Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Remember the 400+ anti-gw report ?


Calrissian

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Ah the circular argument continues apace I see....

We have been over (see both mine and SF's posts above and before, etc, etc, etc, etc) why they probably do not publish them and that appeared to be enough until (guess what!) a rehash of old material.....

Conspiracy here we come!

I await your response from my cursory analysis of the problems of software development for turbulent systems. As far as I am aware it is not a rehash of old material, and there is still no conspiracy.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Good morning Roo, firstly thank you for apologizing for your rant; ranting is easy, recognizing it and saying sorry takes a little more, so good on ya!

I think the significance of the Hartmann & Wendler paper is not that it discounts or disproves AGW (a popular misconception on here seems to be that questioners are out to overturn the AGW theory, we’re not). The significance is the information of the impact that natural drivers have on temperature trends; and the dangers of using short time spans to support the AGW theory.

This is a study which considers both the negative and positive phase of a natural driver and the impacts empirically measured. This is then studied to gauge the impact of increasing emissions during this period to see if there is a discernable trend linking temperature changes to higher emissions. Their results are thus:

“In Alaska, no gradual temperature increase can be observed over the last half of the twentieth century, for which time period homogeneous meteorological data exist. A gradual increase might be expected from the observed steady increase of greenhouse gases. However, much of the observed increasing temperature trend in sub arctic Alaska, when examined for the last half-century can be explained by the sudden regime shift that occurred in 1976”.

Also

“The two 25-yr periods

On either side of the regime shift show widely different trends from the total time series for all of the regions, with the exception of the Arctic region. Given the cooling trends during both periods, as well as the statistically distinct nature of the temperature regimes during the two periods (section 3c), it appears as though the long-term (1951–2001) warming trend is largely a function of the singular regime shift in 1976”.

The paper also considers the impact upon the Arctic region of this shift in climate regime, although it says the Arctic Oscillation plays a greater role in that region and makes no comment upon what that may have been, it does say:

“The Arctic region saw an increase in winter temperature of 2.0°C”.

Also

The trend in mean annual temperatures for sub arctic Alaska for both 25-yr time periods was _0.26°C per decade. The only exception is in the Arctic, where Barrow saw a trend of _0.28°C per decade from 1951 to 1975 and a warming temperature trend of _0.52°C per decade since 1977”.

Much is said on here about AGW over riding natural drivers, how man is now firmly in control of climate, how natural cycles have been super ceded by man-made ones and yet here is a comprehensive, peer reviewed paper which clearly shows this not to be the case.

The CET and the thirty year average is held up as evidence of the impact of AGW upon our part of the world, yet this study also shows the dangers of interpreting short spans of data.

The Arctic and the ice loss is used as a clear indicator of AGW and warming temperatures but this paper clearly shows, certainly for the Alaskan Arctic region, that the greatest change was caused by the 1976 climate shift.

More evidence has also recently been published – (try as I might I cannot find the full papers via Google, if anyone else can could you please post a link for them) which also says

“The results suggest that as much as one-half of all global surface warming since the 1970's may be part of natural variation as distinct from the result of greenhouse gases".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21113070418.htm

"We suggest that the large-scale, decadal changes...associated with the NAO are primarily responsible for the ocean heat content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years," the authors concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80103144416.htm

“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71113200545.htm

Next I’d like to throw this into the pot:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

This is a peer reviewed paper; it clearly says that a doubling of CO2 will not result in the temperature predictions as set out in the IPCC report. In other words, temperatures will not rise in line with their estimates but will instead increase 1.1c with a doubling of CO2.

5. Equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate system

The independent determinations of the effective heat capacity (16.7 ± 7 W yr m-2 K-1, Sec. 3) and time constant (5 ± 1 yr, Sec. 4) of Earth's climate system allow evaluation of the equilibrium sensitivity s-1 of Earth's climate system pertinent to climate change on the multidecadal time scale by Eq (14). The resulting climate sensitivity is 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2); for forcing corresponding to doubled CO2 taken as F2=3.7 W m-2, the corresponding equilibrium increase in global mean surface temperature for doubled CO2, is T2≈1.1 ± 0.3 K. (These and other results are summarized in Table 3). This climate sensitivity is much lower than current estimates, e.g., the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [iPCC, 2007], T2≈3 11 5−. K.

I may be considered a loon, I may be considered a sceptic who just won’t shut up and go away, I may be considered as a contrarian out to prove a conspiracy theory, but in reality I’m just someone who has looked at all this and come up with some questions which need valid answers. The above illustrates just part of my doubt; doubts and questions supported by peer reviewed papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Here's an interesting overview, haven't seen it before, well worth a look:

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/07EnvIndex.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
Good morning Roo, firstly thank you for apologizing for your rant; ranting is easy, recognizing it and saying sorry takes a little more, so good on ya!

I think the significance of the Hartmann & Wendler paper is not that it discounts or disproves AGW (a popular misconception on here seems to be that questioners are out to overturn the AGW theory, we’re not). The significance is the information of the impact that natural drivers have on temperature trends; and the dangers of using short time spans to support the AGW theory.

This is a study which considers both the negative and positive phase of a natural driver and the impacts empirically measured. This is then studied to gauge the impact of increasing emissions during this period to see if there is a discernable trend linking temperature changes to higher emissions. Their results are thus:

“In Alaska, no gradual temperature increase can be observed over the last half of the twentieth century, for which time period homogeneous meteorological data exist. A gradual increase might be expected from the observed steady increase of greenhouse gases. However, much of the observed increasing temperature trend in sub arctic Alaska, when examined for the last half-century can be explained by the sudden regime shift that occurred in 1976”.

Also

“The two 25-yr periods

On either side of the regime shift show widely different trends from the total time series for all of the regions, with the exception of the Arctic region. Given the cooling trends during both periods, as well as the statistically distinct nature of the temperature regimes during the two periods (section 3c), it appears as though the long-term (1951–2001) warming trend is largely a function of the singular regime shift in 1976”.

The paper also considers the impact upon the Arctic region of this shift in climate regime, although it says the Arctic Oscillation plays a greater role in that region and makes no comment upon what that may have been, it does say:

“The Arctic region saw an increase in winter temperature of 2.0°C”.

Also

The trend in mean annual temperatures for sub arctic Alaska for both 25-yr time periods was _0.26°C per decade. The only exception is in the Arctic, where Barrow saw a trend of _0.28°C per decade from 1951 to 1975 and a warming temperature trend of _0.52°C per decade since 1977”.

Much is said on here about AGW over riding natural drivers, how man is now firmly in control of climate, how natural cycles have been super ceded by man-made ones and yet here is a comprehensive, peer reviewed paper which clearly shows this not to be the case.

The CET and the thirty year average is held up as evidence of the impact of AGW upon our part of the world, yet this study also shows the dangers of interpreting short spans of data.

The Arctic and the ice loss is used as a clear indicator of AGW and warming temperatures but this paper clearly shows, certainly for the Alaskan Arctic region, that the greatest change was caused by the 1976 climate shift.

More evidence has also recently been published – (try as I might I cannot find the full papers via Google, if anyone else can could you please post a link for them) which also says

“The results suggest that as much as one-half of all global surface warming since the 1970's may be part of natural variation as distinct from the result of greenhouse gases".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21113070418.htm

"We suggest that the large-scale, decadal changes...associated with the NAO are primarily responsible for the ocean heat content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years," the authors concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80103144416.htm

“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71113200545.htm

Next I’d like to throw this into the pot:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

This is a peer reviewed paper; it clearly says that a doubling of CO2 will not result in the temperature predictions as set out in the IPCC report. In other words, temperatures will not rise in line with their estimates but will instead increase 1.1c with a doubling of CO2.

5. Equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate system

The independent determinations of the effective heat capacity (16.7 ± 7 W yr m-2 K-1, Sec. 3) and time constant (5 ± 1 yr, Sec. 4) of Earth's climate system allow evaluation of the equilibrium sensitivity s-1 of Earth's climate system pertinent to climate change on the multidecadal time scale by Eq (14). The resulting climate sensitivity is 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2); for forcing corresponding to doubled CO2 taken as F2=3.7 W m-2, the corresponding equilibrium increase in global mean surface temperature for doubled CO2, is T2≈1.1 ± 0.3 K. (These and other results are summarized in Table 3). This climate sensitivity is much lower than current estimates, e.g., the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [iPCC, 2007], T2≈3 11 5−. K.

I may be considered a loon, I may be considered a sceptic who just won’t shut up and go away, I may be considered as a contrarian out to prove a conspiracy theory, but in reality I’m just someone who has looked at all this and come up with some questions which need valid answers. The above illustrates just part of my doubt; doubts and questions supported by peer reviewed papers.

It seems counter intuitive that a system like the earth's climate can show cooling or stable temperatures while it's total heat content is rising, or that it can show warming or stable temperatures as it's heat content drops. Of course the latent heat of melting and evaporation is readily demonstrable for water, where temperature change and total heat change do not follow a linear relationship during phase change. This of course happens at both the ocean surface and in the atmosphere all of the time.

If I can, I would like to offer an analogy to the role of the decadal ocean phenomena regarding heat capacity and temperature change, where measured temperatures vary inversely to the heating or cooling of different parts of the system.

The system is a petrol driven car engine. Driving in town, despite changes in speed, gears, stops and starts, the engine warms up to a fairly constant temperature. You are using a lot of fuel, the engine is at its least efficient. Radiator cooling is assisted by fan.

Once you hit the motorway, the temperature remains fairly constant as you cruise along at 70mph, your fuel consumption drops, your efficiency goes up. The cooling is helped by additional air over the radiator fins due to your higher windspeed and faster circulation of the coolant.

Then you hit congestion and at a dead stop for several minutes, during which time you turn off the ignition, and the temperature has gone right up. You are using no fuel whatsoever, and the engine starts to cool by radiation alone. A few minutes later, there is a stop-start crawl of about 5 mph and the temperature stays right up, despite the fact that the engine is in fact still cooling, with the fan working continuously. The congestion clears, and you zoom away and your temperature gauge drops to normal again, as your engine heats up and your cooling system reaches maximum efficiency.

For heterogeneous, constantly pumped systems, like the earth's climate, with plenty of excess input energy in quasi-equilibrium, are positive "forcings" required to explain decadal or longer term temperature trend changes? The recovery from known and more quantifiable negative "forcings" seem to be rapid and do not seem to affect or overturn the trends during which they happen to occur for anything more than a few years.

The system is apparently not as "simple" as Dev stated earlier, and the level of uncertainty is high regarding the energy capacity, balances and budgets, as the quoted papers in Jethro's post above demonstrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire

On the discussion about modelling and software then I must argue that some software does not have any errors. For example software controlling nuclear reactors is tested for every input combination, You can however argue that the software does not cover every eventuality. Typically software has a bug for every ten thousand lines of code with climate models I should think having millions of lines of code.

You must remember that there are different types of model and what the amateur climatologist thinks of as climate model is not in reality what the climate models are or for. The three main types of models are weather models which are usually pretty good out to 5 days, then we have climate models which model physical and chemical interactions in all but the highest layers of the atmosphere and then we have carbon cycle models.

Hindcasting of global temperatures with climate models has got reasonably good, however they are not so good at regional temperatures and precipitation. These inaccuracies in my mind show that there is more work to be done on the models and a whole load of smaller scale feedbacks and variations which are poorly modeled. We should remeber that most of these climate models are about probability and are run many many times to come up with answers so individual inaccuracy on a non global scale does not disprove AGW.

In terms of carbon cycle modelling and increases or decreases in CO2 then models admit that some of this is a bit guess work at the moment.

Mid Latitude variability in IPCC climate models

This study suggests a serious caveat concerning the ability of most of the

presently available climate models in describing the statistical properties of the

global scale atmospheric dynamics of the present climate, and, a fortiori, in the

perspective of climate change.

I have some reservations about climate sensitivities and feedbacks quoted in the IPCC report and think a lot of work needs to be done to improve forecasting, but on the whole accept the concept that we should live in closer harmony with our environment and that CO2 emissions should be reduced. Its common sense to respect the environment you live in but my worry is that we may concentrate so blinkeredly on CO2 that we fail to address other critical causes of warming. We don't have a clear picture of how regional sensitivities and feedbacks to natural and manmade changes will combine to affect the global outcome on climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest diessoli

Hi Jethro,

The system says I have too many quote blocks, I will just wrap some quotes in code tags and see if that works. Sorry for that.

I think the significance of the Hartmann & Wendler paper is not that it discounts or disproves AGW (a popular misconception on here seems to be that questioners are out to overturn the AGW theory, we're not). The significance is the information of the impact that natural drivers have on temperature trends; and the dangers of using short time spans to support the AGW theory.

This is a study which considers both the negative and positive phase of a natural driver and the impacts empirically measured. This is then studied to gauge the impact of increasing emissions during this period to see if there is a discernable trend linking temperature changes to higher emissions. Their results are thus:

They do not explicitly examine which impacts increased green house gases have on the temperature in Alaska. But they say that the observed trends -if calculated properly, i.e. not across the regime shift- are at odds with the expectation that temperatures in Alaska have a positive trend

And they -rightly- critise some authors, who have seen this positive trend, by pointing out that a simple linear trend across the regime shift is not the proper model to fit.

But they also concede that the negative trends you see on both sides of the shift are not stastically significant.

The paper also considers the impact upon the Arctic region of this shift in climate regime, although it says the Arctic Oscillation plays a greater role in that region and makes no comment upon what that may have been, it does say

"The Arctic region saw an increase in winter temperature of 2.0°C".

And they also say that this might point to the idea of the polar amplification of GW:

"Also of note is the fact that the warming in the Arctic region from 1977 to 2001 was the only short-period mean annual temperature series with a trend that was statistically significant and clearly demonstrates that the Arctic region is under different influence than subarctic Alaska, which might go toward supporting the idea of polar amplification of global climate change and underscores the importance of care that must be given when discussing the climate of Alaska as a state."

Much is said on here about AGW over riding natural drivers, how man is now firmly in control of climate, how natural cycles have been super ceded by man-made ones and yet here is a comprehensive, peer reviewed paper which clearly shows this not to be the case.

I am not sure who said that, but I doubt that you find a scientist who says that we are "in control" of climate or that natural cycles have been superseded. What the IPCC says is that the observed increase in global temperature cannot be explained by natural variability alone and that it is very likely that most of it is induced by humans.

And the paper you mention does not clearly show that this is not the case since nobody claims that it is. Well, nobody who wants to be taken seriously :lol:

The CET and the thirty year average is held up as evidence of the impact of AGW upon our part of the world, yet this study also shows the dangers of interpreting short spans of data.

I'am pretty certain that the "dangers of interpreting short spans of data" are well known to climatologists.

If anything a thirty year rolling average is used. The IPCC's conclusion is not just based on the last thirty years, GISSTEMP for instance goes back to 1880. And then there are heaps of reconstructions going back even further.

The Arctic and the ice loss is used as a clear indicator of AGW and warming temperatures but this paper clearly shows, certainly for the Alaskan Arctic region, that the greatest change was caused by the 1976 climate shift.

If I read their paper correctly they say exactly the opposite (as far as the artic region goes). I repeat my quote from above (my emphasis)

"Also of note is the fact that the warming in the Arctic region from 1977 to 2001 was the only short-period mean annual temperature series with a trend that was statistically significant and clearly demonstrates that the Arctic region is under different influence than subarctic Alaska, which might go toward supporting the idea of polar amplification of global climate change and underscores the importance of care that must be given when discussing the climate of Alaska as a state."

If you look at figure 5 you can see that there is no clear regime shift for the artic region.

More evidence has also recently been published – (try as I might I cannot find the full papers via Google, if anyone else can could you please post a link

for them) which also says

"The results suggest that as much as one-half of all global surface warming since the 1970's may be part of natural variation as distinct from the result of greenhouse gases".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21113070418.htm

That article came out of a 2002 master's thesis.

http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Research/MS_Theses.html

The abstract is at:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL015191.shtml

or

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/...2111310900.html

Without seeing the article I don't want to comment any further. But it seems that this article is not referenced anywhere else, which might indicate that it is not seen as important.

"We suggest that the large-scale, decadal changes...associated with the NAO are primarily responsible for the ocean heat content changes in the North 
Atlantic over the past 50 years," the authors concluded.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80103144416.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1146436

Interesting, but brand-new. So let's wait what their peers have to say.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global 
warming," said Morison.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71113200545.htm

Abstract

Also a rathe new article.

You have probably also seen that they confirm some model predictions re. direction of circulation?

Next I'd like to throw this into the pot:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

I am sure it has been mentioned before, but still: the fact that a paper is peer reviewed does not make it's conclusions accepted science. It will still

have to stand the test of time. So you might want to read this comment and maybe also this article on realclimate (I know it is just a blog, but it is written by scientists and you can follow their arguments and check for your self).

This is a peer reviewed paper; it clearly says that a doubling of CO2 will not result in the temperature predictions as set out in the IPCC report. In other words, temperatures will not rise in line with their estimates but will instead increase 1.1c with a doubling of CO2.

But it still does not refute what the IPCC says, have you read his caveat (my emphasis):

"Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen."

I might be wrong, but I believe that on this forum people often say that the climate system is very complex and that we don't know enought about it etc., but if a paper like this comes along (which explicitly says that it uses a very simple approach) it is not questioned, but seen as a refutation of the IPCC results.

I may be considered a loon, I may be considered a sceptic who just won't shut up and go away, I may be considered as a contrarian out to prove a conspiracy 
theory, but in reality I'm just someone who has looked at all this and come up with some questions which need valid answers. The above illustrates just
part of my doubt; doubts and questions supported by peer reviewed papers.

I don't consider you a loon, but I believe that if you really want to make up your own mind about all this, you need to read a lot more and more carefully.

My apologies if this sounds patronising, but this whole issue is rather complex and the devil is most of the time in the (very) technical details.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest diessoli

Hi VillagePlank,

It's all in the mathematics and the implementation of the mathematics on a computer. It wouldn't be too much of an issue if, for instance, the Hadley Centre would publish their source-code for their modelling - but they won't. Nor will most of the others. So it cannot be verified to be qualified software that is well written, and accurately implements the good work published in the peer reviewed journals. What other area of science is there where the mechanics of how you derived your results is not published along with the results?

I am pretty sure that you won't get their source code or the one of the MetOffice's Unified Model. But there are a few others (with which you will also have more luck to get them running):

PUMA or PlanetSimulator

or Nasa's Model E

Most climate scientist will not be interested in verifying other people's code and I doubt that you will have much fun doing that (although of course having fun would not be the point).

As far as other sciences go,

consider a physical experiment (where the experimental set-up is a crude equivalent of a climate model): they will also not be checked by other people. You publish your results and a description of your methodolody and other's will try to duplicate you results - quite likely with a different set-up. You get much more robust results that way.

At least in the sciences I am aware of you will very rarely get source code or other "mechanics", only a description of them.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Good morning Diessoli,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am in agreement with much of what you say, however my post and comments about natural cycles being super-ceded by man, natural cycles no longer relevant etc was not intended as comment upon climatologists or scientists in general. The scientific community do not dismiss natural drivers, nor are past climate cycles regarded as irrelevant; in fact almost without exception every paper I've read has had a paragraph which will say "we need to understand more about natural drivers/cycles in order to determine the AGW signal".

If you scroll back a couple of pages in this thread you will see that Roo is arguing that the human factor is the driving force in climate change and a little further on Stratos says we have the maths already which proves something is amiss and if it were natural, it would have to be something very unusual and very apparent. I disagree with both these stances.

On this forum, natural drivers/patterns/cycles are often dismissed out of hand, those of us who look and post papers about them are assumed to be disputing the AGW theory in it's entirety; I can only speak for myself when I say this is not the case. We have to have accurate knowledge of the natural environment in order to decipher the scale of our impact. I do not dispute AGW nor do I advocate that we have had no impact, nor will we have in the future. What I question is the percentage.

The papers I posted do not dispute AGW either but what they do high-light is the change in temperatures empirically measured as a result of a natural driver. We simply cannot take temperature figures alone (from whatever time period of rolling average) as proof positive of our impact or more importantly, the scale of our impact; and that is what happens time and again on this forum.

I don't think the paper I posted above can be taken to say much about the Arctic with any authority, it merely acknowledges the Alaskan Arctic has warmed and that drivers other than the PDO have greater influence. If however, you read the Polyakov paper, it is apparent that natural drivers are also responsible for much change in that part of the world too. Again high-lighting the importance of not interpreting every change as being of our doing. Polyakov is quite clear that it is warm ocean currents which are largely to blame for Arctic ice loss, these ocean currents are not as a direct result of our tinkering with the system, but are part of a cyclical pattern which has existed for a long time period. May I qualify that before it is mis-interpreted as "AGW is a scam"; much of the warming in the Arctic can be traced to cyclical patterns, similar warm temperatures and ice loss were experienced during the 20's and 30's too but today's loss may be in excess of that experienced during that period. In other words, it's not all natural but it's not all AGW either - that percentage thing again.

We go round in circles on here with the "AGW is real, it's all our fault" and the "AGW isn't real, it's all natural"; caught between the two camps, hopping around in no man's land are those of us who say it isn't as simple as those two polar views, black or white doesn't come anywhere close to the real world, shades of grey are the norm.

I don't consider your reply patronising; measured, intelligent and informed and I thank you for taking the time. I will continue to read and learn; as you rightly say, the devil is in the detail and it is the all important detail which gets swamped and lost in the opposing polarised views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Ah the circular argument continues apace I see....

And now I am off, you'll be very glad to hear! I had a bit of an eye opener yesterday, and I really can't be doing this anymore, if I'm honest.

The truth of the matter is, despite protestations, few people here actually want to learn anything, they just want to (attempt) to tear down the learned consensus for some weird reason best known to themselves: it appears to be the result of a fundamental, and wanton, mis-understanding of the scientific method and an inability to be able to interpret the results. This, coupled with a deep mistrust of scientists working in the climate field and a range of poorly sourced, and inadequately referenced, material leads to some truly spectacular conclusions.

Oh, and there's also a good dose of irrational obstinacy that AGW must be wrong although, for why, I cannot fathom.

Toodle pip!

Shame you feel you must go (again , boo-hoo) but I fully understand your frustrarions/reasoning.

We must hope that the vocal few who practice what you have desribed above do not represent the silent majority and that all of your hard work has gone to inform those folk of where we stand today (with AGW and our understanding of it's workings and the threat it poses).

Keep well with you and yours !

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
Good morning Diessoli,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am in agreement with much of what you say, however my post and comments about natural cycles being super-ceded by man, natural cycles no longer relevant etc was not intended as comment upon climatologists or scientists in general. The scientific community do not dismiss natural drivers, nor are past climate cycles regarded as irrelevant; in fact almost without exception every paper I've read has had a paragraph which will say "we need to understand more about natural drivers/cycles in order to determine the AGW signal".

If you scroll back a couple of pages in this thread you will see that Roo is arguing that the human factor is the driving force in climate change and a little further on Stratos says we have the maths already which proves something is amiss and if it were natural, it would have to be something very unusual and very apparent. I disagree with both these stances.

On this forum, natural drivers/patterns/cycles are often dismissed out of hand, those of us who look and post papers about them are assumed to be disputing the AGW theory in it's entirety; I can only speak for myself when I say this is not the case. We have to have accurate knowledge of the natural environment in order to decipher the scale of our impact. I do not dispute AGW nor do I advocate that we have had no impact, nor will we have in the future. What I question is the percentage.

The papers I posted do not dispute AGW either but what they do high-light is the change in temperatures empirically measured as a result of a natural driver. We simply cannot take temperature figures alone (from whatever time period of rolling average) as proof positive of our impact or more importantly, the scale of our impact; and that is what happens time and again on this forum.

I don't think the paper I posted above can be taken to say much about the Arctic with any authority, it merely acknowledges the Alaskan Arctic has warmed and that drivers other than the PDO have greater influence. If however, you read the Polyakov paper, it is apparent that natural drivers are also responsible for much change in that part of the world too. Again high-lighting the importance of not interpreting every change as being of our doing. Polyakov is quite clear that it is warm ocean currents which are largely to blame for Arctic ice loss, these ocean currents are not as a direct result of our tinkering with the system, but are part of a cyclical pattern which has existed for a long time period. May I qualify that before it is mis-interpreted as "AGW is a scam"; much of the warming in the Arctic can be traced to cyclical patterns, similar warm temperatures and ice loss were experienced during the 20's and 30's too but today's loss may be in excess of that experienced during that period. In other words, it's not all natural but it's not all AGW either - that percentage thing again.

We go round in circles on here with the "AGW is real, it's all our fault" and the "AGW isn't real, it's all natural"; caught between the two camps, hopping around in no man's land are those of us who say it isn't as simple as those two polar views, black or white doesn't come anywhere close to the real world, shades of grey are the norm.

I don't consider your reply patronising; measured, intelligent and informed and I thank you for taking the time. I will continue to read and learn; as you rightly say, the devil is in the detail and it is the all important detail which gets swamped and lost in the opposing polarised views.

I think that's a little disingenuous Jethro: I believe no-one has said it's all AGW, or that nature isn't involved. What I have said is that my scientific knowledge is insufficient to offer a critique of the scientific consensus, therefore, I will not assume to be cleverer than those who have trained for years in their field.

I have never argued for any stance beyond a trust placed in the huge consensus of those who, due to their wide knowledge and experience, know better than I do. All quite reasonable, I feel.

My criticism is of the quality of much of the information posted in this forum which examines the subject from a non-AGW perspective: it is often unreliable or inaccurately referenced. The SSRC press releases (which were quoted in many threads in the enviro area) show exactly how dangerous this can be.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=44547

Shame you feel you must go (again , boo-hoo) but I fully understand your frustrarions/reasoning.

We must hope that the vocal few who practice what you have desribed above do not represent the silent majority and that all of your hard work has gone to inform those folk of where we stand today (with AGW and our understanding of it's workings and the threat it poses).

Keep well with you and yours !

Ian.

Hiya....had a very bad day last tuesday (see blog) and lost it a bit here. Apologies again. Sadly, I will still be here for a bit of time to come!!!! :lol:

Edited by Roo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Morning Roo,

I don't see where the dis- ingenuity comes from, a few pages back you said

"By skeptic, I mean those who do not accept human influence to be the driving factor in climate change or those who do not even admit that climate change is happening, irrelevant of cause."

Which is what I said in my earlier post today.

Raising papers from reputable scientists which offer another piece of the puzzle or raise doubts about the consensus isn't assuming a level of knowledge on my part, that is superior to climatologists, it is posting equally qualified views which disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
Raising papers from reputable scientists which offer another piece of the puzzle or raise doubts about the consensus isn't assuming a level of knowledge on my part, that is superior to climatologists, it is posting equally qualified views which disagree.

Except they often aren't equally qualified views nor are from reputable scientists, occasionally yes, often no, and that is where the problems start: I know I am not qualified to interrogate the information, and so there is little point in my posting such material. Also, if I do post something I have a good dig about to check it's provenance and reliability, even if I can't check it's results due to my lack of knowledge. To do otherwise results in episodes like the SRRC one which caused a huge amount of unecessary trouble in the threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Both sides of this debate get frustrated at some of the nonsense which is both published in the media at large and posted here; with hand on heart and trying desperately hard to be impartial, the body of nonsense published with no sound foundation in fact, is actually from the pro AGW side of the debate. Hardly a day goes past without some kind of reporting, somewhere in the world, where perfectly ordinary weather and climate is proposed to be a symptom or signal of AGW and climate change. I'm not for one second condoning shonky science or dodgy media reports, but the pro side is IMO opinion guiltier of a greater crime on that front than even the most ardent sceptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
is actually from the pro AGW side of the debate. Hardly a day goes past without some kind of reporting, somewhere in the world,

And that is not a good thing, but reporting is not the same as scientific evidence: whether we like/understand/comprehend it or not, that firmly rests on the side of AGW.

Edited by Roo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
And that is not a good thing, but reporting is not the same as scientific evidence: whether we like/understand/comprehend it or not, that firmly rests on the side of AGW.

No it's not, but then neither is ignoring peer reviewed, which disagrees with the consensus. Consensus does not mean everything or all, it means some, albeit the larger slice of the pie at the moment. Not known, or not understood is never a good reason to not include; even the IPCC admit there is a lot we do not know or have inadequate knowledge of. With less than 100% knowledge and understanding there is no way of predicting impacts and outcomes, do we settle for a lower degree of certainty or do we seek to learn more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
No it's not, but then neither is ignoring peer reviewed, which disagrees with the consensus. Consensus does not mean everything or all, it means some, albeit the larger slice of the pie at the moment. Not known, or not understood is never a good reason to not include; even the IPCC admit there is a lot we do not know or have inadequate knowledge of. With less than 100% knowledge and understanding there is no way of predicting impacts and outcomes, do we settle for a lower degree of certainty or do we seek to learn more?

Absolutely there is alot we do not know, and I don't believe anyone ever said there wasn't, but it would appear we know enough to be fairly secure about the overall picture. As for ignoring peer reviewed papers: from the many posts which have been put up explaining why such and such should be discounted, why this or that reference is dodgy or why the results of this or that cannot be trusted or are incomplete, that has happened all over this forum: such material has never been ignored.

Just as a matter of interest, how do you define 'peer review'?

Edit: I don't see why a belief in AGW has to rule out enquiry into the 'precise impacts and outcomes' or why it negates learning more. I would say that that is precisely what is happening, BUT that it is happening according to recognised scientific method, as it should be, rather than relying on gut reaction or belief.

Edited by Roo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts

Having a hunt around and came up with these, which seem fairly succinct and reasonable:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...yths/index.html

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index....te/project/126/

And a good overview of peer-review here:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index....ite/project/29/

Edited by Roo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest diessoli

Hi Again,

Good morning Diessoli,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am in agreement with much of what you say, however my post and comments about natural cycles being super-ceded by man, natural cycles no longer relevant etc was not intended as comment upon climatologists or scientists in general. The scientific community do not dismiss natural drivers, nor are past climate cycles regarded as irrelevant; in fact almost without exception every paper I've read has had a paragraph which will say "we need to understand more about natural drivers/cycles in order to determine the AGW signal".

If you scroll back a couple of pages in this thread you will see that Roo is arguing that the human factor is the driving force in climate change and a little further on Stratos says we have the maths already which proves something is amiss and if it were natural, it would have to be something very unusual and very apparent. I disagree with both these stances.

That's fair enough. But this means that you also disagree with a vast number of scientific publications.

If you have not already done so, I suggest you read Chapter 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) of the IPCC report and check out the referenced primary sources for this chapter (there are about 500). They do talk a lot about natural variability and how to detect signals of the human influence (it's not just based on climate models and not just on temperature).

Part of their conclusion is:

"It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling. Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."

This is the result of reviewing hundrets of scientific papers. If you disagree with their conclusion I ask you to go and read those papers and tell us what is wrong with it (sorry being a bit naughty here) or point us to an equally exhaustive review by scientists that comes to different conclusion.

They also make it clear that it is very hard to attribute regional changes to human influences.

On this forum, natural drivers/patterns/cycles are often dismissed out of hand, those of us who look and post papers about them are assumed to be disputing the AGW theory in it's entirety; I can only speak for myself when I say this is not the case. We have to have accurate knowledge of the natural environment in order to decipher the scale of our impact. I do not dispute AGW nor do I advocate that we have had no impact, nor will we have in the future. What I question is the percentage.

I' like to ask then what is this percentage that you are questioning? And based on what do you question it?

Just some publications dealing with only part of the climate system (as Polyakov's) does not change the the overall picture.

The papers I posted do not dispute AGW either but what they do high-light is the change in temperatures empirically measured as a result of a natural driver. We simply cannot take temperature figures alone (from whatever time period of rolling average) as proof positive of our impact or more importantly, the scale of our impact; and that is what happens time and again on this forum.

You are right, just looking at the tempature trend will not tell us the cause. And if you read the relevant literature you can see that it is not done that way. The methods to attribute climate change to it's causes are quite sophisticated and take into account a lot of indicators.

Yes, people in fora like this one might argue on a rather simplisitic level (I am no exception, and neither are you) but that is mostly an expression of our limited expertise in this field.

I don't think the paper I posted above can be taken to say much about the Arctic with any authority, it merely acknowledges the Alaskan Arctic has warmed and that drivers other than the PDO have greater influence.

Indeed, but in your previous post you claimed that they have shown that the warming in the Alaskan Arctic was due to the regime shift - which they didn't.

If however, you read the Polyakov paper, it is apparent that natural drivers are also responsible for much change in that part of the world too. Again high-lighting the importance of not interpreting every change as being of our doing. Polyakov is quite clear that it is warm ocean currents which are largely to blame for Arctic ice loss, these ocean currents are not as a direct result of our tinkering with the system, but are part of a cyclical pattern which has existed for a long time period. May I qualify that before it is mis-interpreted as "AGW is a scam"; much of the warming in the Arctic can be traced to cyclical patterns, similar warm temperatures and ice loss were experienced during the 20's and 30's too but today's loss may be in excess of that experienced during that period. In other words, it's not all natural but it's not all AGW either - that percentage thing again.

As said above, regional attribution is acknowledged by the IPCC to be difficult. But that does not change the conclusion that on a global scale, human influences are predominant.

We go round in circles on here with the "AGW is real, it's all our fault" and the "AGW isn't real, it's all natural"; caught between the two camps, hopping around in no man's land are those of us who say it isn't as simple as those two polar views, black or white doesn't come anywhere close to the real world, shades of grey are the norm.

I don't consider your reply patronising; measured, intelligent and informed and I thank you for taking the time. I will continue to read and learn; as you rightly say, the devil is in the detail and it is the all important detail which gets swamped and lost in the opposing polarised views.<br>

<br>Without wanting to be pedantic (well, maybe a little bit :( ) AGW by it's very nature is all our fault. As for the observed GW I quote again from Chapter 9:

"The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling."

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest diessoli

Just a quick comment, or my boss will get mad :(

No it's not, but then neither is ignoring peer reviewed, which disagrees with the consensus. Consensus does not mean everything or all, it means some, albeit the larger slice of the pie at the moment. Not known, or not understood is never a good reason to not include; even the IPCC admit there is a lot we do not know or have inadequate knowledge of. With less than 100% knowledge and understanding there is no way of predicting impacts and outcomes, do we settle for a lower degree of certainty or do we seek to learn more?

We have to settle for a lower degree. There will hardly ever be 100% knowledge (and that's (nearly) 100% sure :) ).

And we don't need those 100% to make predictions, but we need to be aware of the quality of your predictions and what the caveats are.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Good morning Diessoli

Sorry for the delay in replying - busy, busy, busy.

I think to be honest reading through your posts and also Roo's, much of this comes back to "the consensus presented by the IPCC". Much has been said about this subject already in many threads so it's a bit like flogging a dead horse to go through it all again. I will however briefly clarify my thoughts on this subject.

The IPCC's mandate is:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

So the role of the IPCC is to look for human-induced climate change, it doesn't do research but instead selects research which supports it's mandate of AGW. Seek and ye shall find.

If their mandate was to look at CLIMATE CHANGE as a whole then the report would have more credence.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-experimentereffect.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315...SP%3E2.0.CO;2-E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_fulfilling_prophecy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Good morning Diessoli

Sorry for the delay in replying - busy, busy, busy.

I think to be honest reading through your posts and also Roo's, much of this comes back to "the consensus presented by the IPCC". Much has been said about this subject already in many threads so it's a bit like flogging a dead horse to go through it all again. I will however briefly clarify my thoughts on this subject.

The IPCC's mandate is:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

So the role of the IPCC is to look for human-induced climate change, it doesn't do research but instead selects research which supports it's mandate of AGW. Seek and ye shall find.

If their mandate was to look at CLIMATE CHANGE as a whole then the report would have more credence.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-experimentereffect.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315...SP%3E2.0.CO;2-E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_fulfilling_prophecy

But, the IPCC can't understand 'the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change' without a knowledge of climate as whole - that's surely implicit in the statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
But, the IPCC can't understand 'the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change' without a knowledge of climate as whole - that's surely implicit in the statement?

Yes.

And by saying:

understanding the scientific basis of risk

they are also not saying there is inevitably a risk, just that they are assessing it.

So, just to clarify, Jethro, as this is an important point: you believe that the only scientists reporting AGW are those working for/with the IPCC?

You believe that there was no scientific evidence regarding AGW prior to the IPCC and, further, that there is still no evidence within the non-IPCC connected scientific community?

Edited by Roo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Yes.

And by saying:

understanding the scientific basis of risk

they are also not saying there is inevitably a risk, just that they are assessing it.

So, just to clarify, Jethro, as this is an important point: you believe that the only scientists reporting AGW are those working for/with the IPCC?

You believe that there was no scientific evidence regarding AGW prior to the IPCC and, further, that there is still no evidence within the non-IPCC connected scientific community?

To clarify, that's not even vaguely close to what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
To clarify, that's not even vaguely close to what I said.

You discussed 'the consensus presented by the IPCC', suggesting that you believe it to be only the IPCC who suggests AGW is significant.

Also, as you were claiming that my posts refer to the IPCC consensus, I just wanted to clarify that what I was referring to was the scientific community consensus which is much broader, and of far longer standing, than the IPCC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...