General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

Oh, that I disapprove of insulting him? Ok, yes, I don't like insults directed at good scientists. If you thinks that's funny I'll just have to live with that

Yes, it's seriously in error - see this .pdf

I just came across that self-same page independently and was about to post a link (in the interests of fairness). I am reading the rebuttal now - you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it that it's "seriously in error"

More soon.

CB

I notice that Damon & Laut, in their rebuttal, refer almost exclusively to their own works (list of references at the end of the article). Clearly there is more to their rebuttal than is contained in this little article, so I shall have to go and do some reading up, most notably with regards to the data filtering process that is claimed to be suspect.

This could be another sticky one, so I may be some time (and I've got some friends round tonight for an epic Fallout 3 marathon, so I'm going to be otherwise engaged )

CB

Oh, that I disapprove of insulting him? Ok, yes, I don't like insults directed at good scientists. If you thinks that's funny I'll just have to live with that

But what about insults directed at bad scientists?

(Sorry - couldn't resist!)

[MR EXTREMES]

not sure if anyone has read this aswell but also intresting.

http://www.fel.duke....opinion0308.pdf

i will put this in solar area aswell just incase its in the wrong place:D

Edited August 13, 2009 by badboy657

[Solar Cycles]

Oh, that I disapprove of insulting him? Ok, yes, I don't like insults directed at good scientists. If you thinks that's funny I'll just have to live with that

Yes, it's seriously in error - see this .pdf

Dev, it's well documented about Mann, and how he came about the hockey stick. To defend him as a honest scientist, is taking faith in your false gods to extremes!!

[Solar Cycles]

I just came across that self-same page independently and was about to post a link (in the interests of fairness). I am reading the rebuttal now - you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it that it's "seriously in error"

More soon.

CB

I notice that Damon & Laut, in their rebuttal, refer almost exclusively to their own works (list of references at the end of the article). Clearly there is more to their rebuttal than is contained in this little article, so I shall have to go and do some reading up, most notably with regards to the data filtering process that is claimed to be suspect.

This could be another sticky one, so I may be some time (and I've got some friends round tonight for an epic Fallout 3 marathon, so I'm going to be otherwise engaged )

CB

But what about insults directed at bad scientists?

(Sorry - couldn't resist!)

Just had a quick look through at this, haven't time to read it all yet. Will comment on it later. Good find CB!

not sure if anyone has read this aswell but also intresting.

http://www.fel.duke....opinion0308.pdf

i will put this in solar area aswell just incase its in the wrong place:D

Will have a good read through this also badboy. Cooking a chilli now, and having a few refreshers. I'll read it in full tomorrow, alcohol and thinking are not one of my strong points. Some would say just thinking!!

[Devonian]

Dev, it's well documented about Mann, and how he came about the hockey stick. To defend him as a honest scientist, is taking faith in your false gods to extremes!!

I can't believe how people run with politically motivated and interest driven campaigns of villification directed at academics like Dr Mann. It's gone on for years, it's a bl**dy disgrace and a deeply shaming episode for those carrying it on.

Dr Mann has been convicted (in his absence) by the kangaroo courts of the internet. No one else, no one. It's a JOKE!

You're an intelligent man SC, why do you run with such stuff?

Edit: I don't feel the need to accuse those you agree with of lies, or fraud or indeed to accuse you of worshipping false gods. OK?

[Solar Cycles]

I can't believe how people run with politically motivated and interest driven campaigns of villification directed at academics like Dr Mann. It's gone on for years, it's a bl**dy disgrace and a deeply shaming episode for those carrying it on.

Dr Mann has been convicted (in his absence) by the kangaroo courts of the internet. No one else, no one. It's a JOKE!

You're an intelligent man SC, why do you run with such stuff?

Edit: I don't feel the need to accuse those you agree with of lies, or fraud or indeed to accuse you of worshipping false gods. OK?

I'm sorry Dev, there are many scientist in climate research, who I don't agree with, but I have the upmost respect for, Tom C on Two being one of them. But Mann I'm afraid isn't one of these.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Devonian]

I'm sorry Dev, there are many scientist in climate research, who I don't agree with, but I have the upmost respect for, Tom C on Two being one of them. But Mann I'm afraid isn't one of these.

I'm fine with people not agreeing with what a scientist says. But, people can't 'get' Dr Mann by such legitimate means so it's mud and allegations that are slung and kangaroo courts that are set up. Again, I just don't get why anyone would buy that.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Oh, that I disapprove of insulting him? Ok, yes, I don't like insults directed at good scientists. If you thinks that's funny I'll just have to live with that

Dev

He puts AGW spin on it pure and simple.

BFTP

Edited August 13, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Devonian]

Oh, that I disapprove of insulting him? Ok, yes, I don't like insults directed at good scientists. If you thinks that's funny I'll just have to live with that

Dev

He puts AGW spin on it pure and simple.

BFTP

Forgive me BFTP if I don't just accept something because a blog or two and right wing US politicians says so.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Devonian

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Forgive me BFTP if I don't just accept something because a blog or two and right wing US politicians says so.

Why does he suggest that the Atlantic is going to continue to warm when the opposite is cyclically likely to happen over next 6 years ie -ve AMO? No blog or right wing politician is saying that but MANN himself? Circumstances are different now to the medieval warm period. MANN said that no one else.

BFTP

[WindWatcher]

With all the discussion I really do not know what is happening, and unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any clear information.

It is no wonder the general public know little of what is going on, I try and read and assess for myself the impacts, and then I read something on the BBC that contradicts my beliefs.

I had assumed that we haven't seen the predicted sea level rise, but then this story on the BBC says we are due a 3cm rise imminently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8200680.stm

Help!

Steve

[noggin]

I am just going to toss in a little anecdote here, if I may?

Yesterday, I was doing my weekly grocery shop in Morrisons and was talking to the checkout operator, nice young man, called Luke. We were talking about the weather and he said that variations in the weather and the climate are caused by the juxtapositioning of the Sun and the Earth. I said I agreed and so does Mr Milankovitch and, after ascertaining that he has internet access at home, invited him to join NW!

So, that is the word on the shop floor.......it's the sun wot's doing it!

[jethro]

I am just going to toss in a little anecdote here, if I may?

Yesterday, I was doing my weekly grocery shop in Morrisons and was talking to the checkout operator, nice young man, called Luke. We were talking about the weather and he said that variations in the weather and the climate are caused by the juxtapositioning of the Sun and the Earth. I said I agreed and so does Mr Milankovitch and, after ascertaining that he has internet access at home, invited him to join NW!

So, that is the word on the shop floor.......it's the sun wot's doing it!

Have you ever thought of being a politician Noggin? Out there talking to the populace is something they could all do with doing a bit more.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Why does he suggest that the Atlantic is going to continue to warm when the opposite is cyclically likely to happen over next 6 years ie -ve AMO? No blog or right wing politician is saying that but MANN himself? Circumstances are different now to the medieval warm period. MANN said that no one else.

BFTP

A prime example of a radical AGW'ist who ignores any forcing/feedback other than assumed AGW (with the exception of El nino's to accentuate warming of course)

At least as wrong as those on the other hand who deny that there was a cyclical warming trend up to the end of the 1990's

[Thundery wintry showers]

Reading the BBC article, Dr Mann does not put an AGW spin on it, he puts a GW spin on it by linking the increase in hurricane activity to higher SSTs. He says nothing about whether or not humans caused the warming. It is a very logical relationship that makes sense scientifically, but it is a bit tenuous to link the recent increase in hurricanes to global warming, for reasons that include those that others have stated.

Dr Mann's hockey stick is indeed controversial. But if the masses must slate him, slate him for the controversial things that he does say, not the things that he doesn't say.

I am just going to toss in a little anecdote here, if I may?

Yesterday, I was doing my weekly grocery shop in Morrisons and was talking to the checkout operator, nice young man, called Luke. We were talking about the weather and he said that variations in the weather and the climate are caused by the juxtapositioning of the Sun and the Earth. I said I agreed and so does Mr Milankovitch and, after ascertaining that he has internet access at home, invited him to join NW!

So, that is the word on the shop floor.......it's the sun wot's doing it!

Ah, but if the word on the shop floor was that humans are causing climate change via releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which agrees with what the IPCC says, would you have invited him to N-W or used his stance as evidence for the position being right?

I doubt it. What I'm seeing here is as classic a case of confirmation bias as they come.

[laserguy]

Ah, but if the word on the shop floor was that humans are causing climate change via releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,

Remind me what the actual percentage figure of anthro CO2 makes up the almost infinitesimally small total... I take time out from this fraught arena only to return to find (expectedly),that the squabbles rage on elsewhere. May as well argue about the existence of God or fairies at the bottom of the garden. It ain't worth one more moment of my time,though it's still fun and frustrating in equal measure to look in. Our CO2 is as much responsible for the ever-changing climate as my cats are for causing hurricane Katrina. You'll learn... Mind you,the AGW mob will somehow find a link between the rising feline population and 'climate change',given half a chance. The key to everything (bar the odd volcano)

is (probably) smiling down from a sky near you right now.

[The Penguin]

... Our CO2 is as much responsible for the ever-changing climate as my cats are ...

You are obviously making a mockery of this whole affair, sir. It is clear to the most casual observer that if one accepts the sun as being really quite a big thing and the earth as a relatively small thing, then a anthropoid is a very small thing and a cat, although much bigger than a CO2 which is very very very tiny, is still far too small to cause the warming of something much much much bigger. No, I suggest you stick to basics, and if you’re looking for the cause of warming look for the biggest, hottest thing you can find. Like the sun, for instance. Or Heidi Klum….

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Reading the BBC article, Dr Mann does not put an AGW spin on it, he puts a GW spin on it by linking the increase in hurricane activity to higher SSTs. He says nothing about whether or not humans caused the warming. It is a very logical relationship that makes sense scientifically, but it is a bit tenuous to link the recent increase in hurricanes to global warming, for reasons that include those that others have stated.

TWS

The very statement that the oceans are going to continue to warm is an AGW spin. Cyclically the AMO is due to turn negative like the PDO just has and the perturbation cycle. The only reason why the AMO won't turn negative is due to an 'extra' forcing believed to override all else ie AGW?. He is spinning it, that is how I read it. Why will the seas continue to warm, naturally they never have continued to warm, why will they now????

BFTP

Edited August 26, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Devonian]

Remind me what the actual percentage figure of anthro CO2 makes up the almost infinitesimally small total...

The present 30%+ increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the consequence of our actions.

I take time out from this fraught arena only to return to find (expectedly),that the squabbles rage on elsewhere. May as well argue about the existence of God or fairies at the bottom of the garden. It ain't worth one more moment of my time,though it's still fun and frustrating in equal measure to look in. Our CO2 is as much responsible for the ever-changing climate as my cats are for causing hurricane Katrina. You'll learn... Mind you,the AGW mob will somehow find a link between the rising feline population and 'climate change',given half a chance. The key to everything (bar the odd volcano)

is (probably) smiling down from a sky near you right now.

Seems to me you return to promote/provoke squabbles. I can't see what else a post full of errors and strewn with jibes ( 'faries', 'still fun', '...cats...', 'you'll learn', 'AGW mob') and assumptions about the causes of climate change (it's ABCD time again...) rather than scientific realities serves? Can you enlighten me as to the serious and constructive point of your post?

You are obviously making a mockery of this whole affair, sir. It is clear to the most casual observer that if one accepts the sun as being really quite a big thing and the earth as a relatively small thing, then a anthropoid is a very small thing and a cat, although much bigger than a CO2 which is very very very tiny, is still far too small to cause the warming of something much much much bigger. No, I suggest you stick to basics, and if you’re looking for the cause of warming look for the biggest, hottest thing you can find. Like the sun, for instance. Or Heidi Klum….

Or the science....

Edited August 26, 2009 by Devonian

[The Penguin]

Or the science....

Well there is that, of course. But how 'hot' is the science? No, seriously. There are other threads in the forum relating to leaky buckets and solar cycle forcing that I find really very interesting in that they support my impirical assessment that climate change/chaos/adjustment is not just as simple as the most rabid avid AGWers would have us believe. I know it's too easy in this context to cherry pick the most agreeable science, but after the past few years of carbon-based warming taking the forefront, I for one find it refreshing to have other possibilities being brought more forcefully to our attention. None of which is meant to rubbish your preferred route of investigation, merely to support more acceptance of diversity of thought.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Well there is that, of course. But how 'hot' is the science? No, seriously. There are other threads in the forum relating to leaky buckets and solar cycle forcing that I find really very interesting in that they support my impirical assessment that climate change/chaos/adjustment is not just as simple as the most rabid avid AGWers would have us believe. I know it's too easy in this context to cherry pick the most agreeable science, but after the past few years of carbon-based warming taking the forefront, I for one find it refreshing to have other possibilities being brought more forcefully to our attention. None of which is meant to rubbish your preferred route of investigation, merely to support more acceptance of diversity of thought.

That is a very good post There is nothing more to add to that other than to endorse broadening horizons beyond just AGW is to be encouraged.

[Iceberg]

I agree that AGW is but one part of climate change and climate science and in many ways rather a small part, in some ways a bigger part as it has more potential to effect us.

I disagree that most avid AGWers think that climate is simple, I am not sure I've heard that said on this forum or in any articles at all, hence why very big super computers are used purly to try and get a simple estimate of what might possibly happen.

To my knowledge other areas of climate have always been investigated and continue to be investigated, which is all to the good.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

TWS

The very statement that the oceans are going to continue to warm is an AGW spin. Cyclically the AMO is due to turn negative like the PDO just has and the perturbation cycle. The only reason why the AMO won't turn negative is due to an 'extra' forcing believed to override all else ie AGW?. He is spinning it, that is how I read it. Why will the seas continue to warm, naturally they never have continued to warm, why will they now????

BFTP

Yes, if one is acknowledging the turn of the natural cycles as you describe from positive (warming) to negative (cooling) then in turn sea temperatures should respond accordingly. Taking into account lags as well here, with these changes of cycles. With the perturbation cycle we should anticipate greater frequency of nina events (cooler pacific) than recent decades and with the advent as you say of a -AMO cycle then we should anticipate a change of profile in atlantic sea temps. Therefore if one is trying to suggest, effectively, that sea temps are sustained in terms of warmth, linking that to an increase in hurricanes, then the GW slant must surely be being inferred towards an AGW forcing instead of a natural/cyclical one. In other words he must be implying that there is an extra human forcing which is overriding the cooling effects of the changes on sea temperatures in the negative cycles. So yes, it does appear to be AGW 'spin'.

[Devonian]

Well there is that, of course. But how 'hot' is the science? No, seriously. There are other threads in the forum relating to leaky buckets and solar cycle forcing that I find really very interesting in that they support my impirical assessment that climate change/chaos/adjustment is not just as simple as the most rabid avid AGWers would have us believe. I know it's too easy in this context to cherry pick the most agreeable science, but after the past few years of carbon-based warming taking the forefront, I for one find it refreshing to have other possibilities being brought more forcefully to our attention. None of which is meant to rubbish your preferred route of investigation, merely to support more acceptance of diversity of thought.

Oh, but you do want to rubbish my preferred route of investigation - you really should not have used the word 'rabid' it's a dead give away...

Fwiw I think the Sun warms planet Earth from a few degrees above absolute zero to about ~255K and that ghgs add another ~33K on top of that. We, via AGW, might add 2-4C on top of that - a few percent of the total one might say. So, yes, the Sun is mightily significant but why some people are so, um, rabidly against our adding a few percent on top even being a possibility beats me. I'm sorry, I think it's a distinct possibility and I'll think that unless the evidence changes. I don't deny the effect of the Sun as shown by science and I don't deny the shown effects of ghg's either.

Yes, if one is acknowledging the turn of the natural cycles as you describe from positive (warming) to negative (cooling) then in turn sea temperatures should respond accordingly. Taking into account lags as well here, with these changes of cycles. With the perturbation cycle we should anticipate greater frequency of nina events (cooler pacific) than recent decades and with the advent as you say of a -AMO cycle then we should anticipate a change of profile in atlantic sea temps. Therefore if one is trying to suggest, effectively, that sea temps are sustained in terms of warmth, linking that to an increase in hurricanes, then the GW slant must surely be being inferred towards an AGW forcing instead of a natural/cyclical one. In other words he must be implying that there is an extra human forcing which is overriding the cooling effects of the changes on sea temperatures in the negative cycles. So yes, it does appear to be AGW 'spin'.

You have it right except you seem to think that evidence data and science is 'spin' - it's not, it IS evidence data and science. There IS an extra human (anthro) forcing, the oceans are warmer, and, despite a pretty quiet Sun, this year the atmosphere is almost certain to be a good deal warmer than last...

Edited August 26, 2009 by Devonian

[The Penguin]

Now, now Devonian, you misconstrue my notation. Or perhaps I was unduly ambiguous. The strike out through ‘rabid’ was intended to acknowledge that that kind of descriptor has no place in reasonable discussion. Nothing more.

As for simple science, Iceberg, I agree with your comment but I have to say that I do feel there has been an ‘absolutist’ wing to the AGW camp, and that I also feel they have promoted, or been used to promote, a kind of tidal swell of purported fact, based on their interpretation of the science, pushing us towards an imperative acceptance of human responsibility for causing global warming and thereby an imperative acceptance of human responsibility for ‘curing’ global warming. I imply no conspiracy theory here, scientific or political, but do feel that a weighty body of opinion has looked at cause and effect, panicked, and set off prematurely on a crusade to save the world. The consequences of that concern me, but that’s a topic for another forum.