Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Alpine & Snow' started by Sandy, May 9, 2006.
Let's try again.
its not gonna work sandy. sorry to say so but thats why im not posting in the thread.
What happened in the last one? Why dont we just pick one issue at a time. Like rising sea levels or melting ice or whatever and take a look at it peice by peice. I am happy to do that, and then we can discuss each side of the debate scientifically and see if we cannot draw some conclusions...
Not a problem spiceman.
What i find disconcerting is that i will place up information from a study. Others will then say that that study has been overturned, with links that are very difficult to find the information.
I didnt think the last thread was too bad. Lot of discussion on climate change, antartica etc. Couldnt really see anybody attacking anybody else. Yes requests for verification. Questions of why groups of scientists should be excluded from the policy development process.
My piece on scientific pear review was to highlight that not all scientists are saints and the extremely important process that should be peer review.
So much more important to weed out sloppy work, inaccurate work, or plain fraudulent work. Good science will stand up to peer review, and a scientists who has prepared a good paper will have no concerns about being peer reviewed.
These papers then have input into policy making for years to come. If they are inaccurate then there forecasts of climate change will be inaccurate.
What that 60 climatologists from Canada were trying to do was to show how their findings are different, and secondly allow peer review of their work but also of those who come out with the global warming positions which end up in policy.
This is why i cant understand why anybody who had nothing to hide would worry about their peer review.
Hilo asked the question, would i change my position. My position has all ways been to accept good science, whichever way that goes.
Ive listed my concerns several times, but key to them is observation of climatic changes v models, models themselves (and even though they are trying hard, they are not reliable), and finally how the worlds population will be affected, based on poor science.
Even now we are starting to see some interesting political developments regarding late acceptance of climate papers for the IPCC report 4.
Prehaps we could start by Spiceman and Taipan explaining what evidence they would require to change there minds?
BTW sea level rise is well covered by http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ . Longer term global synthesis is provided by Estimates of the Regional Distribution of Sea Level Rise over the 1950â€“2000 Period, 2005, C Climate, 9, 2609- (and references therein).
Spiceman, in the previous thread you just said the opposite of what I had stated "you cannot use temperature data on it's own to attribute a causal mechanism at all.
A temperature rise in a gas will cause changes that may contribute to further temerature rise under certain conditions. In this case increased GHG in solution in the atmosphere. We know we can attribute a causal mechanism according the laws of thermodynamics, the other data only increases it's accuracy. Without the other data our predicted results may be wrong but the mechanism cannot be denied all the same.
Just want to clear that up. Sometimes it's the small misunderstandings...
That's not what I asked (and misrepresentation should be a serious offence in this forum). Your position, as highlighted by hair-raiser in the previous thread, appears to be that while there is ANY disagreement among scientists, we should do nothing to try to alleviate climate change. Since you want nothing done, your sole purpose seems to be to discover and publish examples of disagreement.
There will always be disagreement. You're safe.
maybe we should do 1 study only and take the results as gospel. it worked for so long before.
the problem we have here is 2 groups of people sitting on either side throwing stones at each other. neither of them will budge on their stance, therefore there's no point continuing with this topic.
such a sad fact that a forum like this cannot have a debate and the exchanging of information on such an important topic.
and people wonder why newer posters (and sometimes older members) are reluctant to post in weather. look at the way you talk to each other.
Me? For pointing out Taipan's misrepresentation, and, along with hair-raiser, pointing out how his (and possibly your) position makes discussion pointless?
At what point would you accept that something should be done?
Well said Vermillion.
It is a clash of personalities in here, rather than the clash of data it should be. People seem to have a personal stake in proving themselves right rather than having an open mind. The discussion between Daj, Spiceman. Hilo and Taipan is the antithesis of scientific process.
I will openly admit to not having posted slabs of data and text, if you think that's part of the scientific process, but I argue that the way some people use that method of slab pasting guarantees that they will never have to change their position, and that's certainly unscientific.
I agree with you Hilo. I think slab pasting is detrimental to the thread. The alternative is people posting unsubstantiated opinon however. The challenge is to find the balance.
This'my source is better than your source' has to go though.
To add to that, I think the slab pasting is a side effect of the closed minded nature of those who post, ie if you don't want to accept what I'm saying then here is a scientist to back me up. The problem is, that like statistics, we can all find a scientist to back up our own views. Once we find our scientist we stick with them till blue in the face and hence arrive at the current situation.
I remember when, back in the day, people posted their own summaries of data to support an argument rather than trying to blast away the opposition. That was when people were flexible and could change their mind.
I think a middle road involves extracting and pasting only the salient and relevant points, then clearly referencing the source, just as good scientific researchers do.
To make it clear, I don't like any pointed comments aimed directly at the PERSON. Aim it at the argument instead. I will tend to delete posts or lock threads, if too much of that goes on. (as you've seen) This discussion is important, which is why I have twice started the thread again.
I don't think anyone is trying to misrepresent the argument here.... why would you do that if you believe what you are saying??
People have different opinions.... that's ok. They will back it up with scientific "data". The data comes from different sources, and perhaps with that data supporting their particular view. Some non supporting data will be left out at times, often by the originator of the data/article.... it's also probable that various papers will draw erroneous conclusions from good data.
Let's make the discussion lively by all means, but keep it friendly. Clashes of personality detracts from the interesting content of this thread.
(sandy please not this is posted within minutes of your own posting. IMHO im not attacking others. The key issue here is the science of earths climate.)
Hilo and SF miss the point totally.
Science is an emerging process. The fact that i may post a study and then daj may post a more recent study which overturns a previous study is of the normal order of things in science, or didnt you know that?
However the issue becomes a problem where part of the debate is censored. That means that one part of the debate is stopped from providing research into the debate of climate change.
Is this in the long term interest of good science?
No of course it isnt.
If we all agreed with Daj, we would be suggesting that the science is settled. There are thousands of scientists around the world who disagree with this position. This makes Daj, and Hilo and others uncomfortable for a variety of personal reasons.
Ill state this again. If I believe the science ill support it. Every time i read an article i ask myself the question, is this the truth, is it correct. I query my detractors whether they have the competence to question themselves in a similar manner.
That there are a significant number of contrary scientific reports which disagree with the accepted global warming line, is of itself, reason for any reasonable person to question the global warming line.
Sandy - What Taipan wrote was a clear misprepresentation of what I had asked. I had to say so, otherwise a mistruth would stand. It was either deliberate or incompetent on his part. Neither is good.
That comment may make you angry, but I'd like you to challenge its logic. And since you've had a shot at a comment I made, I think I have a right to defend myself.
And you refuse to answer any direct questions.
Sandy - I've been very polite in this stuff recently, but that post from Taipan is just crap. He doesn't discuss. He ignores and lectures.
Gentlemen can i suggest that Spice and Daj please suggest an area of interest. Lets get back to discussing the science. Anybody who is interested in this subject wants to discuss the science.
(Sandy one issue of politics concerns me and that is the censorship of contrary opinions in climate research. Where different scientific opinions are censored, it concerns me greatly. Science is not a popularity contest. To me it doesnt matter if you have 9 reports saying one thing and 1 who is correct. Science is not a popularity contest, politics is.)
HiLo, Taipan may have misunderstood your question, and given you an answer that you deemed unsatisfactory. If you choose to call it misrepresentation, then that's your call.
I'm not going to discuss the discussion of the discussion of this thread.
I don't care if it makes me angry or not...... in fact none of the discussion so far has made me angry, but if I consider it to be to the detriment of the discussion of the TOPIC, then I will delete off topic posts.
Taipan - what would convince that it was time for humans to try to do something about global warming?
Sandy - do you care if Taipan continues to ignore that question, which has been asked many times before by several people? It is an important part of the scientific process to be able to change one's view, and his refusal to even answer, while continuing behaviour some find unacceptable, is very provocative.
Yes that's true enough, however we discuss different scientific opinions here, not politics.
He doesn't HAVE to answer any questions, however, I agree it would be helpful if he did.
Quiet simply that CO2 is the cause of global warming. This isnt proved although some scientists have tried to show that changes in CO2 has been so sensitive, that any change in CO2 has caused global warming.
As i have posted several times now we see 3 distinct periods of climate warming and cooling during this year. During the entire time we have seen increasing CO2 levels.
Daj suggests a threshold has been reached.
The question i ask Hilo is why should humans do anything about global warming which we are not responsable for?
I also make the following point that we as humans need to study in depth the climate of our planet in depth for hundreds of years to come.
Based on our current level of understanding it will take another hundred years or more to reach a good level of understanding.
Ok, I see where you're coming from....
You say " ......why should humans do anything about global warming which we are not responsable for?
I also make the following point that we as humans need to study in depth the climate of our planet in depth for hundreds of years to come.
Based on our current level of understanding it will take another hundred years or more to reach a good level of understanding."
So you're saying that if we don't have sufficient knowledge of the climate to come to a rational and reasoned understanding of climate, then how can anyone be sure that global warming is or isn't caused by man??
thats what a theory is.
So, no matter what is presented here, Taipan will continue to say "Do nothing". Or, more accurately, continue to do all the things his political and economic heroes are doing now. (Sorry Sandy, but I hope you've read some of his posts in other threads. )
I'm glad we've clarified that.
Since, to him, there is nothing to discuss, there is really no further point of him participating in this discussion.
if you know what he is going to say then maybe he shouldnt continue to post.
however, i doubt you know what he is going to say.
sandy, i think there really needs to be a ban on this subject in weather. i know its very sad that its come to this, but i think it's the only option. unless you enjoy deleting posts, that is
hilo - its very low bringing politics into it when its bleedingly obvious what your views are motivated by. in this thread (and the other deleted ones) you've carefully avoided making any conclusions yourself, rather just picking apart the bad parts in every one elses, the same thing you accuse taipan of doing. talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
but what would i know? im just a 20 year old kid, i couldnt possibly know anything about weather and climatic change could i? pfft, this is why no one gets anywhere on the climate debate.
I agree about Hilo's contribution to the thread. He is not discussing the science of climate change. The question he has posed to Taipan has no answer and isn't worth trying to.
Taipan comment is equally bad however and suggests a closed mind to changes in human behaviour until all the facts are in. We all know that all the facts will never be in and if we wait that long it will be too late. I am somewhere in the middle of the argument personally think that we should moderate our behaviour until we do know it isn't impacting on the climate.
You're right. I haven't jumped to any conclusions. Feel free to keep criticising me for that, if you feel so silly. I, unlike others, am still looking at the evidence, from all sides.
I think it's important to point out the weaknesses in the arguments of those who had conclusions before they began. And that's usually due to politics! Sorry.
And no, I didn't accuse Taipan of "picking apart the bad parts in every one elses'" arguments. Quite the opposite in fact. I accused him of not discussing with other people at all.
So again, a misrepresentation. Not sure if it's malicious, a misreading, or simply a misunderstanding. I'll be kind and credit the latter at this stage.
Now what I have noticed is that all of Spiceman's and Taipans posts have a rational explanation (since I've been observing the last few hours anyway). We've covered thermodynamics, tightening polar vortexes, warming oceans, etc and how they provide explanations to the points raised.
Despite this there is no proof of human forcing to climate change available. This seems to be the true argument. Posting slabs of quotes from Mann et al is worthless unless you focus on what it is you are trying to prove. I say this because the argument seems to go off on little tangents all the time, distracted by hockey sticks and what not. That isn't the argument. No scientist will have access to or interpret exactly the same data in exactly the same way. Different findings will arise. Don't get distracted by this.
To me the main argument is thus;
Does CO2 cause global warming - yes. We have plenty of evidence stretching back millions of years to confirm it.
Are Co2 levels rising now - yes, although still not as high as they once were.
Is the rate of change significant - yes. Just have to check a graph for that.
Does the cause for this rise in GHG generally have a clear cause - no.
What are the causes.
Off topic post deleted.
a post regarding the previously unnavigable North West passage now available to commercial heavy tonnage traffic and the "reality" of a dispute bw the US and Canada to control that traffic(think Panama canal and Suez) is off-topic ????
As you have probably noticed, I don't like to delete posts, lock threads or ban subjects, but I also try to keep it to the topic, which admittedly, is sometimes very hard work.....
This topic has been hard work..... let's see how it goes for a while longer.
Vermillion. I wish you would post to this thread. On occasions you have posted, ive learnt new things. Daj while i havent always agreed with you, i will acknowledge that i have learnt new things from you.
This issue isnt personal (eg Taipan), its about climate change. Hilo please take politics back to CV. This is about climate change. It is my belief that your only intention here is to cause trouble because your bored at CV. If you intent is to truly to try and work through this issue then you will have to change your previous position wherein you stated that you werent prepared to read the articles.
Why do i suggest that it may take another hundred years to come to grips with climate change.
1) We currently have only a very basic understanding of the climate. If we had a good understanding of the full dynamics of the climate would we not be able to accurately forecast months and years of weather ahead?
Ask yourself this simple question. Can anybody accurately predict the weather in Thredbo on Saturday afternoon between 1 and 4pm of the opening weekend of the ski season. The answer is of course no.
2)Climate models do not replicate the current climate.
3)The earths weather is close to the most comlex system on the planet.
4)To reach any resemblance of accuracy on understanding will take scientists to move away from the IPCC gravy train and get back to working on science instead of supplying inaccurate information to politicians and preparing political answers.
Models will need to accurately deal with,
a)Multipe sub models dealing with the atmosphere, the different levels of atmosphere, the oceans, the trajectory of the planet around the sun, the wobble of the planet around the sun, the output of the sun, changes of land use, changes in the overall composition of gases in the atmosphere, the dynamics of regional climates, movement of heat between regional climate systems, the absorption, and reflection of not only the planet but also various layers of the atmosphere, the full understanding of the influence of the entire worlds typography both in the atmosphere and under the oceans.
b)a scientific community that will initially fail on climate change, lose credability and over decades slowly start to really understand the climate.
c)sufficient accurate data from accurate sources, regarding temperatures, pressure, heat transfer, and other input sources listed in a). Ice rings, tree rings, coral all have their flaws, can be manipulated one way or the other.
Even data from satellites has been debated by scientists over the last 15 years, because it showed or didnt show what scientists believed.
d)Computer systems capable of dealing with the huge amount of data and correctly modelled programs that cannot only accurately absorb recent accurate data, but also continue to accumulate accurate data over time.
Only then will we start to accurately predict our climate.
Certainly the question is the most difficult yet posed. You also dont need to be a climate scientists to see many of the huge flaws in the various arguements.
This is a good discussion to have. The discussion on climate change not only involves the science but also climate science politics.
Every year thousands of people come to this site looking at the snow forecasts. People interested in climate change wander into this thread, hoping to understand maybe a little more about climate.
This forum should reflect the current position on scientific climate change. That deals with not only climate change science but also to make readers of this forum understand that the science of climate change is also very much political, and conscensus does not exist in the scientific community.
I haven't stated a view on climate change. You have. A very rigid one. One that you expect not to change in our lifetimes. I am convinced that your political views (obvious in other threads, so don't pretend they don't exist) are behind that rigid position. They are therefore relevant.
No. Dishonesty and poor logic concern me wherever they occur. At least now you have been honest about your position. I'm still concerned about the poor logic behind it and the even worse logic it leads to.
If you begin to pay more careful attention to the actual words posted by others, I would be more impressed with that request. As for the articles, you will have to move away from your unreferenced slab-pasting style before I pay any attention to any of yours. It is a very unscientific approach.
I thought you wanted to pretend there was no politics here.
One cannot simply ignore the politics of the term â€œclimate changeâ€. â€œClimate Changeâ€ IS a political statement.
Perhaps we should all forget addressing the unknown factors of â€œclimate changeâ€ and go back to addressing well-known factors of â€œenvironmental degradationâ€ on its own. To me the term â€œclimate changeâ€ has been hijacked by so many different factions that the term is no longer viable as a foundation on which to address â€œenvironmental degradationâ€. It appears that those that wish to continue to destroy our life supporting environment for short term economic gain use the divisive inexact science encompassed by the term â€œclimate changeâ€ as a means of stalling any progress towards addressing â€œenvironmental degradationâ€. Those that want to â€œsave the planetâ€ use the term â€œclimate changeâ€ to bind worldwide â€œenvironmental degradationâ€ into a holistic campaign platform. That is why the term â€œclimate changeâ€ is so threatening to â€œfirst world governmentsâ€, â€œdevelopersâ€ and â€œindustryâ€ and why the term may actually be stalling any real changes in protecting\preserving our life sustaining environment.
Perhaps those that really care for our life sustaining environment should just forget â€œclimate changeâ€ as a campaign platform altogether and refocus on the basics of air quality, water quality and sustainable land usage. That way the â€œscientistsâ€ can play scientist and the â€œpolitical lobbyistsâ€ can be isolated and addressed in a more targeted way.
To do nothing to address â€œenvironmental degradationâ€ whilst claiming to â€œwait until all the facts are in on climate changeâ€ is the ultimate example of self-centered procrastination. It is not argument OR discussion. It is simply head in the sand waffling.r />
IMHO, move on from â€œclimate changeâ€ or remain part of the â€œproblemâ€.