Climate Meeting

[The watcher]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/19/chamber-commerce-climate-hoax

seen this on ABC news last night, what are your thoughts on the matter, is the activist right and does a change in legislation need to be made?

[MR EXTREMES]

http://www.guardian....ce-climate-hoax

seen this on ABC news last night, what are your thoughts on the matter, is the activist right and does a change in legislation need to be made?

hes right and the biggest pair of balls good on him.

the public need to press for the truth because of so many failures in certain areas of climate change.

the only thing that seems certain is the push for even more taxes by using scare tactics,

and this is going on at a time when respectable scientists are putting forward theres cases against gw and the ones that are incontrol are being ever more motivated by goverment,

even at a time when a climate shift could be taking effect.

although more time is needed to see if this is the case.

[latecommer]

Climate change is happening...but then again it always has and always will. Man is not the cause for global climate change. That idea is the "new kid on the block" hypothesis, and as science is done, it must be varified by other scientists.

It has not been and in my opinion will not be for many reasons.

I am a paleogeologist with studies in paleoclimatology, which for the layperson simply is; I study past climates and past physical, geological processes.

Our global climate is dynamic and chaotic...it is always changing and not in a linear way. This is why weather forcasts are so often wrong, and why climate models (general circulation models) are not evidence of human change, not predictors of future weather, and can never possibly be. At present we do not know enough about the thousands of variables that would need to be inputed into the models, and even if we did it would not be effective because of the chaotic nature of climate.

What we do know are quite a few things such as...it has been hotter with less atmospheric CO2, and with much more co2, it has been colder with more co2, and with less co2.

The standard theory of climate is one that has evolved over several hundred years and is understood to include cycles from the decadal to the millinial scale. This theory is a work in progress, but has been useful enough that using this, and not climate models, several scientists have predicted the current cooling and inactive Sun as long as 20 years ago...something that GC models have failed to do.

The idea that man is causing global warming is simply not a scientifc one until there is validation of the hypothesis...since it is impossible to validate this idea (or so it appears after 25 years and billions of dollars in efforts) it is necessarily then a political idea.

Nothing wrong with that unless it tries to pretend it is science. (which unfortunatly it does)

This appears to be a situation where science is being used to acheive political and economic goals. Goals that IMO, are not ones we would want without the dishonest presentation of scare tactics.

For instance: the term tipping point.... There are no tipping points in climate that are not geological, or possibly extraterrestrial, in nature (such as the closing of the Istmus of Panama which changed ocean climates). The atmosphere always is actively attempting to achieve equalibrium and is very robust in acheiving that end. The Earth has spent more than 4 billion years within a range of about 10 degrees C. regardless of the the composition of the atmoshperic gases, and has proven that it is not subject to "tipping points".

Like the term "consensus", tipping point is simply not a science term. When a scientist uses it he is speaking of politics and if he presents it as science he is not a scientist in the strick use of the term. Beware of those who claim to be scientists and speak of these.

Edited October 21, 2009 by latecommer

[pottyprof]

Welcome to Netweather, latecommer.

Interesting post there. Hope you enjoy the future discussion here.

[The watcher]

Excellent post latecommer, welcome to the forums.

I'm also not one to believe in GW or GC being the blame of humans, the Global climate has indeed seen better and worse, colder and warmer eras than anything we can possibly fathom. Now that I see your point it just cements my idea further and to know that you study the climate through paleogeology (excuse my spelling) is adequate enough for me.

Edited October 21, 2009 by The watcher

[RedShift]

Hello latecommer and welcome, just wondering what the difference between a paleogeologist and a common-or-garden geologist is?

[Methuselah]

Welocome to net-weather, latecommer.

[VillagePlank]

The Earth has spent more than 4 billion years within a range of about 10 degrees C. regardless of the the composition of the atmoshperic gases, and has proven that it is not subject to "tipping points".

Like the term "consensus", tipping point is simply not a science term.

Welcome to Netweather.

"Tipping point" generally refers to a mathematical construct of an implementation called a "step-function" ie a change of the range of domain. These are endemic in a huge range of non-linear systems, the climate included, and the most obvious step-function is from a change from a very warm climate to an ice-age in a very short space of time. The domain range of our climate might be equal to -50C to +50C (sounds reasonable?) will be shifted to -50C to +20C over a very short time span.

More technically, the domain of the climate function will change discreetly (ie as an integer step), and not continuosly at some point; the so called tipping point.

Edited October 24, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Essan]

The idea that man is causing global warming is simply not a scientifc one until there is validation of the hypothesis...

Does a change in planetary albedo affect climate temperature?

Does any human activity (urbanisation, industrial emissions, deforestation, contrails, black soot etc) have any effect on planetary albedo?

Thus can the hypothesis be tested

[osmposm]

Climate change is happening...but then again it always has and always will. Man is not the cause for global climate change. That idea is the "new kid on the block" hypothesis, and as science is done, it must be varified by other scientists.

It has not been and in my opinion will not be for many reasons.

I am a paleogeologist with studies in paleoclimatology, which for the layperson simply is; I study past climates and past physical, geological processes..........

* * * * * * * * * * *

.........Like the term "consensus", tipping point is simply not a science term. When a scientist uses it he is speaking of politics and if he presents it as science he is not a scientist in the strick use of the term. Beware of those who claim to be scientists and speak of these.

Yes, welcome to the forum LC. Expert knowledge and opinion is always especially welcome here, and your final two sentences seemed to me to hold a, um, particular resonance.

Edited October 24, 2009 by osmposm