In The News

[Jason T]

This article reported by the guardian,is it fact or fiction. To be brief we here so much about climate change and how the human race past and present life style is affecting our planet,BUT what no report will state is that maybe just maybe,our planets climate pattern runs in a cycle, To be honest do we have climate and weather data dating back past lets say 250 years,and if we did how acurate would this information be based on the technology achievements then,or could it be the plain case that the planet and mother nature are fighting back,As a human race we are using every available source to us from this planet and lately have been told we need to reform and give back what we take,maybe its a case of to little to late or its just the planets climate cycle and weather patterns....WHO KNOWS.

A tornado makes its way across Baca county, Colorado, in May 2010. Photograph: Willoughby Owen/Getty Images/FlickrDrought zones have been declared across much of England and Wales, yet Scotland has just registered its wettest-ever May. The warmest British spring in 100 years followed one of the coldest UK winters in 300 years. June in London has been colder than March. February was warm enough to strip on Snowdon, but last Saturday it snowed there.

Welcome to the climate rollercoaster, or what is being coined the "new normal" of weather. What was, until quite recently, predictable, temperate, mild and equable British weather, guaranteed to be warmish and wettish, ensuring green lawns in August, now sees the seasons reversed and temperature and rainfall records broken almost every year. When Kent receives as much rain (4mm) in May as Timbuktu, Manchester has more sunshine than Marbella, and soils in southern England are drier than those in Egypt, something is happening.

Sober government scientists at the centre for hydrology and ecology are openly using words like "remarkable", "unprecedented" and "shocking" to describe the recent physical state of Britain this year, but the extremes we are experiencing in 2011 are nothing to the scale of what has been taking place elsewhere recently.

Last year, more than 2m sq km of eastern Europe and Russia scorched. An extra 50,000 people died as temperatures stayed more than 6C above normal for many weeks, crops were devastated and hunderds of giant wild fires broke out. The price of wheat and other foods rose as two thirds of the continent experienced its hottest summer in around 500 years.

This year, it's western Europe's turn for a mega-heatwave, with 16 countries, including France, Switzerland and Germany (and Britain on the periphery), experiencing extreme dryness. The blame is being out on El Niño and La Niña, naturally occurring but poorly understood events that follow heating and cooling of the Pacific ocean near the equator, bringing floods and droughts.

Vast areas of Europe have received less than half the rainfall they would normally get in March, April and May, temperatures have been off the scale for the time of year, nuclear power stations have been in danger of having to be shut down because they need so much river water to cool them, and boats along many of Europe's main rivers have been grounded because of low flows. In the past week, the great European spring drought has broken in many places as massive storms and flash floods have left the streets of Germany and France running like rivers.

But for real extremes in 2011, look to Australia, China and the southern US these past few months. In Queeensland, Australia, an area the size of Germany and France was flooded in December and January in what was called the country's "worst natural disaster". It cost the economy up to A$30bn (£19.5bn), devastated livelihoods and is still being cleaned up.

In China, a "once-in-a-100-years" drought in southern and central regions has this year dried up hundreds of reservoirs, rivers and water courses, evaporating drinking supplies and stirring up political tensions. The government responded with a massive rain-making operation, firing thousands of rockets to "seed" clouds with silver iodide and other chemicals. It may have worked: for whatever reason, the heavens opened last week, a record 30cm of rain fell in some places in 24 hours, floods and mudslides killed 94 people, and tens of thousands of people have lost their homes.

Meanwhile, north America's most deadly and destructive tornado season ever saw 600 "twisters" in April alone, and 138 people killed in Joplin, Missouri, by a mile-wide whirlwind. Arizonans were this week fighting some of the largest wildfires they have known, and the greatest flood in recorded US history is occurring along sections of the Missouri river. This is all taking place during a deepening drought in Texas and other southern states – the eighth year of "exceptional" drought there in the past 12 years.

"I don't know how much more we can take," says John Butcher, a peanut and cotton farmer near Lubbock, Texas. "It's dry like we have never seen it before. I don't remember anything like this. We may lose everything."

The impacts of extreme weather are greater in poorer countries, which this week are trying to secure a climate deal in the resumed talks in Bonn. In Mexico, the temperature peaked at 48.8C (119.8F) in April, the warmest anywhere in the world that month, and nearly half the country is now affected by drought. There have already been 9,000 wildfires, and the biggest farm union says that more than 3.5 million farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy because they cannot feed their cattle or grow crops.

"We are being battered by the adverse impacts of climate change," says a negotiator for the G77 group of developing countries who wants to remain anonymous. "Frontline states face a double crunch of climate heat and poverty. But the rich countries still will not give us the cash they promised to adapt or reduce their emissions."

Wherever you look, the climate appears to be in overdrive, with stronger weather patterns gripping large areas for longer and events veering between extremes. Last year, according to US meteorologist Jeff Masters, who co-founded leading climate tracker website Weather Underground, 17 countries experienced record temperatures. Colombia, the Amazon basin, Peru, Cuba, Kenya, Somalia and many other countries have all registered far more or less rainfall or major heatwaves in the past few years, he says. Temperatures in Bangladesh have been near record highs, leaving at least 26 people dead in the past week; Kuwait has seen temperatures in excess of 50C and Rajasthan in India 49.6C, while parts of Canada, including Toronto, have been sizzling at a record 33C.

Rich countries may be more or less immune in the short term because the global trading system guarantees food and access to electricity allows air conditioning, but in parts of Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, millions of people this year have little or no food left after successive poor rainy seasons. Last week, international aid agencies warned of an impending disaster.

Sceptics argue that there have always been droughts and floods, freak weather, heatwaves and temperature extremes, but what concerns most climate scientists and observers is that the extreme weather events are occurring more frequently, their intensity is growing and the trends all suggest long-term change as greenhouse gases steadily build in the atmosphere.

Killer droughts and heatwaves, deeper snowfalls, more widespread floods, heavier rains, and temperature extremes are now the "new normal", says Nikhil da Victoria Lobo of the giant insurance firm Swiss Re, which last month estimated losses from natural disasters have risen from about $25bn a year in the 1980s to $130bn a year today. "Globally, what we're seeing is more volatility," he says.

People in the most affected areas are certainly not waiting for climate scientists to confirm climate change is happening before they adapt. In Nepal, where the rain is heavier than before, flat roofs are giving way to pitched roofs, and villagers in the drought-prone Andes are building reservoirs and changing crops to survive.

New analysis of natural disasters in 140 countries shows that climate is becoming more extreme. Last month, Oxfam reported that while the number of "geo-physical" disasters – such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – has remained more or less constant, those caused by flooding and storms have increased from around 133 a year in 1980s to more than 350 a year now.

"It is abundantly clear that weather-related disasters have been increasing in some of the world's poorest countries and this increase cannot be explained fully by better ways of counting them," says Steve Jennings, the report's author. "Whichever way you look at the figures, there is a significant rise in the number of weather-related disasters. They have been increasing and are set to get worse as climate change further intensifies natural hazards.

"I think that global 'weirding' is the best way to describe what we're seeing. We are used to certain conditions and there's a lot going on these days that is not what we're used to, that is outside our current frame of reference," says climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University.

New trends have been emerging for a decade or more, says the UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). "In Europe, a clear trend is emerging towards drier springs. This year's drought follows exceptionally dry years in 2007, 2009 and 2010," says a spokesman.

While no scientist will blame climate change for any specific weather event, many argue that these phenomena are textbook examples of the kind of impact that can be expected in a warming world. Natural events, such as La Niña and El Niño, are now being exacerbated by the background warming of the world, they say.

"It is almost impossible for us to pinpoint specific events . . . and say they were caused by climate change," says William Chameides, atmospheric scientist at Duke University, who was vice-chair of a US government-funded national research council study on the climate options for the US which reported last month. "On the other hand, we do know that because of climate change those kinds of events will very, very likely become more common, more frequent, more intense. So what we can say is that these kinds of events that we are seeing are consistent with climate change."

He is backed strongly in Europe. "We have to get accustomed to such extreme weather conditions, as climate change intensifies," says Friedrich-Wilhelm Gerstengarbe, assistant director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. "Heavy storms and inundations will happen in northern Germany twice or three times as frequently as in the past."

"We've always had El Niños and natural variability, but the background which is now operating is different. [La Niña and El Niño] are now happening in a hotter world [which means more moisture in the atmosphere]," David Jones, head of climate monitoring and prediction at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne told Reuters after the Queeensland floods.

David Barriopedro, a researcher at Lisbon University's Instituto Dom Luiz, last month compared last year's European heatwave with the one that struck in 2003 and calculated that the probability of a European summer experiencing a "mega-heatwave" will increase by a factor of five to 10 within the next 40 years if the warming trends continue. "This kind of event will become more common," he says. "Mega-heatwaves are going to be more frequent and more intense in the future."

But there may be some respite coming from extreme weather because the El Niño/La Niña episodes are now fading fast, according to the WMO. "The weather pattern, blamed for extremely heavy downpours in Australia, southeast Asia and South America over late 2010 and early 2011, is unlikely to redevelop in the middle of 2011," it advises. "Looking ahead beyond mid-year 2011, there are currently no clear indications for enhanced risk of El Niño or La Niña in the second half of the year"

The WMO concludes, tentatively, that global weather will now return to something approaching normal. The trouble is, no one is too sure what normal is any more.

Edited June 25, 2011 by silver line

[UV-RAY]

What as been noticeable in the NH is a buckling of the Jet system, which has allowed High pressure cells to extend their influence around the arctic basin. If we look back over four years ago then we can see how in the NH the jets moved poleward, this was predicted to be the case by climate modelling, which in a warming world the jets would continue to move poleward. Something though changed around 4 years ago, the jet system in the NH started to dig south towards the equator, this wasn't in the script of climate modeller's, they was adamant that the jet would continue it's poleward migration.

It's only in the last 18 months that mainstream climate scientist have done an about turn and admitted how solar activity could be responsible for this, so how come they hadn't been able to model this scenario before now? Solar activity and it's effects on our climate are still not fully understood, mainstream climate scientist still don't accept how cosmic rays play such an important part in how they seed clouds. You have to look at the works of mavericks like Henrik Svensmark whose theory on cosmic rays was debunked by the so called professionals a few years back.

What does the future hold, well no one knows for sure without having a crystal ball, but all the current signs point to more extremes of weather.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Seven of Nine

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2010-hi-rez.pdf

So even with a nina for 1/2 the year Ocean temps were in the highest 3!!! that seems quite a feat (or am I missing something?)

For those with a little slack time the report is well worth a read!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E7I426B20110704?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

If we accept the impact of mans emmisions through the 40's to the 70's then this is quite a worry? Folk have been saying that the developing nations (post the collapse of the USSR) would help slow global warming but that the GHG's would remain a problem for over 100yrs whereas the 'cleanup' of the industries in the developing world would mean that the Sulphur dropped out over a 7 year period.

With us supposedly in a PDO-ve period and othe 'cool drivers' mooted to be taking effect (low solar etc) we may find ourselves more shocked with the rate of temp increases than we were when the developed nations cleaned up their acts after the Acid rain issues.

[Gowon]

There has been no global temperature increase since 1998.

And this is their excuse;

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3373-global-warming-standstill-confirmed-but-how-long-will-it-last.html

http://thegwpf.org/

[UV-RAY]

There has been no global temperature increase since 1998.

And this is their excuse;

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

http://thegwpf.org/t...ll-it-last.html

http://thegwpf.org/

Now that's quite comical if they wasn't being serious.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.timesofoman.com/featuredetail.asp?fid=924

As the above highlights ,the timing for the 'Greening' of the developing worlds energy/industrial production, could not be worse. The 'rebound' from the globally dimmed period in the 80's was bad enough but the scale of the problem with the brown coal/shale oil means that any 'clean air acts they implement would co-incide with both the melting permafrosts and the generally increased GHG levels already aloft.

[johnholmes]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this item but I'm not allowed to start a new topic so admin/mods please feel free to put it in another part if necessary?

Our evolving climate

The title of a very good article in the July issue of Weather by R Met Soc.

Well worth trying to get your local library to get a copy if you are not a member of R Met Soc.

It explains how there is variability inlaid within the overall climate change. The suggestion is that this needs a better explanation than is currently given to the general public. In a number of graphs it illustrates how this variability can cause considerable decadal changes in the rate of rise of the temperature. This seems especially so for Europe and the UK.

I doubt they will allow it but I will approach R Met Soc to see if I can copy the article into here.

[jethro]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this item but I'm not allowed to start a new topic so admin/mods please feel free to put it in another part if necessary?

Our evolving climate

The title of a very good article in the July issue of Weather by R Met Soc.

Well worth trying to get your local library to get a copy if you are not a member of R Met Soc.

It explains how there is variability inlaid within the overall climate change. The suggestion is that this needs a better explanation than is currently given to the general public. In a number of graphs it illustrates how this variability can cause considerable decadal changes in the rate of rise of the temperature. This seems especially so for Europe and the UK.

I doubt they will allow it but I will approach R Met Soc to see if I can copy the article into here.

Yes please John. If you get permission, I'll open a new topic for it.

[Village]

All these reports are wild, inacurate and simply speculative make-believe.

The truth is that there are always extremes in the weather, there always has been extreme weather events and there always will be. The whole of history is littered with records and stories of flood, drought, torrential rain, snow etc etc. The meteorological office has good records dating back hundreds of years and they clearly support that our weather is no more extreme.

In fact, the truth is that the last ten thousand years has been reltively stable right across the globe and there are no signs of a change in this stable period. Everything else is purely speculative and not supported by any conclusive evidence whatsoever.

[jethro]

Apparently the BBC is set to publish a report tomorrow on its science output announcing changes to rules on impartiality. In cases where there is a widely held scientific view, the BBC shouldn't give airtime to critics of the consensus.

One BBC executive, who has seen the report, told the Telegraph: 'It is about recognising when the debate has moved on beyond whether a theory is true or not, and on to what we do about it.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016299/Climate-change-sceptics-BBC-coverage-challenged-vigorously-corporation-body-rule.html#ixzz1SXOLheRk

Anyone else feel uneasy about this decision? Surely this isn't so much a decision based on impartiality but more of a censorship issue?

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyone else feel uneasy about this decision? Surely this isn't so much a decision based on impartiality but more of a censorship issue?

Unless you feel there is some kind of global conspiracy of scientists 'pushing' Climate change then where is the issue?

Coal/oil money may give the denialists a bigger bite of the media cherry than is proportional to their numbers but any 'impartial, Govt funded' broadcaster should be ,in the least giving a weight equal to size of the movement? I read that over 90% of all scientists are in agreement with the basic remit for AGW and that less than 1% are in active opposition so why not allow the public to see this picture instead of the 50/50 split we see today (which to me appears vastly unfair/misleading).

The sooner the general public are comfortable with the science (as it stands) and the risks that are involved with B.A.U. the better?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718092220.htm

We are already at the point where melt has overtaken thermal expansion in the year on year increases but it looks as though we may not have quite got the amount of 'melt' we are to expect from the warming we have committed too?

[jethro]

Unless you feel there is some kind of global conspiracy of scientists 'pushing' Climate change then where is the issue?

Coal/oil money may give the denialists a bigger bite of the media cherry than is proportional to their numbers but any 'impartial, Govt funded' broadcaster should be ,in the least giving a weight equal to size of the movement? I read that over 90% of all scientists are in agreement with the basic remit for AGW and that less than 1% are in active opposition so why not allow the public to see this picture instead of the 50/50 split we see today (which to me appears vastly unfair/misleading).

The sooner the general public are comfortable with the science (as it stands) and the risks that are involved with B.A.U. the better?

The issue IMO is that the BBC is supposed to be working for the public; via the licensing fee, we all own a chunk of it. It is not the job of the BBC to decide what science is correct, their job is to report what science there is - all of it.

Imagine applying the same rules to any other minority. whether that be religious, race, gender, sexuality (the list is endless) on the basis that the majority of the population aren't of that minority so we don't have to give them a voice. It's just another example of legalised bigotry and censorship.

The role of the BBC is to report the world as it is, not try to change the world by refusing to give certain sections a voice.

A more appropriate view from the BBC should (IMO) be in-line with Voltaire:

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[Methuselah]

But, surely 'working for the public' (in a science context) should include weeding-out those whose contributions are partial and science-free? Quite why the scientifically-illiterate ramblings of the likes of Littlejohn and Clarkson et al are allowed to masquerade as scientific is beyond me...? They have their respective tabloid opinion columns for airing their politically- and/or financially-motivated invective, do they not? Why should BBC science programmes be giving them the kind of credibility they do not deserve?

IMO, so long as the Beeb doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater (genuinely sceptical scientists), I'll be quite happy to see some exclusion...

[jethro]

But, surely 'working for the public' (in a science context) should include weeding-out those whose contributions are partial and science-free? Quite why the scientifically-illiterate ramblings of the likes of Littlejohn and Clarkson et al are allowed to masquerade as scientific is beyond me...? They have their respective tabloid opinion columns for airing their politically- and/or financially-motivated invective, do they not? Why should BBC science programmes be giving them the kind of credibility they do not deserve?

IMO, so long as the Beeb doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater (genuinely sceptical scientists), I'll be quite happy to see some exclusion...

Since when has stifling debate been good for anyone? Those with views who simply seek publicity can be weeded out by exposing the holes in their argument.

How do you know that those you class as genuine sceptical scientists won't be stifled too, according to this article and quote from a BBC executive, the debate has moved on to what to do about AGW rather than the validity of the theory.

The trouble with agreeing to censorship or bigotry on the basis that you personally hold those views too, is all well and good until those same censorship rules are then applied to something you disagree with. If the BBC are allowed to decide they can apply this rule based on 'consensus views' , they can apply it to anything - that is not their role.

[Methuselah]

Since when has stifling debate been good for anyone? Those with views who simply seek publicity can be weeded out by exposing the holes in their argument.

How do you know that those you class as genuine sceptical scientists won't be stifled too, according to this article and quote from a BBC executive, the debate has moved on to what to do about AGW rather than the validity of the theory.

The trouble with agreeing to censorship or bigotry on the basis that you personally hold those views too, is all well and good until those same censorship rules are then applied to something you disagree with. If the BBC are allowed to decide they can apply this rule based on 'consensus views' , they can apply it to anything - that is not their role.

But, if we allowed equal airtime to anyone with a differing opinion, however deluded, no-one would ever come to any decisions about anything...Maybe that's their idea, I don't know. But, do we really want to end-up like the USA, where creationist hogwash has to be taught alongside evolution in schools, and where adults still believe that The Flintstones is a documentary.

Personally, I would welcome a return to the days when you could rely on the fact (at least with a measure of confidence) that the 'scientist' on the TV is in fact a real one, and not just a sock puppet for one 'vested interest' or another. Aren't there already more than enough dumbed-down commercial media outlets?

Another thing with all these often foolhardy attempts to appear 'impartial' at all cost is that time is limited...Must a televised lecture on allopatric speciation be always followed by a two-hour 'rebuttal' by a Jimmy Swaggart clone in the interest of balance? I just think that, as in every other walk of life, someone (I don't know who) should be trusted to separate the wheat from the chaff...Oh dear, that last word has reminded me of Greenpeace. :blush:

[Gray-Wolf]

" to separate the wheat from the chaff."

..Oh dear, that last word has reminded me of Greenpeace. :blush:

Had me all C.S.N. "Almost cut my hair".....?

I do find it irksome to have to hear a counterpoint to some things yet the rest be 'reported' as is?

I moan enough on here about how 'misleading' it is to someone new to climate science to have grounded science permanently rebutted by fringe 'what ifs' as though they carried the same weight as the data?

I reassure myself that this is the price we pay for modern communication and that ,in the end, we will all be witness to the 'truth'?

[jethro]

But, if we allowed equal airtime to anyone with a differing opinion, however deluded, no-one would ever come to any decisions about anything...Maybe that's their idea, I don't know. But, do we really want to end-up like the USA, where creationist hogwash has to be taught alongside evolution in schools, and where adults still believe that The Flintstones is a documentary.

Personally, I would welcome a return to the days when you could rely on the fact (at least with a measure of confidence) that the 'scientist' on the TV is in fact a real one, and not just a sock puppet for one 'vested interest' or another. Aren't there already more than enough dumbed-down commercial media outlets?

Another thing with all these often foolhardy attempts to appear 'impartial' at all cost is that time is limited...Must a televised lecture on allopatric speciation be always followed by a two-hour 'rebuttal' by a Jimmy Swaggart clone in the interest of balance? I just think that, as in every other walk of life, someone (I don't know who) should be trusted to separate the wheat from the chaff...Oh dear, that last word has reminded me of Greenpeace. :blush:

In the game of climate change, you don't need to be deluded; you merely need to be labelled a denier for questioning part of the theory or trying to augment the theory. According to the BBC, the consensus is in, the theory no longer needs to be debated, and all that is left to talk about are the impacts of climate change and what we're going to do about it.

Choose your crackpot denier time.....Henrik Svensmark, Physicist at the Danish National Space Centre. Had a theory that Cosmic Rays may be contributing to climate change, his ideas were trashed repeatedly, papers were published and peer reviewed that showed he was wrong. Should he have been allowed a voice on the BBC or not? He’s eminently qualified but publicly supported by Nigel Calder, Calder's been dismissed as a loon, would he have been banned from commenting on the BBC even though he was reporting the research of a seriously qualified scientist? How about now? The press release from CERN a few months back suggested that Svensmark theory may be onto something, the full report is due out any day. The chap in charge at CERN had this to say on the matter

This is indeed a matter of understanding better the formation of clouds. In nature there are many parameters at work – including temperature, humidity, impurities and also cosmic radiation. In the experiment, CLOUD investigates the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, using radiation [meaning particles] coming from the accelerator. And in an experimental chamber one can study, under controlled conditions, how the formation of droplets depends on the radiation and particulate matter. The results will be published shortly. I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

In essence, it is perfectly acceptable to study in the isolation of the lab the impact of CO2 on climate, it is also acceptable to study via computer models how this will impact climate – (the same controlled conditions used for the CLOUD experiment) and those results can be interpreted the world over, even though they suffer from the same short-comings of “In nature there are many parameters at workâ€.

If that’s not a double standard, I don’t know what is.

What about Roy Spencer? Again, eminently qualified. Again, widely dismissed as a denier. He’s just had a new paper accepted for publication showing exactly why the refutation of his earlier work was wrong. Spencer is working on the problem of clouds and their role in climate – possibly the most important unknown (according to the IPCC) – would he be heard at the BBC whilst they’re moving on with their “we know all we need to know†policy.

How about Lockwood – not even a denier or sceptic. Consensus was that the warm winters we’ve had in recent years were due to pressure belts moving Northwards, this move was due to climate change and increasing temperatures in the Tropics. Lockwood’s recent paper shows that that presumption was wrong, the greatest influence upon pressure belts is actually Solar. Would he be heard at the BBC or would they stick with the earlier (but wrong) research?

How about the Solar problem? The official prediction was for cycle 24 to be a mega cycle. Some crackpot scientists said “erm, actually we think we’re going into a deep prolonged minimum, excuse me Mr. Hansen but are you sure about your facts?†Hansen was adamant, the official line was certain; we were in for a rough ride with mega solar storms. How many revisions, how many years did it take before the final acceptance that the official prediction was way off beam? Let’s not forget that the official prediction is based on a consensus of scientific opinion.

I would have thought the Lysenko disaster would have taught folk that consensus and regimented, allowed scientific opinion was a really, really silly road to go down.

Edited July 19, 2011 by jethro
I have no idea why some of this is in bold but I didn't press the button and I can't make it go away!

[Gray-Wolf]

Should I find I had cancer and a consensus plan for treatment was offered would I be best advised to follow the consensus (of learned experts) or try and find my own treatment plan based on my own 'gening up' on the subject?

[jethro]

Should I find I had cancer and a consensus plan for treatment was offered would I be best advised to follow the consensus (of learned experts) or try and find my own treatment plan based on my own 'gening up' on the subject?

You wouldn't be deliberately missing the point and resorting to emotive, utterly non related drivel in order to obstruct and divert attention away from the points I've raised, now would you?

How about actually addressing the issue by answering the questions I asked. Select a crackpot from the examples I've given, they'd all be denied a voice by the BBC.

[Methuselah]

In the game of climate change, you don't need to be deluded; you merely need to be labelled a denier for questioning part of the theory or trying to augment the theory. According to the BBC, the consensus is in, the theory no longer needs to be debated, and all that is left to talk about are the impacts of climate change and what we're going to do about it.

Choose your crackpot denier time.....Henrik Svensmark, Physicist at the Danish National Space Centre. Had a theory that Cosmic Rays may be contributing to climate change, his ideas were trashed repeatedly, papers were published and peer reviewed that showed he was wrong. Should he have been allowed a voice on the BBC or not? He’s eminently qualified but publicly supported by Nigel Calder, Calder's been dismissed as a loon, would he have been banned from commenting on the BBC even though he was reporting the research of a seriously qualified scientist? How about now? The press release from CERN a few months back suggested that Svensmark theory may be onto something, the full report is due out any day. The chap in charge at CERN had this to say on the matter

This is indeed a matter of understanding better the formation of clouds. In nature there are many parameters at work – including temperature, humidity, impurities and also cosmic radiation. In the experiment, CLOUD investigates the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, using radiation [meaning particles] coming from the accelerator. And in an experimental chamber one can study, under controlled conditions, how the formation of droplets depends on the radiation and particulate matter. The results will be published shortly. I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

In essence, it is perfectly acceptable to study in the isolation of the lab the impact of CO2 on climate, it is also acceptable to study via computer models how this will impact climate – (the same controlled conditions used for the CLOUD experiment) and those results can be interpreted the world over, even though they suffer from the same short-comings of “In nature there are many parameters at workâ€.

If that’s not a double standard, I don’t know what is.

What about Roy Spencer? Again, eminently qualified. Again, widely dismissed as a denier. He’s just had a new paper accepted for publication showing exactly why the refutation of his earlier work was wrong. Spencer is working on the problem of clouds and their role in climate – possibly the most important unknown (according to the IPCC) – would he be heard at the BBC whilst they’re moving on with their “we know all we need to know†policy.

How about Lockwood – not even a denier or sceptic. Consensus was that the warm winters we’ve had in recent years were due to pressure belts moving Northwards, this move was due to climate change and increasing temperatures in the Tropics. Lockwood’s recent paper shows that that presumption was wrong, the greatest influence upon pressure belts is actually Solar. Would he be heard at the BBC or would they stick with the earlier (but wrong) research?

How about the Solar problem? The official prediction was for cycle 24 to be a mega cycle. Some crackpot scientists said “erm, actually we think we’re going into a deep prolonged minimum, excuse me Mr. Hansen but are you sure about your facts?†Hansen was adamant, the official line was certain; we were in for a rough ride with mega solar storms. How many revisions, how many years did it take before the final acceptance that the official prediction was way off beam? Let’s not forget that the official prediction is based on a consensus of scientific opinion.

I would have thought the Lysenko disaster would have taught folk that consensus and regimented, allowed scientific opinion was a really, really silly road to go down.

But, I doubt very much that they would be excluded, J. And I certainly don't believe that they should be. But, anyway, the Solar Cycle 24 thing has no impact on whether CO₂ is a GHG or whether glaciers are retreating, barring a few well-documented exceptions, worldwide...And, anyhoo, even Corbyn's been given airtime on Horizon.

My point is this: if only, say, 1% of respected CLIMATE scientists are dyed-in-the-wool AGW sceptics, then they should be allowed only 1% of the available airtime...It's not their views that I'm bothered about, it's that the apparent weight of their claims is grossly inflated by political correctness...IMO, if a consensus indeed exists, then make sure that that consensus is acknowledged...

Either that, or announce the other 44 'sceptics' required (for balance?) as what they are: paid members of the fossil fuel industry's PR wing?

You wouldn't be deliberately missing the point and resorting to emotive, utterly non related drivel in order to obstruct and divert attention away from the points I've raised, now would you?

How about actually addressing the issue by answering the questions I asked. Select a crackpot from the examples I've given, they'd all be denied a voice by the BBC.

But you know, as well as I do, J, that those people you cite are not 'crackpots'; they are reputable scientists. If you'd listed Clarkson, Littlejohn, Monckton or Swampy, who are no-more than hired gobs, I'd agree with you...But then, IMO, such people should be at least muzzled anyway...

PS: I've read Calder's and Svensmark's and I agree with your appraisal of it. I too am looking forward to what the CLOUD experiments yield...

[jethro]

He is understood to find no evidence of bias in the corporation’s output, but suggests that on issues where there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR jab and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.

But a BBC insider close to the report said that when an issue had moved from ‘hypothesis’ to ‘consensus’, the broadcaster now needed to reflect that in the weight it gave to the different sides of the debate.

‘It doesn’t mean those opposing the [mainstream] view will not be heard, but to be impartial, they would be given less weight. It is about not getting a false balance.’

Another corporation source said: ‘When there is a clear consensus, we don’t need to put the other side.

The people I listed are reputable scientists, that's why I chose them. This new policy doesn't make a distinction between reputable scientists and media loving fools; the policy change is based on consensus and no need to discuss the theory further, move on to discussing the impacts.

Science isn't based on mainstream views nor consensus, it is based on facts - it's a discipline not an exercise in popularity.

All of the scientists I listed and their recent research goes counter to the consensus, all of their research could have notable impact upon future climate and modelling. The criteria set out by the BBC would offer no reasonable means to assume those scientists would be heard; IMO that's ludicrous. The value of the science and whether or not it should be given air time should be based upon it's importance to the discipline of Climate Science and the contribution it makes to furthering our understanding - NOT on whether or not it supports the consensus.

The Solar issue is important. I was not saying "the Solar output is to blame for warming", I make no reference to it's contribution (or otherwise) to climate change. I was showing how a "consensus view" can fall flat on it's a**e - it makes not a jot of difference how many people agree, that's not how science works.

[noggin]

I moan enough on here about how 'misleading' it is to someone new to climate science to have grounded science permanently rebutted by fringe 'what ifs' as though they carried the same weight as the data?

I reassure myself that this is the price we pay for modern communication and that ,in the end, we will all be witness to the 'truth'?

Hi, Wolfie.

Re your first sentence. Do you not think it is sensible to let all "sides" have a say? Without it, we would surely all be "under the cosh" and would end up as some sort of drones, just doing what we are ordered to and hearing only that which the powers-that-be want us to hear? Crikey, we wouldn't have our own minds anymore. We would be repressed. Gosh, take away that freedom and where would we end up if we dared to say what we think? Well, we know from history don't we........and it ain't pretty.

Re your second sentence. Yep, time will tell!

[Methuselah]

He is understood to find no evidence of bias in the corporation’s output, but suggests that on issues where there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR jab and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.

But a BBC insider close to the report said that when an issue had moved from ‘hypothesis’ to ‘consensus’, the broadcaster now needed to reflect that in the weight it gave to the different sides of the debate.

‘It doesn’t mean those opposing the [mainstream] view will not be heard, but to be impartial, they would be given less weight. It is about not getting a false balance.’

Another corporation source said: ‘When there is a clear consensus, we don’t need to put the other side.

The people I listed are reputable scientists, that's why I chose them. This new policy doesn't make a distinction between reputable scientists and media loving fools; the policy change is based on consensus and no need to discuss the theory further, move on to discussing the impacts.

Science isn't based on mainstream views nor consensus, it is based on facts - it's a discipline not an exercise in popularity.

All of the scientists I listed and their recent research goes counter to the consensus, all of their research could have notable impact upon future climate and modelling. The criteria set out by the BBC would offer no reasonable means to assume those scientists would be heard; IMO that's ludicrous. The value of the science and whether or not it should be given air time should be based upon it's importance to the discipline of Climate Science and the contribution it makes to furthering our understanding - NOT on whether or not it supports the consensus.

The Solar issue is important. I was not saying "the Solar output is to blame for warming", I make no reference to it's contribution (or otherwise) to climate change. I was showing how a "consensus view" can fall flat on it's a**e - it makes not a jot of difference how many people agree, that's not how science works.

As usual, Dawn...After playing Devil's Advocate, I have lost sight of most of our points of disagreement.

Maybe I should do a thread about 'dumbing down' instead??

[jethro]

So long as you don't lose the will to live, we'll be ok.

Morning Val, good to see you back!