General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, I'm all in favour of this kind of exploration of alternative energy- if any of it works, it can only be a good thing, allowing us to keep developing but with more sustainable forms of energy.

I'm always a bit sceptical about these things because of the lack of success to date but hopefully we'll break through eventually.

[sunny starry skies]

Fusion does seem to be making a little progress... but it seems we're still a long way from building a power station with one of these things.

Anyway, back to climate for me - Dev posed the question "does anybody think that science is a popularity contest?"

Somebody suggested it might be to an extent, through funding??? Definitely wrong in my mind, as what would be cut would be the total funding (from NERC, ESRC, EPSRC etc), and not the funding to any one branch of the sciences. Do people really want to understand less about the processes involved, or have less data to test the theories (ALL of them, including the alternative hypotheses)? Ah... back to sticking heads in the sand and pretending it'll all go away again

I do get frustrated at the 'closed shop' statement too. If you're a scientist with a good idea, it's not at all a 'closed shop'. If you have a potentially paradigm-shifting idea, you're in a seriously good position to do very well! But... as ever, it has to survive the full glare of scientific criticism. If it does, you will be lauded. If it doesn't then maybe back to the drawing board after a paper or two. That's scientific progress (it's not easy, as VP will testify). Certainly progress in science is not based on what someone as uninformed as Andrew Neil or other media outlets have to say. They are too used to the world of political slander, where 'progress' is measured by scoring cheap personal points against your opponents...

Dev answered the solar point well enough - it's not about the long-term past, or heating from absolute zero, but about what's driving change now. And there's no mechanism for changes in climate from the solar system, as Pete said. And I'd like to see clear data on the PDO and what's supposed to be driving it before I think that it's driven by anything beyond Earth. And if it is, it's changing a weather pattern (distribution of heat), not overall climate (total heat).

sss

Edited January 29, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[noggin]

I hope that's helped, noggin (though I've probably only confused you further).

Thank you, Captain Bob. I appreciate your explanation, although much of it did go over my head :wacko: .....I'm more the artistic type. :lol:

I shall, however, bear in mind your advice re smoke alarms. I understand that bit! :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you, Captain Bob. I appreciate your explanation, although much of it did go over my head .....I'm more the artistic type.

I shall, however, bear in mind your advice re smoke alarms. I understand that bit!

The potential of fusion is enough to set the ball rolling once proven to be viable. If folk look to nuclear as a viable investment then what will they do for fusion? Once the first stations are up then there will be no stopping production of them (as many as Chinese coal fired stations eh?). and all that energy WILL make the difference. I mean with energy virtually free you can build lead into gold (or anything into anything) without the constraints that the amount of energy used have brought with it before.

If we have fusion we can do anything......once we wish to!

[laserguy]

The potential of fusion is enough to set the ball rolling once proven to be viable. If folk look to nuclear as a viable investment then what will they do for fusion? Once the first stations are up then there will be no stopping production of them (as many as Chinese coal fired stations eh?). and all that energy WILL make the difference. I mean with energy virtually free you can build lead into gold (or anything into anything) without the constraints that the amount of energy used have brought with it before.

If we have fusion we can do anything......once we wish to!

Ah the philosopher's stone realised at last... and everything once treasured rendered worthless in one fell swoop. Nah I'm not mocking it,far from it - just in that surreal state of mind brought on by too many night-shifts and resultant sleep deprivation. Wonder if fusion could turn that pile of spent cat litter into a shiny new exhaust pipe for my dormant iron horse ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Ah the philosopher's stone realised at last... and everything once treasured rendered worthless in one fell swoop. Nah I'm not mocking it,far from it - just in that surreal state of mind brought on by too many night-shifts and resultant sleep deprivation. Wonder if fusion could turn that pile of spent cat litter into a shiny new exhaust pipe for my dormant iron horse ?

I'm sure there's 3 1/2 ft of scaffolding pipe with your name on it somewhere Laser!!!

[noggin]

Good grief.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html

Don't know what to say, really..............

[Methuselah]

Good grief. :o :o

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html

Don't know what to say, really..............

God is great!!!!???

Now, there's 'ally' I don't want!!!! :)

[Gray-Wolf]

GW - how do you get scaffold pipe to connect to four downpipes ?

Take it there's nowt left of the 'box' then? Last time I resorted to such I still had the 'box' on the pipes and just welded the pipe onto it.........otherwise it's tin cans and exhaust goo held together with jubilee clips.

[laserguy]

Take it there's nowt left of the 'box' then? Last time I resorted to such I still had the 'box' on the pipes and just welded the pipe onto it.........otherwise it's tin cans and exhaust goo held together with jubilee clips.

Nah the box has gone West too. Guess I'll just have to keep saving the pennies. At this rate,peak oil will have been and gone and my steed will be a curio from a bygone age! Blimey,the avenues AGW leads us down,eh,though to be fair I've noticed AGW featuring more and more prominently on other completely unrelated forums I frequent (motorbikes and homebrew being the main subjects of debate). So far,I've totally resisted the urge to join in - NW's quite enough,thanks !

[rob48]

Another example of a government dumbfounded when people don't swallow what they're given:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/31/ed-miliband-climate-change-scepticism

Bit like a Ceausescu moment!

Still, someone as well-respected as Miliband is sure to alay any doubters, perhaps Brigstock will chip-in as well.

[Methuselah]

How does insulting Dr P as 'dirty old man' add to the debate here? :angry:

Shesshh, sometime I wonder what someone will say next. About all that is left is accusing someone from the IPPC of paedophilia or something :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree there, Dev. Do the deniers really have nothing better to offer to the debate?? Cut-out the childish (and wholly irrelevant) insults!!!

[Methuselah]

Just a quick note about my above reply to Dev...I do not condone the use of irrelevant insults - any irrelevant insults...We are not supposed to be discussing whether-or-not 'x' is a 'dirty old man,' a 'paedophile,' or a whatever...

That's why all of the dodgy posts were removed and the thread closed for a short time. Period!

We are meant to be discussing Climate Change NOT personal pecadillos...

[jethro]

If the warming impact of HFC's is 3,800 more potent than CO2, why are there no legal requirements to limit their use nor incentives to reduce them? Is this accurate???

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Supermarket-Fridges-Leak-Greenhouse-Gas-EIA-Criticises-Hydrofluorocarbon-HFC-Use-In-Stores/Article/201002115539404?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15539404_Supermarket_Fridges_Leak_Greenhouse_Gas%3A_EIA_Criticises_Hydrofluorocarbon_%28HFC%29_Use_In_Stores

[sunny starry skies]

If the warming impact of HFC's is 3,800 more potent than CO2, why are there no legal requirements to limit their use nor incentives to reduce them? Is this accurate???

http://news.sky.com/...9_Use_In_Stores

Good question! My guess would be that it's an issue that's been so far 'under the radar', but now it's been highlighted, it ought to be be tackled. Haven't checked up on how the emissions from the supermarkets size up to global emissions (probably a small percentage), but whatever the numbers, surely it's better to reduce the emissions and ensure a smaller problem (not entirely unlike CFCs?).

sss

[VillagePlank]

One must remember that all science is a state of flux - that is that all scientific knowledge is transitory.

What does this mean? Well, it means that anyone with an apparently entrenched view does that understand the basic tenets of the basics of the scientific method.

Nothing is certain.

Anyway, as SSS says, it is better to take a risk-based approach such that output by human beings should be constrained within the realms of realism - in terms of both economic and ecosphere analysis

(anyone notice that the Stern report hurricane impact was reduced by a factor of 10 when no-one was quite looking .... EDIT: here - just for fun, of course )

Edited February 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

And, it seems, alleged confrontation between researchers and peer-reviewers is not limited to acquired emails from climate people. Here's another example.

[noggin]

Interesting links, VP, but I don't see why you refer to your first link as "just for fun". Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning....please correct me if I have ( ). This sort of "stuff" matters. A great deal. There have to be continual challenges to so-called accepted/settled science, where, for example, new evidence indicates that such challenges would be wise, in order to get to the truth of things, otherwise extremism and incorrectness might and/or will dominate. Do we dare to imagine what government would be like if there was no opposition?

[VillagePlank]

Interesting links, VP, but I don't see why you refer to your first link as "just for fun". Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning....please correct me if I have ( ). This sort of "stuff" matters. A great deal. There have to be continual challenges to so-called accepted/settled science, where, for example, new evidence indicates that such challenges would be wise, in order to get to the truth of things, otherwise extremism and incorrectness might and/or will dominate. Do we dare to imagine what government would be like if there was no opposition?

Just that the post was not intended to be antagonistic ... nothing more.

[sunny starry skies]

Interesting links, VP, but I don't see why you refer to your first link as "just for fun". Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning....please correct me if I have ( ). This sort of "stuff" matters. A great deal. There have to be continual challenges to so-called accepted/settled science, where, for example, new evidence indicates that such challenges would be wise, in order to get to the truth of things, otherwise extremism and incorrectness might and/or will dominate. Do we dare to imagine what government would be like if there was no opposition?

Hey for once I agree wholeheartedly with what you say noggin! So long as it's actual 'new evidence' and not the usual nit-picking of minor details. New good quality data is always welcome. I think that sort of thing goes on all the time in the climate science community too. Just seen the latest Phil Jones-bashing happening (Guardian article below)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Seems like Jones felt he was caught between a rock and a hard place - the UHI effect in some Chinese weather stations was maybe 4x (initially ~10% to ~40%) what was previously thought. But it also looks like Jones is being hammered by other climate scientists (notably his old boss, Tom Wigley) for not being more forthright about this error - after all, we do need to get to the truth of things (cheers for the phrase nog) and this doesn't change the overall picture of global warming. I'd actually say that the Guardian (of all people) is overstating the significance of this issue - about how widely referenced the paper is! What I thought was most insightful was the view into the psyche of the 'marked man' that Jones has become. He's convinced he's right on AGW (not surprisingly in my opinion), but he's also afraid that any scrap of incorrectness in the data will be seized upon and blown out of all proportion (to people extrapolating to say that all the sience is wrong ). So we have a situation like this - where he's afraid to admit any errors (bad scientific practice indeed, as pointed out by Wigley), but where errors, once they are admitted, are blown vastly out of proportion by the so-called skeptics, who seem unable to grasp at the mechanics of scientifc progress - that improvements will keep on being made, and that revisions may be up as well as down (so bad science as usual from the army of 'skeptics'). Ergh!

The data issue is I think of relatively minor significance, particularly in the light of the recent JGR paper on a cooling bias found (effectively by skeptics ) in US weather station data (blog link in case full text is not free):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=152&&n=123

Revisions can go up as well as down...

So where does all that leave us? In not a nice place for climate scientists. Not because the science is wrong, but because the scale of polarisation means that the level of rationality required is being lost by some of those most under pressure in the debate. Fortunately there are many more climate scientists that just Jones! As Wigley intimates, you need to be clear about all the data so that your overall conclusions retain the level of trust. But it remains that skeptics do need to be constructive in their criticism (as Keenan was here), rather than going for the ad homs and strawman arguments. All this debate has done is to revise a small figure in the supporting data, not the core science of the theory.

The Guardian article also links to Jones' 2008 paper revising the Chinese UHI effect (to the 40% figure), and a link to another article supporting the view that this doesn't change the view on global temperature trends (I can't read it because the link isn't working on my computer - sorry!).

My New Year's wish would be for two things - 1) That everybody just reported the data, whether it favoured them or not - the theory then stands on the data rather than reputations or opinions - as an important scientifc theory it has to stand on the data and the underpinning mechanics, 2) People accept that changes happen without the whole edifice collapsing - that is also sound scientific practice.

That's enough for now!

sss

[noggin]

Just that the post was not intended to be antagonistic ... nothing more.

I see. Thank you.

[noggin]

Hey for once I agree wholeheartedly with what you say noggin! So long as it's actual 'new evidence' and not the usual nit-picking of minor details. New good quality data is always welcome. .

..................................................................................

My New Year's wish would be for two things - 1) That everybody just reported the data, whether it favoured them or not - the theory then stands on the data rather than reputations or opinions - as an important scientifc theory it has to stand on the data and the underpinning mechanics, 2) People accept that changes happen without the whole edifice collapsing - that is also sound scientific practice.

Good grief! :lol: I also agree with you, regarding those two wishes.

(I hope you don't mind me having cut your post down?)

I have said before (probably ad nauseum, as usual ) that there is an awful lot of common ground between the two "sides" (for want of a better word) and the way I see it is that both sides actually want the same outcome.......a cleaner and less polluted planet, less abuse of Earth's bounty and resources, and a cleaner and sustainable source of energy and power. I think we all want to go to the same place, but we take wholly different routes to get there, with different reasons for choosing those routes.

There has to be a solution, everyone must work together for the common good, but how is this to be brought about? :unsure:

[VillagePlank]

Well, the first step, I think, is to realise that the science of climatology is young. I don't know it's history intimately, but I would hazard a guess that it was some geek (not used as a derogatory term) playing around with his computer, and thought 'he'd give it a go' and created a climate model. The roots almost certainly were not constructed from reading scientific papers, designing the software, and then employing a team to implement it (how do we know this? - it's because such an endeavour would almost certainly eat up a decade of University cash)

Therefore, there will be holes. Holes for vehements to find and exploit. That you must go back 20 years (the much cited Professor Jones paper of 1990) to find any evidence of malpractice is telling. In 1990 even computer programming in and of itself as a profession was in it's infancy (DOS, Windows 3.11) That there were very few experts and probably less available to a fledgling climate science is, I think, important.

That is not to excuse bad scientific practices, however. But nevertheless, it must be remembered that a whole heap of software currently runs the worlds largest corporations, successfully, and most of it was written a very long time ago, by people who simply were not as skilled as a programmer by trade professional would be today. The key point is that this software is generally not maintainable and it's very expensive to modify it - along with much gnashing of teeth. I see no reason why the climate models are not in the same boat.

It would be better, in my opinion, to start again, from scratch (the throw software away rather than maintain it principle) in a completely open and transparent manner. Indeed, such a task, today, might take some years - but there'd be no wriggle room at all for either side of the debate. There would be no murk, nor innuendo to snide about.

Anyone know of any rich people who would fund such a project ....

Edited February 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[sunny starry skies]

Good grief! :lol: I also agree with you, regarding those two wishes.

(I hope you don't mind me having cut your post down?)

I have said before (probably ad nauseum, as usual ) that there is an awful lot of common ground between the two "sides" (for want of a better word) and the way I see it is that both sides actually want the same outcome.......a cleaner and less polluted planet, less abuse of Earth's bounty and resources, and a cleaner and sustainable source of energy and power. I think we all want to go to the same place, but we take wholly different routes to get there, with different reasons for choosing those routes.

There has to be a solution, everyone must work together for the common good, but how is this to be brought about? :unsure:

Ha ha, I do tend to witter on a bit sometimes ...

And you're right about the common ground. Sometimes it seems a bizarre argument as the solution from both sides is to reduce GHGs. The argument is primarily about the nature of the consequences if we don't.

VP I'd need to look into that issue. Having written a lot of code myself (as have you) I wonder about those assertions. Certainly there's a lot done in things like Fortran, and it's possible that code does last for a long time. However, I would be surprised indeed if the code for various climate models has not been updated significantly since the 1970s/1980s, as far greater sophistication has been written into them (say, with a more complex representation of the ocean or atmosphere) as computing power and our understanding has progressed. The result would be that I couldn't see how any of the original code would have survived, even if it was written in the same language! (and I don't know if that's the case or not) Mainly from a resolution, complexity point of view, it would require complete overhauling. The basic physical principles fed/coded into the models may stay the same, however...

But that's all pure conjecture, am just speaking my thoughts!

sss

[VillagePlank]

VP I'd need to look into that issue. Having written a lot of code myself (as have you) I wonder about those assertions. Certainly there's a lot done in things like Fortran, and it's possible that code does last for a long time. However, I would be surprised indeed if the code for various climate models has not been updated significantly since the 1970s/1980s, as far greater sophistication has been written into them (say, with a more complex representation of the ocean or atmosphere) as computing power and our understanding has progressed. The result would be that I couldn't see how any of the original code would have survived, even if it was written in the same language! (and I don't know if that's the case or not) Mainly from a resolution, complexity point of view, it would require complete overhauling. The basic physical principles fed/coded into the models may stay the same, however...

But that's all pure conjecture, am just speaking my thoughts!

As is mine!! I haven't seen the 'active' code, but seeing some IDL floating around is a little worrying. For instance - a major worry is that IDL doesn't support fixed floating point types (here) whereas Fortran does.

EDIT: Seems I am in error and it does .... elsewhere on the web.

Edited February 2, 2010 by VillagePlank