Overhype on global warming

[parmenides3]

I get the impression that you would like for the claimed problems for the future from AGW (and CO2, perhaps), to be wrong. But I'm not wedded to the idea; it's just an impression from observing where you're getting some of your material from. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

I get the impression that you would like for the claimed problems for the future from AGW (and CO2, perhaps), to be wrong. But I'm not wedded to the idea; it's just an impression from observing where you're getting some of your material from. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.

P

I don't think any sane person feels 'comfy' with that that is in store for us in our lifetimes so any attempt to deny/offset what is fast becoming inevitable must be viewed with sympathy by the folk who have made some kind of 'peace' with it all.

I don't know whether it was a 'Ziggy Stardust' album but '5 years livin'' makes uncomfortable listening these days.......

Edit: I don't see much discussion of 'tipping points' being a part of the 'overhype' so are we comfy that whatever the cause we are now on the edge, or just over, such a climatic event?

Edited August 25, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

I get the impression that you would like for the claimed problems for the future from AGW (and CO2, perhaps), to be wrong. But I'm not wedded to the idea; it's just an impression from observing where you're getting some of your material from. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.

:)P

Nope, you're completely wrong, way off the mark; will elaborate more if you wish when it's not quite so late in the day. As for sources for material, I wouldn't go to Jewsons for a tin of baked beans, if I want information which gives the other side of all this, scientific or hype, well there's not much point in looking at pro AGW sources is there? Horses for courses and all that, and like I've said before, where it comes from, who funded it is irrelevant, so long as it's accurate.

Grey Wolf:

"I don't think any sane person feels 'comfy' with that that is in store for us in our lifetimes so any attempt to deny/offset what is fast becoming inevitable must be viewed with sympathy by the folk who have made some kind of 'peace' with it all."

What a load of patronising, superior, claptrap. If you want to psycho-analyse people, you should at least get to know them and listen first. I could, if I were to go down a similar train of thought as yourself, decide those who fear and predict catastrophic levels in sea rise are merely trying to rationalise their own fears, calvanise action from others in order to justify their own rising tide of paranoia; help, help, the end is nigh, we're all going to suffer and it's all your fault, I told you and you wouldn't listen, it's judgement day for all your capitalist consumption.

Edited August 25, 2007 by jethro

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

So long as the prospect of the Antarctic ice-cap sliding the poor Penguins the way of the Polar bears remains "fast becoming inevitable" rather than "REALLY fast becoming inevitable" or "it's happening now" or "Agggggghhh!" I'll hold on to my dream of being the first human being to sleigh ride to the south pole behind a pack of Hummers.

[parmenides3]

Nope, you're completely wrong, way off the mark; will elaborate more if you wish when it's not quite so late in the day. As for sources for material, I wouldn't go to Jewsons for a tin of baked beans, if I want information which gives the other side of all this, scientific or hype, well there's not much point in looking at pro AGW sources is there? Horses for courses and all that, and like I've said before, where it comes from, who funded it is irrelevant, so long as it's accurate.

Fair enough. I Look forward to your comments later. :lol: Your comment about information is the key, of course. How can you find proper challenges to the 'orthodox' view of AGW? How can you tell, if you so find something, whether it is true/correct or not?

The first is harder than it appears. There are at least two reasons for this. Firstly, there are very few sources or websites which even attempt to provide a genuinely rational challenge to the AGW hypothesis. Most of the 'anti' websites are polemical and unscientific (not an opinion, but a recognition based on extensive research). Not only that, but the vast majority simply repeat the same arguments which have persisted for years now and have been consistently and endlessly shown to be false. There are a few places, however, which target specific areas of the current 'orthodoxy' in a realistic, scientific and rational way, and which ask diffcult and important questions about AGW which matter.

The second reason is that there are very few people who are in a position to understand both the science and the arguments who do, actually challenge the main stream. And these people often accept much more than any 'denialist' might want to accept, whilst identifying real issues to be dealt with. There really isn't a huge amount of information available on which to base a rational objection on some basic conclusions about AGW. There isn't a broad scientific agreement about this by accident, and it isn't because of a conspiracy, desire for wealth, or fear of rejection; what 'consensus' there is exists because the evidence provides little in the way of rational alternatives as explanations of the phenomena we are experiencing.

But under all this is a problem. This is the tendency to consider the whole issue as having two 'sides', 'pro' and 'anti'. The terms literally mean 'for' and 'against'. Scientists aren't really for or against any idea or proposition in this sense. A hypothesis can work, be unproven or disproven. Hence, the argument that solar changes have driven recent climate change is disproven; this hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false. But on the other hand, the AGW hypothesis has (arguably) not yet been empirically 'proven'. There is, however, a chain of reasoning hich leads to the conclusions we currently have about what is going on, why it is happening, and what the future could bring. And this is where scepticism is easy; any chain of reasoning can be challenged. As most scepticism has no such chain, all that can be done is to demonstrate the falsity of certain argument or claims.

Whether or not the source of funding for work is important is tricky. In principle, this shouldn't matter, I agree. But in the past, it is known (yes, there is evidence) that certain corporations specifically funded some research with the intention of both creating confusion amongst the politicians and the electorate, and casting doubt on the validity of the science supporting the hypothesis. These corporations did not care whether the science supported their intentions, so long as the strategic goal of seeding confusion was achieved; a campaign of disinformation. As so much of the 'anti' material is based on a very few papers, if it is clear that the source of a claim is a disproven theory, then the source becomes relevant.

When research from the people funded in this way has come out, the scientists who do (more or less) accept the AGW hypothesis take it seriously. It is analysed, considered and responded to. Thus, Lindzen's 'infrared iris' hypothesis. Independent work was done to verify the findings of the original paper, but the researchers found that they could not replicate Lindzen's results. They looked carefully and found a couple of reasons why they couldn't do this. The scientific community has looked at the papers and the subsequent work and arguments, and currently has concluded that the 'iris' hypothesis is unproven and most think that, in the absence of further supporting data, will remain unproven. Lindzen defends his hypothesis, a few others are still trying to verify or falsify it, but it is very much a sideline in academic work these days; it has died a natural death, as it were.

Then there is the consideration of 'track record'. Work like Archibald's is very familiar. It is not published in a bona fide scientific journal. It contains errors in fact and methodologies which are not scientifically valid, though it has the 'appearance' of science. It uses information selectively and fails to consider alternative research which contradicts it. The track record runs that this kind of publication invariably comes from the 'anti' side of the tracks. On the other hand, the evidence supporting AGW is published in real journals, is subject to careful scrutiny before and after publication, and has substantial references to existing and previous research relevant to the subject (so, it does not exist in isolation). Claims that this is a result of 'censorship' or 'following the funding' actually boil down to claims that a large proportion of the scientific community are frauds, cheats or liars, definitely an example of irony.

As always, I will try to respond fairly to questions and challenges about AGW and doubts about it, (though I confess, after a while, it does get trying repeating the same refutations many times over), but this is hard work when you are presented with an example like the Archibald paper; it would take several hours to produce a line-by-line knockdown of the whole thing, mainly because there is so much in it to knock down, and I am not sure that much can be gained by doing all that work. This is why I frequently ask people to specify what point or case they wish to discuss; dealing with one issue at a time is more manageable, especially on a forum like NW, where my rantings already go on far too long...

wishing you well,

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Grey Wolf:

What a load of patronising, superior, claptrap. If you want to psycho-analyse people, you should at least get to know them and listen first. I could, if I were to go down a similar train of thought as yourself, decide those who fear and predict catastrophic levels in sea rise are merely trying to rationalise their own fears, calvanise action from others in order to justify their own rising tide of paranoia; help, help, the end is nigh, we're all going to suffer and it's all your fault, I told you and you wouldn't listen, it's judgement day for all your capitalist consumption.

I'm not a colour , I,m a clan (that's Gray with an 'A', thanks for listening)

P3 and Iceberg posted a nice link to what Lloyd's, London think about the rapid ablation of both the G.I.S and the W.A.I.S. whilst touching on the loss of E.A.I.S. and the papers that highlight their 'future' concerns over on the 'mechanical erosion' thread. I would tend to put more faith in the actions of a company who don't want to become bankrupt through losses from unsafe loss assessments made now.

The folk who are 'witnessing' the first strains of the collapsing systems are the folk watching,not theorising, the event.

To deny what is before your eyes (should you care to see) seems a little careless or denialist from my screen.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Will you two stop nagging at each other, please. It's like watching 'Abigail's Party' without the jokes. You've both started responding simply to score points. It doesn't matter who started it, whose fault it is, or who's right or wrong. It's pointless.

Now look what you've done; I sound like a schoolteacher! Harrumph.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Will you two stop nagging at each other, please. It's like watching 'Abigail's Party' without the jokes. You've both started responding simply to score points. It doesn't matter who started it, whose fault it is, or who's right or wrong. It's pointless.

Now look what you've done; I sound like a schoolteacher! Harrumph.

:lol: P

Yes Sir.......

[parmenides3]

Good boy. Here: :lol:

:)P

[jethro]

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+...article8641.htm

[Essan]

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

So most scientist publish papers without specifically drawing conclusions on whether their research directly 'proves' (or 'disproves') anthropogenic climate change.

Possibly because the 'proof' comes from a consensus of various research - not any one specific area of one specific discipline

[parmenides3]

That's very useful for me, personally; well found. I'll try to find the paper and respond later.

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+...article8641.htm

Nice piece. Many soundings have been made that there is 'no concensus' previously. I don't believe there is either.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

As this is an area where I have actually done the research and written a paper, I feel I can speak with some authority on the subject.

First; there's no way to evaluate Schulte's work properly because it isn't available to read: I've tried. All we have is a blog report (which has a clear agenda). I'd also point out that the journal it comes from does not have a good track record; there are reasons for this, but basically, it isn't taken very seriously (if at all) by most scientists.

If Schulte has followed Oreskes' methodology, there should be six categories of evaluated papers. Does is establish that there is 'no consensus' in climate science? How can we tell, without reading the paper? Nobody should be surprised that research gets published which does not specifically 'endorse' GW, as it is pretty much a 'given' these days; why mention it? What surprises me is that Schulte apparently claims to have found a number of papers in the same journals that Oreskes reviewed which contradict GW. Why have I come across none of these? Where is the big 'revelation' on the internet, or in the media?

I don't know if there's much point in discussing this paper until we can read it. On this subject, I'd draw your attention to the ongoing discussion on 'Stoat' http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ (in which I am participating) and the Wiki page it links to. There is also a link to the work of Bray & von Storch, addressing the same matter, on the 'Climate Feedback' blog.

There is also a presentation by Oreskes which discusses the question: 'How do we know we're not wrong?' It's a big file, so I'll look for the page & link it.

In the survey of 1807 climate scientists which I have submitted to EOS, not one, not a single respondent, said they thought that GW is not happening.

:)P

Edit; here is the Oreskes presentation: http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Present...20for%20Web.pdf

If you consider yourself to be a rational person and truly want to understand, rather than just have your existing opinions supported, please, please read it; it explains in very simple terms the state of the science. :)P

Edited August 30, 2007 by parmenides3

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Couple of points P3 I will pick up on. True we need to see te paper to read to make complete judgement but previous post ofmine is til psonal view I will add. Secondly non AGW, or AGW rebuttal in anyway is not 'media friendly'as it is likelyto be ignored or at best minimally seized upon. Thirdly, I think it is anlig at AGW not GW......as even I accept GW is going on.

I will read the report...as it is cited by you

BFTP

Edited August 30, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Gray-Wolf]

Couple of points P3 I will pick up on. True we need to see te paper to read to make complete judgement but previous post ofmine is til psonal view I will add. Secondly non AGW, or AGW rebuttal in anyway is not 'media friendly'as it is likelyto be ignored or at best minimally seized upon. Thirdly, I think it is anlig at AGW not GW......as even I accept GW is going on.

I will read the report...as it is cited by you

BFTP

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70828132449.htm

even the yanks are calling it AGW now, you don't wanna 'miss the bus' do ya BFTP?

[laserguy]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...283-601,00.html

More fuel for the fire.... Do any of the posters on here know anything about the warming going on on other planets and if so what do you make of it?

[Bobby]

I'd like to see the evidence that other Planets and Moons are warming, do you have any links? Considering there is still debate whether Earth is warming, evidence that other planets are warming had better be pretty darn good. Even if they have been warming recently, we have only been observing them for a very short period of time, just a few years, so we cannot make any sort of judgements that their long term climate is changing anyway.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Magpie

[laserguy]

Hi Magpie. Sorry I can't provide links at the mo,got to dash off to work very very soon. I've seen this stuff all over the place though and I too question it's authenticity. (Seriously,can we rely on ANY source?). I was wondering though if others on here had read similar and if they'd probed further,and if better minds than mine had formed any opinions. This whole global warming thing is a mess and the plot thickens every day! Perhaps info from NASA would be as good a place as any to start.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Ok...other planets warming. We have perhaps a decade or two's worth of data, which is very sketchy at best, and often obtained from hundreds of millions of miles away at a very crude scale.

I wouldn't use it to reach any conclusions myself.

[Gray-Wolf]

Ok...other planets warming. We have perhaps a decade or two's worth of data, which is very sketchy at best, and often obtained from hundreds of millions of miles away at a very crude scale.

I wouldn't use it to reach any conclusions myself.

...apart from maybe the 'leanings' of folk who post, and then debate in all seriousness, the subject (as you so eloquently described) whilst refuting the wealth of evidence on planet earth regarding it's warming.........maybe?

[laserguy]

http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Climate_Change.html#anchor_42

Comments please,and may I kindly request that respondants don't go into a tirade along the lines of "grow up,get a grip" etc. I often get the impression that 'Laserguy' is seen by some as a maverick who will leave no stone unturned in an attempt to dismiss 'climate change' as non existant. Not true,but what is one to make of sites like the link above which has solid sources and flies in the face of the AGW stuff which is all Joe Public hears of ?

Now here we have material which states quite clearly that global temps are taking a dip,not rising! While much is made of the loss of Arctic ice,how often do we hear on the news that the opposite is happening in the Antarctic,and from what I can gather the ice there is increasing/advancing at a much greater rate than it is being lost at the Arctic. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I can neither prove or disprove the information I come across). Therein lies the problem for anyone who tries to make sense of this. What information is wrong/misrepresented,and what is right? How can I,you and everyone on the 'outside' sort the wheat from the chaff? Actually,the cosmic ray theory stands up to my non-physicist,non-climatologist mind by virtue that it is reasonable to assume that cosmic rays would approach from a certain angle/direction and would presumably affect one pole and not the other.

I'll say this once more and for the last time:reducing CO2 emissions would be a good thing because it has to be associated with a concurrent reduction in general pollution,but I feel millions of people have jumped onto a bandwagon which is leading to absolutely nowhere regards climate change. And I'd guess that most of them have no idea about the existence of other,much more significant factors than CO2,assuming that CO2 has ANY role. And y'know what? If governments decided to go 'nuclear' these very people would jump right off the CO2 bus and hop onto the one which campaigned against nuclear!! I KNOW I'm right on that one.

Given all the conflicting information and varying scenario predictions I'm just going to give up on it all and take a look out the window from now on! Herald the coming cool down (IMVHO).

Bottom line? If it gets warm take your coat off. If it gets cold,put it back on. It's not rocket science.

[Gray-Wolf]

Bottom line? If it gets warm take your coat off. If it gets cold,put it back on. It's not rocket science.

But if it gets warm nowhere will be making coats anymore and, if it gets cold no one will be making coats anymore.......

[Stratos Ferric]

http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Climate_Change.html#anchor_42

... Actually,the cosmic ray theory stands up to my non-physicist,non-climatologist mind by virtue that it is reasonable to assume that cosmic rays would approach from a certain angle/direction and would presumably affect one pole and not the other.

...

Presumably then that will be why it's permanently summer at one pole whilst the sun never rises at the other will it? Perhaps, on reflection, you might ponder on why some of us on here are more inclined to listen to certain sources than others: being a "non-" anything clearly can't be relied on to add robustness to any argument if your foregoing logic is anything to go by.

It would have been quite possible to apply the crude logic used by the author to their plot of temperature and to have concluded in the mid 1980s that we were headed for an ice age. The fact that we have not exceeded (globally) the temperature reached in the late 1990s is hardly an argument for cooling, and most certainly not for the implicit hint of a cold winter to come in the last paragraph.

For a group of people (albeit biologists) claiming to protect scientific disciplines there's some fairly rough and ready science in there.

[laserguy]

But if it gets warm nowhere will be making coats anymore and, if it gets cold no one will be making coats anymore.......

Whatever.... Still nothing I can do about it. I'm not arguing about anything Stratos,as I took pains to point out,just bringing certain things to light. And no I do not understand why certain people would be more inclined to listen to certain sources over others,that's a point I was trying to convey.

Not sure I understand the bit about permanent summer at one of the poles. If a source of cosmic rays was approaching from say,the south,then that source would not vary. Though the effect may well be miniscule it would have a year on year effect. Obviously if cosmic rays were landing squarely at the equator then the effects would be equal at both poles?

The fact that we haven't exceeded the global temp of the late '90s is hardly a convincing case for ongoing global warming either.

Regards, LG.