Sceptic Links Discussion

[Iceberg]

Postive AO = colder artic,but warmer globe

negative AO = warmer artic, but colder globe

However between 2000 and 2007 it's only been fractionally negative, certainly not enough to account for all the melting that's taken place.

Matt

[HighPressure]

Postive AO = colder artic,but warmer globe

negative AO = warmer artic, but colder globe

However between 2000 and 2007 it's only been fractionally negative, certainly not enough to account for all the melting that's taken place.

Matt

You seem a decent chap, so can I ask you if you think that the net loss in polar ice is as great as is being reported and what degree of confidence you place upon future projections?

[Iceberg]

I think it's even greater than currently being reported you only need to look at the latest (todays) high res charts (AMSR+)to see this.

Matt

[Iceberg]

Bit of thread overlap.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1010919

Largest ever recorded negative ice anomaly

[HighPressure]

Bit of thread overlap.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1010919

Largest ever recorded negative ice anomaly

Thanks for that Iceberg, I have sat and read the entire thread very interesting times ahead I think? Looks like I am getting myself hooked on things such as AO and PDO

I also want to make clear to those such as 'Dev' that my mission is not to argue away AGW to a totally natural cause but neither is it to accept the IPCC projections without question. I do not have the scientific expertise to put forward a complete analysis of a view opposing either a sceptic or a believer. It is simply to assess whether or not the IPCC's claim that human CO2 emissions are significantly to blame for global warming with the degree of confidence they suggest. I admit to finding this a complex subject with my brain going into meltdown now and again as there are so many aspects to consider. However at this point I do not believe that there is enough evidence/data to substantiate the claims they are making and certainly with the degree of confidence they place upon their predictions.

PDO is not fully understand, it is unclear as to exactly what will happen to polar ice over the next 50yrs?

Even Pro AGW sites quote that there maybe a connection between Upper Atmosphere temp and that of lower which is not fully understood due to Ozone depletion, and again even the IPCC are unsure as to how its replenishment will interact with climate?

We have not got enough data from Mars to truly judge the effect of solar iradiation on that climate, we only have unproven theories?

I am not only fasinated by the subject but am astounded that any self respecting panel would make such claims in the face of so much missing information?

[noggin]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...af-5d9089a5dcb6

Ice-cores.........anyone want some science? This is taken from the link I just posted in Sceptic Links thread.

The link in the sceptics thread is the one and only link sceptics will ever need and it contains at least 20 further links within itself, covering every aspect of AGW you could wish for!!

It's like Christmas and my birthday and a lottery win all coming at once. Ho, ho, ho! :lol:

Edited June 28, 2007 by noggin

[Devonian]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...af-5d9089a5dcb6

Ice-cores.........anyone want some science? This is taken from the link I just posted in Sceptic Links thread.

The link in the sceptics thread is the one and only link sceptics will ever need and it contains at least 20 further links within itself, covering every aspect of AGW you could wish for!!

It's like Christmas and my birthday and a lottery win all coming at once. Ho, ho, ho! :lol:

Dr Z. says "...and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today's levels." do you think this is likely, possible even?

I don't.

I have to think of the vast amounts of CO2 released by the colossal amounts of fossil fuel we've burnt. Yet, somehow, naturally such releases have happened 'several' times in the past 200 years and on a greater scale? It makes no sense. I can see how you might get natural releases of, say, clatherite, but not how such dramatic things could happen 'several times' in 200 years!? More importantly, where did it all go? And if it went in the past why hasn't the Co2 we've produced gone? Nope, he's talking none sense.

I am not only fasinated by the subject but am astounded that any self respecting panel would make such claims in the face of so much missing information?

Why? Isn't it possible that experts, many of them, have looked at the data and evidence and come to a conclusion based on that? Not that they're certain, no one is, but that the likelyhoods, probabilities are as they say.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Devonian

[HighPressure]

Why? Isn't it possible that experts, many of them, have looked at the data and evidence and come to a conclusion based on that? Not that they're certain, no one is, but that the likelyhoods, probabilities are as they say.

Exactly my point I don't argue they have looked at the data and have come to a conclusion, I have no problem with that at all. As you say they could even be right but I will not accept the paint is wet until I touch it myself because sometimes people forget to take the sign down!

"Not that they're certain, no one is, but that the likelyhoods, probabilities are as they say."

I have struggled with this sentence all day, how can a scientific probability be calculated then? The crux for me is that this probability is actually what the panel are saying based on their view of the scientific evidence put before them. This does not necessarily mean it is what even the scientists used by the IPCC are actually saying, let alone those on the outside? The question is does the IPCC report and its conclusion = the sum of all its parts and the more I read tells me I think it maybe the sum plus a bit extra. That then leads me to ask why should that be, is there a political bias or would it be in government interests for such a report to reach such conclusions.

These are the questions I am asking myself.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi all!

It's gone quite quiet on this board the past few days - perhaps it's the recent developments in the news, or perhaps everyone's busy, or perhaps everyone's just run out of things to say! Who knows? - but it's July now so I thought I'd jump back in (for what it's worth, I've been up to my neck in stuff the past few days and have barely even sat down at the computer!).

Let's see now - Iceberg made this comment with regards to HP's temperature/Ozone depletion observation: "But the problem is you could plot truncy rates at schoool and it would show the same trend match..... " Just a tad disingenuous, methinks, since at least Ozone and Temperatures have something to do with the atmosphere (though you could probably forge a link with truancy by catapulting truants into the stratosphere to teach them a lesson...).

Admittedly it would be far more compelling if the Ozone record went back past 1955 (to the period of slight cooling and beyond) and continued to show a matching trend. Nonetheless, perhaps there is some kind of link, and it would be wrong to dismiss the apparent correlation completely out of hand - another area that could probably use a bit more research.

One would have thought that there's got to be some correlation between Ozone levels and temperature, since Ozone's primary role in our atmosphere is to block incoming UV radiation. If more radiation (of any form) makes it through to the lower atmosphere then more energy is going into the lower atmosphere, and more energy generally leads to more heat.

Why the interior of the Antarctic would be getting colder when more UV is getting through is another question. Perhaps the UV is being absorbed higher up and being scattered, leading to warmth being distributed elsewhere in the atmosphere (more energy increasing the polar vortex making it colder in the middle and warmer at the outside...? I honestly don't know enough about wind patterns and the like).

Devonian made this comment: "Dr Z. says "...and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today's levels." do you think this is likely, possible even? " I suppose there may be some minor possibility but, as you say, it's unlikely. A large part of the problem is, I would imagine, to do with the reliability of the measurements - not just their accuracy in terms of instrumentation, but also in terms of the location at which such measurements were taken. If you take a CO₂ measurement right next to a power plant then you're likely to get a skewed reading.

My final point for now is in response to this comment: "Isn't it possible that experts...have looked at the data and evidence and come to a conclusion based on that? Not that they're certain, no one is, but that the likelyhoods, probabilities are as they say. "

The thing about probabilities, and I think this is where HP has reservations (sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth again, HP!), is that you need as much information as possible (preferably all the information) to calculate them. Here's a simple example: if you roll a single die then you have a one in six chance of rolling any particular number. That's a nice simple probability estimate based on complete information. If you only knew of the existence of four sides of that die then you would calculate the probability of rolling any of the (four) numbers as one in four; a significantly greater chance than the real probability of rolling any of those four numbers.

So through this simple parallel it is easy to see how incomplete information can lead to distortions in probabilistic assessments.

I'll be back!

CB

[jethro]

Good morning folks, like Capt'n I've been rather busy, house full of people and a weekend party

Anyway, further to my doubts about ice loss and it's causes...

One of the images most associated with AGW and our warming planet is one of Polar Bears floating on the diminishing ice as captured perfectly here...

It places the blame firmly at our feet as being the most important and direct cause of their likely decline and ultimately extinction. How better to get people's attention than a picture of a cuddly bear? But is this a fair and accurate portrayal? I don't believe it is, it's a deliberate ploy to pull on heart-strings.

Here are some links to articles which have made me question the perceived wisdom, please have a read, tell me if it raises doubts in you too.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_...photo=ipolyakov

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/res...ata/sat_slp.php

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/res.../50yr/index.php

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1582.html

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/res...onvec/index.php

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ResearchProje...dler%202005.pdf

On a slightly different note, how can we trust the IPCC projections and climate models....

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025127.shtml

http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/STAFF/brianc/...rkpopsumm2.html

http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/STAFF/brianc/...on1popsumm.html

How accurate are these measurements? No where near enough apparently.

[HighPressure]

No captain you are not putting words in my mouth, that's basically my point in a nutshell. Probability in scientific statistical terms relies on a known number or percentage of occurrences. Probability when used to describe something being more likely, for example the chances of a terror attack as opposed to there not being one is not a statistical calculation as it is either True or False. My point here is that a percentage or confidence level cannot be judged and any such quantifying is meaningless, in English it is a guess.

Its a shame that some pro AGW supporters seem to have run from this thread as their thoughts are just as important to those of non believers and waivers like me. P3's poll a while back was interesting as the result was overwhelmingly in favour of AGW being somewhat less then predicted by the IPCC? Its also interesting that much of the arguments that take place are between staunch believers and their opposites, very little if no debate at all exists in the centre ground where the majority live, why is that?

People may say so why is it so important if we all agree there is at least some impact by man? The answer is that we could spend billions of pounds trying to influence a climate that we may find we cannot. If we do influence the climate we have no idea what that influence will mean, it will be no good coming back in 20 or 30 years time saying we are sorry chaps it did not work. We need to accept our climate is changing and prepare for it, yes we should act more responsibly with all our emissions but we should not expect it to solve the issue.

Thank for the links Jethro I will work my way through them.

[jethro]

A few more strange goings on for folk to ponder over...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855910/posts

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/45...-REF30b.article

http://newsbusters.org/node/13798

[jethro]

It's like the Mari Celeste in here, what's going on?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm surprised how quickly the discussion has died off. I thought I'd come in, brush off the dust and kick aside the tumbleweed and, since we've most recently been discussing ice, thought I'd post this link from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6276576.stm

A new report yesterday suggests that Greenland was significantly warmer in the past than had previously been thought, and also that the Greenland Ice Sheet may be more resistant to warming than currently believed.

Any thoughts?

CB

[eddie]

I'm surprised how quickly the discussion has died off. I thought I'd come in, brush off the dust and kick aside the tumbleweed and, since we've most recently been discussing ice, thought I'd post this link from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6276576.stm

A new report yesterday suggests that Greenland was significantly warmer in the past than had previously been thought, and also that the Greenland Ice Sheet may be more resistant to warming than currently believed.

Any thoughts?

:lol:

CB

The ice cap was still 0.5 - 1km less thick than it was today and sea levels were still 5 meters higher but it certainly is interesting research.

If it takes a 5C increase to raise sea levels by 5 meters then perhaps we still have a chance to avert catastrophic sea level rises.

I wonder if increased snow fall in the winter over the centre of the ice cap may have offset the summer melt somewhat?

[jethro]

Interesting link Capt'n, certainly adds more weight to the argument that what we know so far really isn't the complete picture. I'm looking forward to the research being completed at the end of this year of Polar exploration; I think it may throw up more questions than it answers though.

I had hoped someone with more knowledge than me would jump back into this thread and discuss the links I posted up for the Polyakov research. Afterall he's not a maverick loon and if he says Ice loss is not simply an effect of AGW, there has got to be some weight to his theory. What does everyone else think?

On a completely different note, me and hubby went to a Seal gig at the Tower of London last night, he was absolutely bloody fantastic, great night out

[Iceberg]

A good bit of research (the greenland one! ), and good news that Greenland is perhaps less prone to melting than we first thought.

[Red Raven]

Comparing the findings of the past 'warm' greenland with now must be done with caution. Not least because of the huge variation in altitude. As was pointed out earlier during this warmer period the ice at the centre of the land mass was 0.5 - 1 km less than now - that will make a big difference to the ability of Greenland to retain cold and be a big driver of the surrounding weather patterns.

I'm not sure but I think i remember correctly that for every 100mm rise a fall off of 0.3 deg C occurs and at Greenland lattitudes the fall off must be more pronounced. So basically what I'm saying is Greenland has at some stage reached its own tiping point and gained enough ice cover to be a climate driver and not just a weather influencer.

Yes the earth was much warmer but what we are seeing now is not comparable with the past. The result may be the same, the outcome may be not as devastating as predicted, but change is happening and we should assume that our effects are the driver of that change and we should act accordingly - the gamble is simply not worth it.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Red Raven

[jethro]

Iceberg, what's your opinion on the Polyakov papers?

[Iceberg]

Is this his 2006 paper.? I'll answer later, atm I am getting the kids ready for school.

[jethro]

Is this his 2006 paper.? I'll answer later, atm I am getting the kids ready for school.

The papers are the ones I posted links for a page or two back. From what I can gather Polykov is a respected expert on this, isn't he? I don't think he's a crank???

I found this earlier whilst researching the climatic shift in 1976, again it appears to be legit and makes interesting reading.

http://newsarchives.tamu.edu/stories/02/111102-8.html

Here's his credentials

http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Directory/Faculty/Phys/giese.html

[Iceberg]

I have a lot of respect for Polykov and he is certainly respected internationally, his work is properly published and peer reviewed.

Will read now.

[Iceberg]

Polykov's main emphesis is that the warming up of the artic is not in doubt (not that you could doubt it given the recent measurements). Rather he repeatedly argues that warming is due to natural cycles in ocean flow, predominently from the Atlantic and the post GS streams and THC drivers.

This is an arguement I have total respect for and it shows that non AGW theories can be peer reviewed as long as they are based on sound science.

The other side is below.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/1...0.x?cookieSet=1

My personal opinion is that Polykov has successfully identified the key cycles over the past 100 years in determining natural climate variability in the artic.

However for the last 2 years the warming in the artic has moved up another gear, almost as if the natural variability is being enhanced (by IMO AGW).

I also think it's quite possible that a tipping point has been hit in the artic whereby the ice will not recover even in times of natural increases.

However I don't dismiss his views, it will be interesting to hear his views for 2007-2009 as to why the natural warming has continued to speed up and is now unprecidented in the last 100 years.

Matt

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry to go off at a bit of a tangent, but I'd like to post a link to Dr Steven Hayward's 50-minute documentary "An Inconvenient Truth, or Convenient Fiction?".

I've just finished watching part 1 (it's viewable online, though I would recommend a Broadband connection!) and I'm waiting for Part 2 to buffer, so here's the link:

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well, I've watched Part 2 of the documentary now - it is well worth watching all the way through if you have the stamina. I would be very interested to hear any "Pro-AGW" views on the piece.

Has anyone else seen this?

CB

However for the last 2 years the warming in the artic has moved up another gear, almost as if the natural variability is being enhanced (by IMO AGW).

Is 2 years of "accelerated warming" really sufficient to determine a significant step-change? Just as it is still possible to get a cold winter, could the last 2 years not simply be a blip?

CB

Edited July 9, 2007 by Captain_Bobski