Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public

[Devonian]

The AGW alarmists were only a few years back stating that Scottish and indeed Alpine ski industries were doomed and not  something which should be invested in.

That is the very definition of bad PR - on the back of over-confident predictions.

Otoh, claiming a prediction about climate is wrong based on a few years weather data is good PR but bad science.

[Methuselah]

That is the very definition of bad PR - on the back of over-confident predictions.

I agree with that, 4. I do believe that the climate models have seriously understated the negative-feedback due to melting Arctic sea-ice; and that, as can only be expected, vested politicians and 'businessmen (not to mention countless charlatans) have been all too quick to cash in.

 

No change there, then!

[BornFromTheVoid]

I agree with that, 4. I do believe that the climate models have seriously understated the negative-feedback due to melting Arctic sea-ice; and that, as can only be expected, vested politicians and 'businessmen (not to mention countless charlatans) have been all too quick to cash in.

 

No change there, then!

 

The models totally understanding the loss of sea ice in general. What negative feedback do you mean?

 

Because to admit that sea ice reductions might cause increased mid-latitude snow fall is to admit that the sea ice is changing the weather on a hemispheric scale, and I doubt many "sceptics" will willingly admit to that!

[Methuselah]

The models totally understanding the loss of sea ice in general. What negative feedback do you mean?

 

Because to admit that sea ice reductions might cause increased mid-latitude snow fall is to admit that the sea ice is changing the weather on a hemispheric scale, and I doubt many "sceptics" will willingly admit to that!

  

[knocker]

Adapt faster to changing climate, Europe warned

 

Cities around Europe may have to erect flood defences similar to the Thames Barrier as tidal surges become more likely

 

Cities around Europe may have to erect flood barriers similar to the Thames Barrier that protects London from sea surges, as climate change takes hold and leads to the danger of much more destructive storms, floods, heavy rainfall and higher sea levels, Europe's environmental watchdog has warned.

 

The effects of climate change will be so far-reaching across the continent that vineyards may have to plant new grape varieties, farmers may have to cultivate new crops and water suppliers look to technology such as desalination in order to cope with the probable effects of more extreme weather. Buildings and infrastructure such as transport, energy and communication networks will also have to be changed.

 

The warnings come in a report from the European Environment Agency, called Adaptation in Europe. The research found that half of the 32 member countries of the EEA still lack plans to adapt to the effects of global warming, although others have begun to take action.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/29/adapt-changing-climate-europe-flooding?CMP=twt_gu

Edited May 5, 2013 by knocker

[Tamara]

A lot has changed since yesterday morning then..   Did anyone leave the climate cave, and the Punch vs Punch side show and have a non virtual weekend instead?   

 

Are they still here?

Edited May 5, 2013 by Tamara Road

[knocker]

I see being patronizing is your forte. I admit you are quite good at it.

[UV-RAY]

I agree with that, 4. I do believe that the climate models have seriously understated the negative-feedback due to melting Arctic sea-ice; and that, as can only be expected, vested politicians and 'businessmen (not to mention countless charlatans) have been all too quick to cash in.

No change there, then!

We all know the state of arctic ice conditions, have you got direct evidence that this is down to CO2 levels and can show a direct link between the two. Remember lurkers ( sorry GW) the last time arctic ice conditions was this bad where 7000 years ago, now what caused that and what makes this different to today. Was this down to high levels of CO2, if so then why if not then what was the causation? Edited May 6, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

I'm sure that the evidence that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas precedes any GW/AGW theories by many years' anyway; so, hardly needs repeating here...That said, of course no-one can predict how various feedbacks will manifest; so I'll leave the doomsday stuff to devotees of the Book of Revelation...

 

IMO, folks are quite right to view things with scepticism; without which, the whole scientific endeavor would crumble. But, when that scepticism extends to questioning the fundamental (experimentally verified time and time again) tenets of physics, then it's time to question that scepticism?

 

Climate scientists know what is unknown (it's always listed in peer-reviewed papers?) unfortunately politicians do not - they certainly don't want to let their acolytes see that they are floundering...Unlike economic policy (where if the one you've been blindly following for 20 years' fails, you simply write a new one) scientific knowledge is forever building upon itself...

 

IMO, blame the shysters, not the scientists...

[Tamara]

We all know the state of arctic ice conditions, have you got direct evidence that this is down to CO2 levels and can show a direct link between the two. Remember lurkers ( sorry GW) the last time arctic ice conditions was this bad where 7000 years ago, now what caused that and what makes this different to today. Was this down to high levels of CO2, if so then why if not then what was the causation?

Yes, we know that CO2 causes warming and that excessive amounts have been present previously in climate history. Not much new there. It is a good thing we have this useful little black number because without it things might be a bit too chilly for us all.

 

The question is over the theory that there is an amplifying positive feedback relationship between CO2/GHG's and the earth atmosphere/clouds etc which causes sustained warming. Without this relationship existing, or only existing in a much reduced form than theory suggests, then warming cannot be sustained beyond natural cyclical variation. And natural cyclical variation can amount for many decades of temperature fluctuations.

 

Now, as alluded to above, if the PR stuck to this reasoned preface of enquiry in terms of questions and research, more openly admitting the uncertainties, and without insisting everyone has to believe one causation without recourse, then things might proceed better.

 

@ knocker. No, just an observation based on my stated rationale as a non conflictive ideal, in this post. This isn't a competition with a prize at stake for who is right. Simply and equinimically, just to find out some facts.

[BornFromTheVoid]

We all know the state of arctic ice conditions, have you got direct evidence that this is down to CO2 levels and can show a direct link between the two. Remember lurkers ( sorry GW) the last time arctic ice conditions was this bad where 7000 years ago, now what caused that and what makes this different to today. Was this down to high levels of CO2, if so then why if not then what was the causation?

 

Orbital changes resulted in an increase in summer insolation in the northern hemisphere, causing the Arctic to be warmer than now. Nobody that I've seen, anywhere, has blamed it on CO2. Nor does anyone think climate change cannot occur without CO2 fluctuations.

 

 

Yes, we know that CO2 causes warming and that excessive amounts have been present previously in climate history. Not much new there. It is a good thing we have this useful little black number because without it things might be a bit too chilly for us all.

 

The question is over the theory that there is an amplifying positive feedback relationship between CO2/GHG's and the earth atmosphere/clouds etc which causes sustained warming. Without this relationship existing, or only existing in a much reduced form than theory suggests, then warming cannot be sustained beyond natural cyclical variation. And natural cyclical variation can amount for many decades of temperature fluctuations.

 

Now, as alluded to above, if the PR stuck to this reasoned preface of enquiry in terms of questions and research, more openly admitting the uncertainties, and without insisting everyone has to believe one causation without recourse, then things might proceed better.

 

@ knocker. No, just an observation based on my stated rationale as a non conflictive ideal, in this post. This isn't a competition with a prize at stake for who is right. Simply and equinimically, just to find out some facts.

 

But why are people only questioning whether CO2 induced warming will stop because of -ve feedbacks? We've discussed the clouds feedbacks and the majority of studies suggests it will cause little effect or a slight +ve feedback. When we have so many +ve feedbacks, what are the mechanisms by which you suggest strong -ve feedbacks will occur to overwhelm these?

 

Every kind of warming requires feedbacks though, not just CO2, but solar, orbital, etc, yet none of the sceptics question whether we'll see -ve cloud feedbacks during a prolonged solar minimum, or whether the Milankovitch cycles are balanced by water vapour.

 

Can you suggests a natural cyclic variation that caused the 20th century warming, and, back it up with some peer reviewed evidence?

Edited May 6, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[pottyprof]

What amuses me is that the media are getting the blame for incorrect reporting of 'facts'. I don't see any corrections or apologies being printed for these media errors. Why would that be?

[BornFromTheVoid]

What amuses me is that the media are getting the blame for incorrect reporting of 'facts'. I don't see any corrections or apologies being printed for these media errors. Why would that be?

 

I think we can apply that to the media reporting of almost anything!

[UV-RAY]

Orbital changes resulted in an increase in summer insolation in the northern hemisphere, causing the Arctic to be warmer than now. Nobody that I've seen, anywhere, has blamed it on CO2. Nor does anyone think climate change cannot occur without CO2 fluctuations.

 

 

 

But why are people only questioning whether CO2 induced warming will stop because of -ve feedbacks? We've discussed the clouds feedbacks and the majority of studies suggests it will cause little effect or a slight +ve feedback. When we have so many +ve feedbacks, what are the mechanisms by which you suggest strong -ve feedbacks will occur to overwhelm these?

 

Every kind of warming requires feedbacks though, not just CO2, but solar, orbital, etc, yet none of the sceptics question whether we'll see -ve cloud feedbacks during a prolonged solar minimum, or whether the Milankovitch cycles are balanced by water vapour.

 

Can you suggests a natural cyclic variation that caused the 20th century warming, and, back it up with some peer reviewed evidence?

There is no evidence to back up claims that it was orbital forcings, evidence please.

[pottyprof]

There is no evidence to back up claims that it was orbital forcings, evidence please.

I agree with BFTV. It's time to provide some evidence via peer review or respected blog/website.

You can't prove a point just on 'because I say so'. It would be most helpful.

[Polar Maritime]

There is no evidence to back up claims that it was orbital forcings, evidence please.

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/1703/2013/cpd-9-1703-2013.pdf

[BornFromTheVoid]

There is no evidence to back up claims that it was orbital forcings, evidence please.

 

Ok, I hope you provide evidence next time I ask, other than wandering off to the next sceptic myth!

 

From here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

 

 

What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period AND what caused them. It appears clear that changes in the Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures. We also now know from both data and "astronomical" (or "Milankovitch") theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all. 

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

 

For some studies, here you go

The Role of Oceanic Forcing in mid-Holocene Northern Hemisphere Climatic Change

Evidence from north-west Canada for an early Holocene Milankovitch thermal maximum

Response of the high-latitude Northern Hemisphere to orbital climate forcing: Evidence from the Nordic Seas

[knocker]

Not quite on topic but an interesting study from last year.

 

1.5 million years of climate history revealed after scientists solve mystery of the deep

Study successfully reconstructed temperature from the deep sea to reveal how global ice volume has varied over the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 1.5 million years.

 

 

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/15-million-years-of-climate-history-revealed-after-scientists-solve-mystery-of-the-deep

[UV-RAY]

I agree with BFTV. It's time to provide some evidence via peer review or respected blog/website.You can't prove a point just on 'because I say so'. It would be most helpful.

But that's my point, no one can provide factual evidence to back up either side, even peer reviewed literature is based on conjecture. We all know CO2is a greenhouse gas and we know its capabilities for warming, what we don't know is how much and how positive and negative feedbacks counteract this warming. Just by presenting peer reviewed literature doesn't make it a case of "I told you so", on the contrary most just pose more questions as we have to believe that some number crunching computer model can predict future temp rises whilst completely ignoring that what we don't fully understand. This is where bad PR starts from, not from misguided journalism but scientists beliefs that climate models can map an accurate forecasts in the future. More uncertainties need to be voiced and less arrogance in outcomes need to be addressed.

Ok, I hope you provide evidence next time I ask, other than wandering off to the next sceptic myth!

 

From here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

 

 

What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period AND what caused them. It appears clear that changes in the Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures. We also now know from both data and "astronomical" (or "Milankovitch") theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all. In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

 

For some studies, here you go

The Role of Oceanic Forcing in mid-Holocene Northern Hemisphere Climatic Change

Evidence from north-west Canada for an early Holocene Milankovitch thermal maximum

Response of the high-latitude Northern Hemisphere to orbital climate forcing: Evidence from the Nordic Seas

Apologies, I was just about to post a reply stating the above as a quick google search brought up the relevant information.

[BornFromTheVoid]

But that's my point, no one can provide factual evidence to back up either side, even peer reviewed literature is based on conjecture. We all know CO2is a greenhouse gas and we know its capabilities for warming, what we don't know is how much and how positive and negative feedbacks counteract this warming. Just by presenting peer reviewed literature doesn't make it a case of "I told you so", on the contrary most just pose more questions as we have to believe that some number crunching computer model can predict future temp rises whilst completely ignoring that what we don't fully understand. This is where bad PR starts from, not from misguided journalism but scientists beliefs that climate models can map an accurate forecasts in the future. More uncertainties need to be voiced and less arrogance in outcomes need to be addressed.

Apologies, I was just about to post a reply stating the above as a quick google search brought up the relevant information.

 

There is so much more to the anthropogenic influence on climate than just models! The concept of CO2 causing warming was around for decades before the first computer model, before Al Gore and before anyone had thought of green taxes. The uncertainties of models are always discussed anyway, it's a necessary part of the process.

To say peer reviewed literature is based on conjecture is simply ridiculous.

 

What would you consider valid evidence then? Give me an example!

[pottyprof]

I agree with your points SI but if you can, could you at least try to post links etc? These pages are very popular with people who are trying to get their heads around the subject and it would be most helpful for those (or my slow processing brain).

We can all be a bit guilty of this at times.

Thanks

Edited May 6, 2013 by pottyprof

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for posting the link but could we , in future, at least come to the table with the basic facts and not come crying for the bottle at every instant? Orbital forcings are not a 'contentious' issue? We have solid data on the earths past and future orbital path/obliqueness and so must be viewed as 'common knowledge'? I know we are all at differing stages of knowledge concerning recent changes to our planet but the general workings of our planet should not be something that demands a 'Links Please!' surely???

 

As for the Arctic being similar, 7,000yrs ago, to today this is just conjecture on one much flouted bits of data about drift wood (which would have sunk if it had taken a sea route) on 'raised beaches' of north shore Greenland.....(.Yet the same folk are troubled by the Yamal data).......

 

The Arctic is showing the first signs of 'ice free behaviour in at least 70,000yrs (as the Pacific diatoms/foram's now in the Atlantic basin attest for). This data appears far firmer than the 'Greenland' data with no other way for the critters to find their way into the basin than by the northern sea route (the same for the Grey Whale that took a trip to the Holy land)

[UV-RAY]

There is so much more to the anthropogenic influence on climate than just models! The concept of CO2 causing warming was around for decades before the first computer model, before Al Gore and before anyone had thought of green taxes. The uncertainties of models are always discussed anyway, it's a necessary part of the process.

To say peer reviewed literature is based on conjecture is simply ridiculous.

 

What would you consider valid evidence then? Give me an example!

For me BFTV, the biggest uncertainty is feedbacks and that of natural forcings, ie solar and oceanic heat content, they are big unknowns and a stumbling block to any projections, that's not too say the projections maybe right, as otherwise I would be being contradictory in what I've said previously about no one really knowing the outcomes.

[BornFromTheVoid]

For me BFTV, the biggest uncertainty is feedbacks and that of natural forcings, ie solar and oceanic heat content, they are big unknowns and a stumbling block to any projections, that's not too say the projections maybe right, as otherwise I would be being contradictory in what I've said previously about no one really knowing the outcomes.

 

Oceanic heat content is increasing, so I don't see the issue there. So is it just solar that makes you question things?

 

What do you consider valid evidence, SI? I'd appreciate an answer, because its difficult to discuss things with you, given that you tend to dismiss conventional lines of evidence and scientific data.

[Methuselah]

There is no evidence to back up claims that it was orbital forcings, evidence please.

Isn't there? So what was all that work carried-out by Milankovitch and Croll all about, then? I suppose that the, perfectly natural, build-up of GHGs during the last glacial may have contributed to climatic 'over-shoot'; but, anyway, what has prehistorical climate change got to do the the AGW Theorists' possible PR problems?