In The News

[Alan Robinson]

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 ourely natural cycles?

In the news huh? Gray Wolf, I am still waiting for the news that Jaworowsky, Segalstad and Hisdal were wrong back in 1991.

http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf

This paper has no fewer than 9 pages of references to scientific institutes and respected publishers. It states categorically that ice cores do not represent the atmosphere in the past, and that the oceans could absorb ALL the CO2 from ALL the existing oil reserves without atmospheric CO2 concentrations doubling. It states categorically that the atmospheric CO2 readings from Hawaii are from a spot just 25 km or so from the world's most active volcano, and just 3km from an earth físsure through which belches huge amounts of CO2. If the Norwegian Polar Institute - who published the paper - has not been refuted since 1991, I'd just like to know why so many scientists persist using ice core data to argue that human emmissions of CO2 will have disastrous consequences.

Nobody can dispute that Actic sea ice is diminishing. Nobody can dispute that the Earth's infrared radiation causes CO2 in the atmosphere to radiate some back at us again. What can be disputed is the way some scientists have chosen these last twenty years to ignore the findings of their eminent colleagues and predecessors, and without refuting their work, publish findings that are based on dubious methods. It ought to be in the news that someone, somewhere, has proven Jaworowsky wrong. Until it is, I think we can all take the anthropgenic global warming argument with a grain of salt.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

http://www.dmi.dk/dm...remtidens_klima

Despite the lovely Peer Gynt photograph on the glossy cover, I don't like brainwashing children with controversial ideas. This new Danish book on the climate is apparently intended for children age 8 or more. It is written in short sentences so they can follow the message, and the last few chapters describe what everyone can do in their daily lives to "prevent global warming getting out of control".

Maybe this forum needs a thread somewhere concerning national cultures. The UK has its problems alright, and we are not bashful about it. What we don't seem to understand is that some European cultures do not have the concept of self-criticism, and take it for granted that The State knows best. My guess is this explains why Danes are sometimes hailed the happiest nation on earth; The State will protect us from the wicked world, and all we have to do is follow blindly into Neverland.............and that is not Nederland!

Edited August 21, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Coast]

Climate cycles linked to civil war, analysis shows

Changes in the global climate that cut food production triggered one-fifth of civil conflicts between 1950 and 2004

Cyclical climatic changes double the risk of civil wars, with analysis showing that 50 of 250 conflicts between 1950 and 2004 were triggered by the El Niño cycle, according to scientists.

Researchers connected the climate phenomenon known as El Niño, which brings hot and dry conditions to tropical nations and cuts foodproduction, to outbreaks of violence in countries from southern Sudan to Indonesia and Peru.

Solomon Hsiang, who led the research at Columbia University, New York, said: "We can speculate that a long-ago Egyptian dynasty was overthrown during a drought. This study shows a systematic pattern of global climate affecting conflict right now. We are still dependent on climate to a very large extent."

Hsiang said that pre-emptive action could prevent bloodshed because El Niño events could be predicted up to two years ahead. "We hope our study may help reduce humanitarian suffering."

Global warming caused by humans, with the continual ramping up of temperature and extreme weather, differs from the natural El Niño cycle, the scientists are careful to note.

Mark Cane, a member of the team, said global warming would have greater climatic impacts than El Niño, making it "hard to imagine" it would not provoke conflicts.

The scientists are beginning work to discover the factors involved in the climate-conflict link. Food is likely to be key as crop yields and incomes from agriculture are known to fall heavily in El Niño years. "When crops fail, people may take up a gun to make a living," said Hsiang.

Other factors could include rises in unemployment and natural disasters, such as hurricanes. "Also, previous work has shown that when people get warm and uncomfortable, they are more prone to fight," said Cane.

The research, published in Nature, uses a statistical approach to show that the risk of a conflict doubles from 3% to 6% in El Niño cycles (which occur every three to seven years) in affected nations. Unaffected nations showed no such pattern.

The analysis shows that a fifth of the 250 civil conflicts between 1950 and 2004 were precipitated by hotter, drier weather. Differing levels of poverty, democracy and population did not alter the strength of the climate-conflict link, nor did the impact of the end of colonial rule in many countries by 1975.

However, bad weather does appear to tip less developed countries into chaos more easily, said Hsiang, pointing to the example of southern Sudan, where intense warfare broke out in the El Niño year of 1963.

After a flare-up in another El Niño year, 1976, a severe El Niño, in 1983, saw the start of more than 20 years of fighting, which left 2 million people dead and culminated only this year when South Sudan was formed as a separate nation.

By contrast, Australia's climate is controlled by El Niño cycles, but has had no civil conflicts. "One hypothesis is the poorest countries lack the resources to cope with [the impacts] of El Niño," said Hsiang. "Another is that they could be physically more vulnerable to El Niño, prompting war and leading to poverty."

Marshall Burke, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said the research gave very convincing evidence of a connection.Andrew Solow, an environmental statistician, at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said: "Careful statistical analyses such as this one, which relate complex human behaviour to environmental factors, can be invaluable."

Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute in the US, said: "It is part of the progress we are making in understanding the drivers of human social behaviour."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/24/el-nino-cycle-deadly-conflict

[Coast]

Nice to see that things are improving in some of our rivers:

'Most-improved' rivers revealed by Environment Agency

A list of the 10 most-improved rivers in England and Wales has been released by the Environment Agency (EA).

The list includes the River Wandle in London - which was officially declared a sewer in the 1960s - the River Nar in Norfolk and the River Darent in Kent. Ian Barker, head of land and water at the agency, said Britain's rivers were "the healthiest for over 20 years". He said work with farmers, businesses and water companies to reduce pollution and improve water quality had paid off. River habitats had also benefited from reductions in the volume of water taken by industry and farmers, he said.

The list also includes the River Thames in London, which was declared "biologically dead" in the 1950s, and the River Taff in south Wales, which the EA says once ran black with coal dust but is now a leading site for fishing competitions. Others include the River Stour in Worcestershire - previously famed for the rainbow-coloured dyes that flowed into it from carpet manufacturers - and the Mersey Basin, which was once called "an affront to a civilised society" by former government minister Michael Heseltine. The EA has reviewed thousands of licences which cover the removal of water and is amending those which had resulted in environmental damage.

On the River Darent in Kent, for example, about 35 million fewer litres per day are now being taken than 20 years ago, increasing river flows and helping to support larger populations of wildlife including brown trout and pike, the EA said. Mr Barker said: "Britain's rivers are the healthiest for over 20 years, and otters, salmon and other wildlife are returning for the first time since the industrial revolution.

'Most-improved' rivers:

· The River Wandle, south-west London

· River Thames, London

· River Wear, County Durham

· River Stour, Worcestershire

· The River Darent, Kent

· The River Dee, Wales and north-west England

· River Nar, Norfolk

· River Taff, south Wales

· River Stour, Dorset

· The Mersey Basin, north-west England

"But there is still more to be done and we have plans to transform a further 9,500 miles of rivers in England and Wales by 2015 - the equivalent of the distance between the UK and Australia." Geoff Bateman, the EA's head of fisheries and biodiversity, said rivers had benefited naturally from the reduction in heavy industry, but also from a better understanding of how to balance the needs of people with the environment. "River systems cannot be used for one thing or another, they need to be balanced for multiple uses," he told the BBC. "We must ensure that now we have improved them - and we still have plenty to do - that we keep them in that state for our children."

The UK must meet tough new European Union (EU) targets on the water quality and ecology of its rivers and lakes by 2015.

The EA - with partners such as Natural England - is targeting £18m of funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to help more rivers meet the new EU targets this year. Environment Minister Lord Henley said England's rivers were "once home to many iconic species of wildlife". "With Defra's £110m funding to help clean up England's rivers and the extensive work being done by the Environment Agency, water companies and landowners, we're already seeing fish and mammals, including salmon and otters, thriving once more," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14710478

[VillagePlank]

It seems even when you are dead, you can be 'green' (literally!) http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-14114555

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

A warming Earth is good for humankind. Even in our small part of the planet, more people die from cold each year than from summer heat. A 'mini-ice-age' holds much more potent fear than an atmosphere that might warm by 2 or so deg C. The chances are most of us will be in, or approaching, old age by 2030, the oil will be gone, and there will no way to heat our homes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC192832/

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/1754561.stm

Edited August 31, 2011 by Sparticle

[Alan Robinson]

The chances are most of us will be in, or approaching, old age by 2030, the oil will be gone, and there will no way to heat our homes.

Which is why I suspect politicians have encouraged the AGW debate in an attempt to have us think burning the stuff is bad. I beleive psychologists call it rationalizing. "I didn't want that anyway".

I for one don't mind northern Europe being 2 degrees warmer.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/idUS414014174720110831

Seems like we'll be finding out how much 'global cooling' the Chinese sulphate's have been placing into the climate equation a lot sooner than I thought we would.

Seems like make or break time? We should have had another 'perfect storm' over the Arctic by then (when i see us being seasonal) and it's impacts whilst the sulphate's are dropping out of the atmosphere and CO2 is beyond the 400ppm mark.

If such a period does not see a resumption in warming like the 80's on steroids then I will be both wrong and mightily relieved!

[Alan Robinson]

http://www.reuters.c...014174720110831

Seems like we'll be finding out how much 'global cooling' the Chinese sulphate's have been placing into the climate equation a lot sooner than I thought we would.

Seems like make or break time? We should have had another 'perfect storm' over the Arctic by then (when i see us being seasonal) and it's impacts whilst the sulphate's are dropping out of the atmosphere and CO2 is beyond the 400ppm mark.

If such a period does not see a resumption in warming like the 80's on steroids then I will be both wrong and mightily relieved!

There is a thread somewhere else GW about the World Trade Centre and 11th September 2001. Unfortunately it got me going about one of my favourite authors (or authours as he would have spelled it in his publickations) namely Samuel Johnson.

As far as the news is concerned, I agree with Johnson. We read the same tripe over and again. Instead of perpetually repeating the same information, these stories should be revealed a little at a time in order to retain the publick interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idler_%281758%E2%80%931760%29#No_7._Scheme_for_news-writers_.28Johnson.29

[Alan Robinson]

I see Roy Spencer is in the news again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Regarding the peer review process, I can see it is a prudent process where inexperienced but ambitious people seek attention, but for supposedly experienced and established experts (and I do not refer here to Mr Spencer) isn't peer reviewing just an appeal to numbers? It strikes me Churhill's description of democracy applies to peer reviewed science;

"It is the worst we have, except all the rest."

[Gray-Wolf]

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing."

http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/9/2002/pdf

No one telss me anything.......apart from you Alan (shuffles off red faced smilie)

Edited September 3, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Alan Robinson]

It is a good job the likes of Copernicus and Galileo didn't simply troop along in the safety of the flock, otherwise we'd all still entertain faulty ideas such as the amount of mass determining how quickly an object falls to the ground.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Are you comparing Roy Spencer to Galileo and Copernicus? Or the peer review process to the Catholic church? Or both maybe?

[pottyprof]

I think the point is that sometimes the consensus can be a bullying crowd that follow eachother like sheep. Sometimes having the bottle to set out to prove that that there is something else going on makes an individual look foolish in the eyes of the consensus.

That individual is not always wrong.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I understand that point completely. I think just that somebody goes against the consensus, doesn't mean they're correct or are following in the footsteps of the great scientific minds.

Is it that many people believe the peer review process is now defunct and is now just a self serving tool for the AGW way of thinking?

[Alan Robinson]

Are you comparing Roy Spencer to Galileo and Copernicus? Or the peer review process to the Catholic church? Or both maybe?

No. I was replying to Grey Wolf's comment that peer reviewed science is one of the pillars of modern science. I accept the need to review certain offerings, but I warn against putting scientific judgement alongside jury trial, and pleading to numbers. Clearly the majority are not always right.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Methuselah]

No. I was replying to Grey Wolf's comment that peer reviewed science is one of the pillars of modern science. I accept the need to review certain offerings, but I warn against putting scientific judgement alongside jury trial, and pleading to numbers. Clearly the majority are not always right.

But they usually are. But, apart from champion the 'unknown', what does Spencer actually contribute?

[Gray-Wolf]

I know from the Arctic Ice thread (and Antarctic thread) what it is like to have ideas that nobody wishes to entertain? Sadly when you see the data/trends lending support to the notion you had all along it is not always something to celebrate?

[VillagePlank]

http://www.reuters.c...014174720110831

Seems like we'll be finding out how much 'global cooling' the Chinese sulphate's have been placing into the climate equation a lot sooner than I thought we would.

Seems like make or break time? We should have had another 'perfect storm' over the Arctic by then (when i see us being seasonal) and it's impacts whilst the sulphate's are dropping out of the atmosphere and CO2 is beyond the 400ppm mark.

If such a period does not see a resumption in warming like the 80's on steroids then I will be both wrong and mightily relieved!

Forget it.

You are making presumptions on data that is only just in.

This is not make nor break time. You are making assumptions based on a human life-spans observations. Of course, your observations are likely true, but in the context of Earth, they are completely irrelevant and completely statistically insignificant. You need to stop this, GW, before you make yourself seriously ill.

Humankind *will* continue. The reasoning is pretty (not absolutely) secure. If we have the power to change our environment, then we can, well, change our environment. Should some environmental force prevail that causes us to do so, then we'll do it, after all, I assume, you put on your heating. Nothing has happened that forces us to change. Nothing. People have always died, and in numerous numbers from severe weather events. That will never change since the edge of existence is on the edge of severity. BY accident of our birth is the coincidence that we have live 3 centuries or more in sedate climate conditions. I guess you would seek to negate that in the face of frightening evidence that supports your cause, and, also, 'gets you off' in a panic of self-delusionary depression.

We are either part of evolutionary forces or we are not. If we are outside it we can affect it. If we are not we cannot - I am waiting on the beaver making a dam affecting a river argument, here, but caveat emptor for those who try that one.

Well, you may have had the majority of evidence to back you up. But, no longer. The arctic will probably melt. So what? We've had, according to some, *catastrophic* losses - and yet the CET has just posted the coldest summer for 18 years. In the context of climate, these are not catastrophic losses, just a natural cycle. A warmer world will benefit humankind, flora, and fauna, and the whole food chain.

But we're posted cold anomalies here in Britain ... and we're local. Oh wait. It's global ... etc etc etc.

The day might come where it is your civic duty to burn whatever fossil fuel is left to increase CO2 (globally currently measured some 20 miles from one of the most active volcanoes in the world)  in the atmosphere.

Really.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Sparticle

[Alan Robinson]

But they usually are. But, apart from champion the 'unknown', what does Spencer actually contribute?

Please do not think I am promoting Spencer; I am not. My point was about peer reviews, Copernicus and Galileo. My suspicion is that in addition to peak oil, we have peak innovation not only in science, but technology too; and the peak occurred decades ago. What we do now - automating processes and bling telephones - is not innovation. If my suspicion is factual, then it is reasonable to suspect that flock mentality has is a partial cause of scientific decadence.

I certainly think that much modern physics research is borderline metaphysics.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

Of course, your observations are likely true, but in the context of Earth, they are completely irrelevant and completely statistically insignificant.

Science estimates the world’s age to be 4.5*10**9 years. We cannot grasp such timescales, and it puts matters into perspective to suppose that the world is just one day old, and right now at this present moment it is midnight at the end of the Earth’s first day. On this scale of things, the Earth came into existence at 00:00, 24 hours ago. Dinosaurs roamed the planet between 22:50 and 23:40, while Leakey’s first ancestral primates arrived on the scene at just one minute to midnight. Written history began just 1/20^th of a second before midnight, meaning that we have written accounts describing just one half of one millionth of the world’s total existence, assuming it is 4.5 billion years old as scientists tell us.

Palaeontologists believe for over half a million years – 10 seconds on our 24 hour clock - early man made hardly any advances in his use of stone tools, which means that development during any one individual’s lifetime must have been negligible. Some 25,000 generations of stone-age hominids must have lived exactly like each other if we allow that generations are twenty years apart. What happened then about 10,000 years ago, - a fifth of a second before midnight - that led to the extraordinary developments our species has undergone? Seeing how written history goes hardly further back than 2,500 years, we have little way of knowing how well developed humans’ language was 10,000 years ago.

Perhaps the picture we have of grunting cave-men behaving like savages is close to the truth, in which case, in contrast to early man, many extant people have very colourful imaginations, and certainly throughout written history, people have dreamed up some quite ridiculous things. Take divination for example. Fiction is little better, and in my youth as I recall it, public libraries in Britain were divided into lending libraries and reference libraries, and the lending library sub-divided into fiction and non-fiction sections. The fiction section of all libraries I visited must have contained at least as many books as the non-fiction and reference libraries together, which suggests to me that approximately half of the books published these last 100 years must have dealt with imagined circumstances, not real. Moreover, there must have been great demand for these invented accounts.

Incidentally, I happened to read recently of a study carried out by researching psychologists at Harvard University. Their program involved a very considerable number of people from various backgrounds, and was designed to establish the subject of people's thoughts while occupied with a variety of activities, both physical and intellectual. Their conclusions are that once most people have started upon something, their thoughts tend to wander off onto different matters for nearly half the time spent in the particular activity.

It seems to me that in many ways, science and our imaginings are closely connected. If so, maybe we ought to suspend our metaphysical speculations about black holes and big bangs and what the climate was like in the distant past, and instead follow Alexander Pope’s exhortation “Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of Mankind is Man.”

Edited September 6, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

But they usually are.

That was concerning peer reviewing Pete.

I just had a very amusing chat with my son who is deeply involved in this whole academic industry. He surprised me by saying that a very large proportion of Nobel Prize winning research these last 50 years was initially rejected by the peer review system. I shall soon have a paper discussing this and will bring it out here. Otherwise, my lad is of the opinion that the peer review system right now is all about conservative back-slapping; and that is the best he had to say of it.

Perhaps we should shift over to the New Research thread to discuss this in due course.

[Alan Robinson]

As mentioned a few days ago, here is a 2009 paper from Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, looking into the difficulties of conservative science and restrictive publishers encountered by a good number of Nobel Laureates;

http://www2.uah.es/jmc/ai56.pdf

Quote, I review and discuss instances in which 19 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on the part of the scientific community towards their discoveries, and instances in which 24 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on the part of scientific journal editors or referees to manuscripts that dealt with discoveries that later would earn them the Nobel Prize.

I recognize the value of peer reviewing where research is, well, somewhat routine, but we should guard against thinking of peer reviewing as a panacea; it has its drawbacks, and according to this paper, they can actually raise eyebrows.

While I am at it, I might as well also add this link.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29630

Published in 1901, it is a damning essay on at best mediocre education, which it seems to me has perhaps worsened these last hundred years. The author states very early on that To begin with, the dearth of great men is so remarkable that it scarcely needs comment. People are constantly expressing the fear that the age of intellectual giants has passed away altogether. This is particularly obvious in political life. Since the days of Gladstone and Disraeli, Parliamentary debate has sunk to the most hopeless level of mediocrity. The traditions of men such as Pitt, Fox, Palmerston, Peel, and others, sound at the present day almost like ancient mythology.

Maybe this is not the right thread for this, and moderators will relocate it somewhere more appropriate.

[Coast]

A disused airfield in Norfolk will become the focus of a controversial scientific experiment to see whether it is feasible to engineer the climate by cooling the planet with a simulated volcanic eruption. Scientists and engineers plan to test the "geoengineering" idea at Sculthorpe Airfield near Fakenham next month by launching a helium-filled balloon tethered to a strengthened hosepipe which will spray tap water into the air at a height of 1km. The project is one of the first geoengineering field trials in the world and could result in the deployment of a fleet of up to 20 giant balloons, each the size of Wembley Stadium, injecting millions of tonnes of sulphate particles at a height of 20km into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.

The researchers behind the trial say the project is designed to test the movements of the tethering system in the wind, and will not attempt to reflect sunlight or alter the climate in any way. "It doesn't have an impact on the environment, it doesn't have an impact on the climate, it is simply a technology test. It is one of the first times that people have taken geoengineering out of the lab into the field," Matt Watson of Bristol University, who is in charge of the £1.6m study, said yesterday at the British Science Festival at Bradford University. "It's very important to us to be able to communicate what we are doing effectively and honestly to make sure everyone understands, because this is a controversial and potentially alarming subject."

Geoengineering has become a semi-respectable subject for scientists to discuss in public. However, opponents argue that it is impractical and dangerous. Even talking about it could deflect attention from the urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of man-made global warming, they argue. "No form of geoengineering is a replacement for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It's very important, we are not advocating this as a good idea, we just want to know whether this is a good idea," Dr Watson said. "It's hard to imagine a situation except a dire emergency where this will be used but in order to have that conversation sensibly, we need to provide some evidence-based research." Hugh Hunt of Cambridge University, who is leading the field test at Sculthorpe, said: "It may turn out that this whole strategy is a bad strategy, that's what we're trying to find out."

The test is part of a three-year project, Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice), which uses knowledge gained from observations of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991, when volcanic sulphate particles enveloped theplanet, cooling it by about 0.5C for two years. The project, involving the universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford, working with engineering company Marshall Aerospace, will evaluate the type of particles in solution that could be injected into the stratosphere, how they could best be carried 20km up and what effect the spraying would have on the global climate. Dr Hunt said that a fleet of 10 to 20 giant balloons moored over the ocean and spraying at an altitude of 20km could cool the planet by about 2C at a cost of between £5bn and £50bn.

http://www.independe...ge-2354305.html

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

http://www.independe...ge-2354305.html

I'll have to go and look at that when it's up and running, bet the people who live in Fakenham will not like the persistent rain out of a clear sky if the wind is a westerly :-)

[Alan Robinson]

According to the Danish meteorological Institute, the latest edition of The Times Atlas shows the Greenland icecap having reduced in area by 15% since 1999, for which there is no scientific evidence.

The most conspicuous difference between the 1999 and 2011 editions concerns Greenland’s east coast, which is now wrongly shown to be free if ice. DMI suspects the Times cartographers have used satellite photographs to establish the extent of the ice. “Greenland’s coast certainly does look dark on satellite photos, but that does not mean the ice is gone. In fact, the darkness is due to dirt, dust and volcanic ash, particularly so in southeast Greenland.”

Though the Times Atlas has it wrong, the ice is reducing. It is thought that between 2003 and 2008 something between 168*10**9 and 268*10**9 tonnes of ice has disappeared.

http://www.dmi.dk/dm...sisen_for_lille

Edited September 17, 2011 by Alan Robinson