Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Global Not-warming-as-much-as-they-say


snowsure

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

do better than that go to the BAS web site.

link up in a tic

John

here is their main site

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_BAS/index.html

Edited by johnholmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Kent
  • Location: Kent
Not in a complex fraud case they don't! The judge is there to make sure that the evidence presented is relevant to the case, and he can, in extreme circumstances, choose to overrule the jury and go to retrial. Juries decide only in the context of the Judge's management of the process that allows them to make sound judgement. Oddly enough there is no requirement that jurors be of demonstrably sound or fair mind.

Mmm, reminds me of somewhere, mmmmm...

Now, now, behave SF!!!!

I know how the legal system works as I am employed by barristers and QC's (bankruptcy mainly).

do better than that go to the BAS web site.

link up in a tic

John

Cheers John ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
hi

Heaven knows where they make that headline up from.

This is a rather more reliable comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

For the actual release then go to the Bristish Antarctic Survey web site. It is their continuing work from which the news release stems.

Always best to get the facts rather than some cock and bull journalistic headline.

John

I read that article, today. I might be being a bit simplistic but doesn't recreating the paleo-climate record from the same place assume an equal distribution of the gases on's looking at?

For instance, in this case, does drilling out ice-cores from the poles assume that the distribution of CO2 caught there is the same as it is Britain? Or do we measure the modern CO2 change in the same place anyway, so the point is mute.

But then again if gas distribution varies on the basis of synoptic patterns - I presume the flow of gases is somewhat governed by the movement of air - then can we retrospectively build the synoptic pattern at the presumed time that the air-bubbles were made?

Edited by Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cockermouth, Cumbria - 47m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Winter - snow
  • Location: Cockermouth, Cumbria - 47m ASL
I read that article, today. I might be being a bit simplistic but doesn't recreating the paleo-climate record from the same place assume an equal distribution of the gases on's looking at?

For instance, in this case, does drilling out ice-cores from the poles assume that the distribution of CO2 caught there is the same as it is Britain? Or do we measure the modern CO2 change in the same place anyway, so the point is mute.

But then again if gas distribution varies on the basis of synoptic patterns - I presume the flow of gases is somewhat governed by the movement of air - then can we retrospectively build the synoptic pattern at the presumed time that the air-bubbles were made?

i'm certainly not a scientist but am i not right in assuming that atmospheric mixing is sufficient to quickly disapate CO2 to the whole globe. If it didn't would we not have seen mass suffication in areas where a lot of CO2 is produced. Taking a more visible example - smoke from a large fire, whilst causing time limited concentrations of dense health affecting poulution, eventually disapears, or rather spreads to a much greater area and thus gets thinned.

Edited by Red Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
i'm certainly not a scientist but am i not right in assuming that atmospheric mixing is sufficient to quickly disapate CO2 to the whole globe. If it didn't would we not have seen mass suffication in areas where a lot of CO2 is produced. Taking a more visible example - smoke from a large fire, whilst causing time limited concentrations of dense health affecting poulution, eventually disapears, or rather spreads to a much greater area and thus gets thinned.
Oh for sure, but you need a concentration of 1800ppm for toxicity to human beings; I think we're a little short of that right now ;)

EDIT: I apolgise the correct toxicity effect is 20,000 ppm

Edited by Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

For global CO2 this is good http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figu...2_surface_color from http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures .

CO2 show a greater annual cycle in the NH (more land, seasonal vegitation) but overall the trend is clearly up and up everywhere. CO2 is undoubtedly a well mixed atmospheric gas.

Oh, and it's as clear as anything is wrt recent atmospheric changes that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic - I'll add a link explaining why later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
For global CO2 this is good http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figu...2_surface_color from http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures .

CO2 show a greater annual cycle in the NH (more land, seasonal vegitation) but overall the trend is clearly up and up everywhere. CO2 is undoubtedly a well mixed atmospheric gas.

Oh, and it's as clear as anything is wrt recent atmospheric changes that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic - I'll add a link explaining why later.

I'm aware of the C isotope evidence. Many thanks for the other links, though :) Just asking simple questions for my simple mind ;)

It looks to me that the 25ppm difference in high CO2, and low CO2 is the quantity that high CO2 has risen in the last 10 years. I'm not sure how significant that is . . .

Edited by Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

For global CO2 this is good http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figu...2_surface_color from http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures .

CO2 show a greater annual cycle in the NH (more land, seasonal vegitation) but overall the trend is clearly up and up everywhere. CO2 is undoubtedly a well mixed atmospheric gas.

Oh, and it's as clear as anything is wrt recent atmospheric changes that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic - I'll add a link explaining why later.

This is the best explaination for why the extra CO2 has to be our doing that I've found on the net - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/7/104649/4911

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
It doesn't weaken it one jot. Given that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, cause and effect doesn't really matter, though some kind of heating feedback is clealry implicated. If mankind is adding to the carbon load in the atmosphere he is therefore adding to the heating.

With respect SF, I think it does. Having read the article highlighted by P3 it is clear to me that although CO2 emissions have an amplifying effect, they are not the cause of warming. The initial cause has to be something else such as Milankovich forcing. The key phrases in this article for me are:

"In other words CO2 does not initiate the warmings but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."

and

"The lag of CO2 BEHIND temperature does not tell us much about Global Warming"

Seems to me that temp rise is first and that causes C02 to be released which amplifies the warming - not vice versa. I have always suspected that what is happening today is that we as humans are only adding to an already occurring natural cycle. We are a contributor to this warming phase but we are not the major cause as some would have us believe.

Warming causes increased CO2 which amplifies the warming not the other way around. It still means of course that we need to do something about the amount of CO2 we are contributing to this process, but it is nevertheless a naturally occurring process that we risk unbalancing rather than one that we have initiated IMO.

Tks for the link P3 - excellent site.

Edited by Viking141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
With respect SF, I think it does. Having read the article highlighted by P3 it is clear to me that although CO2 emissions have an amplifying effect, they are not the cause of warming. The initial cause has to be something else such as Milankovich forcing. The key phrases in this article for me are:

"In other words CO2 does not initiate the warmings but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."

and

"The lag of CO2 BEHIND temperature does not tell us much about Global Warming"

Seems to me that temp rise is first and that causes C02 to be released which amplifies the warming - not vice versa. I have always suspected that what is happening today is that we as humans are only adding to an already occurring natural cycle. We are a contributor to this warming phase but we are not the major cause as some would have us believe.

Warming causes increased CO2 which amplifies the warming not the other way around. It still means of course that we need to do something about the amount of CO2 we are contributing to this process, but it is nevertheless a naturally occurring process that we risk unbalancing rather than one that we have initiated IMO.

Tks for the link P3 - excellent site.

Viking, all you've done is restate my argument in different sequence. Were we NOT in a situation where CO2 and temperatures were rising then it wouldn't matter, but since we're in agreement BOTH that CO2 has a warming effect (whether leading or lagging) and that at present man is adding to the load then we are very much in positive feedbck cycle I alluded to.

In any case, you still have answered the point I made. In the past it is quite possible that CO2 did follow temperature, but that does not mean that that is what is happening this time. In all the past instances there was no man made carbon surplus, because - by and large - there weren't many men, and evolution was fairly primitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

Why does it have to be scientists and academics who are right? Why can it not be the ordinary man/woman on the street who has noticed subtle changes in his/her own part of the world?

Observation is the key for me. True I am talking about my own part of the world, but the observations of the ordinary man/woman seem to be pooh-poohed all too frequently to my way of thinking.

Thankfully, I am coming across more and more eminent people who are coming around to my way of thinking ( :) B) ) and are saying that far more attention should be paid to observations over statistics. Somewhere in my untidy home I have the details of someone from Colorado University (an emeritus professor) who is of this mind. He is a climatologist and I will dig out the details when I have a few spare moments, so that I can have some back-up for my argument. I have details of others as well, but I am being specific to climate change here.

I think that my argument is not so much to do with actual climate change, but more with what information is used to draw conclusions.

I hope sense can be made of my drivellings.....I'm not much good at discussion but I know what I mean!

Edited by noggin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
I read that article, today. I might be being a bit simplistic but doesn't recreating the paleo-climate record from the same place assume an equal distribution of the gases on's looking at?

For instance, in this case, does drilling out ice-cores from the poles assume that the distribution of CO2 caught there is the same as it is Britain? Or do we measure the modern CO2 change in the same place anyway, so the point is mute.

But then again if gas distribution varies on the basis of synoptic patterns - I presume the flow of gases is somewhat governed by the movement of air - then can we retrospectively build the synoptic pattern at the presumed time that the air-bubbles were made?

Wilson, it does, but gas being, well, gaseous, you tend to find that around the world levels even out very quickly by osmosis. Smoke from your garden fire dissipates, for example. Also, have you ever noticed, and this IS remarkable don't you think, that there's as much Oxygen (ignoring at the fifth or sixt decimal) in, say, France, as there is here in the north of England, and nitrogen and everything else.

And it's not a MOOT point either, or a mute one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
Why does it have to be scientists and academics who are right? Why can it not be the ordinary man/woman on the street who has noticed subtle changes in his/her own part of the world?

Observation is the key for me. True I am talking about my own part of the world, but the observations of the ordinary man/woman seem to be pooh-poohed all too frequently to my way of thinking.

Thankfully, I am coming across more and more eminent people who are coming around to my way of thinking ( :) :huh: ) and are saying that far more attention should be paid to observations over statistics. Somewhere in my untidy home I have the details of someone from Colorado University (an emeritus professor) who is of this mind. He is a climatologist and I will dig out the details when I have a few spare moments, so that I can have some back-up for my argument. I have details of others as well, but I am being specific to climate change here.

I think that my argument is not so much to do with actual climate change, but more with what information is used to draw conclusions.

I hope sense can be made of my drivellings.....I'm not much good at discussion but I know what I mean!

Noggin, observation does matter, and if you can be bothered to GO SEE THE THREAD ON WINTER GETTING SHORTER, you will see there a study based on little more than observations. These observations, though, are still handled rigorously i.e. within rules for analysing and processing data that ensure that inadvertent bias cannot enter the system. Observations without statistics to assess them are simply random data that are open to all sorts of bias.

To make the point using a silly argument. You could awalk up a mountain every day for twenty years, and monitor alpine species growing more abundantly. Out of that you might infer that because alpine species like mountain climates the mountian climate is becoming more pervasive the world over. All you've done is look at one species (perhaps) in one location, drawn in inference and then extrapolated that around the world. Making robust argument is less easy that joining random dots on a piece of paper, and simple observation alone risks falling into the latter.

My own mother uses observation, but she does it with RIGOUR. Every year she marks her calendar with various natural events; first daffodil bloom, cherry blossom etc. That's what's required, pinning the observations in a way that allows robust comparison, rather than the sort of "I'm sure it use to be warmer than it is now" type musings that are risked otherwise.

The psychology books are stuffed full of case studies demonstrating that our ability, unfettered, to process, store, and recall information is actually not that good, and certainly not good enough to make watertight arguments for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
The psychology books are stuffed full of case studies demonstrating that our ability, unfettered, to process, store, and recall information is actually not that good, and certainly not good enough to make watertight arguments for anything.
Oh yes; I concur with that most certainly . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire

Quite often on these forums arguments arise around whether anthropological affects on weather are real. Far too often people’s views seem to polarise into either a ‘Everyone accepts global warming is true’ view or a ‘The planet is so big how can we possibly affect it’ point of view. Quite often these polarised views lead to frustration when protagonists fail to understand why the other can not agree with them. Before I delve any further into this murky area I would like to point out that I firmly believe man kinds activities are having a detrimental affect on climate. This I think firmly places me in one particular camp, but the processes involved are extremely complex, arguments are full of well meaning but sometimes inaccurate data, and to be honest I am not sure how great an affect we are having. I join some esteemed company in having doubts about some of the facts banded around about global warming, for example Professor Lindzen at MIT. This short discussion is to open a few eyes, to cast a few doubts, to lead people down some new avenues of thought with the idea that further discussions on the subject might be more harmonious.

The idea that global warming exists comes from some select quotes and graphs displayed on the internet.

1) Temperatures have risen by 0.6C around the equator as a whole over the last 100 years.

A true statement which tends to cover up that the rise was in two burst and correlation to CO2 rises is not particularly good. Looking at Tiros-n Satellite derived temperatures for the world (as opposed to just equator) then I find it very hard to pick out a warming trend.

2) Graphs like the following from the Hadley Center are shown on the internet as evidence of global warming.

Again this is a true representation of the gathered data, certainly its axis exaggerate warming but fundamentally you must take into account that the temperature readings are gathered largely near to where people are and this may have had an affect.

For each argument of evidence of global warming there is suggestions that the data is tainted by other factors and different sources of information show different results.

Assuming that global warming is taking place then lets look a bit deeper at the science of warming. The contention in Europe is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause significant warming. The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It seems obvious that small changes in water vapour would have a much more dramatic affect than CO2 and you could argue that the warmer the earth gets the more water will evapourate, so that you end up with a positive feedback situation and runaway warming. It has not happened and nor is it likely to, and here we need to look more closely at the role of clouds and there relation to planetary albedo.

When sunlight reaches the Earth's surface, some is absorbed and warms the earth. Because the earth is much cooler than the sun, it radiates energy at much longer wavelengths than the sun (see Black body radiation and Wien's displacement law); some of these longer wavelengths are absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before they are lost to space. The absorption of this longwave radiant energy warms the atmosphere (the atmosphere also is warmed by transfer of sensible and latent heat from the surface). Greenhouse gases also emit longwave radiation both upward to space and downward to the surface. The downward part of this longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the "greenhouse effect." The term is in fact a misnomer, as this process is not the primary mechanism that warms greenhouses. The most important criteria for where the planet warms is the amount of energy reaching the surface as opposed to the amount being radiated back out. The largest controller of this budget is clouds ,far more so than CO2. Deep clouds tend to act as a greenhouse whilst low clouds reflect away more heat than they trap in. The net effect of a increase in low cloud over the planet of 1 percent would negate the affects of an increase in CO2 of about 10 percent.

Much has also been made of the Ozone Holes at the poles and it is suggested that CFC gases from aerosol sprays and fridges are the culprit for this. What is failed to be mentioned is the ozone pooling at the equators and how CFC’s usually a rather heavy gas manage to get up into the stratosphere. The chemical reaction with the types of ozone found in the stratosphere also seems unlikely although CFC’s would have potentially large affects on some of the other important chemicals found in the stratosphere.

Coming back to low level clouds and within the last few years a correlation has been discovered between sunspots and low level cloud where low level cloud increases by 3 or 4 % when there are low levels of sunspots.

Current thinking is that the solar wind increases during sunspot activity and blasts away the galactic cosmic rays. It is the galactic rays which seed low level cloud by an ionisation process. This suggest that as sunspot activity goes up and down then temperatures go up and down as well which fits in nicely with the maunder minimum having very few sunspots.

The temperature variations here are likely to be a few degrees and likely to swamp any global warming signals over the short term. This off course assumes that cosmic radiations remains at a constant level and there are indications that it is picking up with the last century being a very quite time. With earth moving out of a relatively sheltered part of the galaxy spiral into a more exposed area, could in theory spell a dramatic cool down which would completely swamp any global warming.

I guess I am having a bit of fun here but the science has some merit and introduces a few glimmers of doubt about some of the claims made about global warming. In other words don't be so sure we understand whats going on.

References

Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar climate relationships. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen.

Solar cycles not CO2 Determine climate by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

Ice cores reveal high solar activity Dr sami solanki.

Correlations of atmospheric dynamic with solar wind-induced changes in air-earth current density into cloud tops. Tinsley B A

Increasing Ozone over the Atlantic Ocean Lelieveld et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
This I think firmly places me in one particular camp, but the processes involved are extremely complex, arguments are full of well meaning but sometimes inaccurate data, and to be honest I am not sure how great an affect we are having.

Quite a substantial post! I have a similar viewpoint to you BF.

Perhaps I am a bit more extreme by thinking that the earth will be able to respond to the obvious GW that is occuring, rather than being inert. Whether this causes a reversal or not I do not know (but I expect a BAU outcome due to the slow onset, in human timescales, of any climate variation.)

Once again, good post. Get ready for the onslaught!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Quite often on these forums arguments arise around whether anthropological affects on weather are real. Far too often people’s views seem to polarise into either a ‘Everyone accepts global warming is true’ view or a ‘The planet is so big how can we possibly affect it’ point of view. Quite often these polarised views lead to frustration when protagonists fail to understand why the other can not agree with them. Before I delve any further into this murky area I would like to point out that I firmly believe man kinds activities are having a detrimental affect on climate. This I think firmly places me in one particular camp, but the processes involved are extremely complex, arguments are full of well meaning but sometimes inaccurate data, and to be honest I am not sure how great an affect we are having. I join some esteemed company in having doubts about some of the facts banded around about global warming, for example Professor Lindzen at MIT. This short discussion is to open a few eyes, to cast a few doubts, to lead people down some new avenues of thought with the idea that further discussions on the subject might be more harmonious.

The idea that global warming exists comes from some select quotes and graphs displayed on the internet.

1) Temperatures have risen by 0.6C around the equator as a whole over the last 100 years.

A true statement which tends to cover up that the rise was in two burst and correlation to CO2 rises is not particularly good. Looking at Tiros-n Satellite derived temperatures for the world (as opposed to just equator) then I find it very hard to pick out a warming trend.

2) Graphs like the following from the Hadley Center are shown on the internet as evidence of global warming.

Again this is a true representation of the gathered data, certainly its axis exaggerate warming but fundamentally you must take into account that the temperature readings are gathered largely near to where people are and this may have had an affect.

For each argument of evidence of global warming there is suggestions that the data is tainted by other factors and different sources of information show different results.

Assuming that global warming is taking place then lets look a bit deeper at the science of warming. The contention in Europe is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause significant warming. The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It seems obvious that small changes in water vapour would have a much more dramatic affect than CO2 and you could argue that the warmer the earth gets the more water will evapourate, so that you end up with a positive feedback situation and runaway warming. It has not happened and nor is it likely to, and here we need to look more closely at the role of clouds and there relation to planetary albedo.

When sunlight reaches the Earth's surface, some is absorbed and warms the earth. Because the earth is much cooler than the sun, it radiates energy at much longer wavelengths than the sun (see Black body radiation and Wien's displacement law); some of these longer wavelengths are absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before they are lost to space. The absorption of this longwave radiant energy warms the atmosphere (the atmosphere also is warmed by transfer of sensible and latent heat from the surface). Greenhouse gases also emit longwave radiation both upward to space and downward to the surface. The downward part of this longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the "greenhouse effect." The term is in fact a misnomer, as this process is not the primary mechanism that warms greenhouses. The most important criteria for where the planet warms is the amount of energy reaching the surface as opposed to the amount being radiated back out. The largest controller of this budget is clouds ,far more so than CO2. Deep clouds tend to act as a greenhouse whilst low clouds reflect away more heat than they trap in. The net effect of a increase in low cloud over the planet of 1 percent would negate the affects of an increase in CO2 of about 10 percent.

Much has also been made of the Ozone Holes at the poles and it is suggested that CFC gases from aerosol sprays and fridges are the culprit for this. What is failed to be mentioned is the ozone pooling at the equators and how CFC’s usually a rather heavy gas manage to get up into the stratosphere. The chemical reaction with the types of ozone found in the stratosphere also seems unlikely although CFC’s would have potentially large affects on some of the other important chemicals found in the stratosphere.

Coming back to low level clouds and within the last few years a correlation has been discovered between sunspots and low level cloud where low level cloud increases by 3 or 4 % when there are low levels of sunspots.

Current thinking is that the solar wind increases during sunspot activity and blasts away the galactic cosmic rays. It is the galactic rays which seed low level cloud by an ionisation process. This suggest that as sunspot activity goes up and down then temperatures go up and down as well which fits in nicely with the maunder minimum having very few sunspots.

The temperature variations here are likely to be a few degrees and likely to swamp any global warming signals over the short term. This off course assumes that cosmic radiations remains at a constant level and there are indications that it is picking up with the last century being a very quite time. With earth moving out of a relatively sheltered part of the galaxy spiral into a more exposed area, could in theory spell a dramatic cool down which would completely swamp any global warming.

I guess I am having a bit of fun here but the science has some merit and introduces a few glimmers of doubt about some of the claims made about global warming. In other words don't be so sure we understand whats going on.

References

Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar climate relationships. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen.

Solar cycles not CO2 Determine climate by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

Ice cores reveal high solar activity Dr sami solanki.

Correlations of atmospheric dynamic with solar wind-induced changes in air-earth current density into cloud tops. Tinsley B A

Increasing Ozone over the Atlantic Ocean Lelieveld et al.

Brickfielder,

Why do you use a satellite record graph that end in 2002 when a better graph is available? You, perhaps, don't know that the data has been looked at and revised?

Have you checked this critique of Zbigniew Jaworowski? It's difficult to ignore it's conclusions - Dr Z is plain wrong.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

I've said this before, but my view on the scientists is that while there are some biased scientists out there, for the most part scientific research is conducted from a variety of viewpoints and tends to focus on factual data rather than opinion. Thus, sources like the IPCC reports are likely to rank among the least biased.

The problem arises when the media sensationalise these reports and make them sound like doomsday scenarios, when in reality people like those at the IPCC put much emphasis on words like "might" and "likely" rather than "will" and "definitely".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Noggin: your Colorado State Emeritus Professor is Roger Pielke Sr. He runs (assiduously) the website 'Climate Science', which is non-conformist, but genuinely scientific and highly respected.

Brickfielder. Excellent research. Inside the science community there is some controversy about Friis-Christiansen, because of a suspect paper in 1991 - I don't know whether it's the one you cite. Solanki has also come across a few 'problems' with recent publications. All of the sources are, however, respected scientists,which just goes to show that (as some have said), it's hard to know who to trust.

Given some of the controversy surrounding solarflux/cosmic ray theory in scientific circles at the moment, it's probably fair to say that these arguments/ideas are still, as yet, unproven, which is not the same as saying they are wrong.

The idea that the Earth's climate may adjust itself is an interesting one, and may prove, in the long run, to be true. Two worries about this, though: we are, almost without doubt, having an impact on the climate. That impact, whatever the record says about millions of years ago, has no precedent, little ice ages, medieval warmings, or whatever, over the last 650,000 years; so we don't know how the earth's natural climate system is going to react, precisely, though we have some fairly good ideas. The second worry is, if 'Nature' does react, as it appears to be, that reaction is predicted to be violent and extreme, in some parts of the world, at least.

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
I've said this before, but my view on the scientists is that while there are some biased scientists out there, for the most part scientific research is conducted from a variety of viewpoints and tends to focus on factual data rather than opinion. Thus, sources like the IPCC reports are likely to rank among the least biased.

The problem arises when the media sensationalise these reports and make them sound like doomsday scenarios, when in reality people like those at the IPCC put much emphasis on words like "might" and "likely" rather than "will" and "definitely".

I think that's fair, though IPCC did use the Mann curve, and I was reminded by numerous reroutes from Devonian's challenge to our polish friend and the particular debunker he uses, of some interesting work by McIntyre and McKitrick, summarised nicely in Wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_r...past_1000_years

and in the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB110....html?mod=blogs

You can find a lot of McIntyre's work here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

It seems to be a good challenge to Mann's work, although more recently continued warming has heightened the profile at the right hand side of Mann's curve so tending to weaken slightly the argument that there have been warmer regimes in the past 1000 years. Even so, McIntyre himself concludes that this historic reassessment does not necessarily impact on arguments about current forcing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

The McIntyre & McKittrick critique is an interesting one. The focus was extremely narrow, dealing with the possible impact of some of the statistical work done on the 'hockey stick' paper. Although their findings are valid, they do not 'follow through'; in other words, the criticised element has not impact on the final result or on the pattern of the graph. Although the 'Wegman hearing' found fault with Mann, Wegman himself is currently under investigation for his funding/support, and the Academy of Sciences have concluded, for about the fourth time, that the Mann paper, and the 'hockey stick', are both valid.

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!
Oh yes; I concur with that most certainly . . .

.....and me. Our collective (and individual, in most cases) weather memory, as Western-facing Island race who are dominated by and are famed for talking about the weather, is completely appalling. :blink:

Paul

The McIntyre & McKittrick critique is an interesting one. The focus was extremely narrow, dealing with the possible impact of some of the statistical work done on the 'hockey stick' paper. Although their findings are valid, they do not 'follow through'; in other words, the criticised element has not impact on the final result or on the pattern of the graph. Although the 'Wegman hearing' found fault with Mann, Wegman himself is currently under investigation for his funding/support, and the Academy of Sciences have concluded, for about the fourth time, that the Mann paper, and the 'hockey stick', are both valid.

:lol: P

You and SF know your stuff, here P3. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that this is one of the best discussions currently on netweather.

I don't love the hockey stick graph. It nags at me. I feel we need at least 10, maybe 20 years to see whether GW is accelerating, or just advancing at a constant rate. The hockey stick graph may be correct and if it is, goodness knows what catastrophe we will be experiencing in 20 years time, as exponentiality is a frightening thing with regard to climate. I'm just not sure we have a long enough dataset to believe it.

Paul

Edited by Dawlish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
You and SF know your stuff, here P3. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that this is one of the best discussions currently on netweather.

I don't love the hockey stick graph. It nags at me. I feel we need at least 10, maybe 20 years to see whether GW is accelerating, or just advancing at a constant rate. The hockey stick graph may be correct and if it is, goodness knows what catastrophe we will be experiencing in 20 years time, as exponentiality is a frightening thing with regard to climate. I'm just not sure we have a long enough dataset to believe it.

Agreed . . . . . . agreed. . . . . . . agreed . . . . . . agreed . . . . . . agreed.

Yep, totally agree with you there, Dawlish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
Brickfielder,

Why do you use a satellite record graph that end in 2002 when a better graph is available? You, perhaps, don't know that the data has been looked at and revised?

Have you checked this critique of Zbigniew Jaworowski? It's difficult to ignore it's conclusions - Dr Z is plain wrong.

Is it a better graph though. Your graph shows satellite temperatures, but it does not include the polar orbiting satelites. The graph I displayed is from NASA and is looking at troposphere temperatures not surface temperatures.

The Latest charts and some explanations about discrepancies

The critique of Zbigniew Jaworowski is specifically about his work claiming that historical CO2 records

based on ice cores were wrong and in this respect he deserved the critique. Later work is much more based on Henrik Svensmark's work, who's work is largely respected.

NASA link

Method comparisons

Adjusted Adjusted data shows cooling

References

A reanalysis of the MSU Channel 2 Tropospheric Temperature Record. 2003 Mears Schabel and Wentz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...