No logic for inaction - Global Warming

[Andre]

Now this has got to be one of the nuttier, conspiracy theories I have ever come across--that science is a mere puppet for those who have some desire to overthrow the existing world order and are paying for the "right" results. Why not apply Occam's razor to this situation and conclude the opposite--that those most vested in disparaging such opinions already rule the earth, and care not one whit for its longterm future ifs it at odds with their shortterm economic interests.

That seems more probable by several orders of magnitude to me at least than some notion that the dudes in economic power know the truth and act thru some sense of noblesse oblige to preserve our future, and its all a conspiracy to upset the applecart. Or that even the goals of those in power and the common man vaguely intersect. If so why the ruination visited on many developing countries via the world bank or IMF. Its wholesale pillage and looting I say. Viva Chavez!

No occam razor here, just the perversion of science. Let me repeat my reaction to the SPM:

The innate objective of about everybody is to survive, avoid danger, have offspring and ensures its future. An average citizen is certain to react to dangers for the future both for avoiding own danger and that for his offspring. Therefore, they are likely to listen and obey those who have identified a future threat and who appear to know how to fight it.

H.L. Mencken identified that effect of that listen-and-obey-to-fight-the-threat mechanism: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it”. Not only the environmentalist want global warming to be true, but also the intelligent citizen, knowing that the fossil fuels will deplete and have a grave crisis potential if not timely countered by going nuclear or renewable. The climatologists want it to be true and secure more research funding. The governments want it to be true because it’s a great way to rule, having an obedient population and impose taxes to fight the horrible enemy. The media want it to be true because the story sells excellently.And thus the positive scaremongering feedback loop continues to spiral up. So it is very good for humanity if anthropogenic global warming was to be true, but it isn’t.

The new SPM is characterized by fallacies, abandoning the scientific method, selective empiric evidence, ignoring all the scientific research with are more balanced approach until the outright refuting studies of an anthropogenic cause. Lot’s of evidence for warming until 1998, but none for its cause. Also, now that the Pleistocene ice ages, once the cause of the global warming fever, no longer support CO2 greenhouse gas effect neither as cause nor as positive feedback, it’s completely ignored. Few will realize that this is actually effectively falsifying the anthropogenic hypothesis. But there is no place for good news.

We need not to reduce emissions for saving the climate, we must think however how to transit to a fossil fuel-less future, but these are two completely different things and a false use of the first to ensure the second will rebound. People don't buy to be misled when they suffer from the highly backfiring measures against global warming during the next little ice age caused by the Landscheidt solar minimum around 2030.

That is, for instance, if those solar deflectors are launched to obscure the sun, while nature had just decided to start the next little ice age.

Now if all those warmers are really so concerned to save the world, why don't we seem them in Africa, helping to irrigate the soils or establishing wild parks proctecting the habitat of the endangered species. What good could have been done with those 29 billion when it was not used to recrute several battaillions of jay saying computergamers known as modelers to reach that overwhelming consensus that it's getting warm in the cyberworld.

Oh, and here is Moncktons reaction:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

Moreover there is some confusion around We're all still trying to find those lucky collegues who had that letter from Exxon. Nobody seems to know. It's not fair.

 

[Evo]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/309/5742/1844.pdf

The summary of the paper -

"It is instructive to analyze the relationship between the covariability of SST and hurricane characteristics in two other ocean basins, specifically the eastern and western North Pacific. Decadal variability is particularly evident in the eastern Pacific, where a maximum in the number of storms and the number of storm days in the mid-1980s (19 storms and 150 storm days) has been followed by a general decrease up to the present (15 storms and 100 storm days). This decrease accompanied a rising SST until the 1990–1994 pentad, followed by an SST decrease until the present. In the western North Pacific, where SSTs have risen steadily through the observation period, the number of storms and the number of storm days reach maxima in the mid-1990s before decreasing dramatically over the subsequent 15 years. The greatest change occurs in the number of cyclone days, decreasing by 40% from 1995 to 2003.

In summary, careful analysis of global hurricane data shows that, against a background of increasing SST, no global trend has yet emerged in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes. Only one region, the North Atlantic, shows a statistically significant increase, which commenced in 1995. However, a simple attribution of the increase in numbers of storms to a warming SST environment is not supported, because of the lack of a comparable correlation in other ocean basins where SST is also increasing. The observation that increases in North Atlantic hurricane characteristics have occurred simultaneously with a statistically significant positive trend in SST has led to the speculation that the changes in both fields are the result of global warming (3)."

Also they did not have the data from the huge drop in storm activity for 2006 when they did this study. If they had that it would have shown that the pattern of storm increase and then decrease is the historically accurate pattern. According to "predictions" 2006 was going to be the most severe year ever for dangerous storms, just the opposite hapened and the offical forecast for 2006 had to be rescinded.

So, we need to drop the "global warming is causing bad hurricanes" bit, because it obviously is not, and instead focus on what global warming might be causing.

Obviously we need to be focused on alternative fuel sources. How about we look at a real issue like this?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I know that there is no link with numbers but there may well be with ferocity that much is clear. Since it can mean the difference between millions of dollars and billions in damage, I think it's an important link to point out.

I'm not really pointing out that there are more hurricanes, just that the ones we are getting are more damaging and in a trend across all the oceanic regions, this is what I mean when you say lies damn lies and statistics; if you only present from the perspective of numbers people might think that there is no link between hurricanes and the rise in sea temperatures, and may be forgiven for thinking if they only see American statistics that it is not linked to global warming; what this paper points out that it is statistically unlikely that seven separate regions would see an increase in ferocity at the same time if we ruled out all the other causes.

This paper is saying this may be the first sign of GMT affecting the weather adversely, it's not exactly a shocker, warmer water means more energy in the sea and in theory should mean more powerfull convection etc, and as intimated may well lead to more powerful storms, it's been suggested for a while but until now no ones established a credible and statistical link.

Now the damage here has to be related to population obviously but, the fact is the stronger the winds the more damage given population size x.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/we...ug2001hurricanehistory,0,5857394.storygallery

For many South Floridians, the big question during hurricane season is: What's it like? Every storm is different, but one way to answer that question is to explore hurricane history. Here you'll find profiles of storms that South Florida will never forget. For each storm, we've gathered storm data, photos and the front page of the Fort Lauderdale News or Sun-Sentinel, from which we've reproduced a news article on the storm.

1919 - Key West
Many lost at sea
Key West was hit by the most powerful hurricane in its history on Sept. 10, 1919. It was the only hurricane to form in the Atlantic that year. The storm killed more than 800 people before it was done -- the exact total will never be known.

1926 - Miami
The blow that broke the boom
The 1926 storm was described by the U.S. Weather Bureau in Miami as "probably the most destructive hurricane ever to strike the United States." It hit Fort Lauderdale, Dania, Hollywood, Hallandale and Miami. The death toll is estimated to be from 325 to perhaps as many as 800. No storm in previous history had done as much property damage.

1928 - Okeechobee
The night 2,000 died
When the hurricane roared ashore at Palm Beach September 16, 1928, many coastal residents were prepared. But inland, along Lake Okeechobee, few conceived the disaster that was brewing. The storm struck first in Puerto Rico, killing 1,000 people, then hit Florida with 125 mph winds. Forty miles west of the coast, rain filled Lake Okeechobee to the brim and the dikes crumbled. Water rushed onto the swampy farmland, and homes and people were swept away. Almost 2,000 people perished.

1935 - The Florida Keys
Most intense hurricane to ever strike US
The Labor Day storm was a category 5 hurricane that killed 408 people in the Florida Keys. People caught in the open were blasted by sand with such force that it stripped away their clothing.

1960 - Hurricane Donna
Donna batters Florida, entire U.S. East Coast
After swiping the Florida Keys and striking land near Fort Myers on Sept. 10, 'Deadly Donna' did not travel along the usual path that storms of her magnitude usually take.

1964 - Hurricane Cleo
The day the News didn't publish
Hurricane Cleo blasted Key Biscayne and then moved north along the state's coastline, following State Road 7 and passing over Miami, Opa-locka, West Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale. The hurricane caused massive flooding, structural damage and destruction of the citrus crop. It also prevented the Fort Lauderdale News from publishing -- for the only time in its history.

1965 - Hurricane Betsy
Bad Betsy changed direction
Hurricane Betsy was building strength; it looked like it was aiming for South Carolina, posing no threat to South Florida. But on Saturday, Sept. 4, the storm whirled to a stop, about 350 miles east of Jacksonville. When Betsy started moving again on Sunday, she had changed directions. The storm plowed through the Bahamas Monday night, then mauled South Florida a day later.

1992 - Hurricane Andrew
A 'modern-day apocalypse'
For 27 years, South Florida had been spared a severe hurricane. Then Andrew arrived, the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history. Andrew wrecked more property than Hugo, Agnes and Betsy combined, with damages estimated at $25 billion. Twenty-three died.

2004 - Hurricane Frances
The size of Texas
Hurricane Frances, a sluggish and super-sized storm, may leave as its legacy a singular image: The entire state of Florida, 435 miles from Tallahassee to Key West, enveloped in rain and wind.

2004 - Hurricane Jeanne
The last storm of the season
Hurricane Jeanne pushed across Florida, launching leftover storm debris, tearing apart weakened buildings, cutting power for millions, and leaving the nation's fourth most populous state dazed by relentless pounding from four hurricanes in six weeks. At least six people died during and after the storm.

2005 - Hurricane Wilma
Hammered
Hurricane Wilma clobbered South Florida on Monday, October 24, 2005, with surprising strength, leaving the entire region damaged, dark and startled by the ferocity of a storm that many hadn't taken seriously enough.

 

[Evo]

I know that there is no link with numbers but there may well be with ferocity that much is clear. Since it can mean the difference between millions of dollars and billions in damage, I think it's an important link to point out.

Now the damage here has to be related to population obviously but, the fact is the stronger the winds the more damage given population size x.

It's like I said previously, people only THINK that the storms are more severe when in truth they're not. More people are building in areas that are known to be likely landfall areas, so of course there is a denser population with more property to damage. But it's not because of more severe storms.

And you're right, it is a cause for concern by insurance companies. I used to live in Houston, TX where insurance companies will not insure you for flood damage because it's an area known to flood, so if you build there, it's your own fault.

See this post which shows the drop in category 3-5 hurricanes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1231449&postcount=44

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It's like I said previously, people only THINK that the storms are more severe when in truth they're not. More people are building in areas that are known to be likely landfall areas, so of course there is a denser population with more property to damage. But it's not because of more severe storms.

And you're right, it is a cause for concern by insurance companies.

See this post which shows the drop in category 3-5 hurricanes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1231449&postcount=44

Let me define ferrocity duration+wind speed.

You mean the statistics are wrong, the charts based on wind speeds/duration of storm of the last 30 years are in fact wrong? There is no evidence of a trend? Well that's your outlook if you think that, but I think it's a pretty good piece of supporting evidence, it is not based on the anecdotal but on a 30 year trend which has happened globally; this indicates that there is a common factor not some local event such as El ninjo.

If you remove the other factors your left with as shown a statistical chart of wind speed and duration across seven independant regions, to me that seems pretty solid. This is not the big x piece of evidence we are waiting for but it is a pretty solid and interesting statistical find, needs more research, is this global warming causing this or x?

I'd be hedging my bets that if you stripped away the other causal factors there would be a statistically significant effect on top of that. We are getting the same number of storms with roughly equivalent wind speeds but their duration is longer and the inherent damage to population of size x, therefore more. I'm not going to stick my neck out and say for sure it's global warming, but I'm sure there'll be more research coming soon.

 

[Andre]

About the storm discussion.

The question is if there is a relationship between storms and weather or not increased anthropogenic emission of CO₂ is affecting that. The two main players for forming a storm are the sea surface temperature and the thermal gradient of the atmosphere. The energy for that could come from both visible light or infrared reradiation.

So, which is more powerful? The sun does not heat the atmosphere but penetrates the water and heats it. The warm water is heating the atmosphere from below, causing a strong gradient and the air to become unstable.

Infrared light can heat up the atmosphere due to the greenhouse gasses, which should decrease the thermal gradient, the air becomes more stable and resists the updraft required to build the eye. Infra red does not penetrate water more than about 15 micron, due to that same greenhouse effect. So the agitated molecules at the surface have a good chance to escape and evaporate rather to pass the energy to lower water levels. Infrared is thus a poor heater for water.

So, apart from the atmosphere, the main conditions required to build storms are lots of sun and a limited oceanic flow to prevent mixing and cooling of the sea surface temperatures. Hard to see how more CO2 can cause stronger storms.

So should there be a trend in the storms, it could mean favorable oceanic conditions and/or less clouds. What would greenhouse effect have to do with it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This must be what I heard about CFCs

Destruction Of Ozone Layer Is Slowing After Worldwide Ban On CFC Release

Science Daily — WASHINGTON - The rate at which ozone is being destroyed in the upper stratosphere is slowing, and the levels of ozone-destroying chlorine in that layer of the atmosphere have peaked and are going down -- the first clear evidence that a worldwide reduction in chlorofluorocarbon pollution is having the desired effect, according to a new study.

"This is the beginning of a recovery of the ozone layer," said Professor Michael Newchurch of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), the scientist who led the ozone trend-analysis research team. "We had a monumental problem of global scale that we have started to solve."

Using data from three NASA satellites and three international ground stations, the team found that ozone depletion in the upper stratosphere -- the layer of the atmosphere between 35 and 45 kilometers [22-28 miles] above the ground -- has slowed since 1997. "We are extremely pleased to have the highly calibrated, long term satellite and ground-based data records necessary to observe these small, but important changes in the ozone layer," said Newchurch. The results of this work have been accepted for publication in the American Geophysical Union's Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. [continued]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030730080139.htm

 

[Andre]

Well, never a dull moment:

http://news.com.com/Ozone+hole+over+South+Pole+growing/2100-11395_3-6128168.html

 

[SF]

So are those predictions for the x.4 degree temperature rise anything near correct?

 

[Evo]

It's not as bad as it seems. This is a very interesting article.

Earth's Ozone Layer Appears To Be On The Road To Recovery

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060527093645.htm

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

About the storm discussion.

The question is if there is a relationship between storms and weather or not increased anthropogenic emissionof CO₂ is affecting that. The two main players for forming a storm is the sea surface temperature and the thermal gradient of the atmosphere. The energy for that could come from both visible light or infrared reradiation.

So, which is more powerful? The sun does not heat the atmosphere but penetrates the water and heats it. The warm water is heating the atmosphere from below, causing a strong gradient and the air to become unstable.

Infrared light can heat up the atmosphere due to the greenhouse gasses, which should decrease the thermal gradient, the air becomes more stable and resists the updraft required to build the eye. Infra red does not penetrate water more than about 15 micron, due to that same greenhouse effect. So the agitated molecules at the surface have a good chance to escape and evaporate rather to pass the energy to lower water levels. Infrared is thus a poor heater for water.

So, apart from the atmosphere, the main conditions required to build storms are lots of sun and a limited oceanic flow to prevent mixing and cooling of the sea surface temperatures. Hard to see how more CO2 can cause stronger storms.

So should there be a trend in the storms, it could mean favorable oceanic conditions and/or less clouds. What would greenhouse effect have to do with it?

The point is of course that this is not happening in one place only so, taking all other factors into account it is statistically significant, if this was the result of purely local factors then there should be no overall trend in all oceans, just an easilly explainable general causal one, the fact that all oceanic mediums are facing more ferrocious* storms is sugestive of a causal link with global warming(not is the cause but would suggest)

That there is in all oceans is a good piece of evidence to base more research on to determine if global warming is a factor, because it rids itself of the other factors, because none of them, except the suns output and x an y are universal. And even they aren't trully universal due to other factors.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and say global warming is the cause but I do think that it's something that needs to be confirmed and the other factors stripped away to leave any appreciable effect of global warming. I think it's interesting that the ferrocity* has increased above and beyond what we would expect if the causal factors were taken into account: if this is the case, what can we say? It's interesting if not sound and absolute.

*bear in mind my definition

 

[denverdoc]

No occam razor here, just the perversion of science. Let me repeat my reaction to the SPM:


Oh, and here is Moncktons reaction:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

Moreover there is some confusion around We're all still trying to find those lucky collegues who had that letter from Exxon. Nobody seems to know. It's not fair.

Evo, curious why you such have such seemingly high regard for Monckton? Seems like a bored dilettante, who headed up a couple of failed newspapers for a bit, with plenty of money and mostly known as a corporate defender. Maybe a good recreational mathematician. Certainly no Bucky Fuller. As a aristocratratic man of some means, who were keen to explore and experiment as in the great tradition of British naturalists, I don't see the guy rates much either.

The fact that Thatcher chose him for science advice, well her choice, but reflects on her thoughts on the need for a good spin doctor (journalist) versus one that has some knowledge and first hand experience in science. This was about the time her buddy, Reagan was talking about trees causing air pollution.

Even Bush chose Marburger, who has some real credentials. But i did take the time to read thru all his papers and feel better informed for having done so. Thanks.

 

[Evo]

Evo, curious why you such have such seemingly high regard for Monckton?

Did you mean Andre?

 

[Andre]

Evo, curious why you such have such seemingly high regard for Monckton? Seems like a bored dilettante, who headed up a couple of failed newspapers for a bit, with plenty of money and mostly known as a corporate defender. Maybe a good recreational mathematician. Certainly no Bucky Fuller. As a aristocratratic man of some means, who were keen to explore and experiment as in the great tradition of British naturalists, I don't see the guy rates much either.

The fact that Thatcher chose him for science advice, well her choice, but reflects on her thoughts on the need for a good spin doctor (journalist) versus one that has some knowledge and first hand experience in science. This was about the time her buddy, Reagan was talking about trees causing air pollution.

Even Bush chose Marburger, who has some real credentials. But i did take the time to read thru all his papers and feel better informed for having done so. Thanks.

Evo, we coulde explain how fallacies work, but in this case why not go for Eleanor Roosevelt best quote:

Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events, small minds discuss personalities.

But every statement of Monckton can be substantiated and I intend to do so. We're just beginning.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Evo, we coulde explain how fallacies work, but in this case why not go for Eleanor Roosevelt best quote:
But every statement of Monckton can be substantiated and I intend to do so. We're just beginning.

I haven't used one yet, I'd be interested to see how you would disprove or somehow make a general trend unprovable over seven unrelated mediums, good luck with that the fact is your making the same sort of generalisations to prove a point as anyone else who hasn't got the training, are you an environmental scientist, if not I can point you in the direction of someone who is,or I could just wait for your points and make them redundent one by one up to you.

Logical fallacy? Answer the scientific papers I've put up would be a good start, before you claim that.

The only way I can make a case though is to point out another forum and I'm loathe to do that, suffice to say I'll be rooting through it to make you look somewhat unusual in your hypothesisses, oh I don't know conjugate the verb to hypothesise

 

[Evo]

I haven't used one yet, I'd be interested to see how you would disprove or somehow make a general trend unprovable over seven unrelated mediums, good luck with that the fact is your making the same sort of generalisations to prove a point as anyone else who hasn't got the training, are you an environmental scientist, if not I can point you in the direction of someone who is,or I could just wait for your points and make them redundent one by one up to you.

Logical fallacy? Answer the scientific papers I've put up would be a good start, before you claim that.

The only way I can make a case though is to point out another forum and I'm loathe to do that, suffice to say I'll be rooting through it to make you look somewhat unusual in your hypothesisses, oh I don't know conjugate the verb to hypothesise

No one can prove or disprove anything, but you've been discussing "predictions" and I've been discussing actual past records. It's only my opinion, but the two don't pan out.

Actually, Andre is a scientist in a related field, if I'm not mistaken.

I used to date one of the top atmospheric scientists in the US, he's the one that reports the findings directly to Congress each year. Very cool stuff that they do, and is one of the reasons that I'm pretty sure the "predictions" are exaggerated. Just a bit of insider knowledge.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But every statement of Monckton can be substantiated and I intend to do so. We're just beginning.

Please stay on topic. This is primarily a political discussion and not a place for fringe science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Evo, we coulde explain how fallacies work

You are going to explain what a fallacy is to a psychiatrist?!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, Andre is a scientist in a related field, if I'm not mistaken.

Andre? I remember reading that you are self-taught.

Have you ever been published in a mainstream journal?

I used to date one of the top atmospheric scientists in the US, he's the one that reports the findings directly to Congress each year. Very cool stuff that they do, and is one of the reasons that I'm pretty sure the "predictions" are exaggerated. Just a bit of insider knowledge.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Please; a wink and nod based on hearsay from an old boyfriend? Many scientists will also point out that our reported predictions are nowhere nearly as bad as the range of projected possibilities. Also, it is an implicit characterstic of science and scientists that Congress would only receive the "safest" version.

The IPCC was assembled by the UN to speak as the authoritative voice on the science of GCC. They have spoken.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How to Talk to a Skeptic

Objections and answers in the global warming debate.

Despite the growing consensus about the need for such measures, skeptics still walk among us. This week’s story by Coby Beck, adapted from Grist’s “How to Talk to a Skeptic About Global Warming,” is designed to provide answers to some of the common—and not so common—objections raised about global warming. To read the series in its entirety, go to www.grist.org. [continued]

http://sfreporter.com/articles/publish/cover-012407-global-warming.php

Grist
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
[unfortunately, they don't address the claim often heard here that the scientists are all involved in a conspiracy]

Edit: Actually, I guess they do.

Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the UN).

Answer: This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered. Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; National Academy of Sciences; State of the Canadian Cryosphere; Environmental Protection Agency; the Royal Society of the UK; American Geophysical Union; American Meteorological Society; American Institute of Physics; National Center for Atmospheric Research; American Meteorological Society; and Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, a joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC Third Assessment report) was issued by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil); Royal Society of Canada; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academie des Sciences (France); Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany); Indian National Science Academy; Accademia dei Lincei (Italy); Science Council of Japan; Russian Academy of Sciences; Royal Society (United Kingdom); and National Academy of Sciences (US).

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps some will find the opinion of key industry representatives

More information on glacial melting can be found at the National Snow and Ice Data Center: http://nsidc.org.
more convincing:

BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has stated: “There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.”

Shell Oil has stated: “Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.”

Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations, in an open letter to the prime minister of Canada, stated: “Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.”

Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the UN, the science academies of every developed nation and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

 

[Andre]

Please stay on topic. This is primarily a political discussion and not a place for fringe science.

On topic?

How to Talk to a Skeptic

BTW a most exemplary set of strawmen nicely avoiding the main question with a plethora of sophisticated nonsense. We can go over the list if you like.

Andre? I remember reading that you are self-taught. Have you ever been published in a mainstream journal?

I'm a semi-retired fighter pilot and I published four articles about strategy and air power in a mean stream Dutch military journal. But my hobby, outmanoeuvring Quaternary geology scientists on their speciality, may easily trigger people into thinking that I could be a scientist, like here:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/nercnext.txt
(Advise to right click, save to disk, and then open in a text editor. It's huge.)

or here:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refuting%20the%20Greenland%20paleo%20thermometer1.pdf (compilation of a series of posts)

The official NERC page has mysteriously disappeared. This was the situation at the closure of the debate the other week. If you take the time to go through it, it will be clear that the SPM carefully avoids all the controversial areas like Monckton indicated (artful bias), which makes it more a plea for the defendant than a balanced compilation of our knowledge of climate.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

No one can prove or disprove anything, but you've been discussing "predictions" and I've been discussing actual past records. It's only my opinion, but the two don't pan out.

Actually, Andre is a scientist in a related field, if I'm not mistaken.

I used to date one of the top atmospheric scientists in the US, he's the one that reports the findings directly to Congress each year. Very cool stuff that they do, and is one of the reasons that I'm pretty sure the "predictions" are exaggerated. Just a bit of insider knowledge.

It's a prediction yes but what it highlights is that the trends are unusual. Even if the predictions are wrong, it's kind of irrelevant, the trends are inexplicable without another factor.

The second paper specifically uses statistics to look over the past 30 year record to look for signs of in 7 independant oceans that the tropical storms/hurricanes/typhoons are increasing not in numbers but in duration. I fail to see how this is making a prediction, it's a z test, basic statistics, it shows that seven independant oceans are experiencing more fierce weather, there is no relation accept something else is it global warming? Are you being deliberately obtuse or can we presume that both you and Andre have no answer to these questions?

Britain has received a storm with winds gusting up to 169 mph in 1991, this is the equivalent of a strong category 4 hurricane, maybe even 5? This hasn't happened in 200 years, that is anecdotal. But the paper is not.

This paper speculates that the hypothesis that increasing sea temperatures increase ferrocity of hurricanes, and suggest further testing is needed to establish a firm link. That is what I am saying, there is an interesting weather anomalous of all factors except global warming, is it global warming?

mately constant (Fig. 4A) but has decreased
monotonically as a percentage of the total num-ber
of hurricanes throughout the 35-year period
(Fig. 4B). The trend of the sum of hurricane
categories 2 and 3 is small also both in number
and percentage. In contrast, hurricanes in the
strongest categories (4
þ
5) have almost doubled
in number (50 per pentad in the 1970s to near
90 per pentad during the past decade) and in
proportion (from around 20% to around 35%
during the same period). These changes occur
in all of the ocean basins. A summary of the
number and percent of storms by category is
given in Table 1, binned for the years 1975–
1989 and 1990–2004. This increase in category
4 and 5 hurricanes has not been accompanied
by an increase in the actual intensity of the
most intense hurricanes: The maximum inten-sity
has remained remarkably static over the
past 35 years (solid black curve, Fig. 4A).
Cyclone intensities around the world are
estimated by pattern recognition of satellite
features based on the Dvorak scheme (25). The
exceptions are the North Atlantic, where there
has been continuous aircraft reconnaissance;
the eastern North Pacific, which has occasional
aircraft reconnaissance; and the western North
Pacific, which had aircraft reconnaissance up
to the mid-1980s. There have been substantial
changes in the manner in which the Dvorak
technique has been applied (26). These changes
may lead to a trend toward more intense cy-clones,
but in terms of central pressure (27)and
not in terms of maximum winds that are used
here. Furthermore, the consistent trends in the
North Atlantic and eastern North Pacific, where
the Dvorak scheme has been calibrated against
aircraft penetrations, give credence to the trends
noted here as being independent of the obser-vational
and analysis techniques used. In addi-tion,
in the Southern Hemisphere and the North
Indian Ocean basins, where only satellite data
have been used to determine intensity through-out
the data period, the same trends are appar-ent
as in the Northern Hemisphere regions.
We deliberately limited this study to the sat-ellite
era because of the known biases before
this period (28), which means that a comprehen-sive
analysis of longer-period oscillations and
trends has not been attempted. There is evidence
of a minimum of intense cyclones occurring in
the 1970s (11), which could indicate that our
observed trend toward more intense cyclones is
a reflection of a long-period oscillation. How-
ever, the sustained increase over a period of 30
years in the proportion of category 4 and 5
hurricanes indicates that the related oscillation
would have to be on a period substantially
longer than that observed in previous studies.
We conclude that global data indicate a 30-
year trend toward more frequent and intense
hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the
recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not
inconsistent with recent climate model simula-tions
that a doubling of CO 2 may increase the
frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30),
although attribution of the 30-year trends to
global warming would require a longer global
data record and, especially, a deeper under-standing
of the role of hurricanes in the general
circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even
in the present climate state.
References and Notes
1. S. B. Goldenberg, C. W. Landsea, A. M. Maestas-Nunez,
W. M. Gray, Science 293, 474 (2001).
2. J. B. Elsner, B. Kocher, Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 129 (2000).
3. K. E. Trenberth, Science 308, 1753 (2005).
4. K. E. Trenberth et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84,
1205 (2003).
5. R. A. Pielke Jr. et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., in press
(available at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/
publication_files/resourse-1762-hurricanes%20and_
global_warming.pdf).
6. J. Lighthill et al., Bull. Am. Meterol. Soc. 75, 2147 (1994).
7. W. M. Gray, Mon. Weather Rev. 96, 669 (1968).
8. K. A. Emanuel, Nature 326, 483 (1987).
9. G. J. Holland, J. Atmos. Sci. 54, 2519 (1997).
10. M. A. Lander, C. P. Guard, Mon. Weather Rev. 126,
1163 (1998).
11. C. W. Landsea, R. A. Pielke Jr., A. M. Maestas-Nunez,
J. A. Knaff, Clim. Change 42, 89 (1999).
12. J. C. L. Chan, K. S. Liu, J. Clim. 17, 4590 (2004).
13. W. M. Gray, Mon. Weather Rev. 112, 1649 (1984).
14. C. K. Folland, D. E. Parker, A. Colman, R. Washington,
in Beyond El Nino: Decadal and Interdecadal Climate
Variability, A. Navarra, Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1999), pp. 73–102.
15. L. J. Shapiro, S. B. Goldenberg, J. Clim. 11, 578 (1998).
16. H. G. Houghton et al., Climate Change—2001: The
Scientific Basis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
17. A. Henderson-Sellers et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
79, 19 (1998).
18. T. R. Knutson, R. E. Tuleya, J. Clim. 17, 3477 (2004).
19. J. F. Royer, F. Chauvin, B. Timbal, P. Araspin, D. Grimal,
Clim. Dyn. 38, 307 (1998).
20. M. Sugi, A. Noda, N. Sato, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 80,
249 (2002).
21. P. Agudelo, J. A. Curry, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, Art.
No. L22207 (2004).
22. C. J. Neumann, in Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone
Forecasting, G. J. Holland, Ed. (WMO/TD-560, World
Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland,
1993), chap. 1.
23. See www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/laescae.html[/URL] for
a description of the Saffir-Simpson scale.
24. R. M. Hirsche, J. R. Slack, R. Smith, Water Resource
Res. 18, 107 (1982).
25. V. F. Dvorak, Mon. Weather Rev. 103, 420 (1975).
26. C. S. Velden, T. L. Olander, R. M. Zehr, Weather and
Forecasting 13, 172 (1998).
27. J. P. Kossin, C. S. Velden, Mon. Weather Rev. 132, 165
(2004).
28. G. J. Holland, Aust. Meteorol. Mag. 29, 169 (1981).
29. K. Emanuel, Nature 436, 686 (2005).
30. See [PLAIN]www.prime-intl.co.jp/kyosei-2nd/PDF/24/[/URL]
11_murakami.pdf.
31. This research was supported by the Climate Dynam-ics
[/QUOTE]

 

[SF]

Anoter theory links climate change to the solar sunspot cycle. How viable is that one?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Anoter theory links climate change to the solar sunspot cycle. How viable is that one?

So a cited and credited paper which does a test based purely on statisitcs is comparable with a theory about sun spots it's like talking to creationists.

A z test with .1% chance of error is not considered unreliabel. However the international business man of America group with their new paper by DE Bigglesworth, retired chemist and part time environmentalist is not as reliable.

 

[denverdoc]

You are going to explain what a fallacy is to a psychiatrist?!

Hey I resemble that remark. Actually, one of the reasons I chose psychiatry is it seemed the medical specialty at the time most in need of skeptical thinkers, who could help to put in on a sounder biological/physical footing...

As to Monckton, as far as I can ascertain, he is no kind of scientist, and has degrees in journalism and classics. Best guess is he's more or less self-taught in the area of climatology and all the fields it draws from.

 

[Andre]

Anoter theory links climate change to the solar sunspot cycle. How viable is that one?

Here are a few:

Badalyan, O.G., V.N.Obridko and J.Sykora 2001, Brightness of the Coronal Green Line and Prediction for Activity Cycles 23 and 24 Solar Physics, 199, 421–435.

Brunetti, M. 2003, Solar signals in instrumental historical series of meteorological parameters Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 74 (3), 778-785.

Eddy, J. 1976, The Maunder Minimum, Science, 192, 1189-1202.

Clilverd, M. 2005, Prediction of solar activity the next 100 years Solar Activity: Exploration, Understanding and Prediction, Workshop in Lund, Sweden

Friis-Christensen, E. and K.Lassen 1991, Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700.

Juckett, D.A. and B.Rosenburg 1993, Correlation of Human Longevity Oscillations with Sunspot Cycles, Radiation Research, 133, 312-320.

Landscheidt, T. 2003, New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?, Energy & Environment, 14 (2), 327-350.

Pallé, E. et al 2004, Changes in the Earth's reflectance over the past two decades, Science, 304, 1299-1301.

Reichel, R., P.A.Thejll and K.Lassen 2001, The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern hemisphere air surface temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics, 106 (A8), 15635-15641.

Reid, G.C. 1991, Solar total irradiance variations and the global sea surface
temperature record, Journal of Geophysical Research, 96, 2835-2844.

Schatten, K.H. and W.K.Tobiska 2003, Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder
Minimum?, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 35 (3), 6.03

Svalgaard, L., E.W.Cliver and Y.Kamide 2005, Cycle 24: the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years?, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L011104.

Svensmark, H. and E.Friis-Christensen 1997, Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and
Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59 (11), 1225-1232.

Thejll, P. and K.Lassen 2000, Solar forcing of the Northern hemisphere land air
temperature: New data, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 62, 1207-1213.

Usokin, I.G., M. Schuessler, S.K. Solanki, and K.Mursula 2005, Solar activity,
cosmic rays, and the Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, A10102

Zhou, K.and C.J.Butler 1998, A statistical study of the relationship between the solar cycle length and tree-ring index values, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 60, 1711-1718.

All well known creationists journals, I understand from the comment.

 

[Andre]

Hey I resemble that remark. Actually, one of the reasons I chose psychiatry is it seemed the medical specialty at the time most in need of skeptical thinkers, who could help to put in on a sounder biological/physical footing...

As to Monckton, as far as I can ascertain, he is no kind of scientist, and has degrees in journalism and classics. Best guess is he's more or less self-taught in the area of climatology and all the fields it draws from.

lesson one, sub A, in fallacies, it is the message, not the man you shoot on. Even the biggest villain or the most stupid John Doe can be right. Whoever he is, it does not relate to the message. And being whatever Prof Dr Med, using this circumstantial argumentum ad hominem, whilst appealing to his autority, does not change that principle.

And how many small children are required to observe that Emperor wears no new clothes?[/url]

Lesson two, about Exxon...

Jeez, why can't I find that letter?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

lesson one, sub A, in fallacies, it is the message, not the man you shoot on. Even the biggest villain or the most stupid John Doe can be right. Whoever he is, it does not relate to the message. And being whatever Prof Dr Med, does not change that principe.

And how many small children are required to observe that Emperor wears no new clothes?[/url]

Lesson two, about Exxon...

Jeez, why can't I find that letter?

I value the nay sayers above the protagonists in this case, in science their worth is incalculable, if their wrong no harm done, but if their right? Think of the contributions made by those who chose to stand against the mainstream; of course I believe they're wrong but any criticism that revises and improves the method is by default better than any science that never questions it's results, fortunatelly apart from the hide bound establishment x: most scientists are unwilling to accept anything as proven beyond resonable doubt, even axiomatic laws of nature are subject to change, the first rule of science is falsifiability.

Science is but one death after another.

Niels Bohr.

My one regret is that I will not live to see quantum mechanics proved wrong and replaced with something better.

Erwin Schrödinger

Evolution is but one death after another, and so in comparisson to science evolutionary theory is the perfect representation of science.

Me.

 

[Andre]

Tomorrow, the Independent Summary for Policy Makers will be released in London, written by ten of the worst enemies of humanity of course and reviewed by some 100 of them, you know, the fast shrinking handful deniers.

The literature list I mentioned above is not been referred to by the SPM. But we'll see about the ISPM. Actually the selection bias of the SPM has led to the proposition to rename the Summary for Policy Makers to Summary for Policy Advertising Makers.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Tomorrow, the Independent Summary for Policy Makers will be released in London, written by ten of the worst enemies of humanity of course and reviewed by some 100 of them, you know, the fast shrinking handful deniers.

The literature list I mentioned above is not been referred to by the SPM. But we'll see about the ISPM. Actually the selection bias of the SPM has led to the proposition to rename the Summary for Policy Makers to Summary for Policy Advertising Makers.

Should change there name to Summary of Policy Advertising Makers IMO

j/k



No seriously most of this stuff is already accounted for in models and that which isn't is under review. I know or at least by assosciation know an environmental scientist.

Where did most of this come from? Science or scientists who would accept nothing at face value. It's in there. it's like the Newtonians vs the Einsteinians all over again

 

[denverdoc]

lesson one, sub A, in fallacies, it is the message, not the man you shoot on. Even the biggest villain or the most stupid John Doe can be right. Whoever he is, it does not relate to the message. And being whatever Prof Dr Med, using this circumstantial argumentum ad hominem, whilst appealing to his autority, does not change that principle.

And how many small children are required to observe that Emperor wears no new clothes?[/url]

Lesson two, about Exxon...

Jeez, why can't I find that letter?

Andre,

Actually, that he is pedigreed and un-degreed wasn't why I looked into the Viscount. Tho it seems grandiose in the extreme for someone with apparently little formal training in the relevant sciences to take on such a mssion as arbiter of truth. No, what I began to wonder is what is his motive, background, and political leanings--in other words can we accept him as an unbiased referee. In other words, follow the $$.

The answer is a resounding NO. That Thatcher picked him tells you a lot, that he is a paid mouthpiece for corporations, even more. That doesn't exactly disqualify the man from self-appointed guardian of scientific truth, but it certainly heightens my suspicions re any supposed impartiality.
Cheers.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

Actually, that he is pedigreed and un-degreed wasn't why I looked into the Viscount. Tho it seems grandiose in the extreme for someone with apparently little formal training in the relevant sciences to take on such a mssion as arbiter of truth. No, what I began to wonder is what is his motive, background, and political leanings--in other words can we accept him as an unbiased referee. In other words, follow the $$.

The answer is a resounding NO. That Thatcher picked him tells you a lot, that he is a paid mouthpiece for corporations, even more. That doesn't exactly disqualify the man from self-appointed guardian of scientific truth, but it certainly heightens my suspicions re any supposed impartiality.
Cheers.

Incredible homework deep rooted the ad hominem is, let's see; if he is crook, then he is wrong. And if he isn't a crook we make him one by assumptions up tor good cause corruption by suggesting that there would be an Exxon letter and a $$-stream. After all, who is against global warming, must be mankinds worst enemy. Character murder. And it works spendidly since nobody cares about the message anymore, because that might pinch the balloon.

How about motives for the warmers, not that it proofs or disproofs anything but what is even more important than $$ ?

Power

I repeat:

The urge to safe humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it, H.L. Mencken

The other year I made this essay before I knew that quote.

Now is there proof for Menckens hypothesis? How about http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/page6333.asp :

...Let me turn now to the evidence itself. The scientific evidence of global warming and climate change: UK leadership in environmental science...

...I said earlier it needed global leadership (wow) to tackle the issue. But we cannot aspire to such leadership unless we are seen to be following our own advice...

...Tackling climate change will take leadership, dynamism and commitment - qualities that I know are abundantly represented in this room...

Why did Al Gore make "An inconvenient truth"?
He knows exactly how it works:

There will be a strong appeal for Gore for president. He can affort to laugh it away, perhaps saying that it's time to have a women for president but eventually he will "concede" under the pressure, and the election victory will be an all time record with such an eminent nobel price winning savior of the world. Such a great election campaign, "the inconvenient truth".

Unless the balloon pops.

 

[Andre]

Should change there name to Summary of Policy Advertising Makers IMO

j/k



No seriously most of this stuff is already accounted for in models and that which isn't is under review. I know or at least by assosciation know an environmental scientist.

Where did most of this come from? Science or scientists who would accept nothing at face value. It's in there. it's like the Newtonians vs the Einsteinians all over again

Ah, the models, finally popping up. So what has one of http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html to say about that?

Climate projections made with sophisticated computer codes have informed the world's policymakers about the potential dangers of anthropogenic interference with Earth's climate system. Those codes purport to model a large part of the system...

…The physics in climate models can be divided into three categories. The first includes fundamental principles such as the conservation of energy, momentum, and mass, and processes, such as those of orbital mechanics, that can be calculated from fundamental principles. The second includes physics that is well known in theory, but that in practice must be approximated due to discretization of continuous equations. Examples include the transfer of radiation through the atmosphere and the Navier–Stokes equations of fluid motion. The third category contains empirically known physics such as formulas for evaporation as a function of wind speed and humidity….

Given the nature of parameterizations among other features, a climate model depends on several expert judgment calls. Thus, each model will have its own unique details. ..

Remember the Phlogiston theory?

Suppose that there were supermodels in that time, the abstract of the study, proving that phlogiston exist, could go like:

Abstract
There has been serious scepticism about the existence of Phlogiston, (Greek for to-light-a-fire), discovered by Becker and Stahl around 1680. However there is an overwhelming consensus that the theory explains correctly how, during a fire, phlogiston escapes, whilst forming the flame. Recently it has been proven that the sum of ashes and gasses that remain after the fire, has a greater weight than the original fuel. But this is entire logical. As we see that the flames rise up, it is clear that phlogiston has a negative weight and as it escapes from the fuel, the remains need to get heavier. Nevertheless Lavoisier and Cavendish are still to be convinced.

To prove once and for all that phlogiston exist, projections are made here with sophisticated computer codes to inform world's policymakers about it. Those codes purport to model a large part of the system of burning a certain fuel. If we enter the right negative weight parameters for phlogiston, the model duplicates the real live world experiment exactly, which proofs that phlogiston exists

In other words, the models just give back what you put into it and if you put an oversensitivity of climate for CO2 and a non existent positive feedback, then the outcome is certain; global warming. Not much difference between phlogiston and CO2

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Ah, the models, finally popping up. So what has one of http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html to say about that?
Remember the Phlogiston theory?

Suppose that there were supermodels in that time, the abstract of the study, proving that phlogiston exist, could go like:
In other words, the models just give back what you put into it and if you put an oversensitivity of climate for CO2 and a non existent positive feedback, then the outcome is certain; global warming. Not much difference between phlogiston and CO2

Do these scientists claim there models are 100% accurate? Do they suggest a plus or minus value? Are they constantly being revised? I fail to see your point here, do you genuinely believe that the planet is not getting warmer due to mans influence?

I fail to see any of your arguments being convincing and I have yet to. The way you keep rattling on about this issue makes it sound like you believe there is some sort of conspiracy of miseducation or against big business. PM me I have a link to a website that an environmental scientist frequents, read his evidence and point of view, it at least should give you some perspective. Scientists are not in the habbit of believing something because it's popular, at least not the good ones. Some people will follow anything though, like string theory or MWI j/k

 

[Andre]

Perhaps you read the ISPM first

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886

Overall conclusions

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence. The Earth’s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms. The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed. Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for anyone tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.