Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Recommended Posts

YS - can you please use less bolded, underlined sentences in your posts, it makes it a tad difficult to read, appearing to be a series of links. It also comes across as rather aggressive, conjuring up the image of you banging your fist on the table as you shout whilst typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a surprise... Mann cleared yet again just today, by another report from Pen State University:

http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/penn-state-reports/

and further background elucidated eloquently by Joe Romm here:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/01/michael-mann-hockey-stick-exonerated-penn-state/

Hmmm, any more evidence, Y.S of Mann's impropriety, maybe more substantial than the Wegman Report which is known to be a biased and plagiarised report?

further information on Wegman here: http://www.desmogblog.com/wegmans-report-highly-politicized-and-fatally-flawed

here: http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-problem-part-1/

and here: http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/

Specifically they show that the Wegman report had a biased panel from the outset, refused the offer of specialist help of the National Academy of Sciences (I think it's quite remarkable for a government to refuse the help of it's own professional science body on a matter of scientific evidence), then compiled a report full of plagiarism and misrepresentation.

You see, the problem here is that allegations become spurious when they are repeated without evidence, or after what little evidence has been repeatedly debunked.

We have on one side, a single Congressional report produced for the Bush Administration that is full of all sorts of flaws, little academic expertise and plenty bias.

On the other side, we have a whole series of reports: a detailed scientific report by the National Academy of Sciences, two reports by Penn State University, in addition to the findings of the various Parliamentary CRU-type enquiries over here all clearing the scientists of any wrongdoing, and in many cases specifically supporting the science.

So keep shouting, Y.S. - it seems all that you, MacIntyre or others have left. Let us know when you are able to convince the experts in multiple fields of relevant science.:(

From the NAS report, immediately preceding one of your cherry-picked quotes above:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

The NAS is not saying Mann's work was the last word - indeed they acknowledge in detail the observations in various other regions (notably China) of Medieval warmth, but they question the spatial/temporal uniformity of such variations - hence why Mann's graph is perfectly "plausible". That's hardly a scientific crime is it!

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YS - can you please use less bolded, underlined sentences in your posts, it makes it a tad difficult to read, appearing to be a series of links. It also comes across as rather aggressive, conjuring up the image of you banging your fist on the table as you shout whilst typing.

My apologies Jethro,

Yes, was banging my fist on the table (I think I had good reason !!).

I'll leave this now. I've put my point across and fair's fair. Let folks make up their own mind.

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a surprise... Mann cleared yet again just today, by another report from Pen State University:

http://live.psu.edu/...tion_Report.pdf

http://www.realclima...-state-reports/

and further background elucidated eloquently by Joe Romm here:

http://climateprogre...ted-penn-state/

Hmmm, any more evidence, Y.S of Mann's impropriety, maybe more substantial than the Wegman Report which is known to be a biased and plagiarised report?

further information on Wegman here: http://www.desmogblo...-fatally-flawed

here: http://deepclimate.o...problem-part-1/

and here: http://deepclimate.o...-barton-wegman/

Specifically they show that the Wegman report had a biased panel from the outset, refused the offer of specialist help of the National Academy of Sciences (I think it's quite remarkable for a government to refuse the help of it's own professional science body on a matter of scientific evidence), then compiled a report full of plagiarism and misrepresentation.

You see, the problem here is that allegations become spurious when they are repeated without evidence, or after what little evidence has been repeatedly debunked.

We have on one side, a single Congressional report produced for the Bush Administration that is full of all sorts of flaws, little academic expertise and plenty bias.

On the other side, we have a whole series of reports: a detailed scientific report by the National Academy of Sciences, two reports by Penn State University, in addition to the findings of the various Parliamentary CRU-type enquiries over here all clearing the scientists of any wrongdoing, and in many cases specifically supporting the science.

So keep shouting, Y.S. - it seems all that you, MacIntyre or others have left. Let us know when you are able to convince the experts in multiple fields of relevant science.http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/drinks.gif

From the NAS report, immediately preceding one of your cherry-picked quotes above:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

The NAS is not saying Mann's work was the last word - indeed they acknowledge in detail the observations in various other regions (notably China) of Medieval warmth, but they question the spatial/temporal uniformity of such variations - hence why Mann's graph is perfectly "plausible". That's hardly a scientific crime is it!

sss

:wallbash:you've missed ..... everything.

And not conceded when you've been caught out !!!

Anyway, You have a different point of view ..... and its obvious that we will never reach common ground on this issue.

Let others take from this series of posts what they will.

Please folks read the various posts well and google the links provided (from both protagonists ... ), and make what you will.

Obviously for me the Hockey stick is a pile of smelly poo ..... which makes in my mind a strong case for a medieval warm period (global signal) where temperatures were likely higher than now and also a Little Ice Age. ......,

As a consequence I believe that natural cycles have a bigger part to play and account for the recent 20th century warming tahn would otherwise be the case .... (This does not mean that I believe that human greenhouse gase emissions do not have any impact on temperature.... just that this is minor).

I am also very dissapointed by the peer review process for this area of science. In the medical world , to publish a paper you have to make all your data available so that others can see clearly how you have come to your conclusions and if necessary replicate your work (this has certainly been the case for my own publications). This however (prior to McIntyre) is not the case for the paleoclimatic fraternity, whose publications rely hevily on statistical manipulations of the data (Mann 98 and 99 computer code and details on how they dealt with the data have never been published ....... so how can anybody have affectively reviewed the papers ????) and so you cannot easily see what has been done with the raw data.

Its a mess folks, plain and simple.

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, the hockey stick graph is a teeny, tiny miniscule speck in the science of climate change. The theory doesn't hinge or rely upon one single piece of research, nor does questioning the validity of the theory. It aint that simple.

Thanks for the apology YS, agreeing to disagree is a far more sensible option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:wallbash:you've missed ..... everything.

And not conceded when you've been caught out !!!

Anyway, You have a different point of view ..... and its obvious that we will never reach common ground on this issue.

Let others take from this series of posts what they will.

Please folks read the various posts well and google the links provided (from both protagonists ... ), and make what you will.

Obviously for me the Hockey stick is a pile of smelly poo ..... which makes in my mind a strong case for a medieval warm period (global signal) where temperatures were likely higher than now and also a Little Ice Age. ......,

As a consequence I believe that natural cycles have a bigger part to play and account for the recent 20th century warming tahn would otherwise be the case .... (This does not mean that I believe that human greenhouse gase emissions do not have any impact on temperature.... just that this is minor).

I am also very dissapointed by the peer review process for this area of science. In the medical world , to publish a paper you have to make all your data available so that others can see clearly how you have come to your conclusions and if necessary replicate your work (this has certainly been the case for my own publications). This however (prior to McIntyre) is not the case for the paleoclimatic fraternity, whose publications rely hevily on statistical manipulations of the data (Mann 98 and 99 computer code and details on how they dealt with the data have never been published ....... so how can anybody have affectively reviewed the papers ????) and so you cannot easily see what has been done with the raw data.

Its a mess folks, plain and simple.

Y.S

Joining this late.

One thing is clear, views on the HS, and on those associated with is are amazingly contradictory.

Sceptic think Mann is something close to the devil incarnate, people like me are gobsmacked by the insults, and the accusations levelled at who we see as a very fine scientists and a fine set of papers. But, some sceptics really do see him as a l*** and a f****, part of a move to impose change on them. Where we go on this beats me - for some only time will settle this. For people like we time is something we don't have - hence the disputes...

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't miss any evidence, Y.S., but lets agree to disagree for the sake of this thread.

I'm very happy for readers to make what they will of all the posts and links of all protagonists in our little debate here, as I'm confident the evidence (in the part of wrongdoing) is on Mann's side, based on the numerous expert panels that have shown this. Readers can see for themselves the quality of evidence that is on both sides. I'd highlight that the evidence on the relative scale of Medieval warmth and modern warmth, however, is not a closed question in the eyes of acadaemia, as I've said in a few posts. Indeed, the 'spaghetti graph' of the NAS report shows quite a range of plausible Medieval warmths, of which Mann's would be among the lowest (coldest).

While I believe that Medieval warmth was not as great globally as modern warmth, it's fair to say that it's quite plausible (if, perhaps, unlikely) that this is incorrect. Y.S. and I may be rather closer in our views here than he/she thinks! Where I suspect we differ here is the significance of substantial global Medieval warming, if it exists. I think it's an even worse thing for world prognostications because it implies a higher climate sensitivity and all that entails for our modern climate forcing, but I suspect Y.S. does not think so. Jethro makes the excellent point of the real tininess of the 'hockey stick' in the overall pantheon of evidence on anthropogenic global warming - many other points of evidence are far more important, namely those that point to CO2's role, and the direct and indirect anthropogenic signatures of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Mann himself has said he regretted the prominence of the hockey stick in the TAR, because it's not that big a piece of AGW evidence.

Lets all have a Saturday night beer, and try and move onto new topics in future! :rolleyes:

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't miss any evidence, Y.S., but lets agree to disagree for the sake of this thread.

I'm very happy for readers to make what they will of all the posts and links of all protagonists in our little debate here, as I'm confident the evidence (in the part of wrongdoing) is on Mann's side, based on the numerous expert panels that have shown this. Readers can see for themselves the quality of evidence that is on both sides. I'd highlight that the evidence on the relative scale of Medieval warmth and modern warmth, however, is not a closed question in the eyes of acadaemia, as I've said in a few posts. Indeed, the 'spaghetti graph' of the NAS report shows quite a range of plausible Medieval warmths, of which Mann's would be among the lowest (coldest).

While I believe that Medieval warmth was not as great globally as modern warmth, it's fair to say that it's quite plausible (if, perhaps, unlikely) that this is incorrect. Y.S. and I may be rather closer in our views here than he/she thinks! Where I suspect we differ here is the significance of substantial global Medieval warming, if it exists. I think it's an even worse thing for world prognostications because it implies a higher climate sensitivity and all that entails for our modern climate forcing, but I suspect Y.S. does not think so. Jethro makes the excellent point of the real tininess of the 'hockey stick' in the overall pantheon of evidence on anthropogenic global warming - many other points of evidence are far more important, namely those that point to CO2's role, and the direct and indirect anthropogenic signatures of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Mann himself has said he regretted the prominence of the hockey stick in the TAR, because it's not that big a piece of AGW evidence.

Lets all have a Saturday night beer, and try and move onto new topics in future! :)

sss

Hi Starry skies,

Yes, the hockey stick does not itself mean a huge amount in regards to the evidence of man made global warming theory ... or not ... and yes I guess that we are perhaps closer to each other's views that some of these recent posts may suggest.

Its just that the IPCC used that graph to really ram home the message that we are in the midst of something not seen for 1000-2000 years ....... and yet (depending on where you stand on this) the data used to make it does not really stand up (or at the very least is questionable).

Ammann's second paper was rejected no less that 4 times by Climate Science eventurall being re-written entirely in time for the IPCC assessment in 2005/ 2006. Even then The IPCC only saw a draft (in press) copy. The final published paper contained a major concession- not in the draft - the table of verification statistics that McIntyre and McKinrick were pressing for:

[On a completely separate issue (regarding the CRU Hack - there is a really telling e-mail from the one John Mitchell (IPCC review editor), here he is saying his piece to Eystein jansen and Jonathan Overpeck on the sibject of the second draft comments (4th assessment):

June 21 2006: 1150923423

"I am in Geneva ..... so I have not had a lot of time to look at the second Order Draft comments. I can get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on the hockey stick and include below questions I think need to be addressed which I hope will help the discussions. I do believe we need a clear answer to the skeptics. I have also copied these comments to Jean [Jousel, the other review editor] ...

1) There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph . The issue of why we don't show the proxy data for the last few decades (they don't show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.

Clearly senior IPCC scientists knew that the proxy records showed no warming in recent decades casting huge doubpt on the validity of tree-ring proxies in estimating past climate temperature]

This information is not discussed in the IPCC report.

Here's Ammann's Verification Stats:

proxy Net work // NH mean Rsquare // NH mean R square

MBH period // Calibration period // Verification period

1400-1449 /// 0.414 /// 0.018

1450-1499 /// 0.483 /// 0.010

1500-1599 /// 0.487 /// 0.006

1600-1699 /// 0.643 /// 0.004

1700-1729 /// 0.688 /// 0.00003 (yes, it really is that small !!!)

1730-1749 /// 0.691 /// 0.013

1750-1759 /// 0.714 /// 0.156

1760-1779 /// 0.734 /// 0.050

1780-1799 /// 0.750 /// 0.122

1800-1819 /// 0.752 /// 0.154

1820-1980 /// 0.759 /// 0.189

NH: Northern Hemisphere. reproduced from Wahl and Ammann's revised Climatic Change paper - Climate audit has all the drafts, re-writes and final version to look at if you wish to check the papers out for yourselves.

This vindicated previous key claims on the Mann papers by McIntyre et al. The important figures are in the right hand column where the verification R square is close to zero for most periods (you need a figure of greater than 0.5 just to state that a correlation is possible !!).

I guess everybody is a little bored of all this now, its just that I really think it very odd how something as poorly written and constructed was allowed to become such a feature. The Mann Hockey stick is the same graph (with axis slightly altered) as in the Al Gore Inconvenient truth, film. It is accepted in the media and elsewhere as being correct, yet did not undergo a thorough review process. This is just so very wrong and worrying.

But, peace to you all .... and in particular to Starry Skies, ... I am not trying to have a go at you or anybody else, Iam just interested in the whole saga of how science was dealt with, regulated itself and allowed publishing of something such as this.

I'll buy you several virtual beers and a whiskey chaser :drinks:

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Starry skies,

Yes, the hockey stick does not itself mean a huge amount in regards to the evidence of man made global warming theory ... or not ... and yes I guess that we are perhaps closer to each other's views that some of these recent posts may suggest.

Its just that the IPCC used that graph to really ram home the message that we are in the midst of something not seen for 1000-2000 years ....... and yet (depending on where you stand on this) the data used to make it does not really stand up (or at the very least is questionable).

Ammann's second paper was rejected no less that 4 times by Climate Science eventurall being re-written entirely in time for the IPCC assessment in 2005/ 2006. Even then The IPCC only saw a draft (in press) copy. The final published paper contained a major concession- not in the draft - the table of verification statistics that McIntyre and McKinrick were pressing for:

[On a completely separate issue (regarding the CRU Hack - there is a really telling e-mail from the one John Mitchell (IPCC review editor), here he is saying his piece to Eystein jansen and Jonathan Overpeck on the sibject of the second draft comments (4th assessment):

June 21 2006: 1150923423

"I am in Geneva ..... so I have not had a lot of time to look at the second Order Draft comments. I can get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on the hockey stick and include below questions I think need to be addressed which I hope will help the discussions. I do believe we need a clear answer to the skeptics. I have also copied these comments to Jean [Jousel, the other review editor] ...

1) There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph . The issue of why we don't show the proxy data for the last few decades (they don't show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.

Clearly senior IPCC scientists knew that the proxy records showed no warming in recent decades casting huge doubpt on the validity of tree-ring proxies in estimating past climate temperature]

This information is not discussed in the IPCC report.

Here's Ammann's Verification Stats:

proxy Net work // NH mean Rsquare // NH mean R square

MBH period // Calibration period // Verification period

1400-1449 /// 0.414 /// 0.018

1450-1499 /// 0.483 /// 0.010

1500-1599 /// 0.487 /// 0.006

1600-1699 /// 0.643 /// 0.004

1700-1729 /// 0.688 /// 0.00003 (yes, it really is that small !!!)

1730-1749 /// 0.691 /// 0.013

1750-1759 /// 0.714 /// 0.156

1760-1779 /// 0.734 /// 0.050

1780-1799 /// 0.750 /// 0.122

1800-1819 /// 0.752 /// 0.154

1820-1980 /// 0.759 /// 0.189

NH: Northern Hemisphere. reproduced from Wahl and Ammann's revised Climatic Change paper - Climate audit has all the drafts, re-writes and final version to look at if you wish to check the papers out for yourselves.

This vindicated previous key claims on the Mann papers by McIntyre et al. The important figures are in the right hand column where the verification R square is close to zero for most periods (you need a figure of greater than 0.5 just to state that a correlation is possible !!).

I guess everybody is a little bored of all this now, its just that I really think it very odd how something as poorly written and constructed was allowed to become such a feature. The Mann Hockey stick is the same graph (with axis slightly altered) as in the Al Gore Inconvenient truth, film. It is accepted in the media and elsewhere as being correct, yet did not undergo a thorough review process. This is just so very wrong and worrying.

But, peace to you all .... and in particular to Starry Skies, ... I am not trying to have a go at you or anybody else, Iam just interested in the whole saga of how science was dealt with, regulated itself and allowed publishing of something such as this.

I'll buy you several virtual beers and a whiskey chaser :drinks:

Y.S

So long as it's a Lagavulin, cheers Y.S.! :D Though I do not agree with you on many points above, I'm going to let them alone entirely so we can try and discuss 'new research' on the topic in future!

I think this debate highlights a problem in blog debates of science, where we each don't trust the basic veracity/honesty of the others' information sources. And if we don't do that, it's impossible to have a scientific debate. 'Lay scientists' (which we all are here to a greater or lesser degree) are just not in the position to judge research quality, because however much we think we understand a topic/an article, we're usually missing some key element that may throw us onto the wrong track. The classic example of this is the "CO2 lags temperature" fallacy, which certain lay people will take as meaning the exact opposite to what the science understands (namely that CO2 is both a capable and a powerful climate driver, rather than the lay interpretation of "CO2 doesn't affect temperature". A fuller understanding of the mechanisms involved easily disproves the fallacy created by the first impression. This sort of thing goes on in myriad more subtle ways as you head deeper into a complex specialism.

On the topic of 'new reserch' and a little relevant to what's gone before, I'd like to see bona fide skeptics produce original research data. Instead of attempting to refute and argument by suggesting that "X is wrong, because I theoretically show their methodology is wrong ", why not refute the argument in a scientifically more powerful way by saying "you're wrong, and I can prove it because this dataset, gathered in a way that eliminates your errors A, B and C, shows a clearly different result." To me, this is how the best science is done, and it would be a way for people like MacIntyre (who must have a decent grounding in tree-ring methodology now http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif), to move the science forwards rather than holding it back. And I think it would gain him a great deal more respect from established scientists in the process than the method of vexatious FOI requests. While their 'data' consists of retrospective data analyses, skeptics (whether ultimately right or wrong) will always be in a far weaker position to comment than those who collect original data, analyse it and publish it in good journals. There's no reason why skeptics can't do the same if their data, methods, results and conclusions are as robust as they suggest.

If I get time I'll have a dig in recent research to see if there's something new and interesting for us to discuss.

Enjoy what's left of the weekend everyone! :drinks:

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone give any credence to this report in which it suggests that the gulf stream is being affected by the oil in the gulf of Mexico?

http://www.rense.com/general91/OilSpill-CNR.pdf

oes anyone know of any further research into this or an up to date viewpoint?

Thanks

Ned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea Ned but I have vague memories of strange eddies and off course currents being mentioned last winter in the weather section of the forum. If my memories are correct (?) it would suggest this pre-dates the oil spill, can't for the life of me remember what the cause was back then, possibly deep Solar minimum????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks J'!

A very worrying read (in parts) and ,for me, more confirmation of what is happening out there over the past 100yrs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recording warmth says nothing of the origin GW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recording warmth says nothing of the origin GW.

Yes, a good read Jethro.

Lets hope that the overall thrust of the paper is wrong, otherwise we could be in trouble !

Have you seen the latest from Roy Spencer ..... good discussions on his blog reagrding satellite derived temp measurements and on a critical paper in press:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article from GISS, and ironically it casts doubts on Sunny Starry Skies's prior assertions that GISS can be trusted over the other two because it includes the Arctic. NCDC includes the Arctic as well these days whereas HadCRUT to a large extent still does not, with the tradeoff being between having modelling of the Arctic that may be flawed due to sparse coverage (GISS, NCDC) vs having very little coverage and thus most likely underestimating global temperature anomalies in most months (HadCRUT).

Note that all three datasets have 2005 as the warmest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere, but with 1998 still coming out on top globally in HadCRUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for it to be us ,J', would make for a horrid future but why ,when we have so much evidence that we are on the right track blaming human pollution, must you shy away from the possibility?

Were it to be us the loss of the Arctic will speed up all the impacts we fear (in a horrid car crash of a domino effect) in a logarithmic kinda way so they will manifest whilst we are around to witness them.

When do you satisfy yourself that 'we done it'? (an honest question to help me make sense of it all!)

You see I do really struggle to get into the mindset of the folk who struggle to find other 'possibilities' for the changes (when not only to play devils advocate) rather than accept the 'mainstream science' (that we would readily adhere to if it was our doctor explaining a failing in our bodies)?

I know we've covered the ground before but when you look at the weight of the papers 'confirming' our fears over that period (against papers 'refuting' our impacts) don't you ask why you favour those above mainstream? :pardon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for it to be us ,J', would make for a horrid future but why ,when we have so much evidence that we are on the right track blaming human pollution, must you shy away from the possibility?

Were it to be us the loss of the Arctic will speed up all the impacts we fear (in a horrid car crash of a domino effect) in a logarithmic kinda way so they will manifest whilst we are around to witness them.

When do you satisfy yourself that 'we done it'? (an honest question to help me make sense of it all!)

You see I do really struggle to get into the mindset of the folk who struggle to find other 'possibilities' for the changes (when not only to play devils advocate) rather than accept the 'mainstream science' (that we would readily adhere to if it was our doctor explaining a failing in our bodies)?

I know we've covered the ground before but when you look at the weight of the papers 'confirming' our fears over that period (against papers 'refuting' our impacts) don't you ask why you favour those above mainstream? :pardon:

Hi GW,

Its not a question of advocation of responsibilities. I will vote for a cleaner future by whatever means necessary (its a sensible way forward for such polluting humans as we undoubtly are).

However, i simply cannot understand your statement in bold above. There are a lot of learned scientists and others who are dissenting voices and have put forward possible mechanisms by which most of the 20th century warming could have occurred without involving green house gas emissions.

Its not about getting into anybody's mindset ...... more about reading around the subject. Even the IPCC are vastly uncertain as to how much warming will occure and by when and have to use a mathematically calculated amplification factor to get the figures they produce. The uncertainty over the effects of cloud cover (cloud generation where the atmosphere holds additional moisture through a warming climate leading to a possible negative rather than positive effect) is pretty well accepted.

I was also a firm believer in the green-house gas theory, ...... I've changed my mind in recent months ......... if further data becomes available disproving many of the alternative theories and we resume warming .... I may well change it back.

Its the next few years that hold the key and it will be very ineterseting to see what actually occurs (Arctic as well). In the meantime, I agree, as a population we should take the precautionary approach.

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I'm becoming increasingly inscrutable Y.S.!

Sadly ,though we all know we should be 'cleaner' in our living (and use of the planet) I struggle to see it happening until we have a radical change to the way the world operates presently.

We, and the powers that be, will all sing from the same hymn sheet but whilst we do our best they will lag behind (with a plethora of reasons for doing so) until we are in the worst possible of places (where you flip back to knowing our outputs have really driven change.....and modified the very 'natural cycles' you hope to blame).

Oh! what a happy chappie I am!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me about those 'alternative theories' YS, is that (rather like comparing real medicine to homoeopathy or mesmerism?) most - if not all of them - seem to be even more flakey than the ones that suggest GHGs contribute to global atmospheric warming...

IMO, just because, according to hypthesis-x, the warming of the last few decades could have occurred without any contribution from CO2by no means means that it has...

In fact, I'd (as I do with homoeopathy and mesmerism) think it far more likely, though not impossible, that it is 'hypothesis-x' that is wrong??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 30% of patients attending their G.P. recover purely through the 'placebo effect'..........maybe if we all believe in 'natural cycles' then AGW will just go away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 30% of patients attending their G.P. recover purely through the 'placebo effect'..........maybe if we all believe in 'natural cycles' then AGW will just go away?

I think it will go away, Ian. Unfortunately, I also think that we'll have to go first???

Anyhoo, I'm wandering OT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me about those 'alternative theories' YS, is that (rather like comparing real medicine to homoeopathy or mesmerism?) most - if not all of them - seem to be even more flakey than the ones that suggest GHGs contribute to global atmospheric warming...

IMO, just because, according to hypthesis-x, the warming of the last few decades could have occurred without any contribution from CO2by no means means that it has...

In fact, I'd (as I do with homoeopathy and mesmerism) think it far more likely, though not impossible, that it is 'hypothesis-x' that is wrong??

Aye, that's the problem that I find as well.

I have seen some papers which have placed doubt on the extent to which anthropogenic forcing has been behind late 20th century warming. I recall reading one paper about a year ago (peer-reviewed and all) which suggested that various modes of natural variability went largely into positive phases in recent years (NAO, PDO, ENSO, solar) and that this could have contributed to the late twentieth century warming, and could lead to a temporary cooling over the next few decades. It did, however, warn that this would most likely be followed by an abrupt warming once they switched back positive and added to any anthropogenic contributions.

But there are other papers which have pointed to possible sources of underestimation of anthropogenic contributions. The most glaring of these are the rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and Arctic ice melt which so far have exceeded expectations. That's one of the scariest things about the uncertainty- we have the basic equations for 2xCO2 scenarios but then we have to gauge how the climate system will react and it could take us either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...