In The News

[Gray-Wolf]

Could you not just view 'consensus' as a by product of the broad agreement (in data) of the multiple 'arms' of climate science?

If so many differing study areas all seem to arrive at a similar conclusion as to the 'extra' driving force behind the observed changes in their chosen study area then we see 'consensus'. I do not believe it was 'intentional' for this to occur but surely it's 'occurrence' carries added weight to each separate study?

As for your dismissal of my original analogy? Does anyone else share this view with you?

Current fact is current fact and healthy scepticism seeks to explore any alternate pathways to the observed facts or seek out any flaws in the methodology of the team producing the paper?

Anything else is too Monty P. for belief! (was this the 5 minute argument or the full 20 mins?)

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!

Hi Nogg's !, long time no sea (ice).

The alternate views are not in dispute (I think?) just the balancing act that the Beeb used to have to perform with each new scientific discovery that folk studying climate confirm?

For the average Joe watching their daily 'news-bite' having the 'news' brought to them only to have obfuscation provided by a personal view by some no-mark or other posing as 'the alternate view' (Mr HIV/Malaria/common cold curing Monkton et-al) is misleading at best and unfair to the viewer at worst?

[pottyprof]

is misleading at best and unfair to the viewer at worst?

But isn't showing something as fact when it is just a theory just as misleading? Provided the coverage covers all current thinking, then that would be fair. Obviously the general feeling is that AGW is a major player but shouldn't it be pointed out that it is just a general feeling rather than the fact that it is promoted as??

[Alan Robinson]

I cannot comprehend that the BBC intends to stifle scientific debate. They must cut significant costs, and it seems fairly obvious to me that they will put forward all manner of explanation in order to justify spending less. The fact is that science is not such a crowd-puller as Eastenders, so the costs of producing science coverage are more likely to be cut. If the public wanted more science on the BBC it would be in the BBC's own interests to deliver it.

In any case, the BBC's proposed non-coverage of controversial views does not constitute censorship and does not stifle debate. We still have Speaker's Corner. This simply indicates that the Corporation is not the ultimate source of reliable information that some previously held it to be.

[Methuselah]

Maybe the Beeb needs to employ a panel of independent scientists, as adjudicators? It's quite clear that some of what's passed-off as science - isn't...If they [the BBC] weren't so obsessed with providing umpteen channels of worthless fluff, then maybe, just maybe, there'd be room left for weightier issues...

But, I still hold to my previous assertion, that the likes of Monckton, Clarkson, Littlejohn and Swampy, should be excluded from any scientific debate...Political debate? Now that's another thing altogether!

[pottyprof]

But, I still hold to my previous assertion, that the likes of Monckton, Clarkson, Littlejohn and Swampy, should be excluded from any scientific debate...Political debate? Now that's another thing altogether!

Totally agree Pete. Most of the main media miss the political point of debate and it does need exploring. I think it could open a real can of worms... Bring it on!!

[Methuselah]

And now, it appears that 'His Lordship' in fact isn't...Oh dear, what some folks'll do to keep their names in the Press!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

[VillagePlank]

And now, it appears that 'His Lordship' in fact isn't...Oh dear, what some folks'll do to keep their names in the Press!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

: good:

It's about time this chap stopped what he's doing.

[jethro]

And now, it appears that 'His Lordship' in fact isn't...Oh dear, what some folks'll do to keep their names in the Press!

http://www.guardian....ber-house-lords

He's still a Lord but not all Lords have the right to vote in the House of Lords - it's really a protocol issue. Seems he likes to use his moniker to impress his USA audience, they lap up aristocracy/royal links with a relish. He likes to infer that being a Lord gives his argument extra gravitas, plus he has a right to vote against legislation - it doesn't and he hasn't, agree with Sparticle, it's about time his nonsense was stopped, he does irreparable harm to the sceptic side of this debate.

[Methuselah]

You're right there, J. The sad thing is that, like Greenpeace, they delude themselves...

[VillagePlank]

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?

Data is useless. It's just a bunch of numbers, and it carries absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt zero weight. As it is, it is utterly and completely worthless.

What does carry weight is the interpretation of data. Now, I am certain that you might claim to be able to look at arctic ice data and provide a reasonably scientific interpretation of such data. This is, of course, complete utter rubbish because all human beings suffer from something called confirmation bias - ie you will only see (and you and I and everyone else) what you want to see. We can't help it. We are human.

So what to do? Well, when we create a scientific theory we do this in respect of (in quantitative terms) hypothesises(sp?). The first hypothesis - what you call a 'counterpoint' - is called the null-hypothesis which is the default position. In this case that might be that this is all natural. The second hypothesis - the alternate hypothesis - is the theory that is encumbent on the theoriser to prove.

These two come in pairs. You destroy the null-hypothesis you do not have a scientific theory. Clearly, if you destroy the alternate-hypothesis, you do not have a scientific theory.

When one tries to prove the alternate hypothesis - by analysis of data, by logical argument etc etc - one is also rebutting the null hypothesis. The way this is done is to find scientific certainty, normally at greater than 95%. If you manage that you can reject the null-hypothesis. Importantly, if the null-hypothesis doesn't exist a scientific theory you do not have.

Let's consider a recent pairing: H_a Arctic ice melt is due to AGW. H_n Arctic ice natural. Let's assume that H_a is shown to be true with 95% certainty (was it? I don't know) so we can reject H_n. Then, a few years later, another paper comes out that says, no it was wind wot did it. What should you do? You should either show that the new paper is faulty or you need to reject/re-analyse H_a.

Is that happening? Or do we leave the old hypothesis lying around (that Arctic Ice Melt is because we drive cars too much) for others to misinterpret?

For instance: June 11th this year was a red-letter day for climate enthusiasts. It is the day where the null-hypothesis (that climate is within normal bounds) could be rebutted (here) and the alternate hypothesis, that something unusual is occuring could be confirmed.

Now, we know that something is different. Scientifically. It's attribution is where the argument is now. Scientifically. We didn't have to wait until the stone-age-ification of the human race to get there, either.

Have some faith in science!!

Edited July 25, 2011 by Sparticle

[knocker]

An interesting article in the August edition of Geographical Magazine. An extract.

Seeds of doom

Around the world, many plant species rely on specific animals to disperse their seeds away from the parent plant. But many of those animals are now facing extinction, raising fears of a cascade of further extinctions, with wide-ranging impacts on the health of the world's forests. Kara Moses reports on the impending 'dispersal crisis'

Global food production is at the mercy of insects. Without the work carried out by millions of bees and other pollinators, agriculture would simply grind to a halt. So, when bee colonies in Europe and the USA began to mysteriously collapse, and details emerged of the declining fortunes of populations of bumblebeesand other insects, concerns were raised about an imminent 'pollination crisis'.

But pollination isn't the only part of a plant's life cycle that requires outside help. Many plants also depend on other organisms to spread their seeds, sometimes forming partnerships whereby the plant provides some sort of payment often in the form of a tasty, nutritious fruit -for the animal's help in moving its seeds to new, more suitable territory. In some cases, these partnerships have become exclusive, with particular tree species only able to reproduce if their seeds are eaten, digested and then deposited in pastures new by particular animal species.

Enter humanity. The wave of extinctions that we've initiated is breaking up those partnerships by taking out the active partner, and the consequences could be disastrous.Scientists warn that a decline in seed dispersal could trigger a cascade of extinctions, altering ecosystems so dramatically that they eventually collapse. The scale could be global, affecting the carbon-storage capacity of forests and, ultimately, global climate change. However, the issue is virtually unknown outside of academic circles.

According to Professor Richard Corlett of the National University of Singapore, declining seed dispersal isn't just more worrying than the decline of pollinators, but more immediate. 'The seed dispersal crisis is upon us,' he says.

[Alan Robinson]

I notice it has been declared certain that time travel is impossible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14289114

I just wondered why the A Level physics syllabus coaxes students into thinking that the speed of light is always constant, when we know for a fact that is certainly not the case. I mean, Isaac Newton knew it wan't the case. If ever there was misleading in education, it is telling people that the speed of light is always constant. While I'm at it, can anyone tell me where there happens to be a perfect vacuum hanging around? I'd love to see one.

[knocker]

While I'm at it, can anyone tell me where there happens to be a perfect vacuum hanging around? I'd love to see one.

Have you tried Amazon?

Edited July 26, 2011 by weather ship

[VillagePlank]

I notice it has been declared certain that time travel is impossible.

Not true.

Bad media reporting once again. What's been shown is that photons cannot exceed the speed of light even with superluminosity (in a vacuum). That's one end of the concept, no one is saying you can't bend space-time; although a huge amount of energy (or a shortcut) is required.

Absolutely spot on with the comment about the speed of light being a constant. Never was, never is, never will be.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Sparticle

[Alan Robinson]

Now it seems that certain noisy grasshoppers make use of prime numbers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14305667

I wonder if this mathematician realizes there are over one million scientifically described insect species in thew world, and some estimate this is about one third of the total number of different insect species around. It would have helped his postulation that grasshopper evolution has somehow made use of prime numbers - as though it is almost a deliberate act - if he had let us know how many other species also display such breeding cycles. It seems to me that just a single species doing this - out of a million species - is pure coincidence.

This strikes me as yet another instance of numerology, which we know played a significant role in Pythagorean mumbo-jumbo. It also struck me as being akin to so many others attributing otherwise unexplained natural phenomena to mystical causes, for example Landsheit's ideas that sunspots are affected by the relative positions of Jupiter and other planets in our solar system.

Still, I musn't just be a grumpy old man. I liked the last line of another article today...."And this process will carry on until the climate science community starts behaving like proper scientists"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14315747

[Alan Robinson]

no one is saying you can't bend space-time; although a huge amount of energy (or a shortcut) is required.

Well, I've slept on that one twice now, and upon reflection, I'd say we are now bordering on the realm of fantasy.

[jethro]

Kevin Trenberth has published a new paper discussing the short-comings in climate models. I don't have a subscription to to the journal so only have a link to a media story of the paper, perhaps one of you here has access to the journal?

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N30/EDIT.php

http://sppiblog.org/news/major-ipcc-climate-scientist-publishes-paper-listing-significant-failures-of-climate-models

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.euronews.net/2011/07/27/russia-battles-forest-fires-amid-heatwave/

Seems it's not just the US with heatwaves? Didn't we do this last year as well? We only need floods in Pakistan now!

[VillagePlank]

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance

Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains

the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is

largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,

probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and

likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite

and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While

the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of

lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we

find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy

in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that

atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due

primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in

satellite radiative budget observations.

Dr Spencer's latest effort, here

Edited July 29, 2011 by Sparticle

[VillagePlank]

Polar bear climate scientist investigated over 'misconduct'

A biologist who claimed polar bears were drowning because of melting ice caps has been placed on administrative leave as officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.

Here

Interview: Is climate change caused by solar inertial motion?

An interview with Ing. Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Prague). The story of one politically incorrect scientific discovery.

You are the author of quite a breakthrough in this field of study. What is it?

First I studied the SIM periodicity and in 1987 I came to survey the geometry of this motion. I discovered the solar motion can be classified into two elementary types. Motion along a trefoil-like trajectory governed by the Jupiter-Saturn order. And another motion type which is chaotic. This gave us a precise homogeneous basis, upon which it became possible to study the solar-terrestrial and climatic variability. You may find it comforting that no matter how the Sun wiggles, every 179 years it comes back to a regular trefoil path. It is important to note, that the periods of chaotic motion coincide with the long-term minima in solar activity such as the Wolf Minimum (1270-1350), Spörer Minimum (~1430-1520), Maunder Minimum (~1620-1710) or Dalton Minimum (~1790-1840). During the trefoil periods the ST-phenomena are stable – the sunspot cycles are 10 years long, volcanic activity is muted and in the middle of the trefoil period there is a temperature maximum down here on Earth.

Later I discovered also a 2402 year long cycle of solar motion. After the lapse of this period the Sun always enters a segment, when for almost 370 years it moves continuously along the trefoil trajectory. This is when the natural conditions are stable, there is a long-term thermal maximum. The latest symmetry of the motion trefoils was around 25 AD. The NASA scientists called this 2402 yr cycle as “Charvatova Cycleâ€. The prospective solar motion can be calculated in advance (celestial mechanics), which gave us brand new solar-predictive capabilities. So far our predictions exploit the observation that the same solar motion trajectory tends to generate similar phenomena. (I was the only one in the whole world who got the 23rd sunspot cycle prediction right). The physical mechanism is not known yet.

Here

Clearer explanation, here, and paper, here

Edited July 29, 2011 by Sparticle

[Gray-Wolf]

Whenever we are treated to a 'broader' understanding of the 'running' of our solar system (and the probable impacts here) I have to figure whether this is a good time to be polluting the planet (by it offsetting a minor ice age) or bad (at the start of a period of 'natural warming').

Sadly none of it overwrites the clear asnd present dangers I percieve for the shorterm here on earth?

[VillagePlank]

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications

Nicola Scafetta

We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical

origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of

the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years

closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough

amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.251C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized

to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the

temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological

model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations

since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. It is found that at least 60% of the global

warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate

oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. Possible

physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective

synchronization of coupled oscillators.

Here - disputed, here

Edited July 29, 2011 by Sparticle

[Alan Robinson]

The Danish equivalent of the BBC reported earlier today on CEEFAX that Norwegian archeologists were over the moon. Apparently, some unnamed spot in Norway, more than 2000 m above sea level, the ice has finally melted, revealing a superbly preserved iron-age settlement. The artifacts include clothing, shoes, utensils, and parts of buildings.

Now I was in rather a hurry when I read this, and decided to get further details later today, but to my great surprise, I see this afternoon that the CEEFAX page has been deleted, there in nothing on Danmarks Radios website, and nothing on Norsk Ringkastning either. Totally inexplicable.

I say, I don't suppose someone has complained about making this public, or am I becoming influenced by those conspiracy people?

[Coast]

Everything you need to know about climate change (apparently) - interactive

http://www.guardian....-climate-change

[Gray-Wolf]

For those struggling for a 'figure' of how much we have impacted ice loss in the Arctic we have;

http://www.miamihera...man-beings.html

If we even place the figure at 10% then it would bring into question all other 'paleo' studies as they reflect purely natural cycles?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Gray-Wolf