Overhype on global warming

[jethro]

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.

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

I only had a quick read but from the "Summary of the History of Climate Change Science", I'd have to say it's nothing new, nothing which makes me wonder or think. The focus is, as everywhere else, Co2, reduce emissions. I admire but not necessarily agree with all that Dyson says because he thinks outside the box, explores other issues. I admire anyone for doing that, especially if they risk professional criticism; abstract thought in science has led to some amazing discoveries. My own personal gripe with all the AGW stuff is its' almost exclusive focus on Co2, it's a dangerous, blinkered approach in my view. Change of land use has a huge impact but it so rarely gets a mention, perhaps because there's less money to be made from it.

[jethro]

Going back to the weather and synoptics debate of a few pages back, I found this today:

http

://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?...limateshift.xml

I know this has nothing to do with hype but it's interesting:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70813171122.htm

Edited August 15, 2007 by jethro

[VillagePlank]

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.

Read the rest ...

We cannot (and it is provable, mathematically) predict the atmosphere. Period. Full stop. We can make judgements, which, I think, is what you are alluding too, but we cannot go any further. We cannot, in the coarsest sense, preclude a massive volcanic eruption (which are peculiarly missing these last few years) so we cannot say, with certainty, that the atmosphere will do this. We can say, that without intervention, the atmosphere is likely to do this, but this is not an errand of certainty, and to claim as such (which I am sure you are not doing) is futile.

It is impossible.

(and, btw, you can learn just like me. I am effectively, the idiot around here, after all)

Edited August 15, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Read the rest ...

We cannot (and it is provable, mathematically) predict the atmosphere. Period. Full stop. We can make judgements, which, I think, is what you are alluding too, but we cannot go any further. We cannot, in the coarsest sense, preclude a massive volcanic eruption (which are peculiarly missing these last few years) so we cannot say, with certainty, that the atmosphere will do this. We can say, that without intervention, the atmosphere is likely to do this, but this is not an errand of certainty, and to claim as such (which I am sure you are not doing) is futile.

It is impossible.

(and, btw, you can learn just like me. I am effectively, the idiot around here, after all)

No one is claiming certainty? So red herring?

But, I do think you mix the inherent uncertainty about molecular level with the predictabilities of larger scale events. It seems like this 'butterfly' thing again. I'm one who thinks while a butterfly can effect the weather downstream that it can doesn't mean it's either likely or will happen. Much more likely is that it wont. It's also much more likely than doubling CO2 will have an effect in line with predictions than it wont.

But, that's just my opinion and I'm not an expert, just a follower of these things.

Edit: or are you saying it has to be/can be done on a probability basis? I which case I agree. Isn't probability a rather more powerful tool than a 'judgement' though? Predicting dice on the basis of probability isn't a judgement?

Change of land use has a huge impact but it so rarely gets a mention, perhaps because there's less money to be made from it.

OK, show it to be so 'huge impact' (and I would accept good evidence), else you're just, imo, being cynical. Whatever, it would still be Agw.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

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.

It was Michael who said he was a fan. I don't think his critique is a dismissal of Dyson on the grounds of his age or infirmity; it's an appraisal of what Dyson has written. Michael isn't the sort of person to dismiss things just out of pique.

:)P

[jethro]

No one is claiming certainty? So red herring?

But, I do think you mix the inherent uncertainty about molecular level with the predictabilities of larger scale events. It seems like this 'butterfly' thing again. I'm one who thinks while a butterfly can effect the weather downstream that it can doesn't mean it's either likely or will happen. Much more likely is that it wont. It's also much more likely than doubling CO2 will have an effect in line with predictions than it wont.

But, that's just my opinion and I'm not an expert, just a follower of these things.

Edit: or are you saying it has to be/can be done on a probability basis? I which case I agree. Isn't probability a rather more powerful tool than a 'judgement' though? Predicting dice on the basis of probability isn't a judgement?

OK, show it to be so 'huge impact' (and I would accept good evidence), else you're just, imo, being cynical. Whatever, it would still be Agw.

I'm tired of you constantly asking for proof, look it up yourself. Carbon release and storage in soil is at the very basic level of our understanding of climate change; there is no debate, there are no questions; basic physics. You take an acre of established forest, cut it down and cultivate the ground and what happens? The carbon sink has been removed, the carbon locked in the soil is released as old, buried soil is brought to the surface with cultivation and to exacerbate the situation further, throw in some fertiliser and you have a great big release of Nitrous Oxide as well. Cut down a large swathe of forest and instead of moisture being transpired through the leaves, rising into the atmosphere, creating clouds which in turn fall as rain to replenish the trees and continue the cycle; you eventually end up with a desert. Someone last year or possibly earlier this year published a report which calculated that the annual loss of the Amazonian Rain forest contributed more Co2 to the atmosphere than everything else combined. Let's all drive eco cars, fuelled by palm oil grown where rain forest once grew....mmm, the logic in that is?

Cynical? Questioning, curious, logical, open minded, sceptical, rational and downright bloody nosy I'll agree with. Let's turn your argument around for a moment; each and every piece of information that has been posted here, every question or viewpoint raised which calls into doubt the IPCC or any of their findings has been dismissed by you. We've had the "carrying on trashing the planet, you selfish so and so" argument, the "so you know better than the scientists" argument and the endless "prove it" argument; to name but a few. Your whole debate is focussed upon Co2, there are a world of other details to take account of in climate change yet you dismiss all of them and those who raise those points. The actual meaning of cynical is: believing that people are only interested in themselves and are not sincere; mmm, recurring theme in your arguments. If it's all the same to you, I'll pass that cap over; I'm more of a big brimmed, black number, ala Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys. Oh, and AGW? Find a sentence anywhere on this forum where I've said doesn't exist, baloney, it's all natural.

[Devonian]

I'm tired of you constantly asking for proof, look it up yourself.

I NEVER ask for proof :lol: I do ask for evidence, or for it to be shown - which is not the same thing. I'm happy to read link, papers whatever. I also react to those who wont accept something unless it's 1001% proven - so your view of me is back to front. There is no proof, never will be - so I wont ask for it (unless I get really sick of people demanding proof of ACC/GW...). I ask for evidence, data, and or for someone to show something (explain, defend, make a good scientific case for).

Carbon release and storage in soil is at the very basic level of our understanding of climate change; there is no debate, there are no questions; basic physics. You take an acre of established forest, cut it down and cultivate the ground and what happens? The carbon sink has been removed, the carbon locked in the soil is released as old, buried soil is brought to the surface with cultivation and to exacerbate the situation further, throw in some fertiliser and you have a great big release of Nitrous Oxide as well. Cut down a large swathe of forest and instead of moisture being transpired through the leaves, rising into the atmosphere, creating clouds which in turn fall as rain to replenish the trees and continue the cycle; you eventually end up with a desert. Someone last year or possibly earlier this year published a report which calculated that the annual loss of the Amazonian Rain forest contributed more Co2 to the atmosphere than everything else combined. Let's all drive eco cars, fuelled by palm oil grown where rain forest once grew....mmm, the logic in that is?

I agree with the above 100% - except this bit "Someone last year or possibly earlier this year published a report which calculated that the annual loss of the Amazonian Rain forest contributed more Co2 to the atmosphere than everything else combined" which I have to say is news to me and which I'd like to read of. What I don't get is that if this is a problem how come the humongous releases of CO2 due to burning fossil fuels (which are shown to be so, if not proven to be so ) isn't a far bigger one????

Cynical? Questioning, curious, logical, open minded, sceptical, rational and downright bloody nosy I'll agree with. Let's turn your argument around for a moment; each and every piece of information that has been posted here, every question or viewpoint raised which calls into doubt the IPCC or any of their findings has been dismissed by you.

Doubt it, since I only rail against posts dismissive of established science.

We've had the "carrying on trashing the planet, you selfish so and so" argument, the "so you know better than the scientists" argument and the endless "prove it" argument; to name but a few. Your whole debate is focussed upon Co2, there are a world of other details to take account of in climate change yet you dismiss all of them and those who raise those points. The actual meaning of cynical is: believing that people are only interested in themselves and are not sincere; mmm, recurring theme in your arguments. If it's all the same to you, I'll pass that cap over; I'm more of a big brimmed, black number, ala Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys. Oh, and AGW? Find a sentence anywhere on this forum where I've said doesn't exist, baloney, it's all natural.

I'm interested (this is a climate forum ) in anthropogenic climate change. Anthropogenic CO2 is a major part of it, but not all of it.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Devonian

[Hiya]

I've noticed the old cobalt ion popping it's head in here, gets everywhere these days, even channel 4 news. Stay vigilant people.

[noggin]

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2007/s2000795.htm

It lifts my heart to see reports of people who are not taken in/convinced by by the AGW hype.

They are popping up even on the far side of the world.

[noggin]

the old cobalt ion popping it's head in here,

What's one of them, Hiya? Do we need to take evasive action or would it be futile to do so? Will it eventually be brainwashed into our children at school and splattered all over the newspapers and news programmes like "man-made global warming" and "carbon footprints"?

We shall soon have a small dictionary's worth of "AGW" words and phrases! Might be fun to see how many we could come up with! A whole new language for a whole new age.

[Devonian]

What's one of them, Hiya? Do we need to take evasive action or would it be futile to do so? Will it eventually be brainwashed into our children at school and splattered all over the newspapers and news programmes like "man-made global warming" and "carbon footprints"?

We shall soon have a small dictionary's worth of "AGW" words and phrases! Might be fun to see how many we could come up with! A whole new language for a whole new age.

Our children 'brainwashed' other people 'taken in'. Wow, you think there is one serious conspiracy going on?

[noggin]

Our children 'brainwashed' other people 'taken in'. Wow, you think there is one serious conspiracy going on?

Ah, Dev.......it was a lighthearted post ! I don't think there is a conspiracy going on, I feel that things are getting blown out of proportion in the media and are almost totally one-sided. Just as a government needs an opposition to curb any excesses, so does the AGW "camp" need an opposition, but it seems to be insidiously creeping into every part of our lives. A bit like a bulldozer indiscriminately demolishing everything in it's path regardless of the "value" or otherwise of those things.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

What grips me the most is that I have to pay an extra tax on my holiday flight due to an increase in solar activity

[jethro]

From Bob Carter, before any AGW proponents leap up and down; just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean his view is invalid. He's a well qualified, experienced scientist.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

[parmenides3]

Hi jethro. Leaving aside the fact that Carter's a geologist, not a climate scientist, for the moment (he's still entitled to an opinion), what might make his view valid or invalid? Only the extent to which the evidence, or explanation for it is correct or incorrect. There's plenty on the blogosphere about Carter and the Inhofe hearings in the US Senate (this was from one of those), including wikipedia.

So, to the nitty-gritty; are the statements purporting to be facts which support Carter's opinion correct? I can give an overall answer, but perhaps you'd like to go throught them one by one...

of course, we've discussed some of his statements before, so there's a danger of repeating ourselves. Why don't you pick an example from the statement which you think is interesting and we'll take it from there?

all the best,

:)P

[Bobby]

Ah, Dev.......it was a lighthearted post ! I don't think there is a conspiracy going on, I feel that things are getting blown out of proportion in the media and are almost totally one-sided. Just as a government needs an opposition to curb any excesses, so does the AGW "camp" need an opposition, but it seems to be insidiously creeping into every part of our lives. A bit like a bulldozer indiscriminately demolishing everything in it's path regardless of the "value" or otherwise of those things.

I don't think that just because some people hold an opposing view point that it should be taught and given equal balance to mainstream thinking. Should we teach creationism in schools? Should we teach that the Earth is flat? Should we teach that man didn't land on the moon? Shall we teach that moon is made of cheese? Just to give the opposing view points?

Whether you think AGW is true or not, it is the mainstream view of the world's scientists and therefore it should be taught ahead of any other minority views me thinks.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Magpie

[HighPressure]

Whether you think AGW is true or not, it is the mainstream view of the world's scientists and therefore it should be taught ahead of any other minority views me thinks.

Now that's an interesting statement, it depends how you teach a subject are you suggesting something which is not fact should be taught as so? Surely AGW should only form part of a balanced view which does not lead to a formal conclusion because as of yet there is no conclusion. I would see that as teaching our children the truth anything else would be dishonest and misleading.

[Devonian]

Now that's an interesting statement, it depends how you teach a subject are you suggesting something which is not fact should be taught as so? Surely AGW should only form part of a balanced view which does not lead to a formal conclusion because as of yet there is no conclusion. I would see that as teaching our children the truth anything else would be dishonest and misleading.

There is but little 'truth' in this world - most of that is mathematics. Truth as in something someone wont cry 'Ahh, but show me the proof' at....

Teach them the evidence would be my choice.

[Bobby]

Now that's an interesting statement, it depends how you teach a subject are you suggesting something which is not fact should be taught as so? Surely AGW should only form part of a balanced view which does not lead to a formal conclusion because as of yet there is no conclusion. I would see that as teaching our children the truth anything else would be dishonest and misleading.

There isn't much "fact" in science. Theory of gravity isn't "fact", the laws of motion aren't entirely "fact" either. There is fact in mathematics, but science is made up of theories which are always open to modification. AGW isn't fact either, but it's still widely accepted as correct by scientists, just like the theory of evolution and theory of gravity so I don't see why it shouldn't be taught.

[The PIT]

Hi jethro. Leaving aside the fact that Carter's a geologist, not a climate scientist, for the moment (he's still entitled to an opinion), what might make his view valid or invalid? Only the extent to which the evidence, or explanation for it is correct or incorrect. There's plenty on the blogosphere about Carter and the Inhofe hearings in the US Senate (this was from one of those), including wikipedia.

:)P

I have 35 years training and experience as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist, and hold degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand; BSc Hons) and the University of Cambridge (England; PhD)

Looks like not just a Geologist.

Anyway like most on here I'm not qualified to know whether he's talking junk or not. Seems quite a dig at the people who try and seek and destroy people who dare say "are you sure about this"? as well.

[Devonian]

No, it shouldn't be 'taught' at all. By all means it should form part of metorological/environment subject matter and should be explained accordingly, but young people should be allowed to make their own minds up about this. Nothing is proven - teaching (instilling) something which is open to debate and still very much under investigation is over zealous and smacks of attempted brainwashing.

Tamara

'attempted brainwashing'? What by geography teachers? Wow!

Still, by your definition children are being brainwashed when they are taught what Einstein theorised? Or Darwin? Or Wenger? Or Agassiz? Or Callendar? Or Hawking?

Well, times have clearly changed since I was at school.

[Devonian]

Disappointing response - I have respect for scientists but that doesn't mean I have to hang on every word they say. People should be free to believe in what they want to (as long as it is not terrorism or something harmful to others). That process begins at school -inform people but don't indoctrinate them.

I stick by what I say - no need to have a chip on your shoulder.

:wub:

Tamara

Oh, people are free to believe what they want - see for instance religion - and I'd defend that. But science isn't about belief, it's about (amongst other things) data, evidence, experiment, questions and theory.

Simply stating kids are being indoctrinated without providing any evidence is, I'm afraid, unconvincing.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

Pit: You have hit the nail on the head. many of us feel we are not qualified to question what we are told by scientists, whether it is Bob Carter or Gavin Schmidt. That doesn't exclude us from having our doubts about certain scientific findings, though. But I tried to address this likely response by suggesting to jethro that she pick one of Carter's statements, and we can look at it in more detail; perhaps you'd like to do this?

On the education question, my suggestion is that we try to teach children in a way which first sparks their curiosity about any subject, then provides them with the tools, techniques, reasoning skills and questioning skills, which allow them to pursue their curiosity and make theior own minds up on a subject in an informed way. Whether this is even possible, I cannot say...

:)P

[jethro]

Pit: You have hit the nail on the head. many of us feel we are not qualified to question what we are told by scientists, whether it is Bob Carter or Gavin Schmidt. That doesn't exclude us from having our doubts about certain scientific findings, though. But I tried to address this likely response by suggesting to jethro that she pick one of Carter's statements, and we can look at it in more detail; perhaps you'd like to do this?

On the education question, my suggestion is that we try to teach children in a way which first sparks their curiosity about any subject, then provides them with the tools, techniques, reasoning skills and questioning skills, which allow them to pursue their curiosity and make theior own minds up on a subject in an informed way. Whether this is even possible, I cannot say...

:)P

Been a little busy... I posted it because of his comments on the media (hype thread) I agree wholeheartedly with him.

On the education side; my school motto was "know thyself"; it was a very strong ethos in the school both in literally knowing who you are and deciding for yourself instead of being a sheep, take responsibility, it transferred into the teaching too. I think I could count on the fingers of one hand the instances of getting a direct answer to a question, we were made to "look it up". If any of us quoted so and so said as a reasoning behind our answers we would be questioned on why so and so said, what was their reasoning, did we think they were right, if not, why not etc. I admit at the time it was extremely tedious, many thoughts of "just bloody tell me", but I'm eternally thankful now. Your ethos appears the same, get back into the classroom P3, our children need teachers like you.

[Bobby]

Well, I don't think any good school should teach anything as fact, apart from that things that are actually fact. But for science, children are taught what is believed is true, not what is true. That's how I think it should be anyway. The theory of evolution is regarded by scientists as true, the theory of AGW is also believed by scientists in general to be true.