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

[UV-RAY]

Also why does the lower troposphere temperature anomalies of the mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere show upward shifts during El Niño events, without proportional cooling during the trailing La Ninas?

Edited May 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[knocker]

What has any of this got to do with PR aside from the fact it's about weather and not climate?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Simple really, a way of looking at it is that nina acts as a recharge whereas niño acts as a discharge.

 

That's not the PDO.  You said 30 years of +ve PDO may have caused the warming, that's the opposite of what you're saying now and the opposite of what makes sense!

[BornFromTheVoid]

What has any of this got to do with PR aside from the fact it's about weather and not climate?

 

I think the basis of all this is that, we know the sea surface is warming, then we worked out that it's also warming down to 700m, then that it's also warming down to 2000m. Then recently, we find out that even the abyssal waters are warming.

But apparently it's misleading to say the oceans are warming, and thus bad PR...

[knocker]

Oh, right.........................

[Tamara]

That's not the PDO.  You said 30 years of +ve PDO may have caused the warming, that's the opposite of what you're saying now and the opposite of what makes sense!

This is all OT but it is a fact that the PDO contributed to the bulk of the warming over the 20th century during its two phases from the early 20's to the late 30's and then from the 70's to the end of the 90's. I don't need to trail the web to post up a graph of this - it is commonly accepted and agreed.

 

The question that the anthropromorphic science is exploring is whether there is an artificial element built on top of natural variation that will make itself present through the positive feedbacks that are theorised and accelerate during this century to verify sustained warming pitched somewhere in the raft of IPCC model solutions which extraopolate up to the next 80 years and more.

 

Endless revisionism over the last century is a rather futile and circular process imo - it would be better to examine the validity of a) the existence/extent of the assumed artificial feedbacks and whether these are accurately depicted for the coming century in the first place and b) costing the possible effects of natural forcings which are entering negative feedback processes also over a multi decadal period. But if we are going to use the IPCC benchmark for this then we need to examine artitifcial forcings and natural forcings alike over the same multi decadal period. We can't choose convenient short term time periods to try and fit one's own pov. That is never going to be realistic or reflect where the scientific research objectives lie.  But that is for the other threads in this section and not this topic in my humble little opinion.

 

In this sense, it brings us back to where the PR comes in in terms of how it *should* present the science and its research according to the long term benchmarks laid out as above and reflecting those predictions accurately and realistically without self interest cliques massaging the facts to skew opinion *she says trying to bring the subject back O/T* But first the science needs to be equinimical and realistic about ALL climate forcings and not exclusively AGW theory.

[Methuselah]

Simple really, a way of looking at it is that nina acts as a recharge whereas niño acts as a discharge.

Or that the entire ENSO cycle is merely what happens when thermal inertia (of water) negates Earth's attempts at heat redistribution. IMO, ENSO is entirely solar-driven? An unequivocal invocation of an entirely natural phenomenon that, some still insist, climate scientists willfully ignore... 

 

As as been stated many times previously: the first thing you do when studying climate science, is go through all of the natural impactors - as are currently known...The much-wafted notion that all we ever think about is CO₂ is mere drivel...

 

Negating drivel is not as easy as it sounds?

[BornFromTheVoid]

This is all OT but it is a fact that the PDO contributed to the bulk of the warming over the 20th century during its two phases from the early 20's to the late 30's and then from the 70's to the end of the 90's. I don't need to trail the web to post up a graph of this - it is commonly accepted and agreed.

 

The question that the anthropromorphic science is exploring is whether there is an artificial element built on top of natural variation that will make itself present through the positive feedbacks that are theorised and accelerate during this century to verify sustained warming pitched somewhere in the raft of IPCC model solutions which extraopolate up to the next 80 years and more.

 

Endless revisionism over the last century is a rather futile and circular process imo - it would be better to examine the validity of a) the existence/extent of the assumed artificial feedbacks and whether these are accurately depicted for the coming century in the first place and costing the possible effects of natural forcings which are entering negative feedback processes also over a multi decadal period. But if we are going to use the IPCC benchmark for this then we need to examine artitifcial forcings and natural forcings alike over the same multi decadal period. We can't choose convenient short term time periods to try and fit one's own pov. That is never going to be realistic or reflect where the scientific research objectives lie.  But that is for the other threads in this section and not this topic in my humble little opinion.

 

In this sense, it brings us back to where the PR comes in in terms of how it *should* present the science and its research according to the long term benchmarks laid out as above and reflecting those predictions accurately and realistically without self interest cliques massaging the facts to skew opinion *she says trying to bring the subject back O/T* But first the science needs to be equinimical and realistic about ALL climate forcings and not exclusively AGW theory.

 

The PDO causing the 20th century warming is not commonly accepted or agreed. The PDO is the leading mode of variability in SST anomalies in the North Pacific. It's not a measure of the absolute anomaly (like ENSO), but of the distribution of anomalies.

If it is commonly accepted as the cause of 20th century warming, and I just missed every piece of evidence of that "fact" by pure chance, then I'm sure you'll have no problem backing that statement up with evidence

 

Within climate science, it's not currently investigating whether or not there is an human influence, it's accepted that there is, but it's the attempt to better quantify that human influence and its relationship with natural drivers.

 

The IPCC investigates both natural and "artificial" climate drivers.

 

It's many of the same scientists investigating the natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, there is no great divide going on here, except for in the mind of the "sceptics."

[Tamara]

Well there is little point in continually presenting different opinions and going round in circles. I guess one could also embark on stating their opinion about how the IPCC is approaching the science as much as anything else and that is a cul de sac too. I don't see this as a competition for any pov to be proved right, it doesn't interest me, and I haven't made up my mind about anything from either side of the coin. You clearly have. So that closes discussion, means there is nothing else to say beyond continually repeating the same thing, and makes presenting links or 'evidence' futile as well. No surprise imo that it doesn't happen as much as you wish

Edited May 7, 2013 by Tamara Road

[UV-RAY]

That's not the PDO.  You said 30 years of +ve PDO may have caused the warming, that's the opposite of what you're saying now and the opposite of what makes sense!

I also said the AMO but that too was ignored. With all that heat being pumped from A-B you would think it would have some impact wouldn't you. Wink wink!

[UV-RAY]

Well there is little point in continually presenting different opinions and going round in circles. I guess one could also embark on stating their opinion about how the IPCC is approaching the science as much as anything else and that is a cul de sac too. I don't see this as a competition for any pov to be proved right, it doesn't interest me, and I haven't made up my mind about anything from either side of the coin. You clearly have. So that closes discussion, means there is nothing else to say beyond continually repeating the same thing, and makes presenting links or 'evidence' futile as well. No surprise imo that it doesn't happen as much as you wish:)

Indeed Tamara, this is supposed to be a forum where one can exchange views without being belittled. I'm with you time to exit the climate forum and leave it to those with closed minds and argumentative attitudes. Edited May 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yep. The closed minds are the ones asking for evidence. Asking the questions "how" and "why". Asking people to explain their positions.

 

I guess that's all too much for some. Pity.

[UV-RAY]

Also why does the lower troposphere temperature anomalies of the mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere show upward shifts during El Niño events, without proportional cooling during the trailing La Ninas?

I also asked this question, any takers?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I also asked this question, any takers?

 

You don't answer any questions directed at you. You won't tell anyone what evidence you consider valid. But you continue to ask them of others.

 

Why don't you show some evidence for your statement before asking someone to explain it?

Edited May 7, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

Why does this discussion go round in circles? Perhaps because some folks keep asking the same 'question' time-and-time-again...How does CO₂ (which is a only a trace gas, after all) cause an upward warming trend? The answer has been given as many times as the 'question' has been asked...yet, still, never mind (Michael Cain voice): I bet nobody knew that!! As my mother always told me: if you already know the answer, why keep asking the question? To create confusion?

 

Being repeatedly dragged backward to re-explain (in a seemingly futile attempt to tell those who either can't/won't find out for themselves), basic physics is, IMO, one part of the AGW theorists' 'PR' problem...

[Methuselah]

I also asked this question, any takers?

What has that question got to do with PR problems? Why not ask it in the Sceptics' thread?

[knocker]

This is all OT but it is a fact that the PDO contributed to the bulk of the warming over the 20th century during its two phases from the early 20's to the late 30's and then from the 70's to the end of the 90's. I don't need to trail the web to post up a graph of this - it is commonly accepted and agreed.

 

 

did it? I was under the impression that the 70s was period of cooling. The reason for this according to Dr. Ed Hawkins was at this time we probably reached a peak of emitting particulate matter which caused a decade of global dimming. When we cleaned our act up to a certain extent then came the rise in the 80s and 90s.

[knocker]

Indeed Tamara, this is supposed to be a forum where one can exchange views without being belittled. I'm with you time to exit the climate forum and leave it to those with closed minds and argumentative attitudes.

 

As Oscar said when the bore sidled up to him in the pub and said, "i passed your house last night Mr, Wilde". Oscar replied, " thank you".

[ANYWEATHER]

Indeed Tamara, this is supposed to be a forum where one can exchange views without being belittled. I'm with you time to exit the climate forum and leave it to those with closed minds and argumentative attitudes.

The lions have won!!   But not for long...    I know its off topic, but I cant resist, and  no offence to anyone!!

[UV-RAY]

As Oscar said when the bore sidled up to him in the pub and said, "i passed your house last night Mr, Wilde". Oscar replied, " thank you".

It wasn't that old bore Michael Mann or James Hansen was it?

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely PDO warming does not just 'appear' in the system? For the oceans to be shedding heat (during PDO+ve) it must have gained it from somewhere 'down the line'? We know that a negative PDO phase coincided with the 'dimmed' period, post war, and I'd expect that low solar,dimmed and PDO-ve brought us some pretty chilly winters but it must also have been the time that the oceans were storing up heat for the positive phase which enhanced the 'post dimmed' slot prior to us again becoming dimmed and slipping into PDO-ve?

 

I would also note that the past few years have seen a lot of 'Drive by' sceptisism where bat and ball are taken home as soon as counter evidence/better factual explanation are presented? I envisage this trend to continue as evidence for the impacts of AGW accrues (esp. during the Arctic albedo flip 'global Weirding' phase?).

 

To claim you have a better/alternate understanding of the climate shift we are in does demand a rigorous process of investigation? You know full well that there is oodles of evidence stacking up behind the general AGW assertion and so should expect any alternate theory to be up against the world as we know it today? To say "Boo Hoo, you bullies will never change...." really does not plead ones case very well?

 

I'm sure nobody is defending AGW as if it were a prized possession of theirs  and most all would welcome AGW theory to be found wholly wrong (and of no great concern to humanity) but parading minor climate forcings as though they overpower mans forcings needs evidence and data to show how science got it wrong. surely that is not too much to ask for and forms the basis for any intellectual investigation of a 'claim'?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Tamara]

Final post from me in this thread and section of the forum

 

No-one has an objective to be "parading' minor forcings" to show how science got it wrong - as this post below is intended to illustrate.

 

No-one is saying any science is wrong, I only suggested yesterday that nothing should be ruled in or out - the objectives of these threads however imo should be to question all the science though and not set up on the basis that one strain of belief is the right one, and is an inevitability, and everyone who participates can only do so on the basis that they either accept this belief or they have to pass an exam (as seems to be the case) in presenting a successful case to prove it wrong.

 

It is also neither an 'us vs them' competition much as repeated before. IMO it is these factors that puts people off posting and why there are so few who inhabit this area and is the real reason for abstention from this and other threads . Posting phrases like "Boo Hoo, you bullies will never change" is an example of the sort of phrase that is exactly so unhelpful and drives people away.

 

I have looked at a few links on water vapour feedback (and assisted by someone very recently who is for sure more knowledgeable and competent in this area than me) the stratosphere of which I have built up some understanding and interpretation in my own everyday humble simple layspeak manner (and which I was ready to link what I thought was some interesting information about as promised a few days ago) and also some information (I find interesting at least) about solar angular momentum and energy and how this may/may not have influence on ENSO phases and ocean temperatures.

 

However based on probability that the links and information will be rubbished, the publisher scrutinised for their credentials, the limited audience on here that is only interested in the challenge and competitive "win if you can" type of exchanges as outlined above - I decided yesterday it is simply wiser and not worth the trouble and time to do so

 

So those are the real reasons why some (maybe like me) disappear and not necessarily because they are unable to answer in reply, although sadly admittedly as a by-product one can be made to feel this way as a consequence.  On that basis it seems wiser to leave the small entrenched group here to themselves who have already made their minds up and will dismiss anything different presented by anyone else who has a different and more open minded perspective, regardless as to whether the science is watertight or not. And besides, how much of it is totally bullet-proof anyway? *rhetorical question* 

[Gray-Wolf]

This goes back to those oft long winded exchanges with Jethro over the years.

 

The folk with concerns about AGW would dearly love to see their understandings turned on their heads and proven wrong. These folk are often first to the trough because of this very need to be wrong. These folk will have looked at absolutely everything they can think of to find fault in AGW and it's impacts but only come away even more despondent than when they entered when no such evidence is found. 

 

Most of these folk entered the 'debate' as sceptics and it is only after years of rummaging through the science that has brought them to their current understanding. They are generally well genned up on what is current in science and pretty frustrated at the amount of lies that are pushed to discredit the science they have spent years studying (to find the chink in it's Armour and so overpower it).

 

Most all of these folk are, by now, very desperate to hear some good news (as the true nature of AGW becomes ever more apparent) and do let their disappointment show if someone turns up promising a brighter future only to find it a re-hash of things they have been over ad infinitum.

 

You have to accept that ,to some, this is not a debate but a life sentence. Any promise of remission will be leapt upon and, if just another false dawn, dismissed as such.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Final post from me in this thread and section of the forum

 

No-one has an objective to be "parading' minor forcings" to show how science got it wrong - as this post below is intended to illustrate.

 

No-one is saying any science is wrong, I only suggested yesterday that nothing should be ruled in or out - the objectives of these threads however imo should be to question all the science though and not set up on the basis that one strain of belief is the right one, and is an inevitability, and everyone who participates can only do so on the basis that they either accept this belief or they have to pass an exam (as seems to be the case) in presenting a successful case to prove it wrong.

 

It is also neither an 'us vs them' competition much as repeated before. IMO it is these factors that puts people off posting and why there are so few who inhabit this area and is the real reason for abstention from this and other threads . Posting phrases like "Boo Hoo, you bullies will never change" is an example of the sort of phrase that is exactly so unhelpful and drives people away.

 

I have looked at a few links on water vapour feedback (and assisted by someone very recently who is for sure more knowledgeable and competent in this area than me) the stratosphere of which I have built up some understanding and interpretation in my own everyday humble simple layspeak manner (and which I was ready to link what I thought was some interesting information about as promised a few days ago) and also some information (I find interesting at least) about solar angular momentum and energy and how this may/may not have influence on ENSO phases and ocean temperatures.

 

However based on probability that the links and information will be rubbished, the publisher scrutinised for their credentials, the limited audience on here that is only interested in the challenge and competitive "win if you can" type of exchanges as outlined above - I decided yesterday it is simply wiser and not worth the trouble and time to do so

 

So those are the real reasons why some (maybe like me) disappear and not necessarily because they are unable to answer in reply, although sadly admittedly as a by-product one can be made to feel this way as a consequence.  On that basis it seems wiser to leave the small entrenched group here to themselves who have already made their minds up and will dismiss anything different presented by anyone else who has a different and more open minded perspective, regardless as to whether the science is watertight or not. And besides, how much of it is totally bullet-proof anyway? *rhetorical question* 

 

Pity. 

To me, it just seems that there are very few people on here willing to back up their "sceptic" assertions with any evidence, and appear to take offence when evidence is requested of them. Many of these same people will then make out that they're being bullied, insulted or are up against entrenched views, simply for not being commended on their "feelings" about climate and being requested to justify their argument.

 

It has become a "them vs us" situation, not because of the science being questioned (science should always be questioned), but when those who profit off fossil fuels don't have evidence in their favour, the best way to persuade the public is through emotive and political rhetoric. Make it a "if you believe in AGW, you're an anti-west, anti-capitalism, anti-free market, environmentalist, communist, alarmist, etc, etc.,". By doing this, almost anyone that is anti-AGW, no matter how odd, ill informed or contradictory their opinions are, will get the full backing of the other emotionally and politically driven "sceptics".

 

Look at the video that Knocker posted yesterday (reposted today). The biologists are under almost exactly the same kind attack on evolution, as climate scientists are with anthropogenic climate change. The only real difference is that the fossil fuel industry is an awful lot more powerful than the fundamentalist Christian groups.

 

In this area, open discussion and questioning of science should, and I believe, can occur. But a scientific discussion cannot work when so many people base their opinions entirely off their feelings, politics, religion or other ideologies.

[Methuselah]

Rhetoric is, I believe, a bugbear here...

 

One problem is that there are too many folks, in high places, that pride themselves of their 'ability' to produce a 20,000-word essay on absolutely nothing: listen to a speech by any politician, for example; upwards of an hour of nothing but empty platitudes, sentiments, aspirations, faiths, blah, blah, blah...These people are trained to do that; put emotions before substance. Does anyone still laugh at the memory of Clinton nitpicking the semantics of the word 'is'?

 

Science, however, has a language of its own; it does what it says on the tin; it only answers the questions it asks. How the assorted vested-interests translate that is the problem...How does one set about explaining the 'hockey stick', for example to those who cannot understand the science it contains? Give a politician an hour to pontificate on nothing at all, he'll be in his element; give him some scientific substance to convey and...Oh dear, that's not cricket!

 

It would be like expecting me to make head-or-tail of a treatise on William Shakespeare... Extremely difficult!