Distorted view through the climate gates
Much has been written - not least on this website - and much more surely will be written over the coming months about supposed inconsistencies, errors, misjudgements and poor practice among climate scientists.
How many "scandals" do we now have with the suffix "-gate" attached to them? At least five, by my count, with the most embarrassing surely being the projection that the mighty Himalayan glaciers could largely be gone within a human generation.
The latest -gate - detailed in a series of articles in The Guardian by environment journalist Fred Pearce - concerns a set of temperature data from China that was used in a 1990 paper in Nature to estimate the likely impact of progressive urbanisation on temperatures recorded at weather stations.
The paper is one of several cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in reaching its conclusion that:
"Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends."
The implication of The Guardian's article is that Chinese scientists contributing data for that paper had not taken as much care as they should have done to document and allow for the fact that some of the weather stations had been relocated over the course of the study period, possibly affecting their readings; and that at some stage the paper's lead author, Professor Phil Jones, had been made aware of the issue by an independent UK researcher, Douglas Keenan, but did not seek to publicise or remedy it.
As anyone following the -gate trail will know, Professor Jones is the scientist at the centre of the original "Climategate" - November's e-mail theft from the University of East Anglia.
The point of this post isn't to go once more over well-trodden ground, but to raise a simple but crucial point.
Like all the other noisy -gates, this latest one throws up two questions: was scientific best practice followed, and is there anything here that affects the basic picture of climate science?
Whatever the answers to those may be - and Professor Jones' University of East Anglia has issued a rebuttal covering key points of The Guardian's article - the important point to make is that they are separate questions.
In some circles, every single -gate "relevation" has been followed by a ritualised fanfare claiming that the picture of climate warming through rising greenhouse gases concentrations has now been "fatally undermined", or some similar phrase.
Journalists with an eye for old-fashioned concepts such as balance, like Fred Pearce, are careful to avoid making that conclusion.
He writes that this latest episode...
"...does not change the global picture of temperature trends. There is plenty of evidence of global warming, not least from oceans far from urban influences. A review of recent studies published online in December by David Parker of the Met Office concludes that, even allowing for Jones's new data, 'global near-surface temperature trends have not been greatly affected by urban warming trends'."
He could also have cited the body of evidence from the satellite record, which also shows a clear warming trend.
In a paper published in the journal Energy and Environment [pdf link] in which he detailed his concerns about the 1990 conclusions, Doug Keenan made the same point:
"None of this means that the conclusion of the IPCC is incorrect."
In an interview with the Press Association (PA) about The Guardian's article, Phil Jones says he stands by the conclusion of the 1990 paper, not least because it was backed up by other studies, including papers in 2007 and 2008 that used a more detailed Chinese dataset.
Below is a graph comparing the 1990 (Jones et al) and 2007 (Li et al) graphs.
He goes on to say:
"It makes me quite worried people are beginning to doubt the climate has warmed up."
And clearly some people do doubt that - many of you tell me so, in great detail, on every post I write, whatever it deals with - and judging by your comments, that's partly because some of you believe that all climate scientists are as bent as a... well, a hockey stick might be a good simile here.
It is a free world; and if you really do hold that view, then presumably it makes sense to jump the divide between the two questions I raised earlier, and conclude that as all climate scientists are dodgy, so is all climate data.
But I would argue that keeping the questions separate is of absolute and vital importance.
How scientists and the institutions of science behave is an important issue, no doubt about it - for evidence, look no further than the latest developments on the MMR saga, which sees The Lancet retracting the decade-old paper that sparked all the fuss - and Phil Jones tells PA in his interview:
"We do need to make more of the data available, I fully accept that."
But what matters far, far more than the nuances of climate scientists' behaviour is whether the climate is warming, and if it is, what is driving that warming.
Those are questions crucial for humanity's future, because if the IPCC's projections become reality, substantial swathes of the global population will find themselves living in much more straitened circumstances than they face at present.
If the scientific case for greenhouse warming crumbles, so be it; but I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards.
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~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Climate change enthusiasts aren't being sent to Coventry yet - just Copenhagen. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
There are a number of posters who see this all as a political conspiracy and therefore no matter what you say or what justifications are given, that will only confirm their beliefs because they insist you prove it is not a conspiracy. They have political agendas and the science is just something they wish to negate or use to support their conspiracy theories. The self-flagellants to rid the plague...mice in a Skinner box taught to respond by talk shows with the same response every time.
Others have argued about the impact of CO2 on global warming and tend to rely more on the science and I am not sure there is a resolution as both sides rely on different scientist and papers. The larger scientific journals and schools tend to support the data showing a warming of the planet and that certain negative effects will be caused. As the presented impacts would have economic, social and politcal impacts it is certainly a topic for discussion. The governments decided that they have no other solution than to tax the problem, which isn't a solution at all, but that is why the investment firms are such big supporters of that process...no solution and money to be made. The best thing, or maybe the worst thing, is that the future holds the answer and we will all know.
Complain about this comment
Richard ,
To try and keep this one lighthearted , as you surely intended by lifting the graph directly from the UEA website , lets have a laugh at a couple of other links.
For a journalistic view, try here:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/trees-will-not-become-unstoppable-killing-machines%2c-admit-climate-scientists-201002022433/
For a scientific view , try here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/still-better-than-the-met-office/
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Well done! Thank you for covering the other side of the story. A lot of skeptics do believe that climate science has become crooked due to the amount of government funding being injected into one specific area of science.
Richard you stated, "In some circles, every single -gate "relevation" has been followed by a ritualised fanfare claiming that the picture of climate warming through rising greenhouse gases concentrations has now been "fatally undermined"..."
Firstly, skeptics do NOT question climate change or warming or cooling as they fully accept this as simply normal natural climate variations. Skeptics accept that the 70's were a lot colder and the 90's have been a lot warmer.
Secondly, the problem is that in order for "man-made CO2" to be a significant factor and danger we are being asked to attribute all recent warming to CO2. Furthermore, since the alarmist science calls for extrapolations of a mere 30 year trend (or blip) out to 100 of years or more, then the conclusions become ENTIRELY dependent on the time window for extrapolation, the accuracy of the research, the models and data temp records, and many other factors to an incredibly small fraction of a degree per year change AND, even worse, the precise amount of natural warming, which could be huge (as evidenced by paleocimate data, that is merely a broad assumption in the data set to begin with.
In essence, the science is far from settled and everything hinges on such minutiae of detail and upon huge assumptions about natural variations that we DON'T BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND. So for a skeptic, anyone who says that it is all settled and that the world has a major climate problem is clealry an "alarmist" or "crying-wolf".
The mounting evidence is that climate scientists and their cheerleaders are simply looking for a problem where there isn't one. When significant warming is now shown to be an Urban Heat Island affect and when data sets have clearly been manipulated in a way that creates more warming, and scientisits hide data and refuse requests for data then we skeptics see a huge red flag! With each revelation, the skeptics shout from the roof tops - see we were right - there really is something fishy here and the IPCC, Western Governments and media are all "jumping to conclusions".
Nevertheless, I commend you on covering this story - even it if a concusion that the "science is far from settled" does not fit easily with your views or the strong anthropogenic CO2 warming position adopted by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
I would not be too concerned about "a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards".
I would be concerned about inductivism right across the board though. It's a discredited and mistaken ideology masquerading as science, and getting away with it because no one seems willing or able to ask deeper questions such as "When is a hypothesis wortthy of belief?"
For example, just listen to Ed Miliband's embarrassing conceptual confusion on "The World this Weekend", in which he says he is "not a believer" in AGW himself, yet the next minute urges everyone not to doubt it.
You can see how much distaste people have for deeper questions about belief because of the widespread use of the word 'proof', on both sides of the debate, as if a hypothesis could ever be established conclusively.
I'm afraid we live in a much more uncertain world than that.
Complain about this comment
Its not just the individual 'gates' that are the problem, but rather that it shows that the climate scientists had their minds made up and were out to prove a point rather than approaching it with an open mind.
Thus we can't trust the remaining data either... especially as some of has been clearly manipulated or 'cherry picked' to show what they 'know' to be true.
And of course they are drawn from the same gene pool as the rest of us, Bankers, Scientists, we're all human. So pleasant to be doing work that is saving the planet, enhancing one's reputation, giving value to one's life work, and drawing huge funding. Welcome to the feet of clay.
Complain about this comment
A well balanced article. Yes it is important that tabs are kept on how the science is done - that is what peer review is for.
But the most important thing is that the conclusions based on the science are robust. Every time there is a -gate we should ask if there is any evidence that the scientific conclusions have altered in any significant way.
So far in every case the answer is NO. Even the IPCC big glacier error was an error in the reporting not in the science, which was always available and the conclusion; "Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century", is still supported by the research.
Complain about this comment
Dear Shadorne,
Richard Black's article is very much about how the Science is reliable over and above the various allegations that have been made. We can see for example, the graph of temperature rise varies by a tiny amount given the new (or corrected) data.
Secondly, of course climate is also affected by natural drivers; which extend over yearly, decade long, and millennial periods. The key difference now is that we have a man-made driver. It's simple: We've increased the amount of CO2 by 30% in just over 2 centuries. It *is* a greenhouse gas and will therefore warm the planet, because it is slowing the rate at which energy is radiated to space. No matter how this extra energy is churned around the planet it *will* have the effect of warming it. We are seeing the effects of warming we'd expect if this was the case.
And the climate scientists are certainly *not* crying wolf. The effects of what we're doing now will have an impact for hundreds and possibly thousands of years to come. At the moment it's like a tsunami on the horizon - to a casual observer it looks hardly different to a normal wave. But if we don't do something about it until it's obvious to everyone, then it will be far too late.
-cheers from Snial @P
Complain about this comment
The problem with modern scientists is not their morals or paymasters, but their methods.
The main problem with this climate change work (for example) is that it was done by people who believed the planet was warming, set that as their hypothisis and then set out to prove it. Becasue of that no matter how correct their conclusions were they will always be open to questioning of the methods, and thus for the sceptics the conclusions.
As mentioned with the MMR/Autism, ignoring all the ethical issues, the guy set out to prove that the MMR jab increased the risk of Autism and got his result.
Contrast that with the old school method of painstaking observation, then looking at the results to draw a conclusion no knowing what you were seeking.
Keppler is a great example. He spent 7 Years mapping the moving positions of stars in the sky, then when he was done he set about drawing up laws for the movements of the planets, he didn't set out saying "I think that a planets orbital period is based on it's distance from the sun" he started by observing! Now if 20 years ago scientists had said "let's spend a decade studying the plants temp, it's humidity, its rainfall, its ocean height and lets see what the results show" this whole issue would have been put to bed years ago. However because the scientists of today are so welded to the current method and believe it is so much better than those of days gone they don't see their failings.
One final example.
For my ALevel Statistics coursework I set out to prove - and easily managed to - that smokers had a better chance of living to 100. The fact that most people older than 100 were of a smoking generation is neither here nor there, the facts backed my hypothisis, and therefore by the rules of statistical maths it was true. That however doesn't mean smokers will live longer as you can't examine how long those people would have lived had they not smoked!
Scientists could do with changing their methods so they are not out to prove somthing because using statistics you can prove whatever you want, and the modern man is wise to this, the scientists have themselves created the sceptics that rip on their work, and until they change their methods those sceptics won't go away.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Even if the climate changes - as subjectively recorded written history indicates that it does (more on this later on)- there is the role that man and his exploitation of our one and only planet has had in the process.
Data Quality
We have seen the unfortunate disparaging of the collections of 'scientific' data in recent weeks and the one salient point about this is that the error estimates have not been sufficiently well examined and have still not been examined is any real detail.
Peer Review
The role of peer-review in this process is yet another aspect of the problem with not only stem-cell research but that one permeates all science. The reason for this is quite simply, in my view, economic. Now that grants are offered or not on the basis of published papers the temptation to pervert science to meet your budget is too significant to ignore. This in turn is the result of the destruction of lifetime tenure. We get the quality of science we pay for. We have unfortunately created a system that has within it forces that are destroying science.
Historic Sources
The measurement errors inherent in estimating historic temperatures at any one place are large and when measuring the global temperature the results of actually measuring anything with sufficient accuracy is doubtful. I would far rather trust the written record of contemporary writers than I would any of the physical sources. I believe that when writers say that the Thames froze over and frost fairs were held that this did happen, for example.
There are also huge scientific problems with the CO2/man-made hypotheses. Quite apart from the peer review problem and the fact that the data has in some cases been 'lost'. The CO2 mechanism itself seems to be far to convenient a solution. Many of the assumptions just don't stand up to examination (that is the real measurement error bounds are so huge that saying anything one way or another is scientifically impossible with the precision being claimed.) The only information that seems to bear examination is not absolute levels of anything but perhaps the order of events. The models and theories just do not bear the weight of constructions that have been built up upon them as they themselves are full of holes.
Looking at the data the gross temperature swings between ice-ages and temperate times and the dating of these is reasonably well understood. But the correlation of historic CO2 is so full of flaws to make it almost meaningless.
Looking at what happened over the last couple of decades it seems to me that once a possible culprit was found (CO2) all other feasible possibilities were jettisoned well before proper consideration - this is appalling science. How on earth did it get past peer review?
Why has it taken stem-cell researchers to highlight the debasement of science?
Whilst I do agree with your assertion: "...conclude that as all climate scientists are dodgy, so is all climate data", but I do not believe that 'all' is the right word - my view is that 'some, but who have been influential' (see peer review) is more likely to be closer to reality and as close as we are going to get.
Conclusions
In the meantime climate is changing as it has always, and we need to be aware of this and try our best not to be too stupid in the things that we do, but that the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis is most probably wrong. I quite like the linking of climate variability to the emissions from the sun the peculiarities of the movements of the moon (and the induced ocean current patterns) and factors such as changes in our planet's obliquity. However, I would not rule out anthropogenic factors such as water vapour in the high atmosphere and the consequent global dimming caused by our obsession with air-travel. Low level CO2 gets recycled into plants and the sea far too quickly (contrary to the extremely dubious data from the climate scientists) to have any effect. In short: we deserve better science, but we have been the agents of our own destruction of science through insisting on short term measures via peer-reviewed publication links to finance, and short-termism. We got the c**p science we paid for!
Complain about this comment
Richard Black.
"..a graph comparing the 1990 (Jones et al) and 2007 (Li et al) graphs"
as the old saying goes: "A picture is worth a thousand words"
Complain about this comment
Snail,
Have you heard of water vapor and cloud cover?
Did you know that climate models are unable to account for this.
Did you know that CERN is working on trying to better understand cloud behaviour (becuase we really do not have a clue)
Ever notice what a big difference there is between a sunny cloudless day and an overcast day?
There are far too many assumptions for you to begin to speak in such ridiculously alarmist tones with such conviction.
Complain about this comment
Those who have been saying that the science is not settled have been vindicated.
The BBC needs to stop spreading warmist propaganda and separate out the debates.Saving energy and energy security for the UK are what we need to focus on.
The evidence for AGW is simply not there. The IPCC/ UEA scandals have been reported around the world and there is no way that the US, China, Russia and Indians governments are not going to commit billions to combatting so called AGW.
Time to wake up BBC and report this issue from a scientificall neutral perspective rather than the cheerleading for the millenarian death cult of warmism.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne (and others)
Firstly, can I just thank you for offering a thoughtful comment which avoids the bug-eyed frothing that Richard generously refers to as a ‘fanfare’. However, your comment does throw up some issues I’d like to address.
We’re not being asked to attribute all recent warming to CO2. From what we know about the basic physical properties of CO2, an increase in temperature is predicted, and understandably people are joining the dots.
The science of when and to what extent this’ll happen isn’t simple, as you point out, but the best of our understanding is that a CO2-led temperature rise is what we’d expect to see, and around now. Why now? It’s no coincidence – the science behind manmade climate change is not new and is not a ‘fad’, it's just becoming a hot topic now that a temperature rise is starting to kick in and some people (such as some politicians) are starting to recognise a potentially serious risk. Crucially, it eventually inspired the political pressure, not the other way round. How many more decades should we wait? When will everyone agree that it is ‘definitely’ manmade? And which is the precaution, to act now or sit on our hands?
Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their research is robust and unbiased, and to respond to challenge. (Incidentally laughingdevil, you are way off in talking about bias – avoiding bias is different to ignoring evidence.) I trained as a scientist, and it doesn’t surprise me that errors are being picked up now that every study is being combed over, nor does it trouble me – errors are no good for anyone. But there is no enormous body of anti-AGW evidence for non-deniers to pick on. And, cynic as I am, sometimes it feels like AGW deniers use ‘who knows’ instead, whilst deliberately ignoring the people who have devoted so long to trying to find out.
As much as I hate heat-related climate change metaphors, why fiddle while Rome burns?
Complain about this comment
Supposed inconsistencies? Richard please ......
I know it is tough for AGW fans but look at the evidence - a passing glance would be a start.
Complain about this comment
Skeptics are good. They challenge premises and assumptions. Deniers are bad. When presented with any contrary information they resort to conspiracy theories. So, some good data, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/. I know, someone will challenge NOAA - but it's probably the best data out there. Both water vapour (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv)and sun activity (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html) theories have been tested and discounted in any peer reviewed journal. At least NOAA produce a comprehensive set of statistics and interpretations for people to take aim at.
The best one is the universal conspiracy theory that al the universities are colluding. A few, maybe. But all - have you ever sat in a faculty meeting? Utter rubbish. Besides, the real way to make your way in academia is not to follow the herd - it is to come up with good, skeptical alternatives. Indeed, climate change was originally one of these a generation ago. Cue next conspiracy theory - all the journals refuse skeptical research to maintain the conspiraty. Or, and it just could be, the theories don't stack up. In general, I believe that cock-up triumphs over conspiracy.
I just with the deniers were more skeptical - and would challenge their own assumptions with equal zeal. And maybe read some Kuhn and Popper.
Reluctantly, I think the deniers will win. So the real question will be picking up the pieces way after the horse has bolted from the stable door. Investing in dam building technology companies would seem prudent.
A last thought. Many of my other friends believe the government and academia are in cahoots to suppress the facts - as they are so serious that they risk public disorder. I refer the reader to my prior comments regarding the likelihood of cockups versus conspiracies.
Complain about this comment
" He goes on to say:
"It makes me quite worried people are beginning to doubt the climate has warmed up." "
No! I can't quite believe that this rubbish is still being spouted (are you sure you're an environment correspondent?). Climate skeptics don't question the fact that the temperature went up in the 20th century (although they may ask why the temperature rise stopped or reversed slightly during the most vigorous decade for pumping out carbon dioxide emissions). Most skeptics simply question the pre-formed "conclusion" that humans are responsible.
I placed "conclusion" in inverted commas because a scientific conclusion is properly formed AFTER making careful observations, not before, by the very definition of the way science works. This is notwithstanding very temporary moments when theory runs faster than experiment, such as the Dirac equation, or relativity. Even those towering geniuses who are "too quick" do not stay in that situation for very long. You can't leap too far ahead in science - observation comes first, hence the controversy over string theory, for example.
Let me illustrate the current situation. Imagine you are the only existing climate scientist. It is 1980 and nobody has suggested anything to do with excessive, human-caused global warming. You have also observed that the average global temperature has risen by 0.4 deg. C. What are you to conclude? There's a rule of thumb which scientists usually follow - that the simplest explanation is probably true. The climate often changes - after all, the temperature can only go up or down. While it is true that CO2 emissions are higher these days, it is also true that many other things are different nowadays(correlation is not causation). CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but is is not particularly strong, or even abundant, relative to others. Moreover, the planet's past (and common sense) indicate that the earth has many built in mechanisms to stop it melting, otherwise this we would have experienced "runaway global warming" long before humans existed.
My question is, who decided that man-made catastrophic global warming was happening, and then proceeded to search for evidence to back up this "conclusion"? You do NOT form a conclusion and then seek evidence - this is putting the cart before the horse. We expend great energy telling religious people that they are wrong to do this when they believe in god first and then go searching for evidence - are we to now contradict ourselves? A good scientist assumes "business as usual" until there is solid evidence that something new is happening. It would be worrying if the climate were NOT changing at all, after all, time has not frozen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof lies with those who are trying to subvert the usual method of science - which is observations before conclusions. The temperature went up, and it did so during a century or so of warming after a particularly cold period. This is hardly surprising. If you want to tax me about this matter, you've got to do better than bleat about how "the temperature has risen and this is incontrovertible". Sigh, we know this already.
Complain about this comment
But it is too late. The contrarians, dismissers and those with an agenda have won.
Although Copenhagen was based on scientific consensus and peer-reviewed evidence, scientist’s minimal recommendations for carbon reduction have not been met. Nowhere near.
The ‘timely’ theft and publication of emails and circulation of selective quotes a week before the conference undermined the science to such a degree in the US that Obama could not risk his health-care reform by signing an equally unpopular document.
Another reason why Copenhagen failed were the exaggerations that have been made about the effects of climate change by some activists, politicians, the media and culturally in films such as ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.
The truth about CC is that it is far slower and more pernicious. It will be our children and grandchildren who will suffer from food shortages and extreme weather events.
And it is too late to do anything to prevent it.
Complain about this comment
Good post, Richard. Fair and balanced - unlike so much of the BBC's reporting on climate change which seems determined to give oxygen to every nutter who thinks that snow means the world is cooling down. Now - if you could just tell your colleagues Roger Harrabin and Justin Rowlatt to stop looking for controversy where there is none and to put the -gates and the deniers in context.
Complain about this comment
To all those saying the "deniers" have won, even though the science is robust:
Surely if the science is robust, it will never go away
If the science isn't robust enough to withstand the sceptics questions, then it's not good science
/mango
Complain about this comment
#9 laughingdevil wrote:
"The main problem with this climate change work (for example) is that it was done by people who believed the planet was warming, set that as their hypothisis and then set out to prove it."
I don't think there's anything wrong with believing something, then making up an explicit hypothesis about it, then setting out to test it, in that order. That's standard in real science.
The problem is their setting out to "prove" it. The word 'proof' suggest that a hypothesis stands to "data" as a mathamatical theorem stands to axioms -- i.e. it's based on them. (A is based on B = A can be derived from B, A is implied by B.)
I would say the assumption that hypotheses are based on evidence (in other words that hypotheses are implied by evidence) is the single greatest mistake in Western philosophy. (It's probably the greatest mistake in Eastern philosophy as well!)
Complain about this comment
Even George Monbiot and Fred Pearce at the Guardian are carrying this story as a front page website item. It is a travesty (where have I heard that recently?) that the BBC are still burying this controversy deep in the science pages. It is big news. As the last IPCC report is being picked apart, great big holes in its rationale and objectivity are being found. The basis for a huge industry in carbon tax / cap and trade will be dismantled.
I'm sorry, Alexis Rowell, but the AGW proponents have had the BBC to themselves for so long, that collapse of evidence for catastrophic climate change might look incredible; a new balance point is being found and it is in favour of impartial science and not a socio-political agenda.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
I know you carefully worded everything to sound neutral and reasonable but you really cannot help yourself.
In your summary or conclusions you state, "But what matters far, far more than the nuances of climate scientists' behaviour is whether the climate is warming, and if it is, what is driving that warming.
Those are questions crucial for humanity's future..."
Ah yes, I forget, back to mission control...you have a mission and you hope to make everyone understand how "crucial" it all is for humanity. How knoble of you to take this burden upon your shoulders and crusade for all of us humans.
Poppycock. One could have just as easily stated, "But what matters far, far more than the nuances of climate scientists' behaviour is whether a large asteroid is bearing down on earth, and if it is, when will it impact.
Those are questions crucial for humanity's future..."
You could have also replaced a "large asteroid" with a "killer pandemic influenza".
How about the "Cookie Monster"? Mr Chicken Licken. Come on lets at least have some fun with the end-of-the-world catastrophe stories!
Complain about this comment
#18 James Dixon wrote:
"It will be our children and grandchildren who will suffer from food shortages and extreme weather events."
You shouldn't think too far ahead. No one can reliably predict the distant future. We have no idea what technological marvels future generations will have, any more than previous generations could guess what technological marvels we already have.
Complain about this comment
Good article. Having spent more time than I would have liked stuck on trains this week, I have had a chance to look at a variety of newspapers (thanks to you people out there who leave newspapers on train seats). All the articles by science journalists have said the bones of what this article is saying - i.e. some scientists have messed up, but the various issues don't undermine the overall canon of the mainstream science. I have no doubt whatsoever that the usual suspects of unqualified 'shock jock' journalists (Brooker, Delingpole and Lawson) will have been spouting their usual opinions, but heck, if people are willing to pay good money to read them, then who am I to judge.
Complain about this comment
Veronica @22: "the BBC are still burying this controversy". This blog is featured on the main page of the BBC news website!!! One senses paranoia...
Complain about this comment
The problem is climatology has gone in the space of a decade from a science......... to a marketing opportunity.
There's massive money to be made from Carbon trading (as the head of the IPCC knows and invests in himself), there's money to be made in "eco" and "green" whatevers (from cars to hoovers to taxes).
There's also the idea that global warming has to be "sold", sexy science if you will, and no end of people trying to imply that we're heading for "The day after tomorrow" with absolute certainty (in fact the one thing anyone can be certain of is that we are absolutely NOT heading for so Hollywood-esq End Of The World™).
There's no longer the truth, there's just what pays (which also has infected the science - as you won't get grants for serious non-mmgw research).
And still more importantly at the end of the day the extra 3 billion people we're going to have on this planet in the next 50 years means that if MMGW is happening we're not going to be able to stop it and we need to start looking at how to adapt to it.... and if MMGW isn't happening (personally I believe it is as the science has been relatively solid since the early 90's - but it's fairly irrelevant to our future options) then what are we going to do about the problems though extra 3 billion people are going to cause anyway (lack of water/food/power etc. etc. etc.)
We're like drunks in a car arguing about whether 30mph or 50 mph is "safe" whilst blissfully ignoring the huge cliff up ahead.
Complain about this comment
As a warming sceptic, AGW or no AGW it makes perfect sense to me to plant trees, in their billions, even if just to redress the balance of forest pillage by man over the millennia and repair the natural co2/o2 cycle.
Surely the easiest, quickest and cheapest form of insurance we can take out to protect the future of this planet is to establish an agreement between as many countries as possible to give over 5% of their available land to the plantation of forests. Oh, and to arrest the current rape of what forests of old we have left. Simple.
Complain about this comment
The problem with climate science is that it always defends itself by saying their papers have been peer reviewed, however the peers that have reviewed them have a vested interest in the the carbon dioxide induced climate warming theory being proved. Hence any paper that says that there may be other factors is immediately refuted and the author castigated as a pariah. This is no different to the peer reviewing system in the middle ages where Galileo was castigated by his peers for saying the world was not the center of the world!
Science only tends to move on when a new generation looks at the other options and looks for evidence that may or may not prove other theories.
For me the established peers at the moment are too short sighted to realise that the evidence for carbon dioxide is too poorly understood to account for any temperature rise that has or has not been observed in the atmosphere, and has an inable to critically look at all the theories and evidence.
The second issue is political interference in the debate. Energy security and taxation (of fossil fuels) security are prime movers of the debate at governmental levels. If we were to suddenly discover that carbon dioxide was not the culprit then we would suddenly lose the only reason to divert taxes from fuels on the basis of their environmental damage to fund items such as the NHS and various wars which may or may not be actually intended to secure energy supplies.
The third issue has got to be around third world aid. Rightly the rich nations should aid the poorer nations but climate change is now being used a means by which certain organisations are trying to extract this aid. Aid which in most circumstances does not deal with the issue but puts a plaster over the problem.
When the evidence is peer reviewed, the authors and reviewers need to register their vested interests so that their review can be tested against any personal bias and that information put on a public register.
When most reviewers are being paid to find a link to global warming they will naturally be biased to works which are aligned with their work.
If you don't believe that the peer review is biased, then name any carbon dioxide based warming sceptics that are currently asked to review climate change research papers. I bet the names can be written on the back of a cig packet.
Complain about this comment
#17 Dr_Lazarus wrote:
"a scientific conclusion is properly formed AFTER making careful observations, not before, by the very definition of the way science works"
I don't know where you got your "definition" of science, but it's wrong. Hypotheses are generally made up before they are tested, and it's the testing (specifically, the passing of tests) that makes their observational evidence.
Don't worry, I'm as sceptical as they come, because climate science's hypotheses -- inasmuch as it has any worth the name -- have failed far more tests than they have passed. But it has been subjected to hardly any tests at all, probably because its proponents are working with the same "definition" of science as you and wrongly imagine you should look into the past for evidence rather the future.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne #23.
better known here as 'Chicken Little'; when I read your "Chicken Licken" I thought that must be a freudian slip, ie a signal that your body requires more input of junk food to help sustain the hyperactive spouting. GIGO! LOL
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dortman @27: Surely it would be better to at least try to slow down (copyright to my old geography teacher).
"There's massive money to be made from Carbon trading".True, but there is also a lot of money to be made from good old business as usual...
Agree that a massively expanding population isn't gonna make things any easier though...
Complain about this comment
"18. At 9:12pm on 02 Feb 2010, James Dixon wrote:
Another reason why Copenhagen failed were the exaggerations that have been made about the effects of climate change by some activists, politicians, the media and culturally in films such as ‘The Day After Tomorrow’."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Science itself has gone down this path.
The IPCC was certainly looking for "sexed up" things in its report because of this trend (although why a railway engineer is qualified to be head of the IPCC in the first place is another puzzling thing) and that's why it has gotten so badly bitten by the glacier issue and the trimming and hiding of data to make "nice" graphs.
The solid (as opposed to Hollywood) worst case warming scenarios result in a lesser impact of warming on humanity than having 9 billion people on the planet.
But instead people now are selling a venus-esq CO2 cascade as some likely reality whilst ignoring that another 3 billion people on Earth in the next 50 years is going to cause all sorts of fresh water supply problems (and other problems, of course) no matter how benign the climate may or may not be by then.
Complain about this comment
In any case (and in addition to my previous comment as an unashamed skeptic, a true scientist), consider this scenario.
It is 1900. The world's leaders have gathered to discuss the avoidance of a disaster which is due to occur in the year 2000 as a direct result of our behaviour now. They have agreed to use their current best technology to the maximum, in order to fight this doomsday scenario. This technology includes many mechanical devices built by the finest minds, built by the same geniuses which allowed us to recently escape the horse and carriage in the first place.
In the spirit of Michael Crichton, here are some of the many things which exist in the year 2000 which those "all-powerful" world leaders did not know about:
Jet Engine, airport, antibiotic, computer, AA battery, virus, blogging, ipod, DNA, neutron, mozilla firefox, liposuction, penicillin, VHS, VAT, the X-factor, non-stick pans, CAT scans, mp3, atomic bomb, continental drift, antenna, recordable DVD, general relativity etc. etc.
What supreme arrogance to believe that we can do anything to influence the future 100 years from now? By every reasonable measure our technological progress is accelerating, meaning we will see much greater change than the one considered from 1900 to 2000. And this is assuming that we are in fact having a significant influence on the planet's temperature at all - see my previous comment, or that of any other thoughtful individual.
Complain about this comment
markcomment #29.
"Energy security and taxation (of fossil fuels) security are prime movers of the debate at governmental levels. If we were to suddenly discover that carbon dioxide was not the culprit then we would suddenly lose the only reason to divert taxes from fuels on the basis of their environmental damage to fund items such as the NHS and various wars which may or may not be actually intended to secure energy supplies."
since when have governments needed reason to create (new) taxes or increase existing?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I wonder how we will look back in 500 years time on the exchanges on this, and other sites, concerning the changing climate. Despair I would guess. I cannot be the only erstwhile poster put off by the endless sterility of the AGW "debate". I am baffled, most of all, by the certainty of those who deny that anthropogenic emmisions of CO2 (etc) are altering the climate. Given the complexity of the science and the acknowledged uncertainties in our data and models one of the first things that all who really engage with the issues must do is acknowledge these uncertainties - whether your view is that AGW is happening or not. Yet, while sceptics welcome the uncertainties of those who provide evidence of AGW they seem so certain of their own positions that one can only be sceptical of their scepticism. Perhaps those who would wish away AGW assume their opponents are simply like them - they see so little reason to examine the objectivity of their own positions that they cannot imagine others regard this self examination as crucial. There is some (very small) satisfaction knowing that the internet ether will preserve these comment fora for posterity to gawp at. But it would be particularly interesting to ask one of our distant descedents what future generations made of the sceptics. My guess is that it will be seen as a rerun of Galileo and the Pope with the subtle difference that the Pope could afford to be as wrong as he liked. Like it or not the sceptics will be as affected by AGW as the rest of us, though I guess many who don't seem required to care if they are wrong are just happy to let the next generation pick up the pieces.
Meanwhile, Richard, your comments on the -gates hit the mark once again. Keep it up. It may seem like a thankless job, reading so many of the comments here, but I can't be the only one who appreciates your contributions but feels it is pointless to post.
Complain about this comment
I hope Davblo is turning up soon because there are a new collection of things to add to the list:
a) climate science is wrong because one of the qualifications obtained by the head of the IPCC is in engineering.
b) climate science is wrong because a load of things were invented in the 20th century.
c) climate science is wrong because it is supported by most scientists
d) climate science is wrong because we are arrogant
e) climate science is wrong because it's only recently been discovered
etc etc
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
"I don't know where you got your "definition" of science, but it's wrong. Hypotheses are generally made up before they are tested, and it's the testing (specifically, the passing of tests) that makes their observational evidence."
I agree, but I wasn't talking about hypotheses (which DO some before any investigation) I was talking about conclusions. Perhaps you should re-read what I said and you will see that I never spoke about hypotheses. I also agree with your wider comments. It also leaves us with the question of who generated the AGW idea in the first place and why.
Complain about this comment
The problem with those explorers is that they started out believing the earth was round.
Complain about this comment
It is a matter of grave concern that public opinion towards something that has been going on right in front of our eyes like climate change is turning towards denial.
I do not understand how people can be so ignorant as to say that such a widespread activity like burning fossil fuels, or moving large portions of earth will not cause a change in the homeostatic balance of nature.
surely, we are into the anthropocene epoch where we are responsible for what is happening around us more than anything else.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There is no climate change conspiracy - just a lot of bad climate change science. For example, in order for the graph in the article to be taken seriously the authors should have acquainted themselves with the statistical concepts of precision, accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility and shown confidence limits on their data. The graph might then tell a rather different story.
Complain about this comment
"The causes of, and radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapour changes are not well quantified."
"Land surface properties and land-atmosphere interactions that lead to radiative forcing are not well quantified."
"The full range of processes leading to modification of cloud properties by aerosols is not well understood and the magnitudes of associated indirect radiative effects are poorly determined."
You would think that they were quotes from some AGW-sceptic blog. But they aren't. They are lifted directly from the Technical Summary of the IPCC's most recent report. And there's plenty more where they came from.
Richard, the real scandal is the amount of blind faith and certainty the media and politicians have given to this premature science. How can anyone read the above quotes and not feel just a pinch of scepticism?
Complain about this comment
Scientific theory has always been debated, that is normal and as it should be. Even when a mathematical proof is presented it may still take years or decades before it is accepted (over 50 years for Newtons Law of Gravitation for example).
And yet the hypothesis that greenhouse gases, produced in increasing amounts in the last 100 years are generating an increase in the global temperature should just be accepted ?
That is an incredibly bold statement to make - think of the variables involved and the timescale ! AFAIK the theory was only invented 30 years ago, and yet 20 years ago I was taught this at school - as though it was an absolute truth.
And it only gets worse if you start to read the leaked emails.
This is most definitely a theory - *not* scientific fact - and I for one am glad the sceptics are asking questions.
Complain about this comment
I have no idea how Richard Balck has the nerve to pretend not to be anything but a total evangelist for the AGW religion that is the BBC..
In light of this artice:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html
"It's hard to overstate how much the events of the last two months have altered the global picture of climate politics..."
Where he completely fails to mention the HUGE event and main reason for the change in climate poltics - is the climategate scandal...
Paul Hudson mentions it:
SO does ANDREW NEIL: BBC Daily Poltics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html#comments
Is he scared that members of the public might find out and google climategate if he writes about it....
He is defending the BBC gates from sceptics, whilst the wheels of the bandwagon are flying off all corners.
Another email to the trust enquiry on climate change bias at the BBC is due.
On a lighter note, imagine 2 years hence, obama has been thrown out of office, sarah palin now 1st woman president, the congressional agw enquiry and hearings, are extraditing, from the UK those complicit in the AGW scam, including media people..
Let's hope for Richards sake, that he is too small a fry, to be sent over...
Sounds totally fantasy, doesn't it, well compared to AGW theory...
Better get a lawyer.
Complain about this comment
James Dixon at #18 said:-
‘…The ‘timely’ theft and publication of emails and circulation of selective quotes a week before the conference undermined the science to such a degree in the US that Obama could not risk his health-care reform by signing an equally unpopular document.’
You are right, James. A very nasty war is being fought against president Obama by the far right (I call them the 1% who own the 43%).
I think, as I’ve said before, that he’s the best bet that middle and lower income Americans (i.e. the vast majority) and the environment have had for a very long time. Of course, history will be the judge of that, but the previous 8 year administration has left things in a parlous state for ‘the average joe’ (to quote Dempster). The bankers and the rich elites are fine, of course.
Obama appears to have a great deal of personal integrity. Have a look at this video of him easily debunking many talking points offered as ‘questions’ by Republican House members a couple of days ago.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Around the 40th minute he starts talking about the climate change issue and he is quite clear that if the US doesn’t rapidly develop renewable energy, well they’re just going to get left behind. The Chinese and the Indians will move rapidly ahead.
It’s a simple economic truth. Doesn’t matter what any of the fossil fuel lobbyists think anymore.
They’re all just going round in circles and will fade into history. The argument now is just plain nuts!
Here’s the problem for the truth, however.
MSNBC and CNN carried the whole question and answer session.
But Fox News cut away from it the moment they realised Obama had the Republicans on the ropes. You can google ‘youtube’ that one too. It was very, very cynical.
As an example of how lacking many of you ‘sceptics’ are in science in general, we had FergalR yesterday claiming:-
‘…Are you for real? That graph you linked could only be accurate with the use of time travel. We have no reliable idea what the ice was like in 1950.’
As if nobody could have mapped the Arctic sea ice before the late 1950’s because ‘there were no satellites’!
Why don’t you, Fergal, email the polar science group at UIUC yourself (there’s an email address at the top of their website) and ask for clarification?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Yet Gerardus Mercator managed to produce an excellent map of Europe in 1538.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerardus_Mercator
And Abraham Ortelius produced the first true modern atlas (Theatrum Orbis Terrarum) in 1570.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_world_maps#.22Theatrum_Orbis_Terrarum.22_by_Abraham_Ortelius_.281570.29
Another puzzling issue that’s a bit of a disconnect.
You all cut and paste from WUWT to undermine climate science in general and CO2, as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in particular. You accuse us of being greenies, warmists and eco-fascists.
Yet, right under your noses, Anthony Watts (WUWT) is a confirmed greenie. He drives an electric car and has apparently installed a 10 KW solar array on his house and a 125 KW solar array on one of his local schools.
He’s fitted his house out with loads of insulation and energy saving devices and what’s more, he
encourages others to do the same. Why would he do that?
Scroll down here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about/
If I were you guys, I’d follow his lead.
You need to earn a bundle of money first, though, for this kind of gear.
Maybe start up a blog of some kind.
Complain about this comment
Barry @47: you are looking forward to President Palin and you are a climate sceptic as well - what a suprise!
Getting exited about the idea that people like Richard Black should be arrested is just a little bit creepy don't you think?
Complain about this comment
Jr4412: since when have governments needed reason to create (new) taxes or increase existing?
Come on - let's not be so naive. Of course elected governments need to justify increasing taxes and higher transport, heating and food prices. Even Dictators, Emperors and Kings all need to justify heavy tax increases on their peasants. The church usually helped with that in the past (example: The Crusades or Charlemaine).
Today we have a new clergy - the climate priests or evangelists.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne #23. better known here as 'Chicken Little'; when I read your "Chicken Licken" I thought that must be a freudian slip
LOL - you caught me - that must have been freudian - I just read excerpts from tne new book by the Head of the IPCC:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/30/ipcc-now-in-bizzaroland-pachauri-releases-smutty-romance-novel/
Steamy stuff
Complain about this comment
OK, the link didn’t get through so if you’re interested in the Obama Q & A session you will have to go to ‘Youtube’ and search for:-
‘Obama Faces GOP On Its Talking Points’
Another interesting thing.
I wonder how Dr. Roy Spencer is going to spin the UAH satellite surface temperature data from the AMSU sensor for January 2010. Seems it’s gone way high.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
Click on ‘draw graph’ and ‘near surface layer’.
I think you need JAVA to view this.
Complain about this comment
They’re getting even crazier on here. I didn’t think it was possible.
Crazy Barry Woods comes on and sounds like the Witchfinder General!!!
What a world some people inhabit.
A tenuous grip on reality would be being charitable.
Complain about this comment
8. The_Snial wrote:
" It's simple: We've increased the amount of CO2 by 30% in just over 2 centuries. It *is* a greenhouse gas and will therefore warm the planet, because it is slowing the rate at which energy is radiated to space. No matter how this extra energy is churned around the planet it *will* have the effect of warming it. "
True enough - the problem with the rest of your arguement is that the IPCC says that the warming due to CO2 is 1.6W/sq m. Now that is only enough to warm the earth by a quarter of a degree at most, and that isn't enough to cause the dire effects claimed.
Complain about this comment
This is a well considered point of view, but in my opinion it misses the point like all the considered opinions miss the point. Climate change is a theory. Nothing more; nothing less. Until a theory has built up sufficient evidential supporting material to back it up, it remains a theory.
Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. So is the fact that light travels at an absolute speed of approx 186,000 miles/second. Unlike the climate debate however, there is no "gravity debate", no "speed of light debate". This is because science has been allowed to explore, then answer, the key questions. This is all most climate sceptics are asking for; to give science the chance to answer the key questions. Not political debate; not environmental or industry goups with a vested interest - science. This means double blind experimentation; scientific rigour: those who collect the data are divorced from those who analyse the data. It also calls for a general acceptance of statistical methodology - we are dealing with statistical analysis, but what does it really mean to say something is "statistically significant"? What do the "confidence" statements of the IPCC in their predictions really mean?
The climate debate IS IMPORTANT, but only if addressed with scientific rigour. The people are not stupid. Without rigour, the debate is little more than political posturing, ultimately destined to failure when fallible people make simple errors as we see with these "gates"
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
38. Bryn_hill wrote:
"I wonder how we will look back in 500 years time on the exchanges on this, and other sites, concerning the changing climate. Despair I would guess. I cannot be the only erstwhile poster put off by the endless sterility of the AGW "debate". I am baffled, most of all, by the certainty of those who deny that anthropogenic emmisions of CO2 (etc) are altering the climate."
No, that's not what is being said. What we are trying to point out is that the effect of the increased CO2 on temperature is so small that other factors will dominate what happens.
Complain about this comment
I seem to remember a report from about 10-15 years ago regarding the Sahel drought of the 1960s-70s. A German team had re-analysed the rainfall data for the area and discovered that some reporting stations had been replaced by others during the drought. When this was taken into account the drought proved to be rather less serious than had been supposed.
As consistency of reporting is the essence of identifying long term climate change, surely we can maintain the same stations over the long term?. Didn't stop the authorities closing Kew down though- one of the stations with the longest run in the world!
Complain about this comment
#40 Dr_Lazarus wrote:
"I wasn't talking about hypotheses (which DO some before any investigation) I was talking about conclusions."
Fair enough - I jumped in too soon. My apologies.
Complain about this comment
If anyone seriously doubts that urbanization biases surface temperature records, they should look here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/, and here, http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html.
The first of these is particularly striking: using GISS data for 28 pairs of sites in the continental US, each pair consisting of one rural (under 10,000 population) and one urban (more than 150,000 population) separated by less than 100km, with continuous records covering 1900-2006, they show no trend in the rural sites and a steady rise in the urban ones.
The second, while much more anecdotal, shows a difference in temperature between downtown Phoenix and the surrounding countryside of 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 Celsius).
And if anyone thinks that these effects are accurately compensated for in the official data sets, they should look here: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#55 John Walton wrote:
"Unlike the climate debate however, there is no "gravity debate", no "speed of light debate"."
Huh? -- Have you ever been in a room with 2 or more physicists?
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that climate change science is not so because no one can replicate it. The original data has been lost or destoyed.
As a graduate of history and a lawyer the whole thing stinks.
That is to say of special pleading and money rather than objectivity.
What I want is for independent scientists (I mean mathematicians, computer scientists, historians and the like rather than these jumped up geographers) to go back through the original data, analyse it and produce their conclusions.
The trouble is that the whole AGW is produced on the back of a few - possibly one only ( I am not a computer scientist) dodgy computer program and selective data.
I can only say that this was not the conclusion I expected to bring to all this but why should our energy bills be tripled and another penny on income tax to pay for all this rubbish?
Currently the univerities are complaining their state funding is being cut. Please lets have some more cuts if this nonsense is all they can produce.
I thought "That Hideous Strengh" (C S Lewis) was a story only but I now see a sub set of that played out in my own lifetime!
Complain about this comment
thinkforyourself #48 re: Anthony Watts
Last time I checked, it wasn't compulsory to sign up to the AGW catastrophe nightmare scare story in order to care about real environmental issues, conserve energy, use renewables where you can, recycle, etc. All these things make sense in their own right.
Complain about this comment
#60 texasfrank
Sorry - I inadvertently broke a house rule with a link to a PDF. You can get it by googling for SPPI surface and following the top link.
Complain about this comment
I'm currently being entertained by the National Geographic Wild Channel, The Big Freeze Investigated. Same old propaganda but read through a mirror.
Disasterous
crops failing
nothing can stop it
life threatening
global catastrophy
(insert exact multiple AGW doom and glood buzz words here)
Yes the 360 turn has begun in the ever hungry disaster seeking media, the more lives lost the better, the more heart wrenching the storyline the better, polar bears can't fish because it too cold, we're all doomed again and again. 5 million die of starvation but most importantly 2 Brits survived. (not the nine o'clock news).
Here we go again on the never ending rollercoaster of ups and downs, this and that, hot and cold, asteriods, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, winters, summers.
Its a tospy turvy world in programme disaster making.
Complain about this comment
To be honest I think we can tell a lot if we put all of the science to one side.
Whatever our thoughts on the government of the day it does seem reasonable to conclude that they have access to information the rest of us never see. So based on what governments do, or do not do, we can tell a lot about what concerns them.
So let's look at the claims made by those who claim mankind is primarily responsible for global warming. Specifically the claim that carbon emissions are responsible for rising temperatures and if we don't do something about it then future generations will be plagued by all sorts of climate-related problems.
Now let's look at what governments are doing about it. Most of their action appears to be based around taxation. No discussion of legislation, just taxes. So in other words it's perfectly OK to drive a Range Rover through Chelsea as long as we pay more than the person who drives their Fiat Panda down the same roads.
Let's take a step back a moment. It's perfectly OK to make a totally needless contribution to the destruction of life as we know it, as long as we hand over more cash to the government. And what will the government do with it - invest in green technology? Perhaps improve flood defences? No, probably lump it in with everything else and carry on as normal.
Now let's look at other things that governments collectively are doing. The great and the good flew in to Copenhagen (many by private jet), travelled from the airport to the conference centre by limousine, and no doubt dined on the finest food money can buy, flown in from wherever it needed to be sourced. Just how much carbon did this conference emit? How many people flew to a conference to discuss ways of telling us not to fly? How many people travelled by limousine to discuss ways to tell us not to drive our much more modest cars?
To sum all this up, how can we take these claims seriously when those tasked with our protection are clearly not in the slightest bit concerned about the consequences of doing far more than the things they complain at us for doing?
Complain about this comment
Dear Richard,
"If the scientific case for greenhouse warming crumbles, so be it; but I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards."
It's like the MPS expenses scandal.
You don't get it, do you.
Complain about this comment
"Much has been written - not least on this website"
Oh how I laughed for a long long time.
Complain about this comment
34: D Dortmund wrote //The solid (as opposed to Hollywood) worst case warming scenarios result in a lesser impact of warming on humanity than having 9 billion people on the planet.
But instead people now are selling a venus-esq CO2 cascade as some likely reality whilst ignoring that another 3 billion people on Earth in the next 50 years is going to cause all sorts of fresh water supply problems (and other problems, of course) no matter how benign the climate may or may not be by then.//
Yes, yes, YES!! Forget global warming, it is nothing compared to the full horror of the problems caused by having 9-10bn people fighting for life on this planet. Man himself is the biggest threat to the future of mankind, not by what he may or may not be doing to the atmosphere, but just through the sheer NUMBERS! If mankind can not come up with a plan to regulate and control this potentially catastrophic rate of population growth, then be assured the planet will. This scenario makes even the most extreme global warming scenarios pale into insignificance.
Complain about this comment
Might as well fact it, Richard: you can't argue with a conspiracy theorist.
Complain about this comment
To Bryn_hill #38:
"but I can't be the only one who appreciates your contributions but feels it is pointless to post." (Bryn_hill)
--------------
Many of us can relate - in spades!
The contrarian/business as usual lobby is effective - at least so it would appear.
Or is the public simply at the stage called 'denial'?
I would vote for the denial stage.
It is worth noting that acceptance usually follows some time after. There may be a period of anger, etc...
\\\ The words of Abraham Lincoln keep running through my head ///
"Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?"
- Inaugural address, March 4, 1861
----------------------------------
The feeling of frustration and ennui comes when one feels there is a need to answer the lobby - to counter their often absurd pronouncements. This leads to debilitation if one is not careful.
I have been in contact with some wonderful people on this weblog, and worked with two on writing "The Mayday Declaration" last year.
Those two were jr4412 and davblo2.
I could name many other posters whom I take real pleasure in seeing appear on this screen. Whether some decide to counter the lobby, or post solo, or speak only to a few like-minded bloggers - I take pleasure in knowing that we all share this space around Richard's virtual campfire together, even if at times a few of us become so despondent as to retire from the fray - in a sort of cyber 'shell-shock.'
For example, I remember you Bryn_hill, even though you only occassionally comment.
It all helps.
As Robert Frost pointed out in one of his poems:
"Men work together, whether together or apart."
I do not consider the majority of contrarian contingent 'men' - they are unworthy of that title, for I subscribe wholeheartedly to Antoine de Saint Exupery's comment:
"To be a man is, precisely, to be responsible."
- "Wind, Sand and Stars"
- Manysummits - back -
Complain about this comment
I am thinking we should simply re-publish the "Mayday Declaration" again, and see how it has held up since its initial posting on May 1, 2009.
What do you think Jr & Davblo?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the article, Richard - thoughtful as ever.
It must be a bit frustrating, though, when the comments have the same old stuff, time after time. John from Hendon still flies in the face of reality and still can't bring himself to read the data from pretty much everywhere that keeps telling teh same story.
And now we have laughingdevil. well written but clearly a youngster, if he' still doing A level statistics. That and university studies are time-consuming so he probably hasn't't had the chance to read the papers going back to the 1950s but it may save him embarrassment in teh future if it's pointed out to him that, in fact, the scientists working in the field of climate followed very much the method he champions - that they observed information first (CO2 levels and temepratures) and then began working out the hypotheses and theories to explain it. Not the otehr way round.
Anyway, look forward to your next contribution.
Complain about this comment
George Monbiot of the Guadian speaks out:
"We do no one any favours – least of all ourselves – by wasting our time promoting false claims."
Absolutely - this is what the skeptics have known about and been complaining about for so long. I would add that all these false claims are wasting an awful lot of taxpayer money too.
It would be nice if you would apologise for all the times you personally promoted false claims.
"The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, is also in hot water. In November he dismissed as "voodoo science" a report for the Indian government showing that the IPCC's date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers was wrong. It's now clear that, actually, the IPCC's claim was voodoo science."
Yes indeed George. It is nice to see that you understand why the skeptics are so frustrated by you and the general media's inability to check facts. BTW - there has been an awful lot more "voodoo science" going on in the man-made global warming scam - do some research my friend - Himalayan Glaciers are but the "tip of the iceberg". We skeptics are well aware of this. Why aren't you environmental journalists? Please inform yourself - it is supposed to be your area of expertise.
"The vast body of climate science still shows that manmade climate change is real and that it presents a massive challenge to human survival."
George, like Richard Black, you continue trumpeting alarmist kool-aid - "climate change is real" and "a massive challenge to human survival". Of course, the first part is true, climate change is real - it has been going on forever and it is all normal and quite natural. Indeed, climate has changed dramatically countless times before the invention of the SUV - so why not get over it? I promise you humans will survive; humans are intelligent and adaptable. Please stop scaring children with your poppycock.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails
Complain about this comment
Reading BBC articles on this subject, I've been struck by the choice of language. Unfortunately, I now picture BBC commentators sneeringly making air quote gestures when referring to anything or anyone contradicting the majority view on climate change. Whether scientists or not, they are all dismissed with the label 'sceptic,' which wouldn't be so bad except that, on reading these reports over time, you'd be forgiven for thinking 'The Sceptics' were some form of homogeneous evil cabal.
The air quote habit only appears to relate to climate science though. In today's article about a minority of scientists claiming their work is being unfairly blocked by the established majority, they are referred to simply as 'stem cell experts.'
I've always assumed objectivity and impartiality from the BBC. It's a shock when it disappears.
Complain about this comment
no sense of humour amongst the AGW convinced I see.
It was just humour and a comparison.
Personally, I think it would be a disaster for the USA AND EVERYONE if Sarah Palin was ever president.
However, If the americans ever discover that the media in the us has actively buried this story (and I do see americans, etc, complaining about this in the comments sections of the Guardian and the Telegraph)
ie barely even reported the story about the story.
Anything could happen.... ie the tories inviting lord stern to head a green bank (stern report quietly doctored by a order of magnitude (agw 'mistake')
the general election should be fun!
Complain about this comment
@thinkforyourself #48
Yet, right under your noses, Anthony Watts (WUWT) is a confirmed greenie. He drives an electric car and has apparently installed a 10 KW solar array on his house and a 125 KW solar array on one of his local schools.
He’s fitted his house out with loads of insulation and energy saving devices and what’s more, he
encourages others to do the same. Why would he do that?
Because it makes sense
Do you think that those of us who disagree with the AGW hypothesis go around killing small babies too? The fact is thinkforyourself, most sceptics on these pages profess a great love of nature and the environment. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think we are all bad people.
@thinkforyourself #52
I wonder how Dr. Roy Spencer is going to spin the UAH satellite surface temperature data from the AMSU sensor for January 2010. Seems it’s gone way high.
I doubt very much Spencer will "spin" anything, remember he actually did make a mistake last year, corrected it, even though it hadn't been spotted by anyone and still apologised for the error.
You tar good men with the same brush as bad men, thinkforyourself
/mango
Complain about this comment
@Everyone that thinks the IPCC isn't horribly biased
Let's glance over the process and see where the IPCC went wrong with their science, shall we?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
Hmmm, can anyone imagine valid science being done in this manner?
@thinkforyourself #48 who wrote...
"He’s fitted his house out with loads of insulation and energy saving devices and what’s more, he encourages others to do the same. Why would he do that?"
I used to be really big on telling people to conserve energy and I still do so in conersations where that's relevant (Also, most of the things I was promoting were cheaper and/or more reliable). Initially I even went along with the AGW stuff if for no other reason than the energy savings. Then I started looking at the actual data that supposedly supports the hypothesis of significant AGW and the numbers on the transition to renewables...and realized that anyone for all of these policies either had no clue what they were talking about or they were utterly insane.
Complain about this comment
#78 poitsplace wrote:
"Initially I even went along with the AGW stuff if for no other reason than the energy savings."
I never quite went along with it, but I used to be much less vocal opponent becauuse I thought it was a great way of sneaking in large-scale nuclear power!
Complain about this comment
"He could also have cited the body of evidence from the satellite record, which also shows a clear warming trend."
No that data has been exposed as "bent" since 2003 in Ron Bailey's article "Science Steals a Base", still available at TCSDaily. The bottom line is that the climate models are junk and everybody knows it.. to the extent that they have to "calibrate" (double calibrate in the Bailey article) the measured satellite data to make it fit the models. Uhh, to be valid models should fit the data, not the other way around.
In fact before about 2005 the climate modellers were performing their analyses with a data set which had no account for 30% of the CO2 sinking, i.e., 30% of CO2 produced was uhh, disappearing but nobody knew where... until they conveniently decided, to avoid further embarrassment, that it must be uptake by the oceans, which incidentally brought the marine biologists on to the gravy train.
Since fossil fuels are a limited resource, ultimately, research on new energy supply systems is essential and that's where money should be spent: on fundamental research into producing energy and making it "portable" in some form of "fuel". In that respect the "hydrogen economy" is a blatant fraud, which has been exposed umpteen times by graduate engineering students for decades. While study of climate has some merit, the overspend to date is a worldwide disgrace on what is no more than a wasteful hand-wringing exercise on a monumental scale.
Complain about this comment
In hid Guardian blog, George Monbiot writes:
"climate scientists at the university have been up against a well-armed public relations campaign for many years"
I think they have been up against a questioning, sceptical public for many years rather than a public relations camaign (funded by the dark forced of Mordor, presumably). It's amazing how quick supporters of AGW are to attribute their troubles to a well-funded, organized "campaign" rather than ordinary people seeing through the superstitious nonsense of a new and bogus religion.
On a purely rhetorical point, I would urge sceptics to avoid a similar mistake: that of attributing their troubles to attempts to wring more taxation out of the "ordinary working joe"!
Most religious "believers" do not ask what science is and is not, what counts as evidence and what doesn't. They act out of blind faith. When the whole AGW religion completely unravels, and I think we're getting there, politicians like Ed Miliband will be revealed as unintelligent rather than as wicked.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
What's most amazing is that skeptics are STILL called "denialists" when they actually spotted the behavior of the climate scientists a couple years back. At least back then it would be an understandable interpretation in light of the massive AGW campaign. But now that skeptics claims have been verified, we get these AGW faithful complaining about the "timely" leak of data...as if the timing has ANYTHING to do with their guilt. Its like an opponent finding out that someone running for public office was a convicted rapist in another country...oh sure, the information might be released to hurt his chances...but he's still a rapist.
The criticism of the behavior of UEA's climate research unit is not like the ad hominem and strawman attacks against skeptics. This is very real wrong doing. The emails actually show how a group of extremely biased scientists worked together to prevent opposing views from being expressed and to prevent the shoddy nature of the mainstream AGW "science" being exposed.
More importantly, being expressed in the more important publications. The group then used the fact that they'd blocked publication as the SOLE EVIDENCE of the validity of that opposing viewpoint. It is absurd that anyone would require or that people would believe it was required...that a criticism of science in the process of being peer reviewed would its self need to be peer reviewed. Such a requirement renders any initial claim untouchable.
And of course much of these scientists' power is derived from a government process...not by any actual skill. Many were likely "elected" to the status of "expert" by the IPCC because they fit with the already determined outcome of the IPCC assessment reports
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
Complain about this comment
A key question. How do you tell the good science from the bad science? Incorporating gossip, hearsay, news articles, student dissertations, NGO reports into IPCC reports is not science
Another important question to ask is about all these 'gates' which have been under the noses of main stream journalists for years. How come news outlets have only just now noticed the bad smells emanating from climate science?
We are having a debate about climate science now because people like Richard Black have failed miserably to do their jobs.
Complain about this comment
#3 neil hyde
"For a scientific view , try here:
...link to wattsupwiththat"
that's brilliant, many thanks for keeping it lighthearted....scientific link....wattsupwiththat...superb....rofl
Complain about this comment
Most climate scientists and all other scientist abhor the lack of real science in some of the citings used by the IPCC. Science is meant to be rigorous and self doubting. However, when political agendas poke their ugly head into the mix things get changed. Climate Change has become so political, which is incredibly dangerous as policy rarely has to be scientifically proven before being subjected upon the people and is often formed from mere opinions.
In terms of the effect of CO2 on climate - if the skeptics stop looking at such short time scales of 20 years and consider more long term trends over 400,000 years (from ice core data) then the patterns of CO2 and temperature show an uncanny resemblance.
Finally, there is much more going on than just temperature rising with the influence of CO2. The oceans are acidifying as well as heating which is predicted to destroy the world's coral reefs by 2050. This may not seem like it will affect many people accept for divers but coral reefs are the breeding and nursing grounds for many economically important fish and are as diverse as rainforests. In addition, they provide natural storm and flood defences for many low lying coastlines.
There are so many reasons why we should reduce our CO2 output including energy security, reduced warming, to lessen the affect of ocean acidification and of course to wean ourselves off the ever reducing fossil fuels.
Complain about this comment
10 John from Hendon
"However, I would not rule out anthropogenic factors such as water vapour in the high atmosphere and the consequent global dimming caused by our obsession with air-travel. Low level CO2 gets recycled into plants and the sea far too quickly (contrary to the extremely dubious data from the climate scientists) to have any effect. "
Well said. You are pointing out the true Climate Change tragedy. Many people have been made sceptic by the shrill hectoring of the Warmists. In the background there have been the scientists, who it now turns out were a bit economic with the facts. And in the foreground, there have been the propagandists, the likes of the BBC, selecting and emphasising 'facts' to back up the theory, ignoring those which didn't seem to fit, and critical of those who asked questions.
The problem is, as people realise that Global Warming was based on dodgy dossiers, the Warmists' equivalent of Saddam's 45 minute nukes, they might be encouraged to think that nothing we do has any effect on the climate or environment.
That is disastrous for those of us who would like to see less energy used, and more produced from renewables.
Complain about this comment
#73. RuariJM wrote:
"It must be a bit frustrating, though, when the comments have the same old stuff, time after time. John from Hendon still flies in the face of reality and still can't bring himself to read the data from pretty much everywhere that keeps telling the same story."
I have looked at the data and the 'science' and it is almost universally unsound. You believe the CO2 nonsense if you want to but the reality is that the theories and models that are built upon this dubious ground do not match reality very well and quite often some other factor has to be imputed and added to explain differences between prediction and reality. To base the daemonising of CO2 - and worse man-made (or released) CO2 - on such a flimsy, unsound and unproven theory is excessively irresponsible and unscientific. There are just so many logical, experimental and scientific holes in the CO2 argument that to list them will take dozens of pages.
However I return to my basic point that the demonising of CO2 and doomed to fail attempts to 'control' CO2 are diverting our proper attention from the real problem of handling climate variability in the way that we use our planet. The CO2 disciples are a 'plot' to avoid actually doing anything practical and constructive to maintain and preserve our planet!
Complain about this comment
As previously posted I’m an average self employed working Joe, I’m not a scientist.
However I think Mr Black’s article is reasoned, and because of it I now believe that AGW is perfectly possible, even likely.
So whilst we seem to have a significant number of silly scientists messing around with data, the likelihood of AGW remains.
And if the potential of future AGW remains, how do you address it?
And more particularly:
How do you address it whilst ‘going for growth in the economy’?
How do you address it with an ever expanding world population?
Well Mr Black you’ve got me this far. But I’m not at the finish line yet am I.
So now what I want someone to explain to me is how do you stop AGW.
Complain about this comment
#85 Candid wrote:
"Climate Change has become so political, which is incredibly dangerous as policy rarely has to be scientifically proven before being subjected upon the people and is often formed from mere opinions."
Please... no more of this assumption that a scientific theory can ever be "proven". It's always mere "opinion". Of course, some opinions are better than other opinions, and it's important to see the difference.
Complain about this comment
Re your last sentence. It's crumbling, no doubt. And any amount of denial by insiders doesn't wash anymore. What we should fear and be preparing for is sustained global cooling. Global warming is good for flora and fauna, global cooling is bad for flora and fauna.
Complain about this comment
@John Walton #55
"Unlike the climate debate however, there is no "gravity debate", no "speed of light debate"."
You might want to google/wiki Mozart, quantum tunnelling, entanglement, 'spooky action at a distance' and non-locality.
And then reconsider your previous statement.
Then you could follow that up, with what constitutes information and what a pilot wave is and that's just the speed of light.
Next thing you should do is try and find out why gravity is such a weak force and whether it may act differently over very long distances.
When you've done all that, then maybe we can have a converstation about science and have a proper scientific debate.
You might even find out that Copenhagen has been the centre of scientific controversy before............
Complain about this comment
This increasingly sounds like Blairs 'dogdy dossier' - some facts, some half truths, the whole thing presented in a manner which attempts to sell a certainty that does not exist.
I hear that Scotland is now officially reported as having the COLDEST winter since records began.
Complain about this comment
Its no good arguing with facts. These people are either propagandists or have been reading propaganda websites to justify their prejudice.
How many of these can you spot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Complain about this comment
Re comment 68 from thinkforyourself
If Anthony Watts really has a hybrid car, and solar panels on his house, then he is a very wise climate sceptic. We are hearing in the UK that power is going to get much more expensive over the next few years, partly due to it being taxed beyond any sense of proportion due to AGW hysteria. No doubt that is true in the US too, where Anthony is.
Besides, one day (we don't really know when) fossil fuels will run out, and the ones we have left will be in the control of flaky countries.
It's a wise man who takes out an insurance policy against that, whether AGW is real or fabricated.
Complain about this comment
#71 manysummits wrote:
"I do not consider the majority of contrarian contingent 'men' - they are unworthy of that title"
As a card-carrying "contrarian", I always make a point of keeping the "feminine side" of my personality active. I think the segregation of the sexes is a terrible thing, as it seems to bring out the worst in both male and female. Men tend to become more like locker-room nitwits who snap wet towels at each other's bare behinds, while women tend to become more poisonous-minded, with obsessive involvement in petty social intrigues...
In his magnificent Civilization series from the 1960s, Kenneth Clark made the point that something very special happened in Europe at the beginning of the Enlightenment: despite all the familiar tensions, men and women were able to interact as friends exchanging ideas for the first time. In my opinion, it is no accident that genuine science emerged at the same time.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
"If the scientific case for greenhouse warming crumbles, so be it; but I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards."
Your concluding paragraph destroys your case: we're not talking about "a few scientists", we're talking about leading lights (Jones, Mann, Briffa, and the rest); not about "a few IPCC reviewers", but the chairman (and others) for goodness sake!
If their results were so robust, they wouldn't need to resort to the nefarious activities that have recently come to light.
What is needed now is to concentrate on observation, rather than chucking millions towards discredited scientists (actually, they scarcely deserve the name) to apply dubious statistical methods and computer models to lamentably sparse data.
Complain about this comment
#96 Erik Bloodaxe wrote:
"What is needed now is to concentrate on observation"
Hear hear. I would add that observation must not take the form of "reading the tea leaves" of "data" that are already available somewhere (in tree rings, chicken entrails, or wherever). Instead the theory should honestly stick its neck out by making predictions, and we'll see which predictions turn out to be true or false.
Complain about this comment
I remember a certain type of schoolchild pointing to "other's" when they were in fact the guilty ones.
Luckily we have men like George Monbiot, whose fund to do a citizen's arrest on Tony Blair is growing and has already produced results.
The United Kingdom's Arnold Toynbee (the historian) said in his massive "A Study of History":
"Superhuman individuals, operating at times in their mystic planes, return to action and propel manking forward..."
I suggest George Monbiot is such a man.
Richard Black's thread title is:
"Distorted view through the climate gates"
As pointed out consistently by 'ghostofsichuan,' and now by George Monbiot, we don't have to look far to see corruption.
But it is not in the direction of science, as the immature finger-pointers would have us believe:
-------------------------------
"When the entire administration is engaged in a criminal act, when there is no clear separation of powers between the government and the judiciary, when those appointed to hold the government to account are as scary as a litter of kittens, where do you turn? Do you appeal to the Attorney-General’s office to prosecute itself? ...
There is a massive public appetite to see justice done."
- George Monbiot, Feb 2, 2010.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/02/02/the-reckoning/
---------------------------------------------------------
I will harken back to my post # 71, where I quoted Abraham Lincoln:
"Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?"
- Inaugural address, March 4, 1861
----------------------------------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Erm. Lets not forget that Anthony Watts has kindly handed over evidence about similar 'surface stations' in the US that was supposed to undermine the science, but turned out to do the opposite.
A number of weather stations near buildings in the US were replaced in the 80s and recent research shows they were overcompensating for the local warming, eg. showing a cooling bias.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
Is this big news?
Nah.
A big fuss is caused by overestimations, but zilch when the opposite is true. The IPCC AR4 effectively underestimated the rate of sea level rise, that was a few years ago, a lot happens in a few years. But the message is the same, with all these under and over-estimates, the trend is all in the same direction. Mostly up.
Complain about this comment
Richard
Thank you for finally trying to address both sides of the debate, and I have to say you raised some very valid points. Namely the distinction between the technical questions and the scientific practices post-CRU hack, It is extremely important to keep these parts separate. They ARE both related, but the proval of one doesn’t necessary automatically prove the other, as some no doubt think.
One point- you unintentionally misrepresented the vast majority of the ‘sceptics’ again. Very few will disagree with the ‘world has warmed recently’ statement. It is the degree it has warmed AND the cause that’s at dispute here. There too, is a very clear distinction that needs more emphasis.
Re- bowman @ 30
I agree. A scientist thinks- ‘hang on, I reckon this will happen if I do A and B’. He then sets out to test that hypothesis. Recording the results in the positive, or negative where applicable. The theory is then refined if required or a conclusion is made.
The danger comes when we remove the ‘question’ from the equation. i.e. scientist says ‘I KNOW what will happen if I do A and B. Then sets out to prove it.. There is a very subtle, but very important difference there, that I think you guys are arguing over- perhaps at cross purposes.
Complain about this comment
#98 manysummits wrote:
"Abraham Lincoln:
"Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?"
At the moment, "the people" seem to regard climate science as a fraud. Perhaps you should follow Abraham's Lincoln's advice and trust their judgement.
Complain about this comment
Paulville,
Just commented this on Mr. Black's last post, it'll do for your too:
"Here's the adjustments USHCN have made to their raw data, *before* GISS, NOAA or CRU got their hands on it:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
Seems to be mostly negative in the distant past and hugely positive in the near present. Funny that , eh?
Here's how the adjustments they made *just in the last 8 months* look for just one of the States:
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm
Could it be that Americans don't seem as convinced by AGW as Europeans because 1935 *is still* the warmest year in the US temperature record and it hasn't warmed as much as GISS say with their massaged figures?
Watt is preparing his refutation of Menne's embarrassing paper."
Menne childishly used an incomplete set of data that was the property of Watt.
Complain about this comment
#99 Paulville wrote:
"The IPCC AR4 effectively underestimated the rate of sea level rise"
They underestimated ACTUAL sea level rise, or they give a lower estimate than the estimate of the "consensus"?
Complain about this comment
@paulville #99
Erm. Lets not forget that Anthony Watts has kindly handed over evidence about similar 'surface stations' in the US that was supposed to undermine the science, but turned out to do the opposite.
Not quite.
What your post and link fail to mention is the Menne paper was based on a work in progress by Watts (43% surface stations surveyed, current is 87%) and as such the Menne paper was out of date before it was even published
Perhaps that's the reason it didn't make the headlines?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@99. correct me if i'm wrong, but hasn't sea level rise been at a constant 3.4 mm average, per year, for the last 100 years...?
Complain about this comment
andrew99 #62.
"The original data has been lost or destoyed.
As a graduate of history and a lawyer the whole thing stinks."
fair comment, followed by:
"The trouble is that the whole AGW is produced on the back of a few - possibly one only ( I am not a computer scientist) dodgy computer program and selective data."
tosh.
Jack Frost #65.
"Yes the 360 turn has begun in the ever hungry disaster seeking media, the more lives lost the better, the more heart wrenching the storyline the better.."
and 'we' TV ghouls feed of it.
Apathetic therapeutic and extremely addictive
the methadone metronome pumping out
a 150 channels 24 hours a day
you can flip through all of them
and still there's nothing worth watching
(DHOH)
manysummits #72.
"..re-publish the "Mayday Declaration" again, and see how it has held up.."
fairly busy at present; think that it would need to be accompanied by a paragraph or two to put into context with recent developments.
(#98)"I remember a certain type of schoolchild pointing to "other's" when they were in fact the guilty ones."
not sure whom you're referencing there, but an explanation of such behaviour is summarised here.
Shadorne #51.
"Steamy stuff"
quite interesting, read somewhere that 'adult' fiction is the one sector in the porn industry dominated by female contributors and consumers. gender confusion perhaps? :-))
bowmanthebard #79.
"..but I used to be much less vocal opponent becauuse I thought it was a great way of sneaking in large-scale nuclear power!"
tsk, tsk. [wags finger]
(#95)"In his magnificent Civilization series from the 1960s, Kenneth Clark made the point that something very special happened in Europe at the beginning of the Enlightenment: despite all the familiar tensions, men and women were able to interact as friends exchanging ideas for the first time. In my opinion, it is no accident that genuine science emerged at the same time."
familiar tension == religious dogma??
fascinated by argument, do you have other references?
LairdDrambeg #80.
"The bottom line is that the climate models are junk and everybody knows it.. to the extent that they have to "calibrate" (double calibrate in the Bailey article) the measured satellite data to make it fit the models. Uhh, to be valid models should fit the data, not the other way around."
quite. still, if you know of any set of collected data which did not require re-coding of some sort to be usable for automated processing, I'd like to hear about it.
Apple-Eater #86.
hear, hear.
Dempster #88.
"And if the potential of future AGW remains, how do you address it?"
off the top of my head: stop pretending that business as usual is a viable option; remove financial incentives on both sides of the divide; reform legislation governing corporate behaviour; reform the UN to act (for once) on behalf of all of humanity.
jon112uk #92.
"I hear that Scotland is now officially reported as having the COLDEST winter since records began."
one swallow does not make a summer. besides, oscillation between extremes can and does happen in dynamic systems. HTH
Veronica #94.
"It's a wise man who takes out an insurance policy against that, whether AGW is real or fabricated."
yes, many on the sceptical 'side' appear to seek any excuse to continue their lives without regard for tomorrow, ie build cheaply and/or unsuitably (like manysummits' example of glass-walled houses in Calgary), fly to Florida 'for the weekend', drive 4x4s in cities, etc, etc.
Erik Bloodaxe #96.
"..apply dubious statistical methods and computer models to lamentably sparse data."
yes, statistics can get in the way and the models need refining but the "lamentably sparse data" situation will not change until we're prepared to put our money where our mouths are; for instance, COP15 proposed $100bn pa from 2020 investment to 'save' our environment BUT in 2007 the US of A alone spent $607bn on 'defense' (source SIPRI). it seems that those who could bring about change(s) are way too busy wasting our resources on war.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #101.
"At the moment, "the people" seem to regard climate science as a fraud."
well, many of "the people" get all their information and 'education' from the media; the majority of large media outlets are owned by a handful of people/companies. quite different from Lincoln's time, not comparable.
Complain about this comment
Labmonkey @105:
You're nearly right, but the rate of increase has been less in recent years:
http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global%20sea%20level
http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#GlobalSeaLevelAnnualChange
Complain about this comment
"Journalists with an eye for old-fashioned concepts such as balance"
Something nobody has been able to accuse Mr Black of being I would point out.
How much has the temperature really risen? That is a debating point. With margins of error and errors it could be less than half a degreee in the past 100 years.
How much of it is our fault? The Maya and many others were wiped out by a change in the Atlantic Oscillation. Ice cores show a dramatic temeprature rise at the end of the younger dryas era. Neither of these events have anything to do with C02.
Others would argue that we are still coming out of an ice age and are in just as much danger of descending back into the next one as we are of having uncontrollable heating.
The questions of how much, and how much we are to blame, and therefore should pay and do, is the question. With people such as the head of the IPCC and Lord Stern benefitting financially from carbon trading, is it any wonder some of us are relucant to jump when someone cries wolf?
Complain about this comment
my mistake. thanks for the correction
Complain about this comment
As usual, Richard Black only tells half the story. The IPCC rely not only on Jones 1990, but Parker, Peterson and Kennedy, which are challenged in the peer reviewed literature. It's an old 'team trick' to hide data from scrutiny, then 'move on' as the hidden data is supposedly confirmed by new data.
Yes, the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age, but there is a warm bias in the surface temperature trends of up to 30% to 50%
e.g.
R-321 Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
R-321a Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2009: Reply to comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010938.
R-321b Parker, D. E., P. Jones, T. C. Peterson, and J. Kennedy, 2009: Comment on Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. by Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.,J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450.
**McKitrick, Ross R. and Patrick J. Michaels (2007) Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data.Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465.
Pre-print: to be published Summer 2010
Copyright © 2010 The Berkeley Electronic press
Atmospheric Circulations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation*
Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph
R-345 Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.
R-345a Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: Corrigendum to: "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841", J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2009JD013655, in press.
Complain about this comment
re. carbon 'trading'
the potential for big money attracts all sorts of people.
Complain about this comment
"I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards."
Interesting euphemism for "deliberately inserting false claims in order to create alarm".
Complain about this comment
How can rational people not be sceptical when all we read is 'The distorted view of alarmists through the climate glasses’ sorry Richard for my version of your title
For some time ever bit of enviromental news is blamed on AGW. The BBC seems to have great difficulty not distorting the publics understanding of science despite. This is rubbish not science but politics
Take the lead article today,nothing like another good warmist scare story
Wolverine numbers 'melting away'
A significant decline in predatory wolverines across North America is linked to melting snowpacks, say researchers.'
'So Dr Brodie and Professor Post examined the records of wolverine numbers caught by fur trappers over the same period.' Now might it not be more likely that they are just being hunted to extinction well yes actually because this has been acknowledged for a long time in the rest of Canada!
http://www.naturecanada.org/endangered_know_our_species_wolverine.asp
Complain about this comment
jasonsceptic #109.
"The Maya and many others were wiped out by a change in the Atlantic Oscillation."
quote:
"The Maya peoples never disappeared, neither at the time of the Classic period decline nor with the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores and the subsequent Spanish colonization of the Americas. Today, the Maya and their descendants form sizable populations throughout the Maya area and maintain a distinctive set of traditions and beliefs that are the result of the merger of pre-Columbian and post-Conquest ideas and cultures."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization)
Complain about this comment
16. At 9:03pm on 02 Feb 2010, John Samuel wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
Funny how people see things differently.
I see a steep decline in the US land temperature record occurring, and note that NOAA head this off by in the past few weeks suddenly saying that the continental USA is "just a fraction of the planet". Look at the graph, it shows a clear decline back to levels seen as long ago as 1900, yet still the headline for the graph is "U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising".
If its an irrelevant fraction, why mention it there?
As for sea level rises, some studies show static or falling levels in the Maldives over the past 50 years. Other forces such as global tides and the moon can also mean that sea level can can in one place and not another. It has also been proven that we would have to have a dramatic temeprature increase to reach the apocalyptic 7 metre sea level rises that idiots such as Al Gore have predicted. Such a temperature rise would wipe out our agriculture way before the sea gets us.
"U.S. Climate Extremes are Increasing"
Are they? Look at the graph, and tell me it is any different now than at the other end of the graph. Looks like we are at a similar incident level to the start of the century? How about the Hurricane scientist who withdrew from the IPCC advisory board after he realised they ignored his view that extreme weather could not be linked to climate change currently...but they linked it anyway.
As for NOAA, that would be the employer of Gavin Schmidt. I emailed him and asked why their global land surface records:
1. Did not include weather stations north of 70 degrees, yet the north pole is showing bright red (its 1200km extrapolation).
2. Why the data NOAA use for their graphs is actually different to the data publically available.
3. Why they have not made the list of stations and the data they DO use publically available.
Guess what, no reply.
Settled? Not on your life.
Complain about this comment
Pkthinks #114.
"This is rubbish not science but politics"
rational thinking counts for very little these days, I'm afraid to say.
check this and previous blogs, many of the 'scientists' commenting here are too busy obsessing with fractions behind the decimal to see the wider picture.
Complain about this comment
What rot. The BBC are quick to pounce of politicians who distort crime figurers or so called evidence for WMD in Iraq yet think that distorting data for climate change is OK. I'd like to ask Richard Black if HE is as well qualified in science as Roger Harrabin is (Harrabin has a degree in English by the way)
Mr Black clearly doesn't understand anything about real science. Sometimes the truth does not back up what you think should be happening, take al ook back through history.
What we really need are left wing journalists educated in some worthless subject staying out of this debate and proper science taking place.
Complain about this comment
gordonsglovepuppet #118.
"Mr Black clearly doesn't understand anything about real science. ... What we really need are left wing journalists educated in some worthless subject staying out of this debate and proper science taking place."
oh dear.
well, at least you have the decency to reveal (via your chosen tag) who's up your behind. ;(
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
Good afternoon, I hope you won't consider it discoruteous adressing you directly but, having previously had interesting discussions with you I thought I'd pose a question that occurred to me whilst continuing to read this debate.
Many times you have correctly asserted that (forgive my paraphrasing) "Mere extrapolation is not part of the scientific method... it is necessary to make predictions and then test those predictions experimentally".
Now, concentrating on the extrapolation/prediction side of things my understanding of how climate modelling works is that a model is put together describing as many of the atmospheric processes as currently possible using interlinked mathematical equations to represent the interlinked physical processes. This then uses an amount of historical data to calibrate the various equations (i.e. to scale the relative importance of one process over another), then a testing phase where the model is then compared against later historical data (giving a certain statistical confidence to that particular model) then allowed to run into the future to see what it predicts.
By running such a model thousands of times with subtly different calibrations one builds up a picture of the general trend the model predicts for the future and with what statistical confidence (there are, for example, certain valid calibrations that predict cooling but are few next to the calibrations that predict warming). (Note: this refers to the type of procedure used, for example, in Stainforth et al, Nature,433 (2005) pp403.)
My question is then this: Why do you call this a mere extrapolation rather than a genuine prediction?
Complain about this comment
@120.
i'll jump in here. It's extrapolation because the models omit massive parts of the system (clouds, currnets, a few even left out the seas...) and have, as yet, been unable to replicate past AND present events at the same time.
I.e. using the AGW co2 theory they can model present climate, but using the same rules on the past- doesn't work. And vice versa. This shows the models are wrong.
Couple that with the fact none, and i mean not one single model has ever accuratley predicted a future event and you begin to see the issue...
Complain about this comment
106. At 1:13pm on 03 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:
Dempster #88.
"And if the potential of future AGW remains, how do you address it?"
'off the top of my head: stop pretending that business as usual is a viable option; remove financial incentives on both sides of the divide; reform legislation governing corporate behaviour; reform the UN to act (for once) on behalf of all of humanity'
Well that's an interesting answer, I think I was looking for something a little less vague, and possibly one that answers the issue of the rising population, but still I suppose it's a start.
Complain about this comment
Mango@104
"What your post and link fail to mention is the Menne paper was based on a work in progress by Watts..."
Another interpretation of that, in the great traditions of media hype and denial conspiracy theory, is that Watts is hiding his findings.
Complain about this comment
I am actually a bit shocked that people are so surprised by "Climate-gate". We have had scientist coming forth for years relating that they have been 'encouraged' to overstate their results and conclusions and understate their assumptions and doubts. We have also seen a significant lack of transparency within the 'science'. How many FOI requests have had to go on to lawsuits rather than being addressed appropriatly with the relase of the appropriate information?
This is a big reason why people have significant doubts that the 'science is settled' and that a lot more work need be done before we can 'trust' the 'science' (using the term very loosly here). Science is never settled - nor proven, only disproven. Those theories we accept today are only those which have yet to be disproven. Look at Newton's Theories on Motion - so widely accepted that Laws were ascribed to them - yet, disproven when relativity came along. (just for you @rossglory).
The Earth's Climate System is incredibly complex, with cycles, mechanisms and drivers which - not only do we not understand, nor can model - but many of which I believe we have yet to even discover. Back in the early 90's, the PDO had yet to be discovered - and today - we really don't understand what drives the PDO. What will we learn next year?
I must agree with @Mango - so many pro-AGW posters seem to have the impression that if you are not pro-AGW, you are anti-environment. That we are all paid trolls of the oil or coal companies - talk about conspiracy theories...
I personally care very deeply about the environment, and I concerned that so much attention and monies have been diverted from well understood environmental and humanistic issues because of AGW - and any weather event is nowadays blamed upon AGW. Poppycock.
I also find it interesting that if one examines the Vostok Ice Cores, one will find that CO2 peaks just prior to the onset of each of the ice ages. Perhaps we are worrying about the wrong thing - perhaps that 'magic tipping point' (which I don't believe in...) will actually cause the onset of the next ice age...
I am all for more climate research - I am also for treating it as a 'hard science' rather than a 'soft science'. You know - transparency, reproducibility of results, full discosure, freedom of information...(without lawsuits...), etc.
Does anyone here actually believe we have weather and climate here on earth - but not on the sun? Just how much do we know about the weather and climate of the sun? In my opinion - very little - yet the sun is the driver for all weather and climate on this planet.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. For every answer raises a dozen more questions...that is the way of science.
There are so many well understood environmental and humanistic issues being ignored because of AGW - then they are blamed on AGW - ROFL.
@Richard, I thought this was the year of biodiversity??? Please tell me - is warming or cooling better for biodiversity? Do we have more biodiversity now than during the height (or depths, if you prefer) of the last ice age?
Can we please have more about fisheries and things like the amphibian fungus? Oh, I forgot, there isn't any money to be made from frogs...at least not on the scale of global warming.
@Richard, one more question - are you a participant in the BBC Pension fund? Do you stand to gain financially from acceptance of AGW? Does that not compromise your feduciary responsibility to your readers? Should you not have a 'disclaimer' at the top of your blog stating so? Somehow, I doubt that you will bother to respond to these very relevant questions.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#120 Dave_oxon wrote:
"the model is then compared against later historical data"
Quick answer: prediction is always of future events, not past events.
Longer answer:
It's often said that "all data is theory-laden", in other words, to be of any use, all data has to be interpreted according to some framework or other. As much as possible, this unavoidable framework should be independent of the theory being tested, and the only realistic way of doing that is by insisting that all test data be strictly observable, and that they literally predict future events, such as "the needle will point to the five" or "it will start to boil", or "it will turn blue". Obviously, in the real world genuine science often falls short of that ideal, but it must not fall too far short of it.
If we allow as "test data" past records that are multiply interpreted, first through being "proxy", second through requiring assumptions of theories that themsleves stand or fall alongside the theory being tested, we are completely lost.
Please note that there is nothing wrong with making a prediction like "if we take a sample from three metres under the lakebed, and test it for the presence of such-and-such a proportion of such-and-such a compound, the result will be X." That is a prediction whose scientific relevance is to the past, but it is not an attempt to interpret events in the past.
Complain about this comment
...But I should add that \I find it surprising -- even amusing -- that people woulod suppose the climate is the sort of thing that could be modelled successfully.
Computer models have done a very good job of predicting such things as metal fatigue in aircraft, but first, those models are genuinely and frequently tested against future events. Second, and more importantly, metal fatigue is a "lawlike" phenomenon, quite unlike the climate.
I'm inclined to think that a lot of people have zero actual experience with computer programming, and aren't aware of what a "crap shoot" it is, even when trying to model the simplest things!
Complain about this comment
Richard hello are you there?
Psst - the Climate Titanic has hit a Himalayan Glacier and Capt. Pachauri is going down with the ship. There may not be enough lifeboats - so there is complete panic from the IPCC crew and the passengers (largely all environmental journalists).
Even the Guardian has grabbed a lifeboat and is denouncing the peer review process (the rallying cry for all alarmists - it was "peer-reviewed" so it MUST be true).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
The BBC environmental journalists however have tied themselves to the mast and refuse to leave the Titanic. They hold hands and sing songs of peace and loudly chant that we must go on and fight the brave crusade against the man-made CO2 monster, as it is "crucial for humanity's future" (to anyone who is left on board the Titanic and who cares to listen that is)! These journalists do understand neither science nor physics - they do not grasp the severe danger they face in the cold waters of skeptical wrath, which is enveloping the Titanic, as it sinks in disgrace.
Psst - Richard it may not be too late - grab a lifeboat - save your career - get out while you can. Denounce the fraud of CO2 thermageddon.
Complain about this comment
argg. its like an attack of zombies or something.
my head nearly imploded from reading the crass stupidity and arrogance. just too many to counter.
anyway, ive just one word to say to individuals who think that the number of unqualified laymen opposed to a particular scientific fact makes any difference to the said scientific fact....
CREATIONISTS!
i guess denialists will be trying to alter school textbooks next, to go with their creationist like techniques of fraud, cherry picking data and quotes, casually misinterpreting basic science, outright lies etc etc. if ever you wanted help with MORE fallacies, maybe you could study posts on answers-in-genesis.
one wonders why they waste all this effort on messageboards when they could just get off their backsides, do some research and get it peer reviewed. please denialists, just put us out of our misery cos global warming is such a worry. when you are half way actually doing something actually relevant to the topic, maybe a criminal with shady super rich vested interest backing could hack into your private emails and wade through all the data manipulation and actually find something that isnt of fraudulent intent.
now that would be newsworthy, as fraudulent behavior is so expected of denialists.
Complain about this comment
Richard, your blog articles are a model of the quality of discussion needed regarding this (climate change) and other critical issues. Keep going. This last one on the various -gates hits the nail on the head. I totally agree with you about the need to separate the two questions as you've said - and also with your last paragraph,
"I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards."
Best summation I've read so far.
Complain about this comment
@ 128.
wow. angry much?
You are aware that it is the job of all scientists to TRY to pick holes in other peoples theories... just a thought...
Complain about this comment
Dempster #122.
"..I think I was looking for something a little less vague, and possibly one that answers the issue of the rising population.."
hope to find time tonight to elaborate, meanwhile on population, a summary on pro's and con's: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/04/pip.populationquestion/
(my own view? 14-16bn in relative comfort)
Complain about this comment
#127 Shadorne wrote:
"Even the Guardian has grabbed a lifeboat and is denouncing the peer review process (the rallying cry for all alarmists - it was "peer-reviewed" so it MUST be true)."
Climategate is "the gift that keeps giving" as far as I'm concerned, quite apart from exposing climate "science" for what it is.
I've often been ridiculed -- angrily ridiculed, and had real damage done to my academic career -- for saying that the formal peer review process is really academic orthodoxy's way of insulating itself from criticism. Now everyone is waking up and seeing that the church always tries to exclude heretics.
Never mind my personal grievances. This is good for the intellectual life of the West. Just rejoice!
Complain about this comment
#126 bowmanthe bard
"..But I should add that \I find it surprising -- even amusing -- that people woulod suppose the climate is the sort of thing that could be modelled successfully."
i find it surprising - even amusing - that people would suppose the climate is the sort of thing that could NOT be modelled successfully.
by successfully, i mean able to make good (but not perfect) predictions of certain aspects of the climate.
Complain about this comment
lab munkey
"Couple that with the fact none, and i mean not one single model has ever accuratley predicted a future event and you begin to see the issue..."
what? not one model? ever? any prediction? do you have a reference for this?
Complain about this comment
134. with respect to climate change yes,sure. look at any IPCC report.
Complain about this comment
Would this have happened before Climategate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/03/bbc-asks-wuwt-for-help/#more-15999
Complain about this comment
I'll see your hockey stick data and raise you a hole in the ozone layer...
Anyway, in this Country, the word is SCEPTICAL - OK? SCEPTICAL.
Complain about this comment
You refer to the ritualized fanfare of those claiming that AGW theory is fatally undermined at every -gate, surely this in no different to those who will in a ritual manner time and time again insist that [insert scandal here] does not change the fact that the vast body of evidence supports AGW climate change.
You also say
"But what matters far, far more than the nuances of climate scientists' behavior is whether the climate is warming, and if it is, what is driving that warming."
But their behavior does matter and it cannot be described as "nuances". We have been sold this disaster theory on the basis that the IPCC is a dispassionate organization adhering to the highest standards. Now we see that they have deliberately followed criminal, unscientific and politicized behavior over decades and in fact act as a political activist organization and are no different to say Greenpeace or other pressure group.
The world may be warming or cooling, we may be causing it with CO2, or temperature trends may be primarily related to Milankovitch cycles instead, but there is one thing that you have got very wrong. You say
"substantial swathes of the global population will find themselves living in much more straitened circumstances than they face at present"
It is this single minded emphasis on disaster and an enforced solution for rising temperatures only.
From the beginning of human existence warmer times allow a more settled existence able to support larger populations, eventually as farming villages. But during cooler periods there would be a loss of population, villagers returning to a scavaging nomadic existence as the land was not able to support them all. As an extreme example, early on during one extremely cold period, Homo Sapiens nearly became extinct.
We should fear cold far far more than warmth, for cold brings with it less crops and more disease, hence starvation and death far in excess of any of the disasters and discomfort awaiting us from any IPCC estimates of increase in warmth.
Where are the plans to mitigate global cooling....that's just in case of course, and naturally based on an absolute worst case scenario.
Complain about this comment
#133 rossglory wrote:
"i find it surprising - even amusing - that people would suppose the climate is the sort of thing that could NOT be modelled successfully."
Some things are "lawlike" -- in other words, they happen with reliable regularity. For example, "what goes up must come down", "all mammals have kidneys", and so on. These things are predictable -- in other words, they can in principle be predicted, although in practice predicting them may by very difficult. For example, predicting the behaviour of three (perfectly simple) gravitating bodies present formidable mathematical difficulties, but the forces between any two of them are lawlike, so it's only a mathematical difficulty. A description of the initial conditions of the three bodies is very simple: three bodies, three positions, three momentums.
But some things are not "lawlike" -- the circumstances in which they occur are unique, and inter-dependent, so it's anyone's guess what will follow. For example, WWI partly resulted from an arms race, but WWII partly resulted from the very opposite. My wanting to buy a newspaper makes me turn left at the corner every morning, but it makes someone else turn right. The way these things unfold with the passage of time isn't a mathematical problem so much as a problem of there being "far too much for us to know".
Computer models -- by which I strictly mean the sort that are frequently tested by comparing their predictions to actual future states -- can be good at dealing with lawlike things such as the behaviour of a plate of metal subject to repeated deformations.
We don't fully understand the behaviour of uniform sheets of metal of our own construction, shaped to our own design, made from our own carefully controlled alloys. So we turn to computer models that are genuinely and honestly tested.
When we turn from the "lawlike" behaviour of those things to the unimaginably more complicated -- and too-much-for-us-to-know to the power of twenty -- climate of the Earth, it should be perfectly obvious that we haven't a hope in hell of making any reliable predictions using computer models, especially those that are not really tested against genuine future states.
I keep wondering why this isn't obvious to everyone. I'm inclined to think that we humans are attached to "method", like religious ritual, or obsessive-compulsive hand-washing, without any real understanding of why a method would work, and when, and in what circumstances. And when the same method doesn't work at all.
You might be interested to learn that I blame the mainstream Western philosophical tradition from Plato to Descartes for that. But it's a long story.
Complain about this comment
Larry Kealey # 124
Good post Larry. I am sure you speak for many. Hope yourt health is improving because Richard Black needs you.
SB
Complain about this comment
#120 Dave_oxon wrote:
"My question is then this: Why do you call this a mere extrapolation rather than a genuine prediction?"
Looking over what I wrote, I feel that I haven't really answered your question. So here goes:
When a hypothesis is genuinely tested, it's like "asking the world a question". The answer the world gives can be very disagreeable. That's the surest sign you're asking the world a question rather than just getting the (scientifically worthless) thumbs-up from your colleagues. But when the world says "yes", as it seems to do when -- yay, sure enough! -- an experiment or observation turns out the way you hoped it might: then you know you're probably on to something...
I'm not convinced that any climate "scientist" has ever actually "asked the world a question" like that. And all of the "results" I've heard of sound to me like something that would come out of a statistics department or a psychology department: no interesting theories, no hypothesis "sticking its neck out", nothing but brainless number-crunching and moralistic groupthink.
Complain about this comment
@Spanglerboy
LOL. Thanks. Stll kicking...;)
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
So many cliched arguments so little time, inclination and anger management ability to bother shooting them down. It's got to the point where it's become a cliche to call it a cliche.
I do wonder why some of the regular posters bother, whatever the article is about they (usually within 20 posts) decend into the same arguments and then end up insulting each other. Hence why I haven't posted myself in ages, I just got totally fed up.
One thing I also notice is the definate working day timescale around most of the posts lots between 10am and 5pm which then tail off untill 9 or 10. Seems that your employers are not necessarily getting the most out of you, unless your not working of course. :P
But anyway, the one thing that gets me annoyed more than anything else is when people acuse the BBC or Richard in particular of being biased. They may ocassionally lean one way or the other but to suggest that climate sceptics should have the same amount of airtime as pro-AGW groups is frankley farsically stupid. Look at the way the BBC treats political parties, the goverment come 1st obviously then the opposition and the other parties are given the airtime they deserve based on how popular they are. Why do you think the BNP got invited to appear on question time.
Again I digress, my point is that internet forums such as this are one of the worst possible ways of discussing these issues. It's pointless and someone always ends up breaking goodwins law or at least coming close before the real issues are even discussed.
As I've probably said before we have four possible outcomes in the whole issue:-
1 - Climate change isn't happening or is a massive IPCC scam and we do nothing - population and polution become the focus of enviromentalists and we have to change our tech anyway because we run out of fossil fuels. Not great.
2 - Climate change isn't happening and we change our ways - Economics take a hit initially but rebound as companies switch priorities, fossil fuel shortage is no longer a problem, we have less polution and potentially population control initiatives and I have egg on my face. Pretty good.
3 - Climate change is happening and we change our ways - Economics take a hit initially but rebound as companies switch priorities, fossil fuel shortage is no longer a problem, we have less polution and potentially population control initiatives and we have a slightly changed climate but with measures to deal with the changes. Pretty good.
4 - Climate change is happening and we do nothing - We are screwed to put it frankley, both environmentality, humanitarianly, economically and in terms of energy security.
You choose.
Complain about this comment
#139 bowman
"You might be interested to learn that I blame the mainstream Western philosophical tradition from Plato to Descartes for that. But it's a long story."
that tradition is pretty varied and certainly didn;t stop at descartes. personally i'm and epicurean but that is also a long story.
i have 30 years programming experience and 6 years of studying environmental science. i'm not trying to understate the difficulties in developing gcms and i'm not an expert but i most certainly do not share your pessimism.
you think it self evidently a waste of time and i respect your opinion. others i have spoken to and have read about have dedicated their lives to these problems and have a different view.....personally i think they are right and you are mistaken. just my opinion.....and opinioin is all we have here.
Complain about this comment
"I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards."
Erm, but this is the head of the IPCC and the UEA who are responsible for 1 of the three datasets used, and a dataset that partially feeds into on of the other two. Understatement only minimises the implications to the blind.
Complain about this comment
#124 larry kealey
"I must agree with @Mango - so many pro-AGW posters seem to have the impression that if you are not pro-AGW, you are anti-environment. That we are all paid trolls of the oil or coal companies - talk about conspiracy theories..."
not so imho. many 'contrarians' espouse views that happen to support the objectives of oil and coal companies. all i do is ask myself why that is? it could be that they are paid trolls (or you may be) or it could be their politics or it could be the newspapers they read. a few are probably true sceptics and have done a large amount of research (not surfing whatsup or climateaudit...real research) and believe they have found genuine issues.
my simple perspective is that the contrarian must be utterly convinced of the veracity of their arguments to have been blogging here for years trying to prevent action to reduce co2. if they are not so convinced i question their ethics. and i don;t see where the certainty comes from....so i tend to think of other possibilities.
Complain about this comment
"i don;t see where the certainty comes from"
The most important thing to grasp is that a sceptic is someone who thinks certainty is impossible.
Complain about this comment
Good posts from three very rational sounding contributors in Robyn81, Colonicus 111 and Rossglory (#129, #143, #144 and #146).
Here’s the latest statement from NSIDC regarding this year’s Arctic sea ice winter refreeze:-
‘…Analysis of data from the last three decades shows that the summer Arctic sea ice melt season now lasts nearly a month longer than it did in the 1980s. A later start of freeze-up and an earlier start to the melt season both contribute to the change. A recent paper by Thorsten Markus at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center suggests that the later freeze-up is the dominant factor lengthening the melt season. The analysis shows that, on average, autumn freeze-up starts nearly four days later each year. Extensive open water at the end of the summer melt season, combined with warmer autumns, delay the autumn freeze-up. The larger expanses of open water absorb more solar energy, and before ice can form again, that heat must be released back to the atmosphere. This trend is most pronounced in the Beaufort, Chukchi and Laptev seas.’
This from the Union of Concerned Scientists:-
‘Scientists Warn Doing Nothing Will Likely Lock in Worst Consequences of Climate Change
UCS Says Cap on Global Warming Emissions Essential’
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-warn-doing-nothing-0339.html
And this:-
‘Contrarians Attack IPCC Over Glacier Findings, But Glaciers are Still Melting.’
Quote:-
‘..The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) expects ideological bloggers, some members of Congress, and fossil-fuel industry front groups to try to exploit this relatively small error in the report to bolster conspiracy theories about the IPCC and climate scientists.’
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/factcheck-ipcc-glaciers-pachauri-0336.html
On Global Warming they say:-
‘…Global warming is well underway and will have wide-ranging consequences for our health and well-being. The primary cause of global warming is from human activity, most significantly burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses. Tropical deforestation accounts for about 15 percent of global warming emissions.
When too much global warming pollution is released into the air, it acts like a blanket, trapping heat in our atmosphere and altering weather patterns globally and here in the U.S. We need to deeply reduce the heat-trapping emissions causing this effect if we are to address global warming’
Rossglory, on your comment at #146, the UCSUSA also say this on the issue of ‘Contrarians’:-
‘…A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.’
See the details here:-
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html
Complain about this comment
Barry @76: 'humour' implies that it was funny. Sarah Palin as leader of the free world and the rounding up of journalists who don't keep on the neo-con message is anything but.
"If the americans ever discover that the media in the us has actively buried this story" - you clearly have never had the pleasure of watching Fox news...
Larry Kealey @124: Your questions are not relevant. They are cheap attempts at smearing and you should know better. I once discovered an employer of mine had investments in the arms trade - did it impact on the way I carried out my day job. Funnily enough, no.
Shadorne: are you trying to break the record for the highest number of posts that link to another website, while massively misinterpreting the article to suit your agenda? At least lab munkey has stopped carpet bombing the blog with links to Delingpole...
Ross @146: the half a dozen regular posters here seem evenly spilt between ideology led and 'open minded' scepticism. I don't think there are ever so many people on the web being paid by fossil fuel companies to post on forums like this. I think it's just a lot simpler than that: if you make your money from short haul flights, 4 by 4's or patio heaters, then enviro regulation is going to potentially ruin you. There are huge numbers of people with a very basic interest in maintaining the status quo. Plus there is a significant minority of people in the UK (clarkson's faithful followers) who hate anything to do with environmentalism. They will post away on the internet for free very happily...
Complain about this comment
More from the ‘The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCSUSA)’ website.
‘Scientists and Economists' Call to Action’
‘..The U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions is a call to our nation's leaders to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. The statement is endorsed by more than 1,700 scientists and economists with expertise relevant to our understanding of the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change, its impacts, and solutions. This marks the first time leading U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.’
You can find a list of the 1700 scientists endorsing the statement by downloading the ‘pdf’ file here:-
The names are at the bottom of the document.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html
Quote:-
‘…We call on our nation’s leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e., prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate.’
And
‘…A strong U.S. commitment to reduce emissions is essential to drive international climate progress.
Voluntary initiatives to date have proven insufficient. We urge U.S. policy makers to put our nation onto a path today to reduce emissions on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The first step on this path should be reductions on the order of 15-20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, which is achievable and consistent with sound economic policy.
There is no time to waste.
The most risky thing we can do is nothing.’
Complain about this comment
@John Walton #55 and my own post #91
Sorry mate, on re-reading my earlier post, I think I was more than a bit abrupt with you.
I must have been having a mid-morning caffeine rush, please accept my humble apologies for my tone.
Complain about this comment
@Rossglory
Now we are to be labeled 'contrarians' because we are not true believers?
How do you know what goals and objectives I support? Because I do not share your 'true belief' in the 'one poison' does not make me a moron - You might be surprised at how much I have read and studied upon the subject. I would think you might possess some skepticism - as should we all. Is skeptisism not healthy?
I personally do believe we possess neither the understanding of the system required to model it (Earth's Climate System), nor the technical prowess to create any meaningful 'model' of Earth's Climate System. We simply don't understand enough about the climate to say what CO2's role (or feedback associated with it) is. I also have serious doubts regarding the integrity of the IPCC and its reports.
We do understand a host of other environmental and humanistic issues quite well - the same ones which have been ignored since I was a child. We do have viable solutions for these issues - yet there is no profit in saving the rainforest - at least not the quick, easy profits. But there is plenty of money to be made with carbon credits and cap and trade scams...
I also am personally of the belief that a single coal plant providing a million and a half African families with heat for cooking and warmth, power for irrigation, etc - is much more efficient and environmentally friendly that a million and a half African families burning whatever they can find to stay warm and cook (you know, like trees, old tires, dung, whatever they can find) and tilling and irrigating the land by hand - and using ten times as much to feed each person...
I find those of the 'true belief' to be arrogant beyond belief - to think that they can not only predict the future, but also 'tackle climate change' (read: control mother nature) as well as hypocritical as all heck as they deny Africans the financing to build coal plants, whilst they happily burn African coal. Lined up on your team, lets see - Al Gore (who not only invented the internet, but brought you global warming...lol), George Soros, Ed Milliband, the UN IPCC, George Monbiot and Osama bin Laden. You go girl...oh, and lets not forget Richard Black and the BBC.
Proud to be a 'contrarian' or whatever other derogatory term you shall use to describe me next week. How dare you label me? A programmer with a 'baby science' degree in 'environmental studies' (or do you even have a degree?) - please spare me - spend twenty years studying chaos theory and modeling chaotic dynamic systems - and then talk to me about accurately modeling Earth Climate System.
When I hear some scientist - who apparently knows so little about non-linear dynamic systems, talk about 'eliminating the chaotic component', like it is so much noise, to model the system - I just have to laugh. Do me a small favor - and look up the center manifold theorem - we can discuss its pertinence to this discussion if you can understand it.
I also want to laugh when I see the IPCC state (by concensus) what the feedback associated with CO2 is - and describe it as a constant - rather than as a tensor field. In other words - feedback associated with CO2 is dependent upon untold many other, interrelated variables. Its not 2.2 or 5.6 or -2.3...would be nice if it were so simple...but it ain't.
Fortunately for us all, the whole global warming mythology is falling out of favor with the natives - who see the false gods for what they are...Perhaps now, we can get back to saving the whales (and bluefin tuna), the rainforests, re-focus our efforts on more intelligent and practical use of land and water (what I view to be the 'greatest challenge' we face this century). I would go on, but I think it would be lost on you...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@thinkforyourself
Just a couple of little things:
The first is simply numerical: 1700 scientists and economists, suddenly become 1700 scientist mid way through your post - I wouldn't normally complain, but you have to agree that it changes the meaning just a tad!
Also, I note the number of scientists willing to be co-opted into all of this rubbish seems to be in decline. I think you'll find that 2000 is still the preferred minimum quotable number of scientists prepared to believe.
Second thing. I'm getting more than a little fed up with the melting ice rubbish. Ice always melts, even below zero it will sublimate and this is an interglacial period - It's supposed to be melting!
Complain about this comment
@Yorkurbantree
Actually, my questions are quite relevant. They have to do with integrity - and integrity seems to be in short supply with regards to AGW. They certainly seem to be in short supply at UEA. Interesting that Al Gore Jr. made a hundred million in the last decade - on global warming - and is poised to be the first 'global warming billionaire'.
If you call what Richard writes "Unbiased Reporting" - think again - but first, read the upper right hand corner of your browser window - where it says this blog represents his opinion...not 'unbiased reporting'...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
To rossglory and thinkforyourself, re 'disinformation lobby'
In his new book "Storms of my Grandchildren," James Hansen names the number one AGW skeptic, Richard Lindzen, whom he points out also lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry, providing doubt as to the links between smoking and debility.
This is a curious state of affairs, and begs for an answer.
Jim Hansen describes Richard Lindzen as 'unflappable,' and as a world wise and very effective speaker, quick of wit - at home with politics.
Here's a link or two:
http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
\\\ The Public is in Denial - As I was ///
I trying to encourage Bryn_hill to continue posting, I impulsively stated that I thought the public was more probably in denial than any other explanation, and I used Abraham Lincoln's statement to make my point:
"Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?"
- Inaugural address, March 4, 1861
----------------------------------
In advertently, I believe I have hit upon the truth, and I had only to examine the thoughts of someone very close to me to see the veracity of this thought.
That person was me.
I have known about the 'Limits to Growth' concept since its inception ica 1972, as I have many times stated here.
And I was aware of climate change theories even in my university days, when I wrote a paper on cycles in geology, and cited Milankovitch as one of my 'proofs.'
But it wasn't until I had a son of my own, actually a few years after that, that I began investigating in depth through the scientific literature and related books on the subject.
As I recall, my thinking went something like:
"Well, it is warming up, but I live in Canada, and a little warmer isn't so bad, even if disruptive."
It took awhile for the truth to sink in:
1) We're not just changing from a glacial to an interglacial, as dramatic and abrupt as that change is.
2) We are about to leave not only the Holocene, but the entire Pleistocene, in the warm, even hot direction.
3) This change is best described as a chaotic bifurcation - a change of state.
4) That new state, given the new information on climate sensitivity from the paleoclimate record, is not only 'hotter,' but inimical to many forms of multicellular life, including we humans.
5) Some of our best scientists have quantified future scenarios in models which indicate this change of state is possibly apocalyptic in its implications, given that the fossil fuel industry is likely to resist tooth and nail all attempts to moderate our emmissions before the bifurcation threshold - at which point it will be too late - no matter how hard we try to reverse course.
----------------------------------
I know the fossil fuel industry - I searched for the black gold for some eighteen years as a field wellsite geologist.
Following denial comes anger. OK - lets do something.
We wrote "The Mayday Declaration," jr4412, davblo2 and I.
It's now.
The public is simply in denial.
Soon they will say, "Why didn't you tell me it was going to be this bad?"
"Because we didn't know you were in denial."
Then comes acceptance - and if we're lucky, we won't have crossed the 'tipping point.'
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits.
(Dempster)
over and out.
Complain about this comment
This very worrying........
Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
Complain about this comment
Vikings colonized southern Greenland circa 1000 A.D., and were able to sustain enough agriculture to grow their own food (+ fishing, of course). After four centuries they abandoned their colony a/c a succession of cooler, shorter summer growing seasons threatened them with starvation. Would some AGW enthusiasts please provide some explanation on how their CO2 model fits into this Southern Greenland observation?
Four centuries, ending circa 1420 A.D., is long enough so that it should not be a mere statistical blip.
On other matters, the amount of fossil fuel on our planet IS finite, and we should try to use it wisely.
As to the global population doubling in the next fifty years, easiest solution is to provide free solar battery powered TVs to all the people in the nations with the high birth rates. (Europe & Anglophone North America have birth rates BELOW replacement value; their population, except for continuing in-migration, is already in decline.)
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey (#121), Bowman(#125,#126,#141).
Many thanks for your responses and insights - I understand your objections now which, in a nutshell, is that the models used are semi-empirical. ("Semi" since the underlying theory is genuinely a mathematical theory but with empirical data used for calibration purposes).
On this point I would have to disagree that semi-empirical models have no predictive power. The models are time-evolved using a variational method (i.e. run them thousands of times with slightly different starting conditions and see where you end up) to give a statistical liklihood of final conditions. Ideally, the entire multi-variate space would be explored without the need for data to give an approximate starting point - in reality this is many orders of magnitude of task beyond even todays fastest parallel computers (such as the BlueGene series or masively distributed volunteer networks) - It would require full quantum computing to achieve this aim.
Therefore the requirement to explore the whole space is 'short-circuited' by using data to give the approximate values for the many constants in the equations and then the variational method is used to explore the space around these, a much more efficient method of using the resources available. This doesn't negate the fact that, in principle, the data input is not an absolute requirement.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #155
In his new book "Storms of my Grandchildren," James Hansen names the number one AGW skeptic, Richard Lindzen, whom he points out also lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry, providing doubt as to the links between smoking and debility.
A case of can't attack the science, attack the man
Will Lindzen be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes?
Jim Hansen describes Richard Lindzen as 'unflappable,' and as a world wise and very effective speaker, quick of wit - at home with politics.
It's always dangerous when a man knows his subject
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@thinkforyourself #150
This unprecedented list of signatories currently includes six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 30 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 10 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 10 recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship, and more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Last Revised: 05/28/08
Hang on! Let's look at that again:
This unprecedented list of signatories currently includes six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 30 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 10 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 10 recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship, and more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Last Revised: 05/28/08
Only 100 out of 2500 members of the IPCC could be bothered to sign the petition
I guess that means the majority of the IPCC's scientists don't believe in their own nonsense
/mango
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #156 who wrote (or quoted)
"We are about to leave not only the Holocene, but the entire Pleistocene, in the warm, even hot direction."
If we assume that the entire 1980-present warming rate...or even the 1980-1998 warming rate is ENTIRELY due to CO2...the sensitivity is too low to get us up to the temperatures of even the last interglacial. It wouldn't work even if we burned ALL the fossil fuels we think might exist.
That assumption about ALL warming being from CO2 is incorrect of course. Ocean heat content is now falling. The global temperatures are stagnating...if not falling. Obviously much of the warming was natural and people like Hansen (and you) confused it with warming from CO2. The ACTUAL rate of warming is about .5C per century (max). You can double, triple or quadruple that rate...but we're still not going to get to temperatures of the last interglacial and probably not even temperatures of the holocene optimum.
There was never a CO2 catastrophe on the horizon and you (and others) need to come to terms with this fact.
Complain about this comment
#158 who said what wrote:
"This very worrying........
"Climate change belief given same legal status as religion"
No one should be dismissed from a job on the grounds of his beliefs. So anyone should be allowed to sue his employer if he has been dismissed on the grounds of his beliefs, no matter what sort of beliefs they may be. (It's only OK to dismiss someone if his behaviour harms others.)
It might be that the judge recognized that, but could find no other legal grounds for the dismissed man's case than an appeal to "creed" (which after all, just means "beliefs").
On the question of the classification of "fanatical ecologist" beliefs, I think it's pretty obvious that they're part of a religion rather than a legitimate scientific position, because there's so little self-criticism and so much self-righteousness.
Complain about this comment
#159 TeaPot562 wrote:
"Europe & Anglophone North America have birth rates BELOW replacement value; their population, except for continuing in-migration, is already in decline."
There's a good biological reason for that. All of the people involved are behaving in accordance with the "selfish gene" principle: reproduce in order to maximize the number of your own genes in future generations. In those rich countries, the most effective way of achieving that is to produce high-quality offspring instead of large numbers of offspring. (In poor countries with low education and high attrition rates, the better strategy is to produce large numbers of offspring.) In rich, well-educated countries, each child represents a considerable investement -- to get them through college, to buy them their own car, etc. -- and parents can't have as many.
The solution to the "overpopulation problem" (if it is a problem) is simply to increase wealth so that parents will "aim higher".
Complain about this comment
#152 LarryKealey wrote:
"Now we are to be labeled 'contrarians' because we are not true believers?"
The word 'contrarian' means the same as 'heretic'. I wear the badge with pride.
Complain about this comment
@bowman
No one should be dismissed from a job on the grounds of his beliefs.
I disagree
I think climate scientists should be dismissed for their beliefs
;)
?mango
Complain about this comment
Dave @160
sorry i'm slightly confused by your post. Are you saying that models can be predictive, however for the climate example we simply don't have the capacity yet to model it?
or, are you saying that this is compensated for by real-time data?
The former, shows current models are rubbish.
The latter still doesn't support the models as they all diverge from reality upon release, so they are still incomplete and therefore worthless.
Or is it mystery option c, that i missed?
Complain about this comment
#166 bowmanthebard
From wikipedia:
"Isaac Asimov distinguished between two types of scientific heretic: "Endoheretics are appropriately credentialed scientists. If the person is outside the scientific community or at least outside of his specialty, he is an exoheretic."
if you are an endoheretic i apologise and you should wear your badge with pride. if you are not a climate scientist and are therefore an exoheretic I think that pride may be missplaced, absolutely anyone can be an exoheretic.
Complain about this comment
@ 169.
ross, a scientist OUT of the climate field is still qualified to comment on the data, its collection and use.
Complain about this comment
#152 larrykealey
"Now we are to be labeled 'contrarians' because we are not true believers?" - don't worry, it's not so bad. try being labelled a 'true believer' because you accept scientific orthodoxy.
"How do you know what goals and objectives I support?" - please reread my post. i said i don't (and cannot) know what your objectives were, only that the coincide with other vested interests.
"Is skeptisism not healthy?" - absolutely, that's why i'm sceptical of everything i read here and prefer to put my trust in those with credentials and work i can see and understand. nothing personal.
"A programmer with a 'baby science' degree in 'environmental studies' please spare me - " - not sure you should be accusing others of arrogance larry. the point i've made many times is that i know enough to know who to put my trust in (and my previous posts have made a big deal about 'trust'). you may have super credentials in whatever you do but i don;t ever recall seeing your name on any relevant peer reviewed papers.
"I would go on, but I think it would be lost on you..." - please don;t worry, i have lots to be getting on with anyway. and trying to claim i'm somehow linked to osama bin laden because i accept scientific orthodoxy kinda tells me everything i need to know.
best of luck.
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #168
Mystery option C: The models can be predictive and we do have the capacity to model the grosser processes of the climate, if you allow that real data must be used to supply estimates of the boundary conditions.
Let me explain: The variational method of releasing the model many times, with subtly different starting conditions, consists of three stages: 1. Each version of the model is produced by requiring the constants in the equations to be set up to match early data, these constants are then all simultaneously perturbed away from these ideal values. 2. Releasing it and comparing with later data assesses its relevance to the problem (i.e. if it matches at this stage it has a statistical relevance to the problem being assessed, if it doesn't match, it is obviously rubbish.) 3. Release into the future to produce a prediction.
Now, it's the third stage of the process where I think the confusion lies... the prediction consists of the entire ensemble of thousands of model runs, not one particular run. For example, if one set of starting conditions produces a perfect match to the later test data and goes on to predict a warming trend but the other several thousand, slightly different, and slightly worse matched, runs all predict a cooling trend, the overall prediction must be of cooling, not the perfectly matched single run that predicts warming.
The final prediction then is a probability, with associated confidence intervals given by the statistical analysis of the entire ensemble.
It is my opinion that the biggest failing of climate scientists is assuming that the average Joe (to coin Dempster's phrase) cannot understand the idea of a probability and associated error estimate and so tend to release definitive statements rather than engaging the public to explain it properly - this whole debacle could have been avoided if this process could be properly followed. I tend to agree with Ben Goldacre (badscience.net) on this point that the media is largely to blame by demanding of science exciting soundbites of earth-shattering breakthroughs, this compels the scientists to exaggerate the meaning of their work to satisfy the journalists and/or politicians (or the journos and politicos simply do it for them!) and the public are left with entirely the wrong impression.
Complain about this comment
#155 manysummits
thanks. i had read about Prof Lindzen before but it's good to be reminded.
as i've just said, for almost all of us blogging on agw it's down to who you trust. so i never bothered to visit wattsupwiththat, climateaudit etc and am a true sceptic wrt all comments here (pro and anti agw).
so that leaves the publically known scientists and their work. and it seems to me those that are most verbally anti-agw always seem to have some vested interest somewhere (be it corporate, religious or political).
that's not to say there aren't many good scientists that have some doubts but to be so vociferous as the likes of lindzen either shows supreme confidence that the agw message is wrong (which i find odd) or some alternative motive (or both).
Complain about this comment
#169 rossglory wrote:
"Isaac Asimov distinguished between two types of scientific heretic: "Endoheretics are appropriately credentialed scientists."
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had no idea Asimov was such a conformist creep!
Complain about this comment
@ dave.
I get you now, thanks for the additional explanation.
I was aware of the way the models were ran (i.e. it isn't a put in data, press 'go' get result first time method) and my concerns still remain- even taking into account the fact that the predictions released (though i would totally support your opinion that the reporting and presentation of these models and frankly, all data associated with the AGW theory has been appaling) are probability based, they STILL diverge immediatley from reality upon release.
This suggests that even now, key parts of the model are missing. It's also worth mentioning that in complex systems it is often the little things that make the biggest difference. And they are often the hardest to model.
Complain about this comment
#172 Dave_oxon wrote:
"The final prediction then is a probability, with associated confidence intervals given by the statistical analysis of the entire ensemble."
It is certainly not a probability in the traditional sense of how much something ought to be believed. It is a statistical claim about relative frequency -- it says what proportion of a given class have a particular property. It is anyone's guess -- I repeat, GUESS -- what the relative frequency in question implies about how much confidence we can place in the models' predictions. Without genuine testing, I would say we should have no confidence in them at all.
"It is my opinion that the biggest failing of climate scientists is assuming that the average Joe (to coin Dempster's phrase) cannot understand the idea of a probability and associated error estimate and so tend to release definitive statements rather than engaging the public to explain it properly - this whole debacle could have been avoided if this process could be properly followed."
It is my opinion that climate scientists are epistemological naifs who have no clue what "probability" means, and are wholly unqualified to instruct the general public about something they themselves clearly do not understand.
That is about the only clear thing in your post, which is grossly and unneccessarily technical, I might add. We need more clarity -- clarity is intellectual honesty.
Complain about this comment
#174 bowmanthebard
"Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had no idea Asimov was such a conformist creep!" - nice reasoned comment. i'm guessing he wouldn;t have been invited into your church of the heretics then
he was a professor of biochemistry though, which i believe is one of your sanctioned sciences.
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey
Roger Harrabin is asking for UK academic skeptics, see WUWT. Does that include you? Or any other of the skeptics here?
Complain about this comment
You have a model. You run it several times. Some of the model's results fit pre-interpreted "data" that have not been got from any genuine test. You then start calling the proportion that fit a "probability".
That's an outrage.
Complain about this comment
#170 labmunkey
"ross, a scientist OUT of the climate field is still qualified to comment on the data, its collection and use. "
indeed. but you've missed the point i think. i wouldn;t call them heretics....in fact come to think of it i don;t think i've called anyone a heretic have i? maybe just bowman, but that's only because he called himself a proud heretic :o)
Complain about this comment
I've been asking the met office for an explanation for an apparent discrepancy between CRU and Station data.
They are very slow to respond, my initial request was before Christmas.
Perhaps the desire to hide the data is still endemic?
Complain about this comment
labmunkey/bowman/mango et al
curious about this 'fanatical religious' meme. apparently i'm a true believer, bowman's a heretic. where did this start?
especially as someone decided to accuse me of teaming up with osama bin laden.
Complain about this comment
@180 ah, my mistake.
@178. i'll have a looksie.
Complain about this comment
#178 SamuelPickwick
i believe richard made an appeal for sceptical input from qualified scientists last year and got pretty much a big zilch. would be interested to see if that has changed after all these ....gates (there now seem to be more gates than an organic farm!)
Complain about this comment
"prefer to put my trust in those with credentials"
Why don't you try thinking for yourself instead of appealing to authority all the time?
Complain about this comment
#182 rossglory wrote:
"curious about this 'fanatical religious' meme. apparently i'm a true believer, bowman's a heretic. where did this start?"
You believe something, I'm sceptical about it. You appeal to the authorities, I think for myself. Others have called people like myself "contrarians". The word 'contrarian' is really just another word for those who do not accept the orthodoxy -- i.e. the opinion of the authorities to whom you appeal so often. Isn't that just the same thing as a "heretic"?
Complain about this comment
#178 SamuelPickwick wrote:
"Roger Harrabin is asking for UK academic skeptics"
Academics, eh? -- That's a sure way of getting more orthodoxy!
Complain about this comment
@ bowman #176
I shall ignore the rude tone and accusations of your previous post and address your primary concern: testing.
You are of the opinion that existing data cannot be used as a viable test, even if it has had no bearing on the creation of the model (for which we can read 'hypothesis' as it is hypothesising how the climate works), for the simple reason that it already exists.
This is certainly true in the medical sciences where double-blind testing is absolutely essential to overcome the in-built bias of human beings and the placebo effect. In the physical sciences, as long as you trust the objectivity of the scientists involved (other posters have talked extensively about the trust issue so I won't go into it further), then existing data is a viable test since the model has no prior 'knowledge' of its existence, even if the researchers themselves do.
I fully agree that any 'further' predictions require testing, but since the only way to do that is to wait for hundreds of years for the data to be measured, we do not have that option given what is possibly at stake.
Should history condemn us for 'fiddling while Rome burns' because we cannot be ingenious enough to find an alternative, but equally viable, route to an answer that your philosophy tells us in entirely un-knowable?
Complain about this comment
@ 130. labmunky
"wow. angry much?
You are aware that it is the job of all scientists to TRY to pick holes in other peoples theories... just a thought"
worried about your irresponsible high carbon use lifestyle being restricted by carbon cuts. much ?
yes i am "angry much", mr creationist-like denialist. your argument is?
and i am aware scientists try to disprove theories. which is why i dont think there could possibly be the 'world conspiracy of scientists' YOUR FELLOW DENIALISTS claim there is. thanks for raising the point, and debunking one of the biggest lies of the denialist political campaign against action on climate change. now i suggest you go and get those so called 'holes' you are picking peer reviewed by climate scientists instead of spreading FUD on message boards.
just a thought! oops i'm still angry, and it's still neither here nor there.
Complain about this comment
@189. andy.
wow.
While the vitriol would be understandable were the AGW theory to be proven, it has not, so i'd suggest taking a few breaths and try to read what i write rationally.
Irresponsible high carbon life style? I'll omit the obvious jokes on us being made of carbon to try to strike a concillatory tone.
I have not, ever, said i was for the continued pollution of the planet. I fully support sensible environmental concerns. I am greatly worried about loss of habitat, pollution and the continued deforestation of the rainforests.
I recycle, very carefully. I cycle wherever possible and my power uses are modest.
I also accept that on the balance of probability the planet has warmed recently and that the co2 levels in the atmosphere have also risen. What i do not accept is the suggestion that the two are linked. It may be the case that co2 is having a slight insulating effect on the natural varyiation of our climate, but i cannot see any way (or indeed any evidence) that supports the assertion that it is a prime driver of climate change.
I beleive, in your indignation, you have fallen into the political trap of taring anyone who disagree's with your beleifs with the same brush.
Just because i do not accept the AGW theory, doesn't automatically make me some gas-guzzling oil company employee.
If you continue to think that and present your arguments in that light you will only damage your own credibility.
Personal attacks and misplaced anger are usually employed by people who do not know what they are talking about.
Complain about this comment
cont-
on your final point " now i suggest you go and get those so called 'holes' you are picking peer reviewed by climate scientists instead of spreading FUD on message boards.
"
it is not the sceptics place to prove the alternatives to a theory, only to point out the inconsistancies and errors in it.
If the original theory does not hold up to close scrutiny (as the AGW fails to do), then it is the proponents of that theory who have the work to do, not the sceptics.
this is a basic scientific tennant.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard
"You believe something, I'm sceptical about it. You appeal to the authorities, I think for myself."
and isnt it convenient your 'unauthoritarian' stance against one branch of science alone also allows you to feel justified in driving the massive SUV and taking multiple foreign holidays (or however your high carbon lifestyle is manifested).
i really dont like you appropriating the word 'sceptic' to yourself. its entirely misplaced. that word has unacceptably positive connotations for individuals that time and time again show themselves to be typical right wing science haters and spreaders of FUD.
Complain about this comment
#185 bowmanthebard
"Why don't you try thinking for yourself instead of appealing to authority all the time?"
it's a another nice neat little meme. contrarians are indepedent thinkers, striving for the truth. alarmists are sheep following their discredited shepherds.
maybe i should become a heretic and disagree with the lot (or rather become a true believer in the output of wattsupwiththat, climateaudit, viscount monckton etc).
unless you've done all the research including personally measuring and adjusting (don;t read too much into that) all the temperatures, then studied biology, meteorology, climatology, oceanography, ecology, hydrology, modelling, stochastic systems etc etc then your ideas are based on other authorities as well. i just don;t think yours are anywhere near as 'authoratitive' as mine.
Complain about this comment
Hello Richard Black!
I just discovered this organization a few days ago.
No Sherlock Holmes award for me, I'm guessing.
But better late than never:
---------------------------
Population – joint statement signed by fifty-eight of the World’s Scientific Academies (1994)
"Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decided to act together for the benefit of future generations.
The Academies of the world call upon the governments and international decision-makers, especially those at the 1994 UN International Conference on Population and Development, to take incisive action now and adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale."
http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547
----------
I can't help but notice with the benefit of sixteen years hindsight that "incisive action" has not been taken, nor has "integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale" been implemented.
It really is a bit of an uphill battle!
On the other hand, there are now 'over one hundred' national academies aboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterAcademy_Panel_on_International_Issues
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #173 who wrote...
#155 manysummits
"thanks. i had read about Prof Lindzen before but it's good to be reminded.
as i've just said, for almost all of us blogging on agw it's down to who you trust. so i never bothered to visit wattsupwiththat, climateaudit etc and am a true sceptic wrt all comments here (pro and anti agw).
so that leaves the publically known scientists and their work. and it seems to me those that are most verbally anti-agw always seem to have some vested interest somewhere (be it corporate, religious or political)."
So let me get this straight...in your convoluted little world you trust a group that (motive or no) has been caught red handed manipulating the peer review process, dodging FOI requests and otherwise refuse to share their data as is expected, and doing intellectually dishonest "tricks" to "hide the decline" (and if you know ANYTHING about the sciences you'd know misrepresenting data is every bit as bad as lying)...people that LITERALLY use models to verify their theories because the real-world data is inconvenient.
And instead you avoid Anthony Watts...who conducted his research almost entirely in the open, even giving his preliminary findings when they showed the opposite of what he'd expected...or the guy from climate audit that has shreaded Mann's work repeatedly and was apparently trustworthy and/or skilled enough to get James Hansen to change some of his methods.
I don't think you understand how skepticism works. Also its funny that as imply (if not outright accuse) "contrarians" of being part of some large conspiracy against your AGW faith (and at this point that's truly what it is).
Oh the bitter irony...it is the AGW groups that now spew conspiracy theories (actually they were the whole time). While doing this of course they hold up largely discredited computer models as "truth", claiming that more model runs somehow make invalid models more valid...what a laugh. Skeptics on the other hand have actually had many parts of their "conspiracy theories" shown to be true with the leaked emails...and it is the climate system its self (that pesky thing called reality) that now conspires to discredit the theories of the AGW faithful.
Tell me...how much of your perception of it being warmer was actually based on the increasingly restricted polar vortex? Do you think you'd have even been able to notice the warming if weather like this (in what is apparently a very hot year) had continued over the whole warming period? How do you think the glaciers would respond to 20-30 years of this kind of weather even though it's warmer? How about giving ACTUAL skepticism a try for once and looking into the way the long term ocean and atmospheric cycles change the climate system.
Complain about this comment
@ bowman, ross, andy.
may i suggest we shy away from the personal attacks that we seem to be heading towards and instead debate the issue.
Complain about this comment
"It may be the case that co2 is having a slight insulating effect on the natural varyiation of our climate, but i cannot see any way (or indeed any evidence) that supports the assertion that it is a prime driver of climate change."
well done labmunky in trying to sound rational, by distancing yourself with the more crackpot claims of denialists. denialism is a pick and mix free for all isnt it. if you are going to sound at all rational you need to come up with a viable mechanism that would effectively stop your so called "slight insulating effect" warming the planet. oh btw, thanks for agreeing it has an insulating effect. now what stops it from insulating? greater cloud cover? thought denialists claimed water vapour was THE warming cause. c02 absorption by oceans and forests. seems they are reaching saturation point!
maybe theres another natural mechanism that would prevent the known physical effect of heat retention of an increase of atmospheric c02. perhaps prayer? oh no, i forgot you are not a creationist are you. keep getting you lot mixed up.
by saying "i cannot see any way" you do realize you have an argument from incredulity there, with a BIG dose of good old fashioned self delusion (as youve already bizarrely agreed to the insulating effect)?
so basically, you agree to the causative mechanism of warming by c02, but dont agree that the effect will grow if the cause grows? strange.
Complain about this comment
Re:196
Totally agree! We need to have rational debate not arguments, although it is sometimes difficult given the stance some people take of calling anyone who disagrees with then an idiot, pseudoscientist or conformist sheep.
I'm feeling a Goodwin breaker coming from someone soon if this carries on.
One point to make about the conformist/nonconformist argument thats been going on,
"Just because your going in the same direction as the herd doesn't mean you are following them, they may simply have the same idea you do."
Complain about this comment
#188 Dave_oxon wrote:
"I shall ignore the rude tone and accusations of your previous post"
Thanks -- I apologize for that. I must have a hangover! But I am genuinely sorry all the same.
I always see red when I read what seems to me to be "statistics-speak" -- apparently authoritative pronouncments on "probability" and "confidence", when all we're really getting is a numerical measure of the proportion of a class that has a particular property, plus a numerical measure of the amount of "scatter" in repeated estimates of that proportion. And all of the above based on the assumption that a sample is perfectly representative of the class in question. That is just a disguised form of what I have been calling "inductivism" -- the extroplation from a sample to a larger class. And that isn't the way science works. Grrr!
Science involves a huge and ineliminable component of subjective judgement, guesswork, and above all cunning experimentation/observation to test that guesswork. There is no escaping that fact, even though some statistical methods do their best to bury it in methodology.
"You are of the opinion that existing data cannot be used as a viable test, even if it has had no bearing on the creation of the model (for which we can read 'hypothesis' as it is hypothesising how the climate works), for the simple reason that it already exists."
It isn't a viable test because it already exists but (a) because it has already been interpreted and (b) because it constrains the subsequent methodology so that all it can ever be is mere extrapolation in effect. If you start off with one hundred models, and narrow them down to the one that fits the data best, you are still just getting the model to fit the data, when you should be getting the model to fit the world, not the data.
When you think about how we might get a model to fit the world, I think it becomes pretty obvious that the climate is just not the sort of thing that can be modelled with any sort of accuracy or confidence, because there are too many variables involved, and the climate doesn't work in a lawlike way. Unique circumstances are always involved.
I shudder to think of the way some experts are no doubt able to constuct models that fit the data nearly perfectly... and then they sell them to gullible politicians who have no experience of science and suppose that it's all a matter of the theory being "based on the data". That naive Baconian view could hardly be more wrong.
"Should history condemn us for 'fiddling while Rome burns' because we cannot be ingenious enough to find an alternative, but equally viable, route to an answer that your philosophy tells us in entirely un-knowable?"
I'm not saying the climate is entirely un-knowable -- we know that it changes quite dramatically over the long term. But when people use words like 'confidence' as if they were talking about the state of our knowledge, we are on thin ice. We should remind ourselves of our own ignorance. The history of science is a series of errors, with a few notable successes, but let's not be so dazzled by the successes that we forget those errors!
By the way, I don't think history ever condemns anyone. We feel sorry for previous generations, and say what a pity it was that they didn't know better, but we don't blame them for landing us in the soup!
Apologies again for my unpleasant tone earlier.
Complain about this comment
Jon UK
"This increasingly sounds like Blairs 'dogdy dossier' - some facts, some half truths, the whole thing presented in a manner which attempts to sell a certainty that does not exist."
Absolutely. The more that comes out about the 'science' of AGW, the more it reminds me of Blair and his dodgy dossier.
It's all the more incredible that the very people who criticised Blair for that seem to be the ones most vocal in support of AGW. The BBC in particular has fouled up spectacularly on this issue.
It could and should have just reported the facts - instead it chose to take sides, and echo and encourage the vitriol against anyone asking questions.
Now that the Warmists seem to have some explanation to do, the BBC should be asking them the questions. Instead, it's in the dock with the Warmists.
AGW might well be true for all I know, though the weather I observe, and the credibility of the 'science' and those supporting it would tend to make one doubt it.
But the problem is, it will be all the more difficult now to make people believe it if it is true, and to introduce the measures we really do need to reduce waste and pollution.
Complain about this comment
@ 197.
andy. seriously. re-read what i said without your angry glasses on.
As i have said before, at length. Benchtop experiments do not a real-system-model make.
The problem with your entire assertion is the fact that the AGW theory fails to provide ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF (notice the caps there....) that C02 drives climate in any way. The nearest we have shows an 800 year lag.
Now, if there is evidence out there that you think show's co2 drives climate change, then by all means link it.
this is the point, all the (debatable) evidence of rising temps, ice melting, sea level rises etc are irrelevant to the main point of the AGW theory. They are a symptom, not a cause.
Can you think of any evidence that shows co2 drives climate? Or are you just rehashing rhetoric?
Complain about this comment
and
" if you are going to sound at all rational you need to come up with a viable mechanism that would effectively stop your so called "slight insulating effect" warming the planet."
there is actually no need, the planet is demonstrating that nicely for us.
Complain about this comment
@andy765gtr #197
try reading up on climate sensitivity for an answer and not just the AGW side
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Global warming is real. The actions we take to ensure that man does not overtly change nature's processes should be very carefully considered.
In Europe, many people buy diesel cars because they generally get better mpg the patrol cars and they emit less CO2 so the public think they are green – a win win!. However, they also pump out considerably more soot.
As we now know, it is the soot that is speeding up the melt of various Ice packs: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/02/manon-20100204.html#more
These studies generally conclude that if you stop the soot emissions now, the melt would also stop!
So what do we do now - tax the non EURO V compliant diesel cars off the road? This would really annoy the public and probably lead to them giving up on trying to help save the planet! As an FYI, this soot tax has already started in Germany on health grounds.
Get the details right - make the action decisive!
Complain about this comment
"it is not the sceptics place to prove the alternatives to a theory, only to point out the inconsistancies and errors in it."
denialists please! get yer terminology right.
just messing around on the internet wont work labmunky. you'll need to do a hell of alot of science if you are to prove to climatologists they are all barking up the wrong tree, especially if you think they are all in on it or too stupid to know their own subject of expertise. throwing around half backed crackpot ideas, conspiracy theories, slurs and fallacies (however numerous and popular with laymen) on messageboards doesn't count. if you think so called 'sceptics' are up to the job and qualified, they need to provide proper evidence that earth is NOT warming, like actual measurements tell us it is. or, if they agree it is warming but not caused by c02, they need to provide a proper workable, and tested, alternative theory as to why it is warming. if they believe the source is c02 but not 'man made' c02 they need a proper working alternative theory as to where that c02 is coming from.
in addition they need a theory as to why c02 in the atmosphere does not work like physicists know it does. i think its pretty obvious why obstructive pro growthers stick to 'picking holes' on messageboards instead.
Complain about this comment
in 143. Colonicus III wrote:
"As I've probably said before we have four possible outcomes in the whole issue:- "
Unfortunately, in your list, you've missed out two important options:-
5) Climate change is happening but it isn't significantly due to CO2 - but we act as if it is and just concentrate on reducing CO2 and not bother to deals with the effects of global warming.
6) Climate change is happening but it isn't significantly due to CO2 - We concentrate on trying to handle the effects of global warming.
Now you choose.
Complain about this comment
Sceptics wishing to talk up 'Climategate' and related 'scandals' have a tendency to talk-up relatively minor details and blow them up out of all proportion. A few days ago the latest such revelation was the 'Amazonian forest error'. Here's a considered analysis from http://www.skepticalscience.com/, where the original can be found.
* * *
What the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests
A recent 'scandal' being trumpeted around the blogosphere is an apparent error in the IPCC Fourth Assessment report. In this case, the IPCC's source on Amazonian forests came not from peer-review but from a WWF report. In one sense, this criticism has a degree of validity - one should always seek to use peer-reviewed science as their primary source of information. In fact, kudos to those championing peer-review! Ironically, the same critics who lambast the IPCC for not citing peer-review have shown little evidence of doing the same. To demonstrate, let's compare the IPCC statements and what the peer-review literature actually says.
First, let's examine the IPCC statement in Section 13.4.1 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:
'Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in pr ecipitation; 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 (Rowell and Moore, 2000).'
The reference is Global review of forest fires (Rowell and Moore 2000), a non-peer-reviewed report by the WWF. The WWF report makes the following statement:
'Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely d! epleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left. [Nepstad et al. 1999]'
The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 - this figure comes from Nepstad 1999. However, the 40% figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees beg in to die (Nepstad 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement that 'Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall'.
Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest's vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that 'such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change'.
An investigation into the peer-review scientific literature shows the information presented by the IPCC on Amazonian forests is correct. The error is that the WWF erroneously omitted the citations supporting the 'up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive...' statement. The lesson here is that the IPCC could have avoided this glitch if they'd quoted directly from the original peer-reviewed papers. Critics of the IPCC, if their goal is a clearer understanding of the science, would also do well to follow this advice.
Complain about this comment
in 197. andy765gtr wrote:
"so basically, you agree to the causative mechanism of warming by c02, but dont agree that the effect will grow if the cause grows? strange."
Don't be silly, of cause it will grow, but the point is that even if it does grow the effect of CO2 is just TOO small to have the effect observed.
The IPCC puts the total warming effect since 1750 at 1.6W/sq m - that needs to be compared with the 324W the IPCC says is keeping the earth at the current temperatures and not be an ice-ball. Now an 0.5% increase in heating is not going to have a significant effect (unless you believe in some results produced by wild and woolly computer models).
Complain about this comment
Excellent, well articulated reasoning Richard.
You must have the patience of a saint to be able to write as politely and impartially as you do about the comments you receive from the sceptics.
I really don't know how you do it, as I always come away from these comment threads teetering on despair at the ignorance of their belligerant contrarianism.
Complain about this comment
If the head of bbc pensions is on the investment board of the ipcc, how can the bbc possibly be neutral....it's really a joke....turkeys don't vote for christmas
Complain about this comment
@commonsense #204
lol, more taxes coming our way
why is commonsense so rare these days?
/mango
Complain about this comment
"@ bowman, ross, andy.
may i suggest we shy away from the personal attacks that we seem to be heading towards and instead debate the issue."
i agree. but its still very illuminating to objectively discuss the psychology of WHY certain individuals are compelled to be denialist about certain fairly straightforward and not even particularly non-intuitive issues. it is fascinating, and i think its absolutely central to the so called 'debate' on climate change why certain types vigorously oppose the knowledge value of some branches of science, like evolution and climate change, but dont dispute the knowledge value of others that are just as difficult, like medical research, computer technology or cosmology. there needs to be contributions from psychologists on the bbc environment pages, as to specific psychological reasons (ie political persuasion, or susceptibility to erroneous or cranky ideas/ conspiracy theories etc and are such things innate or learned) why denialists think like they do. we need to tackle these problems head on and understand motivation for denialism from the ground up. understanding them is the easy part. the tricky part is how we can remove such obstructive and delusional individuals from a sensible discussion about how to tackle climate change.
you used the word 'debate'. thats funny, because there is no actual 'debate' about whether the planet is warming and man is the cause in scientific circles. its only in layman circles - amongst people who are apparently still running from the facts. there isnt an evolution/creationism debate either but proponents of creationism say there is. they say 'lets have a debate' because it makes it seem to other laymen the two sides are equal. its another cunning ruse that spans both brands of popular denialism
Complain about this comment
@205. andy. again.
i honestly think you're missing the point.
the whole agw theory was started and sustained by a select group of scientists, who have since been accused, repeatedly, and it seems correctly, of fraud. It was their data that hundreds of other scientists use to perform their work.
You are totally missing the point re- scientific process.
The sceptics don't need to offer any alternative theories, only point out the errors in the 'established' one. It is a perfectly acceptable answer to say- we don't know.
-I.e. we don't know how the worlds climate works.
-we don't know how co2 behaves in the atmosphere (as lab based and theoretical work CAN mean nothing in a complex system).
This is not being denialist, it is following science. The AGW theory has stated one thing. Every test to prove this has failed. Every prediction they make fails to come to pass.
You are more than welcome to continue beleiving in the AGW 'theory', as you almost certainly will- even if it were proved 100% wrong tomorrow, but anyone with half a brain can see that the theory is not accurate.
And again, i really suggest you re-read my posts more thoroughly instead of latching onto 'keywords' to spark a rant.
Complain about this comment
204 Common Sense
"Global warming is real The actions we take to ensure that man does not overtly change nature's processes should be very carefully considered.
In Europe, many people buy diesel cars because they generally get better mpg the patrol cars and they emit less CO2 so the public think they are green – a win win!. However, they also pump out considerably more soot."
That's precisely the problem. You say it's real, but the Warmists' and BBC's dodgy dossiers - not to mention that so many people can see the weather around them getting colder, for years now - makes people wonder.
And the problem is made worse by the fact that some policies are made as an answer to 'Global Warming' which actually make matters worse. So, as you say, we should switch from petrol to diesel - but then diesels produce soot...
Surely the best solution is to say that there is a real need, and genuine benefits to be had, from reducing our fuel needs, and switching to renewables. That would be good on general environmental grounds, not to mention advantages for the economy and national security.
By insisting that Global Warming is real, you just generate a discussion about the Warmists' Dodgy Dossiers - and the sheer beyond parody ridiculousness of the Copenhagen Conference.
Complain about this comment
210 - "If the head of bbc pensions is on the investment board of the ipcc, how can the bbc possibly be neutral....it's really a joke....turkeys don't vote for christmas"
Is that a fact?
If so, it is a very serious issue, potentially on a par with the MPs' expenses scandal. It's an obvious, massive, conflict of interest - and it would certainly help explain why the BBC chose to adopt such a strongly Warmist stance.
Complain about this comment
Are any of the dodgy predicted related to sea levels? If so, perhaps they could be called "watergate".
Complain about this comment
"The problem with your entire assertion is the fact that the AGW theory fails to provide ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF (notice the caps there....) that C02 drives climate in any way. The nearest we have shows an 800 year lag."
its not my assertion matey, its the entire relevant scientific community lol. science really uses evidence not proof, and we have is enough of that to predict 95% chance of rises, if certain amounts of c02 continue to be released! thats pretty certain.
thats enough for me to bet on it happening, and im no gambler. fancy your chances then?
if you wouldnt risk personal cash on those odds, why risk the planet. esp considering peak oil is here anyway and we will have to make drastic behavioral changes anyway. even if climate change is not happening theres no argument for not acting on the same things that we would have to act on if it was.
Complain about this comment
As previously posted I’m an average working Joe and I’m not a scientist, but I’m starting to think that there may be some truth in the AGW position.
I also accept that the current lot of scientists at the IPCC are reckless if not plain negligent.
But still, assuming AGW exists, I want to know how we’re going to reduce CO2 emissions in this country.
And I’m looking for specific as opposed to vague answers.
In any event I’ll start with the first paragraph (the easy bit).
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1.
So assuming you believe in the AGW position, or even if you don’t for that matter, what exactly does the U.K. do?
Complain about this comment
"If the head of bbc pensions is on the investment board of the ipcc, how can the bbc possibly be neutral....it's really a joke....turkeys don't vote for christmas"
so what your saying is, having a science bod in charge of pensions makes science reporters write about science with a scientific slant.lol
oh and nice turkey argument? wouldnt expect anything else !
Complain about this comment
@212.
andy. that post just tells us all we need to know about you and your viewpoints.
one small point-"you used the word 'debate'. thats funny, because there is no actual 'debate' about whether the planet is warming and man is the cause in scientific circles."
there are literally, thousands of qualified scientists who would call that an out-and-right lie.
Also, please stop trying the 'guilt by association' trick used by poloticians.
Complain about this comment
#212 andy765gtr wrote:
"certain types vigorously oppose the knowledge value of some branches of science, like evolution and climate change, but dont dispute the knowledge value of others that are just as difficult, like medical research, computer technology or cosmology"
On the question of the "knowledge value" of various branches of science:
I'm a passionate and committed Darwinian, and I think cosmology is a very worthwhile -- although highly speculative -- branch of genuine science. We can be very confident that we are shaped by natural selection, but we really can't have much confidence in the Big Bang theory, although it's the best we have so far, and is a very fertile line of inquiry. So I'm rather sceptical about the Big Bang theory, despite having a very high regard for it and its proponents. We cannot say "we know the Big Bang happened", although I think we can say "we know we are descended from non-human apes".
I also have a lot of time for computer technology, and earn a modest living writing Javascript, XSLT, etc., working with XML in the publishing industry.
I even have some time for computer modelling, believe it or not, although we must always ask what is being modelled.
Of the disciplines you mentioned, I have near-total contempt for "medical research" and "climate science", for the simple reason that they make a basic and mistaken assumption about the nature of science: they assume it's mostly a matter of extrapolating from samples using bogus inductive statistical methods instead of honestly making up hypotheses and testing them.
Complain about this comment
Re:208
It's a common mistake to assume that because something is a small increase it doesn't have a big effect. Straw and camel come to mind.
The thing to remember is that human activity has already had a massive effect on the planet (not global warming, just in general), and what we are doing is, in terms of raw physics, practically nothing. However we can see and experience massive changes because of our actions.
There was an interesting fact in a recent BBC program about water that the earths rotational rate has changed by a few millions of a second in the last few decades just because of resivours in the northen hemisphere.
Also even if the effect is small, if it happens quickley enough it can have significant consequences.
Complain about this comment
"unless you believe in some results produced by wild and woolly computer models"
that have been accurate enough to track the observed trends, suggesting they will continue to do likewise. if you dont believe the science, you know what to do.
and dont call me silly for accepting consensus of experts. i tend to do this even if i dont much like their conclusions, like YOUVE GOT CANCER. this is because THEY KNOW MORE THAN ME. and because im pretty certain i know more than you about the natural world, having studied it from an early age, and having spoken to many denialists and seen how bleedin ignorant they are, im absolutely certain they know more than you too. and every other silly little denialist on earth.
Complain about this comment
"there is actually no need, the planet is demonstrating that nicely for us."
fail. the planet is warming, you claim its not caused by c02. you need a better 'explanation' than a joke remark.
denialists !
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@oldterry2
#208
To put that 1.7 W/m2 from co2 in context, the change in the output of the sun since 1880 is about 0.1% (Christopher Booker uses this value so it must be true!) which gives a change of 0.345 W/m2 from the sun (if you take into account albedo its 0.24 W/m2). Makes the effect of co2 look quite large.
Complain about this comment
"Are any of the dodgy predicted related to sea levels? If so, perhaps they could be called "watergate".
watch how the underclass that are kept alive by science, laugh at science!
Complain about this comment
Something is true when it accurately reflects the real world. For example, a declarative sentence is true if it describes some aspect of the real world accurately enough. A model is a good one if it behaves like some feature of the real world, such as the Earth's climate.
It seems that an awful lot of energy has been expended on getting computer climate models to fit not the world, but something else entirely, namely the "data" that have already been collected or somehow divined out of other things. That is to expend energy on the wrong thing.
"Data" from the past should never get a bigger role than that of a "rough suggestion" for how to construct a model, because it really doesn't matter whether the model fits those data. What matters is whether the model fits the world, specifically the world's climate, as it will unfold in the future.
To get even a vague hint of how well the model actually fits the world, we have to test it. As far as I can see, the models we have already were created ad hoc to fit "data" we have already. Some will protest that the data that were used to create such a model in effect test it. -- Oh no they don't, because the model cannot but pass such a "test". So it isn't a test. A genuine test is a hurdle to get over, where a model might well fall, so that if it manages to get over it, it really indicates something.
To test a climate model, we have to test its predictions against the actual climate. If that means we have to wait for another five or ten years for enough individual weather events to be average-able into something that counts as "climate rather than weather", that's just the way it is I'm afraid. But even a one-year guess would be worthwhile, as it would tell us something about the success so far of our Canute-like task. The data we have already tell us nothing.
However, if you think about it, our inability to forecast long-term weather bodes ill for our ability to forecast climate. Why? -- If we simplistically suppose the climate is the "mean" of the weather, we are trying to get an absolute estimate of that mean. In effect, we are trying to estimate how many heads will result in a series of coin-tosses, not what proportion of heads there will be to tails. We know the latter inexorably approaches one half, but the former tends to get further and further away from one half, and we don't even know in which direction!
Complain about this comment
#212 andy765gtr wrote:
"there is no actual 'debate' about whether the planet is warming and man is the cause in scientific circles"
We must be moving in very different scientific circles, because the scientists I know (and used to work with) are extremely sceptical about both of the above!
Complain about this comment
"If so, it is a very serious issue, potentially on a par with the MPs' expenses scandal. It's an obvious, massive, conflict of interest - and it would certainly help explain why the BBC chose to adopt such a strongly Warmist stance."
well, it could also be because the earth is warming because we are spewing out billions of tons of carbon dioxide in a intuitively very likely cause and effect knock on scenario around the known properties of co2. but yeah, im tempted by your unlikely and totally conjectural conspiracy theory too. its a bit of a toss up really. now what about all the other objective news outlets around the world? im sure we can find some more conspiracy theories to account for their bias. lets ignore the oil funding against climate science though.
Complain about this comment
"That's precisely the problem. You say it's real, but the Warmists' and BBC's dodgy dossiers - not to mention that so many people can see the weather around them getting colder, for years now - makes people wonder."
except where its warmer than usual of course lol. someone here doesnt know the meaning of average. which is ironic considering the standard of their arguments.
Complain about this comment
Richard
Many congratulations on making it into Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/best-science-blogs.html
Complain about this comment
"andy. that post just tells us all we need to know about you and your viewpoints."
what? my viewpoint is entirely in accordance with 21st century science, logic and common sense, and therefore objectively most likely correct in comparison with any opposing view points, esp those based on ignorance, wishful thinking, arrogance, conjecture, profit motive, and shear bloody minded desire to continue wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle.
cheers, i'll take that as a complement :)
haha im obviously such a wacko to go along with the science ! how could i be such a idiot.
Complain about this comment
@ 223.
"that have been accurate enough to track the observed trends, suggesting they will continue to do likewise. if you dont believe the science, you know what to do"
no they have not. what i think you're mistaking is the fact thaye can be made to model trend climate scientists want to support their theory. when applied to any other stretch of history, they fail. repeatedly, reproducably.
Also, i'd suggest you do some reading on the ipcc model predictions and what has actually happened. Your religious zeal is making you miss things.
Also, you feel free to have faith in the experts. The same experts who have been proven to have committed fraud and concpired to pervert the peer-review system and hid/deleted raw data.
@224
You are aware that the temperature rises are not following the trend that supports the AGW theory right? Please make sure you read that sentance a few times- carefully before you spout off on one, as i can almost gaurantee you will miss the point and say something unrelated.
Re-c02 causing the temp rise. unfortunatley, YOU (as in-agw supporters)
need to show it IS co2. simply saying we don't know what else it could be does not constitute proof.
Finally, just to head you off at the pass. Try not to rely on the words 'consensus'. It'll only bite you in the rear.
Complain about this comment
in 226. andrew9999 wrote:
"To put that 1.7 W/m2 from co2 in context, the change in the output of the sun since 1880 is about 0.1% (Christopher Booker uses this value so it must be true!) which gives a change of 0.345 W/m2 from the sun (if you take into account albedo its 0.24 W/m2). Makes the effect of co2 look quite large."
That still means both are trivial amounts of heating compared to the heating required to keep the earth at the current temperature rather than the -19C a bare planet would be. Which is why both effects can be ignored.
Complain about this comment
in 222. Colonicus III wrote:
"It's a common mistake to assume that because something is a small increase it doesn't have a big effect. Straw and camel come to mind."
In this case basic maths and physics says the small increase of 1.6W/sq m would give rise to a maximum temperature rise of 0.25C. So I'm not assuming anything.
Complain about this comment
"There was an interesting fact in a recent BBC program about water that the earths rotational rate has changed by a few millions of a second in the last few decades just because of resivours in the northen hemisphere."
careful. best to make sure theres no profits or hedonistic lifestyles at risk before you make scientific claims like that, as you might start another round of denialism and crazy conspiracy theory.
no its ok. nobodies profits or lifestyle is at risk from that objective scientific observation.
Complain about this comment
@ andy. yet again.
"what? my viewpoint is entirely in accordance with 21st century science, logic and common sense"
No. It is accordance with an increasingly small proportion of heavily invested 'scientists' who seirously struggle to follow the tennants of any normal 'hard' science.
It is painfully clear that you have no scientific experience.
Complain about this comment
#216 next scandal to be called WATERGATE?
Your having a laugh....OH WAIT
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_goofs_again_now_holland_is_drowned#66603
"A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.
In fact, just twenty percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on".
Complain about this comment
#227:
Are you calling me part of an "underclass"? That's not very charitable, is it? I'm a Chartered Scientist you know. I've got a PhD and everything.
I just also happen to have a sense of humour.
Complain about this comment
@All
For those of you interested in the potential of Hydrogen as a portable fuel there's been an interesting development:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18480-crystal-twins-hint-at-hydrogen-storage-breakthrough.html
Complain about this comment
#213 labmunkey
"It is a perfectly acceptable answer to say- we don't know." - well that's a good point. if you don;t know whether co2 cause global warming then i would like to suggest that we stop pumping it into the atmosphere until we do know.
call me old fashioned but that seems to make sense to me.
Complain about this comment
@Rossglory
If you care to venture to the University library, you will find 5 peer reviewed papers with my name attached (late 80's/early 90's) - that was before I worked for AFOSR and NUSC & NPGS (classified). I then moved on to the 'corporate world', where most of my work was considered 'proprietary'. You can also find a 'primer' on cap and trade on www.energytribune.com as well as a piece I wrote a couple of years ago which accurately predicted the price spikes and recession - and why it is different this time. (i.e. Demand side vs. Supply side shock).
If you want to research a little further, you might do a little reading about Ed Lorenz, MIT - who's reasoning around why we cannot make accurate predictions of the Earth's Climate System hold AS true today as they did more than 50 years ago - When he made them. In case you are unaware - Dr. Lorenz was one of the first computer climate modelers. He is also one of the 'Fathers' of modern chaos theory.
BTW - you certainly don't sound skeptical - in fact I believe in a previous post, you lamented on the uncertainties of theoretical physics, yet cling to the 'certainties' of climate science...LOL.
By the way - did you understand the Center Manifold Theorem and why it is significant and relevant?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#labmunkey
i agree wrt the personal attacks, i do try to avoid them. however if, by issue, you mean whether agw is a reality or not, then i don;t see this comment board as a way of debating it. always nice to share opinions though.....which brings me onto poitsplace's opinion:
"So let me get this straight...in your convoluted little world you trust a group that (motive or no) has been caught red handed manipulating the peer review process, dodging FOI requests and otherwise refuse to share their data as is expected, and doing intellectually dishonest "tricks" to "hide the decline""
this is such a bizarre interpretation of the science and the recent events that i do end up questioning motives. but i imagine he felt a little better after that rant.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits et al
manysummits,
You once told me the only way you would change your mind about AGW is if the IPCC told you it was all wrong or if Hansen changed his mind.
India has threatened to pull out of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and set up its on climate change body because it “cannot rely” on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri
Are you getting a little sceptical now?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
oops, here's the link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html
/mango
Complain about this comment
Richard, an interesting post. But surely your own position as a 'balanced' reporter must be compromised by the very existance in the CRU East Anglia emails of you, being TOLD to retract or redact a story, and replace it with a 'warmist' one. Whether or not you did (I seem to recall that you did?), it says something that your relationship with the CRU was such that they felt they could ORDER you, and hence the BBC around.
Absolute disgrace. IF your journalism was for Private Eye, I would have to cancel my subscription. Regrettably, by law, I cannot.
Complain about this comment
#243 larrykealey
"BTW - you certainly don't sound skeptical - in fact I believe in a previous post, you lamented on the uncertainties of theoretical physics, yet cling to the 'certainties' of climate science...LOL." - a touch of english humour. i love the uncertainties in physics.
i know a bit about lorenz from trying to follow the maths as chaotic systems were becoming popular back in the 80s (i vaguely recall lorenz attractors, mandelbrot sets, bifurcation points etc). unfortunately i'm a full time IT professional (with a baby degree in environmental science) so am no expert but i will look into the centre manifold issue.
however, i take great offence at being associated with osama bin laden.
Complain about this comment
why you don't hear the other points of view from our netral and publicly funded bbc...
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/
can't be clearer than that, can it?
Complain about this comment
@Paul Crabb #247
I think you are getting confused with Roger Harrabin, also a BBC correspondent.
Richard Black is mentioned in the emails but there is no suggestion that Richard was party to any discussions
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Mango:
Try to connect the dots. India wants out for the same reasons they would not support anything out of Copenhagen. They like cheap polluting fuels to increase profits in a growing economy. The current discussions are only an excuse, they have been on this path for some time and any reason will do for them. If the decision was by one of the countries pressing the agenda it might be meaningful but for India it is only political expediency. We realize you do not trust scientist so now you trust politicans?
Complain about this comment
Mango,
Good for India. At least there is one country with some leadership that still have some ethics and morals.
Wish I could say the same for the West and for the apalling Western Media.
Complain about this comment
#242 rossglory wrote:
"if you don;t know whether co2 cause global warming then i would like to suggest that we stop pumping it into the atmosphere until we do know."
The trouble with that suggestion is that we aren't simply pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for fun. CO2 is a by-product of industry and technology and expanding infrastructure -- stuff it would be suicidal to do without.
You and I would only be subject to inconvenience (assuming we both live in the West) but the people of the developing world would be in real trouble. Expensive energy means expensive food, and expensive infrastructure, and expensive practically everything else. The population of the world increased greatly in recent decades, mostly because of cheap food, and when that happens there's always a danger that the new, vulnerable people who wouldn't otherwise have reached adulthood suddenly suffer a reversal of fortune and can't afford to eat. This is what happened on a relatively small scale in the Irish Famine, and we must be very careful to make sure that it doesn't happen again, especially on a much larger scale.
However, having said that, every individual is free to ride a bike when they can and drive a smaller car. *Self-righteous smugness alert*: I do almost all my own travelling on a bike. When I do drive, I drive one of those old roundy Nissan Micras, and put less than £20 worth of petrol into it per week, because most weeks all I use it for is to drive my wife to work at the library, getting the shopping on the way home.
But as I drive around in my humble little Mr-Bean-mobile, I notice that am surrounded by gigantic super-mega-collossal SUVs (mostly driven by mothers). If these people cared about their carbon emissions, they could drive smaller, more modest cars. But obviously they don't care. Presumably, hardly anyone cares. We had better bring that fact into our calculations for the future of the planet, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
@ghostofsichuan #251
Of course I realise it's a political decision - isn't almost everything connected with the IPCC political?
And who said anything about not trusting scientists? I have the utmost respect for scientists. I don't trust some climate scientists because their track record isn't good
/mango
Complain about this comment
236. At 3:32pm on 04 Feb 2010, oldterry2 wrote:
"In this case basic maths and physics says the small increase of 1.6W/sq m would give rise to a maximum temperature rise of 0.25C. So I'm not assuming anything."
Actually that's more of a minimum.
Complain about this comment
#253 bowmanthebard
you are right that most people don't care about their co2 emissions and probably never will.
with regard to energy i also agree we've dug ourselves into a massive hole that is going to be difficult to get out of (and we do need to get out because even if you're right about co2, oil/gas will run out).
the main thing we disagree on is the impact of co2 emissions. i would go along with your view apart from the fact that i genuinely believe co2 emissions will, in the long run, undo anything we do now unless they are controlled.
also, on the subject of the developing world, i don't think that following the pattern of existing developed countries will help the majority of their population. they would be better off looking for a cleaner more equitable growth model and if you read stern this is totally achievable (although i'm sure you have some choice words for him as well as poor old isaac).
Complain about this comment
Manysummit @155
I checked out your comments on Richard Lindzen and could only come up with the business as usual mud slingers such as the desmog blog, sourcewatch etc etc But i did find this:
http://www.search.com/reference/Richard_Lindzen
Quote:
"Lindzen has claimed that the risks of passive smoking are overstated. In 2001,[24] Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen
He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.[24]
A 1991 article in Consumers' Research entitled "Passive Smoking: How Great a Hazard?" is also sometimes used to characterize Richard Lindzen as a tobacco spokesperson or expert. That article says, "Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave society with a resource of some importance diminished. The implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies." The article concludes with the statement, "Such has not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke."[25] However, Lindzen is not being directly quoted in the article, and the pro-tobacco views in that case are those of the article's authors, not necessarily Lindzen."
Maybe you can point towards some other evidence? Thank you.
Andy675gtr, you constant use of the D word is childish. People can agree to disagree you know without being constantly insultive. Are you trying to take over from the uber troll Mark? Try a new perspective and have a read of this:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
Complain about this comment
@rossinglory.
Re:244
although his opinion may not have been presented in the best way, he still raises an interesting point.
can we actually still trust the climate change 'experts' or is it time for a total re-think on the subject- with fresh analyses and people?
Complain about this comment
Something very strange about many of the most oft quoted ‘sceptics’.
We have Anthony Watts who uses his weblog to undermine the known scientific link between CO2 and global warming, thus ensuring the world stays wedded to finite fossil fuels. Yet at the same time he is ensuring his own energy independence by installing renewable energy devices at his own home and community.
Then we have Dr. Roy Spencer over at UAH who maintains a blog that claims that CO2 is not the driver of global warming. Yet he is also a creationist, which is, of course, a religious belief outside the realm of scientific enquiry.
Then we have Dr. Richard Lindzen who is ‘unflappable’ in his belief that CO2 is not the driver of global warming. Yet he also believes that smoking does not cause lung cancer when actuaries and life insurance companies, who base their business operations on mortality rates, charge higher premiums for smokers? Every time a surgeon does a post mortem on a deceased smoker, he/she finds the evidence of the damage caused by that smoking. Where is the ‘scientific’ evidence for Dr. Lindzen’s conviction that smoking does not cause lung cancer or the other myriad of diseases?
Yet he remains ‘unflappable’
What is the common thread here?
For those interested to learn a lot more about the history of climate science, here is a very good lecture given to the American Geophysical Union, by Richard B. Alley who is an American geologist and Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at the Pennsylvania State University.
He has authored more than 170 refereed scientific publications about the relationships between Earth's cryosphere and global climate change. He is recognized by the Institute for Scientific Information as a "highly cited researcher."
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
It gets very interesting around 3 minutes 40 seconds.
Complain about this comment
Caledonian Comment at post 1,
Where did the saying 'sent to Coventry' come from? I don't quite get the Copenhagen connection. I believe the most common concept of 'sent to coventry' is where a group of people conspire to not talk to someone as a sort of punishment. My understanding of 'sent to Coventry' is a euphemism to explain the place where embarrassing secrets were sent to and 'lost' in Georgian times.
Just curious ;-)
Complain about this comment
It would seem the BBC has some explaining to do.
It transpires that the BBC and TERI (Dr. Dr Pachauri is TERI's chief) are partners in pushing Global Warming propaganda in India.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/whatwedo/where/asia/india/2008/03/080228_india_environment_project_overview.shtml
Complain about this comment
The BBC and TERI organised a Media Skill Training Workshop in India:
"An extensive 4-day training workshop for the NGOs working on environmental issues conducted by BBC & TERI trainers. The participants would go through training module interspersed with practical exercises to develop skills to address their stories to the Press and make them more news worthy."
http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_events&task=details&sid=111
"news worthy" in this instance means alarmist.
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh at #239.
I guess you know that the HeraldSun (in that beatup of a non-story you quoted)
is owned by our dear old friend, billionaire, Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame.
Course you did. You seem to ride the crest of every ‘breaking story’.
Complain about this comment
Old terry at #236 says:-
‘…in this case basic maths and physics says the small increase of 1.6W/sq m would give rise to a maximum temperature rise of 0.25C. So I'm not assuming anything.’
Please Terry, could you post your workings as this is a very interesting development and we need to review this bombshell.
Complain about this comment
@oldterry2
#235 & 236 & 208
It took me a while to work out which numbers you were talking about.
When they talk about a 1.6 w/m2 change in the forcing thats at the the top of the atmosphere so you cannot compare it to the 324 w/m2 back radiation at the surface. At the top of the atmosphere earths outgoing radiation is 235 w/m2 (or 254k (-19C) radiating temperature if you prefer) so to give a rough approximation for the increase in overall radiating temperature of the earth to make up for the decreased radiated energy by co2 you must use this value in your "basic maths and physics" calculation ( i guess you mean plugging it in to stefan boltzmann) which will give you a higher temperature change (0.45C?).
Complain about this comment
Breaking news Kambo!
Dr Roy Spencer over at UAH really has got to work hard to explain this!
Why the global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
And February has started just as warm!
Complain about this comment
Dr Spencer also says:-
‘..I will also check the AMSR-E sea surface temperatures, which have also been running unusually warm.’
Complain about this comment
And Dr Spencer also says:-
‘.UPDATE (4:00 p.m. Jan. 4*): I’ve determined that the warm January 2010 anomaly IS consistent with AMSR-E sea surface temperatures from NASA’s Aqua satellite…I will post details later tonight or in the a.m. – Roy’.
Interesting spin anyone?
*PS I think he meant February – Must’ve been shock!
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/
January 2010 Warmest on record. Yes Really!
Complain about this comment
in 265, andrew9999 wrote:
"It took me a while to work out which numbers you were talking about.
When they talk about a 1.6 w/m2 change in the forcing thats at the the top of the atmosphere so you cannot compare it to the 324 w/m2 back radiation at the surface. At the top of the atmosphere earths outgoing radiation is 235 w/m2 (or 254k (-19C) radiating temperature if you prefer) so to give a rough approximation for the increase in overall radiating temperature of the earth to make up for the decreased radiated energy by co2 you must use this value in your "basic maths and physics" calculation ( i guess you mean plugging it in to stefan boltzmann) which will give you a higher temperature change (0.45C?)."
Well yes and no - the IPCC report (chapter 2) says that the surface temperature change due to tropospheric radiative forcing is linear. If you use that linearity then even using the 235W/sq m you end up with 1.6W /sq m giving a rise of less than a quarter degree. Now if you want to involve using radiation calculations directly which means using temperature to the fourth power, then I get the answer to be smaller than a quarter of a degree C. I was just being conservative and so taking the worse case when saying a maximum of 0.25C.
Complain about this comment
Warmest January on record and it's still colder than February was 12 years ago. Isn't the globe supposed to be warming?
Complain about this comment
269. At 11:12pm on 04 Feb 2010, who said what wrote:
January 2010 Warmest on record. Yes Really!
Interesting, however with a record that stretches back a mere 32 years it would be alarmist to conclude that this has any signficance. Old Man Winter in the Northern Hemsiphere seems to be just like Old Man Winter used to be in the 70's.
You are welcome to emigrate to Western Greenland and start farming there (as the Vikings did about 1000 years ago when it was a lot warmer). You are also welcome to try and make a business of growing wine in UK and up near Scotland, as the Romans did in the past.
Of course, the reality is that a mere 32 years does not make much of a "record" and any Greenland farming or British Wine making venture is most likely an unprofitable venture despite "record" warmth.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne - you seem to be confusing me with somebody who is a true believer, my feet are firmly in the sceptic camp.
Complain about this comment
To mango #245:
No, I'm not getting the least sceptical. (Can never figure out whether I like sceptical with a 'c' or a 'k')
We'll probably trot out our 'Mayday Declaration' for review and revision soon, but on topic, one of its main themes is reform to the United Nations - that's jr4412's pet project, I believe.
The IPCC is a child of the UN, and has many of its parents traits, no doubt - both good and bad - like all of us, its a 'package.'
I'm actually just reading an 'Inaugural Article'from the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States - by an Alberta ecologist of world repute, Dr. David Schindler.
He became a member of PNAS in 2002, by the looks of it, and his article is:
"An Impending Water Crisis in Canada's Western Prairie Provinces"
- PNAS; May 9, 2006; vol 103; pp.7210 - 7216.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/19/7210.abstract
Global Warming, attributed primarily to manmade causes, features prominently, as does the regional temperature record, as do paleoclimatic and paleoecological proxies.
Just south of Calgary, where I live, in Glacier National Park in the USA, the glaciers are predicted to dissappear by ~ 2030 in this very article (citations to other articles, of course), and that's no typo.
Three glaciers an hour or two west of Calgary, the Bow, Saskatchewan and Athabasca, have retreated ~ 1.5 km in the last hundred years or so, and measured glacier mass loss is accelerating overall over the Canadian Rockies area which supplies virtually all the major rivers which make agriculture possible here, along with elevated temperatures which significantly exceed the 'global average' rise in temperature.
I believe you understand all this perfectly well, as do your compatriots in the skeptics' camp. Your agenda is unknown to me, but I am pretty good at seeing patterns, and the pattern I have seen over the last year blogging on this site tells me that in all probability many of the skeptics here are not skeptics at all.
I don't for a minute believe Richard Lindzen is a sceptic, or Roy Spencer.
Of course that's a belief, but then you can't fault me for having beliefs, now can you mango.
When it's a belief, I say so, and when it's peer reviewed, I say that too.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
\\\ The United Nations of Science - the 'IAP' ///
Here is something for us all to digest, from Dr. Lorna Casselton, Vice President and Foreign Secretary of the 'Royal Society':
"The world now faces challenges on an unprecedented level, which we are unequivocally failing to address."
http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/01/20/the-united-nations-of-science-why-we-need-it/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
266, thinkforyourself wrote:
“
Breaking news Kambo!
Dr Roy Spencer over at UAH really has got to work hard to explain this!
Why the global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010.
“
You appear to be confusing Dr Spencer with the IPCC/CRU.
He is merely reporting the actual figures; no explanation is required, no need to hide the 'incline'.
Let us hope that this becomes the norm in climate science.
The graph at the top of this page would be a good place to start.
Complain about this comment
Mannysummits,
The abstract states, "Canada is usually considered to be a country with abundant freshwater, but in its western prairie provinces (WPP), an area 1/5 the size of Europe, freshwater is scarce. European settlement of the WPP did not begin until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Fortuitously, the period since European settlement appears to have been the wettest century of the past two millennia. The frequent, long periods of drought that characterized earlier centuries of the past two millennia were largely absent in the 20th century. Here, we show that climate warming and human modifications to catchments have already significantly reduced the flows of major rivers of the WPP during the summer months, when human demand and in-stream flow needs are greatest. We predict that in the near future climate warming, via its effects on glaciers, snowpacks, and evaporation, will combine with cyclic drought and rapidly increasing human activity in the WPP to cause a crisis in water quantity and quality with far-reaching implications."
It is you prototypical "doomsday" environmental alarmist report. Of course, climate varied enormously before man came on the scene and long before man invented the SUV, however, any change that happens in the future has got to be all be entirely the fault of man!
Poppycock.
Complain about this comment
The IPCC Himalayan glacier melt was peer reviewed. Peers didn't believe it then and nobody believes it now.
It still got published.
Complain about this comment
To Shadorne #277:
Thank you. I was looking for a chance to show what I mean by 'pattern recognition' with an example:
"It is you prototypical "doomsday" environmental alarmist report. Of course, climate varied enormously before man came on the scene and long before man invented the SUV, however, any change that happens in the future has got to be all be entirely the fault of man!
Poppycock." (#277)
My reply:
"Tell it to the Marines",
or, perhaps, to a relative of mine on the South Saskatchewan River, with summer flow down ~ 84% from the historical period. To be fair, this is a 'combined' scenario - due to population growth and land use increase, as well as to dams, irrigation and extraction, global warming etc...
What's that very English word - Cheers -
- Manysummits
Complain about this comment
*sigh* We have been warning you Richard Black - please don't go down with the Titanic.
How many examples do we have to give of fraud in man-made global warming "peer-reviewed" research?
How many reputable, ethical and moral examples do we need to give of those renouncing this false fraudulent alarmist propaganda of the IPCC?
When will you wake up and smell the roses? You have been had! In your naive way you thought your BBC's dire ramblings and warnings would lead to action to save the world. We know you meant well and were proud of your mission to help save our planet - a mission you so very much wanted to believe was true. A crusade that gave your life meaning and made you uniquely important. BUT - it was all nonsense - the world is not ending by thermageddon - you don't need to save anyone - in fact you and you ilk are likely to cause mass poverty and starvation by driving up the cost of energy and food.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html
Complain about this comment
We may have found the leak - if correct it is no Russian spy or fossil-fuel paid skeptic hacker on red bull - it is more mundane - it seems that there are some genuine scientists at East Anglia who are unhappy with the "consensus" and the ridiculous claim that the climate science is settled.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks
Could Paul Dennis be a modern hero - a whistleblower who has risked his career in order to defend science and expose fraud.
If it is Paul Dennis then he should be given a NOBEL PRIZE! What a brave man. Perhaps Richard will write about this amazing ethical and morally forthright individual who would not stand for or be a part of a scam.
"Dennis's own research, which dates fluctuating temperatures in ice cores stretching back thousands of years, does not support the more catastrophic current predictions of runaway global warming."
Psst - Richard it is not too late to turn a new page and start reporting about the fraud and to stop scaremongering with your "crucial to humanity's future" nonsense.
Complain about this comment
So, how does the data showing warming from 1000 A.D. to circa 1400 A.D. (Greenland & northern Europe) and subsequent cooling to about 1750, then gradual warming again match up to the AGW theories? As far as I can tell, the AGW enthusiasts simply ignore any data that doesn't fit the AGW hypothesis.
Also, was a report in late 2009 that the surface temperature of the planet Mars had warmed about 1 degree in the last century. The published article claimed that this had no relevance to the cause of warming on Earth, because Mars had warmed because of "a change in Albedo". Bull. This is no explanation. Albedo refers to surface brightness, or reflectivity. What caused the Albedo to change? If the Albedo on Mars changes, is the same change happening on Earth?
Still waiting for the AGW guys to work the warming then cooling through the first two-thirds of the second A.D. millenium into their model. Anybody?
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
@Teapot562
To be fair, its likely that all the plantets have phases that are somewhat similar to the Milankovitch cycles compounded by their own nonlinear surface systems. The fact that mars has warmed is probably meaningless.
Complain about this comment
@thinkforyourself #266 etc
Spencer has a lot of explaining.
No spin
Nothing
Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do?
Spencer has also corrected his own mistakes in the recent past
It's a shame others don't do the same
@manysummits #274
manysummits,
All ice melting whether in the Alps, the Arctic or the Himalayas could be a symptom of global warming. It could also be a symbol of changed wind patterns. Perhaps it's a symptom of the fact that the Indian tectonic plate moves so (relatively) rapidly that air currents have shifted. I genuinely don't know. But what I do know is there is no direct evidence to show that man made global warming is the cause
Your agenda is unknown to me
Ever considered I may not have an agenda other than wanting the truth? CO2 is simply not capable of raising the temperature significantly. It's that simple.
/mango
Complain about this comment
@283
meaningless? I'd say it was rather interesting. Have any of the other planets warmed?? Does anyone know? That's be a real interesting thing to know.
If the CRU incident does turn out to be a leak then things look even worse for them. Best thing the guy could do is admit he did it- though i'm not sure how that would work legally- can you be prosecuted for releasing something that is accessable under a FOI request? Also, are the emails includable under that, or could he then be prosecuted for that bit?
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
just spotted this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-tsl012610.php
an israeli study shows sea level rising and falling for the last 2500 years, sometimes as much as 4" in a decade
/mango
Complain about this comment
@ALL
I am repeatedly seeing the uses of words like 'agenda', 'denier', 'warmist', 'denialist', etc etc.
If you are genuinley here to try to debate the issue and all the (increasingly damaging) revelations try not to attack the person. It does just as much damage to yourself as it does to them, if not more.
We're all adults here so lets not decend to bickering. If you cannot convince someone via logic and fact, then either they are fundamental in their beleifs, or your logic is faulty. Don't worry, someone on here will no doubt tell you which it is!
Re- the 'CRU-leak'
I notice that links were made in the Guardian article to associate him with 'denialist' blogs. It seems the discreditation is begining even before it is confirmed (if it indeed was him) that he leaked them.
I was hoping that he wouldn't get prosecuted, but perhaps the best thing for all of us is if this, and the AGW theory gets dragged through court. Should clear a few points up!
Complain about this comment
#258 labmunkey
"can we actually still trust the climate change 'experts' or is it time for a total re-think on the subject- with fresh analyses and people?"
well of course science doesn;t and can't work like that. but i've have made a few statements about trust so maybe i need to elucidate. i don't trust prof jones, i don't trust the uea, i don't even trust the national academies of science. but i do have a large amount of trust in the scientific method as it is generally practiced today (although that's not to say it's infallible or that politics/lobbying cannot distort it).
so when prof jones, the uea, and the academies and the ipcc etc etc all pretty much say the same thing.......well i'd rather put my trust there than the likes of spencer, lindzen, monckton etc.
just to show how sceptical, unsheep like and lacking in trust i am i tend to study subjects i'm not sure about (i did 'a' levels in psychology for reasons i wont go in to, biology because i wanted to understand gm better, chemistry to try to understand nonparticles better and a degree in environmental science).
so, back to your point, of course it would be nice if the science was being done by st jones, st mann, st schmidt etc. but it's not, and given the pressure and abuse they receive maybe they should be (not serious, i'm not religious and i don;t trust the canonisation process anyway).
however i do trust the checks and balances in science (ipcc is slightly different but still imho essentially sound) and your proposal of starting from scratch would, if the scientists are right, and even you have to accept they may well be have disastrous repercussions.
Complain about this comment
#287 labmunkey
"We're all adults here so lets not decend to bickering. If you cannot convince someone via logic and fact, then either they are fundamental in their beleifs, or your logic is faulty. Don't worry, someone on here will no doubt tell you which it is!"
i admire the principle and i don;t like to bicker (although i imagine i come across as a little antagonistic sometimes) but i really don;t think it;s that simple.
mostly what we have on here are opinions. the science cannot be debated here because it is impossible to convey the reality of the science without studying it......probably for most of your life.
that's why references are made to mann, lindzen etc. and it's just as easy to refer to a bad paper as a good one and virtually nobody will know.
so i although i'm interested in the science, here i'm more interested in why people 'believe' what they do.....and that's probably just as complicated.
Complain about this comment
What is denialism?
Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, all religion and supposed supernatural phenomenon, alien abduction, GLOBAL WARMING DENIALISM, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism.
Complain about this comment
#larrykealey
well i gave myself a headache trying to understand centre manifold theory...and probably failed. but it looks to me like a bifurcation point.
so the good news is of course you're right, in the long term we cannot predict the climate. but the bad news is i still think the climate modellers are right.
it seems to me the global temperature (which is what we're trying to predict) has not bifurcated significantly in the past couple of thousand years and has been remarkably stable, apart from a couple of bumps (i can sense a few fingers twitching keen to get to the keyboard) and the head of the hockey stick (those fingers hovering now i suspect).
so some parts of any stochastic system are predictable but eventually, when you come to a bifurcation point you;re lost, i agree. but that really doesn't make me any more comfortable about pumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.....if anything that aspect (tipping points etc) is even more reason to stop.
how we stop and who gets impacted is the real 20 stone gorilla imho.
Complain about this comment
#285 lanmunkey
"meaningless? I'd say it was rather interesting. Have any of the other planets warmed?? Does anyone know? That's be a real interesting thing to know."
this 'the whole solar system is warming' was doing the rounds last year. someone even claimed pluto had warmed significantly, which given that a miniscule amount of sunlight reaches it means the sun must be several orders of magnitude hotter....which i think we may have spotted here.
if i recall, some planets/moons are getting warmer some getting cooler....but the earth is one of those getting warmer of course.
Complain about this comment
#290 andy765gtr wrote:
"Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."
I have argued consistently that climate "science" is non-scientific because it is uses induction instead of the method of hypothesis. That is an argument. If you can engage with that argument, please do so. If you think there isn't an argument there, you'll have to show me why.
Either way, you'll have to do better than merely assert "there is no argument".
Seriously, are you able to defend induction
Complain about this comment
@ ross #288
i apologise if i've been mis-representing you. I think i'm in a similar position to you then.
The CRU incident and all the other associated revelations do, undoubtedly, damage climate science- it's credibility and calls the data into question. However, it is highly unlikely that ALL the data is bad, and highly unlikely that ALL climate scientists are of the Jones model. So yes, we must be careful to avoid broad sweeping statements. The allegations, while incredibly serious, don't automatically undermine all of climate science.
It is worht mentioning though, that the presentation of the AGW theory has been, almost deliberatley, obtuse. Resting almost exclusively on 'symptoms' rather than 'cause'. Where there is undoubtedly theoretical merit in the AGW theory re-co2, the real world observations don't marry (for reasons i've covered before) and i still find the amount of evidence to pin c02 as the cause to be small in the extreme.
to re-iterate, there is plenty of evidence on the symptoms (temps, ice, sea etc), but the cause (co2 effects) is a bit lacking. Hence my skepticism- though if there are any good pieces i've missed i'l happily, as ever, look at them.
Re-289
Yes of course, you are right. There are very few on here (no slight intended) who would be able to distinguish between a good paper and a bad one. There certainly has been a rapid influx of material on the subject and also on barely related subjects, so finding the genuine research, even for someone who is used to trawling through journals, is difficult.
I also get the fact that people, passionatley, beleive on both sides, that they are right. I'm also convinced that this blinds people (again on both sides) to reasoned debate and the potential, that they may be wrong. Science, on many occasions has been proven wrong- it COULD happen with the AGW theory, just as it has many others.
And don't worry, i don't think you come across badly- it's very difficult to judge tone on a blog- so unless it's obviously 'bad' i generally just take it as a normal comment.
Complain about this comment
"I am repeatedly seeing the uses of words like 'agenda', 'denier', 'warmist', 'denialist', etc etc."
theres a reason for that fella. if ya cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
although i do agree the word 'warmist' is unjustified. its exactly like a creationist calling his opponent an 'evolutionist'. its an attempt to down grade the intellectually justified position - with mountains of evidence to back it up, to the same status as the entirely bogus claim, creationism.
Complain about this comment
#293 bowmanthe bard
as our resident philospher you should know all of life is induction (depite david hume's best efforts).
even the hypthetico-deductive method, after all the invalid hypotheses have been eliminated, the one remaining can still be falsified....i.e. it's validity comes from previous experiments and therefore induction.
my job depends on induction (bayesian statistics) but the results are very hard to argue with and my bosses have become very rich on it. so i find your black/white perspective quite puzzling.
Complain about this comment
#296 rossglory wrote:
"as our resident philospher you should know all of life is induction (depite david hume's best efforts)."
No, I reject that completely. Induction is a special case of the method of hypothesis.
Complain about this comment
"We're all adults here so lets not decend to bickering. "
not on the evidence of denialist posts! the cult of the bickering denialist.
yes lets stick to facts. the fact of your ad hoc denialist tactics is what makes people call you lot denialists, much more than your childish bickering. thats a side issue. its mainly about making stuff up as you go along to suit a priori conclusion which is basically - 'i like my materialist lifestyle, so this part of science must be wrong'. however im getting a bit angry with your transparent attempts to gain the moral high ground by saying 'lets not resort to bickering' when denialists force this by continually disputing known facts with ridiculous half baked statements. is this because you lack any other ground. you lot are the cause of bickering. you bicker endlessly about spurious points and irrelevancies while studiously denying mountains of evidence pushing down on your sub cretinous denialist position.
so i advise you to look to your own kind to find the cause of any childish bickering round here.
you have still not explained how your admitted 'insulating effect of c02', will not increase when its proportion of the atmosphere increases. when you find a cause, do us all a favour mate and publish it for peer review. go on. you'll not only prove climatologists wrong, you'll go down in history for proving wrong the laws of thermodynamics!
Complain about this comment
296 rossglory wrote:
"my job depends on induction (bayesian statistics)"
I'm sorry to hear that, but it depends what you mean by it.
Much "Bayesian" thinking is based on confusion between two concepts of probability, one of them the traditional sense of "credibility", the other relative frequency. Example of the former: "It is probable that the Big Bang theory is correct". Example of the latter: "The probability of throwing doubles is one sixth."
Bayes' theorem is valid and useful when applied to relative frequency, but is a terrible conceptual error when applied to "credibilities".
The degree to which something ought to be believed is a "subjective" matter that differs from one individual to the next, from one moment to the next, and it depends on what he already believes.
Induction can be a reliable form of reasoning -- I think Hume was making a terrible mistake with his supposed "problem of induction". But extrapolating from the historical temperature record to future states of the climate is completely ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
#288 rossglory wrote:
"i do have a large amount of trust in the scientific method as it is generally practiced today"
The methods of climate science are totally, completely, utterly different from the methods of mainstream sciences like physics and biology.
The differece is so striking that the former does not deserve to be called a "science" at all. It is just inductivist statistics -- garbage. The same old rubbish as is used in psychology.
Complain about this comment
@298
"you have still not explained how your admitted 'insulating effect of c02', will not increase when its proportion of the atmosphere increases."
I don't have to. As i said before, quite specifically, you cannot extrapolate lab-based experiments into the real-world system. We do not understand all the feedbacks, we do not understand all the interactions, so how can we be 100% sure how it will react, especially when observations don't, and have NEVER matched the predictions?
Try that direct question- why have the events in the predictions never occured?
As for the rest of your post, typical slight by association attempt. I am asking very direct and specific questions. I am not trying to deliberatley muddy the water on the issue i am merley trying to get some answers. Suprisingly, even the government is unable to answer that question (prove co2 behaves like you say it does in the atmopsherer). So how can YOU be so sure?
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #288 who wrote...
"so when prof jones, the uea, and the academies and the ipcc etc etc all pretty much say the same thing.......well i'd rather put my trust there than the likes of spencer, lindzen, monckton etc."
But the IPCC is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a science organization, they are almost purely a political organization. In order to get what "science" they actually did get they relied to a large extent on...the work of the individuals implicated in the leaked emails.
Now how much of the rest of the world is just going with the assumption that the IPCC and the supposed "top" climate scientists (again, implicated in those leaked emails) have it right? This is the problem. This is something skeptics saw a while back. The hypothesis of substantial AGW isn't built on a sturdy foundation...its foundations are about as substantial as a sand castle is to the incoming tide.
You have to put on blinders and ignore huge chunks of the record. People point to (totally unverified) hypothesis of the PETM and ignore the massive spikes just a few tens of millions of years before. They have to ignore the 800 year lag between CO2 level changes and temperature. They have to ignore almost all of this interglacial...because there is not any explanation for any of the fluctuations within the holocene...MOST of which are larger than this one we've recently experienced.
The only causal relationship that has ever been demonstrated is that...all other things being relatively equal...CO2 levels seem to have been driven by temperature. The 800 year lag strongly suggests CO2 is an extremely weak climate driver, even when factoring in the much more powerful feedbacks we find during the glacial period and glacial to interglacial transition.
Complain about this comment
news just in. global warming on pluto. Stataticians say it is linked to co2 release on earth and that action must be taken now...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8499660.stm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re 272 Shadorne:
"Of course, the reality is that a mere 32 years does not make much of a "record" and any Greenland farming or British Wine making venture is most likely an unprofitable venture despite "record" warmth."
And yet today there are hundreds of vineyards in the UK and farms in Greenland.
Complain about this comment
There is a difference between natural emissions of CO2 from soil and oceans due to changes in temperature (i.e. by solar luminosity) in the past, and the recent emission of CO2 by humans by burning carbon that was originaly sequestered from the atmosphere naturally. We are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4) at extraordinary rates from burning the fossilised deposits of ancient wetlands and forests and also seeing the release of CO2 and CH4 from peatlands and deforested areas as a positive feedback to recent warming.
If recent global warming of the last 30 or 100 years is solely due to natural causes then there needs to be solid evidence to compare with the probability of an anthropogenic cause. The scientific papers and the IPCC reports that I have read always include the natural forcing factors such as volcanoes, solar luminosity and orbital cycles. However, it is only when the known physical effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is factored into global circulation models that a closer correlation with real temperature change of the last century occurs. The suggestion that natural causes of climate change have been ignored by scientists is completely wrong.
If a number of high impact peer reviewed journals publish scientific evidence that shows that a natural forcing (i.e. solar luminosity) is the cause of recent global warming, then the conclusions of the IPCC would be different. In my opinion the findings of the IPCC based on thousands of scientific papers remain strong and show that recent global warming can only be explained when accounting for recent atmospheric changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
If CO2 is not the cause of recent variations in the global average temperature, then what is the cause? The sun has been increasing in luminosity for 4.5 billion years but at a rate that cannot account for recent changes. Published evidence has shown that the solar cycles etc cannot explain th temperature varition. Interestingly, the planets of our solar system have been both warming and cooling showing that the sun cannot be an explanation.
I would welcome evidence (as with the majority of most scientists) that a natural forcing is the cause of recent warming. That means more research is required and therefore more grants to climate scientists so the funding doesnt change! Of course if the cause was natural, then there would probably be no solution.
Complain about this comment
@304
-"er, yes we can - we have incredibly sophisticated and well developed models. even the unsophisticated models of 100 years ago predicted current broad trends if not too accurately in detail. if you want me to give you a list of predictions that have come to fruition i will, although i cant see much point as you are still in the denial state of mind. any amount of evidence is futile. the 'models are unproven' denialist argument is a crock.
"
yes, absolutely. please link them.
-" why are you not concerned with the crankyness of other denialists and realise the obvious motivation for their arguments"
Well because regardless of their motivations i came to my stance through independant research. I couldn't care less what other people think- i'm qualified enough to realise there are issue with the theory and the data- hence my skepticism. My only motivation is science.
-"dont you think self correcting science itself would reject the climate change hypothosis if it was bogus."
Normally yes. but it's very hard to when conflicting viewpoints are stifled and excluded from journals. Which we now have proof of happening. I'm sorry, it's a fact. It's also happening in other fields (stem cell).
If you need another example of just how difficult it can be to overturn a prevailing theory, regardles of it being 100% wrong. I suggest you look up the recent (ish) revelations on the cause of stomach ulcers.
-"if you want to be seen as a reasonable human being i would suggest accepting what a proper climateologist tells you, rather than relying on right wing non-climatologist hack journalists with an agenda."
So, being a scientist, you suggest i accept, blindly, what i am told to be fact. Despite there being quite a lot of proffesional climatologists and other scientists who also debate the theory?
-"you wont even try to understand, because you are a typical denialist trying force fit reality to your cretinous aganda. if you are only searching for confirmation bias on the internet, you will find it. this is aimed at all denialists, not just you."
Amazing, truly. I suppose it's my own fault for trying to have a reasonable debate with you.
With the Stomach Ulcer example firmly implanted in your mind, can you accept that there is a distinct possibility that the AGW theory COULD be wrong?? I'm not asking you to say it IS wrong, only admit that there is a possibility that it COULD be wrong.
Complain about this comment
"We do not understand all the feedbacks, we do not understand all the interactions, so how can we be 100% sure how it will react, especially when observations don't, and have NEVER matched the predictions?"
We do not have a complete fossil record, so how can we be 100% sure evolution is true, especially when noone has observed a dog evolving into a cat?
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey #307.
"My only motivation is science."
no person is truly apolitical.
since I do not think you're lying to us, I suggest, you're lying to yourself.
Complain about this comment
seasambo;
The problem is that temperatures have been stagnant for a decade now. The Arctic seriously melted in 2007 and there was no warming feedback apparent. The oceanic CO2 outgassing had just recently been found to be much less than anticipated and also this week they found an apparent negative feedback in the stratosphere.
It seems that carbon dioxide has done all the warming that it can at this concentration and the only effects we've seen have been better weather and increased agricultural productivity. So far CO2 has been really good to us.
It's very difficult not to see the IPCC's predictions as alarmist.
Complain about this comment
Re:303
What is actually happening on Pluto is merely it's springtime. It's got a 250 odd year orbit and considering we only knew it was there about 80 years ago and we've only been able to take pictures as good, (or bad) as those in the article in the last decade or so, we know 'sod all' (technical astronomical term) about what happens on its surface as it get closer to the sun. Plus it's got a far more eliptical (or less circular) orbit than the earth does so it's going to experience a much bigger difference in temperature between it's furthest point and it's closest point.
Sorry for going into something largley irrelevant to the argument, but I'm an astrophysicist so.....
One thing I will mention though is that I used to think that global warming was more likley to have an external cause or at least be significantly effected by an external source. However when you understand the physics around these potential causes it doesn't fit.
So please don't start with rubbish about the sun getting hotter, more/less active or planetary orbits changing and causing climate change. The possible astronomical causes are either non existant or far too small/too slow to be causing the changes we are seeing. Don't even begin to mention the cosmic rays argument as it is flawed due to issues that involve far too complex science for me to be bothered going into in an internet blog. Basically take anyone who mentions an external source as a possible reason with a pinch of salt. If it's not published and peer reviewed (the IPCC people wouldn't get a look in on blocking astro papers) with at least a few astronomers or astrophysicists agreeing with them they are most likley wrong or misinformed.
Complain about this comment
"Suprisingly, even the government is unable to answer that question (prove co2 behaves like you say it does in the atmopsherer). So how can YOU be so sure?"
not sure you can prove anything or need to. scientists have very solid evidence, both theoretical with accurate simulations, backing up thousands of data sets of real temperatures over decades, records going back into prehistory that match the sims so allowing them to predict the future with reasonable certainty, and masses of observations of nature showing change. but proof ? leave that to mathematicians and people who dont know what science is.
now, its up to denialists to provide solid evidence against this. currently your hypothosis runs counter to the observed reality. and i'll hold you to 'proof' if it make you feel even more clever. good luck.
Complain about this comment
@ 311. i was joking, i wasn't trying to suggest anything.
@ 309. no of course not, but you can do a lot to try to minimise it.
@ 308.
Those are different things. One is a static measurement (if you can call a fossil a measurement) of a slowly moving process. Using these fossils we can map, quite accuratley, how a species has changed over time.
With climate, even the IPCC admit it doesn't fully understand the climate. So, it is entirely possible that there are mechanisms involved that are affecting the climate in ways we don't understand. Especially as predictions are not being met.
Complain about this comment
302 poitsplace:
"implicated in those leaked emails"
Interesting phrase. Very vague. All they've been implicated in is sending emails.
The science behind AGW relies on far more science than those scientists implicated in sending emails have worked on. Although I am sure other scientists too have used email, so they are automatically implicated in your sending emails conspiracy theory.
Someone asks us please not to decend to bickering. Well how can we not when people like Poitsplace make absurd claims? here's another one:
"They have to ignore the 800 year lag between CO2 level changes and temperature."
The lag is in the IPCC report and the scientists who discovered and published the lag are not skeptical of AGW because of it. So when you say we "ignore it" you are just using exageration and turning reality on it's head. It's you who ignore the fact we do accept the 800 year lag and you also ignore the fact that it's compatible with warming from a rise in co2.
All I see is a load of skeptics posting on this blog who are trying to spin as much as they can, even trivial things. We have skeptics trying to falsely claim climate science isn't really science. I don't wonder why, I've been to 100% political places like freerepublic and seen the same kind of people spinning news. They've transferred over to this issue from political domains and they just aren't capable of analyzing the science objectively. It all has to be smeared and dismissed, by any means. One trait of this is they are incapable of understanding granularity of knowledge. They'll claim the issue is binary, foolishing arguing that either we understand feedbacks 100% or we can't say anything about them at all. There's another group of denialists who do the same thing with regard to the incompleteness of the fossil record and it's significance to another theory...
Complain about this comment
Re:313
I know you were joking, I just saw an opportunity to talk about something I've found very interesting over the last few days.
As far as the 'scientific' statement that we don't fully understand the climate.
It's the same as the 'scientific' statement that we don't fully understand gravity. That doesn't mean that we can't predict the orbits of the planets in the solar system.
The problem with the whole issue is that scientists use the scientific meaning of words or phrases, basically they speak to their peers.
Then the press take what they say and put the emphasis in the wrong place.
Then you get people, companies and politicians using what the press say and the emphasis gets shifted again.
You end up with a message that the scientist didn't mean to send.
Couple that with some idiotic denialist and alarmist statements and campaigns and you get a totally distorted picture of the science.
This allows the more idiotic or flawed arguments or implications in the subject to gain the same level of acceptability as the real issues.
This in turn allows the debate to be balanced out to seem like the arguments each way are equally valid, even if it's something that is almost certainly happening.
The Climate change debate is one where this has appened to an extreame because the possible changes to companies, personal lifestyles, economies, technology etc. mean alot of people have a vested interest in the debate going one way or another.
Applying this to every issue in a very complex area involving hundreds of potential issues and you get the mess we are in now.
Complain about this comment
re310
"The problem is that temperatures have been stagnant for a decade now."
Not true...2009 tied as the second warmest and the southern hemisphere was the warmest yet! Plus you cannot gain much information on climatic changes from only a ten year period so you must be extremely careful how you explain the variation.
"The Arctic seriously melted in 2007 and there was no warming feedback apparent."
I expect it wouldnt be obvious over a few years but doesnt change the IPCC conclusions.
"The oceanic CO2 outgassing had just recently been found to be much less than anticipated and also this week they found an apparent negative feedback in the stratosphere."
Again this doesnt change the IPCC conclusions. Feedback effects are something that is only just starting to be researched and much more research is needed.
"It seems that carbon dioxide has done all the warming that it can at this concentration and the only effects we've seen have been better weather and increased agricultural productivity. So far CO2 has been really good to us."
What evidence do you have to support this? Im not certain about this but i suspect that evidence suggests CO2 can and will cause more warming if the concentration rises to 500 ppm or more. The weather is something far more complicated than climate and im not sure many people would agree that the weather has got better. The link between climate change and weather is also weak at the moment. Agricultural productivity will be limited by other factors after the CO2 fertilisation effect such as by nitrogen, phosphorus and water. This area is too complex to conclude in one sentence or paragraph.
"It's very difficult not to see the IPCC's predictions as alarmist."
I have no problem with alarmism if the science is correct. Just because we may find it disturbing doesnt not mean the conclusions are wrong!
Complain about this comment
@ 312. andy.
please post the links for those models you mentioned.
Complain about this comment
"As far as the 'scientific' statement that we don't fully understand the climate.
It's the same as the 'scientific' statement that we don't fully understand gravity. That doesn't mean that we can't predict the orbits of the planets in the solar system.
"
the subtle difference being that one is fully and reproducably testable. The other is not.
Complain about this comment
317
You canfind the references in the IPCCreport online
318
And that is why models are used as we dont have another Earth (or rather replicated treatment Earths) to test the significance of CO2 on climate. What alternative is there to models apart from paleoclimate data?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard
"I have argued consistently that climate "science" is non-scientific because it is uses induction instead of the method of hypothesis. That is an argument. If you can engage with that argument, please do so. If you think there isn't an argument there, you'll have to show me why."
debatable and probably irrelevant. theres much more that makes it absolutely science. theres the hypothesis and theory for starters. it makes predictions which can be seen to be true or false. c02 is a greenhouse gas and releasing extra is having the predicted effect. this is totally in accordance with predictions. there is no reason to doubt what will happen by further extrapolation. the theory is the best explanation for the phenomenon - this is true science whether induction is involved or not. and its completely testable and falsyfiable. find out c02 isnt a greenhouse gas, is mitigated by a process somehow or we are not producing any, for instance and your done. still have to find why the earth is warming our best fit explanation is c02. phenomenon and theory = science. in crime analogy, we have a body, and a smoking gun. in fact its better - we have a crime and a perpetrator caught red handed and STILL KILLING! so what we use models? they are proven accurate and no reason to think otherwise. you have not proven extrapolation from models is worthless. it works all the time - like jumping out of the way of lorrys using models of lorry trajectory stored in your head, for example. so overall, whether it satisfies the philosophical musings of what science *might be* to someone probably dead set against it for irrelevent reasons, theres more than enough there for it to be classed as textbook science for 99 +% of scientists involved in it.
reality is what still happens when you stop believing in it. or bogus philosophizing. proper philosophy weighs ideas against reality, not the other way round. i think you are shoehorning it, like a religion.
we really dont have time to pontificate on semantics of what constitute science. if it works, it works.
Complain about this comment
I read many pro-AGW'ers telling us there is clear evidence to support CO2 as a primary driver of global warming and yet none of them can present any evidence beyond "it works in a test-tube"
interesting
/mango
Complain about this comment
if anybody is interesting in reading up on climate sensitivity, here is an interesting article:
http://masterresource.org/?p=1280
/mango
Complain about this comment
321
The evidence is presented in the IPCC report
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
Complain about this comment
And also:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Complain about this comment
321
And an explanation based on real science that is published:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Complain about this comment
@ Mango, #321
I don't offer this as a definitive answer - but it is a good read and a suggestion that the greenhouse gas theory is not just a test-tube phenomenon:-
Rasool, S.I., and C. De Bergh, 1970: The runaway greenhouse and the accumulation of CO2 in the Venus atmosphere. Nature, 226, (1970) 1037-1039, doi:10.1038/2261037a0.
(Go to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/ and search for "Greenhouse Venus Atmosphere")
Complain about this comment
""It makes me quite worried people are beginning to doubt the climate has warmed up."
And clearly some people do doubt that"
Why are you worried Mr. Black? Can it be because you are convinced and want other people to be convinced even if there is no hard evidence there? Because you expect that the world should turn itself on its head because you and those who agree with you that the sky is falling are now running around like chickens with their heads cut off? Why wouldn't some people doubt it? Why wouldn't all thinking people question it. It was at best a lame effort that is not worthy of being called a scientific investigation, at worst a deliberate effort to commit fraud for a common personal politicla agenda by people who call themselves scientists. These so called climate scientists did themselves no favor by acting right from the beginning like people who had something to hide. And each time this rusty gate swings open wider, the squeaking from it suggests it is build on vary shaky ground. If you want to be taken seriously when you tell the entire world that they must drastically change their way of life or there will be mass extinction then you'd better be purer than Caesar's wife as they say.
"Like all the other noisy -gates, this latest one throws up two questions: was scientific best practice followed, and is there anything here that affects the basic picture of climate science?"
The real question is does anything that has been presented as evidence qualify as climate science at all or is the whole thing just invented alarmist propaganda? Those who say we should "play it safe" and assume the worst don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. As they would have it, much of the technology that has made our lives richer, more comfortable, longer, more interesting would have to be abandoned and would likely not be replaced in our lifetimes. Their evidence is hardly justification for such a bold and drastic step, especially if they turn out to be dead wrong. They will have to do much better if they want to be taken seriously again and according to them, time is rapidly running out.
Complain about this comment
322
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/02/sauna-doubles-the-earths-tempe.html
Complain about this comment
Comment on Sesambo's link from #325
The full 6 step process is an attempt to outline the case for AGW. Since this link was posted in response to a question about CO2 being a primary driver for global warming, could I encourage any responders to concentrate only on points 1 and 2 from the link as that's the part that deals with radiative forcing from trace gases, we can come back to the anthropogenic bit later!
Complain about this comment
Maybe Andrew Neil is balanced after all 2 blogs from 2 different perspectives of the debate. I'm sure sceptics from all over the world will all go to this blog and congratulate him for his balance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/02/2010_will_be_a_very_warm_year.html
like they did here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html#comments
Complain about this comment
327
"The real question is does anything that has been presented as evidence qualify as climate science at all or is the whole thing just invented alarmist propaganda?"
It is certainly climate science from more than 100 years of studies. I suggest you read Spencer Wearts book on the history of global warming. I dont think anything published in alarmist propaganda but it can be twisted by politicians and the media.
"Those who say we should "play it safe" and assume the worst don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. As they would have it, much of the technology that has made our lives richer, more comfortable, longer, more interesting would have to be abandoned and would likely not be replaced in our lifetimes."
Actually, many of those who you say "dont have a clue" think that technology will be central to how we sort out global warming. However, the way we live will have to change if we want human civilisation to continue and this isnt just in regard of climate change. Populations do not continue to grow exponentially forever. If bacterium did their mass would be greater than the Earth in a couple of days. The environment reduces and stabilises that growth to a carrying capacity. It is no different with the human race although our technology has indeed helped us to overcome this. Switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy or other non-greenhouse gas or rather more efficient forms of energy will not necessarily abanding our way of life.
"Their evidence is hardly justification for such a bold and drastic step, especially if they turn out to be dead wrong. They will have to do much better if they want to be taken seriously again and according to them, time is rapidly running out."
There is no evidence that supports the "sceptical" argument of natural climate change in the last 30 years. I would very much like to see it. Without it the sceptical argument is just bad science.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #327.
"..much of the technology that has made our lives richer, more comfortable, longer, more interesting.."
??
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.a137
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/health/main5097116.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901295.html
http://www.infection-research.de/perspectives/detail/pressrelease/clean_water_a_medical_breakthrough/
etc, etc.
seems your definition of "our lives" is quite narrow. ;(
Complain about this comment
At #266, #267 and #268, I posted the latest near surface and sea surface temperatures from the AMSU and AMSR-E sensors that fly on the NASA Aqua satellite.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
You need JAVA to view it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/
I wondered, out loud, how the ‘sceptics’ on this blog would spin the fact that the global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010, making it the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
And do you know how they spun the story?
They never mentioned it!
Notice, too, that the start of February is also much warmer than previous years. This is exactly the scenario predicted by Hansen and the Met office. So, as Paul Hudson put it on another blog:-
‘…it's early days but it's definitely first blood to NASA, The Met Office Hadley Centre and others in forecasting 2010 to be the warmest year on record.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/
I bet the ‘sceptics’ won’t mention that either.
I predict, instead, more talk of ‘gate this and ‘gate that, ensuring that, at all times, attention is kept diverted from the unfolding observations, in the field, that anthropogenic global warming is a fact.
If it weren’t, the computer models can’t have predicted it – they would, basically, flat line.
On the guardian article that ‘…Norfolk police have interviewed and taken a formal statement from Paul Dennis, 54, another climate researcher (at UEA) who heads an adjacent laboratory.’
This guy will now come under the same intense scrutiny that befell Phil Jones. Let’s hope, for his sake, he’s dotted all the ‘I’s and crossed all the ‘T’s because the fossil fuel lobby are pulling up the drawbridge as we speak.
Here’s an interesting video from NBC, courtesy of FergalR:-
‘Study says Arctic warmest in 2000 years’
http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/chapter/?cuecard=46537
Did anyone watch the video lecture by Richard B Alley at the American Geophysical Union, here:-
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
It gets very interesting around 3 minutes 40 seconds.
It would be interesting to get feedback on all these issues from the ‘sceptics’.
But we won’t hold our collective breaths.
Complain about this comment
333
OOH i would pay to see and hear a sceptic v Richard B Alley
Thanks for the link!
Complain about this comment
not much appetite for social justice in Anglo-Saxon countries?
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
333
Great graphic in the Richard Alley video at 20 mins. How can the reduced glacial ice cover be explained by anything other than CO2? Thats a great counter point to the CO2 lags temp argument.
Complain about this comment
@thinkforyourself #333
I wondered, out loud, how the ‘sceptics’ on this blog would spin the fact that the global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010, making it the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
And do you know how they spun the story?
They never mentioned it!
Don't these count as answers?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/much_has_been_written.html#P92003079
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/much_has_been_written.html#P92003660
or are they not the answers you wanted?
/mango
(ps will answer everybody who responded to my question on CO2 / Primary driver when I have checked out all the links - thanks)
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #324
sorry if i am dealing with this in the wrong order
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
This link is to the skeptical science website and cites a paper "Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate" (W.F.J. Evans 2006) as conclusive evidence that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
The first thing to notice is Figures 1 and 2, which Evans shows to indicate spectrum of GHG radiation at the surface, but fails to include the most important GHG - water vapour.
Again in table 2, he fails to include water vapour fluxes
In my humble opinion, without including water vapour in his paper (not sure the paper is peer reviewed - couldn't find it), I cannot see how the claim "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming" can be made without tongue firmly in cheek
/mango
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #323
The evidence is presented in the IPCC report
AR4 is a very large document and chapter 2 refers to lots of other chapters / information. I have read much of AR4, especially with regards to CO2 and cannot find anywhere proof that CO2 & Climate Sensitivity are the real causes of global warming.
Could you be a little bit more precise please
/mango
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, back in the real world.
It seem that the UK is becoming more sceptical:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm
Looks like our warmist and alarmist friends have got a bit more work to do. C minus - could try harder, could pay more attention in class ;-)
I wonder why eh?
Could it be the continued Ad Hominem attacks?
Could it just be the poor to very poor science and very poor grasp of the scientific method?
Could it be the deleted, fudged and poorly analysed data?
Could it be that, as has been pointed out a few times induction just doesn't cut it any more?
I'll leave you to wonder about it, take as long as you like, we've got all of eternity to play with.............. well, we've got until the next ice age at least ;-)
Complain about this comment
#322 mango
arrrgh, for once i followed one of your links and you took me to a free-market energy blog.
the ipcc may have its faults but at least it is scientific.....oh yes it is.
Complain about this comment
#296 rossglory wrote:
"as our resident philospher you should know all of life is induction (depite david hume's best efforts)."
#297 bowman wrote:
No, I reject that completely.
really? or does it just depend on your definition. this from wiki:
"presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past"
if you didn;t believe in that supposition in general then you could hardly get out of bed....that's why hume's concept of no provable causality was only theoretical.
i kinda get a sense you miss some of the nuances in these arguments.
Complain about this comment
333 thinkforyourself wrote:
“
I wondered, out loud, how the ‘sceptics’ on this blog would spin the fact that the global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010, making it the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
And do you know how they spun the story?
They never mentioned it!
“
thinkforyourself is still very confused. It is not skeptics who have been caught spinning things.
As for 'they never mentioned it' I believe that Dr Spencer who published the post is considered somewhat sceptical.
The article also appeared at WUWT where it now has more than 250 comments.
Then over at the Blackboard, betting on the anomaly Lucia won the Quatloos for the first time.
Those who had really been paying attention would have noted that Lubos Motl predicted this more than two weeks ago and put forward one proposed explanation at his blog.
(Spelling of 'sceptic': I tend to use sceptic for normal use and skeptic for the noun commonly used in climate debates since it appears to be of US origin.)
Complain about this comment
#333 thinkforyourself wrote:
"I bet the ‘sceptics’ won’t mention that either."
I'll mention it. First of all, I'll admit that if it's true I'm genuinely surprised, especially because of the recent low solar activity. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the Sun as a variable star plays a much larger role in climate changes than the AGW believers would have us believe.
Second, let me remind you that I'm a sceptic, not a "denier". The word 'denier' is a brainless term of abuse. The word 'sceptic' properly applies to someone who doesn't believe a claim, not someone who believes the opposite of the claim.
Third, if the Earth is continuing to warm up as it did up to 1998, I regard that as good news. I'm a sceptic not only about the theory of AGW, but also about the proposed steps to "fix the problem". Among the many things I do not believe, I do not believe there is a problem!
I remain wholly dismissive of inductivist so-called "science", however. I don't like the word 'denier', but perhaps you might call me a "rubbisher" of that rubbish!
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #325
The RC link:
No problem with steps 1-3 and no real problem with step 4. When we reach step 5 however, they refer to the Annan & Hargreaves 2006 paper. Annan and Hargreaves acknowledge they have made assumptions that "are necessarily subjective and some are based on a small number of quantitative estimates, so others may reasonably disagree as to their validity.", and at one stage even say "In fact, our implied claim that climate sensitivity actually has as much as a 5% chance of exceeding 4.5C is not a position that we would care to defend with any vigour, since even if it is hard to formally rule it out, we are unaware of any significant evidence in favour of such a high value.".
So, we are back to that great unknown - climate sensitivity, and as Shaviv puts it "The problem with numerical simulations of climate is that the feedbacks, especially those pertaining to cloud cover, are very poorly understood. As a result, any value in the range of Tx2≈1.5-4.5°C is believed to be possible according to the IPCC. In other words, based on theory (well, numerical simulations to be more exact), the temperature change associated with doubled CO2 is not known to within a factor of 3! "
/mango
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #341
arrrgh, for once i followed one of your links and you took me to a free-market energy blog.
The article points to the relevant papers, so i don't see the problem. Can you fault the science or are you "sceptical" because it's a free market blog?
/mango
Complain about this comment
the link given in #335 caused the moderators to remove it "..because it contravened one of our House Rules", apparently since it does lead to a page containing contact details for public events; sorry about that, mods.
the 'List of WSF actions and events for 2010' can be accessed via the 'World Social Forum' homepage.
Complain about this comment
#342 rossglory wrote:
"presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past"
That's not a particularly accurate definition of the word 'induction' -- the really essential aspect of it is extrapolation, which is why I often use the words interchangably. (And why the word is used in mathematical logic as well as to describe everyday guesswork.)
Sometimes extrapolation is fine -- for example, it's perfectly OK to jump from "the Sun has risen every morning so far" to "the Sun will rise every morning". The trouble comes when people think extrapolation is THE most basic pattern of inference. There's a lot of that behind the sort of statistics that simply extrapolates from a sample instead of extending the power of testing. Don't get me wrong: I have a huge respect for the sort of statistical methods that made the EPR experiment (and many other genuine tests) possible.
I would argue that induction is generally OK as a "tool of discovery" -- in other words, it's a decent enough rule of thumb for starting off with a hypothesis. The general pattern is to "go for the simplest general hypothesis you can think of, given what you've observed already". But the context of justification is different from the context of discovery. With climate change, we're looking for decent reasons to believe, so that we can decide what's the best policy. The simplest general hypothesis definitely has the virtue of being simple and general, but it has the vice of being made up ad hoc so that it cannot but fit the observations after they have been made, so that they don't really test the hypothesis. In science especially, where we routinely deal with things that cannot be seen directly, using induction is just like "aping" apes instead of dealing with the uniquely human problems that scientific hypotheses raise.
You've raised interesting questions -- sorry for answering at such length.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #344.
"..I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the Sun as a variable star plays a much larger role in climate changes than the AGW believers would have us believe."
quote:
"Many, possibly most, stars have at least some variation in luminosity: the energy output of our Sun, for example, varies by about 0.1% over an 11 year solar cycle, equivalent to a change of one thousandth of a magnitude."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star
to call it variable is therefore technically correct.
Complain about this comment
Sorry if this is already addressed - I weary of denialist this and warmer that...
Fred Pearce, as described by Richard Black; "Journalists with an eye for old-fashioned concepts such as balance, like Fred Pearce, are careful to avoid making that conclusion."
with regard to "n some circles, every single -gate "relevation" has been followed by a ritualised fanfare claiming that the picture of climate warming through rising greenhouse gases concentrations has now been "fatally undermined", or some similar phrase."
Is that the same Fred Pearce that wrote this;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html
"Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline."
Without checking its veracity, the possible objections to its inclusion in a working group pronouncement and its simple mathematical impossibility?
Complain about this comment
"I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards."
It's not a few scientists and a few papers, it's the main scientists and the main papers - the ones that are telling us temerature rise has been "unprecedented". The falsely manipulated proxy data of Mann and Briffa, the fiddled global mean temps, the denial of the UHI effect, the adjustment of historical (pre-1950) instrumental temp records down, the cherry-picking of warmer surface stations and the dumping of cooler ones - all these amount to a falsification of the case for AGW. If the temp rise is NOT "unprecedented" there is no cause for concern and no case to answer regarding CO2 greenhouse gas warming. ERGO no problemo!
Complain about this comment
@infinity #314 who wrote...
"Interesting phrase. Very vague. All they've been implicated in is sending emails."
It's quite clear in the leaked emails that they have been working together to stifle any opposition, manipulate the peer review process, misrepresent the data and break the law. The first three are only considered a really bad thing in scientific circles.
-----------------------
"The lag is in the IPCC report and the scientists who discovered and published the lag are not skeptical of AGW because of it. So when you say we "ignore it" you are just using exageration and turning reality on it's head. It's you who ignore the fact we do accept the 800 year lag and you also ignore the fact that it's compatible with warming from a rise in co2."
So...you're saying they consider CO2 the primary driving force in temperature swings even though the rising/falling of CO2 (ie, powerful feedback in progress) gets cut off abruptly as temperature suddenly goes in entirely the wrong direction. Yeah, that's kind of what "ignoring" means. The record only shows behavior consistent with having REACTED to temperature while temperature seems to completely ignore the CO2.
This is not unlike claiming that the fast forward button on your DVR actually causes the commercials. The lag there too clearly indicates that the DELAYED thing is what is reacting. You and the IPCC sound every bit as stupid in claiming that CO2 is driving the temperature in spite of an 800 year lag as you would if you claimed the fast forward button caused the commercial within the recording.
-----------------------
"All I see is a load of skeptics posting on this blog who are trying to spin as much as they can, even trivial things"
You're not even being binary...if you're going with the predictions of the IPCC, you're working on faith. You're claiming a driving behavior from something (CO2) that's clearly reacting. You're claiming that there are currently very powerful feedbacks when the interglacial period's behavior involves an extremely pronounced weakening of feedbacks...and the current temperature record has failed to even show as much warming as would be suggested by the "settled science" of CO2 absorption. (while absorption HAS been worked out, its impact on the energy balance of a dynamic system has not and all recent (ie, direct) observations indicate lower sensitivity)
You alarmists are the ones trying to spin and cause doubts. You're trying to claim behavior from CO2 that has not been observed. You're claiming that CO2 is in fact a substantial driving factor in the climate system and that in spite of the egregious flaws in the hypothesis we must undertake actions that are pretty much agreed universally as (immediately and extremely) damaging to the economy.
Complain about this comment
The irony of continual references to papers and/or formerly respected societies or scientists who relied upon the "findings" of the CRU in this new era of Climategate does not escape me.
Apart from all the historical temperature charts here;
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
I cannot help but recommend the analysis of ENSO adjusted global temperature by Tilo Reber, here:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/twelve-year-satellite-temperature.html
Yes, one of the realclimate devotees has examined, and attempted to critique Tilo's graph. He has not returned, which judging by his usual MO means when he went running back to the fold for succour Gavin agreed that the figures he supplied to Tilo were "real". It is therefore doomed to be forever ignored by "the team".
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html
Complain about this comment
Most people, and all denialists, don't understand how science works. Each individual paper doesn't have to be perfect, in fact most aren't. Over time the view derived from a paper is added to the view derived from others in the same field and broad consensus emerges. Some papers can have quite large flaws in them, but they can still add to the consensus.
Newton's Principia Mathemtica, for example, is cited as a important milestone in mathematics, but much of its material has been superseded by other approaches. This doesn't mane the whole of mathematics is wrong, simply that its a perpetually developing field.
The climate science consensus is that the earth is warming because of anthropogenic CO2. No amount of quibbling about what scientist said in their e-mails, alleged faults with this or that paper, or errors in citation in the IPCC report is going to change that.
Complain about this comment
#354 John Leonard wrote:
"Over time the view derived from a paper is added to the view derived from others in the same field and broad consensus emerges."
Postmodernism lives -- consensus is truth!
Complain about this comment
The fact of the matter is that the conclusions reached by Jones, Mann et al cannot be replicated because they have thrown away/ destroyed/ refused to release their original data.
This means what they have done is not science but rather science fiction.
A few computer programs (which no-one understands fully) have been allowed to rule the roost.
If people could retrace their steps and point out errors or approve good thinking then that would be another matter entirely.
I am only a history graduate (and a lawyer) but even I can see the whole thing stinks. No-one in my discipline would have been allowed to get away with something like this for a moment. I see the Vice - Chancellors in the UK have beeen complaining about the funding cuts. If this rubbish is all that the universities can serve up the more cuts the better.
All this neither proves nor disproves AGW but it doss mean the case is not proved and if there is a criminal offence for forging results there is enough for a prima facie case and to send the matter on for trial. We won't get that here but in the US where justice is more people based a grand jury might return a true bill and send the matter to a petty jury to determine guilt or innocence.
This I think is the real significance of the evasion of the FOIA requests- the data should have been gladly released to anyone who asked for it rather than been hidden in the most extreme fashion and indeed contrary to the law.
Anyone got enough money to mount a private prosection in the UK? Unfortunately the CPS can take these over and discontinue them.
The electorate needs to be convinced that this what is being said is true rather than a tissue of lies.
It is a lie that the scientific community has a consensus on this matter - nothing can be further from the truth.
The aghhenda is being driven policitally - and that is where it is at. However beware - in the US elections are now being determined on which line the candidates fall - and the AGWers are losing. It won't be long before the same happens in the UK. Need I remind everybody that both the US and Autralian Senates have thrown out their cap and tax bills? I am sure these experienced legislators enjoyed being called "flat earthers" by Gordon Brown. He really couldn't have sunk lower.
I am appalled by all this and I came to the subject symathetic to the green movement! Never again.
Complain about this comment
356. andrew99 wrote:
"The fact of the matter is that the conclusions reached by Jones, Mann et al cannot be replicated because they have thrown away/ destroyed/ refused to release their original data."
Other scientists have managed to reproduce their results. For example James Hansen has reproduced the global surface temperature result that Jones produced.
Complain about this comment
Re 354. John Leonard wrote:
Exactly
Complain about this comment
The overwhelming proportion of energy which separates human society from pre-industrial societies is obtained by burning fossil fuels. That is beyond dispute. When you look at the numbers and the alternatives avaialable, their costs, the time it will take to impliment them, the marginal nature of gains from being more "efficient" then it is obvious that even were the population to remain static the task of substantially reducing consumption of power from fossil fuels to the degree necessary in the time available is hopeless. The one subject those who advocate this impossible change never want to talk about is population reduction. Whatever marginal gains might be made will be more than offset by a 50% increase in population to over 9 billion in the coming decades and every one of them will want to live lives as comfortable, mobile, entertaining, and rich as most people want today. That means more power consumption not less. What so called environmentalist have demanded is that those of us who already enjoy these benefits sacrifice them for the sake of those who don't. This is not tenable either. America will not live worse so that India and China can live better even if that was what is required to save the world. As for the so called alternative green technologies it is pathetic. You can build wind farms and install solar panels till the cows come home and you won't make a dent in replacing the existing demand supplied by fossil fuels. And although America is the world's largest producer of nuclear power (although it is only 20% of the source for our electrical needs as opposed to France's 80%) most of the more than 100 reactors on line today will have to be decomissioned in the next 20 to 30 years, their time is running out. They are not yet being replaced.
Complain about this comment
Re 352. poitsplace wrote:
"It's quite clear in the leaked emails that they have been working together to stifle any opposition, manipulate the peer review process, misrepresent the data and break the law. The first three are only considered a really bad thing in scientific circles."
It's quite clear you are exagerating. Spinning.
"So...you're saying they consider CO2 the primary driving force in temperature swings even though the rising/falling of CO2 (ie, powerful feedback in progress) gets cut off abruptly as temperature suddenly goes in entirely the wrong direction."
Not the primary driving force, an amplifier. That means that cooling is amplified by co2 too. As for your last statement - there is no such example when co2 diverges significantly from temperature in the ice cores. If you think otherwise why not provide the specific date range in the vostok record where you think such a thing occurs?
"Yeah, that's kind of what "ignoring" means. The record only shows behavior consistent with having REACTED to temperature while temperature seems to completely ignore the CO2.""
The published scientific literature finds the behavior consistent with strong warming from a doubling of co2, eg Hogg 2008.
"This is not unlike claiming that the fast forward button on your DVR actually causes the commercials. The lag there too clearly indicates that the DELAYED thing is what is reacting. You and the IPCC sound every bit as stupid in claiming that CO2 is driving the temperature in spite of an 800 year lag as you would if you claimed the fast forward button caused the commercial within the recording."
Just because A causes B, doesn't logically prove that B can't cause A. Yet that is your argument. You are saying that because co2 starts rising 800 years after temperature starts rising, therefore that rise in co2 cannot cause any warming itself. Well that's plain illogical. For one thing we know rising co2 causes warming independently of the ice core record. That is indeed settled science.
Complain about this comment
333. thinkforyourself wrote:
"And do you know how they spun the story?
They never mentioned it!"
You missed the "it's still colder than February was 12 years ago." spin at 271
Complain about this comment
It seems clear that reductions in human CO2 output will not come in any great measure from voluntary reductions by China, India, or the US but more likely through involuntary reductions in Europe as economic and political events will restrict its access to fossil fuels. Events like the cutoff of oil and gas from Russia temporarily on two occasions will be emulated by diversion of sale of those resources to China and India. Europe's failing Eurodollar and possible war in the Middle East will further jeopardize Europe's access. Europe demanded sacrifice and it would be most ironic if Europe were forced by events to be the place that sacrifice is greatest. America has vast known untapped resources of fossil fuel by contrast. It has a 200 year supply of coal and known offshore natural gas reserves of at least 420 trillion cubic feet. It also has lots of uranium if it decides to build more nuclear plants.
Complain about this comment
@infinity #360
}It's quite clear you are exagerating. Spinning.
Spinning is trying to call emails detailing blatant criminal acts and academic fraud as perfectly normal. At the very least one would have to acknowledge that they manipulated figures in a way that would likely cause people to draw conclusions from the data that were not reasonable...and of course, the fact that they did break the law in avoiding FOI requests. YOU are spinning and being intellectually dishonest.
-----------------------
"The published scientific literature finds the behavior consistent with strong warming from a doubling of co2, eg Hogg 2008."
Ooooh, they published it. Do I need to produce a list of some choice idiotic things people have published about "global warming" over the years? Of course, with the UEA and friends at the helm of the peer review process for these things they could probably all piss on you and get a peer review study out that definitively showed it to be rain.
You and I both have access to the reconstruction from the ice core record...you cannot come up with a remotely viable explanation for high driving force from CO2 that doesn't require the runaway feedbacks present during the glacial-interglacial transitions. Also, you can't compare those feedbacks to present-day feedbacks because today's are clearly an order of magnitude weaker (which you can work out from the lack of warming or just the plain and simple fact that water vapor's spectrum is saturated across most of the earth's surface and the fact that we have almost no ice left available for albedo feedback).
SERIOUSLY...you try to work out ANY way with any simple mathematical model that could possibly show significant driving force from CO2 (verses the OTHER supposedly weak forcings) with a 600-1000 year lag. It can't be done. You just don't get it...CO2 had to have been increasing right up until the point that the climate suddenly takes a nose dive...and then it should be holding back the nose dive (which it clearly doesn't). We don't see CO2 moderating the fluctuations (and it should be)...the temperature just flucutates up and down as if CO2 levels did almost nothing.
Complain about this comment
Another thought, a lot of angst of the denialists is obviously at the thought of the government regulation required to ensure the transition to the post-carbon future. To them this smells of socialism.
Unfortunately in modernity governments of all stripes are regulatory, conservative and social democrat. To imagine we are not highly regulated now is, frankly, idiotic.
Complain about this comment
Nero says at #352:-
‘..You can build wind farms and install solar panels till the cows come home and you won't make a dent in replacing the existing demand supplied by fossil fuels.’
So why has Anthony Watts of WUWT installed a 10 KW solar array on his home and a 125 KW at his local school and why does he drive an electric vehicle?
Ensuring his own survival post carbon, I’ll warrant.
It’s only his ‘disciples’ who’ll be left holding the baby.
Complain about this comment
@364 The idiocy lies in believing that government is the best vehicle for delivering a post-carbon future. (For "post-carbon future." please read "anything.")
Complain about this comment
@364 The whole of my "angst" is reserved for the rush to destroy what little hard earned wealth the West has remaining by taxing an uncertainty and the premature pushing of costly, inefficient alternatives, that should still be in their development phase, for a decade at least, without regard to utility, corruption or the public's future disdain for all things "alternative".
Pachauri has removed one problem. The UK public may never be presented with the impossibility of smelting steel via wind and solar thanks to his company devouring Corus, possibly for their EU carbon credits.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Complain about this comment
agwbsdotcom #367.
"Pachauri has removed one problem. The UK public may never be presented with the impossibility of smelting steel via wind and solar thanks to his company devouring Corus, possibly for their EU carbon credits."
??
Corus Steel is now part of the Tata Group, where's the link to Mr Pachauri?
(#366)"The idiocy lies in believing that government is the best vehicle for delivering a post-carbon future."
what do you suggest then? a 'free' market?
Complain about this comment
@John Leonard #354
Most people, and all denialists, don't understand how science works.
Bit of a sweeping statement, don't you think? Would that be a peer reviewed statement published in a leading journal that you effectively control or perhaps you and a bunch of buddies decided on the answer and then manipulated the data until it gave the right answer?
The climate science consensus is that the earth is warming because of anthropogenic CO2. No amount of quibbling about what scientist said in their e-mails, alleged faults with this or that paper, or errors in citation in the IPCC report is going to change that.
Consensus? Are you really saying that that is how science works?
So, if a bunch of scientists decided that giving them all £10m would make the rest of the world happy, would the consensus be right or wrong?
If the consensus is the earth is warming because of CO2, could you please provide a single piece of evidence including feedbacks (climate sensitivity) based on empirical evidence that supports the consensus?
/mango
Complain about this comment
Re 363. poitsplace
You are throwing around accusations like "academic fraud", "manipulation" etc because you want that to be true. But it isn't true, I've read the emails myself and they show a great deal of scientific conversation which skeptics have gone through with a fine tooth comb to find stuff they can misinterpret to make up false allegations.
"You and I both have access to the reconstruction from the ice core record...you cannot come up with a remotely viable explanation for high driving force from CO2 that doesn't require the runaway feedbacks present during the glacial-interglacial transitions."
I can come up with a viable explaination. So can scientists, including the scientists that discovered the 800 year lag.
Temperature starts rising due to orbital forcing and that is amplified by ice albedo feedback. 800 years later co2 starts rising. In total co2 rises 50% to interglacial. The total amount of warming to interglacial is the sum of ice albedo feedback, water vapor feedback, co2 rise and orbital forcing.
The ice core record is compatible with a doubling of co2 causes 3C warming. That's just what modern science finds.
"Also, you can't compare those feedbacks to present-day feedbacks because today's are clearly an order of magnitude weaker (which you can work out from the lack of warming or just the plain and simple fact that water vapor's spectrum is saturated across most of the earth's surface and the fact that we have almost no ice left available for albedo feedback)."
If that was true then how could the climate have been many degrees warmer than present in the past? Royer (2008) finds high climate sensitivity is a robust feature of Earth's climate for hundreds of millions of years. Water vapor feedback is not restricted to the surface and much of that isn't even saturated anyway.
"SERIOUSLY...you try to work out ANY way with any simple mathematical model that could possibly show significant driving force from CO2 (verses the OTHER supposedly weak forcings) with a 600-1000 year lag. It can't be done."
I already pointed you at a paper that did just that.
"You just don't get it...CO2 had to have been increasing right up until the point that the climate suddenly takes a nose dive...and then it should be holding back the nose dive (which it clearly doesn't)."
If the orbital forcing is the driver and the co2 is acting as a feedback, then if the orbital forcing dives co2 alone will not be able to hold temperature's up.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #368
Google is our friend;
Patchauri Tata
or
Tata Patchauri
With, or without inverted commas.
Yet nowhere near as interesting as;
fund carbon trading bbc pension
Any order.
IIGCC - a fascinating entity.
Complain about this comment
#368 0ut damn typo - "...thanks to this company..."
Last time I looked freedom of companies to fund Universities and reap the rewards and the bits in between the bits is what allows us a lot of that which we take for granted in our modern world.
T'would seem my keyboard packeth up.
Complain about this comment
agwbsdotcom #371.
thank you, hadn't known that TERI == Tata Energy Research Institute.
always pays to check out the acronyms. ;)
Complain about this comment
they changed it though:
Now called:
TERI:
The Energy Research Institute:
I wonder why?
The cheif just wrote a book about a rabndy climate scientist in his 60's travelling the world bedding women - a noval (fiction, presumably?)..
He might as well have a parrot on his shoulder shouting peices of eight, want to buy some snake oil...
And still the media love agw theory.
It has also emerged that Teri’s biggest single sponsor, BP India, which has provided £6 million, paid for dinner and drinks at an event publicising Dr Pachauri’s debut novel. A BP spokesman said it was entirely legitimate to fund the dinner, the company having enjoyed a “long association with Dr Pachauri”.
He confirmed that the firm gave Teri $9.5 million (£6.1 million) between 2006 and 2009 for planting 8,000 hectares of jatropha, a type of bush, as part of a bio-diesel research project.
Dr Pachauri graduated as a mechanical engineer and was chief engineer with the Diesel Locomotive Works before studying engineering and then economics in the US.
Returning in India in the late 1970s, he became director of the Tata Energy Research Institute.
Later, Dr Pachauri would unilaterally drop Tata from the title and now, according to sources, Tata, one of India’s largest conglomerates, wants little to do with him.
Teri brought him to worldwide attention and he was a lead author with the IPCC before becoming chairman in 2002.
All in the telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Climate-change-research-bungle.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html
Complain about this comment
I think the reason why the public are sceptical of CO2 causing recent warming is because they expect a linear cause-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature. But recent evidence (and im not going to post all the links because its all in peer reviewed journals..youll have to trust me) suggests that CO2 is both a forcing effect and a positive feedback. It can both cause a change in temperature (a linear response - a natural forcing), or a change in temperature (by the sun or orbital wobble) can cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 (from the soil, plants or ocean - yes plants release CO2 as well as photosynthesising it...the important point is what the whole ecosystem is doing!) which leads to a positive feedback in temperature (a cyclical response). A cyclical response may be evidence of a self-regulating system..like a thermostat or the temperature regulation physiology of mammals (this is Gaia theory and far from proven). This is why in the distant past CO2 both leads and lags temperature. We cant possibly expect the Earth system to behave in a simple way without positive feedbacks. Indeed the faint sun paradox suggests that CO2 or other greenhouse gases must have existed to keep water liquid when the sun was 70 % less energetic than today. Richard Alley provides an excellent lecture on this and i ask all sceptics to watch this and cut it down! http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Also, check out James Lovelocks books on Gaia - especially the Revenge of Gaia.
As i see it there is a wealth of evidence on this but no evidence suggesting that both past and recent global climate can be explained without including the effect of CO2 and other GHGs.
Now i ask the sceptics to provide references to peer reviewed papers that show that past and more importantly recent climate can be explained by non-GHG factors?
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #375
I think the reason why the public are sceptical of CO2 causing recent warming is because they expect a linear cause-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature
I don't think that's true. People who don't look at the subject may think it's linear, but people who do look at the subject understand CO2's ability to raise the temperature diminishes in line with it's absorption curve. You still get approx 1C for each doubling of CO2, but due to climate sensitivity being low, CO2's potential is never realised.
But recent evidence (and im not going to post all the links because its all in peer reviewed journals..youll have to trust me) suggests that CO2 is both a forcing effect and a positive feedback.
If you are referring to your previous links, I have already responded here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/much_has_been_written.html#P92032994
here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/much_has_been_written.html#P92033227
and here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/much_has_been_written.html#P92035518
Please post any additional links you have
This is why in the distant past CO2 both leads and lags temperature.
That statement is refuted by both sceptics and pro-AGW'ers alike. If you have any information that shows CO2 leads temperature please post or do you mean amplifies?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Mango
Where are your references for 1C of warming for a doubling of CO2?
Here are some references you might find:
Haley, Pierrehumbert & Schrag (2009)
Holffman and Schrag (2002)
Young et al (2009)
Tripati (2009)
and Jansen (2007) in the IPCC
Yes i was hasty in how i responded using the word lead. Amplify is correct in that CO2 pushes the temperature higher. But looking for correlations isnt going to provide the evidence for complex feedbacks. Thats why models are needed.
I would like to hear what you think about Richard Alleys video though. He provides a very strong case that goes beyond the IPCC.
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #377
Just did a quick check and couldn't find any of those references.
Could you be a little more specific please?
Thanks
/Mango
Complain about this comment
is it hoffman and schrag book Snowball Earth you mean?
Complain about this comment
They are references from the Alley video i posted. The Jansens one is from the IPCC
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Jansen_etal.html
I think the Alley video is the best reference i can offer at the moment
Any search for Gaia theory including papers by James Lovelock and Tim Lenton are worth looking at.
If CO2 must be included as a factor to explain past climate, then it follows that recent changes in CO2 must have an impact on recent globally averaged climate. As i see it this hypothesis stands up to scrutiny better than any other hypothesis. In fact, I am not sure what the alternative hypothesis is since the evidence and observational data we have do not show a climate forcing by other means. Please correct me if i am wrong?
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #380
They are references from the Alley video i posted.
Ah! So you don’t have the names of the papers? That makes it very difficult to find. I would like to check out these papers, but without the titles or proper references, it would take too long – sorry.
The Jansens one is from the IPCC
This doesn’t really deal with the climate sensitivity issue (i haven't read it all), although I note the following quote:
As in the case of the Last Glacial Maximum (see Section 6.4), it is uncertain whether tropical sensitivity is really as small as such reconstructions suggest.
Which is very interesting, because that is exactly what Lindzen and Choi have discovered using observational data!
Jansen also talks about low-medium climate sensitivity being compatible with the reconstructed temperature variations.
In fact, I am not sure what the alternative hypothesis is since the evidence and observational data we have do not show a climate forcing by other means.
As I have said before, sensitivity calculations that do not take into account water vapour, especially clouds, tend to calculate climate sensitivity to be high. Calculations and observational evidence that do take water vapour into account show climate sensitivity to be low.
Doubling of CO2 will raise the temperature by ~1.1C with an increase or decrease depending on the climate sensitivity assumed by calculation / observation. My argument is calculation alone without taking into account water vapour / clouds is simply incorrect, therefore the calculation / observation evidence which include water vapour / clouds is more likely to be correct.
Unless somebody has a link to a paper that shows high sensitivity, which includes water vapour / clouds (which are an overall negative feedback), calculations showing high climate sensitivity cannot be correct.
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Have a look on Real Climate (Schmidt)...im sure there are papers that show higher sensitivity, also see Jim Hansens work at NASA GISS.
Also, do you have the references for the 1.1 C sensitivity? As i see it water vapour has a very short residence time in the atmosphere and therefore cannot be a forcing factor. It is only a feedback unlike CO2. Also, it can have a positive and negative effect on climate. I agree that this needs a lot of work but in my opinion it does not negate the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary factor driving climate.
Complain about this comment
seasambo #382
You need to read more than just RealClimate if you want a balanced view and always try to get back to the original paper
the 1.1C figure for doubling of CO2 is accepted by pretty much everybody including RealClimate. I'm sure if i looked I could find the reference, but just accept the figure is correct.
The true warming "caused" by CO2 is then calculated using climate sensitivity, hence high sensitivity raises the temp to ~3C and low sensitivity keeps it below 1C
As i see it water vapour has a very short residence time in the atmosphere and therefore cannot be a forcing factor.
Water vapour is responsible for 70%+ of the warming we experience, without water vapour the earth would be much colder and inhabitable
Try reading up a little on climate sensitivity
/mango
Complain about this comment
The IPCC is not perfect, nor are researchers. But few people have studied climate change as much as the IPCC. I argue that in their place, anyone would come to the same conclusions about climate change. Everybody else’s opinion can only be based on partial facts and biased beliefs.
If climate change doesn’t happen, or if there is nothing we can do about it, then so be it. But why throw caution to the wind? If the treat is real, we better act while there is still time. If it is not, then we will have spent time, energy and money improving the world. How can we go wrong?
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. It is only common sense.
Complain about this comment
Here are some recent references you may like. Water vapour is one of a number of gases that keep the planet warm but it behaves very differently than CO2, CH4 and N2O.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n2/abs/ngeo416.html
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/68801/
http://see.leeds.ac.uk/typo3/research/icas/news-story/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=124&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=133&cHash=3e335d9fa5
Complain about this comment
I agree that water vapour is responsible for 36 - 70 % of warming but H2O apparently has not changed significantly in the atmosphere unlike CO2 over the last century. I would agree that as a feedback it probably has changed but it cannot be a forcing. We know that CO2 has increased over the last 50 years in the atmosphere from Keeling's work and also isotope studies that show it is from the burning of fossil fuels.
Real Climate has better information on Climate Sensitivity and explanations for why CO2 is the driver of recent climate. I reference Real Climate as i think it does give a balanced view on climate change as it is set up by real scientists who dont have a biased agenda on a hypothesis (although im sure lots of people think they do!). Im not interested in conspiracy theories or research agendas...blah blah blah.. If evidence arises that changes our view of climate sensitivity or feedbacks then these guys take it into account. I havent found a sceptical website that change their arguments when new evidence is published and hence i think many sceptical websites are biased.
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #385
The Royer paper in your first link doesn’t take into account water vapour and cannot be accurate.
The Goodwin paper doesn’t address climate sensitivity except to say it’s unclear
The Holden paper clearly states they have no precise observations
The final paper is an article not a paper
/mango
Complain about this comment
Thank you for your thoughtful and cogent analysis.
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #386
RealClimate? Balanced? Really
You are aware the authors of RealClimate are some of the men behind this whole farce and the RealClimate website is hosted by a special interest environment group, although in fairness, that shouldn't make any difference to the data behind the science. You do realise, Gavin Schmidt, tells us no climate model is up to the job, but when averaged out, they give us the "correct" answer?
I'm sure the guys at RealClimate are sincere, but I would suggest you give sceptical papers a chance. Read them and make up your own mind
@Tenney Naumer #388
You're welcome.
Likewise
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Mango
The reason why i link to real climate is because i KNOW that Schmidt etc are involved with it. I do not think him and Hansen have some conspiracy going and i believe they are only interested in finding the real cause of recent and past climate change. In my opinion their science is more real than many sceptical websites i have seen.
Climate sensitivity is not the whole story nor is just the involvement of water vapour. If you have references that show that water vapour can exlain the last 30 years of climate as a forcing factor rather than a feedback i would love to see it! You appear to ignore the wealth of evidence of past feedbacks due to greenhouse gases etc. And yet you still do not present any eidence that supports an alternative forcing factor that could explain recent variations in cliamte. The article i posted relates to a published paper and is therefore of interest.
I am still keen to see the references that show that a non-greenhouse gas can expalin recent climate change because that is what has to be provided to rule out CO2 as a cause.
Complain about this comment
231 Andy
""That's precisely the problem. You say it's real, but the Warmists' and BBC's dodgy dossiers - not to mention that so many people can see the weather around them getting colder, for years now - makes people wonder."
except where its warmer than usual of course lol. someone here doesnt know the meaning of average. which is ironic considering the standard of their arguments."
But we were told it would be getting warmer, full stop. And since then, it's been getting cooler in lots of places, not just the UK, and not just for one year. Problem is, if it gets hot somewhere, it's proof of Global Warming, and if it gets cold, it's irrelevant - or proof of warming.
What is clear, well-known and undeniable is that
a - a lot of people stand to make a lot of money out of AGW
b - a lot of people have staked their reputations on it
c - a lot of 'facts' supporting it have been shown to be based on sexed up dodgy dossiers
d - the Inconvenient Truth is that the Warmists have been caught out by their own porkies, and the facts not panning out as predicted.
And now we have the problem that the environmental cause, which I support, could be set back years by the Warmists' failures - and the BBC can barely bring itself to acknowledge the truth because it was such an advocate of AGW theory, that retreating means saying people it used to insult had a point all along.
My own view is very strongly that we should be reducing and eliminating waste, pollution and oil-reliance, so I'm no 'Denialist'. I'm all for a Green Economy - but calling for that is so much harder because the Warmists have alienated so many people.
Complain about this comment
Who told you it would be getting warmer everywhere? Thats to basic a projection...there is a difference between the temperature in one speciic region and a particular time, and the average over many regions over a period of time. The average may increase but regional variation is harder to pin down.
I dont think that researchers stand to make money out of climate change whether man-made or not. Research gets funded based on the risks involved...is the investigator likely to provide a reliable answer to the hypothesis posed based on his/her previous experince. It doesnt matter whether the hypothesis is man-made or natural climate change. Plus scientists dont get a lump sum for their personal bank account but rather get a salary and support fo their research.
In terms of reputation i think most scientists will back down from a theory once new data shows otherwise. This actually happens all the time and is a part of the science process. We dont jump from fact to fact but make progress by being sceptical of theories, refining experiments, reproducing results and basically making mistaking. Most scientists dont have a problem with that. Thats science! However, dont confuse that with poor experimental design, analysis and observation.
Not all of climate science has been "sexed up" as you say. And hose that have probably have a legitimate reason for doin so. There are many mathematical and statistical tools.
I am however, sceptical about carbon credits and offsetting even though I think that recent warming is mostly due to elevated CO2 and the evidence so far shows that.
Climate change is one of many interrelated issues facing the world - deforestation, sea level rise, pollution, farming, water issues, fisheries, poverty, human population growth, biodiversity loss, ecosystem destruction. All these issues are related and cannot be solved independently. We need a fundamental shift in how human civilisation functions and interacts with the environment, meaning we must change our economy. Economic growth via fossil fuel burning and hence population growth and is leading to environmental degradation which ultimately will lead to the collapase of modern civilisation if we continue with business as usual. Why? Because we are destroying he ecosystems that provide the functions that sustain life on this planet. And there is no technological fix for a life support system.
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #392
Many pro-AGWer's accuse sceptics of being in the pay of BIG OIL and you tell us "scientists dont get a lump sum for their personal bank account but rather get a salary and support fo their research."
Are you aware that Hansen received a $250,000 prize from the Heinz foundation shortly before endorsing the presidential candidate, who happened to be married to the heiress of the Heinz foundation?
I'm sure Hansen didn't consciously link the two events, but the presidential candidate he endorsed was Kerry who is most definitely a pro-AGWer.
This is confirmed by the EPW no less
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=CB71A459-1F37-4792-AE25-541FCCED0466
/mango
Complain about this comment
Well now you are picking on one scientist. First, the PhDs and postdocs who do the hard graft work on ALL research papers dont get a dime! Plus it is incredibly competitive to get a research proposal published. Even more so now with the credit crunch. Getting awards like Hansen is way, way further up the career ladder with numerous publications. To get funding youve got to be low risk and have an excellent hypothesis based on peer reviewed evidence.
The conspiracy theories go both ways - sceptics work for oil companies and believers get massive research grants. I think both are bonkers and take the arguments away from what counts - the science. So far no climate scientist has been done for fraud as i am aware of it. But if they are then i would be glad they got caught. However, even if they were that would mean a few papers out of thousands should be rejected - it wouldnt affect the theory.
Complain about this comment
@seasambo #394
So far no climate scientist has been done for fraud as i am aware of it.
It won't be long, seasambo. The emails suggest that some climate scientists could be charged with fraud. Isn't obtaining funding by deception consider fraud?
However, even if they were that would mean a few papers out of thousands should be rejected - it wouldnt affect the theory.
If that were true, I would be happy, but the whole premise is built on a trace gas, that cannot raise the temp significantly due to low climate sensivity
have you noticed everybody backs off when i mention what is wrong with the papers "showing" high climate sensitivity?
ask the guys at RC for the names of papers that include water vapour / clouds in the calcs showing high sensitivity
/mango
Complain about this comment
To whom it may concern,
Regarding AGW. The basis of this arguement seems to be that CO2 has
a serious effect on the earth's temperature. The idea is that CO2 is
a greenhouse has that traps heat and makes our planet warmer as the %
of CO2 in our atmosphere increases.
This is a fact:
CO2 makes up roughly 1/25th of 1 percent (by volume) of our atmosphere.
The increase in CO2 (probably largely caused by human activity) that we
are talking about is 10 to 15 percent of that 1/25 of 1 percent. We are talking about 1/200 of 1 percent of change.
This number seems awfully small to me. We sure do seem to be kicking up
quite a fuss about it...
Complain about this comment
@mango #389
My comment was directed to the blog's author, Richard Black.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Where did you find your graphs comparing the Jones 1990 work with the 2007 Li paper?
I looked up the 1990 paper which claimed 0.1°C rise in 30 years (i.e 0.16°C IN 50 YEARS).
Phil Jones 2008 paper states:-
"Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 (i.e. 0.5°C IN 50 YEARS) over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period."
0.5°C in 0.81°C is a significant contribution from the urban heat effect.
The two different papers show a significant difference in conclusions!
Complain about this comment
@Tenney Naumer #397
My comment was directed to the blog's author, Richard Black.
In that case, please accept my apologies. Your comment appeared immediately after mine and appeared to be related.
/mango
Complain about this comment
It seems mighty convenient that just as fossil fuels are running out governments around the jump on the same 'band wagon' claiming fossil fuels are the major factor to global warming! this gave the green light for oil companies to charge more per barrel and allowed governments to increase taxes.
Complain about this comment
19. At 9:22pm on 02 Feb 2010, Alexis Rowell wrote:
Good post, Richard. Fair and balanced - unlike so much of the BBC's reporting on climate change which seems determined to give oxygen to every nutter who thinks that snow means the world is cooling down. Now - if you could just tell your colleagues Roger Harrabin and Justin Rowlatt to stop looking for controversy where there is none and to put the -gates and the deniers in context.
**************************************************************************************************************
Oh wow. This has to be going for 1st prize in the "How to appear completely deluded" competition, which AGW fantasists now have all to themselves (practice makes perfect, as they say).
The BBC reporting of the AGW/CCC topic has been an utter disgrace, almost on a par with the behaviours of the AGW scientist cabal. I live in hope that quite soon those AGW advocates within the BBC will be drummed out of their jobs, and deservedly so. Journalism is about finding out the truth and reporting it, without bias. It is not about being a political activist, paid by my taxes.
To the AGW fantasists - stop shouting about "1000s of scientists", "peer review", "consensus", "the science is settled", "for the sakes of our children and grandchildren", "its worse than we thought".
Ah - hang on - that last one, yes we can allow you that.
Your breathtaking detachment from reality - it is worse than we thought.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS