1. SPECIAL NOTE TO NEW REGISTRATIONS

    If you recently registered and have not received a confirmation email - please check your 'Spam or Junk' folders. Especially if your email is Hotmail. More help with confirmation issues

    NOTE: This notice may be closed.

    Dismiss Notice

"The reality of climate change".

Discussion in 'Alpine & Southern' started by Taipan, Mar 24, 2006.

  1. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Its a pity we couldnt have had a more interesting discussion on carbon sinks.

    One of the most interesting discussions at the moment is the enquiry into the Michael Mann Hockey stick study.

    In 1998 Michael Mann and others issued a paper which was heavily cited as an example of mans influence and cause of global warming over the last 100 years. Mann co wrote one of the chapters for the 2001 IPCC report so his influence was substantial.

    Since then, other scientists have attempted to replicate the work. It appears that those who were sympathetic to Michael Mann and the principal of the hockey stick were given access, while critics were excluded.

    Some more background.

    From scientific America.com

    Behind the Hockey Stick

    Seven years ago Michael Mann introduced a graph that became an iconic symbol of humanity's contribution to global warming. He has been defending his science ever since
    By David Appell

    Michael Mann knows his students and his subject. The topic of the graduate seminar: El Niño and radiative forcing. The beer he will be serving: Corona, "because I'm going to be talking about tropical climate." Not surprisingly, attendance is high.

    Mann is most famously known for the "hockey stick," a plot of the past millennium's temperature that shows the drastic influence of humans in the 20th century. Specifically, temperature remains essentially flat until about 1900, then shoots up, like the upturned blade of a hockey stick. The work was also the first to add error bars to the historical temperatures and allow for regional reconstructions of temperature.

    That stick has become a focal point in the controversy surrounding climate change and what to do about it. Proponents see it as a clear indicator that humans are warming the globe; skeptics argue that the climate is undergoing a natural fluctuation not unlike those in eras past. But Mann has not been deterred by the attacks. "If we allowed that sort of thing to stop us from progressing in science, that would be a very frightening world," says the 39-year-old climatologist in his University of Virginia office overlooking the hills of Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson.

    To construct the hockey-stick plot, Mann, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona analyzed paleoclimatic data sets such as those from tree rings, ice cores and coral, joining historical data with thermometer readings from the recent past. In 1998 they obtained a "reconstruction" of Northern Hemisphere temperatures going back 600 years; by the next year they had extended their analysis to the past 1,000 years. In 2003 Mann and Philip D. Jones of the University of East Anglia in England used a different method to extend results back 2,000 years.
    In each case, the outcome was clear: global mean temperature began to rise dramatically in the early 20th century. That rise coincided with the unprecedented release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the earth's atmosphere, leading to the conclusion that industrial activity was boosting the world's mean temperature. Other researchers subsequently confirmed the plot.

    The work of Mann and his colleagues achieved special prominence in 2001. That is when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body of climate experts, placed the hockey-stick chart in the Summary for Policymakers section of the panel's Third Assessment Report. (Mann also co-authored one of the chapters in the report.) It thereby elevated the hockey stick to iconic status--as well as making it a bull's-eye. A community skeptical of human-induced warming argued that Mann's data points were too sparse to constitute a true picture, or that his raw data were numerically suspicious, or that they could not reproduce his results with the data he had used. Take down Mann, it seemed, and the rest of the IPCC's conclusions about anthropogenic climate change would follow.


    That led to "unjustified attack after unjustified attack," complains climatologist Gavin A. Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Although questions in the field abound about how, for example, tree-ring data are compiled, many of those attacking Mann's work, Schmidt claims, have had a priori opinions that the work must be wrong. "Most scientists would have left the field long ago, but Mike is fighting back with a tenacity I find admirable," Schmidt says. One of Mann's more public punch backs took place in July 2003, when he defended his views before a congressional committee led by Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a "hoax." "I left that meeting having demonstrated what the mainstream views on climate science are," Mann asserts.
    More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

    Mann thinks that the attacks will continue, because many skeptics, such as the Greening Earth Society and the Tech Central Station Web site, obtain funds from petroleum interests. "As long as they think it works and they've got unlimited money to perpetuate their disinformation campaign," Mann believes, "I imagine it will go on, just as it went on for years and years with tobacco until it was no longer tenable--in fact, it became perjurable to get up in a public forum and claim that there was no science" behind the health hazards of smoking.

    As part of his hockey-stick defense, Mann co-founded with Schmidt a Weblog called RealClimate (www.realclimate.org). Started in December 2004, the site has nine active scientists, who have attracted the attention of the blog cognoscenti for their writings, including critiques of Michael Crichton's State of Fear, a novel that uses charts and references to argue against anthropogenic warming. The blog is not a bypass of the ordinary channels of scientific communication, Mann explains, but "a resource where the public can go to see what actual scientists working in the field have to say about the latest issues."

    The most challenging aspect today, Mann thinks, is predicting regional disruptions, because people are unlikely to take climate change seriously until they see how it operates in their backyard. In that regard, he has turned his attention to El Niño, a warming of eastern tropical Pacific waters that affects global weather. In discussing the issue with his students over their Coronas, Mann notes that comparisons with the paleoclimatic record seem to confirm a mechanism proposed by other researchers. Specifically, radiative forcings--volcanic eruptions and solar changes, for instance--do in fact alter El Niño, turning it into more of a La Niña state, with colder sea-surface temperatures. Understanding how El Niño has changed with past radiative forcings is a first step to understanding how it will change in an increasingly greenhouse-gassed world.

    Mann remains somewhat mum on whether the U.S. should join the Kyoto Treaty, an international agreement to limit fossil-fuel emissions: "It's hard enough predicting the climate. I don't pretend to be able to predict the behavior of politicians." He sees the Kyoto accord as an initial step that is unlikely to curtail emissions all that much, but it will at least set in motion a process that can be built on with other treaties.
    Such efforts are essential, because the blade of Mann's hockey stick will get longer. He notes that "we're already committed to 50 to 100 years of warming and several centuries of sea-level rise, simply from the amount of greenhouse gases we've already put in the atmosphere." The solution to global warming, he observes, "is going to be finding an appropriate set of constraints on fossil-fuel emissions that allow us to slow the rate of change down to a level we can adapt to."


    Now the easy thing to do was to say. Its all nasty big business out there doing this. Attacking me the honest little scientists.

    However that isnt the truth, because Mann is bunkered down defending his position, against other scientists.

    So many cross claims have been made about his work that the National Academy of science held a hearing.

    Mann appeared briefly and then left, avoiding questions.



    "Science 10 March 2006:
    Vol. 311. no. 5766, p. 1359
    DOI: 10.1126/science.311.5766.1359b
    Prev | Table of Contents | Next

    ScienceScope
    The heat was on a 12-person National Research Council committee last week as it tackled the politically charged debate over how scientists have gauged temperatures from the past millennium or two. Chair Gerald North of Texas A&M University in College Station kept the audience on a tight leash, including principal protagonists Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in State College and his critics, Stephen McIntyre of the University of Toronto, Canada, and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. House Science Committee Chair Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) had requested the study in the wake of attacks on Mann's "hockey stick" temperature curve showing an abrupt, presumably human-induced warming over the last century (Science, 1 July 2005, p. 31).
    Mann made himself scarce throughout the proceedings, even abruptly departing as McIntyre stood to make a final comment. Others, however, had already provided independent support for temperature trends resembling Mann's, and Mann himself pointed out that he had sworn off the criticized analytical method years ago. The committee has promised a report on the science of millennial temperatures in June.


    One of the speakers at the hearing was Hans Von Storch.

    This was taken from his powerpoint presentation to the committee.

    Peer review process:

    1)no publication without reproducible description of complex methodology;
    2)IPCC and related processes: Have independent scientists doing the review; not the key authors in the field.
    3)Data access: Relevant data and details of algorithms need to be made public even to “adversariesâ€.

    "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." (Jones' reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. Februar 2005; confirmed by P. Jones)


    Now ive yet to hear of one contributor to this forum suggest that scientific works should not be able to be rigourously reviewed.

    Now two very important things came out of the hearing. All scientists agreed that it was impossable to get temperature data within 0.5c beyond modern measurement period.

    Secondly it allowed Stephen McIntyre of the University of Toronto, Canada, and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada to show the flaws in the methodlogy of Mann.

    What is now emerging is that current temperatures are not unusual over the last thousand years.

    Kyoto Protocol based on Flawed Statistics

    From that award winning article we have.

    "In their two seminal papers, Mann and his colleagues purported to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last thousand years. Since 1000, temperatures gradually decreased(the shaft of the hockey stick), only to increase sharply from 1900 onwards (the blade). The implication is obvious:human interference caused this trend to change.

    McIntyre and McKitrick merely attempted to replicate this oft quoted study. In doing so, they identified mistake after mistake. They also discovered that this fundamental reconstruction had never actually been replicated by the IPCC or any other scientist. In their replication, basically derived from the same data, temperatures in the 15th century were just as high as they are today - an outcome that takes the edge of the alarmists scenario of anthropogenic global warming.

    The criticism by the canadians is mostly technical in nature: they claim that Mann and his colleagues have misused an established statistical method - principal component analysis (PCA) - so that their calculations simply minded data for hockey stick shaped series and that Manns results are statistically meaningless. They have traced the problem to a simple error in a few lines of code.


    and

    The conclusion of McKitrick and McIntyre after being engaged in nearly two years of heated discussions with Mann and other scientists, is alarming: there is something amiss in climate research
     
    #51 Taipan, Apr 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  2. dmz

    dmz More cheeeese Gromit Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Location:
    melbourne
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Ive read enough to know that the majority of climate scientists disagree with you and I know where Id place my bets!
     
    #52 dmz, Apr 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  3. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Good DMZ. You and Daj will not feel worried about explaining the "concensus position"

    So was Mann right or was his work flawed?

    It is a major section of the last IPCC report.
     
  4. 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".

    Nice post Taipan, but those with vested interests in climate change research (proponents of global warming) will simply continue to mock this. It's been good to watch you posting this stuff. I battled with this issue as you know for a number of years and always to me something didn't add up with the global warming scare, and yet it probably more accepted now then ever before..

    I attacked Mann's hockey stick over and over so it's good to see it's finally getting the attention it deserves... The guy is a joke that he wouldn't release his data to be replicated..
     
  5. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    after convincing from taipan, ill be back.

    regurgitated information with no clear conclusions does not make you look smart.

    Replication is on the MAIN parts to the scientific method. anyone who cannot/wont let any replication of their results happens should have their results/findings canned to the upmost. You could post pages and pages of stuff and not come to any sort of conclusion. its easy to bag someone else's views without giving your own counter-arguments and conclusions.

    By the way, i NEVER EVER said humans werent contributing in some way to climatic change. i believe they are, but they're effect...im skeptical about. Sometimes us humans think we're so powerful, when really we're just a speck in the whole scheme of things.

    kris
     
  6. HiLo

    HiLo Old n' Crusty

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

    Why would a scientist ever have a vested interest in anything? That's more for people with financial and political interests. A scientist can change his view on the world without economic loss and can carry on. The other can't. I'd suggest those with vested interests aren't scientists.
     
    #56 HiLo, Apr 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  7. Sandy

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

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    63,601
    Likes Received:
    10,833
    Location:
    Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    It's possible a scientist may have a vested interest if funding for research is on the line. And if that funding comes from a sponsor who has a vested interest, the research could "travel" in a certain direction.

    ..............

    Let's make sure the discussion stays in the area of research/results/replication/data/flawed data, etc (like it currently is), and not back towards more the political agenda, where it COULD go. [​IMG]
     
    #57 Sandy, Apr 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  8. Croweater

    Croweater First Runs

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    adelaide
    #58 Croweater, Apr 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  9. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    I went looking for information about Dr William McBride and found this site.

    Fraud and Australian academics

    The issue above is the necessity for peer review.

    Mann's conclusions published in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research letters in 1999 had a huge effect on his presitage. He became known as the unofficial king of climate research.

    From Answers.com

    He was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change†chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report (2001). He has been organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences ‘Frontiers of Science’ and has served as a committee member or advisor for other National Academy of Sciences panels. He served as editor for the Journal of Climate and has been a member of numerous international and U.S. scientific advisory panels and steering groups. Dr. Mann has been the recipient of several fellowships and prizes, including selection as one of the 50 leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American, the outstanding scientific publication award of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and recognition by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable citation of his refereed scientific research.

    It took 6 years before his papers were opened to the scientific community and that was only after considerable fighting. Only in the last 2 years have critics grudgingly been given access to the material.

    From above you can see Jones comment that "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." (Jones' reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. Februar 2005; confirmed by P. Jones)

    That is what peer review is all about. To question from multiple angles, to ensure that the published work stands the test of time, knowledge and scrutiny.

    Money isnt the only thing that drives people, presitage, honour, respect are also very important to some people. To that end, people do take short cuts, and excuse such short cuts with some form of belief that they can bluff their way through.

    From searching the net, it is also very clear that a lot rides on this study. Although Mann suggests it may have been superseded by other work, it calls into question the direction of "accepted" climatology.

    There are strong supporters and critics of both sides, but that fact that the NAS (National Academy of Science) had recent hearings, cautions us that where there is smoke there is fire.
     
    #59 Taipan, Apr 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  10. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Yes took thetime to read that Crow eater. I went down the list and went tick tick tick. Yet to believe those things which are fundermentally common sense, means that you are at significant odds with sections of the scientific community.

    I especially acknowledged his piece on the research grant gravy train, which sometimes can last decades for single projects. A lot of money being made by some people, and it is in their interest to ensure that the fear of global warming continues.

    I dont say it is purely money that drives many of these people, but more of an inbuilt belief (unscientific) that calls out to them to study these issues. Once on the research funding cashflow, its hard to get off.
     
    #60 Taipan, Apr 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  11. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Eh? that is the whole point of science.

    As a great example, the laplacian theory of the formation of the solar system. Prof. Andrew Prentice, a lecturer of astronomy at Monash university for the last 30+ years proposed a 'Modern Laplacian Theory' to the formation of the solar system. His theory basically said that the solar system was formed by gas and dust that accreted into big rings and compressed to form the planets around the sun. His theory on this was done in the 70's. He was shunned for over 25 years while people called him crazy and a nutcase and tried their best to pick apart his research.

    But he was so right, and i mean SO right as to the point that he predicted not only the size, weights, but the individual metal and gas compositions of the moons in the recent Saturn V probe experiment. His 'predictions' were ALL well within the allowed error (5%), in fact they were all within 0.5% of the actual values found by the Saturn craft.

    Now, his theory on how the accretion of the planets happened is the accepted method of the formation of the solar system.

    What im trying to get out here is that if he had kept the data to himself and not published it publically and had it open for debate, he would still be considered a crazy and it being only sheer luck he got his predictions so close to the actual values. So why isnt the same approach handed down to mann? I mean, i can go, take X thousands of $ in grants, and make up some results that are what people want to hear, only to never release the data too. What does that prove? nothing.

    Simply, and this is thanks to the most un-fantastic core unit ever in my course, that if you're not able to replicate your results, and you are not able to give your data to other scientists to 'disprove' then you're not doing science, and your work is not scientific.

    The above quote by Jones' is the biggest load of ******** in the scientific world. He's a complete idiot and why ANYONE takes the results seriously astounds me. If you know anything about the scientific method you would know that to make your results credible you must not only be able to replicate them, and to prove them, but more importantly, you have to be able to make them falsifiable. In simple terms, you have to be able to put in information that is wrong and get a wrong answer out, if you dont then your results and data is a bunch of crap.

    If his information was correct then people should be able to take his data and do this. However, considering he is not letting people do this suggests to me (and it should to you) that his data is ******** and should be thrown down the gurgler. to prove the method is correct, you must bust ass to prove it is wrong, and if you cant prove it is wrong then you can come to the conclusion that it is right. Because he is not allowing other people to do this suggests that he himself did not try to discern his data, and therefore it is crap.

    hope ive justified myself enough there [​IMG]

    :cheers:

    kris
     
    #61 Vermillion, Apr 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  12. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Couple of shortish comments.

    There are four arguments which work against this. First, scientists are taught by training to be sceptical of anything they are taught. That is the best scientists have a natural tendency not to believe the concensus when they enter a subject area - you see this tendency in the large number of well educated (but not "climate trained") individuals who adopt a sceptical position on climate change. Many of the scientists I know came into climate change not believing that it could be correct. When the looked hard at the evidence, however, they found it hard to fault, and now find themselves supporting the concensus.

    The second is that there is a noble prize waiting for anyone who can disprove the enhanced greenhouse effect. This prize has been waiting to be collected for 100 years with still no takers. Instead, all one has from the sceptics is grab bag of disjointed statments which never deal with the core issues (why is it warming, why we should have a greenhouse effect but this can't get any stronger, etc.), but rather focus on individual scientists, or esoteric issues such as the statistical methods used to pre-filter the paleodata which was used in the construction of the hockey stick.

    The third is how long can a fraud persist? and does one really think that the majority of climate scientists are willing to behave unethically?

    Regarding the hockey stick, Science had a review a few months back which showed that it had been verified in nearly a dozen different studies (Realclimate has a link to this). If still not convinced, one point which tells you it is a beat up is the failure of any sceptic to come up with an alternative reconstruction. If the methods of Mann are gravely wrong, it should be simple to correct them and do the whole process again to arrive at a "correct" hockey stick. This has not been done. All revision which have been published qualitatively support the origional analysis of Mann (even if they differ in the finer details).

    David

    ************************
    Moderator's note:
    I've edited your post only to change your "quote" format to one where the name of the person being quoted, and the fact that it's a quote, is included. Otherwise, it gets very confusing [​IMG]
    Use the " " at the top of a person's post to quote them.
     
    #62 daj, Apr 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  13. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Against my beter judgment, I feel the need to pick up on a couple of items.

    First, if Mann refused to release his data, how then was M&M able to undertake a reanalysis of the Hockey Stick data which was published in Energy and Environment? The fact is he did release the data - part of the data released had a "transmission" error - the courteous thing for M&M to do would have been to contact Mann & question why the data didn't appear to stack up... instead they rushed to publication with accusations of fraud on this issue which didn't stack up.

    The core of the criticisms of the hockey stick come down to two esoteric issues. The first is that Mann used data which does not relate to temperature and that this biased the results. This is unsustainable as if there was no relationship to temperature the data would have been given zero weight in the reconstruction as the correlation with temperature would have been near zero.

    The second relates to whether the off centred principal component analysis leads to an artificial hockey stick. A recent paper in science showed that you got a hockey stick whether or not you filter the data with off centred principal components. Again, a glaring issue is why if this is a problem hasn't the sceptics corrected it and published the correct results? They have the data, they have the "revised methodology" and they have 10 years of hindsight.

    The US Academy of Science is currently undertaking a review of this Hockey Stick debate. You can be quite sure that when the findings come out, the sceptics will move onto attack the impartiality of the review team and claim that the review didn't deal with the real issues.

    Appologies if some of the above doesn't make much sense.. the issue are esoteric and related to statistical process, and most certainly not issues of fraud.

    There is also a philosphical debate which is playing out. Reproducibility is the corner stone of science and peer review, but this does not mean exact replication of results using someone elses data and methods. Requesting the latter from someone is very close to an accucastion of incompetence or worse still fraud. In some instances exact replication is physically impossible due to differnt compilers and sensitivity to initial conditions. This impossibility means that accusations of fraud can be made which are impossible to defend because the court of public opinion is incable of understanding that replication may actually be physically impossible.

    The proper scientific process is to attempt reproducibility. This might mean using slightly different data and methodologies - there is no perfect data or method - and allows the robustness of results to be tested.

    There is still to be published a sceptics version of the Hockey stick. They simple say Mann got it wrong, but have been unwilling to publish an alternative. Surely the publication of the alternative would settle the debate.

    I have not interest in entering a debate about the above. They are simple facts which can be verified by a bit of googling.

    David

    PS

    Originally posted by Taipan:
    From above you can see Jones comment that "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." (Jones' reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. Februar 2005; confirmed by P. Jones)


    Can you post the direct link. I would like to read the entire correspondence. I'm suspicious that one is not getting the full story here (and indeed the publication of this personal correspondence is probably illegal given the privacy act).
     
  14. adminvb

    adminvb First Runs

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    2
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Originally quoted by Vermillion:
    I'm glad someone's sceptical because I'm a little worried. We may live in an infinite universe but we very definitely live on a finite planet.

    If you think our imprint on the climate and environment of this planet is negligible at this stage, just remember there are two countries to our northwest (China and India) that between them contain about 40% of the world's population. The "rich" countries of the world (Japan, Europe, N.A. etc.) hold about 15% of the world's population. Both China and India aspire to western middle class lifestyles - and why not? Why should the west have it all to themselves? China's growth rate has been hammering along at about 9.5% a year for the last 20 years while India's at about 5.5% over the same period. Between them they have approximately doubled their primary energy consumption in the past two decades. Of this energy consumption approximately one quarter and two thirds respectively comes from oil. The balance comes from......coal. Over the last few years China has been reportedly scrambling to supply enough power to meet their rapidly increasing consumption, including firing up coal burning power stations that had been closed due to their inefficiency and effects on the local environment.

    This need for power will continue to increase as the populations and standards of living of both of these countries continue to rise. Unless there is a marked swing away from fossil fuels to more efficient energy more power will obviously mean more carbon - a lot more carbon.
    We may be just at the thin edge of the wedge.
     
    #64 adminvb, Apr 11, 2006
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
  15. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Daj Ill be back later on tonight. Daj and PMG pleased to see your comments.

    Here is that link.

    Powerpoint presentation of Von Storch Presented to NAS

    Now just so readers are aware.

    This site

    realclimate site set up by Michael Mann and his supporters

    and this site is the other side of the debate.

    The climate audit site run by McIntyre and others who are challenging the basis of the hockey stick on scientific grounds

    Reading this stuff, you quickly find out that unless you believe in global warming caused by CO2, you are labelled as being "paid" by the energy industry (oil and coal etc).

    I receive no income in any way from the energy industry. My comments come purely from being sceptical about the "global warming issue", and from reading articles and reports, which dont support "global warming". I know Vermillion is a student studying climatology at Monash. Ive got no idea what spiceman does, but i do know that also has no financial interest in the energy industry.

    Consequently we are all trying to not only learn the current state of the worlds climate but also where it is going.

    That comes from both sides, those who are sceptical and those that support the view that we are causing global warming.
     
    #65 Taipan, Apr 13, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  16. Majikthise

    Majikthise Sage Moderator Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    29,902
    Likes Received:
    12,976
    Location:
    Blue Mts
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    doesn't to me.. lets look at some simple misprepresentations.

    "Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of all the world's CO2 is at ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans."

    Saying we can all live with 0.07% because it's still a tinsy wheeny number is simply stupid. The magnitude of an integer has no causitive effect on its own, the consequence of what it measures is a different story. What if the magnitude of the impact was logrithmic or exponential FFS.

    This and the dribble about mars and venus all looks great in isolation but is only a fragment of the picture. eg Our climate differs from Mars and Venus because of the 02 component, where did it come from? ask the stromatolites. Our climatic system is intrinsically interactive with the planet's biota.. it has been for some time and there is no evidence that I know of to suggest that this has changed.

    The tone and subsequent reliability of that gem of a webpage is set very early on -it's bovine faeces.
     
    #66 Majikthise, Apr 13, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  17. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    majikthise - nice post. what you're saying is inherently important. its very VERY hard to justify what a doubling would do. i mean, sure, the composition in the atmosphere would go to 0.07% in theory, but the follow on effects and all the feedback processes could push that either up or down.

    Like you said about the scales, it is massively important. you might think doubling CO2 would make it only 0.07% by composition, but that could be enough to kill x species of animals/plants. simply, we dont know.

    :cheers: for the banter [​IMG]

    kris
     
    #67 Vermillion, Apr 13, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  18. Majikthise

    Majikthise Sage Moderator Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    29,902
    Likes Received:
    12,976
    Location:
    Blue Mts
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    actually the more I think about it the more cross I get..croweater's link is deliberately deceptive, it is malevolent in intent. Why would that be?
     
  19. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Majikthise lets put that asid for a moment.

    The hockey stick is a bigger issue and id like to spend a little time putting some of the issues together to post up a longer discussion piece.

    But in the mean time im looking at the increase in CO2 during this century.

    Have you got ready access to two graphs. CO2 ppm in the atmosphere 1900 - 2000 and the second graph is mean temperatures for the same period.
     
  20. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    yeah i think i have something somewhere...ill go check tonight.
     
  21. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    34,372
    Likes Received:
    11,990
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    I've been away (still am) and looking forward to catching up with the debate. The biological sink is worth debating and I personally feel Verm's notes should be and can be disproven and respectfully suggest that he has not taken the issue as far as his lecturer would have intended (based on what I read here). Very quickly, from my seat above the clouds, carbon density of the biological sink of new growth forests (softwoods) and farming methods vs. that of old growth (hardwoods) and fossil fuels is significantly different in favour of the latter. For this reason alone the USA, as the worlds largest consumer cannot be a net sink. Also there is globally a net loss of forests and increase of cropping.

    This could be explored further.
     
  22. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    dont forget that the oceans have also responded and are taking up for carbon. [​IMG]

    oh, and they're not my notes, they're my lecturers [​IMG] and i think ive taken it further than any other kid in my class.
     
    #72 Vermillion, Apr 13, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  23. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Schaden Freude great to see you back. We all have our points of view, but if we can be honest to ourselves we might get an answer IF AN ANSWER IS AVAILABLE.

    I waited for a while for that discussion to be further discussed, but uncertain of anybodies return we had to move on.

    The carbon cycle is something i want to understand further. Lets deal with our current issue of CO2 increase and temperature increase. Then we will return to the issue of the carbon cycle.
     
  24. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Two important graphs.

    Increase in global air temperature 1860-2000.

    [​IMG]

    And increase in CO2 1860-2000

    [​IMG]

    One thing puzzles me.

    From 1940 - 1970 temperatures fell, yet CO2 accelerated.
     
    #74 Taipan, Apr 14, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  25. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Taipan, it is a very good question ("From 1940 - 1970 temperatures fell, yet CO2 accelerated."). The simple reason is that CO2 works on the back of natural variability and it was only really in the 1970s that human greenhouse gas emission overtook natural variability as the primary driver of global temperature change (the one exception to this was Mt Pinatubo which essentially plunged the earth into a ~3 year very mini ice age in the 1990s).

    The period 1900-1950 saw a slight increase in solar output and a reduction in volcanic activity which subsantially explains the early century warming (the CO2 effects probably added no more than ~0.2C; negligable). Post 1950 we saw a slight reduction in solar output while volcanic activity ramped up; combined these should have cooled the globe by about 0.2C, but the greenhouse gas emissions have slowly but surely overtaken these natural factors and we have seen about 0.5C of warming.

    The CO2 graph alone actually doesn't fully capture the greenhouse gas changes as there was substantial greenhouse gas forcing which kicked in around 1970 in addition to CO2 linked to CFC/HFC and methane. For a while the non-CO2 greenhouse effect was contributing about half of the warming, though thankfully we have stopped the production of CFCs and methane is near stable (as its production rate now matches it atmospheric break down rate) so we only have CO2 accumulating.

    It is a bit of an urban myth that CO2 means year on year should be warmer.. at the moment the total forcing only introduces about a 0.02C increase in temperature each year which can be easily swamped by the global swing of ~0.2-0.5C due to natural variations. However, when you get enough 0.02C increments they add together to give a warming trend.

    Cheers,

    David
     
  26. Sandy

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

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    63,601
    Likes Received:
    10,833
    Location:
    Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    These are the exact reasons why, when people say things like "there have been a record number of Hurricanes this year" or "It's been a really hot summer", so "this is proof of global warming", they do not really know what they are talking about.

    In order to understand where the climate is GOING you need to have understood what the natural variabilites are. Once you factor in the natural variabilites you must THEN ADD in the C02, methane, etc......

    I was talking to someone a few weeks back, and he said "I know global warming is true"
    I said "How do you know that?"
    "Because the sun feels a lot stronger and it's easier to get sunburt these days"
    "Why do you think that is?"
    "Because of the hole in the ozone" :doh:
     
    #76 Sandy, Apr 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  27. dmz

    dmz More cheeeese Gromit Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Location:
    melbourne
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4888946.stm

    "President Bush's chief climate adviser, James Connaughton, said he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe level and cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy."

    Economists ought to dictate the climate change debate. They make as much sense as some supposedly arguing "science" in this debate.
     
    #77 dmz, Apr 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  28. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    sandy and daj - nice posts. :thumbs:
     
  29. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    DMZ It would be easy to respond on the political level. That wouldnt help the discussion. Lets try and get back to the temperature variability issue.

    The discussion at hand is the driving forces behind climate change. We are currently looking at the change in temperature over the last 140 years.

    Now Daj has posted up his thoughts. There is merit in his comments and a lot of scientists support that position.

    Im pleased to see the discussion including solar and volcanic activity.

    [​IMG]

    Major volcanic eruptions are as follows.

    1902 (3 eruptions) Santa Maria Guatemala, Mount Pelee(Meryinique), Soufriere(Guadeloupe).
    1907 Ksudach (Kamchatka)
    1912 (Katmai (Alaska)
    1928 Paluweh (Indonesia)
    1929 Reventador (Ecuador)
    1932 Cerro Azul (Argentina)
    1942-1947 Hekla (Iceland)
    1954 Mount Spurr (Alaska)
    1956 Bezymianny (Kamchatka)
    1963 Gunung Agung (Indonesia)
    1966 Awu (Indonesia)
    1971 Hekla (Iceland)
    1972 Mt Erubus (Antartica)
    1974 Fuego (Guatemala)
    1980 Mt St Helens (USA)
    1982 El Chichon (Mexico)
    1985 Nevado del Ruiz (Columbia)
    1991 Pinatubo (Philipines)
    1992 Mt Spurr (Alaska USA)

    Id like to deal with solar issues in my next post. However set out below is an interesting article from Robock 2004.

    Alan Robock 2004

    What Daj says is right. Solar, Volcanic eruptions and even the orbit of the planet around the sun all affect the climate. What Daj is saying is that recent increases in temperature are because of the additional imposition of CO2 over and above those things outlined above.

    Therefore we need to understand what they have done over the last 100 - 140 years. If they dont add up then there maybe other reasons, which could include CO2.
     
    #79 Taipan, Apr 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  30. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    So how much variation do we get with volcanic eruptions. Veyre (2000) indicated that a fall in temperatures is of the order of 0.5C - 1.0C for minimum temperatures and of the order of 1C - 2C for maximum temperatures. Of particular note is Gunung Agung caused a negative monthly anomaly of about 4C.

    From Robuck above we get several important issues.

    First is the difficulties of attempting to model Volcanic eruptions, considering the size and chemical make up of the eruption and its effect on the atmosphere.

    Secondly the location of the eruption within the world.

    From the above article it was interesting to note the following comment. See my comments above about water vapour.

    "For example, Soden et al [2002] showed that without the most important feedback in the climate system, the water vapour feedback, a state of the art climate model is unable to reproduce the observeed global cooling following the Pinatubo eruption. These results provide quantitative evidence of the reliability of water vapour feedback in current climate models, which is crucial to their use for global warming projections."

    In other words to be able to project future climate directions, we need to include the effects of water vapour. Models cannot cope with this issue at the moment and future climate projections are invalid on that basis alone.
     
  31. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    nice posts again taipan. apoligies for not posting more, i just dont have time now.

    kris
     
  32. Richard T

    Richard T First Runs

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Why do you become a busy man, starved of time, in weather threads when any visitor to convo can testify you're not?

    And what's this wanky signing off ****? It hasn't lent the garbage you post a whiff of credibility.

    I'd write more about you, but I'm too important.

    Dick. T.

    **************************************************

    Moderator's Note:

    STOP posting this sort of garbage here. It's an unwarranted attack. In future it will be deleted without comment.....

    That goes for everyone.
     
    #82 Richard T, Apr 17, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  33. Hubert H. Humphrey

    Hubert H. Humphrey First Runs

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnnesota
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Vermillion.

    Weight Trainer.

    Weather Expert.

    Fireman.


    Do you live in your mother's basement kristen?

    ********************************************************

    Moderator's Note:

    STOP posting this sort of garbage here. It's an unwarranted attack. In future it will be deleted without comment.....

    That goes for everyone.
     
  34. 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".

    Obviously you two have nothing better to do.... Sandy can you delete their posts and mine when you're done! This isn't Convo boys so don't bring your crap in here.
     
  35. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Will try to dig up some references for solar/volcano forcing... they are all hidden looked away at work.

    posted by dmz
    >
    >Economists ought to dictate the climate change >debate. They make as much sense as some >supposedly arguing "science" in this debate.

    You would be suprised by how much economics is actually now being done on climate change. The emerging concensus from this is that beyond about 3C of warming the damages of global warming to the economy will be very high. There is a big range in the estimates but these fall in the range of 1 to 20% of global world product. Generally convential economists tend to think it will be cheap and easy, while those who come from the physical sciences tend to think it will be hard and expensive (I suspect the truth sits in the middle).

    At the low end your talking around a trillion dollars per annum, at the top end it would bankrupt the world. Can provide some refs if people want.

    It is very important that we know the relative costs of greenhouse abatement (cutting CO2) versus greenhouse adaptation (adapting to a new climate). At the moment it is looking like on a global stage that it is cheaper to abate, though this course would be unpopular because it is us who will feel the pain whereas the pain of our emissions really won't bite until the other side of 2050. That said, there are lots of opportunities to have win-win - household has cut home CO2 emissions by about 80% and actually saved about $500 a year (though to do this cost about $5000).

    In the end, we will have to do both adaptation and mitigation as the globe will warm (at least) another 0.5C even if we completely stopped CO2 emissions.

    David
     
  36. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    id like to know daj, if it would be possible (and feasible) to 'store' Carbon. What i mean by this is to capture a significant amount of carbon, compress it (similar to coal) into blocks and deposit it underground. or is this not feasible or not even possible. i think it would be possible but i dont know the effect it would have. of course major pressures would be required to compress this, and that would require more energy, unless it was sunk in the ocean.

    I would like to see some references for the above post, not to pick it apart but just to get some more reading into it, as i think its interesting.

    :cheers:

    kris
     
  37. Sandy

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

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    63,601
    Likes Received:
    10,833
    Location:
    Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    It's a bit off topic, I think in the next 15 years, that carbon will be sucked out of the atmosphere, and converted to carbon nano-tubes (bucky tubes, or buckminster fullerine tubes) to be used as a replacement for structural steel and timber for construction.
    I also suspect that when we humans are clever enough to do this, we will suck TOO MUCH out of the atmosphere, and trigger an ice age, all within the next 100 years [​IMG]

    (dead set [​IMG] , I'm not joking)
     
    #87 Sandy, Apr 17, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  38. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    ahh, yes, good point sandy. in one of my chemistry subjects we did some work with nanoparticles and buckyballs, or C60 balls as we called them.

    how much would this cost to do on a significant scale?
     
  39. Sandy

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

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    63,601
    Likes Received:
    10,833
    Location:
    Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Buckyballs are C-60, whereas buckytubes are single & multi walled tubular hexagonal carbon similar in some respects to buckyballs except they can be much longer than spherical buckyballs. They are about 100 times stronger than steel & six times lighter. They also conduct electricity as well as copper.

    Currently bucky tubes are often produced by the discharge of high voltage electricity with closely spaced graphite rods, but can also be produced using lasers, and chemical-vapor-deposition. And only very short bucky tubes are produced (currently about 2mm).
    New techniques would be needed to produce bucky tube of useful length, probably of at least some tens of centimetres. I guess the new techniques would also reduce cost..... it may seem pie in the sky, but I think this will happen, and it will get very cheap, and will reduce the greenhouse gas producing steel production, and the use of timber felling for construction.
    At the moment, buckytubes are about $500USD a gram!!!
     
  40. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Verillion, below are some refs to the economics of climate change. I can email you a copy of most papers (let us know which you want). It pays to be sceptical about anything to do with economics of the environment (an interesting overview of past performances is avaliable at Goodstein E., 1997. Polluted Data. The American Prospect online. Available from http://www.prospect.org/web/index.ww ).

    Doing a cite search will reveal plenty more papers out there. I would expect that this material will feature heavily in the next IPCC report due out next year.

    Regarding carbon storage, it appears to be quite technologically feasible (best candidate is to compress CO2 and inject it into deplete oil fields/coal seams/aquifers) but ultimately it comes down to economics. If it is cheaper to use solar or wind rather than capture CO2, compress it, and inject it under ground then solar or wind will win out. Most likely, the economics will vary from place to place. In windy locations wind will probably be cheapest, sunny location solar, etc. A couple of interesting papers on this are avaliable at http://www.abare.gov.au/outlook/index.html - particulary the papers in the "Climate change II" session.

    Cheers,

    David

    Barker, T., Köhler, J. and Villena, M., 2002, The Costs of Greenhouse Gas Abatement: A Meta-
    Analysis of Post-SRES Mitigation Scenarios. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies
    5, 135-166.

    Barker, T., Foxon, T. Köhler, J., Anderson, D., Gross, R., Leach, M. and Pearson, P., 2005. University of Cambridge and Imperial College London Submission to the Stern Review (UK). 20pp (available from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F72/C6/climatechange_imp_1.pdf)

    Keller, K., Hall, M., Kim, S-R., Bradford, D.F., and Oppenheimer M. 2005. Avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Climate Change, 73, 227-238.

    Myles, A., 2003. Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891-892.

    Nordhaus, W.D., 2006. Geography and macroeconomics: New data and new findings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 10.1073/pnas.0509842103, 8pp.

    Roughgarden, T. and Schneider S.H., 1999. Climate change policy: quantifying uncertainties for damages and optimal carbon taxes, Energy Policy, 27, 415-429.

    Schiermeier, Q., 2006. The costs of global warming. Nature, 439, 374-375.
     
    #90 daj, Apr 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  41. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Some refs on solar/volcanic forcing as promised.

    The solar-climate literature is littered with dodgie data trolling papers so it is a case of use beware (these tend to appear in the fringe/non-climate literature, as they wouldn't survive peer review elsewhere). An overview of some of these is given at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf
    .

    David

    Good starting point is
    >http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

    which has links to a range of 19/20th century datasets.

    In the literature a couple of very good intro papers with numerous references are:

    Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years Thomas J. Crowley, Science, 289, 270-277.

    Significant decadal-scale impact of volcanic
    eruptions on sea level and ocean heat content
    John A. Church, Neil J. White & Julie M. Arblaster, Nature, 438,74-77.
     
    #91 daj, Apr 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  42. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Thanks Daj. Ill choof off and try and get them read over the next few days.
     
  43. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    daj your piece from climate sceptics was an interesting read but i fealt uncomfortable that it wasnt any more then a group of people saying the sceptics were wrong. For instance they talk about solar radiation forcing on page 3. They refer to a report, supposedly written 10 years before (therefore lets say 1991), by an unnamed author, saying he had withdrawn it because it was wrong.

    Were they talking about Friis-Christensen and Lassen Report from 1991. I can find no reference to that being withdrawn so i dont know whether that was what they were referring to.

    Yes i understand what you were trying to say but i dont think it was a good example.

    To me this is a better example, with good references to various works. It sets out the flaws in the work of Mann who created the hockey stick of global climate change caused by CO2.

    Flaws in manns 1998 and 2000 papers "the hockey stick"

    Also went to that link that you gave above.

    Causes of climate change of 1000 years

    Without getting to far into the article, we know from above that climate models are very inaccurate. Few of them even attempt to deal with the issue of water vapour in the atmosphere and so are just that an attempt with conclusions of dubious value.

    Recent reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the last 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparison of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41-64% of pre-anthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations were due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the last 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

    Now a couple of important things Daj.

    When Mann was quizzed before the NAS hearing last month, it was acknowledged quiet clearly by other scientists appearing that they were unable to get any closer then 0.5c in temperature accuracy from any source over the last 1000 years. Your report above references Manns work which is now under scrutiny and is deviding the scientific community.

    A model is a sum of two parts. The quality of the input and the quality of the model itself. If either or both are lacking then you cannot accurately replicate what you are trying to model.

    It also flies in the face of another paper in 2000 E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler Paper appeared in Astronomy & Geophysics, August 2000. Vol 41, Issue 4, pp 18-22.

    From the conclusions section.

    Taken at face value, our results imply that, possibly excluding the last decade or so when an accentuated rise in global temperatures is widely accepted to have occurred as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, most of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct (irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity. Similarly, we find the lower level of solar activity in the Maunder Minimum predicts an increase in the low cloud factor that gives rise to an increased albedo for the Earth and lower global temperatures.

    And to me they didnt get too excited about endorsing the greenhouse effect.

    http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html
     
    #93 Taipan, Apr 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  44. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    70,889
    Likes Received:
    25,202
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    on another less scientific note, you probably would have seen the add by honda for their new car which runs on O2 and H and emits 'only' water vapour. Is this really the way forward to reduce CO and CO2 emissions from cars, instead putting water vapour into the atmosphere, which is a more efficient GHG? i think not.
     
  45. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Taipan am very busy at the moment so will pick up on one point.

    >Were they talking about Friis-Christensen and Lassen Report from 1991. I can find no reference to that being withdrawn so i dont know whether that was what they were referring to.

    The reference is EOS 2004, 85, 370. The authors come within a wisker of suggesting the earlier analyses were "doctored" to look good.

    The "solar" literature is littered with studies which show covariability (without a clear and tested physical model explaining the covariability). These have repeatedly failed to verify. Simply establishing covariability is not science, and does not substitute as a replacement for our understanding of the enhanced greenhouse effect which has stayed (very largely) unchanged for 100 years and which predicted the warming we are seeing. There is a large statistical literature on the dangers of mulitplicity and over fitting - two statistical problems which guarantee you will find covariability in unrelated variables if you look hard enough. Sadly, most of this literature doesn't seem to be well recognised by most of the sceptics who wish for an alternative to the enhanced greenhouse effect, no matter how improbable the alternative is.

    Regards,

    David

    PS

    The water put into the air by burning hydrogen simply rains out. It does not add to the greenhouse effect as its residence time is to short.
     
  46. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Daj hope you can return soon, as to have a meaningful discussion we need to have different points of view to consider.

    Could you help me with locating this "EOS 2004, 85, 370".

    Simply establishing covariability is not science, and does not substitute as a replacement for our understanding of the enhanced greenhouse effect which has stayed (very largely) unchanged for 100 years and which predicted the warming we are seeing.

    Im intrigued by this statement. Are you refering to the work of Arrhenius in 1903?



    I came across this before coming to the forum and seeing your post. With reference to CMG or climate model generators it was very apt.

    BBC climate change experiment cocked

    Garbage in, garbage out


    By Andrew Thomas: Tuesday 18 April 2006, 13:23

    THE BBC'S CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERIMENT started in February and almost 200,000 users around the World have signed up.
    With supercharged computers winding down after two months of number crunching, now is perhaps not the best time for the boffins at Oxford University to discover that the data they built into the model is flawed.

    Users, including hundreds of schoolkids, who were looking forward to completing their climate-change models in the next few days are now being asked to start again from the beginning, with corrected data.

    As you might expect, there is a lot of heat being generated over at the BBC's Climate Change Forum.

    The scientists at the Oxford Institute for Extreme Cleverness confessed to a "major error in one of the files used by the climate model," here.

    Project Coordinator Nick Faull, said the file had underestimated levels of man-made sulphate emissions and models had tended to warm up too quickly. The file error was "also responsible for causing models to crash in 2013 which is how we originally came across the problem," he said.

    Faull claims that the data gathered isn't completely useless, but that there is 'no alternative' but to start models again from the beginning.

    "It's a big disappointment to have to give you this news," he confesses.

    With around 200,000 PCs running the experiment non-stop for two months, it looks very much as if the BBC experiment is making more of a contribution to global warming than scientific knowledge.
     
  47. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    The EOS paper is avaliable at http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

    >>Simply establishing covariability is not science, and does not substitute as a replacement for our understanding of the enhanced greenhouse effect which has stayed (very largely) unchanged for 100 years and which predicted the warming we are seeing.

    >Im intrigued by this statement. Are you refering to the work of Arrhenius in 1903?

    The work of Arrhenius is relevant, but ultimately more important is the recognition that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas and that enhancements in its concentrations would lead to temperature rises. It is well known that Arrhenius didn't get his calculations spot on (which is not suprising given the systems complexity, and his reliance on inferences and hand calculations, but he was in the ball part). We have only really had the tools for precise prediction since the mid 20th century.

    The point about covariability is that many people mix covariability with causality. It is a straightforward exercise to show that you can always establish covariability between variables if you look hard enough, and the solar/sceptics literature is litered with examples. Generally, the relationships have vague physical models which are untested and untestable. When the data are updated subsequent to the initial study the relationships (predictably) fall apart because they were spurious from the start.

    Regarding the BBC climate change experiment, this seems like a minor technical problem with a forcing file (not the models, and most certainly not the phyics underpinning the models). It is good to see the admission of a mistake, the error fixed, and the scientist move on.

    David
     
    #97 daj, Apr 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  48. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Ok Daj read that article.

    Now that’s incredibly interesting. Not for what it says, but the battle that exists in international climatology.

    The basis of the paper is that Svensmark, Friis-Christensen and others have all used a variety of misleading methodology. The issue being the close fit between solar radiation and temperature changes.

    Its interesting to note that the graph on page 2 shows Mann, and also Jones & Moberg. Is this the same Jones that was part of Mann & Jones?

    Either way Mann is most certainly suspect about his use of data to prove global warming. It is under significant review even as the scramble to support their original credibility and positions.

    If we cannot accept Mann and Jones and Moberg. If others have discredited Svensmark, Friis-Christensen and others all based on bad handling on data, where do we stand?

    We stand with no understanding with global warming at all because both sides are firing broadsides at each other, discrediting each other.

    Daj, thanks for posting that up, it places a question mark beside the solar issue, but only a question mark, the same as Mann has got.
     
  49. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Taipan your comment "Either way Mann is most certainly suspect about his use of data to prove global warming. It is under significant review even as the scramble to support their original credibility and positions." is not really correct.

    His work had no role in identifiying global warming. Global warming is blindly obvious in any data set you look at - sea level, land based temperatures, ocean based temperatures, satellite temperatures, radiosonde temperatures, or biophysical indicators (see http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/21/7465 for example). All the Hockey stick can tell you is if the last millenia had relatively low climate variability.

    The Hockey stick plays no part in the attribution of recent warming to greenhouse gas emissions - this attribution is done on the basis of physical understanding of climate and the complete absence of a plausible natural driver for the recent rapid warming.

    There is one additional (fatal) problem with any theory which advocates natural processes as the driver of recent global warming. We know very precisely how external solar factors have varied and these imply a very small net radiative forcing. If this forcing is indeed the cause of the warming then it means that the climate system has an extreme sensitivity to variations in forcing and past climate variations must be truly massive. Such massive swings would have rendered the development of life on earth impossible.

    David
     
    #99 daj, Apr 26, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  50. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,478
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Thanks Daj, im still thinking about the CO2 increases this century and the overall increase in temperatures, especially the 1940-1970 period when CO2 levels continued to increase while the temperature actually dropped.

    On the hockey stick the issue has never really been about the blade, but about the handle. Manns work showed the last thousand years to be incredably boring. No medival warm period, mini ice age. These things were "smoothed out". On the other hand the temperature change in the last century became more prominent.

    Daj, im still having significant trouble getting my head around the temperature over the last century.

    If as you say temperature is so sensitive to CO2 increases, then i look at these figures, and dont understand the problem.

    From 1918 - 1940 a marked warming, of temperatures similar to recent decades while we had only a 7 ppm increase in CO2. (In other words, relatively small increase in CO2, but dramatic increase in temps.)

    1940 - 1970 we had had temperatures dropping and fear of another ice age approaching. During this time CO2 increased by 18 ppm to 326ppm.(Increase in C02 of 6% over previous levels, yet we have a cooling of the planet.)

    1970 to present we have seen an increase of 22ppm and we have had an increase in temperatures. (An increase of 7% in CO2 over the previous period and we get the same sort of warming as we did when we had an increase of only 2%.)

    From reading your posts i think what your saying is that there is a threshold? Is that correct? At which point the global warming effect kicks in, like a switch being turned on.

    Dont you consider that to be a little bit convenient? The period 1940 - 2000 with CO2 increases but temperatures going opposite ways.

    Also Daj what i find interesting in reviewing a lot of the work on climate change over the last 1000 years is that some scientists (Mann), but others also, seemed to have conveniently used tree rings, that supported their position while ignoring other tree data sets which didnt.

    What im seeing is a core group of "global warming devotee's, a more silent group in the middle, and a slowly growing group who arent attacking them, but critically reviewing the global warming findings and finding them flawed.

    I want to come back and chat later about your last paragraph. Keep it coming Daj. While each others comments may sometimes be a bit uncomfortable, it is none the less thought provoking and thats why we need to keep questioning this stuff. :thumbs: