years, so it's hardly an unreasonable adjustment to make.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@Paul Brisco #160
I don't have any problem with full disclosure, just as long as it covers everyone on both sides of the debate. I'm sure the majority of the scientists feel the same way.
Don't be naive, Paul. In context or nor in context the CRU emails clearly reveal a desire not to have full disclosure. Remember the "i have 25 years invested" comment?
My only real worry with full disclosure of data is that some of the bloggers quite clearly lack the competence to analyse the data properly and hence are coming to very misleading conclusions
In that case, their arguments should be easily refuted, but hang on, they are raising good points, hence the disclosure of IPCC mistakes
Another concern I have is that Steve McIntyre, who has appointed himself as a self-styled auditor, is not subject to the same close scrutiny.
Rubbish. By putting himself out there, McIntyre "and his followers" (why try to make it sound like a religion to question science when it's what science does when science is working properly?), McIntyre is opening himself up to a level of scrutiny that "real climate scientists" do not have to endure.
No wonder the scientists hate him so much!
And i always thought science welcomed sceptics as a means of testing a theory to destruction. Oh, sorry that's main stream science, not "voodoo science". Oops, voodoo science is what the head of the IPCC calls sceptic science.
I just hope that somone also starts to apply a little more scrutiny to the activities of the bloggers!
And here we agree.
For the record, McIntyre has peer reviewed papers on climate science and is an IPCC reviewer. Not bad for a "self styled auditor"
Seriously Paul, just because RealClimate preaches doom and gloom doesn't mean it's Gospel
/Mango
Complain about this comment
RobWansbeck, thanks for the clarification in 157 about “You”.
Shadorne, spot on in comment 165.
JaneBasingstoke, I agree that from a simplistic viewpoint it doesn’t appear plausible, but try digging deeper into molecular physics and you’ll find some surprises. Take a look at my comments on Chris Colose’s blog (he’s a science student and staunch supporter of The Hypothesis) and you’ll find links that I have provided to commercially viable systems using the smaller size of CO2 to purify natural gas from coal mines (working and exhausted) to produce supply-quality natural gas for delivery to users. I have a lot more research to do but it’s looking very promising at the moment. Of course I’m having a hard job getting supporters of The Hypothesis to acknowledge that preferential fractionation takes place as Professor Jaworowski suggested, because if it does then Professor Alley’s “Gold Standard” becomes a “Pyrite Standard” and we all know what fools that made out of those gullible miners.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke, sorry, I should have included some figures for molecular sizes (but bear in mind that these are only the ones used in working systems not necessarily those used by scientists who support The Hypothesis.
CH4 = 3.8 angstroms, N2 = 3.6 angstroms, O2 = 3.5 angstroms and CO2 = 3.3 angstroms.
Complain about this comment
@169, Paul Briscoe wrote:
“
Rob Wansbeck @ #164
"You get someone applying the same correction to a rural site as they have to an airport."
You'll note that all 3 stations are in Wellington, so none of them are rural. It's plain to see that the data follow the same pattern over a period of at least 40 years, so it's hardly an unreasonable adjustment to make.
“
The 0.79C difference is for recent airport temperatures. This same difference is then applied to Thorndon in the 1920s. There is no allowance for urbanization since the 1920s let alone an airport location.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne @ #165
If you can't see the hypocrisy of Steve McIntyre's position as an "auditor" then it is simply because you choose to ignore it. His obvious advocacy and bias means that his audits lack the credibility he claims.
Don't get me wrong, Steve McIntyre has made some valuable points, but he possesses an arrogance of his own which leads him to presume that his opinions are actual fact. Things are never that clear cut.
I don't personally hate Steve McIntyre, but I can certainly understand why the scientists do.
As for the rest of your post, you already know that, based on the available evidence, I do not agree with your assessment.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@Paul Brisoe
interesting that you say sceptic blogs are biased, but happily post a AGWer blog as prrof that sceptics lie
/Mango
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey:
I have given myself a birthday present, and taken your recommendation to heart.
I now own Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
I found the first difficulty was in choosing a translation. Comparing seven editions side by each, I used Johua Slocum's dictum, and like the sailor of old, and perhaps of the new, selected by a "blow of the eye."
I have purchased the 1963 edition by Oxford University Press, translation by Samuel Griffith, and sanctioned by UNESCO.
It looks the class of the field.
Thank you for the suggestion.
- Manysummits -
"The Arthur learned, as all leaders are astonished to learn, that peace, not war, is the destroyer of men..."
Complain about this comment
@113 Paul:
Tut-tut.
The article you posted didn't really address the point Eschenbach was making. In his original comment, he says that an adjustment should be made for the obvious station move - see http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero6.png?w=510&h=398, where he compensates for a step-change of -0.6C around 1940. (Personally, I might add another compensating step at around 1999.) What he's complaining about is the other adjustments, which add another 1 degree or so over 1940-1995, despite the very close agreement between all the records over that period. What possible justification is there for taking a continuous and comparable record and adding a trend missing in the actual record? The answer, supposedly, is this quotation from the article you cited (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php):
These adjustments are the best we could do given the paucity of historical station history metadata on a global scale. But using an approach based on a reference series created from surrounding stations means that the adjusted station's data is more indicative of regional climate change and less representative of local microclimatic change than an individual station not needing adjustments.
To my mind this beggars belief. We have actual temperatures recorded by actual thermometers at a stable site, but we won't use this information - instead we'll skew it by applying temperature changes from elsewhere because it's "more indicative of regional climate change". Surely this is completely backwards - you should create a climate picture from temperature records, not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
Re:-
174. At 8:29pm on 28 Feb 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:
"I don't personally hate Steve McIntyre, but I can certainly understand why the scientists do."
I can understand why a lot of ordinary people might choose to "hate" McIntyre if they were made more aware of his associations. In particular *but not exclusively) his association with the George C Mitchell Institute (GMI).
That Institute advocated strongly for the Tobacco Industry and the CFC industry as well as the anti-AGW lobby.
Which brings me to the main point.
There are many on this "blogsite" who claim to be "environmentally conscious" but "sceptical of AGW.
How can one be "environmentally conscious" and support the continued use of tobacco or call on as "expert" witnesses or credible scientists some one like McIntyre who associates with organisations that do.
More than that, how can so-called sceptics claim to be "environmentally conscious" and continue to support the use of coal as the dominant source of electricity production.
Ten minutes research on the internet will just open the flood gates (wow.there's another 'gate') to the environmental damage caused by coal mining and processing, not to mention the human misery involved in the mining industry.
So we have the human misery arising out of the promotion of tobacco for profit, the human misery arising out of the promotion of CFC's (now fortunately minimised by the Montreal Accord but the damage has already been done) and the continued human misery caused by the continual mining of coal.
And funnily enough, the same names appear all the time.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney @ #175,
Mango,
The point I have been making is that Steve McIntyre portrays himself as a "climate auditor". The whole point of an auditor is surely that they approach their role in an objective and balanced manner and give credit where credit is due.
Yet McIntyre ONLY audits the science of the pro-AGW scientists, ignoring some obviously questionable papers by sceptics (eg Douglass et al, 2007) and fails to give the AGW scientists credit when he finds nothing wrong.
Those aren't the actions of someone who is simply trying to uncover the truth. Yet the blogosphere treats him like he's God...... probably because he tells them what they want to hear!
Paul
Complain about this comment
RobWansbeck @ #173
"The 0.79C difference is for recent airport temperatures. This same difference is then applied to Thorndon in the 1920s. There is no allowance for urbanization since the 1920s let alone an airport location."
All three sites are urban, so any UHI effect would have applied to Thorndon as well if it had remained in place. It's also quite clear that the differential has remained the same throughout the period, despite any increased UHI effect.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@PaulBriscoe #179
Yet McIntyre ONLY audits the science of the pro-AGW scientists
You're wrong Paul
McIntyre has hosted a discussion on the Lindzen paper by an AGWer (Judith Curry - as did Spencer btw), where the gist is Lindzen got it wrong. I disagree with some of Curry's comments, but she's pretty fair all the same.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/18/curry-reviews-lindzen-and-choi/
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#151 mango
"perfect in every other respect obviously ;)" = perhaps that explains your lack of perfection here ;O)
Complain about this comment
#152 john_from_hendon
"This by itself refutes the CO2 hypothesis (let alone the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis)." - says who? why not point to the papers?
Complain about this comment
#bowman
"So it's "cashing in", it's "far-right", and it's "theft", all in one sentence."
may be a good idea to reread the post. he said 'driven by', that's a fairly sensible analysis imho. this sort of pr campaign costs money and i'm guessing you didn;t stomp up cash.
he's not saying eveyone that jumps on the exxon/inhofe bandwagon has those same traits.
btw i thought we were in a post-ideologocal stage so what exactly do you mean by 'left' (you have a strong sense of 'rights' but i haven;t noticed much committment to obligation)?
Complain about this comment
#147 peter317
"@MS #142:
"oxygen is dropping slowly as we speak in tandem with rising CO2."
How is a 0.1% reduction in oxygen levels for a doubling of CO2 supposed to be scary?
You probably experience a greater reduction than that by going upstairs."
it's not how it would affect 'us' that's important. say a biologocal process is O2 limited, that could be a significant drop in productivity globally and that could generate a feedback. don;t just dismiss a number because it looks small to you.
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #171
Whoa, is it Colose's blog or yours? Seriously, you need to think about getting a blog of your own.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon @ #168
"Rubbish - Look, there is only one way that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can cause a greenhouse effect and that is to see a rise in CO2 BEFORE temperature rise. All the nonsense referred to in your reference should have been done before publishing the data (which by the way I don't find at all reliable and all far to error prone.) The so called 'debunking of a myth' is logically and scientifically flawed."
Well, I can see it's unlikely that I'll change your mind! But "rubbish"? Certainly not!
It was as long ago as 1956 that Gilbert Plass proved that CO2 would act as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. When more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the warming effect surely increases straight away - why would it not, given that greenhouse warming is entirely dependent on concentration? So you would actually expect to see both carbon dioxide and temperature rising together....... which is what we're seeing today.
This is in sharp contrast to previous interglacials when carbon dioxide rose AFTER the temperature had started to rise.
I would be interested to know why you think the scientific reasoning in the 2 articles I linked to is "nonsense" or "flawed", especially as it is entirely empirical!
Paul
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney @ #181
You're wrong Paul
McIntyre has hosted a discussion on the Lindzen paper by an AGWer (Judith Curry - as did Spencer btw), where the gist is Lindzen got it wrong. I disagree with some of Curry's comments, but she's pretty fair all the same.
I accept that the review is on his site, but it's hardly him reviewing it is it?
Paul
Complain about this comment
Canada has just beaten USA for Ice Hockey Gold WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
I don't know how many posters on this thread are actually qualified to analyse climate data; I make no such claims for myself and therefore will not indulge myself in the practice. My concerns are more anchored on principle, as I hope the following will show. My understanding of the law is also incomplete so if I err then perhaps someone may correct me!
If any of us were to find ourselves in court on some criminal charge we would all (I assume) wish to mount the most vigorous defence that the facts of the case would allow. One of the underlying principles is that there has to be full disclosure by the prosecution of all the evidence gathered; some of that evidence may be damaging to the prosecution case and would thus not be used by the prosecution in court. Equally we would expect that evidence presented by the prosecution would be substantive and not actively manipulated so as to increase the likelihood of conviction at the end. If we found out that the prosecution had refrained from disclosing material (to our defending solicitor and barrister) that was unhelpful to their case (and thus potentially helpful to our defence) we would rightly be somewhat aggrieved, to the point where we might start shouted "I've been fitted up" or something along the same lines. We would not be happy. We would be even less happy to find that it was asserted that our DNA had been found at the scene when in fact it had not been. I am sure that you will see the point of this argument so I will not think up other examples.
The position we are currently in is not greatly different to the scenario above; the "evidence" being presented looks as though it may have been tampered with. ("There is no smoke without fire".) It seems perfectly reasonable that the processes employed by the CRU are subjected to detailed scutiny to determine one way or another if the conclusions they have reached are genuinely based on *all* the evidence or not.
Now McIntyre appears to have been singled out for particular criticism; I have no knowledge of the man and cannot either defend him or attack him. Attacks on his integrity might have a greater impact were it not for many of the other submissions to the HoC Committee enquiry; they are equally unimpressed by the way the UEA CRU appers to have gone about its business. Are they to be vilified as well, and if so on what basis? (For the link to the list see posting 102)
I would have hoped that dissenting voices would have been able to be heard without cries of "heresy" or "flatearther" or suchlike; what are those who support the AGW argument afraid of?
I would invite them to remember the story of the Emperer's New Clothes.
Complain about this comment
186. At 10:43pm on 28 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:
@Pete Ridley #171
Whoa, is it Colose's blog or yours? Seriously, you need to think about getting a blog of your own.
I followed the link. Some people do get just a teeny bit carried away with their own importance. Obviously have never dipped their hand into the proverbial bucket of water.
But, Jane you'll never get them to admit that there is just even a small chance that they could be wrong!
This applies to Paul too, in #187
"Well, I can see it's unlikely that I'll change your mind!"
Quite right, Paul. They aren't here to debate the issue! As I think you put it earlier, they only listen to what they want to hear.
Complain about this comment
Texasfrank @ #177
I've been back and taken another look at this.
Clearly, GHCN were concerned about the discontinuity in the data. However, it seems that Willis Eschenbach's approach was far too simplistic because he looked at each station in isolation and did not take account of the complex nature of the adjustments:
http://matthewmarkus.posterous.com/
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2009/12/darwin-and-ghcn-adjustments-willis.html
I confess that this was never my specialist area, so I'll bow to the knowledge of others, but it's clear that Willis was just a bit too eager to claim he'd discovered data fiddling!
Paul
Complain about this comment
The Hockey stick approach ignores the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, and uses an arbitrary temperature value as the starting point, where the starting point temperature is NOT representative of observed (admittedly anecdotal, but accurate thermometers did not yet exist) conditions circa 1000 AD.
Until those defending the predominance of AGW in the temperature changes in the last 300 years start recognizing the MWP and LIA as actual temperature variations lasting centuries, some of us will remain sceptics.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #188
I accept that the review is on his site, but it's hardly him reviewing it is it?
So you accept that McIntyre, allows an AGWer view pointing out the errors of a sceptical paper to appear on his site, now name one occasion when RealClimate. Tamino, etc have hosted a sceptical post.
@xtragrumpymike2 #191
This applies to Paul too, in #187
"Well, I can see it's unlikely that I'll change your mind!"
Quite right, Paul. They aren't here to debate the issue! As I think you put it earlier, they only listen to what they want to hear.
Mike, I appreciate you have no in depth knowledge of the CO2 issue, but I fail to see how anybody can accept the word of one bunch of scientists against another bunch of scientists without at least trying to understand the issue. I hope that doesn't sound patronising - it probably will but it's not meant that way.
The only real issue in the global warming debate is whether or not CO2 is capable of raising the temperature significantly. On it's own, CO2 is clearly not capable, but, as I have said many times, there may be a chance that due to climate sensitivity, CO2 may be able to raise the temperature to the dizzying heights predicted by the IPCC. The caveat, however, is there is still no real evidence which includes clouds to show climate sensitivity to be high, bur there is evidence including clouds to show climate sensitivity to be low. If somebody shows real evidence indicating high climate sensitivity, then I will accept that i am wrong, but despite observational evidence to the contrary showing climate sensitivity to be low, AGWer's will not accept CO2 is incapable of raising the global temperature significantly.
Who now is only listening to what they want to hear?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #187
When more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the warming effect surely increases straight away - why would it not, given that greenhouse warming is entirely dependent on concentration?
But it's not Paul. If it was the IPCC prediction of temperature rise between 2.5 and 6C would be ridiculous in the extreme when physics alone only calculates ~1.1C for each doubling of CO2. The IPCC gets their figures from calculating climate sensitivity, but these calculations do not include the effects of clouds, which are considered to be a negative feedback.
So, any warming is not entirely dependent on concentration
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#191 xtragrumpymike2 wrote:
"They aren't here to debate the issue!"
This is a silly remark, an complacent remark, and an innacurate remark.
I've been trying to debate the issue of inductivism with warm-mongers for months, but they don't seem to be up to it. I'm here to debate the issue, but they seem to avoid the issue. If you'd like to debate the issue, let's get started right now!
Complain about this comment
@ paul 141
re data homogenisation. I agree with your sentiments, though i cannot agree that they way they homogenised the data was correct. arbitrarily allowing 'sections' of data that tie in with a trend, while discounting other sections that don't is not good science i'm afraid (tree rings vs station temps).
Complain about this comment
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece
just a little taster to start the day
Complain about this comment
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
EVERYONE MUST read this.
Anyone still care to claim the CRU/IPCC are impartial/did nothing wrong?
Complain about this comment
TeaPot562 @ #193
The Hockey stick approach ignores the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, and uses an arbitrary temperature value as the starting point, where the starting point temperature is NOT representative of observed (admittedly anecdotal, but accurate thermometers did not yet exist) conditions circa 1000 AD.
Can you actually PROVE that the proxy data of Mann et al "ignores" the MWP and LIA when the only data suggesting that they exist also comes from proxies? Anecdotal evidence of a particular region being warmer at a specific period does NOT provide evidence that the Earth as a whole was warmer at that time.
The whole point of these proxies (not all of which are from tree-rings) is that they indicate that any warm period there may have been occured at different times in different places. Critically, there is no clear evidence that the Southern Hemisphere was warm at the same time.
Paul
Complain about this comment
RadioWonk @ #190
There's one important factor that your court case scenario ignores. Much of the "evidence" submitted by the sceptic side would not be admissible in a court of law because it is not even real science.
Paul
Complain about this comment
#14 Alexis Machintosh.
Sir, If you are a scientist I feel sorry for you, huge quantities of real peer reviewed science is totally at odds with the idea that CO2 has any relevance to global warming. The fact that CO2 is essential for all life and larger concentrations actually help the planet I.E. much greater plant growth with higher drought tolerance meaning more food production. Perhaps even 50 to 100% more, seems that too many think everything is mans fault. Please check the ice core records and look at the sun cycles, for all intents and purposes we are on the wrong side of an interglacial heading down, not up. Check your facts and buy shares in coal, and, ASAP sell your carbon credits. The next ten to twenty years are going to slowly get colder,My hope is that we do not get any major vulcanism, that could cause the Dalton minimum we are heading into to onset an ice age. Global warming I wish.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutney @ #194 and #195
"So you accept that McIntyre, allows an AGWer view pointing out the errors of a sceptical paper to appear on his site, now name one occasion when RealClimate. Tamino, etc have hosted a sceptical post."
Absolutely. It's a bit like putting someone in the lion's den, isn't it! McIntyre could be pretty confident that his disciples would not give Curry an easy ride! However, my criticism of McIntyre still stands. He portrays himself as an impartial auditor when he patently is not. Arguments he makes on his blog do not have to withstand peer review, whereas the arguments made by the AGW scientists do.
Incidentally, are you sure that any sceptics would WANT to post on Realclimate? On the contrary, they will always choose to post where they are sure of a good reception.
"Mike, I appreciate you have no in depth knowledge of the CO2 issue, but I fail to see how anybody can accept the word of one bunch of scientists against another bunch of scientists without at least trying to understand the issue. I hope that doesn't sound patronising - it probably will but it's not meant that way."
The point was that John_from_Hendon's assertion was incorrect - it is an old argument, long since proven to be bad science.
""When more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the warming effect surely increases straight away - why would it not, given that greenhouse warming is entirely dependent on concentration?"
But it's not Paul."
Well it IS. You may not agree with the AMOUNT of warming scientists are assigning to CO2, but any effect is indeed dependent on concentration and for obvious reasons.
"If it was the IPCC prediction of temperature rise between 2.5 and 6C would be ridiculous in the extreme when physics alone only calculates ~1.1C for each doubling of CO2. The IPCC gets their figures from calculating climate sensitivity, but these calculations do not include the effects of clouds, which are considered to be a negative feedback."
The figure I have seen for the effect of CO2 on its own is actually 2 Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric concentration. However, the IPCC's projections include the various obvious feedbacks. We've covered those in a previous thread so I'm not going into them again individually now. The IPCC's central prediction is a 3 Celsius rise by 2100 (by which time CO2 levels are likely to have more than doubled).
I accept, as the scientists do, that clouds still represent an uncertainty, but it is incorrect to assume that any increased cloud cover would necessarily be a negative feedback. This is dependent on the distribution, type and altitude of the clouds. Also, clouds have a positive feedback effect - just think how much warmer it is in the night when there is a reasonable amount of cloud cover. So, as you can see, the scientists HAVE thought about this...... and far more deeply than the sceptics.
Paul
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey @ #197
"re data homogenisation. I agree with your sentiments, though i cannot agree that they way they homogenised the data was correct. arbitrarily allowing 'sections' of data that tie in with a trend, while discounting other sections that don't is not good science i'm afraid (tree rings vs station temps)."
I'll confess that this was never my strong suit as a scientist, but I'm prepared to accept that the scientists do know what they're doing...... and the fact that the articles I linked to indicate that the overall effect of the adjustments used is neutral tells me that the scientists have indeed got it right.
The whole point of this type of homogenisation is to reduce the huge variability without introducing a bias - this then allows the trends to be picked out from the "noise".
It was certainly wrong of Willis Eschenbach to go shouting that he'd found evidence of data fiddling without even bothering to check up what the scientists had done. Sadly, this is not the only example of such a "mistake".
Paul
Complain about this comment
@204 i think i've mislead you- i was reffering to the use of proxy data up to ~1961, and then dropping it for station data- i think you are replying to something else- in which case i apologise for not being clearer.
basically, it's clear that the proxy data is in line with temperature data until ~ 1961, where it then diverges (in a cooling trend). My point being, if the post 1960 proxy data is included, it shows a differenet trend to the one advertised. To arbitrarily stop using that data directly at the point of divergance, but to still include it in the temperature graphs is misleading and dishonest.
i.e. either the proxy data is showing a cooling trend and is valid- or the pre 960 data, which agree's with the warming trend is not valid.
note- i am not saying here that there hasn't been a warming trend- only that this data cannot be used to support one WITHOUT including the subsequent cooling trend. I hope that made sense.
It's about data integrity and honesty.
also re:I'll confess that this was never my strong suit as a scientist, but I'm prepared to accept that the scientists do know what they're doing.
see my link #199.
it would seem the Institute of Physics does not beleive climate scientists know what they're doing. I'll take their word over yours thanks.
Complain about this comment
Radiowonk, ref. comment 190, it’s a pity that others cannot indulge in debate in such a reasonable manner instead of attacking others who disagree with their own opinions and hurling insults. The capastrophic human-made climate change debate seems to bring out the worst in people, especially those who support The Hypothesis. It’s often like trying to debate with a religious fanatic and it is noticeable how many supporters also have strong religious opinions. I have been involved with such people a lot during the past couple of years.
xtragrumpymike2, I suspect that you only took a cursory look at Chris’s blog, just as I suspect you have done at the claims behind The Hypothesis. As MangoChutneyUKOK said in comment 194 QUOTE: I fail to see how anybody can accept the word of one bunch of scientists against another bunch of scientists without at least trying to understand the issue. UNQUOTE. In your comment 79 you talk as though you have previously exchanged views with manysummits but checking through previous submissions I see that as your first comment and only see LarryKealey responding to xtragrumpymike. Why do people hide behind false names? I though at one time that you might also be LarryKealey but after a bit of research that can’t be the case – unless you talk to yourself (Note 5). JA (AKA Phoenix or cooloola or Guess Who) did that on Chris Colose’s blog..
From your comment 105 you appear to be very concerned about our impact upon the environment from mining coal and using coal. I think that many of us share such concern, but the answer is not to stop making use of this valuable resource but to mine and use it in such a manner that damage to the environment is reduced to an acceptable level. The UK depended upon coal for many decades until Margaret Thatcher decided to squash Cargill and his union empire (Note 1 - it is argued that Thatcher supported the UN-inspired myth about fossil fuels causing catastrophic global warming/climate change in support of nuclear purely for political reasons, not because of any conviction about the merits of the science - Note 2). In extracting this coal the landscape in mining areas was badly scarred but the outcome has been far from disastrous. Those scars have now been healed, replaced by sports facilities, wonderful shopping malls, etc. (a prime example is Gateshead in Tyne and Wear – Note 3).
If the political will exists any damage can be minimised and what has already been done cane be turned into something of benefit to humans. For the future, the required technology exists to mine and use coal in a clean manner. All of the pollutants (of course I exclude those essential, life-supporting substances CO2 and H2O from that category) can be reduced to acceptable levels and energy generated from the coal still remains far cheaper than any renewable alternative.
On the matter of “just a teeny bit carried away with their own importance” (comment 191) perhaps the pan calls the kettle black! (see e.g. comment 105, 117, 178, etc, - Note 4 – or Google “xtragrumpymike2”).Like myself, you can reasonable be accused of being opinionated. I (and I expect you) see those opinions as being well founded on fact, but although we differ there is no reason why we cannot exchange our opinions in a civil and respectful manner. Most of us occasionally fall into the trap of being sarcastic or insulting but not persistently. It is unfortunate that some people debate for most of the time in that manner. Two examples are JA/Phoenix (etc. etc.) and one Ian Forrester (Biochemist from Calgary), both of whom have been involved on Chris’s blog. I’m puzzled about the motives and phsychological factors driving such people and have started a thread (Note 7) discussing this if anyone cares to join in. Anyone with expertise in phsychology would be particularly welcome.
JaneBasingstoke, ref. comment 186, I comment on Chris’s blog for two main reasons. He and I had debated elsewhere in September and he provided a link to one of his own blogs (Note 6). We have continued debating on his blogs since October. That particular blog is pertinent to the debate over attempts to reconstruct ancient atmospheric composition using air trapped in ice. I make the assumption that you, like myself, have done significant research into the claims behind The Hypothesis. That being the case you must have sound reasons for believing that this reconstruction method yields meaningful results. If you don’t have then surely you should be questioning (i.e. be sceptical about) the claim that this is the “Gold Standard” for such reconstruction.
MangoChutneyUKOK, in comment 194 you quite correctly pointed out QUOTE: The only real issue in the global warming debate is whether or not CO2 is capable of raising the temperature significantly. UNQUOTE, the important word being “significantly”. That is why the debate goes round and round with no agreement. Despite what some would have us believe, the processes and drivers of global climates are poorly understood hence the enormous uncertainty that exists about future global climates. Attempts have been made by the UN and its supporters to hide the extent of these uncertainties but all of those IPCC-gates are exposing the extent of the deception. Much more research is required, along with proper scientific assessment of results, before useful conclusions can be drawn and used as a basis for policy-making.
One of those pieces of research is the CERN CLOUD09 experiments into the impact of cosmic radiation. I wonder if Jasper Kirkby was correct when he said in 1998 QUOTE: Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he'd be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun's role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature. UNQUOTE (Note 8).
NOTES:
1) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_%281984%E2%80%931985%29
2) see http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
3) see http://www.touruk.co.uk/tyne-and-wear/gateshead.htm
4) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=14200148
5) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/a_whale_of_a_dilemma.html?page=0
6) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/consequences-of-being-over-concerned/
7) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P30/
8) see http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey thanks for that link in comment 199 to the Institute of Physics submission to the Science & Technology Committee. It is excellent and I’ll bring it to the attention of my Australian and American friends.
Complain about this comment
@208. You're more than welcome.
Little gem isn't it...
Complain about this comment
#206 Pete Ridley wrote:
"Why do people hide behind false names?"
This debate (like many other debates) is deeply corrupted by appeals to authority, with people taking the word of suposed "experts", or prefacing their comments with their own supposed expertise, by saying how much they're read, what their degree is in, and so on.
In order for fellow bloggers to judge comments solely on the merits and demerits of their own content, many bloggers do not use their real names. This is also some guarantee against personation, as many bloggers spuriously adopt the name of a famous person. It isn't a matter of "hiding" being a "false" name, as I'm sure nearly all comments here are made in good faith and with complete sincerity, and their authors would proudly stand by what they say.
Complain about this comment
For those intersted, "We can't wish away climate change" - Al Gore's piece in the New York Times from Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?pagewanted=1&em
Complain about this comment
Re 35. Dr Norman Page wrote:
you simply don't know what you are talking about. The statement:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved sincethe TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 "
Is true. Look up radiative forcing. I suspect you misunderstand what that is.
Complain about this comment
Re 87. Shadorne wrote:
"Even children are aware of the obvious data issues in the temperature database relating to urban heat effect. Why are the alarmists so keen to bury this under the carpet? ... Of course this does not change the story about recent warming. However, many of the claims of of record breaking warm temperatures become highly dubious
Let's face it - there is nothing at all unprecedented about the rise in recent temperatures - the is however an unprecedented problem: fraudulent manipulation and specious alarmist statements regarding man-made warming."
What a joke. You admit that your arguments don't change the story of recent warming - which makes them irrelevant. Yet you make them anyway and conclude "manipulation" and "fraud". Amazing.
Complain about this comment
This is a classic, modern day, Emperor's New Clothes story.
The IPCC, the "consensus", the BBC and many, many governments are the Emperor and now they are standing in their naked embarassment with their hand's over their "privates" demanding a new way of presenting a new "invisable" collection of clothes.
The problem isn't the presentation - it is the utter fraud committed by the organisations involved. They are not Independent in thought or objective - as portrayed vividly by Mr Black's writing above. He wrote that the objectives should be:
"unequivocal backing for the overall conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is happening and does present real dangers to some societies"
Er, what's the point of investigating, doing science, peer reviewing, taking submissions from all camps (for instance Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts - as well as the WWF and GreenPeace!)if you have already decided the outcome?
Mr North and Mr Harrabin still haven't got it yet.
Even when Phil Jones in his Q & A with Harrabin said (I paraphrase)
i) There is no consensus
ii) There have been similar periods of warming in recent times
iii) there may have been a global Medeival Warm period (thre certainly was in USA an UK).
... the BBC still doesn't "get it".
I despair.
Complain about this comment
Royal Statistical submission to CRU enquiry
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4702.htm
extract:
9. More widely, the basic case for publication of data includes that science progresses as an ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements and that the quality of that debate is best served by ensuring that all parties have access to the facts. It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is 'correct'. The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments that have been used and not just their published conclusions. It is important that experiments and calculations can be repeated to verify their conclusions. If data, or the methods used, are withheld, it is impossible to do this.
10. The RSS believes that a crucial step in improving the quality of the debate on global warming will be to place the data, the analysis methods and the models in the public domain.
ALL submissions below:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
CONTENTS: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
00 University of East Anglia
01 Richard S Courtney
02 Edward Dilley
03 Stuart Huggett
04 Walter Radtke
05 G R Ryan
06 Geoffrey H Sherrington
07 Lalu Hanuman
08 John Wadsworth
09 Peter Sinclair
10 Ian Goddard
11 Steve McIntyre
12 Martin Brumby
13 Susan Ewens
14 Roger Helmer MEP
15 Stephen Prower
16 Eric Rasmusen
17 Phillip Bratby
18 Godfrey Bloom MEP
19 Clive Menzies
20 Dr Michael Simons
21 Aporia
22 David Shaw
23 Dr. D. R. Keiller
24 David Holland
25 Ronald K Bolton
26 Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
27 Global Warming Policy Foundation
28 Dr. Timothy J. Osborn
29 Professor Peter Cox
30 Mike Haseler
31 Professor Ross McKitrick
32 Stephen McIntyre
33 Steven Mosher
34 Professor Darrel Ince
35 Warwick Hughes
36 Andrew Montford
37 Richard Tyrwhitt-Drake
37a Supplementary
38 Dr Benny Peiser
39 The Institute of Physics
40 David Andrew Cockroft
41 Anne Stallybrass
42 Royal Society of Chemistry
43 Professor von Storch and Dr. Allen
44 Research Councils UK
45 Public Interest Research Centre
46 Douglas J. Keenan
47 Royal Statistical Society
48 Climate Change E-Mail Review Team
49 Professor John Beddington
50 Peter Taylor
51 John F Kelly
52 Peabody Energy Company
53 Richard Thomas CBE
54 Met Office
Complain about this comment
CONTENTS: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm
Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)
extract:
4.2 I was sent about 20 emails (e.g. 125655744.text, 1256765544, 12565500876, 125510086, and 125558481) that concern me or the journal E&E. I have not spent time searching for more but have followed the wide debate in several countries. (See Fuel for Thought attachment). The emails also cover events which I have followed since the late 1980s and concern people and institutions I am to some degree familiar with.
4.3 CRU clearly disliked my- journal and believed that "good" climate scientists do not read it. They characterised it as a journal of choice for climate sceptics. If this was so, it happened by default as other publication opportunities were closed to them. Email No. 1256765544, for example nevertheless shows that they took the journal seriously. An American response to McIntyre's and McKitrick's influential paper I published in 2005 challenging the "hockey stick" says, "It is indeed time leading scientists at CRU associated with the UK Met Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign."
4.4 Most recently CRU alleged that I had interfered "maliciously" with their busy grant-related schedules, by sending an email to the UKCIP (Climate Impact Programme) advising caution in the use of CRU data for regional planning purposes. This was clearly reported to Professor Jones who contacted my Head of Department, suggesting that he needed to reconsider the association of E&E with Hull University. Professor Graham Haughton, while expressing his own disagreement with my views, nevertheless upheld the principle of academic freedom. I therefore have no reason to complain against the University of Hull and I am still working from the Geography Department.
4.5 The emails I have read are evidence of a close and protective collaboration between CRU, the Hadley Centre, and several US research bodies such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where former CRU students had found employment. Together they formed an important group inside IPCC Working Group 1, the science group.
Complain about this comment
barry @ 214.
yeah, i've just started going through that myself.
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUkOk #195 RE:sensivity
Just adding that not only has the climate not been responding as would be expected if a doubling of CO2 leads to a 2.5 to 6C increase...it never has. Just doing a linear projection off of the warming period alone falls short of the 2.5C mark. Of course, with a pretty much linear increase in CO2, the warming trend would be decreasing due to the logarithmic increases in absorption from CO2. And...once anyone with a bit of sense threw in the underlying warming/cooling cycles...it becomes clear that it is highly unlikely for us to get to 2.5C even if we burned very last bit of the fossil fuels we think exist.
The actual warming trend is closer to .5C per century (measured from warming period peak to warming period peak)
-------------------------
@Paul Briscoe #201 who wrote...
"There's one important factor that your court case scenario ignores. Much of the "evidence" submitted by the sceptic side would not be admissible in a court of law because it is not even real science."
Name something that would falsify the hypothesis then...because I've been told global warming can cause it to become...drier, wetter, more stormy, less stormy, hotter or colder. To be science there need to be conditions that would falsify the hypothesis so it can be tested in the first place.
-------------------------
and in #203 wrote...
"Arguments he makes on his blog do not have to withstand peer review, whereas the arguments made by the AGW scientists do."
Tell me my oblivious friend...in what way does an open posting by one of the more well known skeptics...one which allows for comments...is Steve McIntyre immune to "peer review"? He is in fact MORE open to peer review.
RealClimate on the other hand actively removes any posts that disagree with the going dogma...and the people at real climate have simultaneously been working to curtail even the more formal process of peer review within related scientific journals. Basically they're hardly subjected to peer review AT ALL. Some in the AGW camp took avoidance of peer review to such extremes that they willfully violated freedom of information laws...and have only avoided prosecution due to a goofy loophole (the statute of limitations was uselessly short).
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #210:
An excellent article by Al Gore.
Last paragraph:
"We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them."
-----------
It seems Winston Churchill is remembered by more than a few.
The 'war-footing' I have been blogging about seems to be drawing near.
I am always required to remind myself, when I hear talk of this person's credentials or that persons', that we are in this mess after thousands of years of listening to people with 'credentials.'
It is why I have been an advocate of 'think-for-your-self.'
Why I quote the Vedic:
"In the society of men, the best man becomes a sinner."
Thinking for oneself means listening, with the mind and soul as well as the ears.
Here is Walt Whitman:
"It is native personality, and that alone, that endows a man to stand before presidents or generals, or in any distinguished collection, with aplomb - and not culture, or any knowledge or intellect whatever."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Richard, why has the BBC not commented or ran a story on the "Institute of Physics", who represent 36,000 UK Physicist.
The IOP says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible "departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity."
and
It deplores the climate scientists’ "intolerance to challenge" and the "suppression of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements."
The physics institute observes that "unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context".
I was just wondering why this story, from a legitimate and scientific body has currently got NO PRESS on the BBC website.
Oh, but then I realised that it's in the current BBC charter that man made climate change IS real and therefore 36k Physicists et al must be wrong.
Silly us.
Complain about this comment
I see many referenced scientific papers questioning the linking of temperature rise to Carbon emissions - particularly Richard Lindzen of MIT. Also paers by Christy, Ball et al from the so called "skeptic" group.
Can anyone reference the definitive "paper" that links temperature rise to Carbon emmissions?
My understanding is that the link made is tenuous and the primary driver of IPCC policy has been models, now proven to be innaccurate and manipulated.
Unless the IPCC addresses this question, it will become ever more discredited.
I wait with baited breath, but convinced my subsequent breaths do little, if anything, to make the temperature of the Earth to rise.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if Richard Black would care to comment on the accuracy of this transcription?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/27/how-to-report-climate-change-after-climategate.html
extracts below:
How to report climate change after Climategate?
These are notes taken from a discussion meeting at Oxford University on 26th February 2010 and sent to me by reader, Simon Anthony. I think they are extremely interesting.
Question and answer format featuring environmental correspondents Richard Black (BBC), Fiona Harvey (FT), David Adam (Guardian) and Ben Jackson (Sun) and chaired by Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre.
(Abbreviations: CG = Climategate; CC = Climate change; CH = Copenhagen meeting)
The full article is shall we say interesting:
an example.
Q: How to report uncertainty in, for example, Met Office forecasts? What will persuade sceptics and deniers?
BJ: It’s curious how Met Office and WMO predictions on AGW came out in the week of CH (some audience disagreement as to whether there had been a change from their normal timetable). It was at least bad timing for organisations that value integrity. They should distance themselves from advocacy. The Met Office is ahead of the science.
FH: FT readers are versed in risk and probability which are difficult to communicate in the rest of the media. Climate scientists aren’t generally newsworthy; sceptics, IPCC problems and emails are making the news. “Climate – guess what? Still changing” is an unlikely headline. A short-term disaster is needed to guarantee coverage as people aren’t good at processing information about there being no ice at the poles in 30 years. Or get David Attenborough as the front man because everyone trusts him.
RB: I agree that a short term disaster would be effective in persuading people.
The comments section are quite harsh on all of them including Richard.
But it does seem to be Emperors New Clothes all around environmental journalists:
"Fiona Harvey is quite possibly the worst of the lot, she is completely out of her depth, and like Harrabin has become too close to her sources.
A short-term disaster is needed to guarantee coverage as people aren’t good at processing information about there being no ice at the poles in 30 years. Or get David Attenborough as the front man because everyone trusts him."
You're not in PR, love."
and
"That must count as one of the most disgusting utterances by someone who is supposedly impartial:
'RB: I agree that a short term disaster would be effective in persuading people.'
So not only does the Beeb see its role as 'persuading people' rather than reporting what is happening, they wouldn't mind that human beings lost their lives and livelihoods (on a small, humane scale, naturally, ok, yah??) just to 'persuade' us peasants to trust Mann et all.
What a truly sickening mind."
it is not about the communication or presentation of the science....
It is the science.
Are all those submissions to the enquiry, deniars, scpetics, and a new one - 'climate creationists'
Institute of Physics, etc
Complain about this comment
@Curmudgeon Cynic #213
"Mr North and Mr Harrabin still haven't got it yet."
Mr North? Only climate change "North" I can think of is a sceptic.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search/label/climate%20change
Are you perhaps having citation problems?
Complain about this comment
209. At 11:37am on 01 Mar 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#206 Pete Ridley wrote:
"Why do people hide behind false names?"
[bowman's reply...]
This debate (like many other debates) is deeply corrupted by appeals to authority, with people taking the word of suposed "experts", or prefacing their comments with their own supposed expertise, by saying how much they're read, what their degree is in, and so on.
In order for fellow bloggers to judge comments solely on the merits and demerits of their own content, many bloggers do not use their real names. This is also some guarantee against personation, as many bloggers spuriously adopt the name of a famous person. It isn't a matter of "hiding" being a "false" name, as I'm sure nearly all comments here are made in good faith and with complete sincerity, and their authors would proudly stand by what they say.
-----------------end of referenced post---------------------------
@bowmanthebard
I agree mostly with this rational - but not completely.
I would add two more 'reasons'.
One, is that not all are completely sincere in what they have to say - even going so far as to make comments which they know are propaganda (like the polar bear thing...}. This group I would view to be small.
The other reason that I think would apply is that many people have jobs - and expect they may be 'in the job market' again at some point. These days, perspective employers often search the web for information regarding employment candidates. Someone who may blog on here frequently - even during business hours might be shown in the light of a) an activist (closet) or not - or be shown to be writing a lot of posts during 'business hours' - which would be a red flag to a perspective employer.
I.e., the same reason so many people don't use facebook or myspace or similar such sites...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #187
@MangoChutneyUKOK #195
Many feedbacks have inbuilt delays. And greenhouse gas emissions take time to reach and mix into the upper atmosphere where they have the most effect.
Some examples of feedbacks with inbuilt delays
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/26/antarctica-iceberg-global-ocean-circulation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8437703.stm
And of course, the tree growth problem associated with "divergence". The very scientific papers that undermine tree ring contributions to Hockey Sticks also show a drought based positive feedback. Less tree ring growth. Less CO2 absorbed.
From D'Arrigo et al 2004 (the paper used by IPCC AR4 to explain that tree ring based Hockey Sticks might accidentally hide the MWP):
"Thresholds for warming-induced growth decline at elevational tree line in the Yukon Territory, Canada.
A few tree ring studies indicate recent growth declines at northern latitudes. The precise causes are not well understood. Here we identify a temperature threshold for decline in a tree ring record from a well-established temperature-sensitive site at elevational tree line in northwestern Canada. The positive ring width/temperature relationship has weakened such that a pre-1965 linear model systematically overpredicts tree ring widths from 1965 to 1999. A nonlinear model shows an inverted U-shaped relationship between this chronology and summer temperatures, with an optimal July-August average temperature of 11.3°C based on a nearby station. This optimal value has been consistently exceeded since the 1960s, and the concurrent decline demonstrates that even at tree line, trees can be negatively affected when temperatures warm beyond a physiological threshold. If warming continues without significant gains in effective precipitation, the large-scale greening of recent decades could be replaced by large-scale browning. Such browning could slow or reverse carbon uptake by northern forests."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
Complain about this comment
Wow, Richard's got some chutzpah ...
He says: "That, I suggest, would be a mistake. Many commentators sympathetic to the organisation have insisted in recent months that it could do with a dose of reform; so why not have reforms recommended by a review that aims for a constructive outcome, rather than by a host of unsympathetic and unaccountable bloggers whose scientific or pseudo-scientific utterings are sometimes impelled by political theologies?"
"unsympathetic" - aaah - diddums, poor IPCC.
"unaccountable" - erm, I assume you are including yourself here, Richard.
And I'd love to know your definition of "pseudo-scientific".
Is it where you twiddle your models to make them fit the data, per chance?
Or is it where you claim "really-scientific" work has been done when it hasn't?
Or it is where you can claim to have 'experimental' data, when no experiments can possibly have been done?
Methinks it's all of the above.
Paul.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
to re-iterate my post at 199
EVERYONE MUST READ THIS
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Complain about this comment
#219 Robert Leather wrote:
"Richard, why has the BBC not commented or ran a story on the "Institute of Physics", who represent 36,000 UK Physicist."
[...]
"I was just wondering why this story, from a legitimate and scientific body has currently got NO PRESS on the BBC website."
As far as I can see, it has also been ignored by the New Scientist, and the rest of the mainstream media, probably because they all share sentiments like these:
"The 'war-footing' I have been blogging about seems to be drawing near." (manysummits #218)
I do hope the mainstream media will start taking their pills again and stop this Charles-Manson-style "helter-skelter" lunacy. I find it quite disturbing, frankly.
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #206
Pete, it's one thing a group of sceptics coming along and dominating a public service thread like the BBC's. It's quite another an individual sceptic coming along and hijacking an individual's Wordpress blog.
There is nothing in Colose's response to you on the given thread that looks like "Hi Pete, I don't have enough ideas for my own blog, can I have 50+ posts from you please".
You don't just fill up some of Colose's threads with your very long winded posts. (57 posts by my count on a 143 post long thread.) You slap down other commenters when they want to talk about Colose's article directly instead of your take on it.
And don't say "Andrew, but not one of your claims backed up with evidence. Please let us all in on your secret sources." was a joke. The sheer volume of your posts turn it into de facto moderation.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #204 (excerpt)
I'll confess that this was never my strong suit as a scientist, but I'm prepared to accept that the scientists do know what they're doing...... and the fact that the articles I linked to indicate that the overall effect of the adjustments used is neutral tells me that the scientists have indeed got it right.
The whole point of this type of homogenisation is to reduce the huge variability without introducing a bias - this then allows the trends to be picked out from the "noise".
-------------------end of excerpt-------------------------------
@Paul,
First, the 'noise' and variability represent the dynamics of the system - it is not noise, but unmodeled dynamics of a non-linear system. To suggest that 'we can eliminate the noise to reveal trends' is ridiculous. I may provide something a climate scientist can look at and 'ah-ha' - but in reality, it is meaningless.
Taking a look at trends, one only need alter the timescale to see a whole variety of trends - which show totally different 'trends'. Sure, you can (cheery pick) your time period and then select your data and show a trend - but it has no real meaning in the real world except to say that for this (short) period of time, there was a generally upward (or downward) trend. Due to the nature of the system, this does not imply that the trend will continue, and if you expand your timeperiod, you will find that the trend may look quite different.
This goes back to the fallacy we discussed previously - the idea that the chaotic dynamics of the system can be 'eliminated' like so much noise to reveal the (true) underlying data. This approach, while it might give a climate scientist what they want to see, is mathematically incorrect in studying the dynamics of a chaotic dynamic system. I.e. - what is called noise, is the important part of the chaotic dynamic system.
Secondly, these corrections applied to the data (too correct obvious bad temperature records - due to failure of equipment, etc) or missing data is all done with statistical algorithms or relatively simple extrapolation/interpolation techniques - again, not valid with regards to climate and/or weather data.
One of the (more) interesting projects I worked on during my career was the development of weather and climate databases and models as well as a number of analytical tools make decisions.
Back in the 90's, I was doing work for a company which was the first to offer 'climate options'. As an example, say you have a gas distribution utility in the mid-west. That utility can determine very precisely exactly how much money they will make or lose depending upon the winter temperatures.
To understand this, I need to introduce a simple concept - 'heating degree day' (there is also a similar concept called 'cooling degree day which is used by electric utilities'). Basically, we call the 'ideal' temperature 68F. So, if the outside temperature is 68F, people do not use any heat, and the utility sells no gas, and loses money because of fixed operating costs.
So, to calculate the 'Heating degree days' for a winter, one takes the average of high and low temperature for each day - lets say for a particular day in Indianapolis, In., the average temp was 38F - that means that on that day, there were 30 'heating degree days'. For the winter season, the heating degree days for the whole winter are added to obtain the total for that year. Simple enough, right.
Well, the utility knows exactly how many 'heating degree days' are required in the winter to break even - and exactly how much money they will lose for each heating degree day below that - and how much they will make for each heating degree day above that for the season.
The first, and most simple climate options we began selling (climate options can get much more complex and encompass a great many other aspects other than temperature) involved the target market of gas utilities.
Basically, we would talk with them and they might average 5,000 heating degree days over the course of a winter - and 4,000 is the break even point for them. As there is always considerable variability, for them its a crap shoot until the winter is over.
So we would sell them a climate option (derivative) which says that basically, for every heating degree day less than 4,500 for the winter, we will pay you $500 (or $5,000 depending on the size of the utility). If there are more than 4,500 heating degree days in the winter - we pay nothing, and they loose their premium. Basically, this is a hedge (or insurance policy so to speak) for the utility, to 'lock in' minimum profits.
I was the project manager for this program. Initially, it involved collecting a great deal of climate and weather data, cleaning it and loading it into a database. On my team, in addition to a couple of good programmers, were a meteorologist (PhD), climate scientist (PhD), technical analyst (also a PhD) and statistician.
We obtained climate data from a number of sources - for North America, dating back over one hundred years. This included temperature records (in one section of the database, this was hourly data - where it could be obtained), precipitation, humidity, pressure, winds, snow cover, etc.
Even with 'cleaned' data, purchased from over 20 sources, plus what was available from NASA and other government organizations - there was a great deal of missing and anonymous data. While for some missing data and time periods, we could obtain data from 'nearby' weather stations - but even those had to be 'corrected'. For other missing or anomalous data, the only solution was to fill in and correct the data using a variety of statistical and approximation theory methodologies.
This was 'phase I' of the project, so to speak. The second phase was to develop analytical and decision making tools for use in analyzing the data and assist in pricing options and making trading decisions. These included not only statistical methodologies, but also a variety of models and a number of analytical tools for analyzing trends and other aspects of the data (i.e. - can we say that if the winter is typically cooler in this region or subregion, is it generally warmer in other regions or subregions...). We also implemented a whole slew of accepted mathematical methods related to approximation theory.
As we began 'teaching' the traders to understand and use these tools, a division in the ranks arose. The PhD's on the project put too much stock in the decision making tools we had developed and I was very concerned from a 'risk management' perspective.
The rift went all the way up to the President of Reliant Energy Services and included the SVP for Risk Management. My issue was a concern over exposure - which the PhD's on the team didn't view as a problem. My argument was that these techniques are not going to give us viable predictions for the next winter - nor for the next five or ten winters (as many of the options were multi-year options.
To sidebar a bit - we have all heard of huge losses related to derivative trading. These losses stem from not having what is called a 'fully hedged' portfolio. For a simple example, suppose you think that the price of oil is going to go up - you buy a call option, so you can buy it at the current price and sell put options at a higher price - so when it goes up, you make money on the call options - and if it exceeds the price on the put options, others get to buy oil from you at the put option strike price - saving them money from buying it over the exchange. However, if this little 'book' is not hedged, and the price goes down, you lose a lot of money. So, you hedge those bets with buying puts to cover your calls. This is really insurance - it limits your losses, it also reduces your upside potential a bit, but guarantees that you won't lose your shirt.
I won the battle, and we found ways to ensure that our climate trading book was fully hedged. In fact, in many cases, we set things up so that we would make money regardless of what the weather did.
The point here is that the 'statistical' and 'approximation theory' methodologies employed here do not apply to weather and climate. It is a chaotic dynamic system.
As another simple example, perhaps to make it clearer. Consider flipping a coin 500 times. Lets say after 250 tosses of the coin, the last fifteen have come up heads and overall there have been 65% heads and 35% tails. This actually tells you nothing of what the next coin toss will bring. The odds of heads or tails on the next toss are still 50%. And keep in mind, that statistically speaking, this is a well behaved system - unlike the Earth's climate system.
In addition to temperature climate options sold to companies like gas distribution utilities, we expanding into a great many other businesses, including agricultural business with regards to temperature and precipitation (which affect crop yields) and a dozen other applications.
The databases, analysis and analytical tools were useful in creating baselines, statistical techniques were useful in creating standard distributions which both assisted in pricing of the options, but without fully hedging the portfolio, we would not have made money - probably lost a lot of money big time.
Points being: first, there is no good (really accurate) way to 'correct' temperature (and other climate) data. Second, while statistical and approximation theory methodologies have some value, it is not for predictive purposes, nor in defining long term trends. The short term trends do not represent the core dynamics of the system - it is really the 'noise' as so many like to call the chaotic manifold of the system which is truly important. Sort term trends are just that - again, look at a different timescale and you see a different trend...
On a related note, consider the Farmer's Almanac. It has been around since 1781 (I believe the date is correct, or at least close - check for yourself). The Farmer's almanac has been accurate 80% of the time since them. While they are very secretive regarding their methodology and how they make their predictions - my understanding is that they use a great many 'indicators' for the current and previous several years and a number of equations to make their predictions for the coming year. These are all derived from natural phenomenon - observation and empirical data. They have been using the same methodology for over 200 years - and it works. They do better than the Met office, NOAA, NWS, NASA or anyone else - even though the latter have all the 'super scientists' and 'super computers' and models.
It is a great many interrelated cycles within cycles, which all come together to drive the climate system. We know of some of these cycles, but our understanding is very limited, additionally, there are many cycles within the system about which we are currently unawares.
As a final observation related to the Farmer's Almanac - if AGW was 'true' and CO2 the main climate driver - then one would expect the methodology used by the Farmer's Almanac to become increasingly inaccurate over the last 50 years - this has not been the case.
There is so much more we need to learn...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
To xtragrumpymike2 @ 178:
You wrote:
"I can understand why a lot of ordinary people might choose to "hate" McIntyre if they were made more aware of his associations. In particular *but not exclusively) his association with the George C Mitchell Institute (GMI).
That Institute advocated strongly for the Tobacco Industry and the CFC industry as well as the anti-AGW lobby.
Which brings me to the main point.
There are many on this "blogsite" who claim to be "environmentally conscious" but "sceptical of AGW.
How can one be "environmentally conscious" and support the continued use of tobacco or call on as "expert" witnesses or credible scientists some one like McIntyre who associates with organisations that do."
--------------
Then there is this, just in:
"220. At 1:29pm on 01 Mar 2010, Hobliminal_Ibloid wrote:
I see many referenced scientific papers questioning the linking of temperature rise to Carbon emissions - particularly Richard Lindzen of MIT."
-----------
Richard Lindzen lobbied for the tobacco industry, de facto, at any rate, did he not?
Four decades of disinformation on tobacco!!!
And now climate science.
Mike - you appear to me to be hitting on all cylinders with your latest posts - my congratulations!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@Barry Woods #221
The term "climate change creationist" is an attempt to get rid of the unpleasant d word for those on the AGW side that wish to distinguish between Richard Lindzen and Ian Plimer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/04/climate-change-creationist-denier-sceptic
Personally I find the term clumsy. It comes with its own problems. And it hasn't caught on.
Complain about this comment
re no 40. SR wrote:
"This has been possible with radiative forcing models because we KNOW the amount of aerosol, CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and have a time series for these that corrosponds to global temperature (going back a good few decades). This provides very, very good confidence that the warming in the past 100 years could not be anything other than the CO2 produced by man (as CO2 went up from 288 to 388ppm)."
Nope! The IPCC report goes on to say that the man-made CO2 gives rise to a radiative forcing of 1.6W/sqm. The problem is that 1.6W/sqm is just too small to give anything like the observed temperature rise.
Complain about this comment
I believe a video may be made of this
As Richard and possibly Roger Harribin were there, would they be able to verify this?
it will be interesting to see the general publics take on it:
How to report climate change after Climategate?
Feb 27, 2010
These are notes taken from a discussion meeting at Oxford University on 26th February 2010 and sent to me by reader, Simon Anthony. I think they are extremely interesting.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/27/how-to-report-climate-change-after-climategate.html?currentPage=3#comments
One particular comment at Bishop Hill struck me.
"DA: We can no longer call people deniers. We need a new term. Some people have suggested “climate creationists”.
FH: Sceptics were clever in choosing their name. We do need a new name, denier won’t work because of Holocaust associations."
comment: (some language removed to get past the bbc)
".... So David Allen of the Guardian indicates that he can't call people deniers because of holocaust association. Gee thank the maker you've got political correctness infused into your blood David, otherwise I might take offense. Then of course, he says someone suggested, "Climate Creationists"... which makes no sense at all. I take from this sentence that David Allen wants to insult people who think freely, but wants to be sure he doesn't do so in a way that might be politically distasteful for someone else who might be offended at references to the holocaust.
And then of course, Fiona Harvey comes out and says skeptics were clever in choosing their name. Yes, everyone, we've been so clever to call ourselves deniers because now we've left the Politically Correct Elite Journalists no choice but to abandon the name"
Personally I am very sceptical now of the AGW (lack of) science.
Insulting me, and others is not going to help anybody..
I have more science and computing qaulifications than those BBC people.
Please stop being an advocate, this is not the bbc's role...
Richard in the above article:
"What we can expect from it depends on its precise terms of reference. But conclusions we might expect, I suggest, would include:
unequivocal backing for the overall conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is happening and does present real dangers to some societies "
"Climate-sceptical" organisations may already be in ecstasy about a process that - they will argue - may bring down the IPCC, and by extension block political moves towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
why the hypebole - 'Climate-sceptical' - not scientists with a differing viewpoint (the bbc knows there are many)
ecstacy - implying what exactly, joy, gamesmanship - evidence that some of what they have been saying for years has been vindicated (ie Phil Jones interview.
I think what the BBC need to consider, is that perhaps, they have gone 'native' got far to close to the groups lobbying for agw.
As we have seen any environmental journalist that does not play ball, can experience the 'big cut off' from the scientists involved, a tactic the climategate emails showed they used on journalsas well..
In that transcript, the only journalist, who seems slightly sceptical and more intune with the general public is the Sun reporter. of course he hasn't been lobbied so hard,as the bbc, guardian and ft will have been on 'environmental issues..
His driver has now heard of the medieval warm period - Good
Phil Jone has now admitted (unlike the debunked 'hockey stick' ipcc/mann graph) thatthe medieval warm period was possible as warm , or warmer than today - Good
we would not have heard this prior to 'climategate'
And definetly, the bbc would not have investigated this and found this out, because for the bbc the science was settled.
Complain about this comment
#225 paulnaj quoted:
"a host of unsympathetic and unaccountable bloggers whose scientific or pseudo-scientific utterings"
This would seem to suggest that Richard Black has got some opinion of his own on the difference between science and pseudo-science. Yet as far as I recall he has never volunteered any hint of his understanding of this absolutely crucial distinction.
So, Richard Black, care to volunteer your opinion now?
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #223
@Pete Ridley
@bowmanthebard
Legitimate reasons for office hours posts by the general public affecting people in the job market.
1. Shift work / late lunch / tea break
2. Unemployment
3. Leave / Holiday
4. Different time zone (some people posting here are based in the Americas or in New Zealand)
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits,
First, Happy Birthday and congratz.
I do think you will find Sun Tsu to be quite enlightening. I have always found The Art of War to be one of those books, from which, I learn something new with each time I read it...
Might I also recommend Chaos: The Making of a New Science, by James Gleick. Again, something you will find both interesting and enlightening. It does include a good deal about chaos theory related to climate modeling. And provides an easy to understand primer to chaos theory with lots of easy to read anecdotal stories - and easy read.
Yesterday, on your birthday - I did managed to jump out of a plane (a bit sore today..;). It was a beautiful clear sky, about 64F on the ground and 25F at altitude. I opened up my parachute ten seconds out the door and enjoyed the view for about 20 minutes on my way down. It was so clear, you could see for 50-70 miles. All of the Galveston bay complex, all of Houston and down the coast to Matagorda Bay, some 70 miles away. I really needed it - serious attitude adjustment.
Regarding 'alignment' with what you refer to as 'contrarians' - in some respects, true, but not in all matters.
For example, on this thread, as with many others, there is always the argument between temperature driving CO2 or CO2 driving temperatures, also the argument of forcing caused by CO2 directly as well as forcing associated with feedback from CO2. With both sides 'accepting' the idea that feedback from CO2 forcing is some multiplier (constant) times the natural log of ration of CO2 concentrations. This is also what we get from IPCC as well as so many 'peer reviewed' papers. The arguments tend to be around whether this feedback is positive, highly positive or negative. And the CO2 driving temps vs. temps driving CO2 is just back and forth arguement...
My own view is that all of the above can be true (although I would also add highly negative feedback from CO2 forcing to the mix) - all dependent upon the state of the system. In other words, whether feedback associated with CO2 forcing is positive or negative depends upon a great many interrelated factors (I have not seen this theory widely promoted in the literature). The same for temperatures driving CO2 or vice versa.
Clearly, in my view (and I believe many others), the oceans are both sources and sinks related to CO2 in the atmosphere - but I believe the equation is more complex than the temperature, salinity, etc. of the surface waters and partial pressure of CO2. It is something that we really don't know enough about to understand at this point.
So, I am skeptical. I think I have a good enough grasp to understand just how little we know about Earth's Climate System, to realize we are fooling ourselves with the arrogant notion that we can make predictions or projections or whatever you want to call them. We really know so little.
Another aspect is, of course, the computer models - which I am sure you are well aware that I have no faith in whatsoever related to predictive nor projective capabilities.
Let us consider another problems - weather. Everyone makes the distinction that weather is not climate - and while that is 'true' - they are both manifestations of the same thing on different timescales.
Just for fun, lets look at weather modeling. There has been a great deal more research and development done with regards to weather modeling than 'climate modeling'. What we find with the weather models of today is that when one is run, it produces a 'forecast' based upon running the model, calibrated with the 'current conditions'. Tomorrow's forecast from such models tends to be fairly decent. However, very quickly, the prediction of the model diverges from what happens. The forecast for seven to ten days from such models is generally worthless.
This type of divergence of a model of a chaotic dynamic system from nature is the norm, rather than the exception.
Now consider that, in theory, predicting the weather for ten days from now is a much simpler problem than predicting the climate for 50 or 80 years from now. We have invested much much more effort and work and understand weather dynamics much better than the Earth's Climate System - yet, the best models we have diverge from reality very quickly and are basically worthless past a 2 or 3 day horizon.
So, why would one place such confidence in these climate models? Couple this with the apparent sloppiness of the modelers (climate scientists) with regards to their work and their data and the lack of transparency and well...it will, in my view, take a long time for any sort of credibility to be restored to the 'science' - and only if many 'eat a lot of crow' along the way and start being realistic and open about uncertainties. Uncertainties are all we really have at this point...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
I now know, thanks to 'climategate' the lack of science and the disaster that is the IPCC grey literature. That AGW theory is completely discredited.
I do not fear for my childrens future, due to ANY man made co2 emission,
No doubt the bbc will think I am some sort of loon for saying this. (but I've got 2 science degrees Mister Black), and a decade in professional software devlopement, unlike geography students, writing scientific code - Tim Mitchell - Harry_Read_me.txt
I do not fear for my childrens future, so why am I still annoyed at the bbc.
Real disasters in the world,
tsunamis (due to eartquakes)- 250, 000 dead,
haiti, 200,000 dead
Think of the money WASTED on AGW theory, that could help real people, and real environmental issues.
Too late for these people though, lookk what the alrmists are doing.. (scaring people - as bad as those doomsday cults centuries ago.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
Baby survives parents' global warming suicide pact
A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.
However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father's handgun missed her vital organs.
Police were alerted by worried neighbours who discovered the massacre three days after the shooting and the girl was taken to hospital.
The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.
Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
A word on temperatures and proxies. First, I would state that all temperature data is recorded from proxies. When you look at an old mercury thermometer - you are looking at a column of mercury (the proxy) which expands with increasing temperature - and when calibrated, gives you a temperature. You are not actually measuring temperature directly are you? You are measuring the expansion of mercury and using it as a proxy for temperature. Can you agree with that statement?
In terms of the science - when we look at temperature, what is it we are really trying to understand? It seems to be, with regards to global warming, our concern is the actual 'heat content' of the biosphere (atmosphere and oceans), rather than 'temperatures'. I mean ultimately, the earth is getting warming if the heat content is rising, and cooling if the heat content is declining.
Given this - one thing that has always troubled me regarding the 'Earth's Temperature' is what does that exactly mean? How is it calculated? Can you define the 'temperature of the earth' for me?
We use a variety of instrumentation to measure temperature, both from ground stations as well as from satellite. But how do we say what the temperature of the earth is? Temperature is in fact a proxy for heat content - which is dependent upon factors other than temperature.
In my skeptical view - we don't even (today) have a 'good' way to measure the 'temperature' of the earth, and as instrumentation has changed (and each instrument has it's own biases - as evidenced by assertions of pro-AGW scientists that many of the newer weather stations have a 'bias' for reporting cooler temps...) - we really cannot even reconcile the last 40 years of data to within a margin of error of say less than a quarter of a degree. When considering that estimates are that temps have risen 3/4 of a degree in the last one hundred fifty years - thats a pretty big margin of error - just for the period of 'satellites and newer instrumentation' - forget about all the old thermometers...
Oh, I have seen the 'temperature of the earth' - there are several websites which post it daily. But it appears that this is derived from a number of point measurements, most of which are on land and at ground level (be that sea level or 5000 ft...). Considering that almost 3/4 of the planet is covered by water - with very few recording stations - and the fact that the oceans are very great heat sources and sinks - full of thermoclines, currents, cycles and so much more about which we know so little - I have to be skeptical of this temperature value.
Additionally, with regards to debate on GW - again, are we really talking about temperatures, or using those as a proxy for heat content. Ultimately, it is the energy equation of what comes into the Earth's Climate System vs.. What goes out that drives heat content. Take the thermosphere - the temperature in the thermosphere is much greater than at ground level, but the heat content is much smaller (due to density and pressure).
Just playing devil's advocate here, to give an inkling of 'what we don't really know, nor have a clue about' as opposed to what we do know...
Your thoughts? Not trying to bait you here, honestly...but your opinion, rather than someone else's...please.
Regards.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@xtragrumpymike re: Coal/mining, etc
Regarding the environmental impact studies and lawsuits related to building of coal plants vs. windmills. First, let us separate the plant from the mining of coal - and allow me to address each individually.
First, your typical large coal plant in the US is situated on ten to twenty acres, has 3-5 high tension right of ways leaving the site to put power on the grid, and includes a storage area for toxic ash. The point was made by yourself and bowthemanbard (I believe) regarding this horrible toxic ash - two points: first, those pollutants are scrubbed from the coal as it is burned - to keep them from being released into the atmosphere. I believe (and some of this is already being done) that more and more of this ash will be mined, and things like mercury and other heavy metals extracted for commercial use in the future.
But secondly, compare this with nuclear power. Spent fuel rods (many times worse than the ash from a coal plant) must be stored indefinitely. With no real plan for disposal of same as of yet (nor anything really viable on the drawing board). Some of this stuff will be really bad for 30,000 years or longer...thats a lot longer than civilization has been around...
But both can be stored, in confined areas, rather than released wholesale into the environment.
Looking at windmills, you don't have that issue, but it takes a whole lot of windmills to produce the amount of power from a single coal plant, 50,000 acres worth or more. They all have to be re-enforced structures, many times bogs and wetlands must be filled. Roads must be built to handle very large trucks and equipment to service all those thousands and thousands of windmills. Then, you have to have lots and lots of right-of-ways cleared for all the wires to bring that electricity to the grid...then there is the noise and bird factors. Point being, there are significant ecological and environmental impacts of windmills - yet very few challenges are made in court to block them, as opposed to the almost complete moratorium on new coal plants enabled by lawsuit after lawsuit by NGO's in the court system - utilities just give up.
Now, lets consider coal mining. For this purpose, we shall separate the two issues raised: open cast mining and coal mining accidents (underground mining).
First, I have seen an open cast mine - it is not pretty. However, here in the US, before permission/permits are granted, environmental impact studies must be done in great detail - and a complete remediation plan must be presented. I have also seen retired open cast mines here in the US, after 5 years, you can still tell something happened there - but it looks like it was previously logged clean, after 20 years, you can't even really tell. I admit this is a contrast to 50 years ago, but it is the way it is today in the US.
Compare this with open cast mining for gold in Kalimantan. Right now, they are mining a 4000 ft mountain, to which it took two years just to build a road to. This mountain will be completely leveled and never restored to its original state (or near its original state). They do not have the environmental regulation and monitoring we have here to ensure tailings, etc are properly dealt with.
So, your argument against coal mining appears to be driven of a hatred of coal (irrational in my view) rather than a disgust for open cast mining. If you are against open cast mining, you should be against ALL open cast mining.
What about Uranium mining - again very dangerous, much open cast, some underground. Add to the dangers of typical mining, the radioactive nature of the desired product. While, the radiation hazard in the mine is pretty low, it also means that a vast amount of ore must be extracted and processed and re-processed in order to obtain a small amount of usable fuel. Processing of the vast quantities of ore in centrifuges is also very dangerous work, and the waste not pretty.
Now, mining underground. Mining has always been and will always be a dangerous business. The US has come a very long way in making it as safe as possible for the miners. You speak of Chinese miners dying in coal mines - but honestly, does it matter what kind of a mine the miners die in? Again, you appear to be using the 'dangerous mining' argument against coal - which, in my view is quite unfair. If you are so concerned about mining and the dangers involved, you should be against all mining, not just coal. Oh, and btw, compared to the deep gold, silver and diamond mines in Africa, coal mining is relatively safe.
Again, with regards to mining, it boils down to adopting, implementing and enforcing the 'state of the art' in safe mining techniques.
So, let me ask - are against a complete moratorium on ALL MINING? If not, you are using coal mining as nothing but a silly argument to support your anti-coal position. An argument which many people may buy on the surface, but which, under scrutiny, does not hold up unless you are against all mining, in which case, it does nothing to the coal argument.
I will iterate - I view both coal and nuclear as 'stepping stones' and nothing more. I look to a day, 50 or 60 years from now when our baseload energy needs are provided by fusion, perhaps geothermal, electromagnetic and perhaps later gravitational and others...
With all our energy sources today, it is a trade-off, everything is. We have made great improvements with regards to coal use and the environment. The only argument which I have seen that cannot be overturned is the CO2 issue - and for that to hold water, you have to believe it is a pollutant and drives the climate system. I do believe CO2 is a pollutant, nor do I believe it is the first order driver of the climate system.
Why, when we have invested so much and made such improvements to coal as an energy source, should we abandon it for windmills?
Would our monies not be better spent helping China and India modernize their coal facilities and bring them up to today's technolgoy?
Even if your big thing is CO2 - you have to realize that shutting down all the coal plants in America is not going to have an impact on CO2 emissions world wide - they will continue to rise dramatically. Nuclear fusion in 50 years will - and in the meantime, spending the money on making china burn the coal cleaner (removing heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, etc) would be a lot better for the environment.
It is all trade-offs. I am optimistic about the future and not alarmed by the present. (except for the rabid alarmism - that does alarm me...;)
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Nice to see a tiny move towards objectivity from the iceberg that is the BBC's environment department. However, you need to look at some of the information that is coming to light about the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Some great data recently on www.wattsupwiththat.com for people who want to see some objective commentary on the quality of the data we are relying on.
Just as importantly, we need some debate on the political and economic response to the actual (not hyped) amount of AGW that is happening. Bjorn Lomborg for IPCC President!
The IPCC and its reports are an international disgrace to both scientific rigour and economic thinking.
Complain about this comment
for the record.....
I do not smoke, never have , hate it, it killed my grandfather...
Strange, I somehow still do not believe in AGW theory....
I must surely be unique...
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
You wrote:
There are many on this "blogsite" who claim to be "environmentally conscious" but "sceptical of AGW.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In all fairness, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think that you do recognize that I am environmentally conscious - and skeptical of AGW.
I don't think anyone who has read my posts could fail to believe that I am deeply concerned about a host of environmental issues - such as 'traditional pollution', overfishing, decimation of rainforests, etc...
There are also many on this (and other blogsites) who don't think for themselves, refuse to believe anything that does not come from their 'desired' source...on both sides of the issue.
Also, to be more concise - I do believe man has had impacts upon the climate. However, I think the more significant impacts have come from land use, rather than CO2 emissions. If one wants to look at correlation associated with warming of the last one hundred and fifty years - our ability to drastically alter land use has occurred over the same time period - and has accelerated greatly in the last 40-50 years...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Xtragrumpymike @ #178 & Manysummits @ #231
Mike,
Your comment about Steve McIntyre's links was something I hadn't seen, but it is extremely important as it explains an awful lot. Consequently, I started to read up a little.
Just to be clear, it's the George C Marshall Institute that both McIntyre and McKitrick have close ties to. The GMI has received over $700,000 from Exxon Mobil over the past few years and is chaired by a former official of the American Petroleum Institute. McKitrick is listed as one of the main people for the GMI. You are also correct in saying that the GMI was previously involved in attempts to discredit science linking smoking with cancer.
However, what I hadn't realised was the extent to which the Bush administration appears to have worked with McIntyre and McKitrick over the Wegman report, which was very critical of Michael Mann (whilst the American Institute of Science report was not). I suppose it shouldn't come as any surprise, as it's now well known that President Bush and his team were trying to surpress evidence of AGW.
There is an excellent account of all of the above in the following 2 articles:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/#comment-2241
http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/
I had always suspected that McIntyre and McKitrick had motives beyond simply getting at the "truth". It is now abundantly clear to me that they have no interest at all in the truth - they merely want to discredit the science of AGW.
Paul
Complain about this comment
#230 LarryKealey wrote:
"As a final observation related to the Farmer's Almanac - if AGW was 'true' and CO2 the main climate driver - then one would expect the methodology used by the Farmer's Almanac to become increasingly inaccurate over the last 50 years - this has not been the case."
Why? -- What if their methodology was de facto linked to CO2 levels, even if they didn't know it? For example, suppose one of their indicators for the following year's temperatures is the yield of cranberries in New England lakes, and suppose that unbeknownst to them, cranberry yields are in fact sensitive to CO2 levels.
Furthermore, doesn't a trend (upwards or downwards) makes prediction less of a crap shoot? (I mention this because it makes the UK Met Office even more culpable in its wrong-again long-term weather forecasts!)
Complain about this comment
#236 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Legitimate reasons for office hours posts by the general public affecting people in the job market."
I post most frequently when I have something else particularly urgent and therefore onerous to be getting on with. The joys of being self-employed!
Complain about this comment
@Jane,
I do grant you that there are legitimate reasons for posting during 'business hours' - just stating it is another reason that many people might not use their real name, as I do.
I spent the last dozen years as an independent consultant - I avoided things like myspace and facebook for that reason. Also, as an employer, I would want someone focused on 'my problems' rather than obsessing over climate change...
Not arguing with you - just a different perspective.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Just listened to the 5 minute report on Radio 4. Another white wash.
Essentially, there's lots of criticism from some very major sources. But the BBC only reported on Lord Lawson.... not the IOP of the RSC. Oh... and it's still 90-95% sure that humans ARE causing it.
Nice one.
Any chance we could get a balanced view from the BBC for a change on this subject. How come the scientific criticism wasn't highlighted? Why are we only given Lord Lawson as an example of somebody who is critical of the science carried out at the CRU?
The whole affair disgusts me.
Could you explain to me why the head of the IPCC (Rajendra Pachauri) also serves on the board of a major oil company? A company that has seen increases profits directly as a result of the increase in price of fuel due to environmental concerns.
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #237:
Thanks for the goodwishes, and congrats in return on your 'jump.'
I used to skydive myself, back in 1969/70.
I can't emphasize enough the fact that models and atmospheric physics/climate/weather science is not what is driving all of this.
It is the Earth's paleoclimatic history, being revealed in greater and greater detail, and the current Earth observations - the empirical evidence - that the Earth is abnormally warming vis a vis the Holocene and the Pleistocene.
I learn on this blog - many things - including, just now, how essential it may be to promote and advertise the points I just mentioned.
Of course, for a true skeptic, this will not be decided quickly.
I am working on something I hope to present soon on this weblog, my own re-assessment of the situation, and believe it or not, your input is helping.
One of my mountaineering partners is professor emeritus of chaos theory, signing mountain registers "Dr. Chaos."
I have only a superficial grasp of the subject, and could never devote enough time and energy to it to improve mightiliy on it.
I imagine the same might be true for yourself and others as regards geology and the deep past - greenhouse extinctions etc...
This is a specialized and complex society we have created, and trust is going to make or break us.
I will post a link to an article sent to me this morning by a younger mountain partner, a physicist with a strong enginneering bent, who likes to fix up large telescopes and mine data banks:
"Born to be Good"
by Dacher Keltner (2009)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/books/chapters/chapter-born-to-be-good.html
Regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Larry Kealey @ #230
Larry, your points are interesting, but I don't think your arguments are actually relevant to this issue.
First of all, I think we may be talking about slightly different things. What I am talking about here is not reducing "noise" due to climate variability, but errors due to changes in measuring techniques and stations. Also, we are possibly discussing different things in as much as the actual temperature data for a specific area are distinct from the "adjusted" data used to calculate the global mean. This may be the chief source of confusion.
This article at Realclimate covers aspects of the problem:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/#more-2351
The article shows a worked example using some of the CRU raw data, comparing it to the "adjusted" CRU data for global temperature. As you can see, the mean of the adjusted data corresponds almost exactly with the mean for the raw, proving that there is no bias in the adjustment process.
You may also note a link to another look at the data by an independent molecular biologist:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
The conclusions are the same.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@Barry Woods #234
"video may be made of this"
That might deal with a problem with the transcripts, no voice tone or body language. Without which some of the things said could be misinterpreted.
Complain about this comment
@Jane #161:
Jane, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at there - perhaps we're at cross-purposes?
Nonetheless, I was trying to point out that, to a non-critical reader, the message that the IPCC report conveys is possibly somewhat different to what the authors of the original report intended.
Complain about this comment
#240 LarryKealey wrote:
"You speak of Chinese miners dying in coal mines - but honestly, does it matter what kind of a mine the miners die in? Again, you appear to be using the 'dangerous mining' argument against coal - which, in my view is quite unfair. If you are so concerned about mining and the dangers involved, you should be against all mining, not just coal."
I think you're addressing my remark here, which was made in support of nuclear power.
To answer your questions: no, I don't think it matters what kind of mine miners die in, but I think the fewer the better, and I'd be prepared to argue for more open cast mining if it's a trade-off between some ugliness and pollution versus men's lives.
My original point was that nuclear power is better than coal power, partly because we need to use technology to advance it, and partly because I think the consumers of power should share some of the risks of extracting it.
I'm not arguing against all use of coal, just saying it's time to move on -- but not via wind power, which doesn't look at all promising to me. I'm also appalled as a British person that our traditional enemies the French have completely overtaken us in the area of nuclear technology. I think that is much more likely to be something that future generations blame us for than global warming.
I think I am "against all mining" in the sense that eventually I hope robots will be able to do it without much risk to human life or quality of life. All of these judgement-calls involve trade-offs between competeing goods.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #185:
Oxygen is continuously being consumed on a planetary scale, by oxidation, respiration etc. However, it's replenished in the atmosphere mainly by conversion from CO2 by plants, phytoplankton etc.
I don't know the ratios, but it seems plausible that increasing CO2 levels may well lead to a faster rate of O2 replenishment.
Complain about this comment
@Paul #200:
"Anecdotal evidence of a particular region being warmer at a specific period does NOT provide evidence that the Earth as a whole was warmer at that time."
Perhaps not. But how likely is it that large and/or widespread areas of the northern hemisphere were anomalously warm for long periods, without general warming or some planetary-scale forcing (eg long-term shifts in ocean currents)
It's not JUST global average temperatures which can cause problems - it also depends on where the anomalies are strongest. For example, if the average global temperature was low, but polar temperatures were high, you'd get more melting of the ice caps than you would if it was the other way around. So yes, local anomalies can be important.
Complain about this comment
@Paul #203:
"Incidentally, are you sure that any sceptics would WANT to post on Realclimate? On the contrary, they will always choose to post where they are sure of a good reception."
I've posted, or at least tried to post, on RC more than a hundred times over the years. I can probably count the number of those which weren't deleted on the fingers of one hand.
And I know that I'm not alone.
Complain about this comment
#250, Paul Briscoe wrote:
“
As you can see, the mean of the adjusted data corresponds almost exactly with the mean for the raw, proving that there is no bias in the adjustment process.
“
This does not prove a lack of bias.
Adjusting recent temperatures up and historic temperatures down does not affect the mean but does affect the trend.
Complain about this comment
@MS #231:
"How can one be "environmentally conscious" and support the continued use of tobacco"
What on earth has tobacco use got to do with the environment?
Winston Churchill smoked a cigar - should we not have listened to him?
A great many world-renowned scientists and physicists smoked. Are we to pass them off as cranks?
Guilt by association now, is it?
Complain about this comment
@Paul #203:
"just think how much warmer it is in the night when there is a reasonable amount of cloud cover"
How much of that is down to clouds, and how much is down to increased humidity? The fact that that particular effect is far less profound in arid regions of the world (and I've had personal experience of that) seems to suggest that the latter is greater.
Another few points:
1) This effect existed long before the industrial age, so it's probably not accurate to call it a 'feedback'
2) A cloudy night which follows a clear day is much warmer than one which follows a cloudy day. A cloudy day is also much cooler than a clear day.
3) It's very subjective, in that high humidity makes one feel warmer, due to less evaporation. There's also less evaporation from the ground to cool things down.
4) The effect is far less pronounced if it's windy or raining.
5) In tropical regions, it generally gets very hot and close before a storm, usually before a single cloud appears in the sky. This is humidity.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #145 #252
(@Myself #161)
OK, badly worded, start again.
Your paraphrasing in #145 is accidentally misleading.
In its original context, a discussion about climate, "slight reduction in precipitation" referred to climate. I.e. "slight reduction in average precipitation".
However, when paired with a statement about a "prolonged and severe drought", it appears to mean a "short and mild drought".
Also there was more in Nepstad et al 2004 that you missed out. Including
"This study points to the widespread effect of drought on Amazon forests, and the vulnerability of Amazon forests to small declines in rainfall or increases in ET [evapotranspiration]."
(This was relevant because your IPCC quote referred to "slight reduction in precipitation")
and
"The increase in forest flammability associated with severe drought poses one of the greatest threats to the ecological integrity of Amazon forests."
(This was relevant because your IPCC quote referred to forest being "transformed into savannah").
Complain about this comment
RobWansbeck @ #257
"This does not prove a lack of bias.
Adjusting recent temperatures up and historic temperatures down does not affect the mean but does affect the trend."
No, that is certainly NOT what has been done. If you go back and look at the Realclimate article you will see the graphs compare the mean global temperature over time as plotted from the raw data compared with that plotted from the adjusted temperature data - if they were doing what you suggest the 2 data sets would diverge over time. The fact that they do not proves that no bias is being introduced.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Peter317 @ #255
"But how likely is it that large and/or widespread areas of the northern hemisphere were anomalously warm for long periods, without general warming or some planetary-scale forcing (eg long-term shifts in ocean currents)"
Based on the available proxy data it is not clear that they were. The data suggest quite wide temperature fluctuations even during the period when the MWP is supposed to have occured.
Long term shifts in ocean currents might well be expected to result in some areas being warmer while others are colder, but seeing we don't have records that far back, speculation is probably pointless.
"It's not JUST global average temperatures which can cause problems - it also depends on where the anomalies are strongest. For example, if the average global temperature was low, but polar temperatures were high, you'd get more melting of the ice caps than you would if it was the other way around. So yes, local anomalies can be important."
That might be the case, but again it's speculation. The big difference with the present situation is that we know the Earth as a whole is warming up.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@156 and @163 Paul Briscoe:
Your post at 163 including the link to scholarsandrogues doesn't inspire confidence, as this page trots out the same old nonsense about the hockey stick. See e.g. my posts at 101 and 52.
And as for your New Scientist quote that tries to paper over the temperature->CO2 time lag in the ice core record (156), that too is less than convincing. No one is saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. It's just that the evidence doesn't support the contention that it is a significant driver of climate.
Complain about this comment
peter317 @ #256
"I've posted, or at least tried to post, on RC more than a hundred times over the years. I can probably count the number of those which weren't deleted on the fingers of one hand.
And I know that I'm not alone."
I am aware of that Peter and I agree that it doesn't help the image of Realclimate with many sceptics.
They are clearly trying to stimulate discussion of the real scientific issues and my guess is that they found a large volume of posts from sceptic bloggers was making this impossible. I don't wish to sound patronising (and I admit that I sometimes don't follow everything they're saying), but a lot of people posting on the internet clearly do not understand the science anything like as well as they think.
The AGW scientists have become very tired of defending themselves against the same old arguments. I can see their point, but I can also understand why it annoys the sceptics.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Re:-
253. At 6:53pm on 01 Mar 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#240 LarryKealey wrote:
Larry.......some time ago you posted a comment along the lines "If not coal....then what?"
By the time I got back to that post, Richard had moved on and it wasn't appropriate to comment then. As you know I don't appreciate ANYONE changing the topic just to drag up "Climate Change".
But my answer to your question would have been and is now
"Anything but coal.......PROVIDING it is appropriate!"
The first and last words being equally important.
No matter how much you defend coal as an energy source, and no matter how much you state that technologies have improved significantly to which (as a chemical engineer/technologist from the Polymer Industries) I am in total agreement with you, coal is NOT environmentally "friendly".
I would also concur that "American Coal" generally speaking is far "cleaner" than "Chinese Coal".How much do we think about that when we buy an article with a "Made in China" label? China, where as you put it the lessons learnt in the West re-coal and the advancements made in that technology, is still using "dark ages" technology.
However, in recent years I have been very involved in the Global Harmonized System for Hazardous Substances which requires management of same "from Cradle to Grave".In this context, we would evaluate the environmental impact of "coal" (if it were identified as a "hazardous substance" (which of course it isn't) from the moment that mining (in whatever form) begins to the moment that ALL waste products from power production (flue gas emissions and waste slags etc) have been "environmentally disposed of.
History is History and the WWW has much information on the "history" of coal and the West has learnt a lot from the lessons of the past BUT still COAL is NOT clean and any further technological improvements start to push the Law of Diminishing Returns.
At which stage coal ceases to be "cheap" compared to other forms of energy.
Today we are also seeing moves to use even "dirtier" forms of coal. Oil sands of Athabasca for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athabasca_oil_sands.jpg
And here in NZ South Island Lignite deposits.
Using Cradle to Grave accounting (money this time) these materials will not be "cheap".
So...back to my "anything but coal ....provided...."
There are many alternatives and not every option is appropriate to every Nation or every locality within a Nation.
The link I posted re;- Australia suggests that APPROPRIATE technology is available there to supply 100% energy demand WITHOUT coal. (ten years seems rather hopeful)
Here in NZ we have little reliance on coal already and politically Nuclear is not an option (David Lange, NZ Prime Minister, Oxford Debate, "I can smell the uranium on your breath!") Other technologies are being actively pursued.
Far be it for me to suggest what direction UK should move but maybe they took a wrong turn when they wrote off Nuclear. Germany too. Maybe too much "Green" influence!
I agree totally that Wind Farms are not the solution on their own for the reasons you quote Larry but the NIMBY syndrome plays a big role here too.
I also note, Larry, from your CV (yes I had noted your years in Consultancy) that you have worked for such as Duke Energy who also have portfolios in Nuclear and CCS, and also you have worked for Ibadrola (is that the correct spelling) who have strong portfolios in "alternative energy". If we were to ask these companies questions such as "what alternatives would THEY propose for moving away from fossil fuels and coal in particular, what are the pro's and cons, and what are the time frames?" then we might come up with some professional answers.
The World needs energy and demand is increasing.
Electricity companies supply that energy BUT I would suggest that HOW they supply it is to a certain degree irrelevant. Whether they use coal or nuclear or whatever is appropriate in their locality, they will still be in business to supply energy. However, it is obvious that changes won't occur overnight.
Now, my BIAS. As a Chemical Engineer/Technologist, trained originally in the Polymer industries (I attended the first specialist College set up in North London in the early 1950's) the world today is heavily dependent (and will be more so as population increases and lifestyles particularly in the East improve) on Synthetic Materials. Just look around your own homes and local environment.How much is man-made material? How much plastic is in the computer you are using? etc etc etc etc.There is renewed interest in Plastic Houses to match the increasing demand for "cheap housing".
Where does it come from, what are the basic raw materials that supply the simple building blocks that result in the complicated end products?
Fossil Fuels...................predominantly OIL. However we can also start with coal!
Why burn such a valuable resource?
Maybe the demand in that direction isn't there now but the day will come when it is!
Maybe that is perceived as "TOO FAR IN THE FUTURE" for those with a heavy financial interest in using the "stuff" today.
Would be interested in your comments (provided we leave the dreaded CO2 out of it)
Now it's time to feed the chickens. No Olympics to watch.
Complain about this comment
@200 Paul Briscoe:
If you think the Medieval Warm Period wasn't a global phenomenon, check out CO2science's Medieval Warm Period Project. You may find the venue distasteful, since it's overtly a sceptic site, but please don't shoot the messenger. It collects together the results of dozens of peer-reviewed studies across the globe that provide in many cases quantified evidence of elevated temperatures, likely above those of today, at around the same time. There's an interactive map, but it was crashing my browser so take care!
Specifically in relation to your claim that "critically, there is no clear evidence that the Southern Hemisphere was warm at the same time", can I suggest you look at the South America and Aus/NZ pages? You are entitled to disagree, of course, but this looks to me very like a collection of studies showing empirical evidence of a MWP at very similar time to that observed in the northern hemisphere.
As to whether "the proxy data of Mann et al 'ignores' the MWP and LIA", I refer you to my earlier posts (52 and 101): the methodology used by MBH and similar studies all "mines" for hockey stick shaped graphs - i.e. ones with a present rising trend different from the long-term picture - and has been shown (by your bête noire McIntyre - sorry! - but also others) to produce a hockey stick from red noise (continuous random data) 99% of the time. They are not trustworthy studies.
Complain about this comment
@Paul
Please don't point me to an article from 'climategate' or whomever - please, argue your own opinion. I believe my points from the previous post are quite relevant, if you don't - the state why - in your own words and thoughts. My opinions are my own and are not just regurgitations of some opinion article on a blog site...
Actually, to me, it is two differing issues - see my previous post to Manysummits regarding the issue of temperature recording stations, corrections, etc. And please, provide YOUR opinions on the matter, rather than just a couple of lines and a link to some propaganda website (be it either side of the issue...).
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul #264:
"They are clearly trying to stimulate discussion of the real scientific issues and my guess is that they found a large volume of posts from sceptic bloggers was making this impossible."
Oh, please! At RC you regularly see comment threads which consist almost wholly of ad hominem attack, political comment and other non-scientific junk. Yet, because the messages are 'on-side', they get to stay.
"The AGW scientists have become very tired of defending themselves against the same old arguments."
So why do they run a blog then?
And, from what I've seen, running RC must be pretty much a full time job for Gavin et al, which can't leave them much time to do much 'AGW science'.
BTW I had to chuckle when I saw you referring to 'AGW scientists', as if there's a discipline called 'AGW science'. (I wonder where I can study for my AGW PhD)
By the same token, Einstein must have been a 'relative scientist' then ;-)
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
I am pleased that I can/am of assistance regarding your project. Here is a website where you can find some more help, should you desire, perhaps additional debate, input and insights...
http://skydivernetwork.ning.com/profile/CrazyLarry
It is not a 'propagandized site' related to climate change, but there is some good discussion related to clouds to be found within...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@xtragrumpymike
Regarding coal/mining/nuclear, etc - I think there is a lot we agree upon.
I do think that, in terms of total impact, Nuclear is actually worse than coal - for a number of issues. However, regardless - I view both as necessary 'evils' for the next 50 years - until we can deploy fusion and other next generation sources of energy.
There are trade offs with both, and very difficult (without a hundred or a thousand years hindsight) to really argue best/worst.
Right now, my view is another serious round of development / deployment with both - and transition to fusion, geothermal others over the next 50 years...and we move on, to better energy future...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Jane #260:
Jane, I think we're still a bit at cross-purposes. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, before we end up confusing each other to death ;-)
Complain about this comment
Peter317 @ #259
"How much of that is down to clouds, and how much is down to increased humidity? The fact that that particular effect is far less profound in arid regions of the world (and I've had personal experience of that) seems to suggest that the latter is greater."
Humidity would be expected to have an effect too as it is a local greenhouse effect, but the point I'm making relates to this:
http://www.shorstmeyer.com/wxfaqs/am_temp/lowtemp.html
Clouds both reflect and re-radiate heat back towards the Earth's surface.
You might also want to take a look at this, which explains why clouds can have both positive and negative feedback effects (see bottom of page):
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/greenhouse_effect/01.html
These are definitely feedback effects IF the warming effect of carbon dioxide does increase cloud cover (which it might not!).
Paul
Complain about this comment
RE:-
258. At 8:08pm on 01 Mar 2010, Peter317 wrote:
@MS #231:
"How can one be "environmentally conscious" and support the continued use of tobacco"
What on earth has tobacco use got to do with the environment?
Actually, chum, quite a lot.
When I was a very young fellow in the UK I too used to smoke as did Winston.
Not only was it considered "fashionable" then it was also promoted by the Tobacco Industry (quite strongly in fact ) as being what we would today call "Cool!" You weren't considered grown up unless you couild "foot it" with adults who smoked!
All propogande put out by the Tobacco Industry to promote sales and hence profit.
THat was 60 years ago!
Today we know differently.
If Winston were alive today and Prime Minister he would probably be concerned of the cost of smoking to the budghet for the NHS.
Today we know that tobacco combustion results in a raft of noxious products, many of which are carcenogenic. Some of the "smoke" goes into the lungs of the "smoker" some goes into the atmosphere at large, ie The Environment.
It may not seem as large as the "industrial pollution" we all harp on about but it is pollution none the less and more importantly in confined spaces. Hence legislation re-smoking in workplaces etc.
Not only that, but, believe it or not, when the problem began to be realised, the Tobacco Industry fought heavily to defend itself. They spent vaste sums of money in the process (they could afford to from the massive profits from selling tobacco). Much of that money was spent employing so-called "experts". Those same "experts" were later to be found supporting the CFC Industry and believe it of not they are to found as "experts" who support the anti-AGW lobby.Fred Singer is one such person whose name gets mentioned in despatches on this site.Then there's the George C Mitchell Inststute. Others mentioned regularly on this site have had close associations with that Organmisation.
Not surprisingly you find their names on the list mentioned in the link in post #102 from Barry Woods.
Se Post 244. At 5:40pm on 01 Mar 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:
Xtragrumpymike @ #178 & Manysummits @ #231
etc
I judge a person, not on what he says, but the compnay he keeps.
Let me remind you of a comment I posted earlier, a quote from an American Diplomat.
"Where a person stands on a topic depends on where he sits"
Another comment I heard recently:-
"We all have the right to our own opinions but that doesn't include the right to be taken seriously!"
Complain about this comment
@xtragumpymike wrote:
I also note, Larry, from your CV (yes I had noted your years in Consultancy) that you have worked for such as Duke Energy who also have portfolios in Nuclear and CCS, and also you have worked for Ibadrola (is that the correct spelling) who have strong portfolios in "alternative energy". If we were to ask these companies questions such as "what alternatives would THEY propose for moving away from fossil fuels and coal in particular, what are the pro's and cons, and what are the time frames?" then we might come up with some professional answers.
------------end of excerpt-------------------------------
@xtragrumpymike,
Much of my opinion is related to and formulated by long discussions and working with these people - Duke, Iberdrola, Reliant, Texas Genco, CAISO, Texas ISO, Phibro Energy, others.
Regarding time frames, as I stated previously, I think a 50 year horizon is good for a major transition away from fossil fuels anf fission for baseload to fusion and geothermal - perhaps others. Which would suggest another round of coal and nuclear plant development (the next 20 years - to last the next 50...). I think many in the industry would agree with this.
BTW, everyone I know associated with generation companies or independent system operators (ISO's - who managed the electricity grid) hates wind power.
As for cradle to grave - I agree with you to an extend. However, I do believe that at the end of the day, cradle to grave for coal is much much cheaper and less potentially environmentally damaging than nuclear.
I am not suggesting we don't continue nuclear - quite the opposite, but just as coal 'necessary evil' to move us to the next level...
We need to do it - and to coin an old navy term: "Smartly" - which does not imply intelligence or smart - but 'get it done' and 'get it done right'.
It will take time. We can stop an implement short term 'interrim' solutions which are not up to par, very expensive, unreliable and not viable for the long term - like wind, solar and tidal - or we can focus on the right path - use the 'cheap energy of today' and focus our monies and efforts on the 'real' next generation.
Interesting to note, it is expected that a US lab will produce the first fusion reaction which produces more energy than required for initiation next month - a big stepping stone and makes the possibility of elimination of fossil fuels for most mainstream energy applications a very more real probability in the 40-50 years.
Oh, and BTW, Duke does not have any real portfolio (other than propaganda / greenwash in CCS). Their whole focus for the last eight to ten years has been on the nuclear portfolio and betting on cap and trade. This was the motivation for the merger with Cynergy and the spin-out of their Natural Gas Companies - now called 'Spectra Energy'. They have bet a lot on 'free carbon credits' - but even if it doesn't happen, they are in a good energy cost position because of all the nuclear assets they own.
Iberdrola was predominantly hydro when I did work for them - after the merger with Entessa (it was called Entessa for a couple of years after the merger, now they have gone back to the name Iberdrola). At Iberdrola, there was great concern about declining hydro - not just seasonability, but also because of environmental concerns and many people's desires to remove dams from many waterways. Their focus at the time as to establish a trading platform for western continental europe, and later expand to england and Morocco - and become a trading hub for electricity - particularly french Nuclear...I could go on...
People I know at both Texas Genco and the Texas Independent system operator (ISO) have grave concerns about continued development of additional wind power. The feeling is that from a reliability perspective, forget cost - the grid and management capabilities are saturated and at the point of compromising reliability. Then there is the cost - not only is wind power very expensive, but it also drives up the cost of everything else put on the grid...more explanation if desired...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Re:-
Se Post 244. At 5:40pm on 01 Mar 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:
Xtragrumpymike @ #178 & Manysummits @ #231
etc
Precisely Paul.
Just in case you didn't read #273, check out the list from Barry Woods post #104
As they say, "The plot thickens"
There's SERIOUS money involved (ask Ghost)
Cheers
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
While I am not a big fan of 'spectator sports', especially stuff like football and baseball - I was enthralled by the Olympic Hockey (and enjoyed a lot of the winter [extreme] sports).
My hats off to Canada for this one - Hoo-Raw - but my hats are also off to the American team - whom no one though had a chance to even make the quarterfinals - and MVP - US Goalie...
All in all, an awesome game, with nothing but winners walking away - and I AM VERY HAPPY that Canada walked away with the gold. After that game, I think it would not have mattered to me who took the gold or silver, everyone on both teams certainly earned it...winners all around.
Enjoy the month long party in Canada that I know is already underway...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Peter317,
"Oh, please! At RC you regularly see comment threads which consist almost wholly of ad hominem attack, political comment and other non-scientific junk. Yet, because the messages are 'on-side', they get to stay."
You are, of course, entitled to your view. However, as I see it we have a fundamental problem in this debate. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree with AGW - each and every one of them has made an informed decision based on the facts. Meanwhile, the majority of bloggers are not qualified scientists and many use arguments which are fundamentally flawed. The bottom line is that the comments which you class as "on-side" are generally based on sound science, whereas those that get deleted are not!
I'm not saying that is the approach I would use, but I can certainly understand why Gavin Schmidt might consider it necessary.
Incidentally, I see far less evidence of "ad hominem attack, political comment and other non-scientific junk" on Realclimate than on most other blogs.
You obviously see things from a different perspective, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Paul
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #239 re: "temperatures and proxies"
Yes, I will answer - in my own words.
I have just come to the local library west of me, and I took the long way round, over Coyote Point, a small patch of Chinook grassland on the southernmost flank of the larger Signal Hill.
There are no coyotes here anymore - I haven't seen the pair of frolicking adults for whom I named this vantage point in years.
But the ostentatious multi-million dollar mansions are still here, looking down on the distant core of Calgary far to the northeast, and below, to the southwest and across the Elbow River, one can see Sarcee Hill, preserve of the Tsuu T'ina First Nation.
Their hill is still covered with a verdant carpet of coniferous trees - there is not a dwelling in sight. And behind Sarcee Hill, the Rocky Mountains, at this time still mantled in winter white, shining in the Sun.
-----------
To work:
Of course I agree - temperatures as measured are proxies.
Had you seen our discussions many months ago, you would have seen first myself, then I believe simon-swede and davblo2, posting on exactly this point.
But being proxies does not of itself negate or diminish their value.
Flying an airplane (I am a pilot), one's airspeed indicator and altimeter are proxies, and yet we routinely stake life and limb on them, caveat emptor. Instrument flight is more or less dependent on a variety of proxy information - quickly dead is the pilot who flies by feel in a whiteout or in stygian darkness.
Likewise for an illimitable number of other endeavors, including spaceflight. But I need not enumerate further, I trust.
Now - the heat content and temperature of the planet, from the top of the atmosphere to say, the depths of the oceans, as conventionally measured.
The energy balance, or imbalance of the planet is the key measure, so I am told, and so I believe. As you allude, there are many and disparate ways of measuring this and that, each with their own scientific problem areas.
As for instrumentation and measures of this sort, I would immediately resort to 'convergent lines of evidence,' exactly because of the problem areas you imply.
These convergent lines of evidence are many, I think, more than I can quickly list here, not being a professional climatologist. But a few, off the top of my head, seem to me important.
The land-sea temperature record (UK Met Office) and the GISS land-sea temperature anomaly record seem to agree well enough, and indicate that as far as can be seen, temperatures are rising since the period of record - say the last 130 years. On the order, as you say, of three-quarters of a degree. Significant only at the statistical level, as day to day, day to night, season to season and even hour to hour temperature fluctuations can be many times this number.
Is the statistic significant?
I think so - emphatically.
Are there other lines of evidence?
Yes - the height of the atmosphere - so I am led to believe.
Others - yes - the melting of the world's ice - for all intents and purposes everywhere.
Others - yes - the rising level of the sea - according to James Lovelock 1.6 times the rate of rise 'predicted' by the IPCC model.
Is this unusual - yes.
How so?
It is consistent apparently, with our current understanding of the physics of the thermal expansion of the sea under increased heat content and under the influence of the melting of the world's above sea level ice, which has been independently measured, itself, in a number of ways, including on site field studies, long term records, and satellite measurements of various sorts, including laser-type altimetry and gravity - and many others which escape my short-term memory.
How does this recent suite of measurements look in the longer term perspective - when there were few, or no instrument records?
To paraphrase Churchill: I will answer in one word - Geology!
Can we profitably discuss this here - not really. -the subject is huge, and the province of the specialist. We could really say the same for climate science - though we have made a feeble attempt.
Which brings us to T-R-U-S-T
Who to believe? We have been taken for a ride by so many, for so long, that trust is at an all-time low, to exagerate a little for effect.
I am reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" at your prompting - and I am reading of the Confucian 'jen' at the prompting of my new mountaineering partner.
Curiously, both of these ideas, or ways of knowing - of desribing the human condition, were written in what some refer to as the Axial Age - a time of strife, of rampant materialism and war.
This sounds eerily familiar - like now!
Perhaps we could profit by reading both Confucious and Sun Tzu together?
Back to the present:
The blogosphere is new, and as Marshall McLuhan once said, "The medium is the message."
Are we to conduct high science here, on this weblog?
I think not.
What then?
With 6.8 billion people - there is potential for new ideas - for new insights. And with such platform as as Wikipedia, Google etc ad infinitum, there is for the first time the world's archive of the world's knowledge available for - almost all.
Let's think here in cyberspace - and bandy about.
Let's learn to distinguish between real ideas and skepticisms, and hidden agendas - vested interest - and the reason a world so rich is so poor.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
News from the CRU inquiry:
"Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research."
This is what distinguishes climate science from every other scientific discipline.
"He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it."
So much for rigorous peer review then.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey @ #267
Larry,
You will have noticed that I also linked to an article from someone totally unrelated to AGW who found exactly the same thing. However, if you're never prepared to read anything from Realclimate, which is, after all, run by the people doing the science, you'll never learn much about what they actually do.
Personally, I know my own limits and openly admit that I do not fully understand the complexities of the calculations that are being done to arrive at the adjusted temperatures. Nor do I really have the time to spend studying them in the detail necessary to do them justice. So if you are really interested, I suggest that you go and read the scientific papers that describe what has been done. If you find a flaw in them perhaps you should write a paper!
There are two things that matter here. The first is that the methods used are clearly laid out so that anyone with the necessary competence can repeat them. The second is that the methods used manage to bring all of the raw data together in a way that corrects for the problems associated with sampling changes whilst avoiding introducing bias.
The REAL difference between us is that I actually have faith in the scientists to get it right (and let's face it, others far more competent than you or I will have checked).
Paul
Complain about this comment
RE:-
270. At 10:33pm on 01 Mar 2010, LarryKealey wrote:
Fair enough. I can certainly agree to differ where we do differ on those points and I'm in no position to debate on the "science" as I have stated many times.
My gut feeling is that coal technology for energy is getting towards it's "use-by date" and Nuclear (where it's appropriate) in all it's forms has not had sufficient attention paid to it as a result of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.I see that US is "proposing" to reduce it's "nuclear" arsenal. Should make a lot of "fuel" available for future advanced nuclear technology!
But, as you say, we are stuck with the current situation for a while (I hope it's less than your 50 years...........not that I will be around then).
My own experiences in technology leads me to confidence that there will be many advances in all forms of "alternatives". I just hope the "decision makers" make the most appropriate choice.
I won't hold my breath.
Incidentally, in my post #265 (mainly for Bowman) the extra words need to be added manually an accurately otherwise you just end up back at Wiki!
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey - just to clarify - I think you missed a word (bolded), but I want to be sure?
Thanks:
You wrote (in two blogs):
-------------------------
"I think that you do recognize that I am environmentally conscious - and skeptical of AGW."
"The only argument which I have seen that cannot be overturned is the CO2 issue - and for that to hold water, you have to believe it is a pollutant and drives the climate system. I do [not ?] believe CO2 is a pollutant, nor do I believe it is the first order driver of the climate system."
----------------
I think the above two statements are crucial.
It all boils down to CO2 in the Anthropocene, doesn't it?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
TexasFrank @ #266
I am already familiar with CO2Science and we have discussed it on a previous blog.
I have a number of problems with the site. First of all, it is part-funded by Exxon Mobil. Second, it's important to note that the scientific papers quoted are not actually part of a formal study - they are papers which CO2Science has sourced for itself from the archives and used in its own way. Having looked at a number of the papers chosen at random, it is clear that quite a number have no formal data - just heresay evidence at best. Finally and most importantly, CO2Science have made no effort to explain how they have taken this "evidence" and turned it into actual data.
So I'm afraid that I'm not very impressed at all and certainly wouldn't attach any significance to it unless they can come up with a peer-reviewed paper describing the methodology.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Just read Larry #274 .............after I posted #281!
Thanks for that Larry.
Complain about this comment
TexasFrank @ #263
"Your post at 163 including the link to scholarsandrogues doesn't inspire confidence, as this page trots out the same old nonsense about the hockey stick. See e.g. my posts at 101 and 52.
And as for your New Scientist quote that tries to paper over the temperature->CO2 time lag in the ice core record (156), that too is less than convincing. No one is saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. It's just that the evidence doesn't support the contention that it is a significant driver of climate."
Well, there are 2 sides to the "hockey stick" argument as well....... and if you read my post regarding McIntyre and McKitrick's links to Exxon Mobil and the obvious interference of the anti-AGW Bush administration, you'll perhaps start to get a slightly different perspective. Steve McIntyre's own work on the hockey stick graph has also come in for criticism...... so this certainly isn't a simple matter of Mann being wrong!
Now turning to the other matter of carbon dioxide FORCING. This "CO2 follows warming" is the most common argument I hear being put forwards by sceptics and it is a complete red herring. It is one commonly used by Lord Monckton, amongst others.
This, I think, is the argument you're making (apologies if it is not):
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
In fact, this argument is quite correct...... as far as it goes! In past interglacials, CO2 would be expected to follow warming because the CO2 is lost from the oceans as they warm (CO2 is less soluble in warm water). There is a slight lag because it takes a long time for the huge bulk of the oceans to turn over fully. One final point on this is that it's important to remember that the total amount of CO2 in the system (air, oceans and biosphere) remained roughly constant.
The above scenario does not apply to the present situation because Man is adding EXTRA CO2 to the system. Even at the start of the industrial age, CO2 levels were already close to the maximum for recent interglacials. So now CO2 levels are much higher than they have been in at least the past 600,000 years (and probably a lot longer) and they are rising much more quickly. In this case, it is clearly not warming oceans driving up CO2 levels. Rather it is Man-made CO2 driving the warming due to its greenhouse properties.
If you think about it, it is actually completely empirical..... I just hope that I have explained it clearly!
Paul
Complain about this comment
Re:-
276. At 11:08pm on 01 Mar 2010, LarryKealey wrote:
"- I was enthralled by the Olympic Hockey"
Me too, but my partner has close associations with Canada ( A son and daughter plus family there not to mention having lived there earlier herself) So I am biased (where I "sit" etc)
I was also watching NZ beat Ozzy at cricket........not quite so "fast moving" as Ice Hockey but it was also a "nail biter that went to the wire in Xtra time in much the same way.
However, in both cases, both teams came out winners in the sport.Not to mention the people watching. Fantastic entertainment value. A win win situation all round even though the rules required an "ultimate" winner.
Pity we can't go for that, here on this blog site. Sometimes I feel we get close.
All the best to both of you.
Complain about this comment
ManySummmits
Like you I learnt to fly. I had a pilots licence before I had a car licence. Just worked out that way, I was an Air Force cadet at school.
As a student I couldn't afford to keep flying so I took up sailing.
Today I own three (yes three) GPS for navigation.
The "powers that be" tell me I need to be competent in the use of the sextant to obtain my "official" Ocean Yachtmaster" certificate. for which I need to attend a 2 week course, half of which is devoted to the THEORY of celestial navigation and NONE to the practical use, partuicularly out there when my yacht is pitching about like a rodeo bull.
They tell me that the sextant is always there to rely on if the GPS system fails for whatever reason.Traditionists agree.
They have no answer to the questions "what happens if I drop my sextant and damage it while trying to take a site in a force 5 WIND? or some such similar accident. They remind me that the sextant was the tool of choice for many centuries. They forget that the Maori arrived here without any such tool.
Several years ago I flew in to Dubai airport (by Emirates....not my own plane!)
The fog was so thick I couldn't see the wingtips through thw window.They landed the plane via remote control from the ground. They certainly didn't use a sextant.
The point?
Sextants are ancient technology, excellent in their day.
But this is the 21st century, so I rely on modern technology and the potential for technological advances yet to come. Therein I agree to a very large extent with Larry.
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
Thank you. I am very happy that we realize so much common ground, at at the same time are agreeing to disagree and debate in a respectful way. I would enjoy providing input to your endeavor as well as providing some devil's advocate perspectives...you can let me know anything I can do through the website I had listed....
I am glad you are appear to be enjoying Sun Tzu. I do know who Dr. Chaos is - though not sure he knows who I am...'Crazy Larry, CRW Dog'.
In any case, I must run to pick a buddy up at the airport - so respond later. All the best.
@xtragrumpymike2
Agreed. And Thank You Very Kindly.
BTW, I was with a buddy of mine, a Welchman in an English Sports Pub for the Hockey Game and saw NZ beat Ozzy at cricket. It took me quite a while to figure out cricket - but its an interesting game. Caught the big rugby match Saturday morning (here) like rugby better than American Football...
More later - but quickly, by 50 years, I am talking about the energy generation and transmission and distribution infrastructure through all of the west, and a great deal of the rest of the world (even where hardly exists today) being completely upgraded. The emphasis being almost all electicity in the West will be nuclear fusion and other non-combustion technologies, such as geothermal or even farther down the road, electromagnetic, gravitational and one day perhaps anti-matter.
But 50 years is realistic for the 'next generation' - lead by fusion to displace almost all coal and nuclear fission in the weat...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@extragrumpymike,
please let me know when you want to fly under a parachute, opening fourteen thousand feet in a clear sky and fly it ten miles, to land next to the target...be happy to take ya...
My kinda flying.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Peter317 wrote: News from the CRU inquiry: "Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research."
Yeah. Peter you are right on the money! Alarmist man-made global warming is like a Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme. Of course, a con artist NEVER releases data or methodology or opens themselves up for scrutiny...a ponzi scheme is a fraud that is based on TRUST and they don't want to lose it - so big publicity campaigns and lots of convincing ad hominems is all you will ever get from con artists.
If you alarmists trusted the IPCC, RealClimate blog and all the others on the thermageddon bandwagon, such as Richard Black and the BBC and many Westerm Governments then you have been had!!!
Time folks for you to Wake up - your tax money was just fleeced to finance a bunch of con artists! And you thought you were "saving the whole world" - gee - how cute and noble of you greens! The con artists certainly found gullible victims and fleeced them for all they were worth.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #200:
Tree rings, at least in Calif., are considered excellent proxies for precipitation (rainfall) on an annual basis. How can a one dimension measurement be a valid proxy for 2 variables simultaneously?
Also, you challenge my surmise on temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere. Is there any evidence to show that the S. Hemisphere did NOT warm (MWP) and cool (LIA) at pretty much the same times as the N. Hemisphere? Strongest evidence IMO for MWP is ability of Viking settlements in Southern Greenland to grow crops to feed themselves for about four centuries, ending circa 1420AD. They abandoned their colony a/c summer growing seasons had become shorter and cooler for several years. Admittedly, abandoned Viking farms don't provide accurate temperature indicators.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
Kealey;
Interesting comments! If you want a peek at something that may begin providing fusion power planet-wide within 5 years instead of 50, have a look at focusfusion.org .
Imagine all the issues that will impact. Make sure you sit down, first!
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #280
"The REAL difference between us is that I actually have faith in the scientists to get it right (and let's face it, others far more competent than you or I will have checked)."
I would hazard a guess as to say that the vast majority of the people that rely heavily on fluid knowledge say the hypothesis of substantial AGW is garbage. The fact that it is being pushed as anything close to a fact stabs at the core of their (intellectual) being.
The hypothesis of substantial AGW is only believed because it takes up more conceptual space than the majority of people (including many scientists) have. People simply oscillate back and forth between several incomplete core concepts but cannot hold enough concepts to see that while the correlations (loosely) work locally, they do not work in a compatible way.
For instance, while the earth's sensitivity to changes in radiation balance during the glacial-interglacial temperature ranges is clearly high, it is clearly different now. The main glacial-interglacial transition feedbacks are essentially saturated. Any investigation of the ice core record shows this drastic change in behavior. But here we are...debating sensitivity.
If we switch to the concept of CO2, the ice cores again show that CO2 forcing cannot possibly be powerful because the climate reapeatedly does an abrupt about-face on temperature within the glacial-interglacial temperature ranges...which shouldn't be possible when the CO2 levels were in the process of increasing or decreasing when temps went the wrong way. The changes should be softened by CO2 unless something else is FAR more powerful. Oh sure, on a large graph that doesn't show the 800 year lag...it looks like a great fit, but CO2 in the ice cores is really more like a proxy.
Then people get stuck with their "the science is settled" nonsense and think just because CO2 can absorb IR that it MUST translate to warming. They look at the recent increase in temperature, which started LONG before any significant CO2 increases. Then assume that since the recent (30year) warming was faster than CO2 forcing should be capable of...that sensitivity MUST be high. They ignore the climate's (low feedback) behavior over the last 10000 years and instead go to the mentally convenient glacial-interglacial transition sensitivities.
And/or...they look at the ice core record for CO2 and assume that CO2 must have been driving temperature because they're somehow related...ignoring the fact that CO2's behavior ONLY fits with the glacial-interglacial transition sensitivity if CO2 does next to nothing.
Finally we have the arrogance of these scientists as they ignore the fact that there have been many fluctuations during the holocene that are similar (but more pronounced) to this recent warming. They have no explanations at all for these fluctuations but claim that they have a 90% certainty that a significant portion of the recent warming MUST be from man.
These sorts of misunderstandings are always possible, even with (normal) scientists. However, its much more likely when you have any sort of political involvement (like the IPCC).
Complain about this comment
poitsplace;
Since the IPCC's mandate and writ was/is explicitly to find and promote anthropogenic effects on climate, are you surprised? It's called "directed research". AKA, here's your conclusion, now go prove it.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Larry, I'll put it on my bucket list!
In the meantime, I still hope for better than 50 years but my biggest concern still centres around government decision making process. I could give you chapter and verse of personal experience here in NZ but that would take too long. Even if a paradigm shift happened tomorrow, like Brian H and #292 I can still see governments stuffing it up in a major way.
Complain about this comment
@Brian H #292 who wrote...
"Interesting comments! If you want a peek at something that may begin providing fusion power planet-wide within 5 years instead of 50, have a look at focusfusion.org"
Yeah, it looks like a promising technology. I'm still a big fan of Thorium molten salt reactors though. Thorium MSRs are sufficiently well developed that they can be deployed immediately. There is far more thorium available (enough to provide 8 billion people at US per capita electrical consumption levels for 100-200 years). The fuel mixture's activity goes down with temperature...greatly reducing the chances of catastrophic failure. The fuel is kept in place with an actively cooled plug which, in the event of overheat or failure simply drops the fuel into the normal storage area where it cools safely. They can be cycled up and down safely or even turned off without causing problems. They consume most of their waste as fuel...most of the spent fuel is cold within a decade, the rest is cold within 400 years. Because of the inherent safety of the design the plants are significantly cheaper (no backup-backup-backup safety systems needed :)
Complain about this comment
Many living in the Northern hemisphere have experienced their coldest and most prolonged winter for some time whilst, at the same time, the satellite temperature measurement for January shows that the Northern hemisphere had the warmest satellite reading to date, by a very significant amount. This has been attributed to land-locked atmospheric circulation and who am I to argue?!!
However, for me, this does beg the question why should we be remotely interested in the 'global' temperature? If the weather and temperatures we actually experience can be so dramatically opposed to that which might be expected from the global measurement, how can we possibly determine what effects increases and decreases have had in the past or will have in the future? How do we know that the global temperature was not similarly very high on other occasions when snow and ice abounded and we actually felt very cold indeed? Any suggestions anyone?
Complain about this comment
@285 Paul Briscoe:
For my money, it certainly is a case of Mann just being wrong!
I don't want to join you in engaging in ad hominem attacks, so I won't refer to people's links to organizations with axes to grind, save to say that a researcher whose career and future funding depends on publishing important papers is not necessarily an impartial seeker-after-truth. It really isn't fair to paint this as Big Oil against the brave scientists striving manfully to save the planet.
You can try to defend the hockey stick all you want, but it was arrived at by shall we say a "fortunate" choice of proxies (the conclusion was certainly not robust to changes in the proxy set), some of which were in-filled and truncated, others of which were out of date, and invalid statistical methods, and the ultimate reconstruction failed standard statistical tests for significance. All McIntyre did was point this out.
With respect to the temp/CO2 relation exhibited in the ice cores - all I was saying is that it's not the smoking gun implied by Al Gore's "say, I wonder did they ever fit together". Of course the main additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels. I do however fundamentally disagree with you when you claim that it's the additional CO2 that's causing the recent warming. It is causing some - CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it has not been shown that it is a dominant factor. The IPCC itself arrives at the conclusion that it is only from use of models - see my contribution way, way above at #7.
Complain about this comment
Paul Briscoe #277 wrote:
"The overwhelming majority of scientists agree with AGW - each and every one of them has made an informed decision based on the facts."
Paul Briscoe #280 wrote:
"Personally, I know my own limits and openly admit that I do not fully understand the complexities of the calculations that are being done to arrive at the adjusted temperatures."
So you know that "each and every" pro-AGW scientist has made an informed decision even though you admit you do not understand how the decisions are made? -- You're just taking their word for it.
Paul Briscoe #277 wrote:
Meanwhile, the majority of bloggers are not qualified scientists and many use arguments which are fundamentally flawed.
So you recognize arguments that are fundamentally flawed, even though there's a fundamental flaw in your own argument above, called "begging the question" (more loosely, "arguing in a circle"). The question is whether X should be believed. By answering "Yes, because X says so himself" you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove, namely, that X should be believed.
Paul Briscoe #280 wrote:
"The REAL difference between us is that I actually have faith in the scientists to get it right"
At least you're honestly admitting your position is just based on faith. I prefer to stay true to motto of the Royal Society: "nullius in verba"!
Complain about this comment
@ paul 277.
your repeated line that the vast majority of scientists support the agw line is rarely backed up by anything. I for one know very few scientists who pay the theory any notice-
But, i also notice my post at 199 has been studiously ignored by all the AGW-proponents (including richard) on this blog. So i'll post it again;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
would anyone still like to -
a) claim that the cru / ipcc have done nothing wrong or
b) claim there is a consensus on agw?
anyone?
Complain about this comment
Hi all
For those with a bit of time to venture outside Richard's "blogsville" how about another article on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8543289.stm.
Please look at the last para but one. It reads:-
"He explained that a number of contributing nations - including Canada, Poland and Sweden - had refused to make their segments of data publicly available."
Now I confess I know nothing about the legalities in the UK but I would doubt that they are significantly different to NZ (where much of our legislation is based on the "old country" even if we aren't too keen on the parasitic hangers on to the monarchy!)
Here in NZ we have the "Official Information Act"
Under that Act I can legally gain information from persons or organisations (including Government Departments) providing (simple explanation here) that it is NOT "classified". Classified information usually refers to information that is of a sensitive nature particularly where it relates to internal security or of a "military" nature or is "commercially" sensitive.
Obvious;y we are not talking about "information" of that nature.
However, the information must also be "owned" by the person or organisation that it is being requested from.
This IS relevant here.
McIntyre has claimed with much "high moral ground" flag-waving that he has been refused access (by CRU) to certain information, notably "raw data" relating to "temperature measurements".
This information has been gathered (by CRU) from many centres world wide, most of which (if any) are not "OWNED" by CRU. They have been granted legal access to it for research purposes, granted by the respective "owners".
To release such information would require permission from "whoever" OWNED that information.
In the link I quoted, it is obvious that some of the "owners" were NOT prepared to give such permission and without the information from those, the remaining information becomes irrelevant. You can't put together a "global" picture without ALL of the "global" data!
In NZ, if CRU had divulged that information it would have broken a legal obligation and would have been subject to legal process (at significant cost to the tax payer, lawyers would have had a windfall!)
If that isn't the situation in the UK, the subject of this investigation, feel free to correct me.
In the event I am correct, it leaves the question of "does Mcintyre understand the legal implications of his FOI request?" Did he ever approach the "legal" owners of the information?
It is my OPINION that he is fully aware but is prepared to ignore that to make "political mileage" of the situation.
If the investigation finds in favour of the CRU (as I am sure it will), the anti-AGW lobby will claim "whitewash" .........."cover-up"......or whatever words you choose to use.
On the other hand, if the investigation finds against CRU (which I'm sure it won't), then Mcintyre (and co.) will claim vindication.
But it won't end there.
There will be more legal counter-claims particularly under EU Law (Poland and Sweden?) and more legal expenses.
All of which will end up being paid by...............you are one step ahead of me............you, the UK taxpayer.
Best of luck to all of you...........except that my brothers and sister are still part of that "taxpayer" fraternity in the UK.........along with many of their offspring!
Complain about this comment
Re:-
297. At 08:26am on 02 Mar 2010, Bonn1e wrote:
Any suggestions anyone?
It's been "uncomfortably" HOT here in Northern New Zealand. Any suggestions Bonn1e?
Complain about this comment
TexasFrank @ 298
XtragrumpyMike is correct. There's little point us arguing over this as we're never likely to agree.
All I will say is this - if you can come up with convincing evidence of another explanation for the recent warming then I might be prepared to listen...... but I would need properly validated scientific evidence. Also, I would need you to be able to explain where the extra heat from the greenhouse effect has gone if it has not been responsible for the warming we have seen.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Forgot to add at the end of #301
"it's not over 'til the fat lady sings!"
Complain about this comment
Poitsplace @ #293
Sorry, I missed your post.
The important point that you are missing in relation to extrapolating from ice core evidence is the anthropogenic element, which is driving up CO2 levels way beyond what they were in past interglacials. Consequently, your argument simply does not apply to the present scenario.
Beyond that, my comments immediately above apply. We'll just have to agree to differ!
Paul
Complain about this comment
Bowman @ #299
"......each and every one of them has made an informed decision based on the facts."
Given that support for AGW amongst scientists has greatly increased as more data has been collected, the above statement is entirely reasonable.
"Personally, I know my own limits and openly admit that I do not fully understand the complexities of the calculations that are being done to arrive at the adjusted temperatures."
The point I was making is that I do not understand the methods used to the extent where I could describe them to you in detail. I do, however, understand the principle behind them sufficiently to make an informed decision that they are likely to be correct.
These methods are well documented and have been used for a long while now. Do you not think that Steve McIntyre and co. would have picked holes in them by now if they could?
I'm quite sure that sceptics do not like the homogenised data because it actually makes it quite difficult for an amateur blogger to accurately assess the data. It also manages to reduce noise in the data whilst avoiding the introduction of bias, allowing trends to be picked out more easily. This greatly increases the chances of detecting statistical significance.
In my experience of science it is impossible to personally check every piece of data and information in detail....... and in AGW this is especially true. At some point you have to be prepared to take things on trust. This is why I concentrate my attention on areas which immediately contradict the things I know to be true.
If someone proves flaws in the methodology used to produce the temperature trends, fine. However, I can see no evidence of data tampering, so I'll concentrate on other areas.
Thanks,
Paul
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey @ #300
"your repeated line that the vast majority of scientists support the agw line is rarely backed up by anything. I for one know very few scientists who pay the theory any notice-"
My own conviction is based on 2 recent private polls described here:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184&tstamp=
I'm well aware of the Institute of Physics submission. My own view is that it betrays an ignorance of the context and the circumstances leading to the emails - some of these are touched on in xtragrumpymike's post immediately below yours.
Paul
Complain about this comment
#303 Paul Briscoe: This is a genuine question: what is the convincer for you that CO2 is a dominant force? AFAICS, as I said at #7, it's based on climate models. Is that your understanding, or is there some killer fact that I'm just missing?
FYI, I'm sceptical in the true sense of the word, not convinced but willing to be proved wrong. As Keynes famously said in another context, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Complain about this comment
Comment below, I just put into the Guardian, a George Monbiout article.
I hope it appears.
I doubt it, I'm held for moderation,
which usually means it vanishes..
They would not even allow me, yesterday, to post an extract of the Intstitute of Physics submission to parliament, and a link to the full submission, and list of submission. Pravda (70's version) could have taken lessons in supressing debate from Cif.
-------------------------------- comment below - -------
George Monbiots article/link
Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off?
Plans for the grid feed-in tariff suggest we live in southern California. And at £8.6bn, this is a pricey conceit with little benefit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff
mu comment: ---------------------------------------------------------
How can I possibly agree with George on this. I do 100%
But I'm a AGW sceptic!!!
Afterall, this sort of green (agw driven) lunacy, is they type that has the EU redefining rainforests, so the can be chopped down, and replaced by palm oil bio fuel plantations, so that big oil companies, eu make tonnes of money and taxes..
I believe AGW theory is an overhyped discredited scientific theory, any effect of swamped by natural climate change/variation. so much noise, impossible to find any human signature..
BUT I also belive in being properly green, joined up sensible scientific thinking.. not solar panels on Dave cameron/Zac Goldsmiths palaces.
Reduce, reuse, recycle is still cool, my 2 year old loves bob the builder now.
Simple things, like this would improve the environment, not grandiose political scams.
Even though I don't believe in man made climate change, my carbon footprint is tiny, I haven't even been on an airplane anywhere, for 9 years..
Yet George (and the Guardian) has accused me (or anyone that is sceptical)in the past of being worse than a holocaust deniar!!!!!.
Ignoring the huge big business (including oil) carbon vested interests, the hundreds of billions 'big' government have thrown at 'climate change', as us sceptics have been pointing out for YEARS.
Whilst, supposedly 'big oil' funded websites, climate audit, bishop hill, watts, up, jo nova, are rattling their tip jars on their websites, to try and pay for massively increased bandwidth, due to climategate.
I have friends in the IPCC, working group 1 (the science!!)and 2, a close friend even edited the synthesis report, and relatives, running for office in the green party and involved in PR. We can talk, be friends, be polite, discuss this. Yet the Guardian would shout 'deniar' at me, and even (george in the past) talk about crimes against humanity.
wake up!
Complain about this comment
302. xtragrumpymike2
'It's been "uncomfortably" HOT here in Northern New Zealand. Any suggestions Bonn1e?'
No! Thats why I was asking! Do you?
Complain about this comment
302. xtragrumpymike2
Specifically, I was asking about the northern hemispher. Ironically I believe the January satellite temperature for the sounthern hemisphere has not been so markedly hotter than usual! So if it has been 'uncomfortably hot' there, I think that probably makes the 'global' temperature even more unrelated to reality!
Complain about this comment
@307,
you are aware, presumably, that a poll of scientists actually means nothing with regard to the validity of their stance? Or does that escape you?
And yes, it's harldy suprising that those pushing the theory support it.
" My own view is that it betrays an ignorance of the context and the circumstances leading to the emails "
i think you need to re-read that link as you've slightly missed the point-
i.e. a large body of proffesional, HIGHLY qualified scientists think something dodgy is going on at the CRu and IPCC (plus anyone else they have had dealings with). The also think they are not following scientific principle and are hiding data.
they also conclude that the only logical reason for hiding such data is that they are worried it can be interpreted in different ways.
You think this is irrelevant? interesting.
Complain about this comment
also
"I'm well aware of the Institute of Physics submission. My own view is that it betrays an ignorance of the context and the circumstances leading to the emails - some of these are touched on in xtragrumpymike's post immediately below yours.
"
i'd say this statement shows you are unable to look at things objectively and don't have the first clue about scientific practice.
i repeat- if i'd behaved that way in my organisation- i would have been sacked and my research projects suspended.
Complain about this comment
#309 barrywoods
"I believe AGW theory is an overhyped discredited scientific theory, any effect of swamped by natural climate change/variation. so much noise, impossible to find any human signature......wake up!"
I believe AGW theory is a solid scientific theory backed up by a vast amount of research, its effect swamps natural climate change/variation and will get much worse. impossible to find any alternative (solar or other wise)..
wake up!
Complain about this comment
#300 labmunkey
"would anyone still like to -
a) claim that the cru / ipcc have done nothing wrong or
b) claim there is a consensus on agw?"
a) yes
b) yes
any more questions?
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke, ref. comment 229, I must have missed the announcement of your appointment as Internet Blog Supervisor. Please forgive me for overstepping your line. There I was thinking that if Chris didn’t want my contributions then he had a very simple solution, to delete them and say “No More”. He has never done this in response to any of my comments so mustn’t be aware that I am breaking on e of your rules.
It is a great shame that undesirables were attracted to Chir’s blog and he has quite correctly called a halt to childish and vindictive exchanges. How many did you say I’d posted there, only 57, that’s peanuts, but I’ll soon have more on that “Pyrite Standard”. I’ve posted 460 on Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread – Note 2 – and never a complaint, although one DAGWer accused me of being an internet virus. Do a search on “Pete Ridley” climate agnostic and you‘ll find that I have earned that honour. This Internet thingy is a wonderful thing for keeping us retired (and lonely?) people out of mischief.
You say that I QUOTE: You slap down other commenters UNQUOTE. No, I challenge them when I disagree (and sometimes fall into the trap of being sarcastic, but don’t we all?). I certainly wasn’t joking (or being sarcastic) with Andrew. I was doing what any good sceptic does, asking for evidence, not dogma.
Another point of yours that you may like to reflect upon is you r inclusion of myself in your comment 236. Is it possible that you jumped to a wrong conclusion about me (just as you may have done about DAGW). Allow me to jump to a conclusion from the little that I know about you. You are not a scientist, or an engineer and have done very little research into global climate processes and drivers and read The Guardian. On the basis of that assumption may I recommend some reading (Notes 3 – 7). When you’ve finished those get back to me and I’ll give you some more. Alternatively you might prefer the less technical but very enlightening excellent sceptical book “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker (I assume that you have never read his Telegraph articles).
Barry (Woods – you didn’t work at Eastern Gas did you ?) in comment 234 you seem to be suggestig that the motivation for journalists to report only the DAGWer side of the debate was for fear of being cold-shouldered by scientists. Being a cynic I think there was something much more basic than that – money. Each media organisation needs to sell its services otherwise it goes out of business. Scares and horror stories sell better than the mundane. Telling people that everything is fine does not sell, so the editors insist on the scare story. Another financial incentive is pension fund investments, many of which are into green/renewable energy technologies. Have a look at the Climategate Web-site “Follow the money: .. ” Note 8) for a close-to-home comment on this.
May I suggest that all DAGWers and “don’t knows” take a close look (with an open mind) at The Australian Web-site “The Carbon Sense Coalition” (Note 1) and enjoy the “Going Green with Cap and Trade!” A/V.
PS: LabMunkey thanks for that link in comment 199 to the Institute of Physics submission to the Science & Technology Committee. It is excellent and I’ll bring it to the attention of my Australian and American friends.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.carbon-sense.com/
2) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P9780/
3) see [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
4) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
5) see http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
6) see http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/
7) see http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
8) see http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet
Complain about this comment
@315
so you're happy to discount the opinions of 35,000 highly qualified physicists?
Righto. Just so i know.
Complain about this comment
315. rossglory
You can of course claim whatever you wish! Whether anyone agrees is a somewhat different matter!
Complain about this comment
I guess that means that, rossglory needs to put:
The Institute of Physics,
The Royal Society of Chemistry,
Royal Statistical Society
on the naughty mat then?
Oh, and Steve Mcintyre, who proved (scientifically) that the Hockey Stick Graph USED by the IPCC, to be junk..
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4702.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #305 who wrote...
"The important point that you are missing in relation to extrapolating from ice core evidence is the anthropogenic element, which is driving up CO2 levels way beyond what they were in past interglacials. Consequently, your argument simply does not apply to the present scenario."
No, you're getting confused because of some annoying, preconceived notion of the power of CO2 as a climate forcing and the sensitivity of the climate to any change in radiative balance. The supposed extra forcing we're currently experiencing from CO2 should be about the same as the extra forcing from CO2 between glacial maximum and pre-industrial levels. Of course, CO2 showed little to no impact over those transitions and that was during a time when the feedbacks really were high. Now feedbacks are low.
You can't explain interglacial behaviors with glacial feedbacks. Feedbacks are low. CO2's impact was obviously negligible during the glacial-interglacial temperature ranges because even with high feedbacks, the increasing levels of CO2 were not sufficiently powerful to significantly slow dips or hasten rises.
You cannot change one without changing the others. If you claim feedbacks remain high...then the temperature would have continued fluctuating by the huge amounts it did during the temperature ranges between glacial maximum and interglacial. If you claim CO2 is potent then the powerful feedbacks would have drastically changed the behavior of those temperature ranges...OR the feedbacks must necessarily be lower (which doesn't fit with the change in behavior).
The only way CO2 levels fit properly is if it does very little and is basically a proxy of temperature.
Complain about this comment
#307 Paul Briscoe wrote:
"My own conviction is based on 2 recent private polls described here:"
[link given in message #307 above]
I'm afraid that poll asks "climatologists" and some other people who are not "climatologists", but no group called "scientists". It's completely worthless. Even if it actually had a group called "scientists", who or what would decide membership of that group?
Complain about this comment
for the record,
I'm a homedad now, used to be IT/telecoms, with a very part time IT small business job.
Don't try and smear me, as a vested anti AGW interest, my only vested interests are my children.
I have a
BSCc Applied Chemistry
MSC Information Systems Engineering (cybernetics)
I will not be talked down to anymore by english grad bbc reporters, or especially
phd hist (flat earther brown)
politics ecomics (climate sabatouer milliband)
zoology (deniar, crimes against humanity monbiot)
Complain about this comment
Barry (Woods – you didn’t work at Eastern Gas did you?) in comment 234 you seem to be suggesting that the motivation for journalists to report only the DAGWer side of the debate was for fear of being cold-shouldered by scientists. Being a cynic I think there was something much more basic than that – money. Each media organisation needs to sell its services otherwise it goes out of business. Scares and horror stories sell better than the mundane. Telling people that everything is fine does not sell, so the editors insist on the scare story. Another financial incentive is pension fund investments, many of which are into green/renewable energy technologies. Have a look at the Climategate Web-site “Follow the money: .. ” Note 1) for a close-to-home comment on this.
May I suggest that all DAGWers and “don’t knows” take a close look (with an open mind) at The Australian Web-site “The Carbon Sense Coalition” (Note 2) and enjoy the “Going Green with Cap and Trade!” A/V.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet
2) see http://www.carbon-sense.com/
Complain about this comment
#poitsplace
"I would hazard a guess as to say that the vast majority of the people that rely heavily on fluid knowledge say the hypothesis of substantial AGW is garbage."
guess away poitsplace, makes no difference to the science.
Complain about this comment
Aplogies to Pete, I was commenting about vested interest, just re-read, and looking at your article, you might think I meant you.
Lots of Barry Woods around..! Lots of people thought my wife was going to marry the mayor of henley, much older, not so great looking, years ago.
Complain about this comment
@319
nice catch. that'll be 3 large, proffesional, scientific (i'll include that statasticians in this group due to the nature of their request) bodies encompassing tens of thousands of proffesional, highly qualified scientists who have issues with the cru, the ipcc and the data handling.
i genuinley wonder how long the agw proponents can ignore this.
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #300
It could have been written by a sceptic.
It could have been written by a pro-AGW scientist who wants this inquiry to work. Plenty of people on the pro-AGW side of the debate want these inquiries as open, rigorous and transparent as possible.
Most likely it is written for both groups of people by someone who has been following the news. Because previous opinion polls have suggested that both groups of people are represented amongst physicists.
Complain about this comment
@xtragrumpymike2 #301
Your link isn't working.
Perhaps they have moved it from "science/nature" to "sci/tech". This appears to be the same story (same story ID "8543289", plus matching subject matter and quotes).
"He [Professor Edward Acton] explained that a number of contributing nations - including Canada, Poland and Sweden - had refused to make their segments of data publicly available."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8543289.stm
Complain about this comment
Question
I've stated many times on Richards blog that I do not accept CO2 is capable of raising the temperature significantly and I've already given my reasons why, but I'm wrong!
OK, not really wrong, because I have also said the only way that CO2 was capable of raising the temperature was if the sun gave out more light. In the past, I understood the sun had not given out more light and therefore thought CO2 could not be the primary driver of climate change.
I've recently come across a paper "Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?" Pinker et al 2005:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/850
which shows solar radiation reaching the earths surface increased between 1983-2001 at a rate of 0.16W/m sq. Please note, this is the increase received at the earths surface which may or may not relate to actual solar radiation output (the sun didn't put out more light).
The paper also states there was a decrease in solar radiation reaching the earths surface from 1960-1990, although the paper points out that this was pre-satellite era and not part of their study, whereas their study was all satellite.
The paper suggests the reason for the increase in solar radiation was due to changes in cloud cover allowing more of the suns light to reach the surface.
Questions:
1 If this paper is correct and the sun has effectively put out more light, does this mean the whole AGW hypothesis is blown out the water, because regardless of mans emissions, it really was the sun?
2 What caused the change in cloud cover? Was it the Cosmic Ray theory?
3 If the earth received more solar radiation at the surface, does this explain the warming trend?
Genuinely interested in comments / answers, especially from the AGWer's
/Mango
Complain about this comment
PS A little further info:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2-2.html
/Mango
Complain about this comment
In my comment 316 I posted a link that broke th eblog rules. Hereit is again but without the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] which you'll need to add in
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
About global temperatures (#297 and #302)
A useful easy-to-use source of information (which has been highlighted here before, by I think Davblo2) can be found at:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop.html
The page that comes up is a map with "mean temperatures" for the present week. As you would expect, just now it's cold in the north and warmer in the south.
However, choose "temperature anomaly" in the 'element' window and a different pattern emerges.
You can also go back through earlier weeks as well, by selecting a different period in the 'week' window. You can see easily the pattern for January was far warmer in some parts the northern hemisphere than usual. Not in my part of Sweden though, which was colder...
As for Bonn1e's 'any suggestions' - maybe Mark Twain got it right when he said something along the lines of 'we expect climate, but get weather'!
Complain about this comment
@ 327
you must be reading something different to me, it seems fairly damming from where i'm sitting-
"1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context."
so unless the emails, that have already been admitted to in the inquiry, turn out to be forged, which they can't be if they were admitted to, the institute of physics have severe concerns over the integrity of the cru data and all research in this field.
"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law"
no comment necessary
"The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.
"
malaise not isolated to CRU, extends to IPCC and beyond
" Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
"
this could hardly be any more damning
"5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements. "
my point earlier on the selective use of proxy data where it follows the desired trend and is then summarily dropped when it doesnt.
"those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
"
evidence of peer review highjacking
"10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field."
speaks for itself.
Seriously jane- did you even read this?
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #316
"you may like to reflect upon is you r inclusion of myself in your comment 236"
I included you in my #236 because you were part of the conversation in #223, to which I was replying. I am confused as to why you find this a problem.
"not a scientist, or an engineer and have done very little research into global climate processes and drivers"
Bit like most people here. This is not a science blog. And don't assume that the reading that I have done is inappropriately little for a member of the general public.
"and read The Guardian"
I get most of my news from the BBC. I also get news from the Guardian and the Telegraph. I get science news from New Scientist. I tend to avoid the Times (Murdoch) and the Independent.
"I must have missed the announcement of your appointment as Internet Blog Supervisor."
My #229 was in response to your #206. From your #206 ("We have continued debating on his blogs since October.") I would have expected lots of Chris Colose comments directly addressed to you on the given thread. And a decent proportion of your comments directly addressed to him. That is not what I see. Meanwhile there are comments here with you inviting people over to Chris Colose's thread as if you are organising some sort of party there (#144 #146 #171 #206).
"he had a very simple solution, to delete them and say “No More”. He has never done this in response to any of my comments"
"to delete them" - he seems to have a policy of avoiding deleting comments. He certainly makes a comment about not wanting to do any censoring.
and say “No More”" - perhaps you would like to explain how your posts aren't included in Chris Colose's reference to "these conversations" in his post at 4:07pm February 26 (very close to the current end of his thread).
"I certainly wasn’t joking (or being sarcastic) with Andrew. I was doing what any good sceptic does, asking for evidence, not dogma."
Andrew's post was a précis of what could be seen watching the video that was the subject of the article and linked to by the article. Why would Andrew need to provide evidence for a simple commentary on a video you could watch yourself?
"I’ve posted 460 on Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread"
Fine. He's a politician. He's answerable to the general public.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
PS I remain confused as to how someone with such a lot to say as your good self does not have their own blog.
Complain about this comment
@329. thats really interesting. i'll have to give it a look.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe and others interested...
Regarding 'scientific consensus on AGW...
I have one comment to make here - first, you have quoted repeatedly that 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW. I would like to make a couple of comments regarding that...First, naturally, climate scientists are generally going to be in agreement with a supposition that supports their livelihood. And, while I am skeptical of the CO2 - the one great evil - theory of global warming and AGW. I do believe that man has had an effect upon climate. Without a doubt; however, my view is that the majority of man's affect has been related to land (mis) use - rather than CO2 emissions.
But regarding the 'climate scientists' - who won't be transparent, nor provide assumptions, nor reproducible results from which to evaluate their conclusions - there is in fact another point to be made here...
In many cases it becomes a matter of the questions asked - for example, let us consider the question:
Do you think man's activities have had any affect on the climate of the earth, either locally or globally?
I (an avowed skeptic) would answer yes to such a question - as I think that most informed people would. One only need look at all the desertification and deforestation which has had climate affects to see that this is true.
Now consider the question: Do you believe that man made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate change and if not immediately abated will cause catastrophic run-away global warming?
I think you will find very few scientists willing to state their reputations, future careers and credibility on saying unequivocally yes to this question.
The first question is the one used to get the 97% from 'climate scientists'.
I suggest that you review the work done by Von Storch related to 'consensus' on global warming - two studies were published so far, one I believe around 99 another in 2005 an new one in the works.
They provided a series of questions - posed to climate scientists and asked them to answer with 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) - and the results of both studies were between 3 and 4 - so basically undecided. The results of the second study were blocked by the pro-AGW croud for a couple of years, but finally got published. They are currently (I believe) re-doing the study to see how attitudes and beliefs have changed. There was little change between the first two: Basically man has had some affect, but how much and why - unknown.
These are the only real consensus studies which used appropriate questions or methodologies (and independence) of which I am aware.
Before you send me some siting of a consensus study from a propaganda website - please go through the study - what they did, who they asked, what they asked, etc...and if you truly believe questions were not 'couched' (as the first question I presented in this post) - then I'll look at it...if its another IPCC garbage consensus or something ridiculously couched - then don't even bother...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Mango
You might take a look at Dr. Lu's work - mostly related to the ionisphere and ozone around the south pole - he found some very interesting correlations related to both solar radiation and cosmic radiation which matches very well with temperature variations....
Also, I would disagree with you regarding the 'output of the sun' being constant. The sun has weather, just like earth - we just don't really understand it that well. The energy released by the sun as well as the spectral intensity throughout the frequency spectrum does change...
It is interesting to note that during this brief warming over the last 20 years or so, there has also been a similar warming trend on both mars and Jupiter.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #331
Unfortunately the BBC threads don't allow PDFs because Adobe Reader counts as "obscure software" that is not automatically installed on all computers. This is a source of frustration to both us and the moderators.
If your problem link is a PDF link there are two workarounds
1. Link to an HTML which itself links to the PDF.
2. Give the URL of the website (home pages tend to be HTML) and the title (exact spelling) of the document.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #315
"a) [would anyone still like to claim that the cru (or ipcc) have done nothing wrong] yes"
"But if he wanted, if he wanted the data, he wanted the codes, he wanted all the other information, and you refused to give it to him. Why?"
Jones: "Because we had a lot of work and resources invested in it. That was way before the FOI requests started."
[Jones gives other reasons as well, such as other scientists being more interested in the derived product, but his other reasons don't cover full scientific scrutiny of his work.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8543289.stm (starts 0:16)
As far as I am concerned, that time and resources is wasted without appropriate scrutiny. If Jones had told McIntyre "I want to give you this data, but you must attempt to publish any critique in a peer reviewed paper, Energy and Environment [sceptic friendly peer reviewed journal] will do" that would have been fine. But he didn't.
Complain about this comment
@Poitsplace (320)
"The only way CO2 levels fit properly is if it does very little and is basically a proxy of temperature."
Your assertion falls apart, first with the work of Fourier and Arrhenius in the very early days and second with the emperical results obtained in the past 3 or 4 decades. All of it shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has an appreciable effect on radiative forcing. All that we know suggests that water vapour is a function of temperature and CO2 is variable and the more CO2 there is, the higher the temperature will be and this is amplified by water vapour too.
Can you explain the evidence you are using to support your claim that CO2 is insignificant, and also, show that you appreciate the massive wealth of evidence showing that CO2 *IS* significant, pointing out where your evidence destroys all this, or why all of climate science is misinterpreting the emperical evidence that CO2 absorbs light and re-emits it as heat.
Complain about this comment
interesting that my comment at 333 was reffered to the moderators. do people not like exerts from a institute of physics document slamming the cru perhaps?
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutney 329
Questions:
1 If this paper is correct and the sun has effectively put out more light, does this mean the whole AGW hypothesis is blown out the water, because regardless of mans emissions, it really was the sun?
2 What caused the change in cloud cover? Was it the Cosmic Ray theory?
3 If the earth received more solar radiation at the surface, does this explain the warming trend?
Genuinely interested in comments / answers, especially from the AGWer's
/Mango
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some figures that might put things into more perspective.
Radiative forcing from CO2 is around 1.6 W/m^2. When you factor in aerosols and other greenhouse gases like methane, the net anthropogenic component is around 1.7 W/m^2.
Solar irradiance is a naturally varying event. It will go up and down (but the sun is slowly getting stronger over time), but the amount of irradiance received is a function also of the tilt and spin of the earth in relation to the sun.
This varying value of solar irradiance is included in the models and all the calculations made by climate scientists. It is a very basic component and mentioned extensivly in the scientific literature and the IPCC. If you have a problem with how the scientific community are interpreting this, that is ok, but simply using its existence as a reason for AGW to be wrong is unfair since all of climate science already incorporates this as a fundamental component.
In direct answer to your question - no, the increased solar radiation does not explain the warming trend. Not even close.
Complain about this comment
@Larry 336
Do you think man's activities have had any affect on the climate of the earth, either locally or globally?
I (an avowed skeptic) would answer yes to such a question - as I think that most informed people would. One only need look at all the desertification and deforestation which has had climate affects to see that this is true.
Now consider the question: Do you believe that man made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate change and if not immediately abated will cause catastrophic run-away global warming?
I think you will find very few scientists willing to state their reputations, future careers and credibility on saying unequivocally yes to this question.
The first question is the one used to get the 97% from 'climate scientists'.
---------------------------------------------------------
To clarify, and for everyone else's information, the actual question to get the 97% consensus was this:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
You said the 97% came from this: "Do you think man's activities have had any affect on the climate of the earth, either locally or globally?"
Big difference there. Let us try to keep this debate accurate.
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #337
You might take a look at Dr. Lu's work - mostly related to the ionisphere and ozone around the south pole - he found some very interesting correlations related to both solar radiation and cosmic radiation which matches very well with temperature variations....
Would love to - any links or paper titles?
I would disagree with you regarding the 'output of the sun' being constant.
I'm not sure that's what I said or at least meant. I meant, as far as i am aware, the sun has not recently been putting out more light. I would agree that the sun has "weather" and has varied over time.
It is interesting to note that during this brief warming over the last 20 years or so, there has also been a similar warming trend on both mars and Jupiter.
I'm not so sure this is relevant to this idea, otherwise the sun would have to give out more light. I also thought the Mars ice warming was related to it's orbit essentially going into "summer". I could be wrong, so please correct me.
Thanks for the feedback
/mango
Complain about this comment
Paul (Briscoe), in comment 305 it seems to me that QUOTE: The important point that you are missing in relation to extrapolating from ice core evidence is the anthropogenic element, which is.. UNQUOTE only about 5% of the claimed increases per annum, the remaining 95% being a natural increase arising from natural causes such as warming oceans, volcanoes, earthquakes and whatever other natural sources that have been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere for millions and millions of years. Is it not mainly those natural sources that are QUOTE: driving up CO2 levels UNQUOTE. As for the claim that those levels are QUOTE: way beyond what they were in past interglacials UNQUOTE, this is debatable and dependent upon the validity of the reconstruction of ancient atmospheric gas concentrations from air found in pocket within ice cores. I notice that few DAGWers here who seem to accept unquestioningly the validity of these reconstructions (e.g. SR in 69 with his “we know”) have responded to my “call for help” in 144, neither here nor on Chris Colose’s “Pyrite Standard” blog (Note 1). I have to assume that DAGWers here simply accept without question what they are told by others rather than thinking for themselves.
BTW, I’m not suggesting that the ice cores can’t tell us about the cyclical changes in composition, only the absolute levels.
You say in 285 QUOTE: Steve McIntyre's own work on the hockey stick graph has also come in for criticism...... so this certainly isn't a simple matter of Mann being wrong! UNQUOTE. It appears that you haven’t read Christopher Booker’s book (my comment 316). On this issue he says in Chapter 6 (with references) that Dr. Edward Wegman, professional statistician for 38 years, Chairman of the National Acadmey of Sciences Committee on Applied And Theoretical Physics said after his assessment that Mann et al’s analysis was QUOTE: simply incorrect mathematics UNQUOTE. and of the analysis by McIntyre and McKitrick QUOTE: valid and compelling UNQUOTE. Wegman concluded QUOTE: Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millenium cannot be supported by his analysis UNQUOTE. I prefer the comments of an expert to those of a lay person.
You also say QUOTE: that the total amount of CO2 in the system (air, oceans and biosphere) remained roughly constant UNQUOTE. Please could you provide a link or links to evidence supporting this claim as I haven’t seen any and will be surprised if it is correct. I would expect that the amount of carbon remains fairly constant but that it changes form a fair bit.
poitsplace, your mention in 293 that QUOTE: The main glacial-interglacial transition feedbacks are essentially saturated. UNQUOTE reminded me of a comparison that I have made between those clacial/intergalcial swings and the workings of an electronic bistable “flip-flop” (multistable vibrator). The operation of these depends upon high positive feedback forcing a state in which saturation stops further movement in a given direction. Once in a stable state a sufficiently large trigger forces a sudden shift (rate of change dependent upon the response time of the system) from that saturated state into an unsaturated one in the opposite direction, quickly moving to the second stable saturated condition, the period between the two stable states depending upon the period between the triggers. You go on to say QUOTE: the fact that CO2's behavior ONLY fits with the glacial-interglacial transition sensitivity if CO2 does next to nothing. UNQUOTE but in my opinion this is not correct. It has been shown by several scientists that the CO2 sensitivity is a function of concentration, just as the sensitivity of any one half of the a “flip-flop” varies between the two stable states. (Your comment 320 also applies.)
As you will have gathered from my previous comments if you’ve read them, I fully agree with your closing remark about the IPCC and political involvement as long as your reference to misunderstanding excludes the politicians. I believe that they fully understand and deliberately mislead.
texasfrank when do you say in 298 QUOTE Of course the main additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels. UNQUOTE are you referring to that 5% of “additional CO2” on top of the 95% being emitted by nature each year?
MangoChutneyUKOK, ref. comment 329 and QUOTE: What caused the change in cloud cover? Was it the Cosmic Ray theory? UNQUOTE, we should hopefully be getting some results soon from the CERN CLOUD09 experiments. As I said on Chris Colose’s blog on 29th Dec. QUOTE: I’m sure that you are all as eager as Dr. Jasper Kirkby is to have the results of the CERN CLOUD 09 experiment, which are expected to show that atmospheric CO2 concentration has an insignificant impact upon global climates.. UNQUOTE.. If Dr. Kirkby had been a bit more careful in expressing his opinion back in 1998 we might have had those results by now and there would be no DAGW scare left. As I said on Mark Lynas’s blog (Note 2) on 7th Nov. QUOTE: Dr. Jasper Kirkby experienced .. a withdrawal of funds back in 1998 when he said of his planned CERN experiments into the Cosmic Ray Theory .. “The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century, ” says Kirkby. “But we have yet to prove the relationship between the Sun’s cosmic radiation and the formation of clouds.” He points out that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature UNQUOTE. The project was delayed until 2006 but better late than never.
simon-swede, ref. comment 332, Mark Twaine is also credited with popularising the saying “lies, damned lies and statistics” (Note 3). It’s the manner in which the raw temperature data is manipulated that is under scrutiny.
JaneBasingstoke, ref. comment 334, perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say in 236. As for Chris Colose’s comment “Guys, these conversations are over with”, I can only assume that you did not spot the comment posted by Phoenox (AKA JA/guess-who and cooloola) on February 26, 2010 @ 3:59 pm (just 8 minutes prior to “No More” by Chris. You must have seen Ian Forrester’s comment just ahead of Chris’s. If you ‘d like to understand these two a little better then please visit the thread “What makes a DAGWer Angry” (Note 4) that I started on Senator Fielding’s blog. Please join in the debate, especially if you have any expertise in psychology. The objective is to try to understand why people turn so nasty when debating climate change, not to seriously debate global climate processes and drivers, so you’ll be OK. I look forward to hearing from you there. As you say at the end QUOTE: I am confused .. UNQUOTE and I wouldn’t disagree with that. As for having my own blog, don’t worry about it. I’m very happy doing what I do.
Thanks for your help in 338. It isn’t a .pdf but a .doc(I’ve had that problem elsewhere – maybe on another BBC blog). I provide a link to a link later here. Ref. 339, do you agree that all of the assessments made by the IPCC in AR4 should now be subjected to scrutiny by statisiticians and scientists who are independent of political influence? Also, do you agree that the computer models upon which the IPCC is so dependent are also subjected to independent scrutiny using professional; VV&T processes?
LarryKealey I can’t disagree with any of comment 336.
I see that the link that I tried to provide to Dr. Nicol’s paper in 316/331 has been rejected again but you can get directed to it from the Climate Realists site (Note 5)
NOTES:
1) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
2) see http://www.marklynas.org/2009/10/19/closed-because-of-geoengineering-works
3) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
4) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P30/
5) see http://climaterealists.com/faqs.php?id=1347
Complain about this comment
#334 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I get science news from New Scientist."
I used to, but I make a point of not doing so anymore, as its editorial policy is badly skewed towards "making the world a better place" rather than "this is the latest theory". It should limit its ambit to factual matters, and it doesn't, yet pretends that it does.
Its coverage (or rather, non-coverage) of recent solar inactivity was a disgrace. The solar minimul mightn't have been even slightly out of the ordinary as far as they were concerned. And when they reported a bit of non-warming over the last decade or so, most of the report was a "but don't think for a minute that AGW isn't happening!"
I have to say I think Vance Packard would have been much more on the mark if his "hidden persuaders" had been "shared (and therefore unquestioned) moral commitments which skew factual judgement" instead of advertising!
Complain about this comment
SR, ref. comment 340, where on earth did QUOTE: CO2 absorbs light and re-emits it as heat. UNQUOTE come from? I don’t think that it was from a scientist.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #145 #252 #271
(@Myself #161 #260)
Peter, your original post #145 compares Nepstad et al 2004 to the Amazongate stuff in IPCC AR4. And you find them different.
My posts attempt to show that the reason you find them different is that you are not comparing like with like. I believe this is accidental.
Your Nepstad et al 2004 quote only covers one point, the 40%. But your IPCC AR4 quote covers three points from Nepstad et al 2004, the 40%, the effect of small declines in rainfall, and the ecological integrity of Amazon forests.
I would like to link to Nepstad et al 2004, but it is a PDF. You'll have to make do with this. (Note, you want the "Amazon drought" paper.)
http://www.whrc.org/resources/published_literature/pdf_index.htm
Complain about this comment
@XGM #273:
"If Winston were alive today and Prime Minister he would probably be concerned of the cost of smoking to the budghet for the NHS."
Even by the government's own figures, the tax take from tobacco far exceeds the 'cost of smoking' to the NHS.
Besides, if people want to kill themselves by smoking, why not just let them? it'll mean less cost to the taxpayer for old age care anyway.
But the point is, it's got nothing to do with the environment.
If you're going to take the 'noxious compounds' tack, just answer me this: What is in tobacco smoke which makes it particularly dangerous - as compared to other smoke?
Should we ban barbecues, open fireplaces, firework displays, etc etc?
What about smoke from cooking?
What about diesel fumes? Diesel fumes, particularly from large engines, contain some of the most carcinogenic compounds known to man - yet we're still subjected to diesel locomotives standing idling in enclosed stations, and nothing is ever said about that.
Complain about this comment
@SR #340:
"...CO2 absorbs light and re-emits it as heat."
I think you'll want to check your facts there.
Complain about this comment
Read Peter Taylor's "Chill" and weep.
Complain about this comment
@SR #342
In direct answer to your question - no, the increased solar radiation does not explain the warming trend. Not even close.
You may have misread what i wrote:
"Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?" Pinker et al 2005:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
which shows solar radiation reaching the earths surface increased between 1983-2001 at a rate of 0.16W/m sq. Please note, this is the increase received at the earths surface which may or may not relate to actual solar radiation output (the sun didn't put out more light).
This is additional solar radiation without the sun providing any i.e. a change caused by cloud cover, not by a change in the sun
Please read the paper
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#342 SR wrote:
"no, the increased solar radiation does not explain the warming trend. Not even close."
Not even close according to scientifically discreditied, laughably inductivist, proxy-data-"based" climate "science"? That inclines me to believe there is a connection!
Was it a coincidence that sunspot activity was remarkably low during the the Little Ice Age? If not, what has AGW to offer by way of explanation?
Complain about this comment
@XGM #309:
"If the investigation finds in favour of the CRU (as I am sure it will), the anti-AGW lobby will claim "whitewash" .........."cover-up"......or whatever words you choose to use."
Even ignoring the emails etc, Phil Jones has, with his own words, damned himself - see my post #279 - it WILL take a whitewash to let him off the hook.
"All of which will end up being paid by...............you are one step ahead of me............you, the UK taxpayer."
Don't worry about us, we're accustomed to paying for all sorts of harebrained schemes, ministries of funny walks etc.
Complain about this comment
@345 Pete Ridley:
You say:
texasfrank when do you say in 298 QUOTE Of course the main additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels. UNQUOTE are you referring to that 5% of “additional CO2” on top of the 95% being emitted by nature each year?
What I mean is the net excess of CO2 over the pre-industrial equilibrium is due to man's burning fossil fuels.
Complain about this comment
From the West Australian March 2nd 2010:-
‘The past three months - the driest and joint-hottest on record for Perth - have followed a series of record-breaking heatwaves that have hit Victoria and South Australia in the past 12 months, as well as extreme flooding that has lashed parts of Queensland and NSW.’
Professor Nicholls of Monash University said:-
‘….But the pattern of heatwaves across Australia was evidence that our climate was warming, Professor Nicholls said…..
"A consistent string of extreme events of the same type - such as the run of unprecedented heatwaves that have hit Australia in the past few years - starts to look a lot more like climate change and less like a fluke," he said….’
Read it here:-
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6872077/summer-scorcher-a-freak-event/
The AMSU sensor on the NOAA -15 satellite is showing record high global near surface temperatures for February 2010 in the 32 year satellite record. This, after record high temperatures for January.
Complain about this comment
Texasfrank, thanks for the clarification in 355. Could you now clarify what you mean by QUOTE: .. the pre-industrial equilibrium .. UNQUOTE to which you refer. I have come across plenty of references to this but no clear definition. In at least one instance it was used to indicate an atmospheric CO2 level of “c. 280 ppm CO2” (Note 1). If this is how it is understood by scientists and by yourself then it relates to the uncertainty about the validity of those concentrations reconstructed from air found in ice, discussed by Professor Jaworowski in the section “The Truth About Ice Cores” of his paper “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” (Note 2).
Perhaps you’d like to provide a link to evidence refuting Professor Jaworowski’s argument.
NOTES:
1) see http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/digital-scripture.html
2) see [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
I agree Peter317 at # 349 who says:-
‘….What about diesel fumes? Diesel fumes, particularly from large engines, contain some of the most carcinogenic compounds known to man - yet we're still subjected to diesel locomotives standing idling in enclosed stations, and nothing is ever said about that….’
Yes, let’s quickly phase out diesel cars and petrol cars, with their noxious fumes and soot. Nasty petroleum based products. Gets rid of some of the CO2 emissions too. Everybody is happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel
On smoking, now we have a ban on smoking in all public places I am not affected anymore. Nor are any other non-smokers, except for the children of selfish smokers who don’t have any choice.
Complain about this comment
For cigarettes Peter317 at #349, here’s the list of cigarette smoke carcinogens:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens
and here’s the list of additives:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
Complain about this comment
Peter Ridley at #345 appears to ask:-
‘….Is it not mainly those natural sources that are QUOTE: driving up CO2 levels …’
No Peter. The natural carbon cycle has been in a balance for millions of years. That emitted with that absorbed. This is accepted by all scientists.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over these relatively stable levels is coming from fossil fuel emissions. This is also accepted by all scientists. It is a fact.
The annual increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since industrialisation began matches the estimated amount being burnt annually as fossil fuels. The oceans absorb 50% and the atmosphere retains 50% of the CO2 which is a long lived GHG.
The earths atmosphere is 5*10^18 kg, and average molar weight is 29kg, thus the atmosphere has 0.173*10^18 moles of gas in it. 75ppm of that is 1.3 *10^13 mol, which with CO2s molar weight of 44kg, is 5.72*10^14kg.
In 2006, the global CO2 emissions were 2.84*10^13kg. Thus to produce that 75ppm at 2006 rates would take 20 years.
Given that the oceans absorb 50% of the emitted CO2, It would thus take about 40 years for the atmospheric concentration to increase by 75ppm. Which turns out to be about right from 1960, given that the increase was somewhat lower in the early ‘60’s.
In addition, the actual annual emissions now are over 4.0*10^13 kg (40 billion tonnes) so the rate in the atmosphere is increasing even more rapidly.
Furthermore, it has also been found through air analysis, that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contains carbon 13 and small amounts of carbon 14 from living things. Fossil fuels on the other hand contain almost no C14 as it has long since decayed.
The thing is, the proportion of C13 in the earth’s atmosphere is increasing, indicating that most of the additional CO2 burden is from the burning of fossil fuels, i.e. the presence of the extra CO2 (a strong greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere is coming from the burning of coal, oil and gas.
I hope that explains it.
The effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere is shown here:-
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Complain about this comment
@mango
#329
You state from the paper that between 1983-2001 that there was an increase in solar radiation at the surface and it suggests that this could be due to a change in cloud cover.
You also agree that temperatures have risen during this period, so I have a question for you, what does this mean for the concept of negative feedback from clouds, because this paper seems (from your description) to run contrary to this.
If negative feedback existed doesn't it mean an increase in temperature would give an increase in cloud cover reducing solar radiation at the surface not increasing it.
Just a thought I haven't read the paper.
Complain about this comment
Peter Ridley at #357 asks:-
‘…..Perhaps you’d like to provide a link to evidence refuting Professor Jaworowski’s argument….’
Here it is Peter:-
http://www.desmogblog.com/zbigniew-jaworowski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@SR #340 who wrote...
"Your assertion falls apart, first with the work of Fourier and Arrhenius in the very early days and second with the empirical results obtained in the past 3 or 4 decades."
Ah, but the early work is all theoretical...and you will notice that you're hard pressed to find anything new that doesn't essentially just say "but it's warmer now and CO2 is higher". Yes, you can find countless, mindless drones pushing correlation (its the new causation) with higher temperatures and then as if it was additional evidence, things that might be impacted by higher temperatures (receding glaciers, arctic ice). What you WON'T find is a significant amount of study on what's actually happened. What you WON'T find is the slightest hint of predictive capability in the models. What you WON'T find is that missing hot spot which is crucial for significant GHG forcing. Without that change to the gradient of atmospheric temperatures the higher temperatures actually help to not only increase emissions through the "window" that isn't impacted by CO2 and water vapor...it actually opens up the window for CO2 as well (a warmer tropopause increases output within CO2's spectrum).
Basically, the "massive wealth" of information is the ambiguous CO2 absorption information and the correlation of warming...warming which isn't at all unusual within the Holocene.
Now go find me some real-world data that isn't just someone saying "but it's hotter". Do not try to point back at glacial-interglacial behavior because CO2 can't be potent there or else it would behave in a radically different way. Don't point back at glacial-interglacial sensitivities to change because we clearly do not have those sensitivities during interglacial periods. Oh, and while you're at it...explain the dozen or more larger temperature swings up and down during the Holocene so you can be certain that something similar isn't happening now.
-------------------------------
@Pete Ridley #345 who wrote...
"It has been shown by several scientists that the CO2 sensitivity is a function of concentration, just as the sensitivity of any one half of the a “flip-flop” varies between the two stable states."
I'm reminded of a quote from a Foghorn Leghorn cartoon... "Two half nothings is a whole nothing". The absorption by CO2 is a function of concentration but its logarithmic. Whatever the impact of the 80ppm increase from glacial maximum to interglacial...a doubling of CO2 is only about a 60% higher change. That's 60% of whatever the change was, NOT 60% more forcing. There is theoretically more forcing from the first 20ppm than there is from the next 600ppm.
With respect to the flip-flop that really is a good approximation of the glacial-interglacial transitions. As such, even if CO2 was providing the absolute theoretical maximum you'd expect from a doubling (about 3.7 watts) it STILL wouldn't do much to the climate because feedbacks are weak to negative. The amount of warming necessary to compensate for that 3.7 watt increase would be about 1.2C BUT...we're already experiencing 40% of whatever that forcing is, with only 60% remaining. The IPCC's case is EXTREMELY poor. The only reason people believe it is because it's simply too confusing with all the red herrings they keep throwing out (like acting as if melting ice was somehow different evidence from warming). LOL, they're even confusing themselves.
Complain about this comment
@SR #343
Big deal - I think you get the point, as in - what questions are asked. Certainly man's affect through desertification has increased temperature.
You are playing with semantics and playing with the point.
The point I was trying to make is every evident - do you agree or would you care to disagree?
Point being - it is not the CO2 AGW Theory of Armageddon - correct?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Mango,
Re: Dr Lu, I will try to find you a link tomorrow - I believe the story was actually on the BBC or CNN. I think if you google 'DR. Lu' and Ozone you will find it quickly...
Regarding weather on the Sun - I avoid the term light - but I understand what you mean - its the full output across the electromagnetic spectrum plus solar winds, flares, etc...certainly the sun has weather - we are very aware of only one of the Sun's cycles - sunspots - and we really don't understand much about the why...
But, my view is that if there is a 'primary driver' of climate on earth (and throughout the solar system) it is the climate/weather on the sun...
more later, sorry gotta run...
Cheers Mate.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Paul Briscoe wrote: All I will say is this - if you can come up with convincing evidence [apart from CO2] of another explanation for the recent warming then I might be prepared to listen...... but I would need properly validated scientific evidence.
Ok try listening then.
It has got colder and warmer countless times before the SUV was invented - you can go back 100's, 1000's or millions and millions, even billions of years...warm, cold, war, cold, on-and-on countless times for 30 year, 60 year, hundred year and many other cycles - far too many to list here.
So what makes you "alarmists" so absolutely certain that recent cycle of warming is caused by man-made CO2?
Why on earth cannot the recent warming (which is far from unprecedented) be entirely natural?
Why jump to a dire conclusion when there is NOTHING going on that has not happened millions of times before.
Surely, even you can see how ridiculously alarmist the man-made CO2 thermageddon propaganda is!
It ain't Rocket Science....it is called common sense.
Complain about this comment
@thinkforyourself #363
The language in those horrible emails sent to AGW scientists is way too strong for the BBC. And imagine. The scientists have to wade through that stuff on a regular basis.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying
Complain about this comment
At 02:16am on 03 Mar 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:The language in those horrible emails sent to AGW scientists is way too strong for the BBC. And imagine. The scientists have to wade through that stuff on a regular basis.
It is horrible but a lot of taxpayer money has been wasted on the scam that these scientists promulgated. So it is understandable that people are angry with the perpetrators of this man-made global warming thermageddon fraud.
After all, I don't think investors with Bernie Madoff had very nice things to say about Bernie when they found out that this "nice guy" had fleeced them for all they were worth...
It is wrong and it should not happen but when you have been swindled it is hard not to react emotionally with anger.
Complain about this comment
@296, poitsplace;
Thorium is still way too expensive. If FF works, it will cost 1/20 of North American rates, which are a fraction of UK/EU rates. And the base fuel, boron, is in sufficient on-planet supply to last about 2 X 10^9 years at 10X current world electrical demand. Should be long enough!
On the subject of solar activity and insolation, and cloud cover, the best linkage is with the solar wind. When it is strong, it blocks more of the cosmic ray (relativistic particle) influx, depriving the atmosphere of condensation nuclei for low clouds. This permits more sunlight to reach the surface, causing warming. When the solar wind is weak, as it now is, more cosmic rays penetrate and clouds form more readily, causing cooling. This is a strong "amplifier" of solar activity, but has nothing much to do with solar light and heat emissions as such.
Here's CERN's take on the subject: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
Complain about this comment
@SR wrote: (responding to an earlier post of mine)
To clarify, and for everyone else's information, the actual question to get the 97% consensus was this:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
--------------------------------------
@SR - Thank you very much for that clarification. I felt like my paraphrased question was sufficiently vague - but the real question posed is certainly much more vague. Again, thank you for the clarification.
@Paul Briscoe - as you like citing the consensus and it was our discussion which SR joined and corrected me (thank you once again) - this is also for you.
First, I don't believe the word 'significant' was used - but please correct me by siting the authoritative source for the question. And even if the word significant was used...doesn't matter:
Regardless - even if so, we can say 'significant portion of 3/4 of a degree of warming in the last one hundred and fifty years' - Please correct me if I am wrong in making this implication - after all 3/4 of a degree of warming over the last one hundred and fifty years is pretty widely accepted by most everyone? Please correct me if I am wrong.
So, the 97% 'consensus' statement says absolutely nothing about CO2. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The 97% consensus statement says absolutely nothing about impending Armageddon because of CO2 emissions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The 97% consensus statement says absolutely nothing regarding the accuracy nor validity of any climate models in existence. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The 97% consensus statement says absolutely nothing about the definition of what is considered 'significant' - it could be 5% for some people or it could be 25% for others, maybe 50% for even others - so we really have no idea from this 'consensus statement' what 'significant' is or means in this context. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The 97% consensus statement says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding C02, warming possibly due to CO2, potential for additional warming if C02 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise, or anything, in any way associated with CO2. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The 97% consensus statement does not suggest anything whatsoever related to the impact of increase in temperature caused by man on the planet. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The 97% consensus statement says absolutely nothing about anything which need be done, nor even implies that anything should be done. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I could spend the whole night and not even touch the surface of all the ridiculous arguments which have been made in the name of the '97% consensus statement. But I am going to stop here...not worth the time.
Yet, so many people throw out this 97% consensus statement (talking to you guys...;) - and imply a whole lot of things that simply aren't true and try to 'back it up' with this intentionally vague 'consensus statement' which really says nothing. Hum.
I (again, an avowed skeptic) would agree with that 'consensus' statement. It is so vague and imprecise - I think even Mango and probably everyone else on this blog would agree with it - skeptic or not.
So, now that we have been provided with the exact statement behind the 97% consensus - and we can all see just how worthless it is in supporting anything specific regarding global warming and CO2 and man's affects or for that matter anything else (Thank you for clarifying that for us SR) - can we now drop the 'consensus argument' in support of ANY DETAIL OR SPECIFIC THEORY ASSOCIATED WITH THE AGW DEBATE?
Fair enough guys?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Mango
Regarding Dr. Lu and his theory around ozone and global warming...here is one article, its not the one I originally saw, but there are plenty out there and I am sure you can find copies of his papers.
Incidentally, he was not looking at global warming - but rather ozone and made this discovery by accident. (Imagine science actually making discoveries by accident - hasn't happened with the 'climate scientists' - they already know what they are going to discover before they start the project...;)
http://energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/the-ozone-hole-did-it
Enjoy.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
@Brian, @interested others
RE: Nuclear Fusion
There are several current fusion projects that I am aware of, including ITAR and others...
There is one at Lawrence Livermore using focused beam technology. Basically, convergence of a whole bunch of high intensity laser beams on a small spot to create plasma and initiate fusion.
On this project, there was a breakthrough a couple of weeks ago - apparently there was a lot of worry about interference associated with the convergence of the beams (as I recall it). They now believe they have proved that this is no longer an issue with their design. They also expect to create a viable fusion reaction in the next few months (one in which more energy is released than required to initiate the reaction).
Having said that...5 years is in no way realistic for moving our baseload energy needs to fusion.
This is what I would call an 'experimental' reactor. Lets talk about what it takes to go from there to where we want to see it...
Lets say they learn enough from this 'experimental reactor' in the next two years to design a 'prototype' reactor plant.
Lets allow five years to design this 'prototype reactor'.
Now, lets allow five more years build this prototype reactor.
Lets run this prototype reactor for five years to study it and learn what we need to create a commercial reactor.
Lets say the design of the 'commercial reactor' begins with the prototype actually running and last for ten years. (5 years of design while running the prototype, 5 more to complete the design)
Lets build the first commercial reactor - 5 more years.
Lets run the commercial reactor so that it can prove itself - 5 more years.
Lets build 200 commercial reactors and pick up the baseload in the US and Europe and some in other parts of the world - 20 years.
So, 52 years from now. Granted, parts of this can be compressed, but other parts can't and actually might take longer...
We might be able to do it a little bit faster, but not much.
Realistically speaking...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Paul Briscoe wrote:
All I will say is this - if you can come up with convincing evidence [apart from CO2] of another explanation for the recent warming then I might be prepared to listen...... but I would need properly validated scientific evidence.
@Paul, my earlier post to Mango (one of the last five posts)
"Four out of Five Dentists who chew gum, recommend Trident"
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
From the Daily Mail, Dr. Jones at the house of Commons:
On the spot: Professor Phil Jones being grilled by the Science and Technology committee in the Commons today
Now, an independent probe is examining allegations stemming from the emails that scientists hid, manipulated or deleted data to exaggerate the case for man-made global warming.
Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.
He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.
Appearing before the committee's hearing into the disclosure of data from the CRU alongside Prof Jones, the university's vice chancellor Prof Edward Acton said he had not seen any evidence of flaws in the overall science of climate change - but said he was planning this week to announce the chair of a second independent inquiry, which will look into the science produced at CRU. (Daily Mail)
---------------------------------------------
I think this speaks for itself (that you Dr.) and nothing more need be said...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
NY Times, Jan 26: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
And still they pound the AGW drum and say it means nothing...
*smile*
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=print
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey at #377
The article points out that the sample considered was only for temperatures in the United States:
"Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations."
Complain about this comment
#368 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"The language in those horrible emails sent to AGW scientists is way too strong for the BBC."
Could you direct me to some website where I can read a few of the actual emails? There is so much victim-stancing wherever factual judgements are corrupted by moral sentiment.
Complain about this comment
@andrew9999 #361
You state from the paper that between 1983-2001 that there was an increase in solar radiation at the surface and it suggests that this could be due to a change in cloud cover.
You also agree that temperatures have risen during this period, so I have a question for you, what does this mean for the concept of negative feedback from clouds, because this paper seems (from your description) to run contrary to this.
If negative feedback existed doesn't it mean an increase in temperature would give an increase in cloud cover reducing solar radiation at the surface not increasing it.
Less cloud = more solar radiation reaching the earths surface due to less reflective clouds
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Larry #372
http://energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/the-ozone-hole-did-it
Enjoy.
Kealey
Thank you, i did :-)
So now we have 2 possible candidates for GW, one natural and one man made
perhaps a combination of both - ozone depletion causes less clouds, causes more solar radiation to reach the earths surface (conjecture on my part, i have no evidence - Davblo2, please add to your highly amusing list)
Where have most of the AGWer's gone? They are always asking sceptics to come up with an alternative reason for the warming, but only 2 have posted anything in response to my post #329
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/forget_the_norfolk_polices_cri.html#P93094951
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
As you stated, the study does not necessarily cast doubt upon previous findings of a world wide trend toward warmer temperatures.
However, the findings of the study certainly do not lend any support to previous findings of a world wide trend toward warmer temperatures.
Additionally, my understanding is that the 'previous findings of a world wide trend toward warmer temperatures' were made, at least partly upon the basis of US temperature data - which apparently was inappropriately corrected.
In order for this 'world wide trend toward warmer temperatures' to be an accepted finding (in my view) the study should be re-done using the data which shows no warming over the last hundred years in the US.
Fair Enough?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@andrew9999 #361
If negative feedback existed doesn't it mean an increase in temperature would give an increase in cloud cover reducing solar radiation at the surface not increasing it.
Sorry Andrew, i meant to say:
Wouldn't that also depend on Cosmic Rays seeding the clouds?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Mango, @Andrew999
RE: Clouds
First, I didn't read the paper...but would like to make a couple of comments.
Not only due clouds reflect solar radiation, clouds also trap heat. Additionally, clouds only reflect radiation through part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
For example, I live near the Gulf Coast of Texas - deep in the South. It is hot here in the summer - on a nice sunny day, you can get burned really bad in just a few hours, if you do not have the appropriate base tan and are not used to it. I also want to add that you get burned just as bad and just as quickly on a cloudy day because clouds do not block UV Radiation very well. It takes a very thick layer of clouds to block the sun and prevent sunburn.
Clouds also absorb solar radiation at different wavelengths.
Clouds also reflect downward and trap heat radiated from the ground which absorbed solar radiation during the day.
Clouds at lower altitudes have different affects than clouds at very high altitudes.
My thought would be that under certain conditions, temperature drives cloud formation (and vise versa) and under other conditions, temperature inhibits cloud formation. And under some other conditions, the effect of small changes in temperature has no real affect upon cloud formation. What those conditions are is the big question...;)
I like my little theory - but the point being, we really know so little about clouds.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@ 371 - excellent post. The consensus is a) a sham and b) completeley irrelevant in science any way. As i'm struggling explain to with my MP at present.
@381 - again, excellent post. Fairly reasonable theories those, i'd have to look into them more, but they certainly at first pass, seem as likely as the agw theory.
Side not- i notice next to no AGW-ers have bothered to comment on my 199 post.
Jane i responded to you responce in responce to my 199 post, if you follow! in #333. but it was reffered to the moderatores and is still being looked at. I don't know why, of all people on this blog you are one who admits when wrong/stands up when right- i have no issue with that and made no harsh comments.
All the post contaioned were exerts from the report that clearly show the IOP are concearned about the CRU/IPCC and climate science in general. They were not paraphrased or taken out of context. I'd humbly suggest you go and re-read their document. It IS very damming.
Complain about this comment
Offered for entertainment value only...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/trees-will-not-become-unstoppable-killing-machines%2c-admit-climate-scientists-201002022433/
Complain about this comment
More on the 97% consensus of climate scientists.
@343 SR said
“To clarify, and for everyone else's information, the actual question to get the 97% consensus was this:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
You said the 97% came from this: "Do you think man's activities have had any affect on the climate of the earth, either locally or globally?"
Big difference there. Let us try to keep this debate accurate.”
I’m afraid, SR you got it wrong.
The survey was done by Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted in the late 2008.
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. Only 3146 responded. Five per cent were climate scientists.
The 97% relates only to climate scientists who were active publishers in climate change. The value for all climate scientists is 88%. In contrast, 47% of economic geologists agreed and 64% of meteorologists agreed.
I am a sceptic scientist and I agree. Deforestation is a major manmade problem.
This demonstrates the importance of getting access to the raw data. It can be found at the link below as a pdf file.
http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/2010/01/97-of-climatologists-believe-human-activity-is-a-significant-factor-in-changing-global-mean-temperature/
Complain about this comment
ADMac at #387
Thanks for the link - that is an interesting piece.
Complain about this comment
In comment 357 when linking to Jaworowski’s 2007 paper “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” I forgot that links to .pdf documents are not allowed. Here is a link to that link (Note 1).
SR, in 342 your response to MangoChutney included QUOTE: Radiative forcing from CO2 is around 1.6 W/m^2. When you factor in aerosols and other greenhouse gases like methane, the net anthropogenic component is around 1.7 W/m^2. UNQUOTE. The DAGWer site Climate Sceptics (Note 2) says QUOTE: The radiative forcing from methane is +0.48 Wm-2. .. Greenhouse gases and ozone contribute warming of +2.9 Wm-2. The majority of this is from CO2 (+1.66 Wm-2). UNQUOTE which I understand to mean that the total radiative forcing for the two atmospheric greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 is about 1.7 Wm-2. I am a little puzzled by your implication that all of that 1.66 W/m^2 is due to “anthropogenic” CO2 as you make no mention of the part played by the natural 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’m obviously misunderstanding something here so please would you clarify for me.
Thinkforyoursel, ref. comment 362, I appreciate that “refute” means several things (Note 2) QUOTE: Definition of refute (verb) to challenge; to disprove; to prove false UNQUOTE. When I said “refute” I incorrectly assumed meant “prove false”. Those articles in those links that you provided offer no substantial challenge to Jaworowski’s hypothesis about those ice cores, uless I’ve missed somethng that you spotted, in which case would you be kind enough to quote it.
Poitsplace, ref. your excellent comment 364, thanks for clarifying that the point that I made about “the CO2 sensitivity is a function of concentration” was not meant as “the CO2 sensitivity is directly proportional to concentration”. I think that you may have misunderstood my point about the flip-flop, which is that during the transition from one state to the other the feedback is positive and very high but eventually falls to zero at saturation.
LarryKealey, I think that any reasonable person would have to agree that you made your point in comment 371 and sceptic guys like us would have to agree “fair enough” (and that goes for your comment about “climate scientists” in 372).
In 376 you mention the Science and Technology Committee enquiry into UEA CRU and the Climategate E-mails that started off the opening of all of those IPCC-gates. I was most surprised by Jones’s statement that scientists prefer the derived temperature data to the raw data. I’m sure that there are many sceptical scientists who would prefer to have their hands on the raw data. I was also puzzled about what a historian was doing in the enquiry into the behaviour of scientists. I hadn’t spotted that Jones’s “right hand man was the UEA Vice-chancellor. Jones cam e across as being very nervous. Acton presented himself in a much more professional manner, almost as good as a well–rehearsed political leader. Who was the stern-faced guy behind Jones who kept feeding bits of paper to him? Since this is an enquiry by politicians for politicians and all political parties support The Hypothesis I fully expect the cerdict to be “the science is sound”, as Jones claimed.
In 384 may I suggest that a more complete statement would have been “we really know so little about clouds and water vapour”
BTW, be careful, you might upset JaneBasingstoke with all of those posts. Do you realise that you’ve made 38 comments out of 380, way above her allowance.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore
2) see http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #384
but the point being, we really know so little about clouds
A point I have been making ever since I first came to this blog
@simon-swede #386
Offered for entertainment value only...
i have to disagree with you, Simon, have you never heard of the Ents? ;-)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Regarding MangoChutney’s questions in 329 about the effect of the sun and the ensuing debate about the significance of the sun in all of this, you may be interested in reading “THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE” by Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory (see the full paper linked at the bottom of http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4254)
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #379
(@thinkforyourself #363)
Even with asterisks the mods wouldn't allow a link to an article quoting from those emails. Many of them are also evidence in ongoing police investigation.
However, here are some links where people are taking this sort of think seriously.
Note, scientists and respectable bloggers on both sides are on the receiving end of this.
Paul Dennis contributions and discussion of Wigley interview
(Paul Dennis works at UAE and is a Climate Audit regular. Yes, the police do know this.)
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/#comment-208792
Discussion of extract from East Anglia email
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/08/9844/#comment-214899
Discussion of respectable sceptic bloggers on the receiving end of death threats
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/08/9844/#comment-214986
Wigley interview
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm
Finally two quotes from Stephen McIntyre on the matter, taken from comments in the first Climate Audit link:
"I always urge people to be polite. I ask people not to be angry, to avoid venting and piling on. Such behaviour, if true, is the total antithesis of what I believe in."
"As I said before, I ask readers to be polite and not to be angry. It is profoundly disappointing that anyone would engage in such behavior."
Complain about this comment
Further to my post #329:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/forget_the_norfolk_polices_cri.html#P93094951
I've just looked in at RC for a rebuttal of Pinker et al and the only conclusions they seem to draw are "There must be some slight cautions about the quality of the satellite data" and the results should not be over interpreted.
No rebuttal, no see this paper for the reasons why this is wrong. Even the answers to the comments seem measured, which is very unusual for RC.
Perhaps that's the reason the AGWer's haven't chipped in, they have nobody to tell them what to think - apologies, i couldn't resist >;-)~
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Shadorne #369
(@thinkforyourself #363)
You manage to express your anger here without resource to abusive language or physical threats. And I repeat, the BBC mods won't even allow asterisked quotes.
The behaviour of these abusive emailers may be understandable but it doesn't help their cause, hurts the credibility of moderate sceptics and makes things far more unpleasant for everyone.
Besides people on both sides have been subjected to this sort of unpleasantness.
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #345
"Ref. 339, do you agree that all of the assessments made by the IPCC in AR4 should now be subjected to scrutiny by statisiticians and scientists who are independent of political influence? Also, do you agree that the computer models upon which the IPCC is so dependent are also subjected to independent scrutiny using professional; VV&T processes?"
"independent of political influence" is impossible when it comes to climate science. Everyone with any relevant knowledge takes a position. Given the subject matter, how could they not?
This is why AGW sceptic scientists scrutinising work by AGW scientists is so valuable. In the absence of complete independence it fills a gap.
Complain about this comment
Mango (at #390): Yep, I've heard of Ents! They are cool sceptics ('not too hasty'), with attitude! Hoom, hoom!
Complain about this comment
re: CRU staff death threats.
i'd just like to say that anyone sending death threats to the CRU staff deserve locking up, regardless of what they may or may not have done, noone deserves that kind of attack- and it is an attack.
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #385
Remember it only takes a problem with part of your post and they have to refer or fail all of your post.
I have read the IOP's submission. They are clearly very unhappy with some of the behaviour revealed by Climategate revelations. They are also clearly very unhappy at other behaviour suggested at by Climategate revelations but not actually confirmed. They want rigorous investigation.
But there is nothing there to say they have changed their minds on AGW. How could there be? They would have to do some sort of investigation such as a poll of their membership to confirm that. There has been no such investigation.
Besides they would be extremely unlikely to bury such an announcement between the lines in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.
Meanwhile the IOP have issued a clarification, they still believe "the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change".
http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html
Complain about this comment
@399 so it does. thanks for the link.
i wonder if that would still hold true if the allegations of data manipulation (improper) were upheld.
Complain about this comment
oh- needless to say i withdraw my comments at 199 / 333 etc
Complain about this comment
I think it's really important for people who receive death threats not to be swayed by them. I also think it's important for people who have not received death threats not to be swayed by them.
Far too much reflection on factual questions is guided (i.e. misguided) by moral opinions about who are the "good guys" or the "bad guys". The AGW debate is hugely corrupted by people thinking "I'm a wonderful fellow trying to save the planet, while my opponents are evil people trying to destroy the planet", or "I'm a wonderful fellow trying to stop tryrannical governments imposing illicit taxes, while my opponents are evil people trying to impose world government". Or whatever.
Once everyone is in "moralistic mode", factual judgement gets thrown to the winds. And seizing the "moral high ground" becomes a powerful rhetorical tool. One way of seizing it is to present oneself as the victim and make false claims about death threats.
Of course death threats are bad. Making up false claims about death threats is also bad, and there is strong motivation for it, which means there are bound to be at least some false claims of having received death threats.
So I suggest we forget about death threats, and fake death threats, and leave all that sort of thing to the police and the criminal justice system.
Anyone interested in the truth -- anyone who wants to keep their scientific wits about themselves by making good, reliable, reflective, informed factual judgements -- should blinker themselves to moral issues.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK, ref. comment 393, there’s many a true word spoken in jest.
JaneBasingstoke 392/4, I wasn’t aware that things had become so vicious. I’ve seen a lot of nastiness and am using one individual (Ian Forrester – Note 1) as a case study (Note 2). Ref. comment 395, we agree at last. What’s your view on the merits of open review on the Internet versus the secretive peer-review undertaken before publication in learned society journals? Ref. comment 398 and your quotation from the IOP, note that they make no suggestion there that any climate change is other than natural or caused by our use of fossil fuels, which of course it isn’t. BTW, have you noticed that Chris Colose continues to leave my comments as posted.
NOTES:
1) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-2101
2) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P30/
Complain about this comment
#398 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
the IOP have issued a clarification, they still believe "the basic science is well enough understood"
I wonder if the IOP will ever begin to probe the logic of the situation? It's clear to me that the people they are investigating don't understand the logic of what they are doing at all.
It would be possible to extrapolate from past climate records to future climate if the former were representative of the latter in a lawlike way. But it isn't. The very term 'temperature anomaly' expresses the misunderstanding, as it suggest that a lawlike phenomenon or "pattern" exists, and that some events do not fit the "pattern".
But there is no reason to think there is any such "pattern".
Complain about this comment
For anyone who hasn’t looked closely at the suspect attempts by UEA CRU to “prove” the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis and still thinks like Phil Jones that “the science is sound”, an Internet search on HARRY_README.TXT may be an eye-opener.
Complain about this comment
@Mango
Regarding clouds and we know so little - Agreed, the comment was really for Andrew, I have read enough of your posts to know where you stand (a beacon of light and thought in the darkness...;)
@Pete Ridley #389
First thank you. I do hope I don't upset Jane, my apologies for the multitude of posts - I have had a couple of sleepless nights...got pumped full of steriods last Monday, and they still have me bouncing off the walls, especially at night...LOL.
Regarding 'we know so little' - certainly add water vapor, but please don't stop there, the interactions within the different layers of the atmosphere, cosmic rays, the oceans (top to bottom) - name your topic with regards to environmental science and climate change - and we know so little...
Regarding Dr. Phil Jones - I had posted an excerpt, I actually read several stories regarding his appearance in the House of Commons during the wee hours of the night...some of what I read was that...
Dr. Jones is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and so they (MP's) 'took it easy' on him and didn't hit him with a lot of the 'hard questions'
A number of questions that were planned to be asked were not - because of the incredibly damaging response he provided to some pretty easy basic questions.
I would also like to talk about a comment he made - which was that no one who had ever reviewed his work, nor any publication which had published his work had ever requested to see data, models, etc....absolutely nothing.
In my view, this means that we can take everything from Science, Nature, pick your source - and throw it in the garbage - until someone goes back and does the review and reproduces the results...
It still amazes me that so many in the pro-AGW camp still have such faith in this 'science' - and I use the term very loosely here...
We also finally heard from Al Gore yesterday - an almost 2000 word opinion article in the NY Times (I believe it was the times) - basically saying, none of these scandals matter - we have to stop emitting CO2...
Sometimes, it just dumbfounds me...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Relating to the ongoing Science & Technology Committee enquiry into the UEA CRU’s climate science activities is an interesting article on lawyer John O’Sullivan’s blog (Note 1).
QUOTE:
A former post-graduate student of the heavily criticised university at the center of the Climategate scandal has submitted a damning assessment to the UK Government Inquiry. Lalu Hanuman, a British national now living in Barbados, has presented physical evidence to the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee revealing potentially unethical and criminal conduct by staff at the University of East Anglia. …
Memorandum submitted by Lalu Hanuman (CRU 07)
1. As a former postgraduate student of the University of East Anglia [UEA], and a British Citizen, I would like to comment on your committee’s planned review of the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the UEA. In particular the issue of : “Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA, adequate”.
2. The current furore that the UEA has created by it’s falsifying of climate change information, has undermined global climate change action at the recent Copenhagen talks, with some countries relying on these UEA revelations to question the validity of climate change. The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated, as it has helped delay united action against looming climate change. A robust and thorough transparent inquiry is called for. Sir Muir Russell’s review is inadequate at least as far as point 3 of his remit goes ie “Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data”.
3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.
4. Declaration of interests: None.
5. DPA: I give permission for my name, and contact details, to be released.
Lalu Hanuman
January 2010
UNQUOTE.
NB: John O'Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated against government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain.
Note 1) see http://www.climategate.com/former-student-claims-climategate-university-often-falsified-data
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #393
Pinker et al 2005 is referenced in a number of places in IPCC AR4. One of them links to WG1 3.4.3:
"The response of cloud cover to increasing greenhouse gases currently represents the largest uncertainty in model predictions of climate sensitivity (see Chapter 8)."
[The piece then goes on to comment on the inconsistencies in cloud measurements according to method used.]
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-3.html
Basically it looks to me like the situation with the early satellite temperature measurements. They are getting significantly different results for different approaches. They have some ideas as to why they get different results. But there is no clear resolution of the problem.
So the paper you quote looks like one of the reasons why climate sensitivity, especially the cloud component, is still acknowledged as up for debate by the scientists on the pro-AGW side of the debate.
Meanwhile here is another piece from RealClimate that you really need to be aware of:
"The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ’some scientists’ are supposed to have said. The reality is that it depends very much on what you are talking about and I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context – at a recent meeting I was at, someone claimed that this had been said by the participants and he was roundly shouted down by the assembled experts."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
Perhaps RealClimate aren't just about rebuttals.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #401
I think you're missing my point. Both sides of the AGW debate are on the receiving end of this unpleasantness. This is something that should unite both sides, disgust at people who distort the debate in this way.
Perhaps that will help deal with the issue you mention whereby some people decide that one side of the AGW debate is good and the other bad. All honest debate is good and can help progress understanding.
I hope the police are on the case. But for the rest of us to forget about such unpleasantness could be seen as giving it unspoken permission to continue. And there are similarities with what happened in football (soccer).
Complain about this comment
I posted the CRU climate data on my website, why not check out your local weather and see if you disagree? Its pretty simple and quite interactive.
http://www.knowyourplanet.com/climate-data/europe/united-kingdom
And if you happen to be a sceptic, why not find the weather data yourself and compare to the CRU data I made available. I challenge you, if you find any fault, let me know on [Personal details removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Sorry everyone! I've been very busy this last couple of days. I still am, so I can't hope to respond in detail to every post directed at me. Therefore, I'll concentrate on the main points.
Poitsplace @ #320
"No, you're getting confused because of some annoying, preconceived notion of the power of CO2 as a climate forcing and the sensitivity of the climate to any change in radiative balance. The supposed extra forcing we're currently experiencing from CO2 should be about the same as the extra forcing from CO2 between glacial maximum and pre-industrial levels. Of course, CO2 showed little to no impact over those transitions and that was during a time when the feedbacks really were high. Now feedbacks are low........."
The New Scientist article, which I paraphrased in a vain attempt to make it clearer, is based on sound empirical science:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html?full=true
Your response to it is not.
First of all, it is believed to have been Milankovitch cycles which switched the Earth between ice ages and interglacials - in other words, this, rather than CO2, was the forcing. CO2 levels rose by simple virtue of the fact that the oceans warmed, leading to lower solubility and hence higher atmospheric levels. The converse applied as the Earth cooled. As a greenhouse gas, CO2 would undoubtedly have had a warming effect (and probably of the same order as we're seeing today), but the effect of this warming is obviously already incorporated into the proxy temperature data. In other words, the CO2 simply amplified the warming and cooling trends caused by the Milankovitch cycles - it was a feedback.
If you take a look at the graph showing data derived from the ice cores and look at the bottom axis you'll note that it is in increments of 100,000 years. So although the spikes look very abrupt, the CO2 rise in each interglacial actually took place over quite a long period (probably around 10,000 years). Consequently the additional warming effect of CO2 was very gradual and could not possibly have cancelled out the very large changes cause by the Milankovitch cycles. Consequently CO2 levels responded to the changing cycles.
In the present day we have a very different situation. CO2 levels started at around the same level they were in the middle of previous interglacials. They have since risen by around 100ppm in just 150 years - that's more than 50 times faster than in the past interglacials. Consequently the warming effect of the CO2 is building up far faster and is considered to be "forcing".
Now let's change tack a little........
In a previous thread, someone stated (it may have been you) that CO2 would only be expected to increase global temperatures by at most 1.6 Celsius for a doubling of concentration. In fact, CO2 levels have increased by around 38% since 1850. Over the same period, global temperatures have increased by around 0.7 Celsius (from the HADCRUT data)...... which equates to 43.75% of that 1.6 Celsius figure you quoted for CO2 doubling. So based on your own figure, it is hardly unreasonable to say that CO2 accounts for the temperature rise we have seen thus far.
Of course, the scientists claim that there will be positive feedbacks which will add to the warming effect of CO2. So where have they gone?
I'll leave that for another post as and when I have the time.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #406
WOW!!!
That one really is explosive. Here's the link for all to read:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0702.htm
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Whilst everyone is talking about the Institute of Physics submission to the Parliamentary enquiry, I thought I'd point out some details of the submission from the Royal Society of Chemistry:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm
Of course, like everyone else, the RSC are keen to see transparency in science (and I totally agree with them). However, their response shows a far better grasp of all the issues than the IOP submission. I would draw attention to the following:
"With the increased use of electronic media, access to information is widespread for scientists and the public alike. While this is a great benefit to society, the quality and validity of information available raises complex problems as valid scientific information and general opinion are presented side by side. The inability to decipher which information is legitimate, results in confusion, misinterpretation and may lead to mistrust of 'science'. There needs to be a clearer understanding in the public domain of what constitutes a reliable source, including an appreciation for the process that is used for disseminating research and the advantages of peer review."
"The peer review system is central to the credibility of science: its purpose to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations. Formally published scientific research is subject to this authoritative process whereby a community of qualified, impartial experts examine the information and possess the ability to prevent publication. Authors generally protect their data until it has been peer-reviewed and published in a formal publication due to the competitive nature of research."
"The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion. Increased understanding of the process of scientific research, firstly in the government, but also within the media and general public, is vital in order to foster a more open sharing of information."
"Support from the scientific community is needed to provide context and to explain the process by which conclusions are reached. Encouraging scientists to openly engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work. This support must come from the highest levels, sending out a strong message on the importance of scientific methodology and research and promoting open sharing of information between scientists and the wider community."
I would say that the RSC have hit the nail right on the head!
Paul
Complain about this comment
Hmmmm, it seems Lalu has an axe to grind
Probably best to wait until he actually produces the evidence methinks
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2086.html
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #405
There are big differences between your posts on a BBC blog and Pete's on Chris Colose's blog. Not least that Chris Colose is a private individual.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
PS, sorry to hear about the steroids. They do help with injuries but they can have some nasty side effects. From my point of view they haven't detracted from your quality posts.
Complain about this comment
I've been trying to wade back through the posts made whilst I've been away. I've now picked up on the paper by Lu. Unfortunately, I only have access to the abstract, so I am reliant on second hand sources to fill in the gaps.
However, based on what I have read thus far it appears that there are 2 major flaws in Lu's claims regarding CFC's being responsible for global warming.
First, it seems that Lu is claiming that global cooling since 2000 supports his theory. The problem is that, like everyone trying to play down the effects of CO2, Lu uses the HADCRUT data, which includes no data for the North Pole (the part of the Earth which is warming the fastest). ALL of the other data (GISS, satellite and ocean temperature)sets do show warming since 2000, which immediately casts doubt on Lu's claims.
Crucially, though, Lu claims that the IPCC AR4 grossly underestimates the forcing from CFC's, which he says have only been modelled but not measured. However, a paper which missed the cut-off date for IPCC AR4 shows that Lu is incorrect:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
The Evans paper DOES measure the forcing from CFC's and ties in very closely with the IPCC's estimate. Consequently, CFC's cannot be responsible for the recent warming trend.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #407
So the paper you quote looks like one of the reasons why climate sensitivity, especially the cloud component, is still acknowledged as up for debate by the scientists on the pro-AGW side of the debate.
Agreed, and basically what I have been saying for over a year. The Pinker paper is relevant in my opinion.
"...I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context..."
I think RC are being a little economical with the truth, perhaps not on purpose. Michael Schlesinger, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and director of the Climate Research Group at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign said:
"The case of detecting climate change is closed, period, RPS or any other climate skeptic notwithstanding."
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/?permid=132#comment132
Richard C. J. Somerville, Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego said:
"As a climate scientist, I am often asked, “Do you believe in global warming?” Climate change, however, is not a matter of personal belief.
Instead, among experts, it's just settled science that people are changing the climate."
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060712/news_lz1e12somervi.html
That sounds like "the science is settled" to me
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #414
Thank you very kindly Jane - your kind words are appreciated.
Regarding your post, I am not sure I understand - I looked briefly at the link - but didn't really see the connection with #405...could you help me to understand your point?
I am a 'private individual' - my thoughts and words are my own, I am payed by no one (except social security) and represent no one other than myself.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Mango
Regarding the former Grad Student...
I have avoided, for the most part, on commenting on the emails, etc related to the whole scandal. I think that it all pretty much speaks for itself.
In my opinion, there are a number of institutions which will be feeling a great deal of fallout for quite some time to come - and a great many people. I am satisfied that enough has come out and authorities are not going to allow this to be 'swept under the carpet'...So, I have pretty much been just watching from the sidelines...;)
Regarding the former Grad Student - I don't really think his testimony means that much. Certainly, any real evidence he provides will be beneficial and useful during the investigation. But, pick your university and there are plenty of 'disgruntled grad students'.
My brother is a professor - and I certainly would not want to be one of his grad 'slaves'. I was fortunate in Graduate School, in that I worked for Prof. John Junkins at Texas A&M (you might check him out). He was a hard task master, but fair, and shared the philosophy: work hard, play hard...I knew professors who would show up at ten pm on Sunday night to make sure that their students where there and working hard...and while I was there many a sunday night at ten pm - it was because I set my own schedule and it was a good time for me - I didn't have the wife and kids at home as so many others did...
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#408 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I think you're missing my point. Both sides of the AGW debate are on the receiving end of this unpleasantness."
As I acknowledged in my examples of self-righteous moralism from both sides.
"This is something that should unite both sides, disgust at people who distort the debate in this way."
No doubt both sides are already united on the evils of sending death threats and of faking death threats. My point is that wallowing in moralism and frankly getting a narcissistic "kick" out of Standing Up for What is Right -- as we all do, including me -- is a terrible "drug" that damages the mind and undermines factual judgement.
Complain about this comment
I'm about to add the Royal Society of Chemistry to my list of pseudo-scientists. I'm appalled by this:
"The peer review system is central to the credibility of science: its purpose to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations."
As if the "credibility" of science was one of its aims. What a bunch of unscientific churchmen defending their creed!
Peer review is a necessary part of any journal's editorial policy, that's all, because they can't publish everything that gets submitted to them. To treat peer review as anything more than that is a sign of a feeble intellect that takes authority as a mark of truth. This requires a vast breadth of ignorance of the history of science.
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #418
I think we should pretty much ignore him unless he actually produces evidence.
I never went through the university system, so i've no idea how it works - having said that I now work in a university in the estates maintenance department as a chippy
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard wrote:
I'm about to add the Royal Society of Chemistry to my list of pseudo-scientists. I'm appalled by this:
"The peer review system is central to the credibility of science: its purpose to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations."
As if the "credibility" of science was one of its aims. What a bunch of unscientific churchmen defending their creed!
---------------------------------------------------------
@bowmanthebard
I am not sure you are taking this in the proper context. When I saw this statement and another recent similar statement from, I think a geophysical union (don't quote me - scientific organisation with 36,000 members).
The tone I got was that 'peer review' was important, and very important that it be done properly. It shows that results are reproducible. If done properly, it helps eliminate mistakes. But it was stressed that it must be an 'open and independent' review....
In my days in academia - everything got reviewed. As a part of the process, all data, algorithms, programs, models, assumptions, etc were subject to review. Part of that was because the University's name was on it - and they wanted no damage to their reputation. I, as a researcher, and my colleagues also wanted to maintain 'spotless' reputations. While honest mistakes will always happen, these multiple levels of peer review go a long way into catching those mistakes before they are printed and distributed for the world to see...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#422 LarryKealey wrote:
"In my days in academia - everything got reviewed. As a part of the process, all data, algorithms, programs, models, assumptions, etc were subject to review."
That's always been the way of any genuine science. In a genuine science, iconoclasts and upstarts can make a name for themselves by overturning the established view. And in a genuine science, the establishment is always in real danger of collapsing because they just can't get the test results -- the repeatable test results, mind -- to do their bidding.
But what is currently referred to as "peer review" is nothing like that. It's an alternative to what I just described. It's the turning of genuine science into a humanities priesthood.
Complain about this comment
Looks like it’s back to the 1950’s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite
It’s going to be up to the Chinese, Indians and Europeans to move forward on renewable energy.
Complain about this comment
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” – Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day, 1970
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." – Barry Commoner (Washington University), Earth Day, 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor, "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” – Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970
“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” – New York Times, July 18, 1970
"The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.” – New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870
“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” – New York Times, June 23, 1890
“The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.” – New York Times, Feb. 24, 1895
Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1923
“The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine, Sept. 10, 1923
Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” – New York Times, March 27, 1933
“America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder winters of grandfather's day.” – Associated Press, Dec. 15, 1934
Nothing new under the sun.
repeat: "the sky is falling. The sky is falling"
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Arctic-Ocean-is-warming-icebergs-growing-scarcer-reports-Washington-Post
Complain about this comment
@mango (@larry)
Sorry Mango I first didn't quite understand why you thought the paper important because in your original post you wrote the rate was 0.16W/m2 (I assumed over the period 1983-2001) which didn't seem particularly important but I had a look at the RC article you mentioned and it was 0.16W/m2/year which is much more significant. The implication of the RC articles of which I've only read a bit is its due to changes in aerosols. I can't say I know enough about it to say anything intelligent but it is interesting and I shall look at it.
Complain about this comment
Jane,
Gavin Schmidt says that skeptics are "paranoid nutters". No if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.
“What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html
Let's face it. The only paranoid people are those who believe in thermageddon by man-made CO2.
The skeptics are much more rational - they accept global warming as being a natural climate change just like what has happened countless millions and millions of times over in the past.
As for "nutters", I would ask the "alarmists" on these blog pages what is more "nutty"? - the belief that man is the main driver of the entire global climate or that poorly understood & poorly modelled natural processes continue to behind climate change (just as they always have been)?
Where did common sense go in noble institutions like the one Gavin works for (NASA)?
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #410 who wrote...
"The New Scientist article, which I paraphrased in a vain attempt to make it clearer, is based on sound empirical science:"
Yes, you'd paraphrased it and I simply pointed out why it was bad science. In what way does providing some other source that restates the bad science...make your case better? Read it again. The article does not in any way provide support for CO2 forcing. What it does is say that the 800 year lag doesn't necessarily mean CO2 couldn't be causing some warming and that they don't fully understand why the glacial-interglacial transitions were so substantial. Then it throws in the theoretical "forcing" of CO2 as "evidence" when the whole point of this was to see if you can detect any actual forcing from CO2.
We could just as easly turn the exact same data around for a much better fit, saying...While an increase in CO2 could theoretically cause an imbalance in radiative transfer it is not known what the real-world impacts would be. The long delays between rising CO2 levels and temperature during the glacial-interglacial transitions, coupled with the numerous, unexplained changes during the interglacial would seem to indicate CO2 has little impact. My example is something a real scientist would use. The hypothesis of CO2 forcing makes a prediction...that it should impact temperatures significantly. Since we can find no actual signs of CO2's hypothetical forcing...the data is at best ambiguous and at worst evidence against CO2 having a significant impact.
You also said...
"In fact, CO2 levels have increased by around 38% since 1850. Over the same period, global temperatures have increased by around 0.7 Celsius (from the HADCRUT data)...... which equates to 43.75% of that 1.6 Celsius figure you quoted for CO2 doubling. So based on your own figure, it is hardly unreasonable to say that CO2 accounts for the temperature rise we have seen thus far."
Yeah, except once again the problem is there was no significant increase early on but the temperatures started rising anyway. While this doesn't rule out man as the culprit it doesn't really make CO2 a likely candidate.
I should also point out that every one of those "Everything is happening faster than we thought" studies actually makes the case for high feedbacks worse. Since arctic ice has been dropping and ocean heat content has been rising SURELY we're already feeling the two major impacts...water vapor and ice albedo feedback. This seems to indicate that feedbacks are quite weak OR (more likely), that a lot of the warming had nothing at all to do with CO2.
So in the end, we're left with an absolutely awful case for significant CO2 forcing.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey, in comment 405 you mention Al (Carbon-trade) Gore. The nickname makes it all clear as to why he and his cronies still push the propaganda. There are plenty others with the same motivation, not least for reasons covered in my comment 323 QUOTE: Have a look at the Climategate Web-site “Follow the money: .. ” Note (8) for a close-to-home comment on this UNQUOTE (Note 1). Have a look at the organisations involved (Note 2 but add the extension) and at who is associated with The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (Note 3 but add the extension)
Also have a look at the Investor Group on Climate Investment article ““Cannot Wait for a Global Treaty,” Investors Tell Congress and other Government Policymakers at United Nations Investors Climate Summit “ (Note 4) for a better understanding of the motivating forces behind Gore, Soros and their UN buddies. It’s nothing to do with the benefits of controlling global climates but plenty to do with the benefits of controlling global finances.
JaneBasingstoke, ref. comment 407, Gavin at realclimate may now be wriggling away from his previous position as a staunch supporter of The Hypothesis but die-hard Jones appears not to be. Only a couple of days ago during the enquiry he insisted that the science is sound. Ref. comment 414, have a look at another of Chris’s blogs as well (Note 5) – its even better.
Paul Briscoe, your comment in 410 that QUOTE: CO2 levels started at around the same level they were in the middle of previous interglacials. They have since risen by around 100ppm in just 150 years - that's more than 50 times faster than in the past interglacials. UNQUOTE is based upon the assumption that the reconstruction of ancient atmospheric CO2 concentrations provides an accurate representation of those interglacial variations. Jaworowski disagrees with that and his argument is supported by empirical evidence which I have pointed to above (see 144). No-one here has responded to my invitation to debate this elsewhere and no-one has offered any worthwhile evidence that refutes it. On this basis I have to assume that you and others here have simply accepted without question that the ice core record is valid. There are good reasons to reconsider that. If in doing so you come across evidence that convinces you of their validity then please pass it on to me. You say with confidence QUOTE: In fact, CO2 levels have increased by around 38% since 1850 UNQUOTE but this has been disputed in “180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” by Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. 2006-2008 (Note 6).
Paul Briscoe, in. comment 412 you conclude that QUOTE: I would say that the RSC have hit the nail right on the head! UNQUOTE but the peer-review process is far from perfect and is certainly not open. The Internet is a wonderful tool that allows people to quickly and easily search out information which would be far more difficult otherwise. With or without the Internet the general public has to be discriminating. The media distorts the facts in order to present a story that suits their agenda (to sell), Other parties distort the facts in support of their own agenda, e.g politicians in order to win votes, etc. etc. etc. it’s no different on the Internet. bowmanthebard in comment 420 did “hit the nail right on the head”.
MangoChutneyUKOK, ref. comment 413, did you notice the date of that case - Tuesday, 17 August 1999. A lot of water has passed under the bridge (and a lot of hot air about human-made global climate change) since then.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet
2) see http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/AboutIIGCC.
3) see http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/Pressrelease14Jan10.
4) see http://www.incr.com/Page.aspx?pid=1178
5) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-2090
6) see http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm
Complain about this comment
Poitsplace @ #428
"Yes, you'd paraphrased it and I simply pointed out why it was bad science. In what way does providing some other source that restates the bad science...make your case better? Read it again. The article does not in any way provide support for CO2 forcing. What it does is say that the 800 year lag doesn't necessarily mean CO2 couldn't be causing some warming and that they don't fully understand why the glacial-interglacial transitions were so substantial. Then it throws in the theoretical "forcing" of CO2 as "evidence" when the whole point of this was to see if you can detect any actual forcing from CO2."
If you had checked the context of my posts more carefully, you would have seen that I was NOT suggesting that the above proved CO2 forcing. In fact, you would have seen that I was simply responding to yet another claim that "CO2 followed temperature in previous interglacials" DISPROVES CO2 forcing. The whole point of the New Scientist article is to dispell some of the common myths quoted by sceptics - it does that very effectively....... and it is indeed sound science!
It's very late now, so I'll pick up the rest of the points some other time.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #423
Thank you. I agree completely.
In fact, I had friends and associates in Grad School whom I would pass my work to, in order to get an 'opinion' before my boss saw it and certainly before it went through the 'formal review processes' within the University and also the processes required for publication. It would usually cost a couple of six packs and the promise to return the favor - and the expectation was a 'critique' - in other words - find everything you thing could POSSIBLY be wrong with it - starting with my assumptions...
Hard earned reputations were at state - I had a good one - my boss's reputation, with at that time more than 350 publications (now probably twice that many) - absolutely impeccable. Yet, even he makes mistakes and his work is reviewed and mistakes caught before publication.
I actually reviewed a couple of chapters of his latest book about dynamics of flexible space structures and found a couple of mathematical errors for him few months ago. His name is John Junkins, you should check out his work - lots of interesting stuff. I would tell you what said to me regarding what he thinks of the 'science of global warming' but I would be moderated...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe wrote:
The whole point of the New Scientist article is to dispell some of the common myths quoted by sceptics - it does that very effectively....... and it is indeed sound science!
------------------------------------------------------
@Paul, the New Scientist article you pointed me to which 'debunked some of the myths quoted by skeptics' was not 'sound science in my opinion. It was a bunch of rambling garbage, the term denier was constantly used, it did not read like science, did not sound like science. It also made quite a number of statements, which are simply not correct or not supportable by science.
Pure rubbish.
Drop the New Scientist, start reading articles and papers which do not contain the terms 'denier' nor 'alarmist', begin thinking for yourself, take a few science and math classes at the University and start formulating your own opinions, rather than regurgitating propaganda...
Be like Mango - he is at least respected by most on both sides here because he reads and studies the science (not just the propaganda) and formulates his own opinions. He debunks the propaganda - on both sides of the debate. And whether you agree with his opinion or not - at least he has one of his own.
Hope that didn't sound rude - was not meant to be.
If you desire - I can go through the twenty some 'skeptic myths' you keep regurgitating and rip them to shreds...
A good rule of thumb I would suggest is the following: If it contains the words 'denier', 'contrarian', 'warming monger', 'alarmist', or the like - take it with a grain of salt if you are going to bother to read it...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #430
"The whole point of the New Scientist article is to dispel some of the common myths quoted by sceptics - it does that very effectively....... and it is indeed sound science!"
It doesn't do that at all effectively. It's nothing more than a logical fallacy (an appeal to ignorance). Its essentially claiming that because it hasn't been disproved it must be true.
It also shouldn't include the comments on CO2 absorption because the whole point of the article is to in some way show that very effect is possible. Its hypothetical ability to increase temperature significantly cannot be used to verify the hypothesis that it can increase temperature significantly (begging the question).
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #417
OK, my #414 badly worded, misunderstandings.
Pete Ridley's #389 about me was a dig at my #229 (and possibly my #186 and #334).
My #414 reference to private individuals was about who runs blogs. Chris Colose is a private individual running his own blog. Whereas this BBC blog, no disrespect to Richard Black, is run by an institution. And Australian Senator Steve Fielding who runs a blog is a politician. My reference to private individuals certainly wasn't a dig at you, you've been far more up front about your life than most here.
Meanwhile Pete Ridley has invited everyone here over to Chris Colose's blog to discuss Jaworowksi. (#144 #146 #171 #206)
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
Complain about this comment
@Pete Ridley #429
"Gavin at realclimate may now be wriggling away from his previous position as a staunch supporter of The Hypothesis"
You misunderstand the position of scientists who support AGW science. The position is that AGW is very probable. And that the precise value of climate sensitivity to CO2 (how much warming for doubling of CO2) is still up for debate. This is the IPCC AR4 position. And it is not the same as "the science is settled".
IPCC AR4 extracts:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
"Progress since the TAR enables an assessment that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #416
With your first quote there is an unfortunate truncation.
"The case of detecting climate change is closed, period, RPS or any other climate skeptic notwithstanding.
The next task is to attribute these detected changes in near-surface temperature to their causes, natural or not – us (and U.S.)."
Now if you doubt the HADCRUT and GISS and NOAA temperature sets, there's always UAH. And that also shows net warming.
With the Somerville piece you have got me. I had not seen it before. However he seems to confine his "settled science" to our recent CO2 emissions and CO2's own contribution to the greenhouse effect before any feedbacks, positive or negative:
"Working out all the details will take a long time. But a promising start has been made, and climate science can already usefully inform policy.
In a similar way, you might say that an ultimate goal of medical science is to eliminate all disease. That this task is incomplete is no reason to treat your physician with disdain."
Meanwhile the only occurrence of "the science is settled" at the IPCC website is part of the phrase "whether the science is settled enough for policy".
Complain about this comment
IPCC AR4 extracts: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."
Exactly, this is an extremely alarmist statement given the unsettled nature of the science. We do not know enough to say "very likely". "very likely" is english for the mathematical statistics of a 95% confidence level. This is a ridiculously alarmist statement. We are very far from understanding natural variations to this level of accuracy.
An accurate statement reflecting the actual present scientific knowledge would be:
"Some of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century might be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."
It would necessarily be vague because we simply do not have evidence to support any other conclusion.
Complain about this comment
@Jane
Thank you for the clarification. I don't participate in those blogs - don't even go there. I have been to BishopHill - but only rarely and really because we used to have long discussion on another blog - I go there when he present articles. I have never even seen the blogging and comments there.
I would not call the BBC an 'institution' - its a company. As is The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The NY Times, CNN, etc.
While I do understand that many people in the UK consider BBC and The Guardian to be 'institutions', I prefer a more narrow definition.
There are certainly many people who run blogs - and I have nothing against that - they have a message and want to get it out - if they are attracting people, then it is working for them. I also recognize that they are doing it for personal gain. I am not here to support someone's personal gain. I am here for (hopefully intelligent) debate.
I have a great deal of respect for Richard - but I think in some respects we have a 'love hate' relationship. We agree upon many things with the exception of the theories of AGW and associated politics and solutions. After so many comments on his blog, directed to him with questions posed, he finally responded with a nice post a few days ago - made my day...;)
I come here because it is a way to pass time in between reading articles and I'm home alone listening to music, rather than watching tv - which I turned off last month. I do read a great deal, but again, so much time alone at home. This winter (deep in the south of Texas) has been so hard upon me, just as I was starting to improve in the fall. It is a way to engage in debate, learn, be presented with and ponder other's points of view and perhaps sway a few to dig deeper, learn more, expand their horizons, make their brains stronger...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
There is a thoughtful (in my opinion) article in this week's edition of Nature which discusses the shortcomings in both the political and scientific processes around climate change.
Some here may not like the piece because it does talk about the need for "effective action" on climate. However I would suggest you might still find it worthwhile reading as the author quite candidly discusses problems with the conduct of the science, contributing factors leading to these, and the impacts these are having on the political processes.
See "Curing climate backlash", Daniel Sarewitz, Nature, vol 664 (4 March 2010), at page 28.
Complain about this comment
#437 Shadorne wrote:
"We do not know enough to say "very likely". "very likely" is english for the mathematical statistics of a 95% confidence level."
There is NO SUCH THING as a "95% confidence level" in how much a given claim or theory ought to be believed, which is what "confidence" is usually misinterpreted as meaning. That is a fantasy spread about by statisticians who want to give the impression that they know more than they really do, or that they're all really "deep thinkers".
This is what "confidence" really means:
Take a sample (i.e. a proper subset of a larger class). Then estimate the mean of the sample. Then estimate the "scatter" of estimates of the mean of numerous repeated samples IF the variation between the members of the actual sample were perfectly representative of the variation between the members of the larger class from which the sample is taken. (It never is, by the way.) Then see what percentage of those estimates would lie between a given tolerance interval.
That is obviously nothing like epistemic confidence (i.e. confidence in how much something ought to be believed), and it's about time the world woke up to that fact!
Seriously, people's lives are being badly affected by statisticians' overstretch. For example, last week the newspapers reported that coffee was bad for the heart. This week, it's good for the heart again. Don't believe either claim: the use of statistics to simply extrapolate from a sample is charlatanism.
Complain about this comment
thinkforyourself #424
Looks like it’s back to the 1950’s.
Looks like it's back to my post #329:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/forget_the_norfolk_polices_cri.html#P93094951
Care to venture a comment?
Any other AGWers, want to comment
(My thanks to the 3 that have commented, please lets keep this dialogue going)
@andrew9999 #426
Sorry Mango I first didn't quite understand why you thought the paper important because in your original post you wrote the rate was 0.16W/m2 (I assumed over the period 1983-2001) which didn't seem particularly important but I had a look at the RC article you mentioned and it was 0.16W/m2/year which is much more significant. The implication of the RC articles of which I've only read a bit is its due to changes in aerosols. I can't say I know enough about it to say anything intelligent but it is interesting and I shall look at it.
No problem, Andrew, I am genuinely interesting in thoughts on this paper, it seems to address the CO2 issue quite nicely
@Pete Ridley #429
did you notice the date of that case - Tuesday, 17 August 1999. A lot of water has passed under the bridge (and a lot of hot air about human-made global climate change) since then.
It's feasible that the student didn't get his MSc because he refused to go along with the charade, but I think it's best to wait until he produces his evidence, if any, before jumping to conclusions
@JaneBasingstoke #436
The point is Jane it is the RC claim that to their knowledge no scientist has ever made the claim the science is settled is completely untenable in the light of prominent pro-AGE climate scientists Somerville and Schlesinger. If you look at Wiki, these 2 names were brought to the attention of Connelly a regular contributor at RC
@LarryKealey #432
~blush~
/Mango
Complain about this comment
I'm very disappointed that Richard hasn't done a blow by blow account of the CRU enquiry as he did with the non-event that was Copenhagen
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Shadorne at #437 and Bowman at #440
These terms mean different things in different contexts and when used by different people.
The IPCC has set out what specifically what it means when it uses these terms. See for example Box 'TS.1: Treatment of Uncertainties in the Working Group 1 Assessment' at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2.html
Complain about this comment
Mango, at #442
I'm not. If something major and/or unexpected happens, then treat it as news if it so merits. As for the overall enquiry itself, I would be interested in a discussion of it once it is completed.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey @ #432 & Poitsplace @ #433
Sadly, I don't have the time just now to argue the toss with you over this issue (and it would probably be futile anyway). However, the fact that you describe the New Scientist article I linked to as "rubbish" and "logical fallacy" is quite sufficient to tell me that you have not considered the science as carefully as is necessary to make a proper objective judgement (and Larry I HAVE thought about this long and hard - I have been following this debate for over 30 years).
Seeing as I've now got to go out for much of the day, I'll just draw your attention to the following article, which explains the same point in a slightly different way. Critically, it includes some key references to back up what it is saying:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
If you wish to make assertions that it is "rubbish" or "fallacy", I suggest that you come up with some REAL scientific arguments of your own (with references).
Paul
Complain about this comment
As noted in the New York Times: "Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools."
Not a suprise, really. Some posters here, including myself, have pointed out that there are numerous parallels in the way that these issues are being argued.
See: 'Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets', New York Times, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?ref=global-home
Complain about this comment
@446.
That was a bit of a snyde attack. The theory of evolution is backed up by substantial evidence.
The theory of AGW is not. slight difference there, why not just go back to calling us 'deniers' and be done with it.
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #447
You are taking offence where none was intended.
I referred to "the way these issues are being argued", meaning how the arguments are being used in a political context. I did not refer to the substance behind the various positions.
Complain about this comment
@448. fair enough- my mistake
Complain about this comment
#443 simon-swede wrote:
"The IPCC has set out what specifically what it means when it uses these terms."
...And as the IPCC might say, "it's even worse than I thought!"
Science sometimes makes claims like this: "all birds have feathers". And it sometimes makes claims like this: "70% of hedghogs have mites". The latter is a statistical claim: it says what proportion of members of a class have a particular property.
But science NEVER, EVER makes claims like this: "it is 70% worth believing that Mrs Tiggy-winkle has mites".
The latter is a claim about how much something ought to be believed. This differs from one individual to the next, depending on what he already believes. As it happens, I had a candlelit dinner with Mrs Tiggy-winkle last night, and I can guarantee that she's absolutely mite-free!
Complain about this comment
#448 simon-swede wrote:
'I referred to "the way these issues are being argued", meaning how the arguments are being used in a political context.'
I accept that there is a loose political connection. At the moment, AGW-sceptics tend to be individual thinkers rather than conformists who unquestioningly follow authority. At the moment, such people tend to lean to the right on fiscal policies. (How I lament the death of the liberal left, by the way, but that's another story!)
In the US, people who lean to the right on fiscal policies tend to be religious, and in the US people who tend to be religious tend to be sceptical of Darwinism. So yes, I can see a loose political connection between climate scepticism and creationism.
'I did not refer to the substance behind the various positions.'
Well I'm glad to hear that, because the theory of evolution is the pinnacle of scientific achievement, whereas climate "science" is its very nadir. They could hardly be more different. Climate "science" is an explanatory failure, epistemologically and logically flawed beyond redemption, corrupted by half-baked moralism, religious mysticism, and misguided statistical methodology that seems to be wholly uninformed of the nature of reliable inference. Evolutionary theory is an explanatory and philosophical triumph.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #451
Your denunciation of climate-related science has echoes of an almost religious fervour. Your entitled to your view, I am equally entitled to hold a very different opinion about its merits.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #451
Perhaps more to the point, and as indicated in the article I referred to earlier, a creationist would disagree with your last paragraph.
Creationists in the US are arguing that there are more similarities than differences in the state of the knowledge relating to climate change and evolution; and that therefore these should be treated similarly in the classroom.
Complain about this comment
#452 simon-swede wrote:
"Your denunciation of climate-related science has echoes of an almost religious fervour."
Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I'm really just trying to wind people up a bit so as to draw them out to discuss this issue I have with inductivism. I know it must seem very abstract to most people, but it's absolutely crucial. I feel that the misuse of statistics is a serious and growing problem, not just in climate science.
"Your entitled to your view, I am equally entitled to hold a very different opinion about its merits."
Of course. But please bear it in mind that my religious fervour is mostly my attempt not to disguise the extent of our disagreement. I'm not just saying this or that bit of "data" is untrustworthy -- I'm saying the whole thing is deeply misconceived. Bear it in mind too that I mostly blame philosophers for neglecting to make it clear why it's so badly misconceived.
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #441
The point is Mango you had to go out of your way to find them. And also they weren't saying "the science is settled" about AGW, only components of AGW.
Complain about this comment
@Shadorne #437
Firstly a reminder. I was objecting to the sceptic interpretation of AGW scientists as saying "the science is settled". I was using their statements to illustrate their attitudes. I was not attempting to fully justify their statements.
(And as a minor point, the IPCC's "very likely" means >90%. Whereas the IPCC describe >95% as "extremely likely".
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mainssyr-introduction.html )
The IPCC's >90% would seem to allow for up to 10% doubt. And even your interpretation of >95% would seem to allow for up to 5% doubt.
Even 5% doubt does not constitute "the science is settled".
Complain about this comment
Oo, that's interesting. Lots of sceptics linking to the IPCC's home page as "settled science".
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe
"If you wish to make assertions that it is "rubbish" or "fallacy", I suggest that you come up with some REAL scientific arguments of your own (with references)."
Look, the claim is that the milankovitch cycles are too weak to force the glacial/interglacial transitions. This is actually an understandable conclusion given the way the researchers' perception function of the milankovitch cycles. In order to explain this apparent shortfall, they've simply assumed that CO2 must be some kind of greenhouse gas juggernaut, providing as much as 40% of the forcing for the transitions.
However, the ice core data doesn't actually show behavior in which this 40% figure is possible. The figure must be much, much lower...because more often than not, the climate takes off in the opposite direction while CO2 is in the middle of rising/falling...a process that, due to the lag, should continue to provide forcing even as the other forcings go neutral. In fact, the levels of CO2 on the trailing edge of an interglacial are often at near interglacial levels while the temperature is at near those of the glacial maximum.
This doesn't necessarily rule out a role for CO2 but it suggests that role is extremely weak. Any good scientist would make note of this behavior and realize that unless very compelling evidence was found elsewhere to explain away this discrepancy...there's just not much room for CO2 forcing in the explanation of glacial/interglacial transitions. The up to 40% figure is really more of a figure that we can say with certainty...CO2 can't be higher (and is unlikely even remotely close to that high) unless a heck of a lot of things are coming together to cover it up.
I think a key misunderstanding made by the current crop of climate scientists is that they look at the climate system as being driven first and foremost by atmospheric radiation balance. The most powerful aspect of the milankovitch cycles isn't "how much" radiation but its distribution. Due to the current configuration of the continents, when the milankovitch cycles kick in, the nature of feedbacks themselves change so they favor warming or cooling but only to a point.
So in the end, CO2 just isn't a good fit as a major climate driver and there is little reason to believe that it will have any significant impact. The only evidence is a poorly fitting correlation with temperature and a hypothesis that indicates CO2 has a theoretical maximum forcing capable of raising temperatures an additional .9C
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #444
I'm not. If something major and/or unexpected happens, then treat it as news if it so merits. As for the overall enquiry itself, I would be interested in a discussion of it once it is completed.
Fair point. Do you think there has been nothing newsworthy? What about the grad student? Regardless of whether or not the grad student has real evidence of CRU wrongdoing, is the allegation itself not as newsworthy as the non-event of Copenhagen?
@JaneBasingstoke #444
The point is Mango you had to go out of your way to find them. And also they weren't saying "the science is settled" about AGW, only components of AGW.
I didn't - it was quite easy to find and you'd kind of think with Schlesinger and Schmidt both being climate modellers, they would have heard of each other
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#456 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"as a minor point, the IPCC's "very likely" means >90%."
And what is ">90%" supposed to mean? Think about it: what could that claim possibly mean?
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #459
"quite easy to find"
OK, misunderstood your reference to Connolley. However you must be following most of the blogs to have picked up either comment, they are hardly anywhere. Perhaps other people have noticed that they don't apply to the whole of the case for AGW.
Meanwhile I note that Gavin Schmidt's post was only a couple of days after the Schlesinger comment. Perhaps Schlesinger hadn't yet got round to updating Gavin on all the details of his recent schedule.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #460
Firstly a reminder. It wasn't me who resorted to the figures in this argument, it was Shadorne. The point of my argument was to demonstrate that the IPCC left clear room for doubt.
I did attempt to answer this on an earlier thread. Where they don't have directly calculated probabilities the IPCC appear to use numbers as a universal common language, then they translate them back into English. This gets round the tendency of some people to use hyperbole and others to understate.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #461
However you must be following most of the blogs to have picked up either comment, they are hardly anywhere.
I just googled and there it was on Wiki under Connelly's page
Meanwhile I note that Gavin Schmidt's post was only a couple of days after the Schlesinger comment. Perhaps Schlesinger hadn't yet got round to updating Gavin on all the details of his recent schedule.
Perhaps
Perhaps Gavin should ask William to up date the RC post?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#462 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"It wasn't me who resorted to the figures in this argument, it was Shadorne."
I did raise the issue in response to Shadorne, and I wasn't admonishing anyone, just sharing my frustration at the way numbers hypnotize us. Many people will be very impressed with the figure of 90% because it sounds like climate scientists have really got such a firm grip on the hidden mechanisms of the Earth's atmosphere that they can actually measure the degree of their own certainty! "Wow, is there nothing these climate jockeys can't measure? -- We can sure trust them! Why, 90% is even better than 85%! -- We'd better get to it right away!"
"The point of my argument was to demonstrate that the IPCC left clear room for doubt."
It does leave room for doubt, but it very decisively points in one direction rather than the other. It is a bit like the salesman's trick of admitting one or two trivial shortcomings to win the potential buyer's confidence. It strongly suggests those crafty climate scientists have "really nailed this one". But that's really very dishonest and misleading.
"the IPCC appear to use numbers as a universal common language, then they translate them back into English. This gets round the tendency of some people to use hyperbole and others to understate."
I don't agree that that's the reason why they're using numbers. 'Science' is a strongly honorific word, and people tend to shink back in awe at anything that calls itself a science. Numbers add a further bit of oomph to any supposedly "scientific" claims. The two together are a powerful rhetorical device that we should all be on our guard against. All pseudo-sciences drape themselves in numbers.
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #463
I'm confused. Which Connolley page? There are three that seem possibly relevant (Wikipedia entry, his User page, and his essay denouncing "the science is settled"). And I can't see your references on any of them.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #464
Bowman perhaps you might like to reconsider some of your wording. The use of numbers may be misleading. But I don't think it's deliberately misleading. I haven't seen anything to suggest they don't believe their science. Rather the opposite, in fact some of your earlier posts suggested that you agreed they believed it too much.
Complain about this comment
A bit of Polar bear propaganda in the Telegraph..
Naughty, recycling a three year old photograph like it is 'current news'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7078673/Will-polar-bears-make-it-back-to-shore.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=7371556
They are being quite critical in the comments section:
From the EU Referendum blog - "It depicts poor little polar bears "stranded" on shrinking ice, written in a breathless style that conveys the impression that it had just happened. Yet, as one of my sharp-eyed readers notes, if you google the photographer Eric Lefranc you will find the picture of the two polar bears on the ice was taken in August 2007."
"LMAO!!!!! I love this stuff. Yet another ridiculous photo of polar bears "STUCK" on ice.
Few things...how about PANNING OUT in the pic to see where they really are in relation to the main ice flow? Did you know....polar bears can swin 50+ miles at a crack!!!"
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #399, #400
You Were Right
(sort of)
The Institute of Physics submission had a huge input by a sceptic. Note, the rest of them stand by the submission on the grounds of openness in science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission
Complain about this comment
@Paul
As I mentioned, when I see articles which use the terms 'denier', 'contrarian', 'warming monger', 'alarmist', etc. repeatedly - I view those articles as rubbish and garbage - not worth even reading.
If you have been studying this for 30 years - then I have some serious doubts about your aptitude for all of this science, based upon your comments.
The article you linked to me used the word 'denier' at least 20 times in the first 5 paragraphs. In my view it is nothing more than propaganda and garbage. I mean for goodness sakes - it talked about threats to Polar Bears (possible, future, of course...but come on, really - if you buy it, you don't know much about Polar Bears - they eat a lot more than seals out on ice flows...)
Do you only read articles which use terms such as 'denier' or 'contrarian' or the like? I expect so, based upon your writings and references.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul
Please see my post to Dr. Lu's work - which matches temperatures much more nicely than CO2 concentrations. So here is an alternative theory, very plausible, you can find references to the original paper and it does not use terms such as 'denier', contrarian, alarmist, etc...you know - real science, the kind of thing scientists (in my opinion) other than 'renouned' climate scientists do...
http://energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/the-ozone-hole-did-it
Note, CNN and the BBC also published this story - and the discovery was made by accident (when was the last time an accidental discovery was made by a climate scientist???).
So, there you go Paul - please refute. I have provided an alternative theory. We don't have to blame CO2 anymore...;)
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
jane: The Institute of Physics submission had a huge input by a sceptic. Note, the rest of them stand by the submission on the grounds of openness in science.
Do you mean that the "huge input by a skeptic" must necessarily be fundamentally WRONG?
Are you (like the Guardian) implying that the Institute of Physics must be corrupted because it seems to go against your beliefs?
Do you mean that working for an oil company or in the oil industry is WRONG?
Wow - you "alarmists" are really paranoid. Frankly, given the shoddy science by the CRU, IPCC, NASA GISS what could anyone expect but utter condemnation and contempt by serious scientists for the man-made global warming scam.
Complain about this comment
Larry So, there you go Paul - please refute. I have provided an alternative theory. We don't have to blame CO2 anymore...;)
Larry,
There are many many theories - not surprisingly because we simply DON'T KNOW all that drives our climate. CO2 looked like a promising candidate 30 years ago but the evidence has unequivocally demonstrated that CO2 in NOT a major driver...it may do something and no doubt has some kind of warming effect but it is NOT the scary monster portrayed by the IPCC and CRU and GISS and many Western politicians who are keen to see the end-of-the-world just around the corner (and fatten their campaign or research funds).
Complain about this comment
This week's edition of Science includes the following observation about the procceding of the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
"No new revelations were made under tough questioning from members of Parliament, and lawmakers seemed unmoved by arguments by some that the e-mails undermine the scientific consensus on climate change."
ScienceInsider, From the Science Policy Blog
Science 5 March 2010, p. 1187.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne at #471
Even the Institute of Physics felt it necessary to issue a clarification about their submission. So clearly they considered that it had created some problems.
The IOP notes that their submission: "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming. That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."
In addition, and as highlightd in the article Jane gave a link to earlier, a member of the UK House of Commons science and technology select committee, commented that: "Members of the Institute of Physics … may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise."
Complain about this comment
#466 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I haven't seen anything to suggest they don't believe their science. Rather the opposite, in fact some of your earlier posts suggested that you agreed they believed it too much."
You've completely missed the point.
Complain about this comment
Some food for thought from the field of medicine which I thought might appeal.
A recent panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science discussed problems with the statistical analysis of medical data and that apparently contradictory results are being reported from teh same datasets. Apparently this "isn't a failure of medical research; it's a failure of statistics, and one that is becoming more common in fields ranging from genomics to astronomy" (dare we add 'climate'?).
The article (see link below) notes that "the problem is that our statistical tools for evaluating the probability of error haven't kept pace with our own successes, in the form of our ability to obtain massive data sets and perform multiple tests on them. Even given a low tolerance for error, the sheer number of tests performed ensures that some of them will produce erroneous results at random."
The article gives an overview of the presentations made at the panel and includes a number of suggestions for possible remedies, some of which will be familar to those interested in the climate science.
See: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/were-so-good-at-medical-studies-that-most-of-them-are-wrong.ars
The piece also includes a number of 'real-life' examples. My personal favourite: 'Focusing on studies of the health risks posed by particulates, he [Moolgavkar] described [a study that] concluded that particulates had a significant protective effect when it comes to cardiovascular disease. "Nobody is going to tell you that, for your health, you should go out and run behind a diesel bus," Moolgavkar said. "How did this get past the reviewers?" '.
Complain about this comment
Suppose you see a crime being committed a hundred yards away. You make a statement to the police, but in describing the criminal you add much more detail than you are entitled to give, because it all happened 100 yards away.
That is at best misleading, at worst an attempt to frame an innocent person.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey @ #470
"So, there you go Paul - please refute. I have provided an alternative theory. We don't have to blame CO2 anymore...;)"
I think you must have missed my post at #415, Larry!
Paul
Complain about this comment
Statistical claims contain numbers. For example, if I say the chances of throwing a doubles with a pair of dice is 16.666%, I mean that over the long run, the proportion of doubles in repeated throws will converge on 16.666%.
Estimates of how much a claim deserves to be believed are quite different. These estimates are "subjective" as they depend on what each individual already believes. It is misleading for such claims to contain numbers. To add numbers to them is to misleadingly and dishonestly "add detail" to give the impression that has more knowledge than one really has.
It seems to be a perennial failing of AGW supporters that they claim to know more than they really do, and it strikes me as a real intellectual vice.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #465
"science is settled":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled
go to the discussion page
it's not important, jane, we all know science is never settled (unless you're a climate scientist lol)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
'Focusing on studies of the health risks posed by particulates, he [Moolgavkar] described [a study that] concluded that particulates had a significant protective effect when it comes to cardiovascular disease. "Nobody is going to tell you that, for your health, you should go out and run behind a diesel bus," Moolgavkar said.'
This will greatly enhance the hours I spend each week on a bike with the exhaust pipe of a bus about three feet away!
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #478
You have proven nothing. I can stand here and say that CO2 and warming curves do not match - and I have proven nothing. I have an alternative theory...thats what you asked for. Now, you don't accept alternative theories.
Well, here let me give you Kealey's theory - we don't know squat. We really don't understand enough about the climate to say whats going on or what drives it, let alone enough to be able to make predictions regarding what its going to do.
Now, disprove my theory.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #476
As far as climate science is concerned, isn't it just a case that those doing the statistical analysis have inadequate training?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
oops, premature posting
Simon
I meant to add, the article talks about "massive data sets", as far as i am aware, there are no "massive data sets" in tree rings or weather stations.
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Bowmanthebard wrote:
"suppose you see someone committing a crime a hundred yards away..."
And you pick up your trusty rifle and shoot the criminal dead whilst in the commission of his crime.
Is the world a better place?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe
Trying here...
First 'science is never settled', can we agree upon this?
Next: 'science proves nothing', no theory is every 'proven', theories are only accepted by science until they are disproven. Without skepticism, there could be no science. Science is about disproving things, not proving them.
You cannot prove Newton's Laws - you can only find evidence which appears to support them - but they cannot be 'proven'. His theories were so widely accepted that the term Laws were ascribed to them, yet, they were disproven by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Which, today is widely accepted, but, even Einstein knew, they too will be disproven and displaced by a new theory.
Science is all about skepticism - without skepticism there could be no science, because science never 'proves' anything, only disproves. Without skepticism, no one would seek to disprove anything - thus, there would be no science.
Now, there is another level, so to speak - the language of science. The language of science is Mathematics. Mathematics seeks to prove. One can create a 'proof' for a Theorem in Mathematics - and in essence 'prove it'. Still with me here?
Science seeks to disprove (and those theories we hold as 'true' are those which have yet to be disproven, nothing is proven in science.
Mathematics, the language of science seeks to prove. Nothing in Mathematics is accepted without a 'proof'.
Confused yet? Bet you wonder where this is going....
Well, Mathematics is the language of Science - the issue is that closed form mathematics are 'perfect' - science is not. We can 'prove' the math - but that does not mean that the math accurately describes the science...that our assumptions were correct in creating the mathematics.
Keep also in mind that climate science does not use closed form mathematics, but rather approximation theory - not the beautiful 'perfect' mathematics we all enjoy...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Mango at #483
Very funny.
Complain about this comment
Poitsplace @ #458
LarryKealey @ #469
This line of dicscussion started when someone used an old argument...... CO2 followed temperature in past intergalcials. The poster claimed that this disproved AGW.
I posted a link to the New Scientist article (which does NOT use terms like "denier" Larry). The article makes no attempt to estimate forcing for CO2. It merely uses empirical science to explain why the situation in past interglacials does not disprove AGW.
Neither of you have come up with any evidence at all to support your assertions that the article is "rubbish" or "logical fallacy"...... and you will not, as it is indeed sound empirical science.
Moving beyond that, at least you are being constructive, Poitsplace (whereas Larry is not). Consequently, I'll address the rest of this post to you.
Having taken a little time to review the available literature, it's clear that the scientists themselves are not in full agreement over how much CO2 contributed to warming in past interglacials. This isn't surprising given that the only data we have for temperature is proxy.
One paper (Lorius, 1990) estimates the feedback from CO2 as being as much as 3 Celsius. However, comments from Gavin Schmidt over at Realclimate point to a much lower figure.
My own instincts tell me that CO2 only played a minor role in the warming. After all, the IPCC only assign a climate sensitivity of 3 Celsius to a doubling of CO2 (ie almost 300ppm increase). Consequently, it seems highly improbable that a change of at most 100ppm would contribute 3 Celsius in the interglacials.
So although CO2 will undoubtedly have amplified any temperature changes to some extent, the Milankovitch cycles themselves, coupled with the consequent changes in albedo due to receding ice cover, were probably far more important.
Paul
Complain about this comment
@Mango wrote:
"As far as climate science is concerned, isn't it just a case that those doing the statistical analysis have inadequate training?"
I would disagree - not with the assertion that those doing statistical analysis have inadequate training - but that statistical analysis is useful and meaningful with regards to climate science.
We have climate scientists using statistics - and statistics can tell us absolutely nothing of the future of a non-linear dynamic system such as earth's climate system. Statistics are also meaningless in looking at the past of such a system. Sure, we can calculate average temperatures for Boise, Id for the last fifty years and determine standard deviation and a dozen other things...but that tells us nothing of what Boise Id will be like next summer or next winter, nor what it was like 2311 years ago...
But, take an simple problem - flipping a coin. Statistics tells us that on average, half the time it will be heads, half the time it will be tails.
Now, one can flip a coin 20 times and have it come up heads all 20 times - this tell us nothing of what will come up the next time we flip the coin. It still has a 50% chance of being heads and 50% chance of being tails on the next toss...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@ 468.
so a institution that dares question even part of the behaviour of the CRU is basically written of (as is clearly the attempt in the article) because on if its members MAY have links ot an oil company. pathetic.
the cru itself is DIRECTLY funded by oil companies, i've posted the links. Does that make them corrupt?>?
pathetic.
Complain about this comment
i notice the new climate article on the bbc web site states that we are even more sure now than we were in 2007 that man is causing climate change.
They site such things as moisture distribution, sea ice melts, unpredictable weather etc as further proof that man is to blame.
Cheerfully unaware that these prove no such thing- only that the climate IS changing- NOT what caused it. I mean seriosuly, are Climate Scientists THIS inept?? This is very basic science here, how can they get the method so unbeleivably wrong??
Just release your data/models and this all goes away. no?? you don't want to?? but how can we check it?? oh... we can't?? trust you???! what? but... everything that we know suggests you can't be trusted! oh.... ok... well if the bbc say so i guess it's true...
Complain about this comment
@Mango, @Jane, @All interested
It would appear from Dr. Jones testimony before the House of Commons that there are a number of "Scientific Journals/Magazines/Publications" (apparently every single one which has ever published Dr. Jones work) who do not require peer review, nor proof of peer review, nor anything else, but the article as Dr. Jones wrote it.
This based upon his own assertion that no one ever asked him for his data, etc, nor for who peer reviewed his work and the results of that peer review - and also that ALL those who peer reviewed his work, never asked for more than the paper he wished to publish.
I realize I am repeating a lot of stuff we already know here, but bear with me.
Now, I believe it prudent to determine every publication which published any work of Dr. Jones and obtain from them a written statement of their process regarding verification prior to publication.
As a minimum, to be reputable, (as opposed to popular) it should be required that this process exists and is documented. I would also assert that this process should at a minimum meet ISO 9001 (or comparable) standards. And, if this is the case (which clearly it cannot be), then we should be able to review the documentation required by their process for verification and review of all content published.
If these 'science' magazines and journals cannot provide this documented process, and the supporting documentation to prove that they follow it - then I believe the following actions are appropriate:
One - a correction should be required to be printed and published in the magazine/journalpublication - for every single article they have published, stating very clearly that
A - No effort was made to verify the validity of the information and conclusions contained within the article.
and
B - That the article is an opinion article and NOT a peer reviewed science paper - and represents solely the opinion of the author of the article and that no verification has been done to validate any of the opinions expressed by the author.
And they (the mags and Journals) should be required to do this for every single article for which they do not have supporting documentation that validates that the verification and peer review process was followed as documented.
They should also be required to include a statement within each edition of the publication stating very clearly what their process is - or if they have none - that they have none - and if they have a process - the publication's statement should be able to direct any interested party to a website containing the full detail of the process and the standard by which the process was created (be it ISO 9000 or whatever...)
Would you not agree? Then, we can fairly quickly separate the 'chaff'. I expect that after the 'chaff' is removed, there won't be much left of the climate science pieces...except opinion articles....
Would anyone disagree that such is needed when publications represent that they are publishing 'peer-reviewed' work?
Looking forward to the comments.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul Brisco
I am actually trying to be constructive with you, but it is difficult...
The article you provided a link to for me - debunking 'skeptic myths' - as I recall, whatever we were discussing was 'debunked as myth 21 - and I seem to recall it being in the "New Scientist". In the first 5 paragraphs that I read, the word 'denier' was used more than 20 times. It was the most commonly used word in the article.
I found that to be offensive.
And I do recall what we were discussing - and that is that at the end of each interglacial, i.e. the onset of each ice age (or glaciation, if you prefer) CO2 levels were at their maximum for the interglacial - the Vostok cores clearly show a spike. My question was 'why did the temperatures drop drastically when this CO2 spike occurred' (paraphrasing)
You referred me to the article in New Science. I could look at the page and see almost a pattern, the word 'denier' was used so many times...I found that to be offensive and not what I would call a 'scientific piece'. It was ugly - there is no other description. What I read in the article was not supportable by anything but supposition.
Please read my post to you of approx an hour ago regarding 'science proves nothing'.
Now, I have a theory about that (which started this whole thing) - regarding CO2 levels reaching their peak and 'spiking' at the end of each interglacial (or beginning of each ice age if you prefer).
What if there is in fact a sort of 'tipping point' (I do hate using that term, but will for lack of a better one at the moment) related to CO2, which under certain conditions, wherein, under those conditions, CO2 drives massive negative feedback with regards to temperature - and it is the high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere which usher in the ice ages?
While, I admit my 'theory' is based upon empirical data and its pretty skimpy (the data from the past, period) - it is a viable theory unless you can disprove it. While, I personally believe it is a lot more complicated than that and involves so much that we don't understand and a great deal that we are completely ignorant of - the theory does fit the empirical evidence and data quite nicely.
So, it behooves us to determine under what conditions this massively negative feedback with regards to temperature occurs. And is CO2 really the culprit - does CO2 cause massively negative feedback and forcing with regards to temperatures under certain conditions? Many climate scientists have argued for a long time that CO2 drives temperature rather than the effects of Malankovich Cycles as the changes are too small and gradual to be the primary driver...
Is that not constructive? Another theory - which is supported by empirical evidence...and suggests negative feedback associated with CO2.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paul Briscoe #489 who wrote...
"My own instincts tell me that CO2 only played a minor role in the warming. After all, the IPCC only assign a climate sensitivity of 3 Celsius to a doubling of CO2 (ie almost 300ppm increase). Consequently, it seems highly improbable that a change of at most 100ppm would contribute 3 Celsius in the interglacials."
That's the bulk of what I'm saying. Basically, the "evidence" we've been given is wildly inconsistent. The behavior within the ice cores doesn't show the slightest hint of acceleration or other effects from CO2...even at times when the climate system obviously had extremely powerful feedbacks. The interglacial shows far lower feedbacks. Even with what obviously involves a natural warming component, the climate has only warmed about as much as you'd expect from CO2 alone (and again, it's likely a lot of it was natural). There is essentially no evidence to support the idea that CO2 will drive the climate system (including feedbacks) to the levels that are supposedly "dangerous".
I won't even bother to challenge the terrible science that claims 2C-4C is "dangerous". Of course, now we're entering a cooling cycle of the ocean currents so it's likely temperatures will at the very least flat-line and most likely fall a little bit.
Complain about this comment
#487 LarryKealey wrote:
"'science proves nothing', no theory is every 'proven', theories are only accepted by science until they are disproven. Without skepticism, there could be no science. Science is about disproving things, not proving them."
No scientific theory is conclusively disproven either!
Complain about this comment
@456 Jane
"Even 5% doubt does not constitute "the science is settled".
----------------------------------------------------------
That's not the way you should think about it. Think of it as 'the science is settled that there is only 5% doubt, or more realistically, the science is settled that man made emissions are very likely the cause of the recent warming.
Your interpretation, i.e., that the science is settled that MMGW is definitely right is not scientific and would never be asserted by a true practitioner of science.
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey 492
"Cheerfully unaware that these prove no such thing- only that the climate IS changing- NOT what caused it. I mean seriosuly, are Climate Scientists THIS inept?? This is very basic science here, how can they get the method so unbeleivably wrong??"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's not what they report looks it. It looked squarely at whether the increase in CO2 was to blame:
"The review studies developments in climate science since the last IPCC report (AR4) was published in 2007. Sophisticated ‘detection and attribution’ methods have been used to identify long-term changes in our climate and then consider:
* whether they are being caused by natural variability — such as changes in energy from the sun, volcanic eruptions, or natural cycles such as El Niño?
* and, if not, is there evidence that human activity could be to blame?"
Complain about this comment
@493 larry.
excellent points- if they did not chekc the data, it is not peer reviewed and all of a sudden the AGW theory goes away. Serisouly, i'm fuming if that's the case- publishing papers without even performing a cursory check on the data! honestly....
i trust the agw proponents can see the HUGE problem with this and the resulting implications
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #492
In the article you mention, nowhere do they claim it "proves" the link. They do assert that it strengthens the case.
Disagree with their claim as much as you wish, but don't criticise them for something that they never said.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS