Global Weather Oscillations

[noggin]

I've been quiet for a while not due to a ban or suspension but because it's getting a little boring of late,and more than a little tedious as even more outlandish and quite clearly ridiculous claims emerge to prop up a dying cause. Watching AGW come off the rails is like being an observer of a slow-motion train wreck,and although it's wrong I can't help but watch drop-jawed as it unfolds.

.......I know just what you mean!

[Roo]

A question for Noggin, Bluecon, GWO and Laserguy:

With oil companies ploughing so much money into skeptic climate research (e.g. Exxon paid $2.9 million dollars to 'alternative scientists' last year alone) why is there still not concrete peer reviewed evidence which shows AGW to be wrong?

It is a complete falacy that AGW is only where the money goes: grants go to good research projects, irrelevant of their background. And, even if you don't believe that, the oil companies will fund skeptical research. So why the continuing 'skeptics can't get funding' conspiracy theories?

And where is the evidence for all these silenced skeptics being turned down for funding/publication? I, and others, would love to see chapter and verse.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Roo

[Red Raven]

A question for Noggin, Bluecon, GWO and Laserguy:

With oil companies ploughing so much money into skeptic climate research (e.g. Exxon paid $2.9 million dollars to 'alternative scientists' last year alone) why is there still not concrete peer reviewed evidence which shows AGW to be wrong?

It is a complete falacy that AGW is only where the money goes: grants go to good research projects, irrelevant of their background. And, even if you don't believe that, the oil companies will fund skeptical research. So why the continuing 'skeptics can't get funding' conspiracy theories?

And where is the evidence for all these silenced skeptics being turned down for funding/publication? I, and others, would love to see chapter and verse.

I have to agree with that. If there is a conspiracy (which i don't believe there is) why on earth would that conspiracy's aim be to call for dramatic changes to our carbon based economy. It's surely in government and big industry interest to fight for the other side (ie the none AGW side).

[Mondy]

A question for Noggin, Bluecon, GWO and Laserguy:

With oil companies ploughing so much money into skeptic climate research (e.g. Exxon paid $2.9 million dollars to 'alternative scientists' last year alone) why is there still not concrete peer reviewed evidence which shows AGW to be wrong?

It is a complete falacy that AGW is only where the money goes: grants go to good research projects, irrelevant of their background. And, even if you don't believe that, the oil companies will fund skeptical research. So why the continuing 'skeptics can't get funding' conspiracy theories?

And where is the evidence for all these silenced skeptics being turned down for funding/publication? I, and others, would love to see chapter and verse.

2.9m USD is nothing - didn't it cost about that much for Al Gore (in his film) to dupe us?

This is a nice paper - should be made mandatory reading.

[Roo]

This is a nice paper - should be made mandatory reading.

When Feynman is used to support this kind of silliness, then I have truly had it with this thread.

He must be spinning in his grave....

[noggin]

A question for Noggin, Bluecon, GWO and Laserguy:

With oil companies ploughing so much money into skeptic climate research (e.g. Exxon paid $2.9 million dollars to 'alternative scientists' last year alone) why is there still not concrete peer reviewed evidence which shows AGW to be wrong?

It is a complete falacy that AGW is only where the money goes: grants go to good research projects, irrelevant of their background. And, even if you don't believe that, the oil companies will fund skeptical research. So why the continuing 'skeptics can't get funding' conspiracy theories?

And where is the evidence for all these silenced skeptics being turned down for funding/publication? I, and others, would love to see chapter and verse.

Ah, Roo......I don't know about peer-reviewed papers and funding and things like that. I tend to go by my own close observations, an understanding of human nature and my own common sense and these have, over the course of half a century plus, lead me to my conclusions that it is all natural cycles.

Anything wrong with that? There's more than one way to skin a cat, y'know.........

[noggin]

When Feynman is used to support this kind of silliness, then I have truly had it with this thread.

He must be spinning in his grave....

Silliness? Here is some silliness ........http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037391/Activist-tries-superglue-Gordon-Brown.html

Laughable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...rdon-Brown.html

Trying to get a link to work....

Edited July 23, 2008 by noggin

[Devonian]

I have to admit I've stopped posting in here, quite simply because it's very difficult to argue with somebody who says that for their theory to be believed you have to re-write climate science.

It's a bit like a flat earther, you present all the evidence but they still come back and say that it's all hog wash, corrupt and a govt conspiracy.

I am all for free speech, if people want to spend £5 on it, convince themselves that it's all correct, that there are cycles within cycles, with cycles which if you go back more than 50 years could be place over any peak or trough(because with the fudge factor you cover virually every year anyway!).

The paranoid behaviour that all funding gets cutting, AGW theory rules, I am not being listened to (al la christie) is common amongst all areas of fringe science.

The 80% claim is just wrong, unless offcourse Mr GWO only goes to Skeptic conventions.

Pretty much nails it wrt this thread.

And, before some one says it, I know I'm part of a conspiracy

One question though. Which number of years does not match up with some cycle or other? We have cycles that 'control' the climate of (off the top of my head and from memory of this thread) 11, 22 231 (plus or minus up to 20 I see) 18.5, 88 and various combinations of the above using prime numbers (why prime numbers - I dunno?). What does that leave that doesn't fit?

[Cycles]

I have to admit I've stopped posting in here, quite simply because it's very difficult to argue with somebody who says that for their theory to be believed you have to re-write climate science.

It's a bit like a flat earther, you present all the evidence but they still come back and say that it's all hog wash, corrupt and a govt conspiracy.

I am all for free speech, if people want to spend £5 on it, convince themselves that it's all correct, that there are cycles within cycles, with cycles which if you go back more than 50 years could be place over any peak or trough(because with the fudge factor you cover virually every year anyway!).

The paranoid behaviour that all funding gets cutting, AGW theory rules, I am not being listened to (al la christie) is common amongst all areas of fringe science.

The 80% claim is just wrong, unless offcourse Mr GWO only goes to Skeptic conventions.

Iceberg

The very first research paper trying to show that CO2 is harmful to the climate was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy....their name before that was the "Atomic Energy Commission".......see a link here, a political move to get us away from fossil fuels to atomic energy.

Secondly Iceberg....the cycles I talk about and show in the book "DO" line up with a better than 80% correlation. If you have not seen the graphs, then you would not know this.

Third....I do not just present at what you call "Skeptic" conventions. And by the way, those that know Natural Cycles control global warming and cooling cycles are not Skeptics. Those that believe CO2 is the cause are the "Skeptics" of NGW believers.

Fourth.....there are more scientists and researchers that believe in Natural Cycles than those that believe in CO2 being the culprit. The tide is turning and the percentage of true believers has shifted to the Natural side.

When Feynman is used to support this kind of silliness, then I have truly had it with this thread.

He must be spinning in his grave....

Roo

Maybe he has read it and you have not....blinders lead down a narrow path.

[Mr Sleet]

I think many of the eminent Russian scientists are quite sceptical of AGW. However Putin signed the Kyoto protocol as he knew it would have no effect on the Russian economy and he could barter trade status favours from the EC.

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that there are massive political forces at work here are being very naive.

I do worry for the scientific community over AGW, if it turns out to be wrong, and we do not warm or possibly cool for the next 10 years or so, it could be a tremendous body blow to the credibility of the "scientific community", one which could take a long time to recover from.

Good on you GWO, it's a free country (just) so all the best with it.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[Devonian]

Iceberg

The very first research paper trying to show that CO2 is harmful to the climate was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy....their name before that was the "Atomic Energy Commission".......see a link here, a political move to get us away from fossil fuels to atomic energy.

Secondly Iceberg....the cycles I talk about and show in the book "DO" line up with a better than 80% correlation. If you have not seen the graphs, then you would not know this.

....

David, I'm sure you have on several occasions claimed a correlation of 100%? Are you talking about the same correlations here?

[VillagePlank]

Let's be clear about this, GWO, ....

(i) AGW is hard to measure. Very hard. Natural variation clearly outweighs the AGW signal. Assuming a natural variance of, say 1C/10yr, AGW, shows 0.2C/10yr - not sure if these figures are accurate but they're in the ballpark.

(ii) Because of (i) natural variance will always take precedence because of the magnitude of the signal difference between the two. You may indeed have found some curious frequency correlations (what's curious, to me, is how techniques like fourier analysis haven't picked them up, before?) but it is no great shakes nor surprise that natural variance overshadows the AGW signal. Not at all.

(iii) Assuming the figures in (i) are good (I'm not sure they are) then in 50 years time the AGW signal will outweigh natural variance, and the need for consensus may be gone. If it doesn't then it will have all been a complete waste of time, effort, and worrying. It's a waiting game.

(iv) You have, to your credit, made predictions. I don't take stock for any prediction for the next 5 years simply because the natural signal is expected to outweigh the AGW signal (see Hadley, MetO etc etc). In ten years time, it'll be worth looking at your work and see how well your predictions have done.

Where have a got it wrong?

[Cycles]

David, I'm sure you have on several occasions claimed a correlation of 100%? Are you talking about the same correlations here?

Yes I am. When I said great than 80% I am referring back to the near 100%

Let's be clear about this, GWO, ....

(i) AGW is hard to measure. Very hard. Natural variation clearly outweighs the AGW signal. Assuming a natural variance of, say 1C/10yr, AGW, shows 0.2C/10yr - not sure if these figures are accurate but they're in the ballpark.

(ii) Because of (i) natural variance will always take precedence because of the magnitude of the signal difference between the two. You may indeed have found some curious frequency correlations (what's curious, to me, is how techniques like fourier analysis haven't picked them up, before?) but it is no great shakes nor surprise that natural variance overshadows the AGW signal. Not at all.

(iii) Assuming the figures in (i) are good (I'm not sure they are) then in 50 years time the AGW signal will outweigh natural variance, and the need for consensus may be gone. If it doesn't then it will have all been a complete waste of time, effort, and worrying. It's a waiting game.

(iv) You have, to your credit, made predictions. I don't take stock for any prediction for the next 5 years simply because the natural signal is expected to outweigh the AGW signal (see Hadley, MetO etc etc). In ten years time, it'll be worth looking at your work and see how well your predictions have done.

Where have a got it wrong?

The natural cycles definitely do outweigh any effects of CO2 on climate, and this is why it is not possible to keep warming over the next 50 years as stated by the AGW. We cooled during the 1940s through 70s because the natural cycles overwhelmed man's burning of fossil fuel.

[osmposm]

Iceberg

The very first research paper trying to show that CO2 is harmful to the climate was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy....their name before that was the "Atomic Energy Commission".......see a link here, a political move to get us away from fossil fuels to atomic energy.

This is palpably not true. Here once again is the link that gives the long history of the research that gradually brought us to the current position - much of it against the orthodoxies of the time, and often starved of funding: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Which "very first research paper" do you mean, David - I suppose you're referring to Suess's Carbon-14 work in the late 50s? What about Fourier (1820s), Arrhenius (1890s), Hulbert (1930s), Callendar (1930s-50s), Kaplan, Bolin & Eriksson, Plass (all 1950s), Budyko (1960s)? Were they all bribed to falsify research to "get us away from fossil fuels to atomic energy"? Strange, since a number of them were doing their research before the Atomic Energy Commission - and indeed Atomic energy - existed.

As it happens it is easy to check that Keeling's absolutely critical work for Suess & Revelle was in fact initially funded by the International Geophysical Year. Subsequently Suess & Revelle gave Keeling some of their own IGY funding - oh, those money-grabbing scientists - before turning to the AEC for his own needs. To read the full story of how Keeling struggled to get funding go here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Kfunds.htm

So why do you feel the need to distort history? And why do you, and several others on here, persist in the insulting suggestion that all 'orthodox' climate change research is necessarily negated by the corruption of the scientists who do it?

Do you have any idea how much anger and incomprehension is felt by the vast majority of scientists who, wherever their funding comes from, work hard and honestly to try and further human knowledge? Bluecon and Delta, how many scientists do you know and talk to? Is your cynicism for all mankind, or is it reserved for people who, rightly or wrongly, but genuinely hold uncomfortable beliefs with which you disagree?

Edited July 23, 2008 by osmposm

[VillagePlank]

The natural cycles definitely do outweigh any effects of CO2 on climate, and this is why it is not possible to keep warming over the next 50 years as stated by the AGW. We cooled during the 1940s through 70s because the natural cycles overwhelmed man's burning of fossil fuel.

I don't get it, then.

If we assume an AGW signature of 0.02C/yr, based on my previous 'estimate'/guess, and take the CET at the turn of the last century (1900) then the chart looks like this:

Blue is recorded CET according to Hadley and red is a cumulative 0.02C added each and every year. Notice that the temperature, on the fake adjusted CET, still goes up and down (and a fourier analysis should still pick up the different frequency analysis such as 11 year sunspot cycle) and still shows immense amounts of natural variation.

If you look at 1920 (after a fake 20 years of GW) and point to how much the temperture has receded, at that point, then 20 years later, in 1940 you would laughed at. A lot. Imagine living through 1924 to 1931 and claiming about how the last ten years have been flat and descending in temperature! By the 1940's you'd be out of a job!

This is an extreme example to clearly illustrate a simple point. In this model I've only added 0.02C/yr. Of course in a serious model I'm pretty sure the rate that CO2 is added to the atmosphere is not constant.

Edited July 23, 2008 by VillagePlank

[SnowBear]

I see its gone back to the trying to discredit others work instead of finding out if something new is right.

So, do I get this correctly? To get a theory passed, you have to prove all else is wrong, before your own theory is even looked at? That somehow doesnt seem right to me. The theory of others may, in their part be right, in as much as CO2 does effect climate, but maybe not as much as previously thought, which, in my books doesnt mean that work is completely wrong, it is correct, just scale is out, and no-one can tell me climatology is an exact science or all is known when so much controversy and arguement is ongoing about it and so many disciplines and topics are involved.

If it was so done and dusted why all the debates? Why is this arguement ongoing ad infinitum?

Lets get back to discussing GWO's theory in its own right instead of looking elsewhere and trying to downbeat their work. I still hold that everyone will probably hold part of the truth to a greater or lesser degree in the end.

I have read enough by now to know that much doesnt seem to add up in all this, that politics and economics are why tool involved not to have some sort of influence, the question is, how much. Mean while people with theories that dares to even slightly go against the grain that come along which may have very valid input to the huge subject of climate change now seem to get a blanket denial.

This isn't science, its a mockery of science and I am sad to see it, its not looking for answers, exploring the posibilities, its bully boy tactics, and I think it sux big time.

Back to GWO's theory, if, we ignore, the huge lump of rock sitting not so far from Earth, and the interactions between the Earth, Moon and SUn, in any model for climate change, we are making a mistake, if the Moon can change the tides from nepp to spring tides by many meters by the change in its orbit, how can anyone say it will have no effect on other fluids and gases on Earth.

Lets get back to GWO's theory yeah?

[johnholmes]

I've deleted my earlier post as it added nothing positive to the discussion but tks Osm for a sensible input.

I did know, still know, some of the meteorologists who are part of what is now the Hadley Centre and they are quite affronted by the type of comments about them being pro for the money in it as seems to be suggested at times by some.

[Mr Sleet]

Do you have any idea how much anger and incomprehension is felt by the vast majority of scientists who, wherever their funding comes from, work hard and honestly to try and further human knowledge? Bluecon and Delta, how many scientists do you know and talk to? Is your cynicism for all mankind, or is it reserved for people who, rightly or wrongly, but genuinely hold uncomfortable beliefs with which you disagree?

Bit emotional there OSM. Could you give me a better idea by naming some of these upset scientists, together with evidence that they are upset ?

I am a scientist, paid very well in the private sector for the last 23 years as I do a very good job, cynicism doesn't come into it.

I've deleted my earlier post as it added nothing positive to the discussion but tks Osm for a sensible input.

I did know, still know, some of the meteorologists who are part of what is now the Hadley Centre and they are quite affronted by the type of comments about them being pro for the money in it as seems to be suggested at times by some.

John, I get an amount of criticism in my job, but deal with it. These guys should be professional and deal with it. If they are certain of themselves, it should be water off a ducks back.

[johnholmes]

the problem is, as governament staff(sort of Civil Servants) they are, usually, not able to do do that. Suffering in silence with some people is not necessarily the way they might like to do it.

[Mr Sleet]

the problem is, as governament staff(sort of Civil Servants) they are, usually, not able to do do that. Suffering in silence with some people is not necessarily the way they might like to do it.

Cheers John.

I'm not saying suffer in silence, just shrug shoulders, have confidence in what they are doing and get on with it.

If scientists react in an emotional way to criticism, it is a slippery slope, because it is at that point that objectivity starts to go out the window and a siege mentality develops where bias is introduced, probably without them even realising it.

I'm very suspicious, through experience, of scientists reacting emotionally when their work is challenged.

Anyway going O/T now so will shut up :lol:

[bluecon]

A question for Noggin, Bluecon, GWO and Laserguy:

With oil companies ploughing so much money into skeptic climate research (e.g. Exxon paid $2.9 million dollars to 'alternative scientists' last year alone) why is there still not concrete peer reviewed evidence which shows AGW to be wrong?

It is a complete falacy that AGW is only where the money goes: grants go to good research projects, irrelevant of their background. And, even if you don't believe that, the oil companies will fund skeptical research. So why the continuing 'skeptics can't get funding' conspiracy theories?

And where is the evidence for all these silenced skeptics being turned down for funding/publication? I, and others, would love to see chapter and verse.

I don't need a pear reviewed paper to see for the last ten years that the climate is starting to cool despite the huge increase in manmade CO2. That speaks for itself.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...nt-ruling.thtml

Edited July 23, 2008 by bluecon

[jethro]

And why do you, and several others on here, persist in the insulting suggestion that all 'orthodox' climate change research is necessarily negated by the corruption of the scientists who do it?

Do you have any idea how much anger and incomprehension is felt by the vast majority of scientists who, wherever their funding comes from, work hard and honestly to try and further human knowledge?

Firstly, let me apologise for editing and highlighting your particular post Osmposm, this isn't a dig at you.

Those two sentences, for me, concisely sum up the problem with many of these discussions, both on here and in blogosphere land. This kind of response is used by both sides of this debate, pro and anti AGW alike; why is beyond me. It is the science which should be the focus of discussion, not personalities or funding. I personally couldn't give a monkies, who pays whom, we've all got to earn a living, scientists are no exception. If the science is valid and stands up to scrutiny from other scientists, does it matter who enabled the research to take place?

[Roo]

If the science is valid and stands up to scrutiny from other scientists, does it matter who enabled the research to take place?

Exactly. And that is why peer review is so important, as it allows those of us not qualified to judge the scientific minutiae to trust the findings of a piece of research.

[VillagePlank]

I don't need a pear reviewed paper to see for the last ten years that the climate is starting to cool despite the huge increase in manmade CO2. That speaks for itself.

No. It doesn't.

Look at above chart, particularly the early years. No chance of detecting a CO2 AGW signal because of natural variation (and for other reasons we can go into later) Then compare it to the end ... and that's the result of a 0.02C cumulative signal. Natural deviations dwarf the CO2 signal, even over 10 years: 0.02C x 10Yrs = 0.2C!

I like to think of myself as neither pro-AGW or otherwise, indeed a nip into either garden for a burger off the BBQ before going back to sit on the fence and taking a look around again ... but extrapolating the recent 10 years into some sort of conclusion is, in my honest, and professional opinion, without merit .... for now.

Edited July 23, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Exactly. And that is why peer review is so important, as it allows those of us not qualified to judge the scientific minutiae to trust the findings of a piece of research.

Peer review isn't all its cracked up to be. It is open to abuse. Its why certain branches of science, such as Astronomy, don't use peer review much anymore. There are some well known examples of fradulent papers which have manged to go through the peer review process. In particular, 15 papers published by Jan Hendrik Schon which went through the peer review process and were subsequently accepted for publication in "Nature" & "Science." ALL 15 papers were subsequently found out to be utterly fraudulent.