General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Roo]

Er no, it was yours. I'm happy to go with the article I posted. I'm not being rude but I'm struggling to see how this can be anything more than being contrary for the sake of it. You disparaged the article, you wanted the original paper, you said it was easy to get by simply emailing the author. Now you can't be bothered. I'm struggling to understand. Sorry.

Arrrggghhhh! Let me spell it out: the original 'article' was nothing more than a talking point on a known, biased, website, based merely on an abstract from a paper, none of us knows the content of: it was almost certainly written without EVER seeing the original paper. You cannot use that website as evidence of the original academic piece. The two are entirely unrelated. Too right I disparaged the original website: it is nothing more than a non-evidenced, opinion piece.

This was not my piece of evidence, it was yours: that makes it your responsibility to prove to us, not mine.

Pete can see what I mean and that it's not contrariness....but yet again, my posting has started a negative response from you. I'm sick of it.

Good Bye!

Edited July 24, 2009 by Roo

[Methuselah]

Arrrggghhhh! Let me spell it out: the original 'article' was nothing more than a talking point on a known, biased, website, based merely on an abstract from a paper, none of us knows the content of: it was almost certainly written without EVER seeing the original paper. You cannot use that website as evidence of the original academic piece. The two are entirely unrelated. Too right I disparaged the original website: it is nothing more than a non-evidenced, opinion piece.

This was not my piece of evidence, it was yours: that makes it your responsibility to prove to us, not mine.

Pete can see what I mean and that it's not contrariness....but yet again, my posting has started a negative response from you. I'm sick of it.

Good Bye!

Yes Roo. I can see what you mean, and agree with you. But, I also agree with Jethro: the response to her thread was indeed lukewarm.

But, for the life of me, I cannot understand the apparent animosity between you guys?? Okay, you represent two opposing points of view but, at the end of the day, you are asking for the same thing: access to academic papers!

[Roo]

Yes Roo. I can see what you mean, and agree with you. But, I also agree with Jethro: the response to her thread was indeed lukewarm.

But, for the life of me, I cannot understand the apparent animosity between you guys?? Okay, you represent two opposing points of view but, at the end of the day, you are asking for the same thing: access to academic papers!

Nor can I....

I didn't see the thread either, but have said on a number of occasions of ways around it. However, no-one has EVER tried, and it wears a bit thin having the same old argument of 'we can't get the data' thrown back each time that another dodgy website is posted.

It is possible to get closer to the real thing.

Take GW's ref for instance: Another Science paper.

But this time, reported in Science Daily, so that's a big tick already as that is a website which just reports what's new in scientific research, without adding commentary.

Then, at the bottom of the Science Daily piece is a link to the original institution which carried out the research, so if you click on that, you can go and have a look at who they are and what they do: you can also go and have a look at their press release to see whether the Science Daily piece matches with what the researchers said they did.

Not the primary paper admittedly, but much, MUCH more reliable.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Roo

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think the paper is freely available so I could get into a fair bit of trouble if I posted it unfortunately. However, the abstract is freely available if you run a search for the following:

"Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming"

...and maybe, if you're lucky, someone might offer it for free, sometimes original authors are even willing to do this.

Reading through the paper, the basic facts are that there's been a "first analysis of its kind" done on cloud feedback processes with global temperatures, which has suggested that clouds may not only be failing to provide a negative feedback, but may be providing a positive feedback. The idea is that a warming ocean transfers more heat into the atmosphere, thinning out low-level clouds and allowing more sunlight through which in turn warms the ocean further.

The paper actually argues it the other way re. AGW, namely that the positive feedback could cause AGW to generate more warming than is currently estimated by climate models. However, to be honest, I see no reason why it can't also support the notion that perhaps the contribution from increased CO2 concentrations may have been seriously overdone in view of the contribution from clouds. It certainly casts further doubt on how far we can rely upon the current generation of climate models, even though they are currently the best we have.

The most important message, though, is that cloud feedback analysis is still in its infancy and no doubt we will see further changes in the projected extent (and possibly sign) of feedbacks over the coming years.

Of course some sceptics might call me a biased source but I honestly think my views on AGW are often categorised as being far more "pro-AGW" than they really are. Most of those in the scientific mainstream would actually consider me to be a sceptic.

[Roo]

I don't think the paper is freely available so I could get into a fair bit of trouble if I posted it unfortunately. However, the abstract is freely available if you run a search for the following:

"Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming"

...and maybe, if you're lucky, someone might offer it for free, sometimes original authors are even willing to do this.

Many thanks TWS.

So, would you say (and sorry to put you on the spot!), ignoring whether the Myrhe paper is right or not, does the Resilient Earth piece accurately represent the argument of the Myrhe paper?

EDIT: Oooo..hang on. I think we're talking at cross purposes: the paper I was after was the Myrhe one on 'Consistency Between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect'

Edited July 24, 2009 by Roo

[Thundery wintry showers]

Many thanks TWS.

So, would you say (and sorry to put you on the spot!), ignoring whether the Myrhe paper is right or not, does the Resilient Earth piece accurately represent the argument of the Myrhe paper?

No. The main reason for my answer is because it focuses only on the argument re. overestimation of the CO2 contribution (which I think is a good point, but isn't mentioned in the paper) and ignores the paper's assertions that there's a risk of AGW leading to larger amounts of warming in the long term because of this feedback mechanism.

EDIT:

Ah, so I might have gone looking for the wrong paper then!

The "Consistency Between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect" paper gives a more benign conclusion, simply that the IPCC (and climate models) may be seriously overestimating a proposed negative feedback concerning aerosols, with the hypothesis being that this is down to a disproportionate increase in anthropogenic black carbon. It concludes that the feedback is probably only slightly negative rather than strongly negative.

If this is the paper that the Resilient Earth article was referring to then it's been mis-represented to an embarrassing degree. There is no implication whatsoever that soot causes global warming. There is no reference whatsoever to how much of a warming effect CO2 is credited with, although again if the models have overestimated a negative feedback that counters it then perhaps they might have overcooked CO2's warming influence- but I'm not even sure if that follows.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Methuselah]

Well...Having read the article, it appears that one of my most cherished assumptions re: Climate Change (that clouds provide a negative feedback) may be utter bovine excrement...

However, based on the fact that we only have the warming we have: if a greater proportion of it can be ascribed to clouds, LESS is left for the direct effect of CO₂?

Could the sceptics be wrong, but for the right reasons? On the other hand, could the AGWs be right, but for the wrong reasons?

I suspect it's a matter of interpretion.

PS: I think that my third sentence is incomplete. I could swap all the rights for wrongs - and it would still be incomprehensible!

[Roo]

If this is the paper that the Resilient Earth article was referring to then it's been mis-represented to an embarrassing degree.

Many thanks Ian. And sorry for the confusion....but we did get two for the price of one, so many thanks again!

I think that my third sentence is incomplete. I could swap all the rights for wrongs - and it would still be incomprehensible!

I understand that gin helps....

[Thundery wintry showers]

However, based on the fact that we only have the warming we have: if a greater proportion of it can be ascribed to clouds, LESS is left for the direct effect of CO₂?

Yes, I think that point potentially comes out from both papers (also if the warming we have hasn't been offset as much by aerosols as originally thought, less is left for the direct effect of CO2, which I think is what the Resilient Earth article inferred, but exaggerated out of all proportion).

Unfortunately I don't think this kind of thing helps matters- if CO2 in itself doesn't have as large an effect as expected, but it triggers feedbacks that are more positive than expected, we might still get a similar amount of warming?

[Roo]

Yes, I think that point potentially comes out from both papers (also if the warming we have hasn't been offset as much by aerosols as originally thought, less is left for the direct effect of CO2, which I think is what the Resilient Earth article inferred, but exaggerated out of all proportion).

Unfortunately I don't think this kind of thing helps matters- if CO2 in itself doesn't have as large an effect as expected, but it triggers feedbacks that are more positive than expected, we might still get a similar amount of warming?

Myself, I think the scary thing is that the science is so badly misrepresented. It suggests that journals need to find a way to get this stuff to the general public asap before the iffy websites spin it out of all proportion.

For me, this has been a really useful exercise!

[Methuselah]

Yes, I think that point potentially comes out from both papers (also if the warming we have hasn't been offset as much by aerosols as originally thought, less is left for the direct effect of CO2, which I think is what the Resilient Earth article inferred, but exaggerated out of all proportion).

Unfortunately I don't think this kind of thing helps matters- if CO2 in itself doesn't have as large an effect as expected, but it triggers feedbacks that are more positive than expected, we might still get a similar amount of warming?

I agree with that.

But, the question that neither article casts any light on, IMO, is how much of the initial warming can be attributed to CO₂/Natural Forcing: unless I have it completely wrong, either forcing will cause the same feedback?

And - thanks for posting the links.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[Gray-Wolf]

We have to be mindful that any comparisons we form with past warmings are always going to be a little skewed as we know those past ones to have been naturally generated and following the 'natural' pattern of warming.

It appears to me that we have taken an element that was involved in the makeup off all past warmings and increased it over a short period of time (GHG's). Our 'job' is figuring how this 'out of context' forcing will impact upon the other components of warming in our current situation.

The fact that we seem to be ahead of the game (if we look at the current models) in many areas would, to me, suggest we just haven't got a proper handle on things yet. We have the jist of things though.

Whilst we mess around with the lower latitude impacts/drivers we ignore the higher latitude changes that appear to be ending one of the planets natural 'cooling' mechanisms. We may very soon find out how this will impact upon the lower latitudes as the energy that was once spent melting the north is put back into the mix (instead of appearing to stand still as the energy is spent on turning ice into water it can return to it's normal job of warming the land/oceans).

[jethro]

Arrrggghhhh! Let me spell it out: the original 'article' was nothing more than a talking point on a known, biased, website, based merely on an abstract from a paper, none of us knows the content of: it was almost certainly written without EVER seeing the original paper. You cannot use that website as evidence of the original academic piece. The two are entirely unrelated. Too right I disparaged the original website: it is nothing more than a non-evidenced, opinion piece.

This was not my piece of evidence, it was yours: that makes it your responsibility to prove to us, not mine.

Pete can see what I mean and that it's not contrariness....but yet again, my posting has started a negative response from you. I'm sick of it.

Good Bye!

I presented that link as nothing more than an addition for consideration to an already on-going conversation, a snippet, a talking point - at least something we agree upon. I did not and have not at any point held it up as incontrovertible evidence of any sort.

The way I see it is if the site linked to is disreputable or biased then there are two choices. Either the piece piques interest enough to provoke a "lets look at this further, see what I can find" response or it can be dismissed out of hand. Either choice is personal, either choice is valid. Neither choice supports me personally doing the leg work for other people. I'm not here to evangelise or convert folk to my way of thinking, I'm here to debate the topic. Sometimes people post links which open my eyes to new information, sometimes I follow it up, sometimes I don't but that's my choice and responsibility.

Where possible I post to original papers from reputable journals, as I've said, I even opened a thread in an effort to get a subscription of some sort in order to avoid these problems. I have paid for papers in the past only for it to be greeted with "bias" accusations. I've also gone out of my way to track down, invite and convince both Ernst Beck and David Dilley to join us here. In short, I've bent over backwards to accommodate and comply to the "direct source" requests.

If I'm terse it's because it is incredibly tiresome that this kind of effort is not matched by those requesting original source. Everyone is perfectly capable of checking information if they want confirmation of something, the quickest most painless, positive way, conducive to a flowing debate is simply to check, post counter evidence or ignore.

We've been here many times in the past Roo, your answers have always been the same but I cannot at any point remember you actually emailing the author and posting the information, hence my terse response. If I am mistaken and you have made the effort and posted it, then of course, I apologise.

[Roo]

We've been here many times in the past Roo, your answers have always been the same but I cannot at any point remember you actually emailing the author and posting the information, hence my terse response. If I am mistaken and you have made the effort and posted it, then of course, I apologise.

The thing is, I'm quite happy to let peer review do my leg work. And I know you'll just jump on this, but I trust to those better qualified (who are subject to peer reviewed, critical analysis) if I can see no major holes in what they are doing. If I can see a big hole, then I'll check it out and alert others to it, hence, amongst others, my hunts to find out what SSRC really was and the recent look at what Resilient Earth was claiming. In all cases, things were not necessarily what they first appeared and I stand by what I did and why I did it: it showed a piece of evidence to be false and, as such, removed it from the equation. It's called critical analysis.

I like to get to the bottom of things. Academic stuff is usually pretty straightforward: you can see who did what, how they did it and what people had to say about it. It has no major holes for the layman, like me, to get stuck into.

However, material from across the internet is not so straightforward and so before I take any of it as read, I like to have a good look at who is saying what and why. This is especially important, when the material is claiming to overthrow the whole peer review process and scientific basis in a few unreferenced paragraphs, as is often the case.

I am not pro AGW or anti...I just follow the evidence trail. But I find that a lot of the skeptical evidence is not actually evidence at all and often, as has been shown, is down to bad reporting, iffy research or biased conclusions.

Until people stop posting this stuff, I will carry on trying to weed out the rubbish from the sense so that others can see what has actually been said and by whom, rather than what they think has been said.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Roo

[jethro]

The thing is, I'm quite happy to let peer review do my leg work. And I know you'll just jump on this, but I trust to those better qualified (who are subject to peer reviewed, critical analysis) if I can see no major holes in what they are doing. If I can see a big hole, then I'll check it out and alert others to it, hence, amongst others, my hunts to find out what SSRC really was and the recent look at what Resilient Earth was claiming. In all cases, things were not necessarily what they first appeared and I stand by what I did and why I did it: it showed a piece of evidence to be false and, as such, removed it from the equation. It's called critical analysis.

I like to get to the bottom of things. Academic stuff is usually pretty straightforward: you can see who did what, how they did it and what people had to say about it. It has no major holes for the layman, like me, to get stuck into.

However, material from across the internet is not so straightforward and so before I take any of it as read, I like to have a good look at who is saying what and why. This is especially important, when the material is claiming to overthrow the whole peer review process and scientific basis in a few unreferenced paragraphs, as is often the case.

I am not pro AGW or anti...I just follow the evidence trail. But I find that a lot of the skeptical evidence is not actually evidence at all and often, as has been shown, is down to bad reporting, iffy research or biased conclusions.

Until people stop posting this stuff, I will carry on trying to weed out the rubbish from the sense so that others can see what has actually been said and by whom, rather than what they think has been said.

I'm quite happy with all of that and agree. It does however support my suggestion of doing the leg work for yourself and not simply criticising. This morning you didn't follow the above ideals, had you have done so or emailed the author as you suggested, you could then have posted the paper or email in order to get to the truth. A simple statement of something like " Resiliant Earth isn't the most reliable of sources, here's the paper/email from the author " would have avoided any conflict.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I would add a significant disagreement. I think a lot of the sceptical links that have been provided by the likes of C Bob, Jethro and others have been excellent for debate from a sceptic point of view. A lot of AGW members constantly demand evidence to counter their hypothesis, which should be reminded is not itself cut and dried, and i think that the goods in terms of response have been produced three-fold.

I'm afraid that whether one means to or not, selection bias does come into it wrt to which links/papers/evidence etc that one chooses to diss and which to accept. We could all pick holes with any source/site etc if we are were determined to.

[Roo]

I'm quite happy with all of that and agree. It does however support my suggestion of doing the leg work for yourself and not simply criticising. This morning you didn't follow the above ideals, had you have done so or emailed the author as you suggested, you could then have posted the paper or email in order to get to the truth. A simple statement of something like " Resiliant Earth isn't the most reliable of sources, here's the paper/email from the author " would have avoided any conflict.

Oh Jethro, at least admit that had I put that it would have had exactly the same effect. There are loads of people here who would have no problem with taking the RE piece as gospel truth. And we've already established that none of us can post the article, for copyright reasons, so I couldn't have done that anyway.

The thing is, I am here to learn, not to post information. I don't think I have access to enough good material or understand the minutiae enough to be able to do anything else. I have a good look at what you guys post to try to learn from it. However, sometimes even I can see why something is wrong, and then I say so. I apologise if that offends.

We could have a great debate if only the silly stuff got left out. It is sad because we used to have some really big brains here which we could learn from, but over time most have drifted off. I for one am sorry for that.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Oh Jethro, at least admit that had I put that it would have had exactly the same effect. There are loads of people here who would have no problem with taking the RE piece as gospel truth. And we've already established that none of us can post the article, for copyright reasons, so I couldn't have done that anyway.

The thing is, I am here to learn, not to post information. I don't think I have access to enough good material or understand the minutiae enough to be able to do anything else. I have a good look at what you guys post to try to learn from it. However, sometimes even I can see why something is wrong, and then I say so. I apologise if that offends.

We could have a great debate if only the silly stuff got left out. It is sad because we used to have some really big brains here which we could learn from, but over time most have drifted off. I for one am sorry for that.

You know what, that is a crashing insult to a lot of people who participate on here and give their time to do so.

Beyond having your own marker pen out on others, what are your own thoughts about uncertain feedbacks, without paying lipservice to such and such a 'reputable source' for guidance?

Edited July 24, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

Oh Jethro, at least admit that had I put that it would have had exactly the same effect. There are loads of people here who would have no problem with taking the RE piece as gospel truth. And we've already established that none of us can post the article, for copyright reasons, so I couldn't have done that anyway.

The thing is, I am here to learn, not to post information. I don't think I have access to enough good material or understand the minutiae enough to be able to do anything else. I have a good look at what you guys post to try to learn from it. However, sometimes even I can see why something is wrong, and then I say so. I apologise if that offends.

We could have a great debate if only the silly stuff got left out. It is sad because we used to have some really big brains here which we could learn from, but over time most have drifted off. I for one am sorry for that.

Not so. The paper or email would have been read and digested, as have been countless other papers.

If we all just came here to learn and not post any information then there'd be nothing to read, nothing to learn except all our own opinions.

The only way to avoid any silly stuff as you call it is to take out subscriptions to journals, I've tried, no one wants to pay for it.

I take no offence at anyone, including yourself saying the science is wrong and substantiating that opinion, I do it myself all the time. I just find it tiresome when criticism is not followed by evidence but used merely as evidence it's self.

Shall we draw a line under this now and move on?

[Methuselah]

Please guys!

We all have different backgrounds, different specialties, different perspectives, even agendas; and the Internet is growing all the time. New information is becoming available faster than we can (even collectively) ever hope to keep up with. And, I'm sure there are as many dubious pro-AGW websites as there are sceptical ones. (I should know. I've used them!) But, I do believe we have the germ of a profitable discussion in this thread. As they say in Latvia: maybe yes, maybe no?

So please, let's not spoil it with petty arguments? (And that goes for your truly aswell!)

If anyone has a problem that can't be sorted via PMs, PM me. I'll see what I can do. All I want to do is to facilitate a good discussion... :lol:

PS: At some time in the future (when I can understand the buttons ) I intend to migrate some of these posts into the 'Feedback' thread. The one I created and then forgot about!

In the mean time ENJOY the discussion!

[Thundery wintry showers]

You know what, that is a crashing insult to a lot of people who participate on here and give their time to do so.

Beyond having your own marker pen out on others, what are your own thoughts about uncertain feedbacks, without paying lipservice to such and such a 'reputable source' for guidance?

I don't think that's what was implied at all, the implication was that some good brains have left, not that the remaining ones aren't any good. I remember for instance Stratos Ferric and Parmenides3 used to be pretty good at times for example and you rarely see them in here now. But there are still many good contributors about.

With regards taking stuff from the internet I'm afraid I'm more in line with Roo and Jethro here. Internet material certainly shouldn't be dismissed purely because it isn't peer-reviewed, just as peer-reviewed material shouldn't be accepted as truth purely because it's peer-reviewed. But if it's peer-reviewed chances are it has at least some sound science behind it, whereas some internet material has little or no science behind it at all.

There have indeed been some excellent links posted from some of the more "sceptical" members recently and I think it's very pleasing to see, but at the same time if the odd dodgy link gets in, people should be allowed to point out that said link is dodgy (providing substantiated reasons as to why) without getting jumped on.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I haven't advocated that any old tat should be freely placed on here, neither have I said that people shouldn't criticise sources if they are dubious. what I have said it is clear that there is a link between those that diss certain sources onthe basis that they don't conform with personal belief and there can be a tendency for this to be passed off as just criticising the source and site. I didn't like that Monckton sceptic link here recently especially, and said so, but that is different from cherry picking links that one doesn't like because they contain findings that are not in accord with their own beliefs.

As far as the two examples you have quoted who are both the staunchest of AGW advocates one could meet, I certainly agree in the case of P3, that he provided a mind of information with regards to the IPCC and I seem to remember him posting a long passage to help me try and understand the machinations of the IPCC report at the time. I still didn't agree at all with his views, but they at the very least were presented extremely well, and without any arrogance nor condescention whatsoever on his part, and neither any attempt to impose those views on me in any way. It was this post of his in actual fact, that helped me understand the IPCC strategy better, and helped me find my own views based on true scepticism and not purely based on not liking what I was hearing.

Edit: I am being a bit harsh on myself there. I think that the extra insight into some of the science behind AGW helped confirm my own instincts is perhaps more accurate.

Edited July 24, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Roo]

I still didn't agree at all with his views, but they at the very least were presented extremely well, and without any arrogance nor condescention whatsoever on his part, and neither any attempt to impose those views on me in any way.

You've just supported what I said, so why the need for the nastiness originally....as I said, big brains, much missed. No element of 'crashing insult' or anything else.

EDIT: And as for cherry picking links that don't conform with personal belief. Hahahahaha! I've picked links that are downright rubbish and I've shown why...doesn't matter what I personally believe about any of it.....

Anyway, life is too short and all that.....

Please continue as before.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Roo

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

You've just supported what I said, so why the need for the nastiness originally....as I said, big brains, much missed. No element of 'crashing insult' or anything else.

EDIT: And as for cherry picking links that one doesn't personally like. Hahahahaha! I've picked links that are downright rubbish and I've shown why...doesn't matter what I personally 'think' about any of it.....

Anyway, life is too short and all that.....

Please continue as before.

Because I was illustrating that your post appeared to suggest that some of the 'rest' of us who do contribute on here were not up to scratch. Don't think that was nasty at all - it was just an observation. I also said it because I like to support folk on here who do not have much scientific knowledge, but still want to have their say. I think it is very very important to recognise their contribution, even if it is not obvious, and is limited by lack of knowledge. I have seen myself in that position. We all have to start somewhere - and just praising those in the 'know' encourges elitism which is something I do not like in any shape or form. Hence my response.

But by mentioning P3 in the way I did I was trying to also demonstrate that whilst I do not agree with the extent of AGW and question the existence of many of the assumed and associated positive feedbacks, I still can appreciate the views of a member with that viewpoint if it is done in a courteous and un holier than thou manner. And also it is an opportunity to learn and help define one's own view - in my case sceptisicm

If you want to ask me what I miss sometimes, it is exactly that...

Re life is too short - go along with that for sure!

Edited July 24, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[noggin]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2896b88-77bd-11de-9713-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

I am posting this because it concurs with my thoughts, which are (inter alia) that it ain't just about "science", there's more to it than that. Sometimes I hear/read the word "models" and think "here we go again, models, models, models, what about other stuff?"

Anyway, Jairam Ramesh is the Indian Environment Minister. He dismisses scientists' predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming and says "Science has it's limitations. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience".

Well said, that man!