Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

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

noggin

General Climate Change Discussion.......

Recommended Posts

Go for it. I'm sure I've got some similar stuff book marked some where; not sure how many variables they wanted thrown into the melting pot of the LI thread though.

Okay, Jethro. We'll do that... :)

I'm not sure if the science in that article can be trusted any more than the "mainstream", in the sense that the effects of aerosols are so prone to uncertainty that we could find more evidence pointing either way in the future. But again it raises some good points about sources of uncertainty in computer models being treated way too casually.

I totally agree that the question is "Earth can almost certainly cope... but can we?"

Aye Ian. I totally understand the level of uncertainty: I think that all sources are uncertain. Except that CO2 is a greenhouse gas...

As an heuristic, Ian, why not supply some input? I know that your knowledge is greater than mine...I am no expert! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the science in that article can be trusted any more than the "mainstream", in the sense that the effects of aerosols are so prone to uncertainty that we could find more evidence pointing either way in the future. But again it raises some good points about sources of uncertainty in computer models being treated way too casually.

I totally agree that the question is "Earth can almost certainly cope... but can we?"

Are you saying you're dubious about it because it's not an official site? The paper it talks about is published in Science, I thought that was a reputable source. Isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying you're dubious about it because it's not an official site? The paper it talks about is published in Science, I thought that was a reputable source. Isn't it?

Science IS reputable. However, a secondary source which only quotes the abstract (and with no ability to read the full paper) isn't necessarily.

Can we please go back to first principle? If the evidence is there it WILL stand up to scrutiny, but hearsay, from potentially biassed sites, won't get us anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am dubious about it, not because of the source, but because aerosols are a great source of uncertainty. There is a fair amount of research going into it, e.g. UMIST, Leeds University and Lancaster University are pretty hot on it at the moment- I have spent time at both Lancaster and Leeds and both emphasise that aerosols and clouds are huge areas of uncertainty. Due to our limited understanding it is entirely possible that one finding with regards aerosols could suggest one conclusion, only for the research to subsequently be carried further and suggest a rather different conclusion.

In short, I'm no more inclined, at the moment, to take as gospel a study suggesting that the cooling effect of aerosols has been overestimated than a study suggesting that it hasn't. But that doesn't mean it is wrong, or ill-founded, far from it. It just illustrates that I take a fairly 'sceptical' approach to a lot of things!

And although the source looks reputable and non-biased the site is emphatically not, which makes me suspicious of possible spin. The paper that it gives a link to (Dr. David Evans) is almost certainly not the paper published in Science (I'll see if I can find the original tomorrow) as it is ridiclously biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Ian. I look forward to it. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science IS reputable. However, a secondary source which only quotes the abstract (and with no ability to read the full paper) isn't necessarily.

Can we please go back to first principle? If the evidence is there it WILL stand up to scrutiny, but hearsay, from potentially biassed sites, won't get us anywhere.

If you can find the paper on-line with free access and no copyright issues, then please do post it. I don't subscribe to Science; when I've purchased papers before in order to clarify for folk on here, I've ended up out of pocket and no better off. They're riddled with copyright issues so I can't post them and my word on the content has been refuted on the basis that "I must be adding my spin to it as I'm a sceptic", words sadly not backed up by those people, they haven't been prepared to purchase the paper to check. A lose/lose situation for me, once bitten, twice shy.

If you have no success Roo, hopefully TWS can find it and post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B) CB,

Maybe we should get together with VP after your holiday, and get the LI hypothesis going again? It's an idea. :doh:

That would be grand :)

See you all in about a week then!

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be grand B)

See you all in about a week then!

CB

Aye mate. You have a good holiday! :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye mate. You have a good holiday! B)

Will do, cheers :)

I'll prepare a 1500 picture slideshow presentation for when I get back! :doh:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will do, cheers :D

I'll prepare a 1500 picture slideshow presentation for when I get back! :D

CB

We'll hold you to that, complete with cheesy back ground music please.

Have a good one, send us a postcard card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find the paper on-line with free access and no copyright issues, then please do post it. I don't subscribe to Science; when I've purchased papers before in order to clarify for folk on here, I've ended up out of pocket and no better off. They're riddled with copyright issues

If you have no success Roo, hopefully TWS can find it and post it.

I forgot to mention that! If it's heavily copyrighted I won't be able to post it- though as a climate researcher I will at least be able to access the paper and post some comments on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention that! If it's heavily copyrighted I won't be able to post it- though as a climate researcher I will at least be able to access the paper and post some comments on it.

Yes, I do understand about the problems of getting hold of peer reviewed material and the associated copyright issues. However, even though this makes it difficult, we need some way of ruling out websites misquoting such papers: the Resilient Earth website is biassed, and is a bit cheeky: they have created a story around an abstract...I suspect that they have not even read the whole paper, or why would they not have quoted more of it?

Without the whole paper we have no way of telling what the authors actually concluded but have instead the Resilient Earth's spin on the abstract. That really can't be used to support anything.

And, I'm not being picky...it's just if we really are going to learn from this we need to have the word from the horse's mouth, or a close approximation.

Thanks TWS....access to JStor/Athens and an academic library is a wonderful thing!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do understand about the problems of getting hold of peer reviewed material and the associated copyright issues. However, even though this makes it difficult, we need some way of ruling out websites misquoting such papers: the Resilient Earth website is biassed, and is a bit cheeky: they have created a story around an abstract...I suspect that they have not even read the whole paper, or why would they not have quoted more of it?

Without the whole paper we have no way of telling what the authors actually concluded but have instead the Resilient Earth's spin on the abstract. That really can't be used to support anything.

And, I'm not being picky...it's just if we really are going to learn from this we need to have the word from the horse's mouth, or a close approximation.

Thanks TWS....access to JStor/Athens and an academic library is a wonderful thing!!!

Roo, you make a very salient point. I wonder how often we've ended up arguing the toss over an abstract? Just a thought...

That's TWO already today! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do understand about the problems of getting hold of peer reviewed material and the associated copyright issues. However, even though this makes it difficult, we need some way of ruling out websites misquoting such papers: the Resilient Earth website is biassed, and is a bit cheeky: they have created a story around an abstract...I suspect that they have not even read the whole paper, or why would they not have quoted more of it?

Without the whole paper we have no way of telling what the authors actually concluded but have instead the Resilient Earth's spin on the abstract. That really can't be used to support anything.

And, I'm not being picky...it's just if we really are going to learn from this we need to have the word from the horse's mouth, or a close approximation.

Thanks TWS....access to JStor/Athens and an academic library is a wonderful thing!!!

With the greatest of respect Roo, that's incredibly biased on your part. No one else here had seen that paper, it was relevant to the conversation at the time, I came across it via another site which lists daily new articles/papers about climate. The inter-net is a wonderful tool, why not have a trawl around and see what you can find. Check it out and then discount and discredit the science not the source eh. As I said, I've followed requests to verify with the actual papers in the past and my word has not been good enough but the critics won't pay for the papers themselves; it's difficult to interpret that action as anything other than being contrary for contrary's sake.

I hope TWS can access the paper, I expect it to be copyrighted so he won't be able to post it, I also expect you will trust his word on the content but you wouldn't trust mine; bias, bias, bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just add I started a thread asking if we should all contribute towards a subscription to a scientific journal so that we may all verify papers for ourselves. I spoke to Paul about making it an official resource on this site, possibly pay to view or annual charge like the model extra.

I got no takers.

If memory serves me correctly the thread attracted just a few replies and even they weren't favourable.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope TWS can access the paper, I expect it to be copyrighted so he won't be able to post it, I also expect you will trust his word on the content but you wouldn't trust mine; bias, bias, bias.

Jethro, I don't know why you are taking this attitude. If you have the original paper and summarize it then where's the problem? I've certainly never said there was. Your word is as good as TWS's, of course it is.

My problem, as ever, is with second hand information from websites with an obvious agenda, who do not appear to have even read the full paper themselves. That's fair enough: we can't use that sort of stuff as the basis for a discussion.

Please can we keep this civil and stop the rudeness? Then we might get somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just add I started a thread asking if we should all contribute towards a subscription to a scientific journal so that we may all verify papers for ourselves. I spoke to Paul about making it an official resource on this site, possibly pay to view or annual charge like the model extra.

I got no takers.

If memory serves me correctly the thread attracted just a few replies and even they weren't favourable.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I never saw that, Jethro. (I must have been at work at the time) But it does seem like a good idea...When I mention abstracts I do so from a bipartisan position. We would all be able to explain ourselves better, had we such access, IMO. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just add I started a thread asking if we should all contribute towards a subscription to a scientific journal so that we may all verify papers for ourselves. I spoke to Paul about making it an official resource on this site, possibly pay to view or annual charge like the model extra.

There is no point taking out a sub to one journal and that's why I wasn't a taker: you'd need access to the full spread to catch the relevant stuff.

However, obtaining papers from authors is more straightforward...you just email them and most will email you a PDF....most are flattered that someone cares. Something I suggested that those interested should do. Did anybody try it?

The fact remains though that without the evidence, there is no discussion: if we can't get hold of the information that means the point can't be made. It's like me saying that '...the earth is flat: there's a paper that would prove it, but I can't get hold of it right now, so you'll just have to believe me'. It doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jethro, I don't know why you are taking this attitude. If you have the original paper and summarize it then where's the problem? I've certainly never said there was. Your word is as good as TWS's, of course it is.

My problem, as ever, is with second hand information from websites with an obvious agenda, who do not appear to have even read the full paper themselves. That's fair enough: we can't use that sort of stuff as the basis for a discussion.

Please can we keep this civil and stop the rudeness? Then we might get somewhere.

I'm not being rude, I'm simply saying this is what has happened here before. I have paid for papers, I have been told my word is not accepted, I have been told I'm spinning it to my advantage.

Papers aren't available for free the instant they are published. Working within the constraints of a non academic forum, we have to go with what is available. I have, as I said tried to surmount this problem by suggesting we all contribute to a subscription, no one was interested.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/49233-paying-for-climate-change-information/

There is no point taking out a sub to one journal and that's why I wasn't a taker: you'd need access to the full spread to catch the relevant stuff.

However, obtaining papers from authors is more straightforward...you just email them and most will email you a PDF....most are flattered that someone cares. Something I suggested that those interested should do. Did anybody try it?

It would have been more constructive to have said that in that thread, perhaps we could have had a poll to see which was the most important one/ones to subscribe to and costed it out. The thread attracted zilch in the way of feedback.

Please do email the author of the paper, hopefully we'll get the full details to read then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do email the author of the paper, hopefully we'll get the full details to read then.

But I don't want to read the paper, I have to read enough papers in my life without another one :( .....however, it was your suggestion, so perhaps you might like to?

Also, all 2 comments on that previous thread suggested positive options. Did you take any of them up?

I have suggested time and time again that people who want access to papers email the authors....no-one has done, which makes me wonder why?

Anyway, that's it from me again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't want to read the paper, I have to read enough papers in my life without another one :( .....however, it was your suggestion, so perhaps you might like to?

Er no, it was yours. I'm happy to go with the article I posted. I'm not being rude but I'm struggling to see how this can be anything more than being contrary for the sake of it. You disparaged the article, you wanted the original paper, you said it was easy to get by simply emailing the author. Now you can't be bothered. I'm struggling to understand. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

I'm not being rude, I'm simply saying this is what has happened here before. I have paid for papers, I have been told my word is not accepted, I have been told I'm spinning it to my advantage.

Papers aren't available for free the instant they are published. Working within the constraints of a non academic forum, we have to go with what is available. I have, as I said tried to surmount this problem by suggesting we all contribute to a subscription, no one was interested.

http://www.netweathe...ge-information/

It would have been more constructive to have said that in that thread, perhaps we could have had a poll to see which was the most important one/ones to subscribe to and costed it out. The thread attracted zilch in the way of feedback.

Please do email the author of the paper, hopefully we'll get the full details to read then.

No you are not being rude at all. In terms of attempted contributions to provide links to papers regarding science that questions mainstream AGW, or just simply provides further information to furnish the debate from both sides of the scientific research angle, your contribution on here is second to none. I can quite understand your attitude frankly when you put so much in and appear, from just a few quarters anway, to get something of a 'wall' in response. That said, there are many other posters who clearly do appreciate that input toosmile.gif

You are right - you can be damned one way and the other. You can get criticised as a sceptic for not providing 'evidence'evidence'evidence' and then when you do go out of your way (and in your case out of your own pocket at times) it gets dissed as not good enough either in terms of source or site!! People naturally support one side of the science more than another, and are of course free to have opinions one way or the other bases on their particular beliefs, but if we are going to demand information from people (as happens mostly from the AGW side of the debate) lets at least allow that to be provided without cursory dismissals and give the person a break when when they DO run around and provide a contribution eh??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't want to read the paper, I have to read enough papers in my life without another one :( .....however, it was your suggestion, so perhaps you might like to?

Also, all 2 comments on that previous thread suggested positive options. Did you take any of them up?

I have suggested time and time again that people who want access to papers email the authors....no-one has done, which makes me wonder why?

Anyway, that's it from me again.

Finding a friendly student and TWS having access doesn't supply us all with access to assess papers for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scienceda...90723141812.htm

There's another paper to chase down (rofl.gif ). I've kinda been waiting for this to arise.

Seeing as water vapour is by far the most potent GHG the notion that clouds brought about a net cooling didn't sit right (in my kind of mind) and though it may be true of certain cloud types in certain geographical areas it could never be true of ALL cloud types across all areas. We all know that if we brought the column of air from the med here it would turn from blue to grey and rainy due to the temp differences.The warmer things get the more moisture the air holds so the warmer it can get kinda thing.

If CO2 only accounts for 40% of the warming then water, be it from ice loss or water vapour must play a huge role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Tamara.

I think I've entered brick wall territory, off to work, have a good day all.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...