Admiral_Bobski

January 20, 2007

Yes

A Good point well made!

C-Bob

January 20, 2007

So what you're saying is that global warming is just a load of old pants...?

C-Bob

January 20, 2007

Hi hiphil - I'm with you on this one, and I've spent some time trying to argue my case (never come across the website you linked to, though, so I'll have to have a look at it! )

Penguin's right, though - I only signed up a couple of months ago and I'm up over 100 posts already - Our point of view is difficult to argue in this crowd!

Still, it's kind of fun

Welcome to the forum!

C-Bob

January 14, 2007

Ah, but I did Bob.
I put 'I'm not susceptible to micro-climatic incidents suddenly causing me to become a believer'.

I must remember to spell things out more clearly in future.

YOu're right though - I didn't expect that you would have to go back to the drawing board. Just wondered how many people might have done. Quite simple and straightforward question really, but then this thread has become remarkably tetchy!

I did take note of that line, but didn't think it was pertinent to the explicit question posed. However, you are right, this whole thread seems to have raised some hackles, doesn't it! It must be something in the air that's caused many people (including myself, apparently!) to have got out of the wrong side of bed this morning...

Let us move on to more productive issues...

C-Bob

Edit: Thanks SF - I was afraid that I was being totally unreasonable. Perhaps I'm a bit unreasonable today, but not totally!

January 14, 2007

Captain B - think you're off down a dead end there mate, and I suspect you know this full well. The original question was perfectly straightforward and you've gone off at a tangent. The latter is fine, but it's not ok then to critique an entirely clear and completely valid question. It's very simple. Do micro events such as record-breaking Autumn or super-mild winter or, indeed, record-breaking summer send some people back to think again about the macro causes? It has indeed for nearly 1/3rd who voted. Quite right too. If we don't question ourselves and our 'macros stances' on the basis of experience we'd cease to be human beings.

Not sure what you're talking about here, WIB - dead end? I answered the question that was originally posed, and now you're telling me that it's not okay to state my view about this? I appreciate that many people will stop and re-evaluate their thoughts on GW on the basis of this so far exceptionally mild winter, but I fail to see why one winter should make me do this. I think I gave an entirely clear and completely valid answer.

You said this morning "Oh dear. Sigh. Did you read my first post on the poll? I mentioned that one winter does not prove anything.", and as a point of order I merely mentioned that, in fact, you didn't. Since I apologised despite finding this comment slightly condescending, I thought it appropriate to point out this fact. I am sorry if this has somehow upset or aggravated you.

C-Bob

January 14, 2007

Actually, just as a point of order (and because I do like to pick nits!), and in my defence, here's your first post on this thread WIB:

Some of you may not know this, but I used to be a sceptic up until 2003. I thought the change was largely due to cyclical patterns. One or two seasoned souls (mushymanrob for instance) might even recall me arguing this on the old Snow Watch.
Summer 2003 changed all that. I'm not susceptible to micro-climatic incidents suddenly causing me to become a believer. But that incredible, record-breaking, heat sent me back to the drawing board. I re-visited all the arguments and doing so changed my view. I am now firmly of the opinion that humans are affecting global warming.

So how about you good folk? Anyone on here having a twinge of a re-think as a result of this (so far) ridiculously warm winter?!

I've just highlighted that last line which seems, to me, to be the question I answered. It has been said in the thread on several (later) occasions that one Winter is neither proof nor disproof, which I accept, but I definitely stand by my response now! I'll go and rub off the blackboard...

C-Bob

January 14, 2007

Oh dear. Sigh. Did you read my first post on the poll? I mentioned that one winter does not prove anything.
I was simply asking if this winter was having an effect (sic! lol - bad mistake of mine that tut tut) on people's view of AGW. As I mentioned summer 2003 sent me back to the arguments. Sometimes micro events can force us to think about macro issues. Fairly straightforward and quite reasonable! Up to now nearly 30% have said it is making them either re-think or change. That's quite something.

This post has been edited in order to add the statistic (for Geludigilo's benefit)

Morning WIB!

Sorry, you're quite right - I did, in fact, read all of the posts in order, but I then got so distracted with that whole solar cycle thing that I forgot some pertinent comments. However, my response was a direct answer to the thread's title's direct question, so I kind of stand by it. (Sorry about the "sic" - a little bugbear of mine!) It is certainly interesting how many people have been "converted" by the recent spate of mild winters, but I am not (yet) one of them. If temperatures go consistently loopy over the coming decade then I may have to re-evaluate my thoughts, but not yet!

Thanks for pulling me up on that one - I shall go and write "Must pay more attention in class" one hundred times on the blackboard

C-Bob

January 13, 2007

Hi SF.

Just a quickie to clarify my stance on the points you mention.

The accepted concept of climate is that it is non-chaotic. Climate is an averaging of weather over a long period of time, and therefore any chaotic influences are ironed out, they say. While I understand the idea, I can't agree with it. I'll explain why. Although this may work for the most part, the fact that weather is chaotic means that there is always a distinct probability that a number of chaotic factors can combine at any given moment to cause a sudden change to an alternative long-term trend. The reliance on models which, by their very nature, cannot take into account sudden changes is a bit of a problem to me - not being able to accurately model the weather has a very real effect on our ability to accurately model the climate arbitrarily far in advance.

As for the comparison, I apologise once again - I should have been more specific and singled out temperature data (with temperature records going back to the mid-17th Century). I grant that the last twenty years appear to be statistically anomalous, but statistics can be a dicey thing! In school I always loved maths - when we got to GCSE level it was split into Pure Maths, Mechanics and Statistics. The first two I continued to love, but Statistics drove me completely potty! A scientific discipline, for want of a better term, which has little to do with reality and a lot to do with playing around and finding different ways of presenting results. I love science, but I hate juggling!

:blush:

C-Bob

January 13, 2007

Hi Stephen,

If I may be so bold, I'd like to quickly respond to your post a point at a time, hopefully to give some insight into why I (and possibly other "nitpickers", if you like) argue points in the AGW debate. I personally have no problem with the concept of GW, in and of itself, but AGW is a rather more complicated issue.

I think people are moving away from the facts here... who's talking about one winter being representative of GW??

I was referring to the name of this topic: "Has this winter changed your view on Global Warming?" (And subtitled "Replying to Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect {sic} on climate change?") - the insinuation being that this one winter's extreme mildness is indicative of some human-influence factor.

I think all we need to realise right now is that GW does exist and without any remedial action it will change the planet in a big way, whether that is by planetry warming or local warming. I think debating what is on some of this thread is like debating how you're going to win lottery. It is getting a bit tedious at times when someone turns around and says there is no global warming or it's not man made when it is.

GW appears to be happening to some extent - the human input into the effect is unclear. Taking remedial action to somehow "repair" the biosphere seems something of a fool's errand - the biosphere is a lot bigger than we are, and it is unclear as to how much of an effect we are having on it, so it is unclear what effect any "remedial action" may have (if any at all). We debate because we are human, and humans do like a good debate, don't they?!

Besides, it's kind of fun to play devil's advocate and have a good chat.

I cannot believe for the life of me why people try to pick holes in something that has been well documented and has lots of scientific data and something that is backed up by the computers.

The fact is that there are holes - and more than a few - that can be picked. The AGW debate is not watertight yet. And, anyway, why do people pick at scabs when we know it's a silly thing to do? Because we can't help picking at something which irritates us!

GW was only meant to affect us in the next 20+ years, it's always been the case and the computers have always said this, it's not like they said there'd be a 3C rise by 2010. As far as I am aware this rise has started you only have to look at computer generated graphs to see that is the case - no corruption there.

There may be no corruption in the computer's output, but computers are only as good as the models and the input that they are given. Ironically, computer models are still subject to human error.

I'll finish up by saying that we know that there was a Little Ice Age of some sort that "ended" sometime near the start of the Industrial Revolution (whether the Industrial Revolution is what ended the Little Ice Age or not is a debate for another thread). Comparing current data with the historical record, most of which was recorded during the Little Ice Age, and drawing the conclusion that man is warming the climate is like (to quote someone else - sorry but I forget who it was) comparing summer to winter and drawing the same conclusion.

I hope this explains my position a bit

C-Bob

PS - Thanks Gray-Wolf - I'll emigrate to the other thread!

Edit - Sorry SF. I didn't intend to suggest that any poster on this topic was being swayed by one isolated winter - I was responding directly to the question posed at the start of the thread. No offense meant :blush:

January 13, 2007

Perhaps we should discuss the sunspots somewhere else...
:)P

I agree - can we start a new thread? (I'm still quite new at this Forum Lark!)

C-Bob

January 13, 2007

I have to go and do some things now, so I'll have to come back to this - but rest assured that I will have a look at it. I was simply pointing out an alternative (if moot) suggestion for the current El Nino. However, let me just pick up on one thing you said:

Also, consider this; if there was a strong correlation between solar cycles and ENSOs, surely that would impy an 11-year ENSO cycle?

I think it is you who are being disingenuous this time You know as well as anyone that many cycles overlap and interact and the eleven-year cycle mentioned is only one of many. In fact, if you read the link I posted previously the author refers to correlated cycles of 2 and 7 years. (Or is your use of "impy" not a typo but a subtle suggestion as to the capricious nature of the paper in question?! Sorry - couldn't resist!)

Later,

C-Bob

Edit: To get back on topic, though, I think that taking one extreme winter as proof of (A)GW is unwise. There may well be a longer-term trend of increasingly mild winters at present, but I fail to see how one extreme winter could suddenly shift the burden of proof onto Man-made climate change: that would be akin to taking one colder winter (should we get one) as proof that GW is a load of old tosh...

January 13, 2007

As far as I am aware, there has been no significant change in solar activity outside the norms to account for the change in ENSO conditions.

Surely the whole point is that the sun has normal variances (hence the 11 year cycles talked about in the paper, and other, longer cycles). The suggestion is that these normal variances affect weather, therefore there would be no need for there to have been a "significant change in solar activity outside the norms" to account for a purported link with El Nino events. If the author's assertion is true. Which it may not be. But it seems wrong to completely dismiss the prediction as coincidence - perhaps, in that case, it is nothing more than coincidence that global temperatures appear to have started rising around the time of the Industrial Revolution.

I shall brace myself to be leapt on for saying that, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

C-Bob

Edit: Thanks for that Geludiligo! Could be interesting...

And thanks for the link, P3 - I've had a read through, but can see nothing that refutes the idea that natural variations in solar output can't have some kind of knock-on effect to help bring about El Nino. But if the cycles and processes are not well enough understood then NOAA wouldn't use them for forecasting, would they?

Another edit: Perhaps this thread isn't the best place to discuss this issue? I feel I may be responsible for a hijack... Sorry!

January 13, 2007

the stuff there, apart from being about the 2002 event, not the current one, is not, except in superficial appearance only, scientific.

Here's a quote from the paper:

...TCg/4 in 2005.9 would release an El Niño lasting from about May 2005 to April 2006 if it were not opposed by SM/2 which is expected to occur at the beginning of 2006...PC/8 in 2007.2 has El Niño potential. As the date 2007.2 is closer to 2006/2007 than to 2007/2008 it is to be expected that El Niño will already emerge around July 2006 and last at least till May 2007 (Probability 80 %). The alternative to this early date is a release of the expected El Niño around April 2007; it should last till January 2008 (Probability 20 %).

Relevant portion highlighted by me

That's not talking about the 2002 event, and the paper was written in December of 2003. Regardless of how crazy the author may or may not be, are you suggesting that his result is a complete coincidence? It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Sun has some influence on our weather - I will certainly look further into this...

C-Bob

Edit: I am not suggesting that the current apparent warming is entirely due to solar activity, BTW...

January 12, 2007

C-Bob, hi. I'll keep this simple. Landscheidt was a n*t and John Daly dot com is a disinformationist site which uses scientific-looking BS to confuse people into thinking that there's some doubt about the real science. And even NOAA didn't predict the current (mild) el Nino. Honestly, I'd have expected better of you by now!

Hang on a sec there P3 - the link I gave was to a straightforward piece of statistical analysis. Science itself not really an issue here, simply a correlation between sets of past events and an extrapolation to future events. Where's the problem? I didn't look at the rest of the site - just that one page which was linked to from a post elsewhere by Roger Pielke... (Pielke himself wasn't too excited about the source of this post, but found the correlation interesting.)

C-Bob

January 12, 2007

Just to throw in a comment, I've noticed the suggestion that "GW leads to more frequent El Nino effects" being said a bit on this thread. Interesting to note this link:

http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm

This years' El Nino seems to have been fairly well predicted using Solar Models (note that the article is from December 2003), without even a mention of GW...

C-Bob

PS - I'm sure there will be many cries of "What a Load of Old Twaddle", but it's interesting nonetheless.

December 22, 2006

Hi, I've moved back over to this thread since the CO2 debate is a bit off-topic over on the other one. So here's P3's last message (the part that is relevant to the CO2 debate):

I think you have still not taken into account the solar forcing which is thought to be the principle cause of deglaciation. If the graphs showed only the response of temperature to CO2, you would have a point, but they do not. For the reasons stated above, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the correlation.
We are not around a plateau on the Milankovitch cycles. According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles we are in an intermediate/rising phase, though, as you rightly point out, this is unclear at this time. I am uncertain how the Milankovitch forcings are supposed to work in relation to deglaciation, but one imagines that there would have to be a period of increased insolation before the effects kicked in, followed by an increase in life and a decrease in albedo, producing a feedback into the system. It is fairly clear that the recent warming phase cannot be attributed to Milankovitch forcings; this is one of the alternative hypotheses to AGW which has been studied in detail.

So basically what you are saying is that the Vostok ice cores don't give an adequate representation of the actual CO2/Temperature correlation. If this is the case then this graph is utterly useless in the CO2/Temp argument and should not be brought up again in this respect, which is a shame as it is one of the few long-term historical records we have...

As for Milankovitch cycles - these cycles are "an alternative...to AGW that has been studied in detail"...and yet we still don't really understand them. Perhaps more research into this area is needed then? In the wikipedia article under the heading "The Future" there is the following quote:

An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[7]More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8]

So the relative warmth of present day is expected to continue (with a general downwards trend) for between 23,000 and 50,000 years. During this time there will be plenty of natural variation, for example the short-lived upwards trend that caused the Mediaevel Warm Period, the short-lived downwards trend that caused the Little Ice Age, and the current upwards trend. I fail to see any reason to presume that the current upwards trend will continue ad infinitum.

Enough for now.

C-Bob

PS - P3, in your post above this line:

The report also concludes that there has been a substantial human impact on these global temperature increases (though it doesn't put a number to this).

...should really read as...

"The report also concludes that the models suggest a substantial human impact on these global temperature increases (though it doesn't put a number to this)."

"Factoring in" human activity seems to make the models "work" better.

December 17, 2006

Thanks for the reply P3 - apologies if my post seemed overly grouchy (woke up with a seriously bad back and not feeling on top of the world!). I appreciate the time you took to reply. I think you are right that we seem to have reached an impasse. Perhaps with a couple of weeks' break I can come up with an alternative mode of "attack" - at the end of the day the models are important elements in the debate but not the be-all and end-all of it, so perhaps there is another way to proceed. Something to mull over with the mulled wine!

I wish you (and everyone on the boards) a peaceful Christmas and a Happy New Year, and hope to return reinvigorated in 2007.

Signing off for now,

C-Bob

:unsure:

December 17, 2006

I think this is going to have to be my last post for a while - I write my posts, I read through them and they seem to make perfect sense and then others (not just you, P3!) come along and completely misinterpret what I am saying.

You will never...be satisfied if you seek the kind of certainty you are implying in your posts; it is a function of the science that this is not possible. The second point is that you have misrepresented what the scientists do with the models, probably unconsciously. They don't 'tweak' to make the models show 20th century warming, they 'tweak' the values of forcings to get the models to replicate historic measured data. The observation of warming in the 20th century is irrefutable; even the most hardened critic of climate science will acknowledge that the global temperature has increased. The point of the paper was to improve our understanding of which forcings have most impact in this change, either positively or negatively, not to 'prove' that the climate is in a warming phase.

I am not looking for "certainty" in the models at all! I am looking for a model that can be programmed, have historical data entered into it and come out with something roughly akin to current climate. You will argue that they have done this, but the very fact that they have tweaked the forcings shows a lack of understanding of what the forcings are. (I never said that they tweaked any data, which is what you imply that I said - I quite clearly said that they tweaked the models which is an entirely different kettle of fish).

I have also never denied that there has been some apparent warming in the 20th Century, and if you think that's my stance then you're not reading my posts properly. I never suggested that the paper was intended as a "proof of current warming" - I was highlighting the inaccuracies in the climate models. Due to the very nature of climate, even the smallest of inaccuracies can make a big difference over a long period of time (but that statement depends on whether you agree with the opinion that climate is inherently chaotic, which you do not).

Using the error bars/ variability spreads in graphs to show that the unreliability of data makes conclusions unreliable is to misrepresent the function of error bars/ variability spreads.

It absolutely is not!! The whole point of the "error bars" is to show the range of possible values that can be derived from the extrapolated data. The fact that the blue line on the graph takes, in effect, the average value does not deny the possibility that any one data point could be at either the top or the bottom of the error margin. There is even a finite probability that every one of those data points is wrong by the same degree, and that the line is actually in completely the wrong place. Hence it is entirely legitimate to redraw the line at the top of the error margin to emphasise the possibility that the data is not accurate.

You seem to contradict yourself on the question of attribution. In an earlier post, you said that what concerned you was the amount of warming attributable to human activity; in this last post, you seem to say that this is meaningless and irrelevant.

That is not what I said at all, and a gross misrepresentation of what I actually did say. I have said all along that I have never seen any conclusive evidence that suggests that makind is contributing to the warming of the planet. Conclusive evidence, that is. I have said all along that I am not denying that there is a possibility that we may be contributing to warming. But the distinct uncertainty in this latter statement should be sufficient to quell your desire for me to apply a percentage figure to human activity. I have never said that we absolutely are not contributing to warming, but I have not seen conclusive evidence to suggest that we are. Therefore to suggest a figure attributable to human activity is meaningless and irrelevant, since I have no solid information on which to base that figure. To pluck a number out of the air does nobody any favours. No contradiction there.

In doing so, you are still characterising the state of knowledge about the climate and the skill of climate models in terms of extreme uncertainty and inaccuracy.

Absolutely. Climate scientists know a great deal about their own particular aspect of climate science - very few claim to know it all, and I am suggesting that there are gaps in the understanding that, perhaps, they are not even aware of. Processes that haven't been considered yet, for example. Once again I shall say that the Earth's ecosystem is a highly complex beast, with many subtleties and surprises, and I cannot believe that we are able to model this system to any degree of accuracy with our current understanding of it.

I am not going to dispute the political issues with you. I will say, though, that your phrasing might let some readers think that I am, as a person who contends that AGW is real, therefore to be seen as some kind of ecological alarmist. I promise you, the two are not coterminous.

I'm sorry but I don't think I have ever suggested that you were an alarmist at all, P3 - what phrasing in particular were you unhappy with? I have referred to alarmists on occasion because sometimes a good way to make a point is to take an extreme example, but I don't recall ever having lumped you into the "alarmist" category, and in the past I have specifically excluded you from it.

what method do we have for 'stabilising the economy'? (is this the UK economy, or the global economy?). What cleaner fuel source are we going to use? How do we fund research except out of taxes?

Well, let's consider just the UK economy - how have we stabilised it in the past? I'm not suggesting any new technique, just sensible economic policy that doesn't involve throwing vast sums of money away on a kneejerk reaction to an unsatisfactorily defined global "problem". What cleaner fuel source? We have to develop them first, which is what I have said before. In fact the whole point was that by funding research into technological studies, the fuel sources would come as part and parcel of that process. Research is already funded out of taxes (and by, gasp, industry), but my point was that throwing money into treaties such as Kyoto will take money away from that kind of research or, if research funding is kept up, destabilise the economy. But let's face it - when times are hard scientific research is one of the first things to suffer. That's basically why the Apollo program was finally scrapped.

Your dystopia, by the way, is as valid as mine was - it depends on your point of view. The difference is that I gave a comparable utopia. (And, by the way, Kyoto implies more than just "doing without a fridge every couple of years".)

Once again, you seem to muddle climate concerns with ecological ones. 'No regrets' advocates deregulation, tax reduction for businesses and the use of free market forces to self-regulate. This is errant folly and has no impact whatsoever on what we emit or what happens to our climate, unless it is destructive. I think everyone can see that finding a source of energy which comes with fewer emissions would be wonderful. How long should we wait for someone to make the breakthrough discovery that makes this possible? The objection to 'no regrets' is that it has no effect, not that it is harmful to the environment (which it might also be).

I have not said that "No regrets" is without its flaws, but that it is a good foundation upon which to build a sensible policy. With the correct restrictions in place (for example, fining businesses who do not pursue alternative fuel sources, or demanding that a proportion of their research goes into finding cleaner alternatives) it could work very well. Since the best Kyoto has done for us so far is introduce the concept of "Carbon Trading", which has no benefits for the environment whatsoever in the long run, what use is it?

I'm not going to go through the CO2 issue again, because I really am just repeating myself now. I see no point in continuing this debate if you are consistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting my points. I have far better things to do with my spare time than go back over the same ground time and time again in the vain hope that, one day, one of my points will actually sink in.

I will continue to browse the boards, but I shall leave any serious debating until 2007.

B)

C-Bob

December 16, 2006

A bit more on wildfires: I've used the quote because I don't subscribe to 'Science'. Thanks to the Climate Science weblog:

Again, an interesting article. The results seem almost counter-intuitive (to me, at least), although the fact that mankind burns forests is important. The thing is that, generally, when man burns the forest he keeps it clear afterwards, but when Nature burns the forests they grow back...

(Maybe we're getting a bit off-topic here - the real debate seems to have migrated back over to the Monckton Part 2 thread!)

C-Bob

December 16, 2006

On the relationship between temperature change and CO2, as I said before, we are dealing with an attribution issue. The only way in which attribution can be done is through some kind of modelling...Both studies conclude that CO2 is the largest [by a considerable amount] single factor effecting recent warming.

There are a couple of issues with the study you linked to that need to be highlighted. There is always some degree of "tweaking" required to make these models fit in with observations (a fact they allude to by declaring that this is an issue with "Simplified Energy Balance Models", but to some extent it is an issue with all computer models). If a model requires tweaking then its fundamental basis is obviously flawed, as its intial output does not take all necessary information into account. Only by making adjustments without necessarily fully understanding them can the models be made to fit in with actual data, thereby exposing a distinct gap in our knowledge of the climate system.

Towards the end of the report they say "There are considerable uncertainties in some of the forcings used in this analysis. The model simulates roughly half...of [the] sulfate aerosol observed over Europe, and will therefore underestimate their direct cooling effect. However, there may be some compensation from omitting the warming effect of black carbon aerosols." They go on to address other inaccuracies in the model, but this example will do for this point. Leaving out pertinent details of cooling- and warming-forcings, and assuming that they will cancel each other out, is not sufficient to provide a definitive scientific conclusion. The fact that the results of the experiment show 20th century warming is neither here nor there since they have tweaked the models to make sure, in effect, that this is what they will show. You could argue that the "tweaking" takes into account this discrepencies, but even that is not a valid argument since those subtleties have not been modelled and we don't know what effect these other forcings were likely to have had in the long term.

There are too many factors working together in the actual global climate system to be able to construct a sufficiently detailed computer model - something is always going to get left out, and without that "something" being included we can't genuinely say that we know what effect it would have had.

I don't understand what your objection is to placing proxy data and measured data on the same axis, if they are measures of the same thing. The relative accuracy of the proxy data is poorer than the measured data, but this does not mean it is inaccurate, nor that it is somehow wrong, just that there is less (scientific) certainty about the numbers. Regardless of this, the trend still looks the same, whatever you do with the error bars, on both datasets.

Allow me to post a couple of graphs - the first is a graph from the IPCC website which shows temperature variation over the last 1000 years or so, using proxy data (blue line) at first then being substituted with actual measurements (red) in the relevant period. The grey area around the blue line shows the uncertainty in the data and, naturally, this grey area becomes smaller as time goes on until it is virtually gone by the time proxy data is replaced with actual data.

Since this grey area shows legitimate thresholds for the retrieved proxy data, the graph could look like this:

(Forgive the terrible shoddiness of the line, but it gives the basic idea.) The blue line shows the "direct" temperature as determined from the proxy source, but this "direct data" is subject to inaccuracies. Therefore it is legitimate to show the maximum potential for the temperature data on a graph. Suddenly 20th Century warming doesn't look so bad.

Avoiding the semantics of the term 'proof', which should properly only be used to describe mathematical formulae or legal cases, we have to accept that the only way to estimate the influence of CO2 is through modelling (see above), and that there has been a huge amount of work done on detection and attribution in the last twenty years, which almost universally reaches the same conclusions about both the causes of recent temperature changes and the dominance of CO2. If you look at the sort of papers illustrated above, you should be able to see that issues of bias and scientific rigour are taken seriously, and every effort is made not to put the cart before the horse when compiling data. To suggest an unconscious 'bias' implicit in either the science or the findings is to ignore the insistence on scientific method, which takes such matters into account.

When I have used the word "proof" I have been intending it in the mathematical/scientific sense, not as some arbitrary concept of "correctness". What we have are scientific assumptions and suppositions. The fact that we do not know all of the ins-and-outs of the carbon cycle, that what we do know is subject to inaccuracies and tolerances, and that the climate models are based on our imperfect understanding of these cycles (in addition to the fact that the carbon cycle interacts with other cycles too) quite clearly shows that our computer models are not going to be anything more than approximations - rough approxiomations, at that, and ones that are as likely wrong as right. As for eliminating bias, there are still groups who follow the entire process through from original proposition to conclusion without the input of any third party - not good scientific practice for eliminating bias.

The range I proposed is my own suggestion, not one from another source; it is wide, so as to give you an opportunity to answer the question I keep posing about how much you think might be attributable to us humans. Individual attribution studies tend to be quite precise about the numbers they come up with though, of course, there is variety from paper to paper. So are you willing to put a number to human contributions, or not?

Your suggested range is completely meaningless, then. It is an arbitrary range based upon your beliefs. You keep posing the question to me and I keep responding that I will not put a range on it - I do not claim that we are absolutely not contributing to global warming, but nor is there sufficient evidence (to my mind) that we are. Therefore it is totally meaningless, not to mention pointless, for me to proffer a randomly-selected figure from out of the air. Our contribution may be 50%, or our contribution may be 0% (it could even be that, in some way we haven't even considered yet, we are preventing GW from happening at a "natural" rate, and that our contribution could be -50%). The point is, without being able to accurately define how certain elements of the climate system contribute to the overall climate, percentage attributions of "blame" are completely without scientific foundation and, as such, without merit.

You have said you are willing to accept that humans have contributed to recent temperature increases. If this is the case, we must also be able to contribute to future slowing of temperature increase. Given the possibility that failing to do so would have a negative impact on human (and all life) on Earth, surely it then follows that we should make the effort to do this.

I shall say one last time, in despair, that it would be irrational to do something that could have serious repurcussions for us and the planet. Here's a wild scenario for you: we follow Kyoto and its subsequent treaties for the next 100 years. As a result, we cripple ourselves economically and the human race starts to go into a decline. Before you know it, and much to everyone's surprise and horror, we end up, both economically and technologically, in the dark ages. The human race continues to survive and eventually goes through its second Industrial Revolution until, finally, we are back at square one. What was the point? Surely it is better to stabilise the economy, channel funding into cleaner fuel sources and sort ourselves out first, our CO2 emissions dropping all the time as we develop, switch to, and use cleaner and cleaner forms of fuel?

Okay, so this scenario is a hideous dystopia that goes nowhere compared to an unlikely utopia that brings us back to the Garden of Eden - yes, it is ridiculously exaggerated - but this extreme example shows a fundamental difference in approach. Why is it that the basic premise of "no regrets" is somehow "bad for the environment"? The whole point is that this approach eradicates the need to cut CO2 emissions because CO2 emissions fall naturally as a result of the approach. If CO2 emissions really do have a significant effect on global temperatures then we've done a good job. If not then at least we have cleaner (and more efficient) forms of fuel. With Kyoto, if CO2 emissions really do have a significant effect on global temperatures then we have saved the planet but royally screwed ourselves up by knobbling ourselves economically and stunting our development. If CO2 emissions don't have an effect on global temperatures then we have achieved nothing but knobbling ourselves. Great. It seems that it is all a matter of perspective. Forcing ourselves to cut down on emissions is not as good an idea as finding other sources that come with reduced emissions. I cannot understand why people can't see this.

Anyway, that was a ridiculously long post by me, so I'll leave it for now, let you mull it over and see what you have to say.

Later!

C-Bob

December 16, 2006

Table 6 of this: http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/biomass_burn/biomass.html gives estimates. I'll look for more recent estimates later. I know very little about the shrinking Sahara: I'll do some reserach when the dog has been walked.
:)P

Hmmm...interesting conclusions in that paper. Must do more digging!

C-Bob

December 16, 2006

The point of this graph is that the link between CO2 and temperature looks quite clear. I understand that it is possible to plot the temperature against any data which shows a rise since 1880 [e.g. average weight of British children], and this does not necessarily prove a correlation. But, in the case of the global temperature, you cannot so this for any forcing, such as Solar, and get a similar result [without 'fixing' the data].

We know there appears to be some correlation between temp and CO2, but this graph doesn't prove what that correlation might be.

Is it wrong to add measured data to proxy data? This is one of the central objections to another graph, the 'hockey stick'. It isn't bad science - the NAS, for example, concluded that this was a perfectly acceptable methodology. It does make sense to use the best available data, after all, and this is what is done here. There are no direct measurements of CO2 prior to 1950, so proxy data is the only available source, and direct measurement is more accurate than proxy data, so that is why it has been added.

So if you accept that the proxy data is less accurate than the direct data then why do you not also accept that the two data sets really shouldn't be sharing a set of axes?

You'll find a lot of technical, but interesting, objections to a range of proxy measurements on www.climateaudit.com . Now, what proportion of that ~1F increase since 1950 is attributable to human activity (GHGs). As you seem reluctant to commit to a figure, I'll suggest one; the amount of temperature increase attributable to increased atmospheric CO2 is most likely to be in the range of 30-50%. Any objection to this number?

Yes, my objection to this number is that 1) it is unprovable, and 2) it's a big range. This stresses two of the problems with global warming theory - firstly there is no proof and secondly the estimated ranges given are often so large as to be meaningless.

Rather than producing pretty graphs and drawing tenuous links between data sets, perhaps climatologists should be applying themselves to making a computer model that can actually be tested against observations.

C-Bob

December 16, 2006

For those who haven't come across it before, the 'petition signed by 17,000 scientists' cited by the Heartland Institute link is known as the 'Oregon petition'. This is one version of the story about it; feel free to google it & see what comes up.:
:)P

Thanks for that update P3 - point conceded that the petition appears to have been misleading and/or fraudulent. I shall drop that reference from the case post haste.

Out of interest, in a previous post I remarked: "Also, the authors of 13 of the cited papers refuted Soon and Baliunas' claims, but the study covered over 240 different papers. About 5% of the papers' authors were unhappy about the findings of the study. So the concensus is on Soon and Baliunas' side?" Any thoughts on this?

A couple of other quick points, after reviewing the thread - you said a while ago that wildfires were thought to contribute approximately 25% of global CO2 on an annual basis. Consider that wildfires are likely less prevalent than they were a thousand years ago (by dote of the fact that there is less vegetation now than then), and that at least a small percentage of wildfires are slowed, held steady or stopped as a result of human intervention, what would you estimate the likely annual contribution (as a percentage of modern-day CO2 output) of wildfires in past times to be?

Also, considering the suggestions of increased drought levels as global temperatures increase, what are your thoughts on the shrinking Sahara?

C-Bob

December 16, 2006

Please explain why this is not convincing?:
:)P

I think I've already made my feelings on graphs such as this clear. CO2 levels are rising - no argument from me. Temperatures are rising (approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit in 50 years) - again, no argument. The link between them? Inconclusive. Also, at present I object to the sudden switch from proxy data to physical readings - explanations to follow when I have more time...

C-Bob

December 14, 2006

Hi EA - nice to hear from you again! Let me go through your post a point at a time (or else I'll get terribly confused and start spouting nonsense, and that won't help a bit!)

Sadly the arguments on this board have gone away from the scientific ones to which you and P3 decided to have to political conjecture such as the above. Your answer to the above is indeed disingenuous; taxation is an electoral issue and no UK party apart from the Greens would seek to thrust forward extra taxation on green issues so openly without regard first to what effect these will ahve on the electorate's voting intentions. Politics is, if nothing else, a popularity contest in which you can have any policy you want (so long as it gets you elected!)

You're right, of course, about my comment being disingenuous - it was intended to be, in an attempt to emphasise the fact that politicians use environmental issues as an excuse for taxation rather than being genuinely concerned about it (also suggested in my comments previously about smoking - health issues aren't a major concern, but raising tax on cigarettes is...). I'm not happy with political discussions in general because, it seems, one man's hero is another man's crook, but the discussion segued into it. Time to return to science, methinks!

Incidentally I disagreed with the departure from being able to query sources of information. Part of the sceptic (I'm not sure sceptic is the right term here, I don't have a problem with sceptics - denial industry is better) aim in trying to present to the public their views have relied upon trying to appear as genuine scetics rather than carbon funded lobbyists. Your request that backgrounds not be challlenged falls exactly into their desire and hides for them a weakness. It doesn't stop what they say having to be rebutted or otherwise, but by automatically granting a press release credibility you make some PR men very happy.

I still maintain that the sources are irrelevant - the facts are facts regardless of the sources. If a source is dishonest and has skewed, distorted or fabricated facts then those facts should be easy to disprove, hence the source is irrelevant. A dishonest source is easy to discredit on a factual basis rather than on an ad hominem basis (sorry for that - ad hominem has become a popular phrase since the Monckton article, but it seemed an appropriate use

).

Furthermore you have failed to demonstrate why the scientists P3 has quoted in the past are not worthy of trusting. That you don't trust them does not make them untrustworthy unless you can demonstrate why. Otherwise the temptation is to suggest you just don't agree with them in which case you again need to demonstrate why. IMO anyway.

I'd better quickly just clarify my position on this - I have found that several scientists have released papers that continue to be refuted. I am not suggesting that these scientists have necessarily fabricated their information, or even that there is a deliberate distortion, but it is a well-known fact that personal bias can skew the findings of any scientific inquiry. This is why, in many different scientific arenas, they use the "double-blind" test, which helps to eliminate bias. Climate Science is one of the few sciences that does not incorporate a double-blind method to test their findings. When any one scientist (or group of scientists) proposes a theory and programs the models and runs the experiment and collates the data and makes the conclusions, there is quite obviously the scope for considerable bias to enter the process. The bias may well be completely subconscious and unintentional! I am not suggesting that these scientists are "crooked" or "untrustworthy" in that sense. I hope this explains my distrust of many of P3's sources.

I have just noted again I appear to be having a go at you - please take none of this as a personal attack. I have really enjoyed and learnt from some of your posts and you provide an effective foil for P3 on occasion.

No offense taken! Message boards are the kind of place you expect disagreements, but as long as the discussions are kept even-tempered and rational then I have no problem with that!

And thank you for your second comment - that is very flattering - P3 isn't an easy person to counter!

I hope you and P3 will back track from the science only and once again concentrate on the papers and who wrote them. I think it is central to the discussion you are having.

I do intend to get back onto the science now (I've had enough of politics!!), and hopefully we can make some more headway in the discussion.

I have a couple of interesting leads to follow up right now (tree growth data in heightened CO2 environments and historical ocean temperature records), so I must away!

Until next time

C-Bob

PS - To Neville - Just saw your post when I previewed this one! I shall try to keep the death threats to a minimum I did take your point, and I do appreciate what you are saying, but I have been trying to infer that the complete Earth system is more complex than many give it credit. The article Viking has linked to about "salps" is very interesting and, whether or not they have any tremedous contribution to negating global warming, the fact that they even exist introduces yet another level of uncertainty into the models. "There are more things in heaven and on Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio", as the Bard said. I might have to put that in my signature! TTFN

Sign In

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Events

Learn About Weather and Meteorology

Community guides

Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski