Climate Chaos ? Don't believe it

[West is Best]

You will find my reply on the "Serious discussion" board here.

Replied.

[The Penguin]

I do not agree. I do not think it takes even a modicom of thought to presume that any writing contains bias that panders to it's expected audience. Tha tabloids, even by those who read them, are still generally conceived to be of the same quality as a comic. You do a great injustice by suggesting that an intellectual precursor is necessary for a gift of discernment.

Discernment is a good word, an excellent word, which proves my point and defeats yours.

Discernment is the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure: skill in discerning means a power to see what is not evident to the average mind and stresses accuracy. That puts it in the province of intellectuals, though not only of academics.

I do nobody an injustice because I make no qualitative judgement, and no way did I say that academics are superior to anybody else.

[Essan]

Oh - also, WIB, if you read through the notes of Monckton's article you might find a likely reason for this approach to presenting his findings. With a dubious peer review system in place (see his section on the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph), and the general reluctance of science journals to print legitimate scientific papers that go against the tide of the consensus opinion (also referenced in the Hockey Stick debate with regards the original rebuttal of the graph), it seems unlikely that his piece would be published.

Well, had Monckton's piece been peer reviewed, at least he might have then removed some of the more glaringly obvious inaccuracies and misunderstandings

Quoting Gavin Menzies' theories as if they are established fact - might as well throw in Von Daniken's space aliens for all the credibility that gives .....

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well, had Monckton's piece been peer reviewed, at least he might have then removed some of the more glaringly obvious inaccuracies and misunderstandings

Quoting Gavin Menzies' theories as if they are established fact - might as well throw in Von Daniken's space aliens for all the credibility that gives .....

Fair play - I'll grant there are inaccuracies in the piece, but I'm saying it's wrong to dismiss the whole article because of where it was published. I have to confess that the Chinese Navy bit was a tad hard to believe and unnecessary to his argument, so kind of shot himself in the foot there. But regardless, there's some good scientific analysis there, too - the notes are well worth a read...

C-Bob

[VillagePlank]

Discernment is a good word, an excellent word, which proves my point and defeats yours.

Discernment is the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure: skill in discerning means a power to see what is not evident to the average mind and stresses accuracy. That puts it in the province of intellectuals, though not only of academics.

I do nobody an injustice because I make no qualitative judgement, and no way did I say that academics are superior to anybody else.

I did not see this as some form of topic of which you defeat me and I lose. That, in and of itself, is entirely meaningless, even when rigorously defended with impeccable logic. It is fortunate, then, that your post, consists entirely of opinion (as indeed does mine, too) and that simply puts you on the other side of the fence from me which is, for all intents and purpose, the natural order of things and to be welcomed. Edited November 17, 2006 by Wilson

[The Penguin]

Wilson dear chap, I'm not trying to make a fight of this but, if you go back through our posts and seperate logig from opinion, I'm sure that after due consideration, you'll agree with me.

Edited November 18, 2006 by The Penguin

[CYCLONEBUSTER]

Wilson dear chap, I'm not trying to make a fight of this but, if you go back through our posts and seperate logig from opinion, I'm sure that after due consideration, you'll agree with me.

You guys over here believe what our government is saying about this?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2725.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

You guys over here believe what our government is saying about this?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2725.htm

What is the Govt. saying about this?I think we were all a tad concerned about it as we didn't know why, after all the cuts/banning of stuff it is still growing (whilst the north's is supposedly 'healing' itself)

[noggin]

we didn't know why, after all the cuts/banning of stuff it is still growing (whilst the north's is supposedly 'healing' itself)

Just a thought or two, but what if it's nothing to do with emissions? What if it is all natural cycles? What if the scientists have been putting 2 and 2 together and coming to 5, because their knowledge is limited? There is far more that they don't know, than they do know. What if there was just one tiny currently unknown fact that would make it blindingly obvious that a total re-think on current thinking was required?

Edited November 18, 2006 by noggin

[parmenides3]

Just a thought or two, but what if it's nothing to do with emissions? What if it is all natural cycles? What if the scientists have been putting 2 and 2 together and coming to 5, because their knowledge is limited? There is far more that they don't know, than they do know. What if there was just one tiny currently unknown fact that would make it blindingly obvious that a total re-think on current thinking was required?

The simple answer is this, noggin; when the climate models try to replicate the temperature variations over the past 200 years with natural forcings only, the results don't match with the observed record, particularly over the past 50 years. When the forcing effect of CO2, aerosols, sulphur compounds, etc., are added to the models' calculations, the resulting graphs closely match the observed record. This is one of the main reasons why scientists are confident that GHGs are the principal difference between temperature variations in the past and those in the present. How do they know its GHGs which are responsible? This is a matter of physics, not of guesswork; the GHGs in the atmosphere do not stop the Sun's heating wave-frequencies from getting into the atmosphere, but they do stop the reflected (heat) waves which used to bounce out of the atmosphere and into space from doing so; these are instead retained within the atmosphere, contributing to the net temperature of the entire system.

Of course there is a lot which is still unknown by Science, and all scientific ideas are subject to rethinks and corrections, but if, with our current knowledge, we can already make the numbers fit the observed facts, why do we need to look for another, more complicated explanation? Perhaps it will take a true 'revolutionary' thinker, like Galileo or Newton, to see something which we have all missed, but until such an individual comes along, we have to work with the best knowledge and understanding we have. This understanding hints at a long-term change in our climate which will have important impacts on the whole planet. If we ignore this because it 'could, in theory, be wrong' we are in danger of condemning our children and grandchildren to a world in which the climate is so hostile in many parts of the World that many millions will struggle to survive and many plant and animal species will be wiped out. If there is a chance that we can do something to prevent this possible future, aren't we obliged to act?

:)P

[noggin]

If we ignore this because it 'could, in theory, be wrong' we are in danger of condemning our children and grandchildren to a world in which the climate is so hostile in many parts of the World that many millions will struggle to survive and many plant and animal species will be wiped out. If there is a chance that we can do something to prevent this possible future, aren't we obliged to act?

:)P

Thanks for your reply and I take this point, P.

Not making a joke out of things, but it's a catch 22 situation.....we need to prevent stuff from coming "in" through a hole (harmful radiation), so we want it to "heal". But on the other hand, there is stuff that we want to allow "out" (reflected heat), so do we want it to not heal? I dunno.......it'll take a better person than I to answer that one!

[Essan]

Just a thought or two, but what if it's nothing to do with emissions? What if it is all natural cycles? What if the scientists have been putting 2 and 2 together and coming to 5, because their knowledge is limited? There is far more that they don't know, than they do know. What if there was just one tiny currently unknown fact that would make it blindingly obvious that a total re-think on current thinking was required?

Doesn't matter - it's a win win situation.

Unless you don't want to reduce your energy costs, reduce our nation's dependence on other countries for electricity and gas, stop breathing in so much pollution, save the orang-u-tang and many other species from extinction, become fitter and healthier, live longer, raise your children better etc etc etc

[Stratos Ferric]

The simple answer is this, noggin; when the climate models try to replicate the temperature variations over the past 200 years with natural forcings only, the results don't match with the observed record, particularly over the past 50 years. When the forcing effect of CO2, aerosols, sulphur compounds, etc., are added to the models' calculations, the resulting graphs closely match the observed record. This is one of the main reasons why scientists are confident that GHGs are the principal difference between temperature variations in the past and those in the present. How do they know its GHGs which are responsible? This is a matter of physics, not of guesswork; the GHGs in the atmosphere do not stop the Sun's heating wave-frequencies from getting into the atmosphere, but they do stop the reflected (heat) waves which used to bounce out of the atmosphere and into space from doing so; these are instead retained within the atmosphere, contributing to the net temperature of the entire system.

Of course there is a lot which is still unknown by Science, and all scientific ideas are subject to rethinks and corrections, but if, with our current knowledge, we can already make the numbers fit the observed facts, why do we need to look for another, more complicated explanation? Perhaps it will take a true 'revolutionary' thinker, like Galileo or Newton, to see something which we have all missed, but until such an individual comes along, we have to work with the best knowledge and understanding we have. This understanding hints at a long-term change in our climate which will have important impacts on the whole planet. If we ignore this because it 'could, in theory, be wrong' we are in danger of condemning our children and grandchildren to a world in which the climate is so hostile in many parts of the World that many millions will struggle to survive and many plant and animal species will be wiped out. If there is a chance that we can do something to prevent this possible future, aren't we obliged to act?

:)P

Some well reasoned arguments there P3, though in my case you are preaching to the long since converted.

Looking at Monckton's article and his rebuttal of the Mann curve prompted me to go check various sources of reconstructed climatic history. The one below is a random selection of composite analyses and looks rather different to Monckton's plot with its implausible looking spike around the medieval warm period.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/p...e.htm#1000years

In any case, and I keep returning to this, we can argue the toss about the near past (in geological terms), what always seems clear to me is the recent, sudden and unprecedented rate of warming.

As P3 says, it's easy to make a rational case based on science for what is being observed now.

I can tolerate a degree of argument about the AGW component; what staggers and saddens me is the occasional debate about whether or not we actually are warming; how much evidence do some people need? For a pig headed few all the evidence in the world may not be enough.

Generally, with a little Google-ing, it becomes clear that most high profile nay-sayers are economists, or in the pockets of US industry, hence the republicans continued reluctance to jump aboard. Even Monckton leaks a little of his real motive with his assertion that prevention "will cost lives". Whether extrapolating from instances like DDT (when others like, say, Penicillin or x-rays are overlooked) is either relevant or valid is another matter.

[neville]

Apologies for a newbie interrupting an interesting discussion, but a few pages ago someone stated that the theory of Plate Tectonics wasn't proven.

Sorry to bear bad tidings, but the advent of our friend GPS means that continental drift has been accurately measured. The details of the driving mechanism may still to remain be resolved, but the basic premise that the crustal plates are moving around is now proven to be a fact (as much as anything can be). This JPL vector map neatly summarises the relative motions.

[The Penguin]

neville, just for clarity, I think the debate you refer to was actually in the Global Warming thread; but never mind, your input is appreciated.

Don’t apologise for being a newbie. I’ve made a complete @rse of myself in the Environment forum on many occasions over the past couple of years, but by getting involved I’ve learnt vastly more than I would have had I not questioned or argued with the many people here who really are informed on the subjects discussed.

[Guest Viking141]

Don’t apologise for being a newbie. I’ve made a complete @rse of myself in the Environment forum on many occasions over the past couple of years, but by getting involved I’ve learnt vastly more than I would have had I not questioned or argued with the many people here who really are informed on the subjects discussed.

Likewise!! Welcome Neville.

:blink:

[Gray-Wolf]

Likewise!! Welcome Neville.

:blink:

To the madhouse!!!

[neville]

Ooops! Second post and it's in the wrong place

Story of my life...

Thanks for the welcome

[Devonian]

Apologies for a newbie interrupting an interesting discussion, but a few pages ago someone stated that the theory of Plate Tectonics wasn't proven.

Sorry to bear bad tidings, but the advent of our friend GPS means that continental drift has been accurately measured. The details of the driving mechanism may still to remain be resolved, but the basic premise that the crustal plates are moving around is now proven to be a fact (as much as anything can be). This JPL vector map neatly summarises the relative motions.

How the plates are moved still seeems to be in doubt - so that's not proven. But my point stands, if there were people around who either didn't like the implications of plate tectonic, or that it being right might cost them money, you can be plate tectonic scepticism would be loud.

[Devonian]

How the plates are moved still seeems to be in doubt - so that's not proven. But my point stands, if there were people around who either didn't like the implications of plate tectonic, or that it being right might cost them money, you can be plate tectonic scepticism would be loud.

:lol: "...you can bet plate...would by loudly heard."

Edited November 30, 2006 by Devonian

[neville]

Absolutely, Devonian.

When I was at university in the late seventies it had been more or less accepted as scientific fact because the theory tied together so many bits of evidence available at the time, but there were still a few die hards who hung on in the hope that previous theories would prove to be correct after all, and that was without any commercial interests poking their fingers in where they weren't wanted.

Actually, on this occasion industry was more interested in working with the scientific community to objectively test whether it was correct or not, as it can help them to predict where to find raw materials. I was in my final year when the Falklands kicked off, and one of our Professors was unequivocal that the root cause of that conflict was oil. Continental drift predicts that you had the same conditions that lead to the production of the West African oil fields off the coast of South America. Having control over a few thousand square miles of seabed could be handy, especially with the North Sea deposits only having a limited lifespan, and the UK and Norwegians at the time being world leaders in oil exploitation in hostile marine environments.

Maybe we were young and impressionable, but on previous occasions he had been called to present evidence to some government committee, so it had a ring of truth to it.

[Gray-Wolf]

Absolutely, Devonian.

When I was at university in the late seventies it had been more or less accepted as scientific fact because the theory tied together so many bits of evidence available at the time, but there were still a few die hards who hung on in the hope that previous theories would prove to be correct after all, and that was without any commercial interests poking their fingers in where they weren't wanted.

Actually, on this occasion industry was more interested in working with the scientific community to objectively test whether it was correct or not, as it can help them to predict where to find raw materials. I was in my final year when the Falklands kicked off, and one of our Professors was unequivocal that the root cause of that conflict was oil. Continental drift predicts that you had the same conditions that lead to the production of the West African oil fields off the coast of South America. Having control over a few thousand square miles of seabed could be handy, especially with the North Sea deposits only having a limited lifespan, and the UK and Norwegians at the time being world leaders in oil exploitation in hostile marine environments.

Maybe we were young and impressionable, but on previous occasions he had been called to present evidence to some government committee, so it had a ring of truth to it.

There are coal reserves as well as large gas and oil reserves that spread into the Antarctic peninsula so very 'convenient' to have an onshore base to run operations from (I'm just being cynical, no one would fight a war over gas or oil now would they?)

[Gray-Wolf]

It would appear that the astronomer Royal has implored more scientists to publicize their work and explain it to the public as too many 'Mavericks' are being given media time on important scientific topics like Stem cell research, Climate change and nuclear power. He singles out climate change as such an example where mavericks are given as much media space as the rest of science purely to create 'media debates' .

Edited November 30, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[The PIT]

I would only join a debate here if I had PHD in Physics, Chemistry, Geography and Meterology. A degree in bullonions maybe useful at times as well. Too many opposite proven facts so I just read 99% of the time.

[The Penguin]

So who gets to decide who's a maverick?