"The reality of climate change" Mk 2

Discussion in 'Alpine & Snow' started by Sandy, May 8, 2006.

  1. Sandy

    Sandy Dark Sith Lord of the Pool Room Moderator Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    66,441
    Likes Received:
    17,652
    Location:
    Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
    "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Lets try again here.
     
  2. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    37,519
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    It'll only end it tears. It always does.

    Will have to pull you up here. It demonstrates a poor understanding of the science.

    We know the direction of circulation in the oceans is more or less a constant but can't forecast the temperature or direction of flow in any given spot with any greater accuracy. Why you should expect the same from climate science is silly.
     
    #2 filski, May 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2013
  3. Spiceman

    Spiceman Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    24,907
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    All around Oz...... bit by bit
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    daj's last post was actually quite funny. He still failed to answer my question with a simple yes or no and then attacked me for pseudo science again. I have challenged him to demonstrate where the hell I have posted any pseudo science in this thread and he has not taken up the challenge. I suggest questioning his ethics on the issue is far from innappropriate. At least if you are going to accuse me of something have the balls to back it up. I have no vitriol or animosity towards you daj, I just cannot stand it when anyone misrepresensts facts and you did that in the last thread and you have not denied it you simply glossed over it. You cannot use temperature data for anything except to suggest the temperature is rising or falling. When you start attributing man's role, you must use other data to support it. There is not a hell of a lot of this actually going around.

    Schaden I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I think the point Taipan is making is that there are a lot of doomsday forecasts going around based on current and past climate models. Those predictions are in fact no more accurate than the current weather models... I would suggest worse but I will suck it and see.

    I actually have NO problem with furthering research for climate issues, I just want it to be unbiased. I don't think it is possible from many from either side of the debate because they seem very happy about the dichotomouse nature of what is going on... I don't have much hope.
     
  4. hair-raiser

    hair-raiser Hard Yards

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    These threads are like fiddling whilst Rome burns, as each contributer sifts through the minutea that supports their view.

    Meanwhile the icebergs float past Beunos Aires.
     
  5. Spiceman

    Spiceman Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    24,907
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    All around Oz...... bit by bit
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Comments like this are stupid. If you have a point of view, back it up with relevant data. Floating icebergs actually mean nothing except that it's getting warmer... do we have the capacity to change it? And what do you think we should do? and why?
     
    #5 Spiceman, May 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  6. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    29,721
    Likes Received:
    4,030
    Location:
    NSW Mid North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Parkinson 2002

    In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.

    “You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the Antarctic is not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of events,†Parkinson said.


    This covers the majority of Anarctica.

    Doran 2002 showed the following. Leaving aside the western section of antartica (the Antartic Penisula directly south of Cape Horn), Doran showed that Antartica had overall cooled.

    Vaughan 2001

    it may be tempting to cite anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the culprit, but to do so without offering a mechanism is superficial.

    However the western Antartica is experiencing warming.

    By adding the Amundsen-Scott station at the south pole which is showing a slight cooling, the Dumont d'urville station is also recording a slight cooling. Only in one section the western Antartica penisula do we see warming. Adding these thre areas together and averaging them we get Antartica warming. What a croc!

    So it doesnt matter that the amount of sea ice is increasing, as far as the masses are concerned the whole area is warming up, wont be long and they will be setting up golf courses down there!

    We'll all be rooned, the ice shelf is melting, or so they would have you believe.

    Hairraiser would you like to rethink your position?

    Daj want to show me proof that my recent posted studies have been overturned. Secondly are you sure that your studies are rock solid, and either havent yet been overturned, or wont be overturned. You can be sure ill be searching.
     
    #6 Taipan, May 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  7. HiLo

    HiLo Old n' Crusty

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Messages:
    58,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Yarra Valley
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    I think hair-raiser's first sentence was of far more significance than his second. The responses however, concentrating on his second sentence as they did, proved his point.
     
  8. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    29,721
    Likes Received:
    4,030
    Location:
    NSW Mid North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Is rome burning. Maybe somebody is just cooking their dinner.

    In the previous thread, i posted up a recent list of 60 scientists appealing to the Canadian government to open scientific debate on global warming. One of those scientists was Fred Singer.

    In July last year he did an interview. For non science people it explains many of the issues simply.

    July 24, 2005
    Sunday


    Global warming is always a hot topic in liberal media circles, where the political and scientific consensus is that global climate change is occurring, it is a danger, it is caused by mankind and we need to start doing something serious about reversing it.

    For a little balance, we called up Fred Singer, aka "the godfather of global warming denial." An expert on global climate change and a pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and happens to be the guy who devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone. Now president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group (sepp.org), his dozen books include "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate." I talked to him by telephone from his offices in Arlington, Va.

    Q: Here's a line from a recent Mother Jones article: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise." Is that true?
    A: It's completely unsupported by any observation, but it's supported by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would indicate this. The observations do not.

    Q: What's the best argument or proof that global warming is not happening?
    A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by two completely different methods. One is from instruments carried in satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is from instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the atmosphere and take readings as they go up. These measurements show that the atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely slight -- a great deal less than any of the models predicts, and in conflict also with observations of the surface.

    Q: An epic New Yorker series said unequivocally that the permafrost, the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland glaciers are all melting. Is that true and is it because of global warming?
    A: The Arctic temperatures have been now measured for a long time. They vary cyclically. The warmest years in the Arctic were around 1940. Then it cooled. And it's warming again, but it hasn't reached the levels of 1940. It will continue to oscillate. That's the best prediction.

    Q: What is the most dangerous untrue "fact" about global warming that's out there in the media-sphere?
    A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.

    Q: If you had a 12-year-old grandkid who was worried about global warming, what would you tell him?
    A: I would tell them that there are many more important problems in the world to worry about, such as diseases, pandemics, nuclear war and terrorism. The least important of these is global warming produced by humans, because it will be insignificant compared to natural fluctuations of climate.

    Q: How did you become "the godfather of global warming denial"?
    A: That's easy. Age. I organized my first conference on global warming in 1968. At that time I had no position. It was a conference called "The global effects of environmental pollution." At that time I remember some of the experts we had speaking thought the climate was going to warm and some thought it was going to cool. That was the situation.

    Q: Climate is extremely complicated -- is that a true statement?
    A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It's just too complicated.

    Q: Give me a sample of how complicated just one little thing can be.
    A: The most complicated thing about the atmosphere that the models cannot capture is clouds. First of all, clouds are small. The resolution of the computer models is about 200 miles; clouds are much smaller than that. Secondly, they don't know when clouds form. They have to guess what humidity is necessary for a cloud to form. And of course, humidity is not the only factor. You have to have nuclei -- little particles -- on which the water vapor can condense to form droplets. They don't know that either. And they don't know at what point the cloud begins to rain out. And they don't know at what point -- it goes on like this.

    Q: Is this debate a scientific fight or a political fight?
    A: Both. I much support a scientific fight, because I'm pretty sure we'll win that -- because the data support us; they don't support the climate models. Basically it's a fight of people who believe in data, or who believe in the atmosphere, versus people who believe in models.

    Q: Is it not true that CO2 levels have gone up by about a third in the last 100 years?
    A: A little more than a third, yes. I accept that.

    Q: Do you say that's irrelevant?
    A: It's relevant, but the effects cannot be clearly seen. The models predict huge effects from this, but we don't see them.

    Q: Why is it important that global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized way?
    A: It's a scientific problem. The climate is something we live with, and we need to know what effect human activities are having on climate. I don't deny that there's some effect of human activities on climate. We need to learn how important they are.

    Q: Why is it important that global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized way?
    A: It's a scientific problem. The climate is something we live with and we need to know what effect human activities are having on climate. I don't deny that there's some affect of human activities on climate. Cities are warmer now than they used to be. We have changed forests into agricultural fields. That has some affect on climate. We irrigate much of the Earth. That affects climate. And so on. We are having some influence on climate, at least on a small scale. So we need to know these things. We need to how important they are.

    Q: And global warming is something we should study but not get panicky about?
    A: The thing to keep in mind always is that the natural fluctuations of climate are very much larger than anything we can ascribe ­ so far ­ to any human activity. Much larger. We lived through a Little Ice Age just a few hundred years ago. During the Middle Ages the climate was much warmer than it is today. So the climate does change all the time. We need to understand the scientific reasons for natural climate change. Most of us now think it's the sun that is the real driver of climate. It has something to do with sun spots, but the mechanism is not quite clear. That's what's being studied now.
     
  9. HiLo

    HiLo Old n' Crusty

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Messages:
    58,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Yarra Valley
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Thereby again proving hair-raiser's point.
     
  10. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    29,721
    Likes Received:
    4,030
    Location:
    NSW Mid North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Not at all Hilo.

    His point is that we are facing calamity "like rome burning".

    Those who believe in global warming and climate models believe the same thing, that we are facing a calamity.

    Observational data doesnt support the models or the calamatist global warming scenario.
     
  11. HiLo

    HiLo Old n' Crusty

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Messages:
    58,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Yarra Valley
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    You seem to have missed the bit where he spoke of contributors "sift(ing) through the minutea that supports their view".
     
  12. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    37,519
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Can't be bothered checking the context but this statement in isolation is wrong. You can infer many things very accuratly from it including the atmosphere's increasing ability to hold aerosols or other gases in solution eg water vapour. The resultant effect is a positive feedback which again increase temperature under certain circumstances. Of course this physics/ chemistry lesson may be irrelevant depending on context.

    Taipan, not all areas of the antarctic (or indeed anywhere) are considered equal. Tightening of polar lows may account for cooling in some areas while ocean currents account for warming in others. Indeed warming oceans may extend sea ice extent in some areas because of the effect of increased precipitation from evaporation, while at the same time leading to decreased thickness and quickened melting cycle. The crucial factor is location. If your extended sea ice season is in a stable area that doesn't impact on thermohaline circulation then it is irrelevant when compared to an area negatively impacting on circulation.
     
    #12 filski, May 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2013
  13. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    29,721
    Likes Received:
    4,030
    Location:
    NSW Mid North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Daj has questioned the issue of integrity in the previous thread. Others have been stunned to believe that scientists could or would present poor or even fraudulent papers, or prevent them from being properly peered reviewed.

    This from the New York Times last week.

    For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap

    By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.
    Published: May 2, 2006
    Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system.


    The New York Times
    The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is to weed out sloppy and bad research, ensuring the integrity of the what it has published.

    Because findings published in peer-reviewed journals affect patient care, public policy and the authors' academic promotions, journal editors contend that new scientific information should be published in a peer-reviewed journal before it is presented to doctors and the public.

    That message, however, has created a widespread misimpression that passing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

    Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication.

    The publication process is complex. Many factors can allow error, even fraud, to slip through. They include economic pressures for journals to avoid investigating suspected errors; the desire to avoid displeasing the authors and the experts who review manuscripts; and the fear that angry scientists will withhold the manuscripts that are the lifeline of the journals, putting them out of business.By promoting the sanctity of peer review and using it to justify a number of their actions in recent years, journals have added to their enormous power.

    The release of news about scientific and medical findings is among the most tightly managed in country. Journals control when the public learns about findings from taxpayer-supported research by setting dates when the research can be published. They also impose severe restrictions on what authors can say publicly, even before they submit a manuscript, and they have penalized authors for infractions by refusing to publish their papers. Exceptions are made for scientific meetings and health emergencies.

    But many authors have still withheld information for fear that journals would pull their papers for an infraction. Increasingly, journals and authors' institutions also send out news releases ahead of time about a peer-reviewed discovery so that reports from news organizations coincide with a journal's date of issue.

    A barrage of news reports can follow. But often the news release is sent without the full paper, so reports may be based only on the spin created by a journal or an institution.

    Journal editors say publicity about corrections and retractions distorts and erodes confidence in science, which is an honorable business. Editors also say they are gatekeepers, not detectives, and that even though peer review is not intended to detect fraud, it catches flawed research and improves the quality of the thousands of published papers.

    However, even the system's most ardent supporters acknowledge that peer review does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers and has never passed the very test for which it is used. Studies have found that journals publish findings based on sloppy statistics. If peer review were a drug, it would never be marketed, say critics, including journal editors.

    None of the recent flawed studies have been as humiliating as an article in 1972 in the journal Pediatrics that labeled sudden infant death syndrome a hereditary disorder, when, in the case examined, the real cause was murder.

    Twenty-three years later, the mother was convicted of smothering her five children. Scientific naïveté surely contributed to the false conclusion, but a forensic pathologist was not one of the reviewers. The faulty research in part prompted the National Institutes of Health to spend millions of dollars on a wrong line of research.

    Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.

    A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.

    While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.

    In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters' copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is — a form of vetting or technical editing.

    In spot checks, many scientists and nonscientists said they believed that editors decided what to publish by counting reviewers' votes. But journal editors say that they are not tally clerks and that decisions to publish are theirs, not the reviewers'.

    Editors say they have accepted a number of papers that reviewers have harshly criticized as unworthy of publication and have rejected many that received high plaudits.

    Many nonscientists perceive reviewers to be impartial. But the reviewers, called independent experts, in fact are often competitors of the authors of the papers they scrutinize, raising potential conflicts of interest.

    Except when gaffes are publicized, there is little scrutiny of the quality of what journals publish.

    Journals have rejected calls to make the process scientific by conducting random audits like those used to monitor quality control in medicine. The costs and the potential for creating distrust are the most commonly cited reasons for not auditing.

    In defending themselves, journal editors often shift blame to the authors and excuse themselves and their peer reviewers.

    Journals seldom investigate frauds that they have published, contending that they are not investigative bodies and that they could not afford the costs. Instead, the journals say that the investigations are up to the accused authors' employers and agencies that financed the research.

    Editors also insist that science corrects its errors. But corrections often require whistle-blowers or prodding by lawyers. Editors at The New England Journal of Medicine said they would not have learned about a problem that led them to publish two letters of concern about omission of data concerning the arthritis drug Vioxx unless lawyers for the drug's manufacturer, Merck, had asked them questions in depositions. Fraud has also slipped through in part because editors have long been loath to question the authors.

    "A request from an editor for primary data to support the honesty of an author's findings in a manuscript under review would probably poison the air and make civil discourse between authors and editors even more difficult than it is now," Dr. Arnold S. Relman wrote in 1983. At the time, he was editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, and it had published a fraudulent paper.

    Fraud is a substantial problem, and the attitude toward it has changed little over the years, other editors say. Some journals fail to retract known cases of fraud for fear of lawsuits.

    Journals have no widely accepted way to retract papers, said Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science, after the it retracted two papers by the South Korean researcher Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who fabricated evidence that he had cloned human cells.

    In the April 18 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, its editor, Dr. Harold C. Sox, wrote about lessons learned after the journal retracted an article on menopause by Dr. Eric Poehlman of the University of Vermont.

    When an author is found to have fabricated data in one paper, scientists rarely examine all of that author's publications, so the scientific literature may be more polluted than believed, Dr. Sox said.

    Dr. Sox and other scientists have documented that invalid work is not effectively purged from the scientific literature because the authors of new papers continue to cite retracted ones.

    When journals try to retract discredited papers, Dr. Sox said, the process is slow, and the system used to inform readers faulty. Authors often use euphemisms instead of the words "fabrication" or "research misconduct," and finding published retractions can be costly because some affected journals charge readers a fee to visit their Web sites to learn about them, Dr. Sox said.

    Despite its flaws, scientists favor the system in part because they need to publish or perish. The institutions where the scientists work and the private and government agencies that pay for their grants seek publicity in their eagerness to show financial backers results for their efforts.

    The public and many scientists tend to overlook the journals' economic benefits that stem from linking their embargo policies to peer review. Some journals are owned by private for-profit companies, while others are owned by professional societies that rely on income from the journals. The costs of running journals are low because authors and reviewers are generally not paid.

    A few journals that not long ago measured profits in the tens of thousands of dollars a year now make millions, according to at least three editors who agreed to discuss finances only if granted anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak about finances.

    Any influential system that profits from taxpayer-financed research should be held publicly accountable for how the revenues are spent. Journals generally decline to disclose such data.

    Although editors of some journals say they demand statements from their editing staff members that they have no financial conflicts of interest, there is no way to be sure. At least one editor of a leading American journal had to resign because of conflicts of interest with industry.

    Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry, say Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor of BMJ, the British medical journal, and Dr. Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, also based in Britain.

    The journals rely on revenues from industry advertisements. But because journals also profit handsomely by selling drug companies reprints of articles reporting findings from large clinical trials involving their products, editors may "face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest" in deciding whether to publish such a study, Dr. Smith said.
     
  14. HiLo

    HiLo Old n' Crusty

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Messages:
    58,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Yarra Valley
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    Taipan - as Hair-raiser suggested, you and others here appear hell bent on finding and posting huge slabs of text or data that support your position. This is fine for proving that another view may not be certain, but where does the process lead?

    Using your approach, is it possible to ever (or within the next 100 years, say) come up with a situation where you would accept that it's worth taking action to do something about it?

    As has been widely acknowledged, the scientific community is very diverse. There will never be 100% agreement. At what level of agreement would you accept that it is worth taking action?

    Ever?

    If your answer is "No", I humbly suggest that it's pointless you participating in this discussion any longer. Your position is clear and should be acknowledged, but adding data will make no difference to it. However, if you can tell us what would change that position (something you imply you are open to), it's worth continuing.
     
  15. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    >daj's last post was actually quite funny. He still failed to answer my question with a simple yes or no and then attacked me for pseudo science again.

    Spiceman, you have thrown so much at me with your tag team efforts that I have quite frankly forgotten what you are on about. Prehaps you might care to succintly and politely ask me your question?

    BTW, no one expects all regions to experience global warming at the same rate, and over periods of one or two decades it is to be expected that some regions will appear to buck the trend. The happenings in the high southern latitudes where sea ice has not contracted over the past 20 years is understood interms of the strengthening of the polar vortex (due to principally ozone depletion) which increases the northward drift of sea ice (acting against the global warming tendency to contract poleward). Further, the intensifation of the polar vortex establishes vertical ascent at high latitudes which acts to cool the Antarctic and warm the sub Antarctic. This process has hidden the last ~20 years of global warming in the Antarctic while at the same time accelerated the warming in the southern oceans, and triggering the astonishingly fast warming in places like the Antarctic Peninsula (good place to start on the science is Simulation of Recent Southern
    Hemisphere Climate Change
    Nathan P. Gillett1* and David W. J. Thompson2, Science, 302, 273-).

    I think you have ticked one more item off the global warming bingo game. You have still got the its been cooling since 1998 to go.

    DAJ
     
  16. Spiceman

    Spiceman Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    24,907
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    All around Oz...... bit by bit
    Re: "The reality of climate change" Mk 2

    You should always check the context, this is what I said: "You cannot use temperature data for anything except to suggest the temperature is rising or falling. When you start attributing man's role, you must use other data to support it."

    I will try and say it more succinctly, you cannot use temperature data on it's own to attribute a causal mechanism at all! Daj has done this a number of times and should know better. The observations do not come close to matching the models outcomes. That is a fact!
     
    #16 Spiceman, May 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2013