Politics And AGW/GW

[Iceberg]

Completely agree with the bbc article. All the BBC are doing is reporting what a number of the top world scientists are saying. Basically data gathered over the Year of polar exploration has yielded the below. Which is an update on the IPCC AR, where they truthfully said they didn't know much about the potential sea level rises as there was not enough data. We can either disregard what the scientists are saying out of hand or assume that they are being honest and truthful.

"Dr John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia and the lead speaker in the sea level session, told the conference, "The most recent satellite and ground based observations show that sea-level rise is continuing to rise at 3 mm/yr or more since 1993, a rate well above the 20th century average. The oceans are continuing to warm and expand, the melting of mountain glacier has increased and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are also contributing to sea level rise."

New insights reported include the loss of ice from the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. "The ice loss in Greenland has accelerated over the last decade. The upper range of sea level rise by 2100 might be above 1m or more on a global average, with large regional differences depending where the source of ice loss occurs", says Konrad Steffen, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder and co-chair of the congress session on sea level rise."

[Methuselah]

I would not expect the BBC to report both sides but to take the most extreme view which does not represent a consensus even within the AGW camp is spin as far as I am concerned.

But, what is the 'other side': that sea-level isn't really rising, that Arctic and Antarctic ice isn't really melting?

[Gowon]

But, what is the 'other side': that sea-level isn't really rising, that Arctic and Antarctic ice isn't really melting?

How about? It might be a natural process. <_<

[Admiral_Bobski]

But, what is the 'other side': that sea-level isn't really rising, that Arctic and Antarctic ice isn't really melting? <_<

I suppose the "other side" is that the rate of sea level rise is not increasing.

CB

[Iceberg]

But they the scientists are saying that the rate of increase has increased. I admit I want to see the evidence but can't unfortunately find it atm.

[Methuselah]

How about? It might be a natural process. <_<

It almost certainly is - to a point.

I suppose the "other side" is that the rate of sea level rise is not increasing.

CB

Quite right: some say it's rising, some say it's not, and others still say it's both rising and rising faster...Which is true?

[noggin]

It's all political.

A jolly interesting article here....I have to say that it has a ring of truth about it. Quite a loud one, actually. The only thing that I would take issue with is the "control" bit. Although on second thoughts, if the word "power" is sustituted for the word "control", then I think the article may well have hit the nail on the old bonce.

http://www.pvbr.com/Issue_1/cvsty.htm

[jethro]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=heavy+gravity

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Earth--Atm...se_notes_3b.pdf

Not sure what to make of this but it does have a valid point or two

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BaitandSwitch.pdf

Edited March 13, 2009 by jethro

[Thundery wintry showers]

they have pushed an unproven hypothesis and defended it in the face of contradictory evidence.

Very misleading. It's a hypothesis that isn't "proven", but it certainly has a lot of evidence behind it- and while contradictory evidence certainly exists, so does supporting evidence.

Most of the 2500 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are bureaucrats appointed by their governments to push a political agenda.

Er, I know a fair number of people who are on the IPCC and they are not bureaucrats at all.

I agree that politics is a major barrier to reasoned discussion on climate change, but had to take issue with points like the above two.

[Methuselah]

Very misleading. It's a hypothesis that isn't "proven", but it certainly has a lot of evidence behind it- and while contradictory evidence certainly exists, so does supporting evidence.

Er, I know a fair number of people who are on the IPCC and they are not bureaucrats at all.

I agree that politics is a major barrier to reasoned discussion on climate change, but had to take issue with points like the above two.

And then, after branding virtually the whole IPCC (and anyone-else who doesn't just dismiss AGW out-of-hand) what amounts to hacks, the purveyors of such diatribes, try to call themselves 'open-minded'!

[Solar Cycles]

Completely agree with the bbc article. All the BBC are doing is reporting what a number of the top world scientists are saying. Basically data gathered over the Year of polar exploration has yielded the below. Which is an update on the IPCC AR, where they truthfully said they didn't know much about the potential sea level rises as there was not enough data. We can either disregard what the scientists are saying out of hand or assume that they are being honest and truthful.

"Dr John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia and the lead speaker in the sea level session, told the conference, "The most recent satellite and ground based observations show that sea-level rise is continuing to rise at 3 mm/yr or more since 1993, a rate well above the 20th century average. The oceans are continuing to warm and expand, the melting of mountain glacier has increased and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are also contributing to sea level rise."

New insights reported include the loss of ice from the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. "The ice loss in Greenland has accelerated over the last decade. The upper range of sea level rise by 2100 might be above 1m or more on a global average, with large regional differences depending where the source of ice loss occurs", says Konrad Steffen, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder and co-chair of the congress session on sea level rise."

No suprises there Iceberg <_< It does seem the beeb suffer from selective amnesia, where was they when Dr Vickie Pope called for more balanced reporting? The above fable is a joke, pure speculation with icing on top. Where do they pull these figures out from?

[Chris Knight]

Very misleading. It's a hypothesis that isn't "proven", but it certainly has a lot of evidence behind it- and while contradictory evidence certainly exists, so does supporting evidence.

Er, I know a fair number of people who are on the IPCC and they are not bureaucrats at all.

I agree that politics is a major barrier to reasoned discussion on climate change, but had to take issue with points like the above two.

Where does one start?

Hypotheses are just that - proposals for discussion - and in the scientific sense, can merely be disproven, or can stand as long as another superior hypothesis is not forthcoming - in the case of climate change the discussion continues, the science is most definitely not settled.

AGW is merely a hypothesis - not even a theory, and definitely not a natural law.

Er, I know a fair number of people who are on the IPCC and they are not bureaucrats at all.

<_<

You also then presumably do not know the remainder of the people who are on the IPCC, and cannot comment whether they are bureaucrats or not? In science statistics deal with fuzzy quantities like this - how many people who are on the IPCC do you know, TWS? Knowing this fact, together with the published number of authors on the IPCC documents, we can then judge the validity of your comment.

[Methuselah]

Where does one start?

Hypotheses are just that - proposals for discussion - and in the scientific sense, can merely be disproven, or can stand as long as another superior hypothesis is not forthcoming - in the case of climate change the discussion continues, the science is most definitely not settled.

AGW is merely a hypothesis - not even a theory, and definitely not a natural law.

Maybe you are right. But some hyptheses are stronger than others. AGW theory (or hypothesis) was invented to account for observations...Anyway, some of the attempts at falsification I've seen are just plain ludicrous (desperate?): CO2 has already reached the apex of its absorptivity (Is that a word? <_< ); lunar cycles are to blame; CO2 build-up NEVER preceeds global warming...etc. etc. All have the feel of being baloney IMO.

But, I agree wholeheartedly that the science is not settled...

[Chris Knight]

Maybe you are right. But some hyptheses are stronger than others. AGW theory (or hypothesis) was invented to account for observations...Anyway, some of the attempts at falsification I've seen are just plain ludicrous (desperate?): CO2 has already reached the apex of its absorptivity (Is that a word? ); lunar cycles are to blame; CO2 build-up NEVER preceeds global warming...etc. etc. All have the feel of being baloney IMO.

But, I agree wholeheartedly that the science is not settled...

I guess that some of us have either better or less well developed baloney detectors than others - merely a hypothesis, you understand... <_<

[Methuselah]

I guess that some of us have either better or less well developed baloney detectors than others - merely a hypothesis, you understand... <_<

That reminds me. I left my cure-all crystals at home today...

[Gray-Wolf]

Politics guys!!! ,Science on the other thread. <_<

The Beeb article was politics ,it was politicians showing their understanding of what their nations chief scientists bring to them and their 'political' answers.

[Chris Knight]

<_< That reminds me. I left my cure-all crystals at home today...

Don't worry Pete, I knew that, and had already empathised them (their vibes, that is) to you via the internet.

[Methuselah]

Politics guys!!! ,Science on the other thread.

The Beeb article was politics ,it was politicians showing their understanding of what their nations chief scientists bring to them and their 'political' answers.

But how-else do we justify why we think they are right or wrong then - if not with science (or, more correctly, our collective understanding, or misunderstanding of science)?

IMO, a politically-motivated counter-argument is no better than the original politically-motivated argument that it's supposed to refute???

I'm feeling argumentative today!

Don't worry Pete, I knew that, and had already empathised them (their vibes, that is) to you via the internet.

Thank you, Chris...My chakras are feeling better already.

Chakras by return. <_<

[Chris Knight]

But how-else do we justify why we think they are right or wrong then - if not with science (or, more correctly, our collective understanding, or misunderstanding of science)?

IMO, a politically-motivated counter-argument is no better than the original politically-motivated argument that it's supposed to refute???

I'm feeling argumentative today!

See - they are working already!

But how-else do we justify why we think they are right or wrong then - if not with science (or, more correctly, our collective understanding, or misunderstanding of science)?

IMO, a politically-motivated counter-argument is no better than the original politically-motivated argument that it's supposed to refute???

I'm feeling argumentative today!

Thank you, Chris...My chakras are feeling better already.

Chakras by return. <_<

Gee - I'm honoured: I have a small glass sphere in which I shall install them, and place them next to the twin urns that contain my parents (separate) ashes. I shall revere them always. I must go now, as I am in danger of flooding the keyboard, thanks again...sniff...

[7andY]

<snip>

The upper range of sea level rise by 2100 might be above 1m or more on a global average, with large regional differences depending where the source of ice loss occurs", says Konrad Steffen, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder and co-chair of the congress session on sea level rise."

Does this mean that sea levels will rise more where the ice is melting? Interesting - water with hills!! I know the oceans differ in height across the globe, but these are caused by rotational forces, now we have ice-melt forces too!!

7&Y

[HighPressure]

I suppose the "other side" is that the rate of sea level rise is not increasing.

CB

Or that it is natural.

"Dr John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia and the lead speaker in the sea level session, told the conference, "The most recent satellite and ground based observations show that sea-level rise is continuing to rise at 3 mm/yr or more since 1993, a rate well above the 20th century average. The oceans are continuing to warm and expand, the melting of mountain glacier has increased and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are also contributing to sea level rise."

As I posted on another thread the Auz Government is also saying this:

Thus, ozone depletion is likely to reduce the capacity of

Antarctic waters to act as a sink for atmospheric CO2, and

exacerbate global climate change due to ‘greenhouse’

warming.

Source Australian Antarctic Department

I don't want to make this a science thread but Media reports and government spin only seeks to show what they want it too even if it means ignoring their own findings to get a sensationist point over.

[Roo]

the published number of authors on the IPCC documents, we can then judge the validity of your comment.

The list of the WG1 authors:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg1/wg1authors.pdf

along with the organisations they represent.....(see page 16 of below PDF link)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a...wg1-annexes.pdf

So please do show us which of these recognised scientists are bureaucrats???

Edited: to add details of authors from IPCC, not Wiki

Edited March 13, 2009 by Roo

[Iceberg]

Does this mean that sea levels will rise more where the ice is melting? Interesting - water with hills!! I know the oceans differ in height across the globe, but these are caused by rotational forces, now we have ice-melt forces too!!

7&Y

Suprisingly the height of water is set to vary considerably depending on where the melting occurs. There is very little water that goes from the Atlantic to the Pacific(except the THC) I think the estimates are that if the melting occurs from Greenland then NW Europe and NE States will see levels 50-300% higher than areas such as South America. At least for a period of 10 years or so.

So we might see a 2m increase(for the first 5-10 years) dropping slowly to 30 cm whereas Chile will only ever see a 30cm increase.

Hope that makes sense.

[Chris Knight]

The list of the WG1 authors:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg1/wg1authors.pdf

along with the organisations they represent.....(see page 16 of below PDF link)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a...wg1-annexes.pdf

So please do show us which of these recognised scientists are bureaucrats???

Edited: to add details of authors from IPCC, not Wiki

Thanks for those lists Roo. They tell me nothing. I have worked for Birmingham City Council, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, Richmond Borough Council, Chelsea College (University of London), Imperial College (University of London), The Royal Free Hospital (University College London), The University of Kingston Upon Hull, and several private companies. Would you care to let me know the subject of my BSc Hons (Leeds), or MSc (Sheffield), and whether I was ever a bureaucrat or a honourable scientist, or a damned economist?

[Roo]

Thanks for those lists Roo. They tell me nothing. I have worked for Birmingham City Council, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, Richmond Borough Council, Chelsea College (University of London), Imperial College (University of London), The Royal Free Hospital (University College London), The University of Kingston Upon Hull, and several private companies. Would you care to let me know the subject of my BSc Hons (Leeds), or MSc (Sheffield), and whether I was ever a bureaucrat or a honourable scientist, or a damned economist?

OK...let me put it this way: Find me one, just one, from that list who is a bureaucrat? If so many are, this should be easy......