News No logic for inaction - Global Warming

[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.

 

[denverdoc]

The Fraser Institute seems lopsided--every significant issue they look at seems to result in a policy statement that supports market forces without gov't interference. These places aren't think tanks, they are propoganda publishing houses. We have plenty here in the US.

This is an interesting vid, that one can watch and draw their own possibly erroneous conclusions from, versus having someone else do it for you.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/cryosphere.html

Sure just a bunch of wackos down at NASA pushing for a world gov't.

 

[Andre]

There you go again. Character murder. So, whatever they say it's wrong. What is wrong with you people that call themselfs scientists. Fallacysist would be better.


All they do is sow some other research results, conveniently ignored by the IPCC writers. But I guess even if the Frasier institute would state that water boils at 100 degrees C, it would be wrong because they are evil hoodlums because don't believe in global warming.

 

[denverdoc]

Its not about character murder, simply applying the wise old adage, "consider the source."

We all do this a hundred times a day, or should be doing it. It seems ironic to me that you seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth; criticism for too much reliance on organizations with a polititical agenda, either acknowledged as in the case of environmnental groups, or hidden as in the UN. Yet when your sources are critiqued for same, it's character assasination. This is a paranoid stance, pure and simple. Its not a posture that invites a reasonable exchange of ideas.

 

[Evo]

The Fraser Institute seems lopsided--every significant issue they look at seems to result in a policy statement that supports market forces without gov't interference. These places aren't think tanks, they are propoganda publishing houses. We have plenty here in the US.

We don't allow unsubstantiated remarks of this nature. If you have proof of actual incidents that back up your claims, please post them, otherwise don't disparage information provided based on your personal viewpoint.

What *is* appropriate is if you disagree with research posted then post research that backs up your viewpoint.

 

[denverdoc]

We don't allow unsubstantiated remarks of this nature. If you have proof of actual incidents that back up your claims, please post them, otherwise don't disparage information provided based on your personal viewpoint.

What *is* appropriate is if you disagree with research posted then post research that backs up your viewpoint.

I agree in principle, but in this case, not sure as how that might be accomplished--by citation of another authoritative source, (if so who?)or giving a dozen examples which might then be condemned on the basis of improper or insufficient sampling. The thinktank in question had at least 50 different policy papers spanning a range of topics so I looked at maybe 1/2 of them in areas where I was most familiar with the arguments--pharmaceutics, healthcare, intellectual property rights, etc.

So I need a little clarification as to how to treat such matters fairly. Are sources like this above critique even when they appear to possesses a strong bias?
Thanks,

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

There you go again. Character murder. So, whatever they say it's wrong. What is wrong with you people that call themselfs scientists. Fallacysist would be better.All they do is sow some other research results, conveniently ignored by the IPCC writers. But I guess even if the Frasier institute would state that water boils at 100 degrees C, it would be wrong because they are evil hoodlums because don't believe in global warming.

Personally I don't believe what they are presenting hasn't already been considered by the scientific community and adapted or allowed for or ignored if the difference is negligable? In fact I know that every time a new piece of science turns up, be it for or against, they refine their models, I've yet to talk to an environmental scientist who sits in a cupboard shouting lalalalalala I can't hear you it's as creditable as the researchers working on it. But if it is worthy of inclusion into models you can be sure that if it hasn't been included or it has there are scientific reasons and they are not just arbitrary, which is more than can be said for the American Business Mens assosciation for the promotion of wealth against environmental consideration.

I can honestly say I've seen articles in the NS magazine that cover every single point or paper, and that environmentalists have comented either way on them and revised their views accordinglly, I know of one person if not personally but through being on line who knows just about every nay sayers theories, in fact he spends a lot of time doing what I'm doing now, informing people on the progress in his field and correcting bias.

All those papers are covered I can tell you that much though, scientists have to keep their theories robust, so they no doubt spend much of their time either disproving or accepting when other theories come along that are better. Now whether there may be disagreement as to the extent of effects or if they have any effect at all that is the job of the experimentalists and modellers to interpret. The consensus amongst the scientists in the field is not random or because of fashion, scientists may have their fad theories but if they're not substantiated they're ditched.

For example recently it was thought that the suns output was much less influential than previously thought, but after analysing the dynamics in the upper atmosphere they found that it was more significant so they revised their models, this means that as the sun moves towards it's minima of solar output it should give us some breathing space, assuming that global warming is true though this could only be for about 50 years before the CO2 levels have acted to mitigate this.

http://environment.newscientist.com...-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html

Sunspots and solar activity are driven by the strength of the sun's complex magnetic field. Although solar scientists are still debating the detail, most believe that the magnetic field is generated in a shell of hot gas 35,000 kilometres thick and buried some 200,000 kilometres deep inside the sun. Known as the tachocline, this layer is made of plasma - a gas so hot that the atoms break up into charged electrons and ions.

Material at different latitudes and depths of the tachocline rotates at different rates. This variability moves electric charges and generates the sun's magnetic field. Once created, the magnetic field is strong enough to influence the movement of the electrically charged gas that creates it, a feedback mechanism that can either strongly amplify or diminish the overall strength of the field. For the past 50 years the field has been building, and the sun has been experiencing a period of unusually high magnetic activity.

Predicting future solar activity is tricky because of this complexity. The best method in use today was formulated in the 1970s by Leif Svalgaard, then at Stanford University. He showed that the magnetic field at the sun's poles is the best predictor. "The polar field is the magnetic seed for solar activity," Svalgaard says.

The polar fields are the accumulation of dead sunspots, transient dark patches on the sun's surface that have immense magnetic fields. When a spot fades from view, its residual magnetic field is gradually swept polewards by a surface current of solar gas known as the meridional flow. At the poles, this flow turns down into the sun, where astronomers believe it sinks to the tachocline and begins a return journey towards the sun's equator. En route, the magnetic field is rejuvenated by the tachocline to produce new sunspots.
Cloud cover

In 1997, meteorologists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Meteorology Institute in Copenhagen analysed weather satellite records from 1979 to 1992. This was long enough for the sun's activity to complete one of its regular 11-year cycles.

The researchers found that the Earth was 3 per cent cloudier when the sun's activity was at a minimum than when it was at its peak. They also noted the influx of cosmic rays at five experiments across the globe and found that it was as much as 25 per cent higher at the solar minimum. They called their discovery a "missing link in solar-climate relationships" and argued that cosmic rays were responsible for increasing cloud formation by electrically charging the lower atmosphere.

Intriguing as this link is, it is far from proof that solar activity and cloud cover are connected. "You have to demonstrate such an effect with an experiment, otherwise it is not physics," says Robert Bingham, a physicist at the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Didcot, Oxfordshire.

Bingham is part of an international collaboration building an experiment called CLOUD to test the idea that cosmic rays seed clouds. CLOUD will start up in 2008 using a particle accelerator at the CERN laboratory near Geneva as a source of simulated cosmic rays. The researchers will fire charged particles through a chamber holding a mixture of gases similar to the Earth's atmosphere to determine how often the particles trigger cloud formation. "CLOUD will go a long way towards understanding the microphysics of droplet formation," says Bingham.

So what does the sun's magnetic activity have to do with the climate on Earth? To pin down the connection, Solanki and his colleagues compared records of solar activity derived from tree rings with meteorological records from 1856 to the present day. They found that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere changed in step with sunspot numbers until 1970. This is the evidence that has done more than anything else to convince climatologists to take the link seriously. What's more, the most recent calculations by Solanki's team suggest that the sunspot crash could lead to a cooling of the Earth's atmosphere by 0.2 °C. It might not sound much, but this temperature reversal would be as big as the most optimistic estimate of the results of restricting greenhouse-gas emissions until 2050 in line with the Kyoto protocol.

There is still a big puzzle, though. Astronomers and climate scientists have always struggled to understand exactly how solar activity could influence the temperature on Earth. Whatever the variations in the sun's magnetic activity, the total energy it emits changes by only 0.1 per cent - too small a change to have any direct effect. As a result, the sun's role in climate change is highly controversial. "People have been arguing over this for years," says Reimer.

What other factor is at work? Important clues have emerged recently from solar observatories, including the SOHO spacecraft operated by NASA and the European Space Agency for the past 10 years. Although the change in overall solar energy is small, measurements made by SOHO and other solar observatories have revealed much greater variation in the levels of ultraviolet radiation, which can peak at up to 100 times its minimum level. "This means that there is scope for ultraviolet to have a much larger effect on our atmosphere," says Haigh, who for the past decade has been studying the impact of the sun's variability on climate.

According to computer models she has developed, ultraviolet radiation heats the upper reaches of the Earth's atmosphere by energising atoms and molecules there. This drives chemical reactions involving ozone and other molecules, which can release still more heat. This heating changes the temperature structure of the atmosphere at all altitudes, although the details are unclear because of the sheer complexity of Haigh's model. "By varying the amount of ultraviolet radiation, solar activity changes the circulation of the whole atmosphere," she says. Change the circulation, and you change the weather.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225720.900-dont-rely-on-sunspots.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4321-sun-more-active-than-for-a-millennium.html

Sun more active than for a millennium

The Sun is more active now than it has been for a millennium. The realisation, which comes from a reconstruction of sunspots stretching back 1150 years, comes just as the Sun has thrown a tantrum. Over the last week, giant plumes of have material burst out from our star's surface and streamed into space, causing geomagnetic storms on Earth.

The dark patches on the surface of the Sun that we call sunspots are a symptom of fierce magnetic activity inside. Ilya Usoskin, a geophysicist who worked with colleagues from the University of Oulu in Finland and the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, has found that there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than for the past 1150 years.

Sunspot observations stretch back to the early 17th century, when the telescope was invented. To extend the data farther back in time, Usoskin's team used a physical model to calculate past sunspot numbers from levels of a radioactive isotope preserved in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica.
Global warming

Ice cores provide a record of the concentration of beryllium-10 in the atmosphere. This is produced when high-energy particles from space bombard the atmosphere, but when the Sun is active its magnetic field protects the Earth from these particles and levels of beryllium-10 are lower.

There was already tantalising evidence that beryllium-10 is scarcer now than for a very long time, says Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford.

But he told New Scientist that when he saw the data converted to sunspot numbers he thought, "why the hell didn't I do this?" It makes the conclusion very stark, he says. "We are living with a very unusual sun at the moment."

The findings may stoke the controversy over the contribution of the Sun to global warming. Usoskin and his team are reluctant to be dragged into the debate, but their work will probably be seized upon by those who claim that temperature rises over the past century are the result of changes in the Sun's output (New Scientist, print edition, 12 April 2003). The link between the Sun's magnetic activity and the Earth's climate is, however, unclear.

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters (in press)

I hope that the article on the effects of sunspots is not used incorrectly by those who are still complacent about global warming (16 September, p 32). The graph of sunspot activity over the past thousand years suggests that we will have above-average sunspot activity for the next 400 years or more, with only short periods near or below the average. We may have a few decades when low sunspot activity reduces the impact of man-made effects on climate, but this will certainly be followed by another peak, while man-made warming is still increasing. The last few paragraphs do warn us about complacency, but some readers may see good news at the start and not read to the end.
From Rod Elliot

reply in the letters page.

 

[Evo]

I agree in principle, but in this case, not sure as how that might be accomplished--by citation of another authoritative source, (if so who?)or giving a dozen examples which might then be condemned on the basis of improper or insufficient sampling. The thinktank in question had at least 50 different policy papers spanning a range of topics so I looked at maybe 1/2 of them in areas where I was most familiar with the arguments--pharmaceutics, healthcare, intellectual property rights, etc.

So I need a little clarification as to how to treat such matters fairly. Are sources like this above critique even when they appear to possesses a strong bias?
Thanks,

If you think that *data* presented is wrong, you should site the specific information or result that you are questioning and make an appropriate argument defending your position, preferably with valid research or articles that back you up.

We encourage members to question data that they believe is not correct. But we do ask you to back up your claims. If we didn't, we would be reduced to people throwing personal opinions back and forth all day with little or no facts behind any of it. This also helps everyone stay on the same page since everyone can see exactly what is being discussed.

If someone simply states an opinion, then you may counter with an opinion without having to post data, but be prepared if someone should ask you to back your opinion up. Discussions on this forum are held to a higher standard than forums where "anything goes".

 

[denverdoc]

Fair enough, think I'm getting the higher standard thing thru my thick skull...
J

 

[Evo]

Fair enough, think I'm getting the higher standard thing thru my thick skull...
J

Yes, instead of people throwing unsubstantiated ideas around and at the end of the day we have "I'm right, you're wrong", we have people throwing information at each other and at the end of the day we have "I'm right, you're wrong", but at least they had to do a bit of research in the process and hopefully someone learned something, which is our goal.

 

[Andre]

P In fact I know that every time a new piece of science turns up, be it for or against, they refine their models, I've yet to talk to an environmental scientist who sits in a cupboard shouting lalalalalala I can't hear you

On a previous post I issued a plethora of references about the correlation between sun spots, cloud cover and global temperatures. Read the Summary For Policy makers. Such a hot and obvious issue, not adressed at all. You'll find that it is only referring to the solar energy flux to be less than one W/m2 lower during sun spot minimums. End of story. Sun no factor. But that's a strawman. Nobody disputes the small variation in the energy output. It's about something completely different. The SPM could attempt to challenge the hypothesis but chose to ignore it.

Anyway here is a supporting document, used to substantiate the Independant Summary for Policy makers.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/FoS_bibliography_Jan_2007%5b1%5d.pdf

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

On a previous post I issued a plethora of references about the correlation between sun spots, cloud cover and global temperatures. Read the Summary For Policy makers. Such a hot and obvious issue, not adressed at all. You'll find that it is only referring to the solar energy flux to be less than one W/m2 lower during sun spot minimums. End of story. Sun no factor. But that's a strawman. Nobody disputes the small variation in the energy output. It's about something completely different. The SPM could attempt to challenge the hypothesis but chose to ignore it.

Anyway here is a supporting document, used to substantiate the Independant Summary for Policy makers.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/FoS_bibliography_Jan_2007%5b1%5d.pdf

The difference between the middle age period and todays warming is that the middle Age periods warming was not global, this is why the scientists do not take looking at past events as correlatory with modern events, where the effect is happening globally. You need to trust me that scientists aren't just ignoring theories because there not au fait in the community, there weighing them and adjusting accordingly, the point is if you allow for all these studies, the data shows for the first time in recorded history, or ice core samples etc, that this is a world wide phenomina, where as all the other records show effects differently, what they don't account for is this, which is why there is concern, because no other factor involved can be tallied into climate models and show the same overall results on a global scale.

No one questions whether these factors are having an effect, but what we do know, is that utilising them, we still will raise temperatures if we go on increasing CO2 output, so the point is well received accounted for and then they proceed with a more viable model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

As you can see there is no consensus on the models which all use different data, some include everything you mentioned others allow for them but don't agree on how much of an effect this will have, some don't include things that they consider do not have an apreciable effect. but the consensus is +/-x anyway.

This is a wki article but it's well cited and is a good resource.

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades, and its projected continuation. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. [1] The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity.

Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." [1] The main cause of the human-induced component of warming is the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are released by activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and agriculture.

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados. Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, even if no further greenhouse gases were released after this date, warming (and sea level) would be expected to continue to rise for more than a millenium, since CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A hotly contested political and public debate has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combatting global warming. (See List of Kyoto Protocol signatories.)

 

[Andre]

The difference between the middle age period and todays warming is that the middle Age periods warming was not global

Which is not true, check this:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/medieval-warm-period.pdf

The main argument used by the assisinators of the Medieval Warm Period is that it's the sum of isolated events both in time and in place, which does not seem to add up to constitute a global event.

However looking at the warm period now, it's same, isolated hot spots, not connected to each other. Another thing, if you have simultaneous hot spots without balancing cool spots in between then the average must be higher and there are virtually no papers talking about cold. Well, there is one, pertaining the South west USA, but that's all. The assumtion that the period 900-950 AD was warmer than today on a global scale is very well defendable however this is simply denied by the Summary for Policy Makers.

Also a Medieval warm elaboration on papers here:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/l/summaries/littlemwp.jsp

also a compilation mix of the Holocene Thermal Optimum (also warmer without CO2) and the Medieval Warm Period here:

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5124&posts=60&start=1

Finally, the conspiracy against the Medieval Warm Period as a nasty objection against the strong role of CO2 is suggested here by David Deming.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

and sure enough in the same year:

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr98/dec98/noaa98-88.html

Overpeck also said that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, a period from the 9th to 14th centuries that is commonly thought to be as warm or warmer than today, may not have been what it seemed after all. He reported his findings today at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. He presented a talk on "How Unprecedented is Recent Arctic Warming: A Look Back to the Medieval Warm Period."

Curiously enough Overpeck's Arctic paper clearly recognized the Medieval Warming Period, which made him think that the event was not global. Were is the logic?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Which is not true, check this:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/medieval-warm-period.pdf

The main argument used by the assisinators of the Medieval Warm Period is that it's the sum of isolated events both in time and in place, which does not seem to add up to constitute a global event.

However looking at the warm period now, it's same, isolated hot spots, not connected to each other. Another thing, if you have simultaneous hot spots without balancing cool spots in between then the average must be higher and there are virtually no papers talking about cold. Well, there is one, pertaining the South west USA, but that's all. The assumtion that the period 900-950 AD was warmer than today on a global scale is very well defendable however this is simply denied by the Summary for Policy Makers.

Also a Medieval warm elaboration on papers here:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/l/summaries/littlemwp.jsp

also a compilation mix of the Holocene Thermal Optimum (also warmer without CO2) and the Medieval Warm Period here:

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5124&posts=60&start=1

Finally, the conspiracy against the Medieval Warm Period as a nasty objection against the strong role of CO2 is suggested here by David Deming.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
and sure enough in the same year:

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr98/dec98/noaa98-88.html
Curiously enough Overpeck's Arctic paper clearly recognized the Medieval Warming Period, which made him think that the event was not global. Were is the logic?

Are you considering the pollen distribution evidence in bogs etc, but doing so in a scientific manner?

Are scientists? If you consider the growth of plants and the resultant levels of pollen? Are these corellatory with today? They are taking this into account yes, but, the pollen data shows without CO2 the rise is x, with CO2 the pollen record shows as statistical imbalence, therefore scientists make the conclusion that the unobservable factor must be CO2. if not it's an unobservable they don't know.

The logic is in using more than one resource ie ice cores and pollen samples to show that the MWP was not global and not consistent with todays findings, the difference or what is left over is explained by? Since we know CO2 has an effect on the climate, scientists have made the conclusion that this is the missing link? We are warming up because of a multitude of factors but if you take these factors without CO2 and greenhouse gasses, you are left with something non-correlatory. It's much like claiming that a huge comet wiped out the dinosaurs, no it didn't it was a combination of factors. If you include these you get a result if you don't you get BS

No period in the last million years has been this warm with the only factors considered x. With CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

[Andre]

Check the abstracts, all kind of proxies, including pollen, diatoms, isotopes, from all over the world, including South America, Africa and New Zealand point towards warmer but also definitely more arid conditions than today. Only one paper about one area showing cooling. You need a balance of papers also from all over the world to neutralize the warming.

There is a recent paper suggesting that this aridness terminated but the Chinese culture dominance and the Maya culture. I'll retrieve it tomorrow

this is also pointing towards that
http://www.wdc-terra.org/pb3/pb33/staff/haug/download/Haug_et_al_2003.pdf

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Check the abstracts, all kind of proxies, including pollen, diatoms, isotopes, from all over the world, including South America, Africa and New Zealand point towards warmer but also definitely more arid conditions than today. Only one paper about one area showing cooling. You need a balance of papers also from all over the world to neutralize the warming.

There is a recent paper suggesting that this aridness terminated but the Chinese culture dominance and the Maya culture. I'll retrieve it tomorrow

this is also pointing towards that
http://www.wdc-terra.org/pb3/pb33/staff/haug/download/Haug_et_al_2003.pdf

OK but you do know of course that scientists already know this? But it'll be interesting to see your points.

They know, the don't dismiss the arguments because it's not scientific, they dismiss them or admit them purely on a few criteria, is it scientific, does it make sense, can we use it: if not can we dismiss it. Your assumptions are based on the fact that science is some ogre claiming they are right and everyone else is wrong, it simply does not work that way, It doesn't in physics and it doesn't in climatology or any other science for that matter. This is not a scientific conspiracy theory. Who is perhaps guilty of doing this? American Businessman So Obviously Lying Under The Eroneous Assumption Regarding Some Extraneous Holistic Obviously Ludicrous Experimental Science

Or absolute arse*****

And replace American with Australian.