The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Roo]

He's a, as he says, botanist,

And he is also wrong:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005...ment.columnists

I should think that any reputable broadcaster (Channel 4 excepted, of course :lol: ) would think twice after goofs like this.....

[Ian Williams]

And he is also wrong:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005...ment.columnists

I should think that any reputable broadcaster (Channel 4 excepted, of course :lol: ) would think twice after goofs like this.....

Interesting article, thankyou. However just because his opinions dont fit with evryone that is on the AGW bandwagon and lets face it the BBC are along with the Hadley centre and any other company/governments that benefit from AGW does it mean he should lose his job?

OK You fob off C4 presumably because of programmes such as The great Global warming conspiracy, but what i would like to see from the bbc is a more neutral stance, there are plenty of scientists with data that prove AGW isnt happening along with plenty of scientists with data implying there is. At the end of the day the AGW theorists if proven wrong have so much to lose, i.e Government funding etc.....

In two words Interglacial Epoch!

[Roo]

Interesting article, thankyou. However just because his opinions dont fit with evryone that is on the AGW bandwagon and lets face it the BBC are along with the Hadley centre and any other company/governments that benefit from AGW does it mean he should lose his job?

I wonder if Brian Cant, Johnny Ball, Michael Crawford, Bagpuss and Kermit the Frog have similar persecution complexes relating to the fact that they, too, are no longer on the Beeb?

[Solar Cycles]

Yes the beeb should be neutral in all aspects of media coverage. But unfortunately it was hijacked years ago with middle class lefty lunatics, who have degrees in media studies and sod all in common sense!

Kermit the frog is now employed at hadley I've heard!

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Surely we needn't be at one another's throats over some 'airheads' and their threats when such real threats surround us? Even if you do not believe in human impacts then surely past examples of warming and recent measures of 'natural CO2 releases' (on a scale to dwarf mans inputs) must concern you?

Nobody seems to want to answer you GW - I wonder why ??? Mind you, not sure what's to be done about it....................

[jethro]

Peat bog decay.....if water levels drop and peat starts decaying due to drying out, wouldn't it make sense to go back to peat harvesting? It used to be a primary source of energy, surely it would be better to burn it, than leave it to rot? The carbon will be released anyway, if it's utilised and burnt then it would save additional emissions from an alternative fuel such as coal. Would it be considered carbon neutral, the same way as wood?

[Solar Cycles]

Think peat is still used as a source of fuel in the remoter parts of the Highlands!

[Ian Williams]

Think peat is still used as a source of fuel in the remoter parts of the Highlands!

Yes indeed thats true Solar Cycles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...fossilfuels.oil

[Admiral_Bobski]

Past warmings would appear to have been temperature temperature driven with CO2 spikes further on into the period adding to the ferocity of the changes.

I've been through this several times in the past, and P3 once even kindly asked a climatologist about it for me - the historic record (especially the Vostok Ice Core) shows that CO2 has followed temperature increase, not caused it. The long-standing suggestion is that temperatures rose first, released excess CO2 which then fed back and pushed temperatures up still further. The problem with this suggestion is that there is no evidence in the historic temperature record that this is actually the case - one would expect a step change, a kink or curvature of temperature increase to coincide with with CO2's influence, and yet despite the release of CO2 temperatures have continued to increase steadily (and then decrease while CO2 continues to increase).

The climatologist to whom P3 spoke was unable to account for the lack of such a step change in the historic record if CO2 does, indeed, feed back and prompt further temperature increase.

Please note that I am not denying that humans are contributing the the atmospheric CO2 concentration, I am just unconvinced of CO2's effect, both currently and historically.

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

I get rather irritated that all the ills of the earth get blamed on "lefties" regardless of whether the thinking behind the ills would be better defined as left or right wing... I agree the Beeb is often biased in its coverage though.

I part agree, part disagree with the article Roo links to. Certainly, there was a big misquote on the glaciers issue (555 instead of 55%) but then again, glaciers advancing in some areas is caused by higher precipitation and not lower temperatures. Global temperatures are the biggest measure of whether we're warming or not.

But I don't agree with his emphasis here:

The question could scarcely be more important. If man-made climate change is happening, as the great majority of the world's climatologists claim, it could destroy the conditions that allow human beings to remain on the planet. The effort to cut greenhouse gases must come before everything else. This won't happen unless we can be confident that the science is right.

Trying to convey to the public that the science is settled, when it clearly isn't, helps to fuel scepticism. I also argue that the top priority should be working towards sustainable living. That necessitates large cuts in greenhouse gases anyway, and it has the additional advantage of seeing the wider picture.

[osmposm]

Very sad that someone like David who spent years campaigning on environmental issues, is treated this way . Just goes to show that AGW is more about politics and less about the environment!

Oh, for heaven's sake! David Bellamy was born in 1933, he is now 75: at the time he says the BBC stopped commissioning projects from him he was 65. He did not "lose his job", he was a freelance, not an employee (though had he been, at 65 he would had to retire!). A delightful eccentric who was not everybody's cup of tea was deemed to be a bit over the hill and old-fashioned and quietly phased out, as a host of older TV personalities are all the time. I am a 57 year old actor, I used to do nice roles in five or six TV dramas for the beeb or one of the ITV companies every year - now I am lucky to get one, and it's usually just a handful of lines.

Show business is a cruel place to work and TV is perhaps the cruellest end of it: to put it bluntly, it eats young flesh. With a handful of exceptions, older performers are ruthlessly pushed aside in favour of younger, prettier ones - and this 'ageism' is becoming more and more predominant, mirroring a similar movement in society's attitudes in general.

Bellamy was the victim of a change in tastes and his own ageing process - not conspiratorial politics. As Ockham's Razor urges us: look first for the simplest explanation of an event.

Ossie

Edited November 11, 2008 by osmposm

[laserguy]

With a handful of exceptions, older performers are ruthlessly pushed aside in favour of younger, prettier ones - and this 'ageism' is becoming more and more predominant, mirroring a similar movement in society's attitudes in general.

Ossie

Well David Attenborough's still doing ok for an oldie,but then he's a fully paid-up believer .

OT,but would you care to reveal yourself,Ossie (ooh,missus!). I'm referring to some of the characters you've played that we might recognise - might be a little difficult for me due to the tiny amount of tv I watch,but y'never know!

[Roo]

Well David Attenborough's still doing ok for an oldie,but then he's a fully paid-up believer .

Oh my...

Are you really suggesting that David Bellamy and David Attenborough are of equal merit?

I think Attenborough is still about because he is one of the most important people in British broadcasting: having been controller of BBC2, director of programming for BBCs 1 & 2, supervised the introduction of colour TV, been responsible for such groundbreaking series as 'Life' and 'Animal, Mineral and Vegetable'; commissioning 'Civilisation' and 'The Ascent of Man' to boot.

To suggest his continued success stems from his position on global warming is an absolute insult.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Roo

[BUSHY]

Global temperatures are the biggest measure of whether we're warming or not.

Not if you are relying on GISS Here

[Thundery wintry showers]

and that link proves what exactly?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi C-Bob!

you'll have too let me know why you feel that past links to CO2/methane releases are not held as responsible for the temp rises thereafter. The first example of such(I believe) is the 'release' that freed up 'snowball earth' (635 million years ago?). I have been unable to find anything other than the methane/CO2 releases being held responsible for the 'melting' of the global ice sheets back then and would be very interested to hear the current thinking.

I also have problems in understanding geological 'climates' without resorting to 'atmospheric CO2's' 'greenhouse properties as a driver. It appears very 'convincing' to me that warmer global periods/epochs have higher CO2 concentrations in their atmosphere.

As such your apparent 'certainty' of the lack of evidence supporting atmospheric CO2/Methane's roles in past 'warm' periods and ,conversely, their absence in cool periods, has me a tad confused as I have not yet been able to find widespread acceptance of the negligible impacts of what we hold (held?) to be 'greenhouse gasses'.

As I have said often I have no wish to view things as bleakly as I do but to 'believe the evidence' laid before us give me little, if no, option. As such I would welcome any mainstream research that fully undermines the current 'majority' understanding of climate drivers, Especially CO2 when human outputs of it currently run at 3% per annum ......and the IPCC worst case scenario being based on a 2.5% per annum increase.

I also note from Dev over on the 'records thread' that Globally GISS (ocean and land) Oct 2008 was the warmest in it's entire data set. I wonder how that works???

Anyhoo, In support of my earlier post I found this from Yale university regarding the 'methane time bomb' (both permafrost and ocean).

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2081

Edited November 11, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

To suggest his continued success stems from his position on global warming is an absolute insult.

Whatever... and the expectance of certain quarters for me to entertain the notion of AGW is an insult to my towering intellect. But I can tell you this,Roo. If he let slip during a live broadcast that he thought AGW was a crock of ***t ,he'd not grace the screen again,and you know it. Such is his influence - but then again he wouldn't say that,would he? Correct me if I'm wrong,but not being a square eyes I'm not aware of any high profile BBC types who don't toe the AGW line. David Bellamy once did. And anyway,someone commented with a gush of indignation earlier that David Bellamy was "a botanist"! The inference being that he's not qualified to muster opinion. Okay,fair enough I know full well that Mr. Attenborough is a damn sight more knowledgable than Mr. Bellamy on matters of a meteorological bent,but where does CO2 (I presume that's primarily what we're getting at) come into it? No,really? There are plenty,and I mean plenty of bona fide meteorologists who are having none of it. And for what it's worth,I'd like to point out that I fully agree with your comments on Mr.Attenboroughs stature and achievements. I caught an episode of 'Planet Earth' the other night quite by chance. Simply mesmerising. But he's wrong on AGW.

[Roo]

Whatever... and the expectance of certain quarters for me to entertain the notion of AGW is an insult to my towering intellect. But I can tell you this,Roo. If he let slip during a live broadcast that he thought AGW was a crock of ***t ,he'd not grace the screen again,and you know it. Such is his influence - but then again he wouldn't say that,would he? Correct me if I'm wrong,but not being a square eyes I'm not aware of any high profile BBC types who don't toe the AGW line. David Bellamy once did. And anyway,someone commented with a gush of indignation earlier that David Bellamy was "a botanist"! The inference being that he's not qualified to muster opinion. Okay,fair enough I know full well that Mr. Attenborough is a damn sight more knowledgable than Mr. Bellamy on matters of a meteorological bent,but where does CO2 (I presume that's primarily what we're getting at) come into it? No,really? There are plenty,and I mean plenty of bona fide meteorologists who are having none of it. And for what it's worth,I'd like to point out that I fully agree with your comments on Mr.Attenboroughs stature and achievements. I caught an episode of 'Planet Earth' the other night quite by chance. Simply mesmerising. But he's wrong on AGW.

Perhaps, just perhaps, people are in agreement over AGW because it is a done deal? That the evidence is so compelling that there is no longer an argument of 'whether', just a matter of 'how much'? That those who entirely deny it are in such a minority as to be insignificant?

And, as for David Attenborough: being the principled man that he is, for years he refused to speak about climate change and it was only in 2006, with the evidence reaching such a significant level, that he chose to speak out. He's never been paid by anyone to do it, he's never sought aclaim from it: he's just followed the evidence trail.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/a...rld-479459.html

Edited November 11, 2008 by Roo

[laserguy]

I also note from Dev over on the 'records thread' that Globally GISS (ocean and land) Oct 2008 was the warmest in it's entire data set. I wonder how that works???

That's easy GW. The numbers are fiddled. Dontcha know who the guy behind GISS is? Thought maybe you'd have got accustomed to such exploits by now.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/giss...ober-2008-data/

[Thundery wintry showers]

erhaps, just perhaps, people are in agreement over AGW because it is a done deal? That the evidence is so compelling that there is no longer an argument of 'whether', just a matter of 'how much'? That those who entirely deny it are in such a minority as to be insignificant?

Indeed. I can see ample scope for people putting forward a case that the climate models might be somewhat overstating the anthropogenic influence, particularly in the light of the recent stalling of the warming trend. But I see aboslutely no evidence in support of rejecting the notion of anthropogenic input altogether.

I'm not sure about GISS, I prefer to place my trust in the respective series maintained by CRU/Hadley and NOAA, as they seem relatively free from bias and continual adjustments. NOAA should be updating on October 2008 midmonth via the NCDC.

[Devonian]

That's easy GW. The numbers are fiddled. Dontcha know who the guy behind GISS is? Thought maybe you'd have got accustomed to such exploits by now.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/giss...ober-2008-data/

NOAA supply the data. Think about that and then withdraw your libel of Dr Hansen.

[laserguy]

NOAA supply the data. Think about that and then withdraw your libel of Dr Hansen.

That's easy GW. The numbers are fiddled adjusted.Dontcha know who the guy behind GISS is? Thought maybe you'd have got accustomed to such exploits by now.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Looks like there has been an error in the October data for Russia- it's pretty well-established on many websites now. I think there may well be some truth behind the notion that errors that err on the side of cold are addressed more readily than warm side errors, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the AGW concept (again, attack the people not their arguments). For instance back in 2005 the Met Office were giving out anomalously low CET values, which they corrected later in the year.

I recall some misleading info saying that Moscow had its warmest January on record in 2008. Well, temperatures were above average, but the warmest was actually in 2007 when Weather Log gave the following stats: max 0.6 (+7.0), min -3.7 (+8.7). Since 1997 Moscow has had only one January (2006) below the 1961-90 average, and only two (2003, 2006) that were not at least 2C above!

[Devonian]

That's easy GW. The numbers are fiddled adjusted.Dontcha know who the guy behind GISS is? Thought maybe you'd have got accustomed to such exploits by now.

That's a much more neutral word - I thank you.

Now, I'll say I think there may indeed be issues with the NOAA October data GISS use so there may be an error - though how much it might effect the global figure is more doubtful. But, I'm going to wait to see what GISS say or do before I say more. They are the experts not us.

[osmposm]

Whatever...

Barrie, to use the that word, even lightheartedly, as an answer to a reasonable point depresses me perhaps even more than it amuses you: the sad rallying cry of our shamefully ill-educated streets and schools from anyone who cannot or will not move a couple of brain cells around to formulate a logical answer (or doesn't understand the question) - the shame, incidentally, being ours quite as much as theirs. Is that really how you wish yourself to be thought of on here? Belligerently ignorant, and proud of it?

As to Attenborough and Bellamy, read carefully what Roo writes - and her Independent link. She knows whereof she writes (as I do about TV) - a charge that can seldom be levelled at you. Which is a pity because underneath it all I happen to know that you are thoughtful, intelligent and kind: why are you so determined to make us think you are lazy, stupid and aggressive?

Edited November 11, 2008 by osmposm