Sceptic Links Discussion

[Admiral_Bobski]

"Maybe a lot more of them want nothing to do with it", there is no evidence for this statement what so ever, yes a small hand full of scientists of objected to the IPCC reports over the years, but this is mainly due to the fact that they didn't get what they wanted when drawing up the conclusions, toys out of prams.

"Okay, it may not be many who have actually done this but that's not the point ", I disagree it's exactly the point you can't please 100% of the people all of the time, the fact that by and large they've pleased 95% is pretty impressive.

I quite clearly stated that these comments were speculative, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that for every person who has vocalised their objections there are others who haven't. In any instance where a group of people feel hard done by there is always a portion of them who express their feelings and a portion who don't. The people who don't may not want to rock the boat, or they may feel that it would be detrimental to speak out or they may simply not be bothered to take the time. Whatever the truth of the matter, the point I was making is that the IPCC report is clearly not the work of 2,500 scientists that it is claimed to be.

You may have that chain of reasoning but be honest it's completely baseless. All the scientists involved might be receiving payments of 1 million a year from Greenpeace but's it's very unlikely.

It's not baseless - it's a logical process of reasoning starting from the fact that not everyone who was "involved" with the IPCC report was happy with that report.

I've not really seen much from the sceptic POV or links really based on facts and hard researched science and there in lies the problem. It's always an unknown x that gets quoted instead of any of the real climate science.

You've obviously not read through all of the Environment Change forum then... I have posted a lot, stated my point of view on various aspects of climate change, linked to legitimate articles, and I'm not the only one. I certainly have pointed to the liklihood of "unknowns" on occasion, but they're hardly the crux of the skeptic argument.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13282

The above link proves my point perfectly. Science whats that ?.

I think the point of that article is that even a 15 year old has found problems with the AGW argument. (Oft-voiced problems, but problems nonetheless.)

CB

[jethro]

There was a 50/50 split around 10-15 years ago, since then however the debate has moved on, who on earth is going to fund something if it's already largely been discounted by existing reputable institutions.

I've not really seen much from the sceptic POV or links really based on facts and hard researched science and there in lies the problem. It's always an unknown x that gets quoted instead of any of the real climate science.

I question the 50/50 funding split, do you have hard evidence of this that you could post a link to please? How can anything be largely, or even slightly discounted if it has not been adequately researched? New information or new understanding of known climate drivers is emerging all the time, how can we declare the science as a done deal?

There are loads of links to genuine, verified, scientific papers in the sceptics links pages - the link to the teenage girl was, as accurately spotted by Capt'n Bob, a touch of irony...

Edited June 19, 2007 by jethro

[HighPressure]

Even if we forget scientific argument entirely and just take the IPCC on merit they have no foundation in correctly predicting anything in fact they have previously been wrong even by their own admissions.

A lay person I might be but stupid I am not and I would not be backing the IPCC if it was a horse with its track record.

I still want to know why Mars has warming by 0.5oC since the 1970s similar to that of Earth even more so now since Devonian's following comments on solar enegy:

Has it, solar activity, increased? Perhap by a little but not by enough to explain all the warming seen. What solar change data do you approve of?

So putting my very unscienfic brain to work then , I come with the question how come Mars has warmed to 0.5oC if solar enegy has not increased enough? Surely there is only 3 possible answers to this:

1: Solar activity is indeed high enough to cause warming making it a positive forcing?

2: Solar activity has not increased enough to cause warming therefore Mars is warming due to some other natural force?

3: Complete fluke that the warming appears to be similar as caused by totally different things?

Now I know enough about scientists that fluke is very unlikely to be an acceptable answer?

[jethro]

No problem, Jethro!

Maybe I should change my signature to Captain Bobski: Psychotically Standing up for Skeptics!

What do you think...a bit OTT...?

CB

Someone's got to do it, may as well be you, you'll get my vote. OTT? Needs must...

[Iceberg]

Even if we forget scientific argument entirely and just take the IPCC on merit they have no foundation in correctly predicting anything in fact they have previously been wrong even by their own admissions.

A lay person I might be but stupid I am not and I would not be backing the IPCC if it was a horse with its track record.

I still want to know why Mars has warming by 0.5oC since the 1970s similar to that of Earth even more so now since Devonian's following comments on solar enegy:

Has it, solar activity, increased? Perhap by a little but not by enough to explain all the warming seen. What solar change data do you approve of?

So putting my very unscienfic brain to work then , I come with the question how come Mars has warmed to 0.5oC if solar enegy has not increased enough? Surely there is only 3 possible answers to this:

1: Solar activity is indeed high enough to cause warming making it a positive forcing?

2: Solar activity has not increased enough to cause warming therefore Mars is warming due to some other natural force?

3: Complete fluke that the warming appears to be similar as caused by totally different things?

Now I know enough about scientists that fluke is very unlikely to be an acceptable answer?

Again another major problem with the sceptics,a single report claims that Mars is warming by 0.5C and it's taken as another big find. It's not.

People struggle is agree on the amount the earth is warming per a decade atm some say it's 0.33C some say it's 0.16C and that's with hundreds of grounds measurements and countless satallites etc. How many Sat's do we have around Mars measuring temp for the last 20 even 10 years...... A big fat 0.

The 15 years old hasn't found anything out at all, if you want to discredit Hanson, who unlike most sceptic scientists has produced peer reviewed research then do so using science.

The 50/50 funding split is an estimate of how I remember things back in the good old days when funding was given to the likes of spencer, Landsceit(sorry it's early in the morning I can't be bothered to look up how to spell his name) etc. Even the IPCC back then only classified AGW as a possibility, the reason why being that some science at the time didn't support it and what did was rather patchy.

Yes new feedbacks and drivers come to light and they should be and are looked at, unfortunately most of the research finds back up AGW or even make it's effects worse.

[Iceberg]

CB No the IPCC is the work of 2500 scientists with around 200 or so involved in drawing up the conclusions, not all of the 2500 will agree with all the conlusions that's only natural, your guessing and assumptions though don't do you much credit and is yet another example of the use of unknowns. I am sure some body with a couple of thousand pounds could arrange a blind phone poll of the scientists involved to say yes or no about whether they support the majority of the IPCC conclusions. I've not heard anything to back this up. So far around 4 or 5 scientists have expressed there unhappiness I can think of very few scientific disiplines where there is this level of agreement over a relatively new set of theories.

So which of the sceptic links provide real science then. ?

[Roger J Smith]

Greetings from the land that global warming forgot, British Columbia. It has been decidedly cool and wet here since about the middle of November 2006. That came after two or three years of fairly steady warm and dry weather similar to what the U.K. was "enjoying" up until about April.

I am also a strong believer that natural variation is still driving the global climate and that AGW is not as large a factor as many assume. But part of this comes simply from the tendency for most non-scientists to misinterpret the various confidence assertions of the IPCC, such as the recent "90% certainty" endorsement. When the panel of scientists say this, they do not of course mean that they think 90% of the observed warming is from AGW; rather, they are saying they are 90% confident that AGW is a large factor in that warming. I would have to go back and read the fine print as to what percentage they are 90% confident is AGW, but it's not 90%.

Therefore I would have no great disagreement with the IPCC on that, if they would allow me to be 90% certain that observed global warming could be, say one-third anthropogenic in origins. That's about the upper limit of my own assessment, 15% would be the lower limit, so I'm saying I am pretty certain that the observed warming is about three-quarters natural variation and one-quarter greenhouse gas induced.

Now what that would imply is that if natural variation switched over to a cooler global climate, or large regional coolings at least, these might still be able to out-duel the AGW components, but in reality, as several here have discussed, these processes are notoriously difficult to model or even understand, and the interaction between rising greenhouse gas levels and some kind of natural cycle of cooling would be very difficult to predict in any reliable detail.

Indeed, this is what we may be witnessing to some extent in parts of the world. The southern hemisphere has displayed a tendency for stronger antarctic outbreaks reaching the southern continents in recent years. Eastern North America has also had some very cold winters at times, after the public was substantially convinced by the science-driven media from 1987 to 1992 that such winters would be a thing of the past. The very cold winter of 1994 came as quite a surprise to many people -- January's mean temperature in parts of Ontario was as cold as any of the months in the 19th century or earlier 20th century and a full seven C degrees below normal.

It was after this and some other prominent cold episodes that global warming morphed into climate change as a going concern. Now this is not entirely a scam in my estimation, the developing and infant science has every right to meander around through various phases as it develops, and perhaps one day it will be as devoid of active skeptics as gravitation which tends to kill off its doubters if they become too experimental.

Assertions made here and elsewhere that skeptics are motivated by financial considerations makes me laugh; I have been skeptical of this theory for twenty years now and have basically been black-listed from working in the profession in Canada as a result. So where's my financial motivation? I think the concept of the energy lobby's paid consultants is more of an urban legend than anything else.

On the other hand, there are vast sums of money at stake in the pollution credit trading practices endorsed by Kyoto, and this is one of two main factors that should point independent-minded observers to look for politics as much as science at work in this new scientific development. The other is the obvious blind eye being turned to China, which demonstrates that the politics of global warming are not very subtly left-wing, as is most of modern science and academic discourse in general.

These are things that the media will not examine or discuss in any depth because they share the same general agenda, for whatever reasons, and prefer to distort the debate just as they do with evolution and intelligent design, placing the most extreme forms of creationism as a straw man to be knocked down while the more challenging aspects of intelligent design, and all of the mixture of science and politics involved in that, go uninvestigated and unreported.

The same process acts out here on NW in microcosm, but as with all other such questions, the outcome will be determined not so much by the tenacity of one side or the other, but by the actual course of events. The AGW theory is one cold decade away from extinction, if that should come to pass. On the other hand, skepticism is not likely to diminish for any reason, because even prominent warming will not overturn the hypothesis that the warming is largely natural.

So I would look for this debate to continue, even though the playing field is continuously being distorted by a rather obvious social and political process to undermine active skeptics in any possible way. One hopes actually that the result will be a large natural cooling, because that will give some hope of ending this rather regrettable episode in the development of our science, which after all is more or less the problem child of the scientific family in general -- while every other branch of science developed predictive systems and plausible overviews, the atmospheric sciences have struggled for the whole of the 20th century to find any kind of working rules that would allow for accurate forecasts beyond about six or seven days, and that has not really changed very much recently despite glowing reports here and there. Meanwhile, as I'm finding through personal experience, any attempt to demonstrate a case study that gives substance to a competing theory is routinely ignored, because the weather establishment today fervently wants to believe that the human race is controlling the climate and there is no changing their mind with any degree of traditional scientific process. And I don't see that changing without a massive cooling that will entirely end the infatuation with AGW.

I do see this playing out over very long time scales so get used to it, this controversy will be with us for a long time.

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB No the IPCC is the work of 2500 scientists with around 200 or so involved in drawing up the conclusions, not all of the 2500 will agree with all the conlusions that's only natural, your guessing and assumptions though don't do you much credit and is yet another example of the use of unknowns. I am sure some body with a couple of thousand pounds could arrange a blind phone poll of the scientists involved to say yes or no about whether they support the majority of the IPCC conclusions. I've not heard anything to back this up. So far around 4 or 5 scientists have expressed there unhappiness I can think of very few scientific disiplines where there is this level of agreement over a relatively new set of theories.

So which of the sceptic links provide real science then. ?

No, the IPCC is not "the work of 2500 scientists". (It's all getting a bit Panto, isn't it? "Oh no it isn't", "Oh yes it is"!) A better way of wording it would be "The work of 2500 scientists was used in writing the IPCC report", which is a rather different thing.

You are distorting what I have said to try and discredit me. My "assumptions" (I would call them "speculations", since I don't absolutely believe them to be true but accept that they exist as a possibility - again, a rather different thing) are as a result of my general feeling with regards to the IPCC's untrustworthiness. They claim that the certainty of mankind's influence has risen from 60% to 95%, yet the report offers no truly valid reasons for this claim. They have reduced the Sun's influence on our climate by about 50% but, again, offer no truly valid reasons for doing so. They have taken some scientists' work and completely misinterpreted it (case in point being the work on malaria by Professor Paul Reiter) for their own ends. My "assumptions" seem quite possible when considering the quality of the IPCC's so-called Science.

Roger has also brought up the valid point above that the IPCC claim to be 95% certain of mankind's influence on climate, but this 95% certainty only applies to maybe 50% of the report. Where does that leave us?

Should we go through the skeptic links one at a time and sort out the chaff from the grain? Since you seem to think that none of the skeptic links has any relation to "Real Science" then perhaps the onus is on you to point out the ones you think guilty of this.

As for the 15 year old, what she has done is brought into question Dr Hansen's motives and the legitimacy of his research by bringing up the issue of funding - why does it seem that skeptic funding is always considered bad and detrimental to true science and yet pro-AGW funding is good and comes delivered in envelopes full of scented rose petals?

She also brought up the Urban Heat Island effect, a debate which I have had on here several times in the past. I am still at the point where I think the UHI effect has caused some distortion to figures, and I don't think it's an invalid argument to bring up - others will disagree with me.

So while she may not be a scientist, and she's only 15 years old, she's still/i] managed to pinpoint some areas of contention surrounding certain aspects of the theory of AGW. If a 15 year old can do it then just how shaky is the foundation of this theory?

CB

Edited June 20, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

I don't think Jethro's talking about scientists "writing science to their liking", but rather about so-called "Independent" groups (primarily the IPCC) taking legitimate science and "interpreting the science to their liking", which is a somewhat different thing.

It is frequently stated that the IPCC report is the work of 2,500 scientists, but this is not actually true. The original scientific papers from which the IPCC compiled their report were written by a grand total of 2,500 scientists, but the report itself is written by maybe one or two dozen people, not all of whom are themselves scientists.

Several of the scientists whose work was cited have asked to have their names removed from the final report. Okay, it may not be many who have actually done this but that's not the point - the fact is that 2,500 scientists are alleged to have been involved in the compilation of the report and yet some of them don't want anything to do with it. Maybe a lot more of them want nothing to do with it. There may even be some people who aren't even aware that their names are on the report (this is speculation, again, but it shows the kind of chain of reasoning which arises when considering the reality of the situation as opposed to the IPCC version of events).

But, once again, instead of refuting or countering Jethro's comments you choose to try and attack the credibility of the skeptic argument.

What?

Jethro made a post with lots of 'ifs' in it. I drew attention to that in my reply. What's the problem?

I tried to draw attention to the use of the word 'if'. I didn't say what you said in your first para any more that Jethro did, because in both cases we conditioned what we said with 'if'. But, clearly, we both left the impression we wished to leave. See my point?

Edited June 20, 2007 by Devonian

[Devonian]

No, the IPCC is not "the work of 2500 scientists". (It's all getting a bit Panto, isn't it? "Oh no it isn't", "Oh yes it is"!) A better way of wording it would be "The work of 2500 scientists was used in writing the IPCC report", which is a rather different thing.

You are distorting what I have said to try and discredit me. My "assumptions" (I would call them "speculations", since I don't absolutely believe them to be true but accept that they exist as a possibility - again, a rather different thing) are as a result of my general feeling with regards to the IPCC's untrustworthiness. They claim that the certainty of mankind's influence has risen from 60% to 95%, yet the report offers no truly valid reasons for this claim.

It's a huge report. I haven't read it all, but I'm glad to see you have?

They have reduced the Sun's influence on our climate by about 50% but, again, offer no truly valid reasons for doing so.

Oh, you haven't read the relevant section then?

They have taken some scientists' work and completely misinterpreted it (case in point being the work on malaria by Professor Paul Reiter) for their own ends.

Now you are talking about the 2001 report not the more recent 2007 one?

My "assumptions" seem quite possible when considering the quality of the IPCC's so-called Science.

Once again, instead of refuting or countering the IPCC's science you choose to try and attack the credibility of the IPCC.

Roger has also brought up the valid point above that the IPCC claim to be 95% certain of mankind's influence on climate, but this 95% certainty only applies to maybe 50% of the report. Where does that leave us?

Should we go through the skeptic links one at a time and sort out the chaff from the grain? Since you seem to think that none of the skeptic links has any relation to "Real Science" then perhaps the onus is on you to point out the ones you think guilty of this.

As for the 15 year old, what she has done is brought into question Dr Hansen's motives and the legitimacy of his research by bringing up the issue of funding - why does it seem that skeptic funding is always considered bad and detrimental to true science and yet pro-AGW funding is good and comes delivered in envelopes full of scented rose petals?

She also brought up the Urban Heat Island effect, a debate which I have had on here several times in the past. I am still at the point where I think the UHI effect has caused some distortion to figures, and I don't think it's an invalid argument to bring up - others will disagree with me.

So while she may not be a scientist, and she's only 15 years old, she's still/i] managed to pinpoint some areas of contention surrounding certain aspects of the theory of AGW. If a 15 year old can do it then just how shaky is the foundation of this theory?

CB

I suspect the shakyness is elsewhere. Why we've got to the point of quoting schoolchildren, who are clearly still learning, beats me. It's an indirect attack on the academic credibility of scientists, by implying a fifteen year old knows better. Seriously, does anyone seriously think a fifteen year old schoolgirl knows better than the IPCC. I'm amazed some seem to.

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's a huge report. I haven't read it all, but I'm glad to see you have?

I have fully read the section that discusses the science (a while ago now, admittedly), though I have not fully read the sections on the environmental and socialogical impacts, the mitigation strategies and the economic implications.

Oh, you haven't read the relevant section then?

I have but I failed to see anything conclusive that would lead them to their 50% reduction.

Now you are talking about the 2001 report not the more recent 2007 one?

No, I'm talking about the 4AR. Obviously.

Once again, instead of refuting or countering the IPCC's science you choose to try and attack the credibility of the IPCC.

Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It all comes back to the point that several people on both sides of the argument have been saying (myself included), which is that we should really debate the science rather than attempting to cast doubt on the sources of the information. If the science put out by a particular group is shaky then it should be easy to find holes in it - I have found what I (and others) consider to be holes in the IPCC's conclusions, so I pick at the IPCC report.

The problem is that the IPCC reports are waved about as proof that global warming is real, whereas their reports are only, in fact, their conclusions based on other people's science.

I suspect the shakyness is elsewhere. Why we've got to the point of quoting schoolchildren, who are clearly still learning, beats me. It's an indirect attack on the academic credibility of scientists, by implying a fifteen year old knows better. Seriously, does anyone seriously think a fifteen year old schoolgirl knows better than the IPCC. I'm amazed some seem to.

You fail to see the point that this 15 year old has raised some seemingly valid concerns. If a 15 year old can pick up on these points then why can the IPCC not?

Once again, though, the scientists' credibility is not necessarily in dispute - only the conclusions of the IPCC, a group which was specifically organised to determine the risks of global warming. If that's not an innate bias then I don't know what is...

Shall we put the IPCC debate to bed now and try discussing some science?

CB

[Devonian]

Greetings from the land that global warming forgot, British Columbia. It has been decidedly cool and wet here since about the middle of November 2006. That came after two or three years of fairly steady warm and dry weather similar to what the U.K. was "enjoying" up until about April.

I am also a strong believer that natural variation is still driving the global climate and that AGW is not as large a factor as many assume. But part of this comes simply from the tendency for most non-scientists to misinterpret the various confidence assertions of the IPCC, such as the recent "90% certainty" endorsement. When the panel of scientists say this, they do not of course mean that they think 90% of the observed warming is from AGW; rather, they are saying they are 90% confident that AGW is a large factor in that warming. I would have to go back and read the fine print as to what percentage they are 90% confident is AGW, but it's not 90%.

Therefore I would have no great disagreement with the IPCC on that, if they would allow me to be 90% certain that observed global warming could be, say one-third anthropogenic in origins. That's about the upper limit of my own assessment, 15% would be the lower limit, so I'm saying I am pretty certain that the observed warming is about three-quarters natural variation and one-quarter greenhouse gas induced.

Now what that would imply is that if natural variation switched over to a cooler global climate, or large regional coolings at least, these might still be able to out-duel the AGW components, but in reality, as several here have discussed, these processes are notoriously difficult to model or even understand, and the interaction between rising greenhouse gas levels and some kind of natural cycle of cooling would be very difficult to predict in any reliable detail.

Indeed, this is what we may be witnessing to some extent in parts of the world. The southern hemisphere has displayed a tendency for stronger antarctic outbreaks reaching the southern continents in recent years. Eastern North America has also had some very cold winters at times, after the public was substantially convinced by the science-driven media from 1987 to 1992 that such winters would be a thing of the past. The very cold winter of 1994 came as quite a surprise to many people -- January's mean temperature in parts of Ontario was as cold as any of the months in the 19th century or earlier 20th century and a full seven C degrees below normal.

Roger, we can all cherry pick data. I could point out to you how warm the Uk has been, the record warmth of 2006. However, like your figures, both would say little about global trends.

It was after this and some other prominent cold episodes that global warming morphed into climate change as a going concern. Now this is not entirely a scam in my estimation, the developing and infant science has every right to meander around through various phases as it develops, and perhaps one day it will be as devoid of active skeptics as gravitation which tends to kill off its doubters if they become too experimental.

Assertions made here and elsewhere that skeptics are motivated by financial considerations makes me laugh; I have been skeptical of this theory for twenty years now and have basically been black-listed from working in the profession in Canada as a result. So where's my financial motivation? I think the concept of the energy lobby's paid consultants is more of an urban legend than anything else.

If you refer to what I wrote then please read it again and don't misquote me I said 'If' that's IF!

On the other hand, there are vast sums of money at stake in the pollution credit trading practices endorsed by Kyoto, and this is one of two main factors that should point independent-minded observers to look for politics as much as science at work in this new scientific development. The other is the obvious blind eye being turned to China, which demonstrates that the politics of global warming are not very subtly left-wing, as is most of modern science and academic discourse in general.

These are things that the media will not examine or discuss in any depth because they share the same general agenda, for whatever reasons, and prefer to distort the debate just as they do with evolution and intelligent design, placing the most extreme forms of creationism as a straw man to be knocked down while the more challenging aspects of intelligent design, and all of the mixture of science and politics involved in that, go uninvestigated and unreported.

So you're persecuted? We better not get into ID here...

The same process acts out here on NW in microcosm, but as with all other such questions, the outcome will be determined not so much by the tenacity of one side or the other, but by the actual course of events. The AGW theory is one cold decade away from extinction, if that should come to pass. On the other hand, skepticism is not likely to diminish for any reason, because even prominent warming will not overturn the hypothesis that the warming is largely natural.

Ahh, so you're sure you'll win. I wish I had your confidence. Head you win tails we loose - neat trick if you can pull it off.

So I would look for this debate to continue, even though the playing field is continuously being distorted by a rather obvious social and political process to undermine active skeptics in any possible way.

What, you get questioned you mean

One hopes actually that the result will be a large natural cooling, because that will give some hope of ending this rather regrettable episode in the development of our science, which after all is more or less the problem child of the scientific family in general

Read as rather contemptious to me - sadly.

-- while every other branch of science developed predictive systems and plausible overviews, the atmospheric sciences have struggled for the whole of the 20th century to find any kind of working rules that would allow for accurate forecasts beyond about six or seven days, and that has not really changed very much recently despite glowing reports here and there. Meanwhile, as I'm finding through personal experience, any attempt to demonstrate a case study that gives substance to a competing theory is routinely ignored, because the weather establishment today fervently wants to believe that the human race is controlling the climate and there is no changing their mind with any degree of traditional scientific process. And I don't see that changing without a massive cooling that will entirely end the infatuation with AGW.

I do see this playing out over very long time scales so get used to it, this controversy will be with us for a long time.

And again. Pity.

Once again, though, the scientists' credibility is not necessarily in dispute - only the conclusions of the IPCC, a group which was specifically organised to determine the risks of global warming. If that's not an innate bias then I don't know what is...

Shall we put the IPCC debate to bed now and try discussing some science?

CB

Ha, ha , ha, very good CB. Dismiss the vast body of science that the IPCC is a digest of and then, in all seriousness apparently, say 'shall we ... try discussing some science'. I like your sense of humour

[Admiral_Bobski]

If you refer to what I wrote then please read it again and don't misquote me I said 'If' that's IF!

Sorry Devonian, I don't mean to be offensive by saying this but it would appear that most people have misconstrued your comment to Jethro. It certainly read as though it was intended sarcastically. Here's what you said:

If fossil fuel companies were funding certain scientists to write science to their liking, science that disputed there is a significant AGW effect, we'd have good reason not to trust that science wouldn't we? That's if they were doing that. Right?

And here's what it seemed to say:

If fossil fuels companies fund certain scientists then we shouldn't trust their science, right? Well, we all know that happens, so those scientists are not reliable.

If this is not what you intended then perhaps it would make sense in future to re-read your posts and consider how others might interpret your remarks...?

Honestly, no offense intended, but clear wording is essential in a debate.

CB

Ha, ha , ha, very good CB. Dismiss the vast body of science that the IPCC is a digest of and then, in all seriousness apparently, say 'shall we ... try discussing some science'. I like your sense of humour

And again you twist my words.

Please, I am more than happy to discuss the science - the self-same science that the IPCC used in their report! I'm not dismissing that "vast body of science" in the slightest - I'm saying we should discuss it and form our own conclusions rather than relying on the conclusions of the IPCC.

Do you see?

CB

[Devonian]

Sorry Devonian, I don't mean to be offensive by saying this but it would appear that most people have misconstrued your comment to Jethro. It certainly read as though it was intended sarcastically. Here's what you said:

If fossil fuel companies were funding certain scientists to write science to their liking, science that disputed there is a significant AGW effect, we'd have good reason not to trust that science wouldn't we? That's if they were doing that. Right?

And here's what it seemed to say:

If fossil fuels companies fund certain scientists then we shouldn't trust their science, right? Well, we all know that happens, so those scientists are not reliable.

If this is not what you intended then perhaps it would make sense in future to re-read your posts and consider how others might interpret your remarks...?

Honestly, no offense intended, but clear wording is essential in a debate.

CB

CB, you do know what the word 'if' means, surely? Just like Jethro's post, it says 'if'. Why don't you get that? What does 'if' mean? What does it do to what I said if you remove an 'if' from it? It changes what I said! Do that if you wish, but that wouldn't be what I said.

But, this is getting silly.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, you do know what the word 'if' means, surely? Just like Jethro's post, it says 'if'. Why don't you get that? What does 'if' mean? What does it do to what I said if you remove an 'if' from it? It changes what I said! Do that if you wish, but that wouldn't be what I said.

But, this is getting silly.

The first sentence was fine - it was the barbed second sentence that changed the meaning of your whole post.

But yes - this is getting silly.

CB

[jethro]

Morning everyone, and what a grey, damp morning it is too.

For Dev... My comments on the IPCC report were phrased in a questioning manner, littered with "ifs"; I have a propensity to write in this way having spent many formative years with Editors words ringing loud and clear in my ear about the dangers and costs of libellous comments. A question is not a statement, ergo, not libel. Remove my "ifs" and replace with "when" and perhaps you could then answer my post? I do often find your responses to my posts to be dismissive and sarcastic but for the sake of peaceful discussion I let them pass. This may just be your way of communicating with the world? And before you start down the "I'm feeling persecuted" route again, I am not. I am however frustrated with the ease you dismiss posts, not just mine, without actually discussing or responding to the scientific content.

For Iceburg... all my searching for funding details has resulted in there being a vast disparity between natural/manmade, again can you please point me in the right direction to clarify this? I am of the opinion that there isn't anywhere near enough money around to support the research of natural climate drivers but more than enough to support AGW, if natural causes cannot be researched how can they be considered? This has been one of my major gripes, if I am wrong then it would obviously alter my perspective. When it comes to Mars warming, you raised a valid point about our lack of knowledge but every journey has a beginning, lack of data shouldn't preclude its' inclusion, it should provoke further investigation; Mars isn't the only planet to exhibit apparent recent warming.

And finally, the link I posted regarding the teenage girl was ironic. It wasn't intended as a scientific reference point nor holding her up as a pillar of wisdom who knows better than everyone else; it was an example of how even one so young, can pick holes in the the current climate debate.

Can we talk about the impact of Solar output now please?

Or perhaps this?

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i21/8521news8.html

Edited June 20, 2007 by jethro

[Devonian]

Morning everyone, and what a grey, damp morning it is too.

For Dev... My comments on the IPCC report were phrased in a questioning manner, littered with "ifs"; I have a propensity to write in this way having spent many formative years with Editors words ringing loud and clear in my ear about the dangers and costs of libellous comments. A question is not a statement, ergo, not libel. Remove my "ifs" and replace with "when" and perhaps you could then answer my post? I do often find your responses to my posts to be dismissive and sarcastic but for the sake of peaceful discussion I let them pass. This may just be your way of communicating with the world? And before you start down the "I'm feeling persecuted" route again, I am not. I am however frustrated with the ease you dismiss posts, not just mine, without actually discussing or responding to the scientific content.

Well, I can't say I thank you for those words because I don't. I will say I'm seriously interested in the sound science of all this and have been for many decades. To reply as you do doesn't alter that. I live near Exeter, I simply will not accept (without proof ) that the kind of science that comes out of the Hadley Centre and ends up in IPCC reports is politically biased, poor or agenda driven.

Again, for the science lets delve into the latest IPCC reports shall we, rather than alternatives that to some are more acceptable?

Or perhaps this?

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i21/8521news8.html

It's interesting. What's you take on it?

[jethro]

When it comes to the science, I don’t doubt it; I never have-whether it comes from the Hadley Centre, or elsewhere. What I do question is the body of evidence. I do not for one minute believe we know all we need to know or can know about our climate and planet. Our knowledge of natural phenomena is the tip of the Iceberg. To assume that our current understanding is complete or even anywhere near is risible. To assume from that information that we know, how our role fits into the equation is questionable to say the least.

When it comes to the IPCC, it is bound to be scrutinised by official bodies and rightly so. If those bodies find anomalies or have doubts/questions, these should be raised and addressed. The IPCC report and those who compiled it shouldn’t expect to stand alone and above criticism; their work should stand on its’ own merit and if it doesn’t, it isn’t the criticism which is wrong. It is impossible to separate the IPCC from politics; there are potentially huge winners and huge losers with their scenarios and indeed individual countries were allowed to read and insist on edits to the original draft copy. These edits were not based on disputed science. Placating countries in order to gain their support for the report is pure politics.

I find the link interesting too. Co2 is supposed to lead temperature increase but if warming oceans cause large burps of it to the surface then the accepted science is wrong. The dispute with the Ice Core samples as to which came first surely must be looked at again? When it comes to measuring time scales from so long ago it is impossible to reduce the range to a few decades so when they use the term “large burp”, although it implies a singular event happening instantaneously; as we understand the term burp to mean, it could actually be a longer, more prolonged time spell. If this is the case, then how do we know the increase in C02 today is entirely down to us? Surely this means a natural mechanism for warming the oceans exists that we as yet, have no understanding of?

[Iceberg]

The whole point of the ARGO experiment is to look at the natural drives behind current changes etc. The hole point of the polar year is to better understand how polar regions respond to climate change, both natural and anthropogenic.

A lot of research has been spent better understanding Enso, NAO, PDO etc, research has been done on Natural Methane releases and Also Solar forcing, (which is why we can discount various solar works.)

Yes we should be studying our other planets because they can help, but nothing has come from that in reality to really help us with our climate study, also who is going to fund something that might or might not be worth while, we are going to need some starting evidence that futher study would be worthwhile.

"was ironic.....it was an example of how even one so young, can pick holes in the the current climate debate. "

If you really think she picked holes then fair play, but IMO she did nothing more than raise known political issues in a rather one sided way, Just very good for a 15 yo but hardly worthy of much else.

I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, sceptics assume that research is carried out to support AGW. IMO this is very wrong 90% of the time, research is carried out to better understand how the earth's climate works, (look at GW's thread for evidence). Yes mentioned is often made in press releases about AGW or an AGW connection, but look at the science.

Mention was made about me going though each thread Unfortunately I simply don't have the time, a challenge for the sceptics, show me a link discussing the science and not a bias press release and we can discuss (I think this thread is to discuss that anyway !), if you want to discuss press tit tattle then by all means but many people that agree with the AGW theory don't really have time to come back on you.

The CO2 increase today is due to us, entirely we know this due to the isotopic signature that different C02 molecules have.

[Devonian]

When it comes to the science, I don’t doubt it; I never have-whether it comes from the Hadley Centre, or elsewhere. What I do question is the body of evidence. I do not for one minute believe we know all we need to know or can know about our climate and planet. Our knowledge of natural phenomena is the tip of the Iceberg.

Ok, accuse me of being blunt if you like, but how do you know?

To assume that our current understanding is complete or even anywhere near is risible.

Same question.

To assume from that information that we know, how our role fits into the equation is questionable to say the least.

...

I find the link interesting too. Co2 is supposed to lead temperature increase but if warming oceans cause large burps of it to the surface then the accepted science is wrong.

So, it couldn't be a feedback then?

The dispute with the Ice Core samples as to which came first surely must be looked at again? When it comes to measuring time scales from so long ago it is impossible to reduce the range to a few decades so when they use the term “large burp”, although it implies a singular event happening instantaneously; as we understand the term burp to mean, it could actually be a longer, more prolonged time spell. If this is the case, then how do we know the increase in C02 today is entirely down to us?

As Iceberg says, this is known. Indeed, if anything is known with certainty in the whole ACC business it's that we are the reason for the rise in CO2 conc. End of story, it's not worth arguing about.

Surely this means a natural mechanism for warming the oceans exists that we as yet, have no understanding of?

Well, if we had no understanding of it we'd not know if it were a warming or cooling mechanism, or indeed of it . But this is back to your view that much is left to be discovered. Again, I'd like to know how you know this.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Another interesting link there, Jethro. It will be especially interesting to read the results of future studies (South America here we come!).

To me the key point about temperatures leading CO₂ increase in the historic record is that it has the potential of diminishing the reverse effect (i.e. CO₂ causing temperatures to rise).

That is to say, if increasing temperatures cause CO₂ to rise but increasing CO₂ doesn't make a substantial difference to temperatures, then CO₂ becomes a rather redundant factor in global warming.

It seems that there is little doubt that the vast majority of the additional atmospheric CO₂ is manmade, but if atmospheric CO₂ doesn't actually affect temperatures all that much then the observed increase is rather irrelevant.

I have debated this with P3 in the past but, unfortunately, neither of us was able to come up with anything conclusive. The prevailing view is that temperature increases create an influx of CO₂ to the atmosphere (mainly oceanic in origin), and then this additional CO₂ causes temperatures to rise further, which causes more CO₂ to be released...resulting in a positive feedback loop which can only be stopped, some time later, by some other forcing.

I found (and still find) this to be an unsatisfying solution - the Vostok Ice Core graph suggests a fairly linear correlation between temps and CO₂. I would have expected an exponential or logarithmic correlation in a positive feedback loop, and even the scientists couldn't satisfactorily answer that question (and P3 very kindly asked one for me!).

Also, I would expect there to be some distinguishing point on the graphs where CO₂ takes the lead over temperature, but there seems to be no such distinguishing point. For such an apparently seamless transition it would have to be the Mother of all Coincidences!

So this "Ocean Burping", and Jethro's suggestion of a subsequent continuous release of CO₂ from the oceans, strikes me as being rather a satisfying discovery.

CB

Well, if we had no understanding of it we'd not know if it were a warming or cooling mechanism, or indeed of it . But this is back to your view that much is left to be discovered. Again, I'd like to know how you know this.

In Science, one should always assume that one does not know everything.

Jethro said that "a natural mechanism...exists that we...have no understanding of". We can know a lot about something without having an actual understanding of it.

How many people know about Relativity and its implications for, say, faster-than-light travel but don't have any actual understanding of the physics involved? Quite a few, I'd wager.

At the end of the 19th Century, after the discovery of electromagnetism and protons and electrons and a whole plethora of other things, professors and lecturers were recommending that students don't follow a path leading to research in Physics. Why? Because they thought it was a dead end. Everything there was to learn in Physics had been learned - all that was left was to tidy up a couple of loose ends, but all the actual discoveries had been made.

It's lucky that some students don't listen to their elders, really...

CB

Edited June 20, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Jethro said that "a natural mechanism...exists that we...have no understanding of". We can know a lot about something without having an actual understanding of it.

How many people know about Relativity and its implications for, say, faster-than-light travel but don't have any actual understanding of the physics involved? Quite a few, I'd wager.

At the end of the 19th Century, after the discovery of electromagnetism and protons and electrons and a whole plethora of other things, professors and lecturers were recommending that students don't follow a path leading to research in Physics. Why? Because they thought it was a dead end. Everything there was to learn in Physics had been learned - all that was left was to tidy up a couple of loose ends, but all the actual discoveries had been made.

It's lucky that some students don't listen to their elders, really...

CB

OK, Jethro's point partially taken/conceded. Again, this is use of the written word. But, I think Jethro is saying no one knows/understand it not that 'we' don't understand it? But I may be wrong. However if there are those who understand this new natural mechanism, who are they? Where is the equivalent 'A brief history of time'?

Edited June 20, 2007 by Devonian

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

But, this is getting silly.

You said it Devonian...well identified

BFTP

[Admiral_Bobski]

OK, Jethro's point partially taken/conceded. Again, this is use of the written word. But, I think Jethro is saying no one knows/understand it not that 'we' don't understand it? But I may be wrong. However if there are those who understand this new natural mechanism, who are they? Where is the equivalent 'A brief history of time'?

I never said that there were people who understood "this new natural mechanism". I was pointing out that it is possible to know about something without actually understanding it. (Yes, I believe Jethro was using the word "we" in terms of "the entire human race", not specifically the group of us who frequent Netweather - I was using the physics analogy as a way of pointing out that knowledge doesn't necessarily imply understanding.)

Never mind that...for a moment there we started actually talking about science...any thoughts?

CB

Edited June 20, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[HighPressure]

I would like an answer to my question regarding warming on Mars, are the pro camp saying that is no warming on Mars?

If they are what is the conclusion based on?

If the warming on Mars is as stated 0.5oC over the past 30yrs how is it happening?

Now I do think man is responsible for some part of Warming on Earth but this question will not go away, I do seek a genuine answer please!