Climate Chaos ? Don't believe it

[Mr Sleet]

...from 5/11/06.

Mentioned in another thread, but I've highlighted it here. You can download the full 40 pages by following the link in the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

Oh dear, I don't know what to think now :ph34r:

OK read it now. I'm afraid I've just been tipped firmly back into the sceptics camp. The way the MWP and little ice age were massaged out of the "Hockey Stick" ( allegedly) is a bit of an eyebrow raiser, to say the least. Interesting that a Chinese Naval Expedition in 1421 ( ?) sailed through the North Pole and found no sea ice at all.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[jethro]

Thanks for posting the link, new to this game.

So it's not just me then who's confused? Thank goodness. Anyone who can debunk this, point me in the direction where I can validate it myself? Is it tripe, hogwash or is it true?

[Mr Sleet]

Thanks for posting the link, new to this game.

So it's not just me then who's confused? Thank goodness. Anyone who can debunk this, point me in the direction where I can validate it myself? Is it tripe, hogwash or is it true?

Jethro , I'm a R&D scientist in the private sector, have been for 20 years now, and I'm still confused. I showed this article to a colleague of mine , a rather experienced vulcanologist, I quote his response below

"I think your chum is as guilty as anyone else of rigging. For instance, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the one that relates radiative energy transfer to surface temperature, assuming black body radiators. For our high-albedo planet, the black body assumption is wrong, and we have to assume a figure for 'emissivity' (I presume related to what they're calling lambda). That figure depends almost entirely on ice cover. If the UN and others are assuming total loss of ice in quoting their high values of degrees per watt, then that's fair enough. They should have said so in their report, but I wouldn't bank on this Telegraph guy to have reported them fairly. There must certainly be justification for assuming total loss of ice, considering how fast it's disappearing.

The rate of accumulation of CO2 doubled from the figure he gives a year or two ago (probably due to Amazon deforestation for soya plantations).

Also, a man of his background should know that the first greenhouse warming predictions were made by a German scientist (name escapes me) in 1870, so the phenomenon has been anticipated for some time.

I think this article falls into the same traps as so many - it's selective and political.

In a way, that shows how seriously people are taking this debate; people don't falsify arguments and quote selectively unless they are really quite moved. But how you get at the 'science' is another matter."

He then advised me to keep on taking the tablets

Edited November 6, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[jethro]

Got any spare ones?

[Devonian]

...from 5/11/06.

Mentioned in another thread, but I've highlighted it here. You can download the full 40 pages by following the link in the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

Oh dear, I don't know what to think now :huh:

OK read it now. I'm afraid I've just been tipped firmly back into the sceptics camp. The way the MWP and little ice age were massaged out of the "Hockey Stick" ( allegedly) is a bit of an eyebrow raiser, to say the least. Interesting that a Chinese Naval Expedition in 1421 ( ?) sailed through the North Pole and found no sea ice at all.

Is that tongue in check? Or do you think the claim that the Chinese navy got to the Arctic and explored it in the 1400's is a claim worthy of serious consideration?

a Hint about my view :ph34r:

[VillagePlank]

Yeah I've read similar arguments about climate change, before

I think the most interesting part is the opening which says "All climate scientists accept that there are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, and that in consequence the world will warm somewhat."

So, I suppose, I can conclude that regardless of his subsequent content: (i) GHG are increasing, and (ii) The world will warm.

All this chap has done, in my opinion, is point out all of the errors thus far in the child science of climatology. Some may be true, some may be false, but the assertion of modern climatology is (you guessed it) "there are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, and that in consequence the world will warm somewhat" which is what he says, anyway. I'm sure that we can dig out some errors leading up to the production of the general theory of relativity (Newton, for a start) but at the end of the day it's irrelevant; there are more ghg's and the world will warm because of it!

Of course, he also quotes Wellington “If you will believe that, you will believe anything” Is he referring to his own article?

[parmenides3]

Hello, all. just a quick comment before I take the dog out.

This is familiar material in the climate science community. it could have been borrowed verbatim from JunkScience or the CEI, for all it's worth. Almost all of it is deception, but sometimes in subtle ways. Basically, Monkton is wrong, and the language he uses is deliberately slanted to make his case look stronger than it actually is. I am curious, for example, why he refers throughout to the UN. The UN produced no report: it was the IPCC, an independent panel of several hundred scientists.

To give one example from Mr. Sleet's post: the alleged hockey stick controversy. This has been a target of skeptics since the IPCC placed so much emphasis on it in 2001. It has since become one of the most scrutinised pieces of science ever. This year, two separate committees produced findings on the graph and the paper it came from which both said that it was okay; not bad science, not a fudge, not a deception. There was an observation that the MWP and the LIA were not well-represented, but these were the function of a standard smoothing mechanism that was used with the data that went into the construction of the graph. There never was any 'massaging', and there never was a claim that the present is warmer than the MWP was.

If you wish to raise questions about some of Monkton's comments one at a time, I can show you, without too much effort, what is wrong about what he says. I'm not going to post a point by point refutation, because it would be long and boring, but will happily address the specifics; any takers?

Monkton has not really raised any points about the limits of climate science; he simply regurgitates the same old skeptic guff.

You may nto be willing to accept it yet, but hopefully I can show you that there is no cause for confusion on the basis of this article.

:)P

[Mr Sleet]

Is that tongue in check? Or do you think the claim that the Chinese navy got to the Arctic and explored it in the 1400's is a claim worthy of serious consideration?

a Hint about my view

It' s what was said in the article. Strange claim to make if it's untrue. I'll see if I can dig anything up on it.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[parmenides3]

It' s what was said in the article. Strange claim to make if it's untrue. I'll see if I can dig anything up on it.

There's an amusing reference to it here, as well as a general demolition of the article as a whole. It'll save me some trouble if people have a quick read: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/ch...global.php#more

:)P

[The Penguin]

"I think your chum is as guilty as anyone else of rigging. For instance, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the one that relates radiative energy transfer to surface temperature, assuming black body radiators. For our high-albedo planet, the black body assumption is wrong, and we have to assume a figure for 'emissivity' (I presume related to what they're calling lambda). That figure depends almost entirely on ice cover. If the UN and others are assuming total loss of ice in quoting their high values of degrees per watt, then that's fair enough. They should have said so in their report, but I wouldn't bank on this Telegraph guy to have reported them fairly. There must certainly be justification for assuming total loss of ice, considering how fast it's disappearing.

I could well be missing something, but is the reflective quality of ice at the poles not a bit of a moot point. The energy received in those regions is minimal because of the tangential angle at which the sun's 'rays' hit the earth's surface. Or rather glance off it. Therefore whether the poles are covered in ice or not can't make much of a difference in the context of overall global warming.

[parmenides3]

I could well be missing something, but is the reflective quality of ice at the poles not a bit of a moot point. The energy received in those regions is minimal because of the tangential angle at which the sun's 'rays' hit the earth's surface. Or rather glance off it. Therefore whether the poles are covered in ice or not can't make much of a difference in the context of overall global warming.

No. Although the angle of incidence is low, the albedo makes a big difference to global climate, as does all the extra open water which can absorb extra heat. The more ice loss in the Arctic, the quicker the process goes on: it's a proven feedback into the climate/temperature system. Although it is a moot point, if you read the link, as the stuff about the Stefan-Boltzmann law is utterly and completely irrelevant to a discussion of GW. Monckton is copying someone else's ideas, but that person is not a scientist.

:)p

[Gray-Wolf]

I get the feeling that if the're are people out there 'hoping' for climate catastrophe then the're must also be many more 'hoping' it's all baloney (it would make more sense to live in denial when faced with forced lifestyle changes than to run open armed into the unexpected).

I do get the feeling that change is becoming so well accepted (through observation) that within a few short years the 'nay sayers' will be no more than light relief.

[The Penguin]

That’s a perfectly valid opinion. Mine is that nobody involved in this discussion will be around long enough to prove their point one way or the other. In the meantime, I’d rather be a happy fool than a miserable old git. In an environmentally responsible kind of way, you understand.

[Gray-Wolf]

That's a perfectly valid opinion. Mine is that nobody involved in this discussion will be around long enough to prove their point one way or the other..

Do you know something about bird-flu that I don't ?

[parmenides3]

Do you know something about bird-flu that I don't ?

Yes. It's like bloke 'flu, but real.

:)P

[coldfingers]

Really interesting discussion and I have to admit that for me the jury is still out about global warming. I just don't know enough to make any decision.

However, and I hope this isn't too stupid an arguement, I read somewhere about permafrost melting in Siberia, causing the body/bodys of mammoth to come to light and for the meat of these mammoths to be fresh due to the deep freezing of these bodies. Now I don't know if the above is true, and I am one of the worlds greatest sceptics, however, if it is true would not these bodies have come to light and decomposed many years ago if the Arctic Ocean had really been free of ice in the 1400's?

[The Penguin]

Actually, bird flue is a good case in point. Just because the last serious epidemic developed from the bird variety, the press get hold of the latest outbreak in Asia and blow it up into the End Of The World. There was, and is, no particular reason why this instance of that disease should prove to be apocalyptic, but some people were frightened by the tales of doom and the press continued to build the story. Ultimately of course, time alone will tell but I’ll bet a pound to a penny the whole thing will be forgotten in a year at most.

I think I’m a rational optimist and I refuse to be bothered by inconclusive scare mongering. Besides, bird flue can’t hurt me. I’m a helicopter.

[davehsug]

Just a thought here. Why when used in connestion to GW is sceptic a dirty word?

I'm allowed, even encouraged to be sceptical about UFOs, religion, politicians, Stoke City winning the champions league within 3 years.

Yet when I'm sceptical about the extent, cause & ultimate outcome of GW it's ok to call those of us who are not sure or unconvinced at any rate, GW deniers, almost tainting us to be as bad as holocaust deiners.

The figures seem to prove that some warming is taking place at the moment, nothing that hasn't happened before of course, yet people are allowed to quote "facts" like "the world will warm by 5c by the end of the century", on national "news" broadcasts almost totally without challenge.

Of course, it makes sense to reduce pollution of all kinds & we should be as kind to the environment as we can be, but there is a certain element around now who view people who don't share their views as little more than criminals.

For the first time, the climate does appear to be warming at a time when man has the science to 1) know that it's happening & 2) try to explain why this MAY be happening. What would they have been saying had they been around when Greenland was warm enough to be settled all those years ago?

Just a thought from someone who isn't a scientist, has no dogmatic views on the subject, but smells a rat (or at least a big mouse) in some of what I'm being told to be undeniable truth.

Dave

Edited November 6, 2006 by davehsug

[jethro]

Joy!! A like minded person, at last. I raised similar issues, albeit in I think the wrong thread - we can't afford not to tackle AGW.

[Mr Sleet]

Just a thought here. Why when used in connestion to GW is sceptic a dirty word?

I'm allowed, even encouraged to be sceptical about UFOs, religion, politicians, Stoke City winning the champions league within 3 years.

Yet when I'm sceptical about the extent, cause & ultimate outcome of GW it's ok to call those of us who are not sure or unconvinced at any rate, GW deniers, almost tainting us to be as bad as holocaust deiners.

The figures seem to prove that some warming is taking place at the moment, nothing that hasn't happened before of course, yet people are allowed to quote "facts" like "the world will warm by 5c by the end of the century", on national "news" broadcasts almost totally without challenge.

Of course, it makes sense to reduce pollution of all kinds & we should be as kind to the environment as we can be, but there is a certain element around now who view people who don't share their views as little more than criminals.

For the first time, the climate does appear to be warming at a time when man has the science to 1) know that it's happening & 2) try to explain why this MAY be happening. What would they have been saying had they been around when Greenland was warm enough to be settled all those years ago?

Just a thought from someone who isn't a scientist, has no dogmatic views on the subject, but smells a rat (or at least a big mouse) in some of what I'm being told to be undeniable truth.

Dave

Well said.

[Mr Sleet]

There's an amusing reference to it here, as well as a general demolition of the article as a whole. It'll save me some trouble if people have a quick read: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/ch...global.php#more

:)P

The chinese navy bit does seem a bit dodgy , great piece of ammunition to sway the doubters though, I can use that at Christmas parties this year.

Still unconvinced about the lack of MWP and LIA in the hockey stick graph though. There are plenty of historical accounts suggesting that things were unusual during those periods.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Dawlish]

Another factor here - and one that has concerned me for some time - is; why should we deny China and India (and other 3rd world countries) the chance to develop, by attempting to impose CO2 emission targets on them?

We (the first and second worlds) had no such targets and we were allowed to develop our industries completely free of any pollution restraints. 3rd World countries use that argument, to allow their development. China has to. John Humphries, in The SleepyDayTombs, at the weekend, says that China is opening one new caol-fired Power station A WEEK! Not Often I resort to a shout, but I found that piece of information (fact?) stunning, if it is true.

Paul

[Essan]

Just a thought here. Why when used in connestion to GW is sceptic a dirty word?

I'm allowed, even encouraged to be sceptical about UFOs, religion, politicians, Stoke City winning the champions league within 3 years.

Yet when I'm sceptical about the extent, cause & ultimate outcome of GW it's ok to call those of us who are not sure or unconvinced at any rate, GW deniers, almost tainting us to be as bad as holocaust deiners.

By definition a sceptic cannot be a denier - those who equate the 2 terms are simply displaying their ignorance.

[Dawlish]

Just a thought here. Why when used in connestion to GW is sceptic a dirty word?

Dave

Dave, just a question; do you think that GW is not happening, or do you think that AGW is not happening. The confusion is the main weapon of climate change sceptics.

Paul

[Essan]

Another factor here - and one that has concerned me for some time - is; why should we deny China and India (and other 3rd world countries) the chance to develop, by attempting to impose CO2 emission targets on them?

If you jump off a cliff to reach the bottom quickly, and break both your legs in the process, do you sit back and watch others make the same mistake or do you point out to them the path that, though slightly longer, will get them down safely?

We have this anti-imperialist mindset nowadays that says because we once did something everyone else should be allowed to do it as well and that we should never again interfere in the development of other nations, even though by doing so, everyone benefits (it's the same reason we've watched Mugabwe: better let him destroy Zimbabwe than interfere and allow the country to continue as a prosperous nation exporting food to its neighbours who are dying from famine .....)

Dave, just a question; do you think that GW is not happening, or do you think that AGW is not happening. The confusion is the main weapon of climate change sceptics.

Paul

If he's a sceptic then he doesn't know what's happening nor why :blink: Partly because of the confusing rhetoric from both camps....