Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

A growing groundswell of opinion?

Recommended Posts

By the way, did the link answer the questions that you say nobody ever answers, or is even the massed capability of the Royal Society holding erroneous opinions.

At the end of the day if laymen on here, some of whom in the past have struggled to even accept that climate is warming at all, are going to hold forth against massed scientific opinion, then as I said at the head there's really no point arguing.

The Royal Society Q&A linked to previously basically establishes the "concensus viewpoint", which is precisely the viewpoint which we skeptics have problems with.

In "Misleading Argument 1" they make the point that "...even when we take all these factors into account, we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans - for example, eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850." This is based upon the assumption that a 150-year-long record is sufficient to start drawing conclusions from (almost as if to say, "look at the way temps increased over the last 100 years - they didn't in the previous 50, so something's amiss...").

In the same argument they say, "We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years." But this states as fact something which is actually open to debate, namely that ice core measurements may not be entirely accurate (check over on the "Could Solar Inactivity..." thread for more details).

More in the same argument: " The increase in global temperature is consistent with what science tells us we should expect when the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase in the way that they have.

" Interestingly, I can't find anything on the Internet that derives the basic forcing property of CO2 from experiment - the closest I have found are papers documenting the forcing property of CO2 as derived from running computer models and simulations. Any help on this would be appreciated. (More on this can be found in the "Solar Inactivity" thread as well).

In "Misleading Argument 6" they say "While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures." Again, this has been discussed recently in the "Solar Inactivity" thread, in which I propose the possibility that an increased level of solar activity may have an effect even if the level of solar activity isn't increasing.

Anyway, without wishing to make an overlong post longer still, the Royal Society are simply setting the AGW goalposts firmly in the place that the Pros want them to be (pretty much as determined by the IPCC). What the skeptics are suggesting is that perhaps those goalposts are not in the right place.

CB

EDIT - Sorry to bury Pottyprof's last post...scroll up and read it, everybody! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though Monders tells me they've been having some kind of 'Glitch' with the farside imaging things still look like they're starting to 'wind up' on the sun over the past week

as todays 'space weather' far side image attests to. If by Chrimbo we have continued in this trend then not only will we have been treated to an overlong Solar min. but also a pretty busy start to Cycle 24.

Though folk seem to wish the initial predictions for cycle 24 wrong (and hence this thread) surely if there is credence to be found in a quiet sun then an extra busy one won't help global temps esp. with the added CO2 burden from Indochina and a failed southern ocean 'sink' to 'trap ' all of that 'extra heat' in.

Fun times ahead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you are merely tarring everyone with the same brush, myself included. Loony, sceptic denialists when you know full well this is not the case. I'm wondering if the root cause of the repeated mis-representation is a ploy to annoy those of us who do have questions, to the point that we just give up and leave the pro side to have their merry way. It won't work you know.

I'm not tarring anybody. The fact is that as Magpie has pointed out above, there are a few people for whom no amount of evidence is ever going to convince them. I have posted up a sumamry of rebuttals from the Royal Soc for you, which cover most of the points you and others have made over recent months and years. I really have nothing to add. The position is simple, not to say right or wrong. I have looked at all of the available evidence, and have been doing so for thirty or so years now, and am happy that we are warming, and that much of that warming is probably being driven by anthropogenic effects. You have looked at the evidence and remain doubtful. As and when we cool I might change my mind, I do not know what would or could ever change your mind.

If you follow the Royal Soc link to the section showing personal perspectives there is an excellent piece - the last of the five if I remember rightly - oin which one of the scientists makes the point that if you're looking for absolute proof that warming is man-made you're missing the point: that cannot be proven absolutely, not for perhaps another century or so, but in terms of making decisions on policy what matters is a judgement based on probabilities, and here the case is more compelling. I think for several years now that has been my position precisely. The sceptics will keep on rolling out the "we'll cool next year" type arguments, but the longer it refuses to happen more, the more forlorn such a hope appears to be. And for me there's the nub in many cases: I honestly suspect that many doubters simply prefer that the climate didn't change for the warmer. I might share that hope, but show me the scientific principle in which hope plays a concrete part: there isn't one alas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Royal Society Q&A linked to previously basically establishes the "concensus viewpoint", which is precisely the viewpoint which we skeptics have problems with.

In "Misleading Argument 1" they make the point that "...even when we take all these factors into account, we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans - for example, eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850." This is based upon the assumption that a 150-year-long record is sufficient to start drawing conclusions from (almost as if to say, "look at the way temps increased over the last 100 years - they didn't in the previous 50, so something's amiss...").

In the same argument they say, "We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years." But this states as fact something which is actually open to debate, namely that ice core measurements may not be entirely accurate (check over on the "Could Solar Inactivity..." thread for more details).

More in the same argument: " The increase in global temperature is consistent with what science tells us we should expect when the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase in the way that they have.

" Interestingly, I can't find anything on the Internet that derives the basic forcing property of CO2 from experiment - the closest I have found are papers documenting the forcing property of CO2 as derived from running computer models and simulations. Any help on this would be appreciated. (More on this can be found in the "Solar Inactivity" thread as well).

In "Misleading Argument 6" they say "While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures." Again, this has been discussed recently in the "Solar Inactivity" thread, in which I propose the possibility that an increased level of solar activity may have an effect even if the level of solar activity isn't increasing.

Anyway, without wishing to make an overlong post longer still, the Royal Society are simply setting the AGW goalposts firmly in the place that the Pros want them to be (pretty much as determined by the IPCC). What the skeptics are suggesting is that perhaps those goalposts are not in the right place.

CB

EDIT - Sorry to bury Pottyprof's last post...scroll up and read it, everybody! ;)

CB,

I'm sorry, but some of the arguments are increasingly desperate.

Re point 1: 150 years of records is perfectly long enough. There are several on here who keep going on about natural cycles. I said last year, and the year before that, that we are now right at the limit of what could plausibkly be argued from a statistical perspective to be a naturally occurring cycle, since whihc time we have continued to warm. You either understand and accept statistical treatments or you do not, but there comes a point where hanging on as you do would be akin to watching a coin land nine or ten times consecutively on the same side and not be suspecting that there's a bias (go try it - allowing a second per toss, and completing each series of ten irrespective, you'll probably still be at it around 4:30 this afternoon). It is not just the length of the record, it is the extent and concentration of the warming that is eye opening. If a UFO appeared overhead right now would you sit there and say "gosh, how do we know this really is unusual"?

Beware your argument re ice core and climatic record. You cannot have it both ways. If we're using the record on the one hand - as several on here do - to suggest that in the past CO2 has been higher and temperature has been higher, then why trust the record and method ONLY when it suits our method? Palaeoclimatologists use a number of methods: the AGW case does not hang by a single lazy thread.

Re CO2 and forcing I can only assume that either you haven't looked or don't know where to look. Here's one link:

http://www.crystalinks.com/greenhouseffect.html

Read the whole - they make the useful point comparing Mars, Venus and Earth. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, or whether the answer is 'nothing' but I don't want to have to agree: there's a major difference. I can only assume your point is that there's no concrete proof of the extent to which increasing CO2 would lead to an increase in temperature at all, but you could usefully clarify what you're doubting.

Re your final point 'I propose the possibility that an increased level of solar activity may have an effect even if the level of solar activity isn't increasing' I am at a loss to understand your point. It seems to me that what you're saying is 'okay, there isn't actually any soalr forcing going on, but if there were then it would explain the warming'. This is like me saying that if I stuck my hand in a kettle of boiling water I would get burned. I would, but as it isn't happening then I'm not sure what the point is.

In any case, your post rather makes my point. At the end of the day sceptics are sceptics. I observed off line this morning that reflecting on spending forty minutes in the company of fellow pupils back in my schooldays, we didn't all derive the same understanding from the lesson. Some people 'get things', some don't. We've all had precisely the same transmitted experience though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not tarring anybody. The fact is that as Magpie has pointed out above, there are a few people for whom no amount of evidence is ever going to convince them. I have posted up a sumamry of rebuttals from the Royal Soc for you, which cover most of the points you and others have made over recent months and years. I really have nothing to add. The position is simple, not to say right or wrong. I have looked at all of the available evidence, and have been doing so for thirty or so years now, and am happy that we are warming, and that much of that warming is probably being driven by anthropogenic effects. You have looked at the evidence and remain doubtful. As and when we cool I might change my mind, I do not know what would or could ever change your mind.

With regards to the summary of rebuttals, any thoughts on my points mentioned above?

I think a lot of skeptics would be more convinced (or would even have their minds changed) if the evidence were less circumstantial and suppositional, and were more robust and empirical.

:lol:

CB

EDIT - I see you have just responded to my last post while I was tip-tap-tapping away! Sorry 'bout that ;) I'll have a read through and get back to you in a moment. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CB,

I'm sorry, but some of the arguments are increasingly desperate.

I fail to see how they are "desperate" - they're much the same complaints I have had for quite some time, not new ones I've just thought up because my old ones didn't work... Nonetheless, you continue thusly:

Re point 1: 150 years of records is perfectly long enough. There are several on here who keep going on about natural cycles. I said last year, and the year before that, that we are now right at the limit of what could plausibkly be argued from a statistical perspective to be a naturally occurring cycle, since whihc time we have continued to warm. You either understand and accept statistical treatments or you do not, but there comes a point where hanging on as you do would be akin to watching a coin land nine or ten times consecutively on the same side and not be suspecting that there's a bias (go try it - allowing a second per toss, and completing each series of ten irrespective, you'll probably still be at it around 4:30 this afternoon). It is not just the length of the record, it is the extent and concentration of the warming that is eye opening. If a UFO appeared overhead right now would you sit there and say "gosh, how do we know this really is unusual"?

How, when there are geological and astronomical cycles of far longer durations, can 150 years be considered sufficient to draw any realistic conclusions? Here's an analogy: let's say there's a bath with a leaky tap. The tap leaks for 12 hours at a time to the extent that the bath starts to fill, but after 12 hours it stops leaking and the bath drains. This happens repeatedly, and without fail, over a period of several days. If someone comes into the bathroom 8 hours into the "leak" cycle and watches the tap dripping for three hours then they could easily come to the conclusion that the bath will overflow in, say, 5 hours' time, completely oblivious to the fact that in reality the leak will stop in an hour and the bath will drain.

To summarise, if you have a phenomenon that has been occurring for 6 days (144 hours), then a 3 hour record is pretty meaningless.

Beware your argument re ice core and climatic record. You cannot have it both ways. If we're using the record on the one hand - as several on here do - to suggest that in the past CO2 has been higher and temperature has been higher, then why trust the record and method ONLY when it suits our method? Palaeoclimatologists use a number of methods: the AGW case does not hang by a single lazy thread.

Nothing I have said negates any previous arguments, especially since the argument is that the ice core CO2 records are too low - if a skeptic argument is that CO2 levels have been higher before, but the CO2 levels were actually even higher then I fail to see where the problem is.

The AGW case may not hang by a single lazy thread - it hangs by several of them. And those threads are forged on the primary assumption that AGW exists as a real phenomenon, so just how strong are those threads really?

Re CO2 and forcing I can only assume that either you haven't looked or don't know where to look. Here's one link:

http://www.crystalinks.com/greenhouseffect.html

Read the whole - they make the useful point comparing Mars, Venus and Earth. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, or whether the answer is 'nothing' but I don't want to have to agree: there's a major difference. I can only assume your point is that there's no concrete proof of the extent to which increasing CO2 would lead to an increase in temperature at all, but you could usefully clarify what you're doubting.

Well, you have assumed incorrectly. I have looked, for many hours at a time, and I can't find a straightforward piece of experimentation which gives us an actual figure to work off (something like "in a controlled environment this much CO2 increase lead to this much temperature increase"). The link you have provided is the same as many others I have read, and doesn't actually give me the information I am looking for.

I could be overly pedantic and point out that the comments made about Venus's greenhouse effect are based largely on assumptions and not actual facts, since we actually know surprisingly little about Venus. :lol:

Re your final point 'I propose the possibility that an increased level of solar activity may have an effect even if the level of solar activity isn't increasing' I am at a loss to understand your point. It seems to me that what you're saying is 'okay, there isn't actually any soalr forcing going on, but if there were then it would explain the warming'. This is like me saying that if I stuck my hand in a kettle of boiling water I would get burned. I would, but as it isn't happening then I'm not sure what the point is.

I thought the point was quite clear, but I shall try and simplify it a bit:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Earth can radiate up to 500 W/m2 in a given time period (this is just a handy round number!). Let's say that the incoming radiation is 450 W/m2. Obviously everything would be fine (who knows - the Earth might even cool!).

Now let's say that the incoming radiation starts to increase over a period of time until it finally reached 500 W/m2. Earth's temperature is stable, since the incoming and outgoing radiation are equal.

Then the incoming radiation goes up to 501 W/m2, then 502 W/m2, then 503 W/m2. Obviously, during this increase, Earth's temperature will go up.

What happens when we reach 505 W/m2 and the incoming radiation stays at 505? Well, during the first period the Earth will gain 5 W/m2 of energy. During the second period it will gain another 5 W/m2 of energy. But the total extra energy in the system will be 10 W/m2, because the first 5 W/m2 is still in the system!

So the incoming radiation has levelled off at a point above Earth's capacity to radiate. Even though the incoming radiation is not actively increasing, Earth continues to warm.

In any case, your post rather makes my point. At the end of the day sceptics are sceptics. I observed off line this morning that reflecting on spending forty minutes in the company of fellow pupils back in my schooldays, we didn't all derive the same understanding from the lesson. Some people 'get things', some don't. We've all had precisely the same transmitted experience though.

Fortunately i think you may have just solved my problem - it never occurred to me that perhaps I "just don't get it"! Thanks for that, for now I can just blindly swallow everything I'm fed and we can all be one big happy family.

(Sorry - that came across as a bit bitter, didn't it?)

;)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know,I've spent all this afternoon browsing the 'net for articles on climate change (no,on this particular day with the family out I don't have a life). Gawd,there's almost a googolplex of articles,some incredibly highbrow,some cynical,funny,mocking etc. Whatever their primary source,they can all be interpreted in different ways. I know there are certain posters on here who will shake their heads and want to wash their hands of me (SF,P3 and others),but no matter how hard I look I can't see even the most tenuous link between our CO2 emissions and climate change,given the percentages we're talking about. Fair enough,I respect the conclusions you have come to,as I trust you respect mine. As you alluded to with your classroom capers,SF,I too can't understand why presumably intelligent,thoughtful people come to differing conclusions when presented with the same information,but there you go.

There is of course several threads on the go concerning climate change,but though they all start off with the same good intentions they inevitably end up the same-stalemate! One 'side' is convinced it has assimilated the information available correctly and then tries to persuade the other 'side' that it must be reading it wrong. For example,over on the solar forcing thread I told Dev that I would post links with regard to solar influence on climate,but I'm not going to bother. Sorry Dev. Why not? Well,the information is there for everyone to access,but human nature dictates that I would only post the information which had the strongest argument in my favour,and Dev would counter by providing links with the strongest arguments discounting solar influence. And on it would go...

To this end I'm going to withdraw from these threads for at least a little while and just observe,in order to preserve my sanity and halt my receding hairline. And remember,we're talking about something that (arguably!!)we have no control over and it's not going to lead to a murder or a war,at least not within the realms of NW! Before I go,I'd like to leave you with this:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

I think it's absolutely brilliant! No doubt some of you will be a little miffed but it's not in any way levelled at people who've thought it out,but at those who've got caught up in the whole global warming thing without really having a clue about it,which must comprise a goodly proportion of the population who believe. Enjoy(or not!). Catch y'all later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Here's an analogy: let's say there's a bath with a leaky tap. The tap leaks for 12 hours at a time to the extent that the bath starts to fill, but after 12 hours it stops leaking and the bath drains. This happens repeatedly, and without fail, over a period of several days. If someone comes into the bathroom 8 hours into the "leak" cycle and watches the tap dripping for three hours then they could easily come to the conclusion that the bath will overflow in, say, 5 hours' time, completely oblivious to the fact that in reality the leak will stop in an hour and the bath will drain.

To summarise, if you have a phenomenon that has been occurring for 6 days (144 hours), then a 3 hour record is pretty meaningless.

...

It's a good analogy on which to build C-B, though I think your application is flawed, and herein lies a rub to which I will return and re your closing point.

Say I do arrive when you say, on an upswing in the cycle, but let's say I'm wearing the hat of a statistical process engineer having to advise on whether or not to undertake an expensive repair. The bath is not in imminent danger of overflow, and I have seen cycles before, so I reckon that I'll collect some data because I'm unlikely to have found events at either the zenith or nadir.

And I watch, and as you say, eventually I see that the tap stops and the level drops. Over time, a few days perhaps, I build up a pattern and I realise that, whatever the length of the cycle, it always operates within an upper and lower limit. Assured of this I reduce the frequency of my visits, though I set a condition alarm at just above the current peak, or close to it, so that I manage the risk of my reduced visitis in case a sudden anomaly or failure occurs. And then, a few days later, that alarm does go off. I come see what's happening and the tap is still dripping long after it should have stopped and the level is higher than it has ever been. It is this subtlety that your simple starting point overlooks. In all my measurements there never has been a level this high, and furthermore, the extent of the anomaly is such that it's not just a minor tweak above the previous pattern: it's becoming a big leap - and the tap isn't showing any signs of stopping.

Now let's transfer this to more real world considerations. Say I'm a flood engineer. managing flood retention dams in a watercourse during an excessive - beyond design - period of run-off. And it takes me an hour to operate the sluices to protect a dam from being breached. Once the level climbs to one at which, should rise continue, I cannot prevent disaster, then I am left only to HOPE that in the remaining hour inflow will stop. Not a prudent position to be in, particularly if the cost of catastrophic failure is huge. If the cost is not huge, then it doesn't matter, but if it si or might be, then my decisions are vital, and I may be drfting towards the land of making 'least bad' decisions. Thus the captain of a stricken jet who cannot make a runway needs to decide where best to land, even though any landing is likely to bring onboard catastrophe, he or she can act to minimise damage on the ground.

You either understand stats or you do not, but I do not need 1000 or 10000 years of data to be able to say what might have happened, or will happen. If you doubt this then think about opinion polls that routinely use no more than 1000 carefully selected people (not selected as specific individuals, but chosen to reflect the population as a whole) to predict, with usually very good accuracy, the outcome of a countrywide election involving around 20 million voters. Just 1000 data points projecting the behaviour of 20,000,000! HOW can that be possible?

So, we don't have a three hour record, we have a 350 year record in the UK, and around half that globally. And the point we are at now is NOT within previous meaured bounds, it is outside, and outside to the extent that we are at best hard against the point where it can be put down to natural variation, if not already beyond it. Each year we have these discussions, each year the metaphorical tap continues to drip, ech year people come on here saying "it's happened before". It hasn't, and the longer the climb continues the more hollow the protests become.

If you don't understand stats, inferential and extrapolative stats in particular, then I can't help you. It's like using a translator in a foreign country whose language you neither speak nor understand to ask a question and hearing a reply that you don't like. Is the translator having you on perhaps? You have to decide who to trust if you can't understand. If you can understand then you have to make your own case. How you respond to this frustrating reality - your previous comment re bitterness perhaps, is up to you.

Re the solar radiation: thank you for your clarification which, by the way, is in no way what you previously said. I daresay you know what you meant, but the words that you can read into plugging the gaps of brevity don't transmit through these wires. Anyway, your physics is flawed. Energy gets converted. Increasing the incoming budget simply increases conversion: molecules get more excited (heat is a measure of molecular energy - hence at absolute zero you have total inactivity). Say incoming radiation increases then we will say, get more wind, slightly warmer surfaces, more evaporation etc. But if the increase stabilises then the additional excess does not compound. It's like you putting your foot on the accelerator. The car only continues to speed up so long as you keep your foot on the throttle, increasing the flow of energy. A better analogy would be to imagine you get a new job with a big hike in pay. You move house, and go on holiday abroad for the first time. The following year you get an inlfation balancing increase. Do you buy an even bigger house and go on holiday twice a year? No, the previous increase has already been consumed in maintaining a new balance, and that new balance requires the same investment of income (energy) every year.

The only way the climate could warm under increased solar activity would be for that increase to continue, or for the albedo to decrease, or thermal capacity of earth to increase (or some combination of all three). In any case, this is (flawed) hypothesis. I have posted the plots on the solar thread that show that the last thrity years of dramatic warming coincide with a change in solar flux of...nothing.

Perhaps now you can see why I suggest the arguments are desperate. In this brief discussion you have both refuted the CO2 record held in the ice core, and concurrently accepted the ice temperature data as evidence of the world having been warmer in the past. YOu cannot have it both ways, and whilst you do you risk appearing to choose selectively to suit your own position. It's hardly scientific, and it's poor argument and debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a good analogy on which to build C-B, though I think your application is flawed, and herein lies a rub to which I will return and re your closing point.....Perhaps now you can see why I suggest the arguments are desperate. In this brief discussion you have both refuted the CO2 record held in the ice core, and concurrently accepted the ice temperature data as evidence of the world having been warmer in the past. YOu cannot have it both ways, and whilst you do you risk appearing to choose selectively to suit your own position. It's hardly scientific, and it's poor argument and debate.

The analogy was a fine one, but you have highlighted the problem with analogies - they can easily be extended beyond their usefulness.

Your lengthy post shows only that you have completely failed to grasp my argument, which is not my failing (since others seem to have grasped it okay).

Oh - and I understand statistics and their application just fine, thank you.

More later...

:cold:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could pick one word from today's discussion it would be 'circumstantial' surely that is the key? Many genuinely believe that evidence to be enough to prove AGW. However many like myself (not a denier) also trying to be just as genuine with no axe to grind cannot make the leap from circumstantial to reality. Some of the evidence which may also be circumstantial I agree coming from the opposite camp is just as compelling. Science by its very nature has to continue to search for an indisputable answer, it has to accept all possibilities as neutrally as possible and investigate them. This process is still ongoing, but the problem is that we now have 2 camps determined on only proving what suits them, and that is not good for science as a whole.

What has to be remembered is that the IPCC is not a scientific body it is a governmental advisory panel, its findings only include the research they want to include, they simply leave out dissenting views and therefore produce biased reports and conclusions. Of course the deniers do this as well with the 'Great GW Swindle' being a prime example.

The true balance of Climate change views are a lot more diverse and far closer than the IPCC actually suggest. I think there must be a lot of genuine scientists out there that object to their work being pigeon holed and used for the objectives of one side or another. I think science is truly missing a lot of vital research which may cross the boundaries of both views. There appears to be no room for a bit of AGW and a bit of nature, because neither side wants to print it. Isn't that worrying for science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The analogy was a fine one, but you have highlighted the problem with analogies - they can easily be extended beyond their usefulness.

Your lengthy post shows only that you have completely failed to grasp my argument, which is not my failing (since others seem to have grasped it okay).

Oh - and I understand statistics and their application just fine, thank you.

More later...

:cold:

CB

Perhaps you might like to explain your position and precisely why and how I have failed to understand, otherwise it's a pointless discussion really. I might as well sit here and say "well, you're wrong, because I say you are". Hardly high class argument. I've explained why I would add to your analogy, and why I think your completely wrong re solar flux and its impact. In future perhaps I should just stop at "no, you're wrong".

...

What has to be remembered is that the IPCC is not a scientific body it is a governmental advisory panel, its findings only include the research they want to include, they simply leave out dissenting views and therefore produce biased reports and conclusions. Of course the deniers do this as well with the 'Great GW Swindle' being a prime example.

The true balance of Climate change views are a lot more diverse and far closer than the IPCC actually suggest. I think there must be a lot of genuine scientists out there that object to their work being pigeon holed and used for the objectives of one side or another. I think science is truly missing a lot of vital research which may cross the boundaries of both views. There appears to be no room for a bit of AGW and a bit of nature, because neither side wants to print it. Isn't that worrying for science?

HP, again, easy words, but you might care to present some data behind a line which suggests that somehow the IPCC start with a prejudicial opinion and go looking for data to make their point. Presumably every single bit of UN sponsored research is so flawed is it, or does the flaw only extend to matters of climate?

There nmay be a diverse range of opinions, there are on many topics, scientific or not, but to suggest that there is not general concensus around the warming climate and man's part in it strikes me as delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I could pick one word from today's discussion it would be 'circumstantial' surely that is the key? Many genuinely believe that evidence to be enough to prove AGW. However many like myself (not a denier) also trying to be just as genuine with no axe to grind cannot make the leap from circumstantial to reality. Some of the evidence which may also be circumstantial I agree coming from the opposite camp is just as compelling. Science by its very nature has to continue to search for an indisputable answer, it has to accept all possibilities as neutrally as possible and investigate them. This process is still ongoing, but the problem is that we now have 2 camps determined on only proving what suits them, and that is not good for science as a whole.

What has to be remembered is that the IPCC is not a scientific body it is a governmental advisory panel, its findings only include the research they want to include, they simply leave out dissenting views and therefore produce biased reports and conclusions. Of course the deniers do this as well with the 'Great GW Swindle' being a prime example.

The true balance of Climate change views are a lot more diverse and far closer than the IPCC actually suggest. I think there must be a lot of genuine scientists out there that object to their work being pigeon holed and used for the objectives of one side or another. I think science is truly missing a lot of vital research which may cross the boundaries of both views. There appears to be no room for a bit of AGW and a bit of nature, because neither side wants to print it. Isn't that worrying for science?

Well done HP, succinct, eloquent and pretty much sums my views up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here we go again!

The IPCC is a hamstrung modern day 'league of nations' with the 'dissenters' calling all the shots ( one happens to be the richest, most energy guzzling, capitalist driven, planet murdering, born again ,nightmare of a nation and another the 'great aspirer').

Many , if not most of the contributors to the latest IPCC document were furious at the diluted drivel that was allowed into publication (esp. the folk working on ice sheet ablation!!!).

Only included what 'they' wanted to include??? dead right if 'they' happen to be the USA, China, Australia and India! not many scientists in that list but plenty of 'politicians'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So here we go again!

Many , if not most of the contributors to the latest IPCC document were furious at the diluted drivel that was allowed into publication (esp. the folk working on ice sheet ablation!!!).

Thanks for the comments Jethro :cold:

GW: I agree with you I don't want research that suggests GW is far worse then the IPCC suggest stifled either, that's my whole point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the comments Jethro ;)

GW: I agree with you I don't want research that suggests GW is far worse then the IPCC suggest stifled either, that's my whole point!

Sorry to have misconstrued H.P.!

The only reason given for the expugation seems to be 100% surity was'nt given. The ice sheet ablation is such a new study that it is constantly being re-written, but never lessened in it's impacts. As we saw with this years Arctic melt surprises constantly occur. The german scientist who did much of the sea level change work was dismissed out of hand and the IPCC predictions gave a maximum impact less than his suggested minimum impact! How does that help with planning???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had intended to elaborate on my reply last night (hence the "more later" comment, but I got rather tied up with other things. Anyway, here we go:

It's a good analogy on which to build C-B, though I think your application is flawed, and herein lies a rub to which I will return and re your closing point.

Say I do arrive when you say, on an upswing in the cycle, but let's say I'm wearing the hat of a statistical process engineer having to advise on whether or not to undertake an expensive repair. The bath is not in imminent danger of overflow, and I have seen cycles before, so I reckon that I'll collect some data because I'm unlikely to have found events at either the zenith or nadir.

This is where your over-extension of my analogy renders it redundant - the point was that the 3-hour time period is equivalent to the last 150 years, and there really isn't much other data to go on (nothing concrete, at least). The analogy was a simplified one which doesn't take into account the proxy record (from ice cores and so on), but I think I have already highlighted my views on the proxy record (namely that ice core records are not necessarily infallible and, besides, they hint at the distinct possibility that temp increases such as the current one are not isolated, unprecedented occurrences.

You either understand stats or you do not, but I do not need 1000 or 10000 years of data to be able to say what might have happened, or will happen. If you doubt this then think about opinion polls that routinely use no more than 1000 carefully selected people (not selected as specific individuals, but chosen to reflect the population as a whole) to predict, with usually very good accuracy, the outcome of a countrywide election involving around 20 million voters. Just 1000 data points projecting the behaviour of 20,000,000! HOW can that be possible?

Thank you for your insinuations that perhaps my mental capacities are not up to the task, but I think you'll find that there's a distinct difference between climate changes and opinion polls. You certainly should need 1000 or 10000 years of data to be able to say what might happen, or else your conclusions are in danger of being nothing more than inferences and suppositions. There's far more potential variablility in climatic processes than there is in an opinion poll - for a start, opinion polls give the "carefully selected people" a limited range of answers (rarely much more than a "Yes", "No", "Maybe", or at most a scale of 1-10 which can be averaged out later on).

So, we don't have a three hour record, we have a 350 year record in the UK, and around half that globally. And the point we are at now is NOT within previous meaured bounds, it is outside, and outside to the extent that we are at best hard against the point where it can be put down to natural variation, if not already beyond it. Each year we have these discussions, each year the metaphorical tap continues to drip, ech year people come on here saying "it's happened before". It hasn't, and the longer the climb continues the more hollow the protests become.

So we are currently at a point which falls outside of the previously measured bounds of the last 150 years? (Perhaps we should ignore the extra 200 years of the UK record considering the multiple instances over the past few weeks of assertions that UK temperatures are not an indicator of global climate.) My question, if you'll forgive the bluntness, is "So What?" 150 years is hardly a useful indicator of climate when so many climatic processes occur over far longer timeframes - even deep sea overturning takes longer than 150 years.

You also cannot say with any real certainty that it hasn't happened before, but the fact that the temperature is continuing to increase by fractions of a degree doesn't make the protest hollow anyway - global temperatures appear to have started levelling off to a large extent, which surely makes the past 5 years of increase less steep than the previous 20 years? How does that fit in with the suggestion that rising CO2 levels are to blame anyway?

If you don't understand stats, inferential and extrapolative stats in particular, then I can't help you. It's like using a translator in a foreign country whose language you neither speak nor understand to ask a question and hearing a reply that you don't like. Is the translator having you on perhaps? You have to decide who to trust if you can't understand. If you can understand then you have to make your own case. How you respond to this frustrating reality - your previous comment re bitterness perhaps, is up to you.

I really don't want or need your help understanding stats anyway, thanks very much. Perhaps it is worth noting that statistics can be used to prove almost anything (there are lies, damn lies and statistics) - this isn't to say that statistics are worthless, but rather to point out that the method of statistical analysis can lead to different interpretations of the data. Perhaps this is the reason we are at odds with one another?

(Oh, and my "bitterness" comment was directed more at the fact that you have been casting aspersions about my mental faculties, which is really not entirely appreciated - if people are going to end a rebuttal with a comment akin to "you're just stupid" then of course the argument is frustrating.)

Re the solar radiation: thank you for your clarification which, by the way, is in no way what you previously said.

I think you'll find it was, I assure you.

Anyway, your physics is flawed. Energy gets converted. Increasing the incoming budget simply increases conversion: molecules get more excited (heat is a measure of molecular energy - hence at absolute zero you have total inactivity). Say incoming radiation increases then we will say, get more wind, slightly warmer surfaces, more evaporation etc. But if the increase stabilises then the additional excess does not compound.

Why does it not compound? There is more energy in the system, and that energy is not getting released from the system, so you have a buildup of energy - that is simple, straightforward physics. (I have to say that this is the first time anyone has ever told me that my physics was flawed.) I know about molecular and atomic excitation, and I know what happens at absolute zero. But if we take SSTs as the most obvious example, the oceans are in constant motion with cold water welling up and warming all the time. More incoming radiation means more heat to the oceans - but water isn't as good at giving off radiation as it is at absorbing it, so it doesn't give off all that heat when yet more comes in and warms it further (or at least more evenly, giving a greater total energy of the oceans).

Earth is not a closed system, and energy is emitted into space - this emissivity is effectively determined by the law of Black Body Radiation (in which the Earth is considered a Grey Body). If the inco0ming radiation exceeds the Earth's emissivity then the remaining energy is kept in the closed system. It really is as straightforward as that.

Perhaps now you can see why I suggest the arguments are desperate. In this brief discussion you have both refuted the CO2 record held in the ice core, and concurrently accepted the ice temperature data as evidence of the world having been warmer in the past. YOu cannot have it both ways, and whilst you do you risk appearing to choose selectively to suit your own position. It's hardly scientific, and it's poor argument and debate.

It is not desperate to point out inconsistencies in the AGW argument. Nor is it contradictory to accept the temperature data but refute the CO2 data, since the two sets of data are determined independently of one another. (And it's not even an actual refutation of the CO2 data anyway - it is the suggestion that all the CO2 data should be normalised upwards to account for inaccuracies, which is not the same thing at all.) Calling my arguments desperate does not make them desperate. In fact it serves only to make your rebuttals appear more desperate by attempting to cast doubt on a legitimate argument.

Well, that's enough from me. I'm going to drop the debate once again, as Christmas is rapidly approaching and life is just far too short - I refuse to sit here chasing my own tail because my opponents consistantly misinterpret, misunderstand and misrepresent my arguments. I could also do without the sly ad homs (such as the insinuation that I'm simply not smart enough to understand this, whereas you quite obviously are). I left the debate a couple of months back for this precise reason, and I see the situation has not improved, despite the mods' best efforts.

(The mods, I must add, are doing a grand job, and I appreciate all their help recently ;) )

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely NOT picking on any "body" nor on anybody ( ;) ), but trying to achieve impact does, IMVHO encourage ........how shall I put it........enhancement. I heard a reference t'other day to science combined with the imaginative use of models and charts. That made me smile.

Hard on the heels of hearing that, I read that an insurance company has calculated that it costs over £186,000 to raise a child.

I am trying (and possibly failing) to make the point that those who are deeply involved in their work can be so focused on what they are doing that it takes over and becomes the be-all and end-all to the extent that those things which should and/or could temper their findings don't stand a chance of consideration.

Yesterday, whilst watching a programme about tectonic plates, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, I wondered if the possibility of massive volcanic eruption had figured in any of the findings in the IPCC report. After all, we know, do we not, that massive volanic eruption can affect global climate?

Just the rambling thoughts of an old woman.......

PS I didn't realise, whilst making my little rambling post, that a major posting was going on! As I said, my post was not really apropos any previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Bob, here's a plea from me (poet laureate eh), I hope you'll reconsider and stick around. Look at it this way, if your posts are provoking such rebuttals, then maybe it's because you've hit a sensitive spot which doesn't stand up to close scrutiny in this debate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Why does it not compound? There is more energy in the system, and that energy is not getting released from the system, so you have a buildup of energy - that is simple, straightforward physics. (I have to say that this is the first time anyone has ever told me that my physics was flawed.) I know about molecular and atomic excitation, and I know what happens at absolute zero. But if we take SSTs as the most obvious example, the oceans are in constant motion with cold water welling up and warming all the time. More incoming radiation means more heat to the oceans - but water isn't as good at giving off radiation as it is at absorbing it, so it doesn't give off all that heat when yet more comes in and warms it further (or at least more evenly, giving a greater total energy of the oceans).

Earth is not a closed system, and energy is emitted into space - this emissivity is effectively determined by the law of Black Body Radiation (in which the Earth is considered a Grey Body). If the inco0ming radiation exceeds the Earth's emissivity then the remaining energy is kept in the closed system. It really is as straightforward as that.

...

CB

CB,

let's just agree to differ re the stats and the known bounds. We could be 2C warmer in fifty years and you'll doubtless still be trotting out "we've been here before", or even better "how do we know we haven't been here before".

Re the physics. If I place an iron bar on a cold electric ring, then turn that ring on, the iron bar will warm, but it will only warm, and stay warm, so long as the iron ring is on. The fact that with each passing minute the ring is still warmer (though only constantly so) than before the ring was turned on does not cause the iron bar to get ever hotter. The iron bar can onlky become as energised as the input source. The only way the bar can get hotter and hotter is IF the heat applied also increases. Thus an ironmonger bellows the furnace.

The only possible circumstance in which the earth could continue to get warmer with constant energy is if it reradiated less energy, which, bizarrely enough, is the whole premise of GW and AGW. You could argue a thermal lag, but you'd then have to explain why across the measured record the response is not constant. Without this all that will happen is that earth will re-radiate any excess energy given that the surface otherwise has a more or less constant reflectivity and capacitance (in fact, with melting polar ice and glaciers it doesn't).

The earth's surface simply does not change quickly enough for any argument suggesting 'flick of a switch' type changes in reradition to hold water. That only leaves changes in the atmosphere, which being fluid is rather more dynamic.

...Yesterday, whilst watching a programme about tectonic plates, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, I wondered if the possibility of massive volcanic eruption had figured in any of the findings in the IPCC report. After all, we know, do we not, that massive volanic eruption can affect global climate?

...

But Noggin, why would it? The whole point of the IPCC is to extrapolate on the basis of what is, not what might be. If you're going to add in massive volcanic eruptions causing dimming, then let's add in meteor impacts wiping out life on earth, and a huge solar explosion boiling us all to oblivion. Yes, add in what might happen, but let's do so at both ends of potential, not just that "warming isn't going to happen" end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The earth's surface simply does not change quickly enough for any argument suggesting 'flick of a switch' type changes in reradition to hold water. That only leaves changes in the atmosphere, which being fluid is rather more dynamic.

Artic sea ice melt can have quite a big effect on surface albedo and this could have a rapid affect although I largely agree with what you are saying. There are two major contributors to changes in outgoing long wave radiation of which CO2 is one and the second is cloud cover. Tall thunderstorm clouds contribute to warming by reducing outgoing long wave radiation and low blanket cloud contribute to cooling and on short timescales(less than decades) this can swamp any CO2 signal. Cloud cover and CO2 however are not independant and this is one rea that the IPCC report identifies that errors could occur in climate models. Carbon cycle modelling introduces a completely different set of problems to climate modelling and the changing effects of plankton,tree cover and soil moisture on CO2 levels is not particularly well modelled. There are so many ways that we can affect the climate form creating soot to using HFC's to our impact on CO2 levels. Even when we consider our CO2 footprint we should be including CO2 from rotting rubbish and the use of cement.

The fact that climate models which are largely based on the chemical and physical attributes of the atmosphere (as opposed to carbon cycle models which model how CO2 levels will change) accurately portray recent global warming suggest that by and large they have these processes well understood. That these models fail to predict pressure or localised temperatures well shows that the eddies and currents in the atmosphere may play more of a role than is currently suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The earth's surface simply does not change quickly enough for any argument suggesting 'flick of a switch' type changes in reradition to hold water. That only leaves changes in the atmosphere, which being fluid is rather more dynamic.

I don't know about that, SF.

It might certainly be the case that the albedo, reflectivity, and emissivity behaviour of the earth might indeed act like a leaky integrator. Indeed, LI's can be made to be non-linear simply by squashing it's output using a sigmoidal function. (OK - semi-linearity might be a better term)

You can mimic the neurons in your brain using exactly the same technique ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are so many ways that we can affect the climate form creating soot to using HFC's to our impact on CO2 levels. Even when we consider our CO2 footprint we should be including CO2 from rotting rubbish and the use of cement.

We should perhaps also then count the quantities of non-degradable carbon-based plastics continuing to be buried in landfill, in vulcanised rubber tyre dumps, and the sulphur content locked within, as well as the discarded steel and iron that is rusting away as it returns to the oxides, carbonates and sulphides we originally mined to make it in the first place. We might already be doing better than we thought we were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about that, SF.

It might certainly be the case that the albedo, reflectivity, and emissivity behaviour of the earth might indeed act like a leaky integrator. Indeed, LI's can be made to be non-linear simply by squashing it's output using a sigmoidal function. (OK - semi-linearity might be a better term)

You can mimic the neurons in your brain using exactly the same technique ;)

Totally irrelevant hypotheticals there VP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please allow me a quick rebuttal before I step back for a while..

CB, let's just agree to differ re the stats and the known bounds. We could be 2C warmer in fifty years and you'll doubtless still be trotting out "we've been here before", or even better "how do we know we haven't been here before".

I'm thinking we're going to have to agree to differ here, which makes endlessly debating the topic rather redundant. Still, it's nice to know that you are apparently able to predict my behaviour 50 years hence when even I can't tell you what I'll be thinking in 50 years time. If your precognitive skills are that well-honed then you obviously must be right about global warming, since you can see it all laid before you like the latest bestseller on the Times Hardback lists.

Re the physics. If I place an iron bar on a cold electric ring, then turn that ring on, the iron bar will warm, but it will only warm, and stay warm, so long as the iron ring is on. The fact that with each passing minute the ring is still warmer (though only constantly so) than before the ring was turned on does not cause the iron bar to get ever hotter. The iron bar can onlky become as energised as the input source. The only way the bar can get hotter and hotter is IF the heat applied also increases. Thus an ironmonger bellows the furnace.

I know exactly what you're saying, but this analogy is far too simplistic to equate to the far more dynamic and complicated system that is the Earth. It misses all the subtlety of the argument that I have laid out in my previous posts - an iron bar is essentially a single lump of multiple identical atoms, which all act and respond to changes in exactly the same way as easch other, whereas the Earth is perhaps a tad more complicated than that...?

The only possible circumstance in which the earth could continue to get warmer with constant energy is if it reradiated less energy, which, bizarrely enough, is the whole premise of GW and AGW. You could argue a thermal lag, but you'd then have to explain why across the measured record the response is not constant. Without this all that will happen is that earth will re-radiate any excess energy given that the surface otherwise has a more or less constant reflectivity and capacitance (in fact, with melting polar ice and glaciers it doesn't).

That harks back to the point I made earlier, which is that the AGW theory is actually the exact opposite of the proposal I set out - AGW says "same input, reduced output", whereas I am saying "increased input, same output". I have yet to see anything that falsifies this suggestion.

The earth's surface simply does not change quickly enough for any argument suggesting 'flick of a switch' type changes in reradition to hold water. That only leaves changes in the atmosphere, which being fluid is rather more dynamic.

And yet you claim that incoming solar radiation has a "flick of a switch" effect. Do switches only ever flick in your favour?

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...