Overhype on global warming

[Devonian]

Dev: Lets not go there, I have worked with models on a daily basis and I have had direct daily contact with the duty met office forecasters. If my statement is incorrect like you say to others provide evidence to state where it is factual wrong?

You must, then, know the difference between a weather and a climate model?

You rubbish the data. Like I say, I 'd like to be there watching when you tell those at Hadley they're working with rubbish and therefore when they are producing is rubbish.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Devonian

[Guest Mike W]

I'm not actually a sceptic myself, but apparently 1998 was not the warmest year on record after all, it is now 1934. But I thought 2005 was close to 1998, so surely 2005 must be at least second if not 1st place instead of 1998. Apparently it's due to the Y2K computer bug that occured on alot of computers in 2000. I thought though that 1998 must have been recorded before the computer virus hit. Here is a link with more links at the bottom of the article. http://www.iceagenow.com/Convenient_Mistake.htm I know it's from a cetrtain website but as their are more realible links at the end of it...

Edited August 13, 2007 by Mike W

[Devonian]

I'm not actually a sceptic myself, but apparently 1998 was not the warmest year on record after all, it is now 1934. But I thought 2005 was close to 1998, so surely 2005 must be at least second if not 1st place instead of 1998. Apparently it's due to the Y2K computer bug that occured on alot of computers in 2000. I thought though that 1998 must have been recorded before the computer virus hit. Here is a link with more links at the bottom of the article. http://www.iceagenow.com/Convenient_Mistake.htm I know it's from a cetrtain website but as their are more realible links at the end of it...

Mike, for a view free of the kind of personalised stuff on IAN I'd read the accounts here and here.

Fact is this is a change to US records - mostly to those since 2000, nothing to do with Y2K, just a change at around that date. It's a precisely negligible effect on the global record since the US is, despite all the bruhaha, only a few % of the globe.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

This NASA/Y2K misinformation is the reason I hold so many sceptics in disgust (not everybody on this board by the way ! ).

Talk about head and banging.

If they don't adjust they get damned, if they do it down they damned, if they do it up they get damned, if any who support AGW so much as squeeks he get's damned for not thinking and towing the line of the tax raising politicians.

Give me strength.

We covered the natural cycles arguement countless times over the years and nobody has come up with a shread of evidence for it. We've covered the fact that the models can replicate past climate when you run them from 1900 but again each time is ignored.

If you want an alarm look at the arctic currently.

[HighPressure]

You must, then, know the difference between a weather and a climate model?

You rubbish the data. Like I say, I 'd like to be there watching when you tell those at Hadley they're working with rubbish and therefore when they are producing is rubbish.

Dev: Lets get this absolutely straight I am not rubbishing the data used or the formula used at this point in time I believe it truly represents the current understanding or at least the limit of. This does not mean that current understanding is correct or that it will not change.

The following text comes from a pro AGW site and is attributed to work currently being carried out by The Goddard Institute For Space Studies and Jim Hansen among others.

"Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models."

The key words here for me are 'fundamental mechanisms' important enough for NASA to send up the AURA satellite in 2004 to study upper/lower atmosphere interaction. Now it seems logical to me that we will learn more and understand more from such observations and that in turn is likely to lead to better modelling. I admit to not fully understanding all of the complexities of atmospheric chemistry but it does seem highly possible to me that a colder upper atmosphere could well be playing at least some role in lower atmosphere temperature increases. Although very simplistic the energy not being absorbed by the Stratosphere must do so elsewhere and I don't see why that should not be the Troposphere enhancing the effects of CO2 it finds there.

I continue to read and learn but as yet I have seen nothing in anyway to change my view that a link will be found. What the significance of that proves to be only time will tell?

[Devonian]

Dev: Lets get this absolutely straight I am not rubbishing the data used or the formula used at this point in time I believe it truly represents the current understanding or at least the limit of. This does not mean that current understanding is correct or that it will not change.

The following text comes from a pro AGW site and is attributed to work currently being carried out by The Goddard Institute For Space Studies and Jim Hansen among others.

"Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models."

The key words here for me are 'fundamental mechanisms' important enough for NASA to send up the AURA satellite in 2004 to study upper/lower atmosphere interaction. Now it seems logical to me that we will learn more and understand more from such observations and that in turn is likely to lead to better modelling. I admit to not fully understanding all of the complexities of atmospheric chemistry but it does seem highly possible to me that a colder upper atmosphere could well be playing at least some role in lower atmosphere temperature increases. Although very simplistic the energy not being absorbed by the Stratosphere must do so elsewhere and I don't see why that should not be the Troposphere enhancing the effects of CO2 it finds there.

I continue to read and learn but as yet I have seen nothing in anyway to change my view that a link will be found. What the significance of that proves to be only time will tell?

OK, then I misunderstood the context of 'Rubbish in = Rubbish out on all the super computers you care to name!' :unsure:

I think the key words are actually 'still not clear' :unsure: . Not unknown, just not clear.

[johnholmes]

"Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models."

I could not agree more. Add to that our very limited understanding of the full interaction between surface ocean and atmosphere and what really goes on beneath that surface and we have a lot of un knowns just for numerical forecasting let alone using the data for climatic modelling.

GW is here, why is the question, how long for, how much is AGW, none of these are really certain.

IF we assume the overall global temperature will continue to increase by about the same amount, again no real proof can be shown, then in the lifetime of our grandchildren or at least their children many hundreds of thousands will either be under water or dying of thirst.

Whilst this happens the argument goes on with no one doing anything.

Edited August 14, 2007 by johnholmes

[Devonian]

"Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models."

I could not agree more. Add to that our very limited understanding of the full interaction between surface ocean and atmosphere and what really goes on beneath that surface and we have a lot of un knowns just for numerical forecasting let alone using the data for climatic modelling.

GW is here, why is the question, how long for, how much is AGW, none of these are really certain.

IF we assume the overall global temperature will continue to increase by about the same amount, again no real proof can be shown, then in the lifetime of our grandchildren or at least their children many hundreds of thousands will either be under water or dying of thirst.

Whilst this happens the argument goes on with no one doing anything.

I agree there are unknowns.

The problem I have is it seems to me that if we've discovered some things, 'sampled the knowns', (and, I don't see how our sampling can be biased*) that it's a fair bet the unknowns we've missed aren't all cooling or warming effects.

Thus, you only need to survey a relatively few people to discover average height, weight or whatever. Likewise with climate? Or, rather, can someone show me what we know is a biased (as in to many warming effects I suppose) sample of what is to be known?

*Edit: well of course some will say we're only looking for warming effects, so, lets say pre 1990 since I don't think any major effects have been discovered since then.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

I suppose this is the best place for this, at the moment.

Thinking about some of things which we often say and see on NW, I had some thoughts on the subject. These are lengthy and therefore not condusive to a thread. Also, lots of people might think they are boring or pretentious. So I'm not going to copy them here, but, if you're interested, I have just posted a little piece entitled; 'Climate change; what's the fuss?' on my blog, here: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/

So you can read it if you want to.

I would, though, be interested if anyone had any feedback on what I wrote (am I turning into Ernie Wise?). So please feel free to comment here, or on the blog. And please don't accuse me of arrogance; I know there is presumption in wiritng such things, but at the same time, I did feel it was something that was worth being said...

:)P

[laserguy]

Wow,P3. Just had look at your blog and I really don't know where to start. I'm on holiday now,the kids off school and I'm under pressure from the missus to get off the computer and entertain him,but as time allows I'll try to read as much of it as poss and hopefully respond via your blog. Don't despair,someone's listening and no you don't look like E.Wise (ha ha)!

[parmenides3]

Ta, laserguy. I hope you find it stimulating, at least...

:)P

[eddie]

Hi P3,

Working my way through your blog right now. I particularly like your summary of the recent papers on the cryosphere and I will be reading all of those shortly.

[parmenides3]

Alright; I get the message; it should have been shorter. I don't know how I could have done that, as I've left loads of stuff out as it is. Still I hope you find it was worth the effort...

:)P

[eddie]

I just tried to read the linked papers and it seems I would have to join the AGU in order to see them (i.e. pay them money :huh: ). Is that web site the only place those papers can be read?

[parmenides3]

I just tried to read the linked papers and it seems I would have to join the AGU in order to see them (i.e. pay them money :huh: ). Is that web site the only place those papers can be read?

Which paper are you talking about, eddie? if it's the ones I mention on the cryosphere posting, they are subscription only; all you can get is an abstract. Most of them come from Geophysical Research Letters; if you go their homepage, and foloow the link to individual access/published this year. it'll take you to a menu page where you can read the abstracts.

If you really really want to read a paper, you can often find access to it by googling to one of the authors' own university/personal web pages, where they often provids links to their own work... :huh:

Any papers from The Cryosphere are open access; you can read the whole paper, even contribute to the discussion (though I wouldn't recommend it if you're not a climate specialist). In fact the EGU publishes a number of journals in this way; sources via the links within pages, or from http://www.copernicus.org/ (I think that's right).

:)P

[HighPressure]

"Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models."

I could not agree more. Add to that our very limited understanding of the full interaction between surface ocean and atmosphere and what really goes on beneath that surface and we have a lot of un knowns just for numerical forecasting let alone using the data for climatic modelling.

GW is here, why is the question, how long for, how much is AGW, none of these are really certain.

IF we assume the overall global temperature will continue to increase by about the same amount, again no real proof can be shown, then in the lifetime of our grandchildren or at least their children many hundreds of thousands will either be under water or dying of thirst.

Whilst this happens the argument goes on with no one doing anything.

I intend to butt out now for a little while so I can do some more learning and try and read P3's brilliant blog. I did just want to add one thing, just because I am sceptical on some issues of science which posters like 'DEV' will continue to tell me I don't understand does not mean I support no action on CO2. I just happen to think that by focusing so closely on the single issue of CO2 emissions, it puts all the eggs in one basket it establishes sides of the argument with claim and counter claim leading to a very real danger that nothing meaningful will get done.

Science has to strive to fully understand but humans should not get bogged down in single issues, its plain common-sense to act against CO2 emissions more than anything else. I much prefer the environmentalist approach covering all aspects of human activity including what we waste, what is in our rivers and oceans as well as what is in our skies. I think this takes away the grounds for claims and counter claims as you simply cannot argue against being environmentally friendly whatever your views are on CO2 and GW.

I worry that the GW/AGW bandwagon could be speeding out of control and there is a very real danger that it could end up harming environmentalism. Already many are upset by what they see as governments just wishing to raise money, there is a chance that science could discover another significant factor in climate change. The perception is real that the guy in the street thinks weather and GW are the same thing that a few years of average weather conditions without extremes could severely damage the whole environmental cause not just AGW.

I am not a fan of this western style train speeding through the Wild West with cowboys and indians clinging to the roof and shooting at each other.

That's my lot folks

[Devonian]

I intend to butt out now for a little while so I can do some more learning and try and read P3's brilliant blog. I did just want to add one thing, just because I am sceptical on some issues of science which posters like 'DEV' will continue to tell me I don't understand does not mean I support no action on CO2. I just happen to think that by focusing so closely on the single issue of CO2 emissions, it puts all the eggs in one basket it establishes sides of the argument with claim and counter claim leading to a very real danger that nothing meaningful will get done.

Well, I always say to this that firstly this is a climate forum, I'm interested in climate and AGW and that's what I talk about here. I do think changing CO2 to the degree we are is a seriously silly thing to do. And I do think the change caused might be very large - so I think it's a top priority problem. Otoh, I do also think there are many many global problems that need addressing.

Btw, I'm here and elsewhere in part to see if what I think (not know) is right stand up to the challenge. So far it does. But there is lots I don't understand

[jethro]

If anyone gets the time, have a read of this " HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

By Freeman Dyson"; I'd love to sit and chat to this bloke.

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

[Admiral_Bobski]

If anyone gets the time, have a read of this " HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

By Freeman Dyson"; I'd love to sit and chat to this bloke.

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

Nice find there, Jethro! I love Freeman Dyson - he's a bit of a hero of mine. He's the fellow who came up with the idea of a Dyson Sphere (completely off on a tangent, but for anyone who's interested here's a link to the Wiki article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere )

:lol:

CB

[VillagePlank]

I wrote this under a different user account some time ago, and it seems, in the light of discussions, that it might, once again, be relevant.

[Devonian]

I wrote this under a different user account some time ago, and it seems, in the light of discussions, that it might, once again, be relevant.

I think we need to be careful.

I can (well, I could if I knew how - if I were a physicist/maths wonk) take a set of long know physical laws and equations and predict, without the need of computers, the temperature of the Earth to a surprising degree of accuracy - right? So, I think too much sceptic hope is placed in your line of argument. Yes, perfection in weather and climate forecasts is never going to happen, but, useful they most certainly are - right?

I think the gist is clear, add ghg to the atmosphere in the quantities we are and the energy balance changes are such that something has to give and give to a noticeable extent.

[parmenides3]

Michael Tobis admires Freeman Dyson, too. There are two post discussing his comments here: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/ for those who are interested or would like to see a scientist's commentary.

:)P

[jethro]

I think we need to be careful.

I can (well, I could if I knew how - if I were a physicist/maths wonk) take a set of long know physical laws and equations and predict, without the need of computers, the temperature of the Earth to a surprising degree of accuracy - right? So, I think too much sceptic hope is placed in your line of argument. Yes, perfection in weather and climate forecasts is never going to happen, but, useful they most certainly are - right?

I think the gist is clear, add ghg to the atmosphere in the quantities we are and the energy balance changes are such that something has to give and give to a noticeable extent.

Morning Dev, I found this earlier, posted it over in the sceptics discussion but perhaps you missed it there; have a read if you get time I'd be interested in your thoughts.

http://aerosols.lanl.gov/conf2006/talks/files/Volz.pdf

[jethro]

Michael Tobis admires Freeman Dyson, too. There are two post discussing his comments here: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/ for those who are interested or would like to see a scientist's commentary.

:)P

Mmm, I've had a read and it doesn't sound to me that Michael Tobis is a fan; more that he takes it as the ramblings of an old man who should know better. It's always puzzled me why each generation dismisses their predecessors on the basis of age and old fashioned; I've always figured it best to listen to accumulated wisdom and the perspective acquired by maturity.

Edited August 15, 2007 by jethro

[Devonian]

Morning Dev, I found this earlier, posted it over in the sceptics discussion but perhaps you missed it there; have a read if you get time I'd be interested in your thoughts.

http://aerosols.lanl.gov/conf2006/talks/files/Volz.pdf

I think he is arguing wind speed is important. It might have a role, as to how big a role as ever, since I'm not one, I'd defer to experts. They don't seem to agree with him, but, no doubt, if he is right people will soon start to agree with him. So lets see, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mmm, I've had a read and it doesn't sound to me that Michael Tobis is a fan; more that he takes it as the ramblings of an old man who should know better. It's always puzzled me why each generation dismisses their predecessors on the basis of age and old fashioned; I've always figured it best to listen to accumulated wisdom and the perspective acquired by maturity.

Spencer Weart has accumulated wisdom and the perspective acquired by maturity - do you agree with him :lol:

Edited August 15, 2007 by Devonian