New Research

[Village]

I wonder how long it will be before a so called climate expert looks out of the window and finally realises that the climate hasnt changed one bit and comes with so called new research to state exactly that? Its taking them an awful long time to work out that our climate here is no different. Maybe they havent a clue at the end of the day.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Village

[Paul]

I can see it now, all climate science ends as a new method of looking out of a window to measure global changes in temperature is deemed to be the way forward.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://arstechnica.c...ck-behavior.ars

Looks like both storm tracks are moving north (trending that way at least) and we are seeing changes in the amount of cloudiness with high level (heat trapping) cirrus increases and low level (reflecting) decreases.

Some folk have been waiting for some guidance as to how this area of climate science would break down....it appears we are starting to discover just how it is. Sadly it is another 'worry' and not 'good news'.....what a surprise?

[jethro]

So climate models predict a poleward shift which thus far been undetected. New data from satellites is now available, the data has several known problems so the information was tweeked, tweeked and then tweeked again until it came up with a picture of something which may be happening and that has a passing resemblance to what the climate models predict.

I think the most important part of that article is "the paper is heavy on caveats here". And so it should be.

[Alan Robinson]

So climate models predict a poleward shift which thus far been undetected. New data from satellites is now available, the data has several known problems so the information was tweeked, tweeked and then tweeked again until it came up with a picture of something which may be happening and that has a passing resemblance to what the climate models predict.

I think the most important part of that article is "the paper is heavy on caveats here". And so it should be.

Provided it is not caveat emptor, with me as emptor, I shall not lose sleep over it.

[VillagePlank]

Solar Maximum that started c. 1920 is nearly over say researchers from Reading University.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14580995

The dirty evil rotten skeptics even dared suggest it might have some impact on climate when it finishes such as a climate similar to the Maunder Minimum.

[Methuselah]

I wonder how long it will be before a so called climate expert looks out of the window and finally realises that the climate hasnt changed one bit and comes with so called new research to state exactly that? Its taking them an awful long time to work out that our climate here is no different. Maybe they havent a clue at the end of the day.

Tell that to all the flora and fauna, that are clearly and demonstrably migrating pole-ward. Do they have a clue?

[knocker]

Newly discovered Icelandic current could change climate picture.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-08/nsf-ndi082311.php

[Alan Robinson]

Newly discovered Icelandic current could change climate picture.

http://www.eurekaler...f-ndi082311.php

That is an interesting report weather ship. Having read it and turned it over in my mind for a while, my first impression is just how little we actually know about the oceans, and that their exploration is both time-consuming and expensive.

[knocker]

That is an interesting report weather ship. Having read it and turned it over in my mind for a while, my first impression is just how little we actually know about the oceans, and that their exploration is both time-consuming and expensive.

Agreed and when you think of the vital role that the oceans play in the weather/climate scenario such as heat storage. heat transfer, CO2 cycles, etc, one has to doubt we'll ever understand fully what's going on. Not in my lifetime that's for sure. There is a fairly interesting book by Arnold H. Taylor published this year, The Dance of Air & Sea: how oceans, weather, & life link together. Quite a novel approach.

[Methuselah]

Now here's something???

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

[Alan Robinson]

Now here's something???

http://www.realclima...ly-interesting/

The BBC put a slightly different slant on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647

[Methuselah]

I'd guess that if CLOUD's findings (even marginally) lent support to the deniers' claims, then they would be on a rampfest already. From their silence, I can only assume that the findings are not going to do that much in the way of supporting the 'sceptical' viewpoint?

Only time will tell??

PS: Just came across this: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

[jethro]

I'd guess that if CLOUD's findings (even marginally) lent support to the deniers' claims, then they would be on a rampfest already. From their silence, I can only assume that the findings are not going to do that much in the way of supporting the 'sceptical' viewpoint?

Only time will tell??

I'm not aware that folk who are interested in the CERN experiments are deniers of anything. There is a world of difference between saying "we don't understand the contribution to climate that clouds have" and "AGW is hooey, it's the clouds/sun wot done it".

It really is extremely tiresome to be some years down the line in this debate and still have the same old, same old denier rubbish levelled at people who merely like to look at a more complete picture than the one we currently have. Personally, as a sceptic of everything we only have part knowledge of, I haven't had the time to look at the latest findings; to be honest, the impetus to do so and then comment is hardly made attractive when to do so only invites "denier", Perhaps this is why folk like me can't be bothered to comment on this latest information - a reflection upon the reception rather than the actual science.

[Methuselah]

I'm not aware that folk who are interested in the CERN experiments are deniers of anything. There is a world of difference between saying "we don't understand the contribution to climate that clouds have" and "AGW is hooey, it's the clouds/sun wot done it".

It really is extremely tiresome to be some years down the line in this debate and still have the same old, same old denier rubbish levelled at people who merely like to look at a more complete picture than the one we currently have. Personally, as a sceptic of everything we only have part knowledge of, I haven't had the time to look at the latest findings; to be honest, the impetus to do so and then comment is hardly made attractive when to do so only invites "denier", Perhaps this is why folk like me can't be bothered to comment on this latest information - a reflection upon the reception rather than the actual science.

I really wasn't suggesting they were, J (I've lost count of the number of times I've differentiated 'deniers' from true sceptics)...Anhyoo, there will be lots of claim and counter-claim, no doubt. Calder's views differ markedly from those of the beeb...

It's equally true that, to date, the pro-AGW lobby hasn't latched-on to anything either...

[Gray-Wolf]

(I've lost count of the number of times I've differentiated 'deniers' from true sceptics)

one has an enquiring mind the other minds people enquiring?

[jethro]

one has an enquiring mind the other minds people enquiring?

I awarded someone else an award for hypocrisy, I reckon who've just earned one too.

Sometimes I really do wonder why I bother coming on here at all.

[Gray-Wolf]

I awarded someone else an award for hypocrisy, I reckon who've just earned one too.

Sometimes I really do wonder why I bother coming on here at all.

Because we'd not be quite 'who we are' if we did not?

Sometimes the 'levity' aids with the gravity of it all J'?

P.S. Every year brings us closer to a trend that is an inescapable reality of the changes ongoing. Every year the 'proof' that so many questioners' need will be laid out plain before them in every increasing certainties. Be it through luck,pack nature or scientific reasoning some folk 'cotton on' to a notion sooner than others and it is no shame to be 'slower' in the uptake once doubt is removed from the quandary under scrutiny?

Edited August 27, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Stick to the science.

p.s patronising, sanctimony is no substitute.

[Alan Robinson]

I find many parallels between the trichotomy of warmers, deniers and skeptics on the one hand, and the silly trichotomy of people with faith, atheists, and agnostics.

The fact is neither atheism nor theism build upon proof, and both are a matter of belief. Agnostics on the other hand say simply that nothing is known, or is likely to be known about god(s). Apply this to climate and environment;

Believer; it is our fault the world is warming.

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; we can't say anything conclusive given the information on hand.

Believer; irreperable damage is being done, and it is all because of us

Atheist; no it isn't, and by the way the climate has been both hotter and cooler in the past than it is now

Agnostic; indications are it has been warmer and cooler in the past, but we know too little to be dogmatic

Believer; CO2 put out by us is causing the atmosphere to heat gradually

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; it is, but we don't know exactly how significant that warming is, because we do not understand other natural processes.

Need I continue? I am firmly in the agnostic camp, and - so I believe - is Jethro.

Oddly enough, in the heated debate over religion and atheism, people like Prof Dawkins have the nerve to claim that agnostics are just a wishy-washy kind of atheist. I should hate to think that in the climate debate, those promoting the AGW argument claim that skeptics are in fact deniers.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Iceni]

one has an enquiring mind the other minds people enquiring?

One has an enquiring mind and the other minds people enquiring so much that they conduct Pal reviews, won't share or lose raw data and form cabals in the attempt to stop new research being published?

Perhaps they will have to think up a different word for the insult, denier — we prefer to be called disCERNers from now on.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Iceni

[BornFromTheVoid]

I find many parallels between the trichotomy of warmers, deniers and skeptics on the one hand, and the silly trichotomy of people with faith, atheists, and agnostics.

The fact is neither atheism nor theism build upon proof, and both are a matter of belief. Agnostics on the other hand say simply that nothing is known, or is likely to be known about god(s). Apply this to climate and environment;

Believer; it is our fault the world is warming.

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; we can't say anything conclusive given the information on hand.

Believer; irreperable damage is being done, and it is all because of us

Atheist; no it isn't, and by the way the climate has been both hotter and cooler in the past than it is now

Agnostic; indications are it has been warmer and cooler in the past, but we know too little to be dogmatic

Believer; CO2 put out by us is causing the atmosphere to heat gradually

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; it is, but we don't know exactly how significant that warming is, because we do not understand other natural processes.

Need I continue? I am firmly in the agnostic camp, and - so I believe - is Jethro.

Oddly enough, in the heated debate over religion and atheism, people like Prof Dawkins have the nerve to claim that agnostics are just a wishy-washy kind of atheist. I should hate to think that in the climate debate, those promoting the AGW argument claim that skeptics are in fact deniers.

I don't know a single person that claims to know for a fact that there are no "higher" beings or purpose. The majority of people termed atheists simply believe that all the evidence points towards there being nothing after this life, but admit (as even Dawkins does) that there is the possibility of them being wrong, and consider themselves to be a small part agnostic.

Similarly, I don't know any person that believes in AGW so much so that they completely discount all natural cycles and other possibilities, there just going on the evidence presented. The difference with the skeptic/agnostic, as you grouped them at least, is that they don't believe the evidence is strong enough to make the claims made by the "believers".

Categorising people like this adds nothing but reinforcement to the segregation already prevalent in this debate.

[Gray-Wolf]

That is where it becomes odd BFTV. Most folk accept that we (humanity) are not the cleanest critters on the planet and must try harder to be more responsible in our use of the natural resources we crave (how many folk do we see promoting our trashing of the planet as a 'right'?). Being that we all accept that our 'needs' both take from the 'natural system' and add back into the natural system we must also accept that this will promote 'difference' (from a time when this did not occur) and it is merely our differing views on how critical our 'changes' are to life on earth (in general) and the human continuance in the numbers we see today across the globe today.

Pulling back further I get to a point where it is merely the 'scale' of human vs 'natural' that is the debate. either we have the capacity to wrought changes so great as to be damaging to our Oceans,Land surface and Atmosphere (and so damaging to all life dependant upon them) or our impacts , though bad, are greatly overshadowed by the 'natural' run of things and so pose no immediate threat.

We all know we are dirty and uncaring in our treatment of the planet (whether we dwell overly on this fact or not) but is this trait of ours something Mother N. will sweep under her rug or is it something that will damage Mum to the point she changes to help her deal with the hurt we have caused her?

Edited August 28, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest]

I find many parallels between the trichotomy of warmers, deniers and skeptics on the one hand, and the silly trichotomy of people with faith, atheists, and agnostics.

The fact is neither atheism nor theism build upon proof, and both are a matter of belief. Agnostics on the other hand say simply that nothing is known, or is likely to be known about god(s). Apply this to climate and environment;

Believer; it is our fault the world is warming.

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; we can't say anything conclusive given the information on hand.

Believer; irreperable damage is being done, and it is all because of us

Atheist; no it isn't, and by the way the climate has been both hotter and cooler in the past than it is now

Agnostic; indications are it has been warmer and cooler in the past, but we know too little to be dogmatic

Believer; CO2 put out by us is causing the atmosphere to heat gradually

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; it is, but we don't know exactly how significant that warming is, because we do not understand other natural processes.

Need I continue? I am firmly in the agnostic camp, and - so I believe - is Jethro.

Oddly enough, in the heated debate over religion and atheism, people like Prof Dawkins have the nerve to claim that agnostics are just a wishy-washy kind of atheist. I should hate to think that in the climate debate, those promoting the AGW argument claim that skeptics are in fact deniers.

Can you put me down for the deniers club then - I liken it to my previous life as a crime investigator - on one hand you have a detective who is open minded gathering evidence which eventually leads him to a conclusion - I normally found that if I was going along the correct path the evidence would dovetail better as the investigation progressed.

On the other hand you had the detective who would start off with a theory, then either consciously or subconsciously, choose the facts to fit his theory. It was not a satisfactory method of investigation because without considering all the facts he is not to know with any real certainty whether he is on the right course.

The investigation of climatic warming or cooling is much the same - in order to reach a proper balanced conclusion all the evidence on both sides needs to be examined. Now in this realm there is a lot of the evidence which I do not properly understand and it goes over my head but learn a little from time to time. So as far as I am personally concerned I do not know one way or the other, so continue to keep an open mind as I believe all scientists (who are after all investigators in different fields) should.

one has an enquiring mind the other minds people enquiring?

I think that this expression is quite apt. Edited August 28, 2011 by mike Meehan

[Guest]

I don't know a single person that claims to know for a fact that there are no "higher" beings or purpose. The majority of people termed atheists simply believe that all the evidence points towards there being nothing after this life, but admit (as even Dawkins does) that there is the possibility of them being wrong, and consider themselves to be a small part agnostic.

Similarly, I don't know any person that believes in AGW so much so that they completely discount all natural cycles and other possibilities, there just going on the evidence presented. The difference with the skeptic/agnostic, as you grouped them at least, is that they don't believe the evidence is strong enough to make the claims made by the "believers".

Categorising people like this adds nothing but reinforcement to the segregation already prevalent in this debate.

I wouldn't agree with this totally because if you go to the extremes you do have people who passionately beleive in man made global warming, some because they believe that they understand the science and others because they believe this scientist. On the other hand you get people who just as passionately disbelieve it. From hearing their different arguments, I, from the outside looking in, get the impression that each side is "cherry pickling" different items to support their view and sometimes it sound like making the facts fit the theory. I wouldn't view this as a sound policy for scientific investigation.

Then in between the extremes you have the majority of people who are not absolutely certain one way or the other, some favouring one side or the other and finally you do have people right in the middle who say that they do not have enough evidence to favour one side or the other, they just do not know.