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. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    There is no reason to expect a one to one correspondence between CO2 and temperature (though the suggestion that we should is a common strawman put up by certain sceptics). To understand, our best estimate is that the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 is ~+2.5C, which means a warming "on average" of about 0.1C per 10ppm of CO2. Using your ppm increase values, you can get a direct "estimate" of what the underlying CO2 induced temperature increase would have been in the absence of all other factors. Of course other factors are still at play, and until recently these could easily exceed the "CO2" impacts.

    A prefered way of looking at this issue is to look at the radiation inbalance that the greenhouse gases/aerosols etc place in the climate system. This is shown in http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm
    Generally speaking a 1 w/M^2 change will lead to an equilibrium change in temperature of about 0.7C; it takes the globe some years (and infact decades) to respond fully to a change.

    You can see from this figure that the increase in greenhouse gas forcing was relatively modest up to around 1960, and a fair component was concealled by aerosol cooling effects. From 1900 to 1950 much of the warming is due to a reduction in the cooling effect of volcanos (the 1940 & 1950s were a very quite period) and an increase in solar output.

    The picture is now very different with the greenhouse gas forcing now swamping all other factors which is why temperatures are rising so strongly, and even periods of strong volcanic activity and increasing aerosol cooling effects are overwhelmed by the greenhouse gas caused warming. For the past 3 decades the globe has warmed at a steady rate of near 0.2C/decade. This matches well the increases we would expect due to the CO2 increase, and is the opposite of what we would expect based on volcanic activity which has increased (and solar activity which has "flat-lined").

    David
     
    #101 daj, Apr 27, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  2. boogabrain

    boogabrain First Runs

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Taipan you are soooo boring [​IMG]

    why don't you go back to studying snakes
     
    #102 boogabrain, Apr 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  3. Spiceman

    Spiceman Part of the Furniture

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

    Originally posted by daj:
    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.


    Sounds like you've been eating a few too many fruit loops lately Daj. The Hockey stick has been used over and over again to show how unprecedented "this warming is", however the hockey stick is wrong! And you are one of those who have tried to justify it for years in the face of myself among others who told you it was cock and bull. So pardon me if I don't gloat slightly over the crap that has been fed people for a decade. As for global warming being blindingly obvious in all "those" data sets, please excuse me while I bring up my lunch. You are totally misleading people with that statement. Yes it demonstrates the earth has warmed, however those data sets do not demonstrate what is causing it and this is the basis of all our contention. The only thing those things you mentioned measure is what is happening, not why it is happening.

    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.

    It's funny but didn't I just say that about your data?? nothing in what you mentioned proves attribution of anything except you rabit on as though it does, and what I find extremely annoying is that most people will believe you.

    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.

    That's one theory, and yet if there's a few variables missing in your theory it's a cock and bull story.
     
    #103 Spiceman, Apr 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  4. 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".

    [​IMG] - Spiceman. :thumbs:
     
    #104 Vermillion, Apr 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  5. MisterMxyzptlk

    MisterMxyzptlk Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    24,950
    Likes Received:
    8,589
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    the reality of climate change in a country where our ski resorts start @1400m and finish @ 1900 is that we are going to have a lot more borderline snow/rain events.
     
  6. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    34,372
    Likes Received:
    11,988
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Spiceman, that's no way to conduct a discussion. Please edit your post to remove the personal attacks in order that the debate may progress in a civilised fashion.
     
  7. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    I could ask why my posts are so boring, but i doubt id get an answer.

    Secondly my name has several meanings. Please consider these.

    Thirdly the subject of climate change is extremely complex and difficult. Often it is technical in nature. Those who want simple answers and slogans wont find it by studying climate change.

    Consequently the discussion may appear boring to those who have little interest in the truth and reality of climate change and would prefer the recognition of climate change only from media release.
     
    #107 Taipan, Apr 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  8. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    In doing some research for a reply Daj, I came across this article from Bryson.

    I read down this list and went tick, tick, tick, as those were my current understandings at this point in time.

    I looked at what you posted above, read the first paragraph, and thought of you.

    It worries me that Universities are training graduates to believe in unproven science.

    From Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1

    2. Global Warming? by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1

    The Built-in Nonsense Detector:
    Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone's opinion about "Global Warming". A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about "Global Warming". Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning "Global Warming" or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.
    Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?
    I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector.

    Some Common Fallacies
    1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.
    2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
    3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.
    4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gasses". Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
    5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
    6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

    So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
    We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
    We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate! 2

    1 Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    2. Bryson, R. A. and W. M. Wendland, 1968: "Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution," in Proceedings of AAAS Annual Meeting, Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Singer, ed.), pp. 130-138, Dallas, Texas, December 26-31, 1968. Also as "Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution," S. Fred Singer (ed.), 1970; The Changing Global Environment, pp. 139-147, 1975.


    So lets move on to observed temperature trends. Somewhere above you posted about temperature increases based on balloon and satellite.

    Since 1990 there has been tremendous arguement about whether there has actually been any global warming over the last 30 odd years since satellites and weather balloons started taking meansurements.

    Set out below is a good example where scientists are split. You will of course believe the co2/global warming theory.

    Everybody believes we have global warming because we have been told so many times that there is global warming, people start to believe it.

    Climate Data Disagree with Climate Models:
    David H. Douglass (Univ of Rochester) and S. Fred Singer (Univ of Virginia/SEPP)


    (Douglass/Singer AGU meeting Dec 5-9, 2005)

    Climate Data Disagree with Climate Models:
    Policy Dilemma: Should We Believe in Atmosphere or in Models?

    David H. Douglass (Univ of Rochester) and S. Fred Singer (Univ of Virginia/SEPP)

    We challenge the substantial greenhouse (GH) warming projected from current climate models. Incontrovertible differences exist between observed temperature trends from balloons and satellites and those calculated from GH models.
    ==================================================

    A key problem is to establish the extent of the human contribution to climate change, especially in the past 25 years. This task involves the careful comparison of observations of surface (from land and oceans) and troposphere (from radiosondes and satellites) temperatures with climate models that incorporate all relevant forcings, including those from rising levels of greenhouse gases.

    Unfortunately, uncertainties are still very large. Modelled climate sensitivities can range from about 1.5 C up to 11.5 C (for a doubling of CO2) depending on details of parameterization of clouds [Stainforth et al, Nature 27 Jan, 2005]. Disparities exist for observed temperature trends from the MSU satellite data by the UAH [Christy and Spencer] and RSS [Mears and Wentz, Science, 2 Sept. 2005] groups. There are ongoing corrections of radiosonde trends [Sherman et al, Science, 2 Sept. 2005], and efforts for their resolution [Thorne et al, BAMS Oct 2005].

    A concordance of temperature trends for surface and troposphere is a necessary but not sufficient condition; it seems to exist for short-term climate fluctuations but not on a decadal scale [Santer et al, Science, 2 Sept. 2005]. The latitude variation of temperature trends does not accord with models - esp. in the Arctic and Antarctic [Douglass, et al, GRL, 9 July 2004].
    =============================================================
    The leading climate problem continues to be the disparity between large temperature trends reported for the Earth's surface and the much smaller trends observed in the atmosphere --- just the opposite to what climate models predict. This problem has been highlighted in a National Academy report [1].

    More recently, Douglass, Pearson and Singer [2] confirmed the NAS conclusion and extended the analysis. In addition to the existence of a general disparity in trends between surface and atmosphere, we demonstrated its detailed dependence on altitude. It is found to be opposite in sign to what would be expected from three leading GH models (Fig.1).

    Now, a panel of experts convened by the CCSP [3] and using updated analyses of balloon and satellite data, has essentially confirmed these earlier results [1,2]. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the disparity between observations and model results is both real and substantial. The surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere (LT) in 3 out 4 data sets.

    It is puzzling therefore that the Executive Summary of the CCSP [3] report claims agreement ("there is no inconsistency between models and observations at the global scale") when their own analysis suggests the opposite.
    ********************************************************************
    CONCLUSION: The anthropogenic Greenhouse effect has been greatly exaggerated. The observational evidence does not support the results of the climate models. But without such validation, there is little reason to trust model predictions of future Global Warming or to use them for policy decisions that can have severe impacts on national economies.

    References
    1. National Research Council. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. National Academy Press, Wash. DC, 2000

    2. D.H. Douglass, B. Pearson, S.F. Singer. Geophys Res Ltrs, 9 July 2004

    3. US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1 http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/public-review-draft/sap1-1prd-exsum-all.pdf
    ************************************************


    Figure 1. From Douglass/Pearson/Singer [2]. Leading climate models (dashed lines) show positive temperature trends (tuned to surface temperatures - CIRCLE) and increasing with altitude. Balloon radiosondes (two independent data sets - solid lines) show the opposite and agree with satellite result (MSU-UAH - shown by SQUARE)
    ===============================================================


    Figure 2. From CCSP report [3]. The difference between tropical temperature trends (since 1979) of Surface (TS) and Lower Troposphere (T2LT). Model results are shown in the histogram. Two independent radiosonde analyses are shown as Circles; two independent satellite analyses as Squares. The disparity between models and observations is evident and suggests that only a minor contribution towards current warming comes from anthropogenic GH gases.


    Theres a week of reading in there alone.
     
    #108 Taipan, Apr 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  9. Templestowstud

    Templestowstud First Runs

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Templestowe
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Rather than posting my personal thoughts on this topic, I would like to ask a question. How are we to interpret or use geological evidence that says global warming has occured over and over again through millions of years?
     
  10. 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".

    Schaden, daj is a big boy and I'm sure he will answer in his own way. I've been discussing this topic for quite a number of years now and sometimes am beyond the niceties when I see someone post drivel. daj is a scientist and is a smart guy so it is beyond my comprehension why he would post rubbish dressed up as a nice bunch of words.....

    I suggest if you think my post needs moderation you take it up with the mods and stop harrassing my posts with your personal thoughts. Click on the little report button like you are supposed to and if the mods think I am out of line they will let me know. I have no problem with that! By the way, which part did you think was a personal attack?? When you think of it... start a post in Convo and I'll answer your concerns over there. Do you have anything to add to the debate yourself at this juncture or did you just think it would be good to stop it here for a bit?
     
    #110 Spiceman, Apr 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  11. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    >Sounds like you've been eating a few too many fruit loops lately Daj. The Hockey stick has been used over and over again to show how unprecedented "this warming is", however the hockey stick is wrong!

    Here we go again...

    Spiceman, have a read of Kerr 2005, Millennium’s Hottest Decade Retains Its Title, for Now, 11 FEBRUARY 2005 VOL 828 307 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org.

    Then a few nice new studies to look at are:

    J. Oerlemans, Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records, / www.sciencexpress.org / 03 March 2005 / Page 1/ 10.1126/science.1107046.

    Rosanne D’Arrigo, Rob Wilson, Gordon Jacoby 2006. On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111

    Gabriele C. Hegerl1, Thomas J. Crowley1, William T. Hyde1 & David J. Frame2, 2006, Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature
    reconstructions over the past seven centuries, Nature, 440.

    Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa, 2006. The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century
    Warmth in the Context of the
    Past 1200 Years, SCIENCE VOL 311.

    Even Mcintyre & Mckitrick 2003 find a Hockey stick dating back to ~1600. Pre-1600 the get wild swings in their reconstruction reflecting their filtering method.

    In total you have ~25 different reconstructions using a variety of datasets and analysis methodologies, and everyone confirms that the 20th century warming is unprecedented in 500+ years and we have a Hockey Stick.

    It is interesting that paleo reconstructions are now starting to find a possible "Hockey Stick in precip also... Kerstin S. Treydte1, Gerhard H. Schleser2, Gerhard Helle2, David C. Frank1, Matthias Winiger3,
    Gerald H. Haug4 & Jan Esper1, 2006, The twentieth century was the wettest period in
    northern Pakistan over the past millennium, Nature, 440.

    Must admit to being tired of posting and reposting on issues such as this.

    Regards,

    David
     
    #111 daj, May 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 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".

    Taipan a large part of your post is out of date. The Douglas paper was always a strawman and we now know any disagreement between the Spencer and Cristy MSU data and the model predictions was due to satellite correction errors made by Spencer and Christy. A good place to start is...

    Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere
    Konstantin Y. Vinnikov,1 Norman C. Grody,2 Alan Robock,3 Ronald J. Stouffer,4
    Philip D. Jones,5 and Mitchell D. Goldberg2, 2006, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111.

    David
     
  13. 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".

    So have extinctions for a variety of reasons, tectonic, climate/tectonic, meteor&/or comet impact... does that record mean the present rate of extinction has nothing to do with our species???

    The question that your question begs is far simpler... does the activity of our species have any effect on climate?
     
    #113 Majikthise, May 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  14. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Majikthise, nice to see someone pull this back to the question of... what is the cause of the current warming.

    As a side it is interesting to note that the science has now gone a step further and detected a human induced change in species through anthropogenic climate change. See http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/21/7...ourcetype=HWCIT

    Regards,

    David
     
    #114 daj, May 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  15. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Thanks Daj. Ill go and have a look at these. It may take a few days to come back and discuss it.

    Daj on the question of satellites and balloon data and also observation data, is the fact that it has been highly contested between different scientists for the last 15 years.

    That means scientists who have determined global warming and others who have not found it. One of your comments above makes it sound like there are a group of scientists who have nothing better to do then make up results to disprove global warming. (Surely a similar statement could be made about the global warm and fuzzies).

    The issue however is much more complex the that, and that is why errors are found in both sides of the debate.

    While ill be interested in reading the above article, id be surprised is it is the definitive study that will still be holding its position in 5 years time.

    You didnt make any comment about the observations not aligning with global climate models. Again an interesting problem. The majority of observations taken by balloon and by satellite were lower and in some cases significantly lower. There were a few that accorded more closely with the models.

    I appreciate your time to post up these recent studies. If you dont post up then we cant have a good discussion. Ive tried hard to keep it civil, so we can really look at this important subject.

    (Maybe thats why some character above said my posts were boring because either we arent at it hammer and tongs argueing, or maybe because others could be so out rageous as to not be a beliver in global warming.)

    Anyway as you appreciate the science of climate change is constantly changing. That is itself is an interesting observation. Its almost like watching a tennis match with scientists hitting their findings backwards and forwards across the net.

    If you take any particular position, you could be either on a winner or a losing side of the net. (This is of course, not a contest, but truth will eventually win out.)

    Its also a "game" without end, as old accepted positions are overturned, new ones espoused and later on they too are overturned. It is rare that any one study makes a tremendous leap forward.

    As we both know climate audit and real climate are the two apposing sides in this debate. In reading from these sites, the debate is very far from over.

    Anybody reading this thread, take yourself off to these two blog sites. There is months of reading there on the accuracy or inaccuracy of various scientific positions.
     
    #115 Taipan, May 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  16. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Whenever i read IPCC I always go "err O". The opening paragraph opens with the comment "I concluded that humans are changing the climate by injecting greenhouse gases and aerosols into the atmosphere."

    His second statement is "one line of evidence that was examined included temperature trends produced by the HadCM3 general circulation model......"

    As has been seen on this page alone, the amount of warming taken from observed data is still very much in question, with parts of the planet actually cooling.

    This is observed data not models

    Secondly the comment about temperature trends based on models, can be shown above as a dangerous practice as the modellers arent getting it close.

    From the opening statement the presenters of the paper have already made up their minds that humans are to blame and they would set out to show you why.

    Will be away for next 24 hours.
     
    #116 Taipan, May 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  17. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Taipan, the models are based on physics. They are driven with observed forcing as best as we know them. That they now do a good job of reproducing climate is hardly suprising... they should as climate variability is due to quite predictable and well measured and well understood process.

    The controversy about the upper level data was largely fabricated ("RE Daj on the question of satellites and balloon data and also observation data, is the fact that it has been highly contested between different scientists for the last 15 years."). This analysis was based on the short and error prone early versions of the MSU satellite data. It was alway a nonsense to use ~10 years of data punctuated with the biggest volcanic eruption of the century as evidence that global warming wasn't occuring. We now know that the MSU analyses by Spencer and Christy contained two very major errors. The first was correct in (about 1998) and was due to a orbital decay problem. When they corrected this problem they introduced a second error where they applied wrong signed corrections for diurnal temperature drift. This second error has now been corrected and we have around 4 seperate satellite records all of which show rapid warming which is either slightly less of slightly more than that at the surface. This is nolonger a matter of any controversy and the surface, radiosonde, MSU, high altitude sites, and climate change projections all agree rather closely. The language of the professional sceptics has changed to reflect this resolution, with a much greater emphasis on the Hoecky Stick (of course the Hockey Stick is really only a distraction as it only puts the recent human induced warming in context of past natural variability, and has no physical value in attributing the 20th century warming to humans).

    Of course, they could be all wrong, but the chances of this are probably between zero and about zero...

    This may we be my last post as I fear I am wasting my time. For example, the PNAS of one of the most prestigous science series in the world and you dismiss the paper without even giving it serious consideration. Your suggestion that the 1000s of scientists associated with the IPCC, who simply review the literature giving up great slabs of their time in the process (they don't write the reports from their "gut feelings"), are somehow not to be believed is gob smacking. Would you conside levelling a similar accusation at another group of professionals.. I think not.


    Regards,

    David
     
  18. 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".

    daj, thanks for the lovely articles, you can be sure that I will read them. I love how you say.. here we go again and totally ignore anything else I actually said. You are either ignoring it because you have no real answer or you are being deliberately deceitful. You said:

    As I said, anthropogenic (that is what we are discussing) global warming is not blindly obvious from any temperature data sets, the only thing that is obvious is that temperatures have changed not what is causing the temperatures to change. To extrapolate anything else from the above evidence without combining it with anything else is misleading at best. You then say:

    If that is the case then why do you try to rationalise the hockey stick in your next post? Interestingly though your first comment mentions the last millenia (1000years), but then you proceed to in your next post talk about the past 5-600 years which obviously and conveniently misses the medievil warm period... again this is totally misleading because the original hockey stick claimed that it was hotter now than ever for the past 1000years. So forgive me if I wonder why "scientists" have now changed the terms of reference to 500 years. If you truly are interested in the science as you say then you wouldn't mind answering that for me? Can it be that the past 1000 years does not suit their needs to establish "unprecedented" global warming? It would seem so.

    By the way, I know that I can be a trite condescending but i am more than prepared to discuss the science. I just find not too many willing to answer the hard questions and instead try to dismiss them or rationalise them into something else. Any intelligent person can see what I am getting at.

    Cheers

    Spiceman
     
    #118 Spiceman, May 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2013
  19. Sandy

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

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    63,597
    Likes Received:
    10,829
    Location:
    Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Keep it nice or I'll lock the thread.....
     
  20. 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".

    Sandy, believe me I am trying to be nice however my initial response was ignored, and now the terms of reference have changed from the past 1000 years to the past 500, this to me is as much misleading as many thought John Daly and others were. I think Taipan has raised some very good points and has used the science to do so, and then others accuse him of only posting what he "believes" in! Well perhaps others are "believing" in the science to the point of changing it to suit their hypotheses... At least it looks that way to me. I have no motives other than to find out what really is happening and yet in the past I have been accused of belonging to some petrochemical company, or having some "agenda" I find that a trite amusing....
     
    #120 Spiceman, May 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  21. Templestowstud

    Templestowstud First Runs

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Templestowe
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Phew, this is a hot topic! Just remember EVERYONE has a right to their opinions. Changing the "rules" in mid-stream is not fair. When this happens, even if only to justify data or theory, we all loose.
     
  22. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Spiceman, I have only so much of my time I can spend on discussion such as this. The IPCC manages to write 1000 page reports on this stuff, so to think that I can respond to all the "what about this observation" type of posts is asking a bit much.

    You are right that I kept my comments reference to the last 500-600 years in the Hockey Stick post. There are about 15 reconstruction which now go back to between 1000 and 2000 years (with a couple of new ones appearing each month) and these generally show a warmer epoch around 900 to 1200AD, but one which in all reconstruction so far is cooler than the late 20th century (at least as far as I have seen). IMHO if 500 years of flat or slightly varying global temperatures followed by a steep 20th century rise is not sufficient to sway you, then why would 1000 or 2000 years. The 500 years is absolutely without dispute, the 1000 years has some uncertainity, and the 2000 years probably a bit more. If you look closely at Mcintyre & Mckitrick 2003 who have the only published alternative which disagrees with the broad conclusions of Mann et al you will notice that there warm tempreatures do not coincide with the Medieval warm period, they actually coincide with the start of the Little Ice Age - I kid you not. The warm period is entirely an artifact of the botched analysis methodology.

    I have had this same argument with a couple of "professional sceptics" first and it goes like this. First they say it was warmer in the Medieval warm period, then when the evidence accumulates that it was not (the case is now pretty strong), then they move onto the next warm period around 0AD when Eurpoean temperature appear to have been a little warmer than during the Medieval warm period. Looking at the glacial evidence, we are now shooting through the temperatures around 0AD, which then leaves us the climatic optimal at around 6000BC. We will probably overtake these temperatures within the next 30 years (give or take). That then leaves the peak of the last interglacial 120,000 years ago when the northern hemisphere was about 1-2C warmer than the present. We will surpace these temperatures by around 2050-2080. We can then go back to about 2-3 million BC... and so we go on. Eventually we can go back to the end Permian extinction event when a super greenhouse effect took hold. This is a rather mindless exercise which tells you little or nothing about the cause of the present warming, but is a useful "professional sceptics" argument as there is something comforting about not going beyond what has occured before.

    Of cause, they do not tell you that 120,000BC sea levels were several metres higher than they are now, and peak rates of sea level rise approached 20mm/year as large parts of the greenland ice shelf and parts of west Antarctic collapsed. Go back to the warm period around 2-3 million years ago and I understand sea level was not far off 100m higher than present. The end-Permian event is famous because life virtually ceased to exist during this period with massive extinctions.

    I have never really cared much for the paleoclimatic reconstruction as my background is more theoretical and I much prefer to base conclusions on physics rather than observational deduction. Climate is littered with observational amateurs, seeing interesting relationships which they rationalise with some vague conceptual model, and which subsequently falls apart as new data is obtained. Of cause, they then "refine" their model, and again it falls flat.

    David
     
  23. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    >So forgive me if I wonder why "scientists" have now changed the terms of reference to 500 years.

    Spiceman, this is the process of science. You need to realise that science works in a Basean environment where each new piece of information is used to update our understanding and reform the consensus view.

    Science is not accounting or auditing where there might be one correct answer. If you read the IPCC third assessment report (TAR) they make it very clear that there is a 66-90% probability that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millenium. There is about a 100% chance that the last 500 years were cooler than the present, and I have no reason to quibble with the IPCC conclusion from the TAR with the 66-90%; we can look forward to an update on this number when the next report is issued next year. You might quibble that the probability got lost in the media translation, but to expect otherwise is nieve. It is nearly impossible to get a complex message translated accurately by the media - the media likes certainity, conflict, and controversy. This is not the language of science.

    David
     
  24. 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".

    Originally posted by daj:
    Spiceman, this is the process of science. You need to realise that science works in a Basean environment where each new piece of information is used to update our understanding and reform the consensus view.

    Science is not accounting or auditing where there might be one correct answer. If you read the IPCC third assessment report (TAR) they make it very clear that there is a 66-90% probability that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millenium. There is about a 100% chance that the last 500 years were cooler than the present, and I have no reason to quibble with the IPCC conclusion from the TAR with the 66-90%; we can look forward to an update on this number when the next report is issued next year. You might quibble that the probability got lost in the media translation, but to expect otherwise is nieve. It is nearly impossible to get a complex message translated accurately by the media - the media likes certainity, conflict, and controversy. This is not the language of science.

    David



    David, I appreciate your comments, I really do. When I was speaking about the terms of reference, it is well and good to justify science on updated information etc etc, but it is also good to admit when a previous model is flawed or just plain wrong. Scientists occasionally make claims that are then proved wrong but then they seem reticent to mention what went wrong or why. I told you why I was surprised with the change in terms of reference. But the original hockey stick is no more! I have no qualms with the temperature data telling us that the earth is warm. My qualms are with how that data is then interpreted and how it affects what we do. I have not argued with the data, never have and never will. What I will always argue with is poor conclusions and this was the point I was arguing with you. Even if temps rise by another 10 degrees the temperature rise itself is proof of nothing but that the temperature has risen. I really don't like it when people bandy about stats and say they prove this or that, unless they are directly related to it. My concern with your comments was regarding how you attribute temperature rise to global warming in and of itself. I am happy for you to back it up with the things that "prove" man's involvelment but you did not state that in your initial post.
     
  25. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Spiceman, its impossible to prove man's involvement, but there are dozens of papers which suggest it very improbable that the changes are natural, and very probable that they are human induced. A few good ones are, the are lots & lots of references contained in these:

    A new approach to detection of anthropogenic temperature changes in the Australian region
    Karoly, DJ; Braganza, K
    Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics [Meteorol. Atmos. Phys.]. Vol. 89, no. 1-4, pp. 57-67. Jun 2005.

    Attribution of Recent Temperature Changes in the Australian Region
    Karoly, DJ; Braganza, K
    Journal of Climate [J. Clim.]. Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 457-464. Feb 2005.

    Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003
    Stott, Peter A; Stone, DA; Allen, MR
    Nature [Nature]. Vol. 432, no. 7017, pp. 610-614. 2 Dec 2004.

    Detection and attribution of changes in 20th century land precipitation
    Lambert, FH; Stott, PA; Allen, MR; Palmer, MA
     
  26. 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".

    I think it's nieve to think we don't or can't have an impact on global climate. To do so simply suggests that we can modify microclimatic patterns ad infinitum with impunity. That there is some mysterious disconnect between the observable and measureable scales of the micro to the meso and macro. It simply beggars belief to suggest we have no effect... that all observed climate change is within natural variability. Of course it's freakin' natural cause we are part of that freakin' nature. Of course it's within the historic variables because those are bleedin' wide margins over 4.5 billion years.

    From that viewpoint I consider it rather wise to try and determine what those effects could be and consequently the magnitude and consequence of them.
     
  27. Romfrantic

    Romfrantic Hard Yards

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    824
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    expat living in Switzerland
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Interesting article in today's BBC website:


    'Clear' human impact on climate
    By Richard Black
    Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

    A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human activities.

    The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said trends seen over the last 50 years "cannot be explained by natural processes alone"...
    [ MORE ]
     
    #127 Romfrantic, May 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2013
  28. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Not sure whether you read the article Romfrantic, but sounds like more spin then good science.

    Its also a request for more funding, so proper data can be found.

    Daj, on your post above you make the comment.

    "Taipan, the models are based on physics. They are driven with observed forcing as best as we know them. That they now do a good job of reproducing climate is hardly suprising... they should as climate variability is due to quite predictable and well measured and well understood process."

    The models do not do a good job, and i significantly question our understanding of weather.

    Look at the rest of this site. Look at the analysis based on various weather models. They cannot produce reliable results out two weeks. If we are lucky they may be right 25% of the time.

    This is one of my key issues. We are being asked to accept "climate" positions, based on our current understanding of weather systems and climate, when in fact any taxi driver has almost an equal chance of telling you what it will be like in 2 weeks.

    These same weather scientists, then expect us to believe that they can predict weather changes 10's of years to a hundred years ahead.

    Yet your comments support the widely held view that we now understand the weather, that physics models are correct and that observations are incorrect or in error.

    Where im coming from its observations that rule, not models and thats why i question this stuff so much.

    Ever wonder why IPCC papers often quote the climate at the end of this century 2100? Well you can be certain nobody making those forecasts today will be around to answer their forecasts.
     
  29. Romfrantic

    Romfrantic Hard Yards

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    824
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    expat living in Switzerland
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    The article is a newspaper article on the Federal Climate Change Science Program's own report, not a "science" article ...I posted the link just to point out that some research was conducted and results published on the questions you and others ask in this thread. I have no position on the said report, as I have not read it - but I certainly would not dismiss it as pure "spin". Perhaps we should get our hands on that Federal Climate Change Science report and comment on that instead.

    Post edit: to add link to report.
     
    #129 Romfrantic, May 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  30. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    Taipan,

    You clearly have never taken to time to read the IPCC reports, have no idea about the science, and make repeated and grossly defamatory statments which are counter factual.. such as "Ever wonder why IPCC papers often quote the climate at the end of this century 2100? Well you can be certain nobody making those forecasts today will be around to answer their forecasts."

    The IPCC does not have papers, it has reports which review the science of 10,000s of scientists. The reports have very detailed plumes which show explicitely the evolution of temperature over the next 100 years based on a range of emission scenarios. There are 100s of science papers which provide a range of hindcasts and forecasts of temperature using climate models, some of which are well over 20 years old and which have been verified as being accurate. The IPCC reports now have predictions which are nearly 20 years old, and which track the evolution of temperature over this period.

    The recent Federal Climate Change Science report was a careful US review of a key science question; in essence a review of the IPCC conclusions. It not only supported the IPCC, but actually draws conclusions which extend beyond the IPCCs last report. It is very telling that this report comes out so strongly. Do you think that such a report would conclude a human influence, if it was possible to conclude otherwise?

    If this doesn't convince you, then clearly nothing will and we are just simply wasting our time.

    David
     
  31. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Daj i have read some of the reports but not all of them. Ive also read dozens of other reports not included in the 2001 IPCC climate study.

    You obviously believe the work. Thats fine and thats why we are discussing it here. Recently you indicated that the sceptics had been proved wrong and that very few of them still existed apart from a few nut cases.

    Well we both know that isnt correct and in fact the number of sceptics is growing. What do they want? What we all want. To know the truth about the planets climate.

    Why did i give up reading all the IPCC reports. Because the summaries were different from the underlying reports, some of which were flawed, have been updated, superseded or were just plainly wrong. Thats not to say that there wasnt some very good work included.

    In the recent NSA meetings in the USA investigating into the methodology of Manns hockey stick, it was clearly shown that the political need for answers dramatically outstripes the scientists ability to provide the answers.

    In situations like this, answers become available that fill the void but do not stand the test of time.

    This recently published letter (April 2006 - last month) to the Canadian Prime minister encapsulates many of my concerns that i have raised above.


    April 10, 2006
    Skeptics Ask for Public Consultation on Climate Change
    Following is a much talked about letter from '60 climate skeptics' to the new Canadian PM. It was published by Canadian and UK newspapers including The Telegraph.

    "Thursday, April 06, 2006
    An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

    Dear Prime Minister

    As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

    Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

    While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system.

    Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

    We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

    "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

    We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

    We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

    Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

    Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

    Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

    Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

    Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

    Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

    Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

    Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

    Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

    Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

    Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

    Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

    Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

    Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

    Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

    Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

    Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

    Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

    Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

    Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

    Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

    Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

    Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

    Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

    Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

    Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

    Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

    Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

    Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

    Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

    Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

    Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

    Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

    Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

    Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

    Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

    Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

    Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

    Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

    Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

    Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

    Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

    Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

    Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

    Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

    Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

    Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

    Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

    Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

    Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

    Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K."
     
  32. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    #132 daj, May 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  33. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Its amazing how you can be so dismissive of so many well acknowledged and respected climate scientists. They have asked for open hearings to place both sides of the debate.

    Is there now a special exclusive gang of climate scientists? Do they have a special hand shake, or some other means of recognition? (Yes im being facetious).

    As a scientist surely you should not be worried about close review and scrutiny of the emerging science. Or maybe that is what global warming is becoming. An opportunity for some scientists to push their own agenda's to the exclusion of all others.

    Two questions Daj.

    If physics and models are now so well developed, what will the weather be like on Saturday afternoon of the long weekend in Thredbo?

    Secondly is the science is so well developed about global warming that these esteemed scientists should not be allowed to air their scientific opinions?
     
  34. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    You would be lucky to find 5 active published climate scientists on the list of signatures. This compares to 10,000s variously involved in the IPCC process.

    This is an initial value problem, not a climate attractor problem. It has no relevance to climate change predictions... period. Prediction of climate change are like the seasons. Turn up the thermostat and it will get warmer. You can choose to do this via increasing the suns input (which happens in the seasonal cycle), or putting on more greenhouse gas "blankets", which we are doing.

    This is exactly what was done by the US government in the recently completed report. This is also done every time the IPCC undertakes a review - it reviews the work of climate scientists.

    The status of the science is very clearly articulated in the IPCC reports, and the 10,000s of papers therein referenced. The science is very clearly there for the interested person to access, with excellent resources on sites such as http://greenhouse.gov.au

    David

    *************************
    Moderators note:

    Edited for clarity (put the quotes format in)
     
    #134 daj, May 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2013
  35. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    A letter written by sceptics is of course nothing. A letter written by climate scientists demanding to be heard is another thing entirely.

    Look down the list. Some highly respected names, a lot of science and a lot of papers, reports and books produced from that group. Highly qualified. Not just a group of red neck petrol head capitalists.

    Your link wouldnt load up for me. What did they say? That they shouldnt be heard?
     
    #135 Taipan, May 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  36. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    So the answer we get is quiet plain. You have tried to gloss over the weather question and left it unanswered.

    Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.

    No the models dont work, and forecasts beyond a few days become very inaccurate. What hope global warming models?

    When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

    Daj your line appears to be, we (climate scientists) all agree, trust us because we know what we are doing.


    It appears to me that unless your in the right clique of climate scientists, your work will be ignored because it goes against the "accepted wisdom". You will not get funding, to study what needs to be funded as apposed to studying what is fashion.

    From the article above we get the following comment.

    The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system.

    Makes it very easy to have very complex issues clouded over by ideological issues. The writers dont mind, 99% of the population wont understand anyway. Are they lying? No

    Most of these scientists believe in what they are doing. But it doesnt always make good science.

    Unfortunately Daj, after reading your posts, im even more convinced now, that in fact that some of the scientists on the IPCC gravy train dont know what they are doing and the situation is being grossly manipulated by some politicians.
     
  37. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    >>Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.

    >No the models dont work, and forecasts beyond a few days become very inaccurate. What hope global warming models?

    I look forward to you providing the evidence to support this statment. I could provide dozen of papers to show this is nonesense.

    The difference between an intial value and boundary value problem is indisputable - it is climate 101 and if you do not understand this, then clearly you have read and understood very little of the climate prediction science. It is a common argument employed by the climate sceptics that an inability to make a weather prediction means an inability to make a climate prediction - I am suprised that you would both be so easily tricked by it.

    How many more of these tired old arguments do we have to deal with. It takes only a few seconds of googling to find explanations for why these are wrong.

    BTW I would never considering questioning the ethics of the posters on the board or their motives. I would appreciate the same level of courtesy from the two of you.

    I have repeatedly threatened to pull from the thread and now will. Clearly ignorance is bliss, while anyone else following this thread (who stand to learn a little) would have switched off by now.

    Prehaps we can take up the thread in a few years (maybe a few more record warm years might change your minds)...

    David
     
  38. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    You know the interesting thing Daj, is that ive already supplied data above which shows your statement to be false. You obviously didnt look at what i posted.

    I look forward to you providing the evidence to support this statment. I could provide dozen of papers to show this is nonesense.

    Daj, lets get real. Models are still in basic 101 mode trying to deal with water vapor (the major green house gas). They cant deal with it and may not for another 30 years.

    Daj I dont question your ethics. You believe that what your doing is correct. Your internal belief system supports such a proposition.

    To have others question such a belief system is an anathema, to you it is sacred.

    Daj - your comment of Clearly ignorance is bliss may be comforting to you. The comment suggests an arrogance of intellectual superiority. This is the 1% understanding issue i mentioned in my previous post, which translates to, "Just listen to me, i know whats happening, and do as i tell you."

    It appears that you have been presented with a fact acompli, which you accept. I dont know how old you are. But either you or I will be wrong, but it may not be born out for decades to come.

    I find you commet Prehaps we can take up the thread in a few years (maybe a few more record warm years might change your minds)... particulary interesting.

    i really wanted to explore what was on the other side of the table so to speak. What i have found, has been convoluted and based around certain cells of intelligensia. They may yet be proved to be either right or wrong. I feel comfortable that their position is in fact incorrect. You feel comfortable in your position.

    My own feeling is that the world has started moving into a cooling period again in approx 1998.

    Thanks daj for the chat. You may not have fealt that it has been worthwhile. I have. More for what it hasnt said then what it has.

    Thanks mate. We may revisit this in future years.

    :thumbs:
     
  39. 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".

    This is a trite condescending daj and smacks of "listen, they can't possibly know, they don't belong to the real scientists of the world" type of statement. I read the so called reply which didn't do much but prattle on about how warm the earth has got. Gee, that's new, so what's causing it and why? They provided no more evidence than the letter that Taipan posted but you don't seem too fussed about that. I'm sure that both groups are only too willing to provide evidence, the problem is, one group does not want anyone else to have a say and the other one wants an "open forum".

    Do you have a problem with an open forum of scientists from both groups?

    And why?
     
    #139 Spiceman, May 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  40. 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".

    If ever there was a time to use this emoticon --> :headbang: now would be that time.

    some people have their views and wont budge from their views, no matter how hard you try to point out that they could possibly be wrong. im not saying that you're wrong in your views, but i thought a 'scientist' was supposed to be open to other possible explanations, and not dismiss them without any investigation or recognition.
     
  41. Sandy

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

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    63,597
    Likes Received:
    10,829
    Location:
    Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Let's settle a bit.

    Various people have their own views, and some people will not agree with them.
     
  42. 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".

    Originally posted by daj:

    BTW I would never considering questioning the ethics of the posters on the board or their motives. I would appreciate the same level of courtesy from the two of you.


    You have no problem denigrating scientists who do not belong to the IPCC as crackpots or people that "don't know anything" because they haven't published recently. That to me is questioning their ethics. I mean if Newton, or other such nobel scientists hadn't published for a few years and then decided to voice an opinion over some research would that then invalidate their research or opinions? I don't think so, and I don't understand the quick dismissiveness of counter arguments without good reason other than attacking their credibility. So I'm sorry I do question where you are coming from and would expect no less of you. In fact it was yourself a couple of years ago that tried to paint me as being backed by or supported by petrochemical companies or having some alternative motives for researching GW so much... pot... kettle!

    I have repeatedly threatened to pull from the thread and now will. Clearly ignorance is bliss, while anyone else following this thread (who stand to learn a little) would have switched off by now.

    Yes, clearly anyone who disagrees with your view is ignorant. Clearly anyone who does not want openness is hiding something or believes they are beyond scrutinization.

    Perhaps we can take up the thread in a few years (maybe a few more record warm years might change your minds)...

    I'm hoping we wont' have to wait that long. It's been a few years now.....
     
  43. 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".

    Sandy, it's ok to not agree, but to simply say, look they don't count because they are not in the in group is a tad pathetic in my honest opinion. Taipan posted a letter with 60 scientists names and qualifications for crying out loud and daj in his "greatness" simply dismisses it without further ado and then has the gall to accuse us of questioning his ethics. Well I can question his ethics and anyone elses for that matter if I have grounds to do so. NONE of us are beyond that!!!

    I demonstrated quite simply how daj misrepresents evidence and he cannot refute that. You cannot go around saying look the earth is this much warmer so because it's warmer we've caused it. daj does do that often and then has to be reigned back in to discuss the anthropogenic evidence which he has very little of except a bloody great big theory which may or may not be right. Taipan has listed some very good arguments about water vapour and has drawn on the science to back up his arguments and has cited plenty of articles.

    What I really loved though was this quote from the very article that daj posted:

    You have one group asking for an open forum and another group asking for "continued investments", please tell me it doesn't sound like motivation to stick to one side of the debate. Those scientists, like daj are committed how could they possibly then use that money to demonstrate anything but what ONE side of the story. I'm sorry but there are TWO sides and only both of them together can tell that story and the 2nd side has not died and gone away as many have suggested they would.
     
    #143 Spiceman, May 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2013
  44. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    >You have one group asking for an open forum and another group asking for "continued investments", please tell me it doesn't sound like motivation to stick to one side of the debate.

    Your continued questioning of ethics is a disgrace. A sure sign that a debate has been lost is resorting to playing the man. You provide no explanation for global warming, no explanation for why the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases matches the increasing heat content in the atmosphere/cryosphere/oceans, you provide no evidence that the hockey stick is flawed, you dredge up nonesense arguments that weather forecasting is related to climate forecasting, and you make absurb claims that models don't model water vapour. This debate is almost identical to one which occured on this thread ~4 years ago. Back then the main argument was "the satellites aren't warming". Now we have moved on to a rehashing of even more dubious pseudo science which is factually incorrect.

    There is no point in discussing the above, as they are not serious questions of science.

    Finally, can you provide a reason why a request for funding would be aided by the fabrication of a link between global warming and human CO2 emissions?

    If anything, the need for research is more urgent if we do not know the cause of the current rapid climate changes.

    David
     
  45. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    No its not a disgrace to question the issue of ethics. Scientists are human just like the rest of us. And yes there is a long list of scientists who have done the wrong thing.

    Its never easy to admit that you have made a mistake, how much more difficult when you have been elevated professionally on the information that you have created.

    Most scientists go about their work professionally, but nobody can deny that, exagerations, mistakes, and on rare occassions plain scientific fraud can occur.

    The immediate response is. Why would anybody do that? Upon review, it will be revealed. Thats fine if there is open review.

    That is what review is all about. The listing of scientists above, includes many scientists who have been marginalised because they disagreed with conventional wisdom.

    You use the issue that that they havent produced "papers", recently. Some have had controversial papers rejected from publication, not on scientific grounds but because it goes against the main stream. Is that not another form of censorship?

    Like ive said half a dozen times above, review of Manns hockey stick (1998) was prevented to all but those sympathetic to his position. Only recently (6 years after its initial release and its elevation to prominance in the IPCC report,) were other scientists grudgingly given access to the methodology and data.

    Both were found to be lacking. We also have the now famous comment from Jones (part of the later Mann Jones hockey stick study), when another scientist requested access to this new data and methodology.

    "Why should I give that information to you! Your only going to try and find something wrong with it. This has been my lifes work for the last 20 years!"

    So Daj, ethics is an issue in all science. It is most certainly an issue in climatology.

    It is now quiet evident that the notion of global warming is but a chimera.

    You make the comment that we have not given any evidence regarding climate change. That is absurd. We have shown numerous studies, many since 2001, which strongly question the issue of CO2 and global warming.

    Your response is to dismiss these studies, their authors, or throw conflicting studies which show a different outcome, with the comment, that they have been superseded by your preferered scientists. The reality is that as posted above there is no concensus on global warming or the causes.

    Let me offer another line of thought. Now read this carefully. There is no global warming (unified global warming), there is only local or regional climates. Some of these are warming, some of these are cooling. It is a very important differentation.

    For instance the vast majority of Antartica is slowly cooling. What you will see is not this slow cooling, but the only place in the antartica that is warming, which is the Antartic Peninsula.

    You also completely dismissed the list above. Included on that list was Fred Singer. His paper in 2003 using data which Mann had not considered worth using found only a slight warming, which accorded with weather balloons and satelites. Soons (2004) paper similarly found the same thing.

    This clearly showed that recent decades are not the hottest for a thousand years. It is possable to draw charts and proclaim it is the warmest. That doesnt make it real!

    Douglass (2004) showed that the majority of the planet was in fact cooling, not warming. Areas that were cooling was in the tropics, while areas in the higher latitudes showed a small amount of warming.

    The global warming scientific community is now coming under more and more scientific scrutiny and there positions are being closely scrutinized, reviewed and in many cases rejected.

    It is only a matter of time 5-6 years before the sceptics become mainstream, and the global warmists fall from their pedestals.
     
  46. 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".

    Originally posted by daj:
    Your continued questioning of ethics is a disgrace. A sure sign that a debate has been lost is resorting to playing the man.

    Ok, seriously, why is it a disgrace to question someone's ethics? You in this very thread not more than 5 or 6 posts up questioned the credentials of the 60 scientists that Taipan listed that were against global warming and you cast aspersions on their credibility.

    You provide no explanation for global warming, no explanation for why the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases matches the increasing heat content in the atmosphere/cryosphere/oceans, you provide no evidence that the hockey stick is flawed, you dredge up nonesense arguments that weather forecasting is related to climate forecasting, and you make absurb claims that models don't model water vapour.

    You are right haven't provided evidence for anything in this discussion as I have not wanted to go through all the same stuff as before. I have simply highlighted your inconsistencies and told you why they were inconsistent and you have not at any time denied those issues. You skirt around questions better than a politician, ignoring half my posts and then coming out with statements like the above one. I have not said one thing in here about what is causing global warming so why should I have to provide evidence for something I haven't even mentioned. In fact why would you even bring it up unless you simply wanted to divert attention away from answering my questions I put to you in the last post. So I'll ask again:

    Do you have a problem with an open forum of scientists from both groups?

    And why?


    This debate is almost identical to one which occured on this thread ~4 years ago. Back then the main argument was "the satellites aren't warming". Now we have moved on to a rehashing of even more dubious pseudo science which is factually incorrect.

    There is no point in discussing the above, as they are not serious questions of science.


    No it is not. Originally I made no claims in this thread about global warming I simply took you to task for misinformation and gave my reasons which you have not disagreed with or rebutted at any point. I have not made any claims until briefly mentioning Taipan's posts... I haven't moved on to any pseudo science at all and I challenge you to show everyone in here where I have done that!!! I will be waiting for a long time because I don't expect you to find what isn't there!!

    Finally, can you provide a reason why a request for funding would be aided by the fabrication of a link between global warming and human CO2 emissions?

    If anything, the need for research is more urgent if we do not know the cause of the current rapid climate changes.


    I am extremely amused that your article which was meant to be a response to the other article barely mentioned it and then asked for funding at the same time. Perhaps they should justify why they need that funding in an open forum like the one the other scientists have asked for. Surely that is needed, rather than people sprouting: "the science is settled, we are headed down the right track and don't need to consider that we may be wrong, give us your money" type approach.
     
  47. daj

    daj First Runs

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

    >You also completely dismissed the list above. Included on that list was Fred Singer. His paper in 2003 using data which Mann had not considered worth using found only a slight warming, which accorded with weather balloons and satelites.
    These papers are out of date and wrong. The results were a result of an error in the MSU data they used.

    >Soons (2004) paper similarly found the same thing. This clearly showed that recent decades are not the hottest for a thousand years. It is possable to draw charts and proclaim it is the warmest. That doesnt make it real!

    Soon's paper did not show this, though the media spin tried to suggest it (just as they tried to make out this was a Harvard University study). Suggest you go away and read the paper. They defined the medieval warm period as a warmer or wetter or drier period. The data used was also out of date. The paper made no sense (isn't a warm period meant to be... warm?) and should never have been published. The editor of the journal in which this work was published resigned because the journal refused to withdraw the paper, as did most of the review staff.

    >Douglass (2004) showed that the majority of the planet was in fact cooling, not warming. Areas that were cooling was in the tropics, while areas in the higher latitudes showed a small amount of warming.

    This paper used the incorrect MSU data. It is out of date and wrong. It should never have been accepted for publication, as it was known that this stage that there was a problem with the Spencer and Christy MSU data.

    How much more out of date and incorrect "science" are you going to throw at me to defend your position?

    >Ok, seriously, why is it a disgrace to question someone's ethics? You in this very thread not more than 5 or 6 posts up questioned the credentials of the 60 scientists that Taipan listed that were against global warming and you cast aspersions on their credibility.

    Most of the signatures are from people who are not qualified to comment on climate matters. The hand full of climate "scientists" present have provide no alternative to greenhouse climate change. Some of them support discredited theories (such as the IRIS effect). This is a fact, not a question of ethics.

    Dig a little deeper and you will find signatures from people who lobbied against the Montreal protocol (banning of CFCs) and have run pro-tobacco campaigns. Again these are facts.

    Dig deeper and it is blantantly obvious that this letter was political opportunism, designed to take advantage of the election of a new prime minister in Canada. It is political rather than scientific in tone.

    It had absolutely nothing to do with science, and provided absolutely no evidence to support its claim.

    David
     
  48. 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".

    That's great daj but I'll ask again:

    Do you have a problem with an open forum of scientists from both groups?

    And why?

    If they are the frauds and lack of qualified scientists you claim they are then would not that bear out in an open forum on the subject? You rightly point out that Singer's paper is outdated and wrong because of a data error that was not his. How does that negate anything else he might say on the topic?

    We can dig deep on both sides of the debate and see glaring errors and political spins... how about the famous chapter 8 of the 2001 assessment report? None of this though gets us anywhere, so I'll ask again:

    Do you have a problem with an open forum of scientists from both groups?

    And why?
     
  49. climberman

    climberman CloudRide1000 Legend Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    36,256
    Likes Received:
    20,986
    Location:
    the sunny illawarra
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    The scientific publication process is THE open process of science. It is the foundationstone of the modern scientific process.

    A 'town hall' style forum is a not an effective means of allowing two-way communication of any issue. Take it from smeone who runs forums for the communication of high-concern issues for a living.

    To the outsider in this series of communications it appears that daj is shooting fish in a barrel. One of those little ones that St Bernards wear.
     
  50. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    25,475
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Location:
    Currently NSW North Coast
    Re: "The reality of climate change".

    Hmm - im wondering what they all have to worry about also. Barrel fish or whatever.

    Science isnt proved. Daj tries to say it is. It isnt. Thousands of scientists world wide are standing up to say lets get back to the open forum.

    Climberman, im shaking my head at your post. If anything, Daj has the accepted position. The one run by the media, and we all know how accurate the media is.

    What some of us are suggesting and in particular many learned scientists, is that ther appears to be the fashion climatologists and the others.

    We want the others to be heard. Daj jumps in here and says the science is settled. However he cant tell me what the weather will be on the long weekend in June, yet expects us to believe that they understand the climate.

    Not only that, but they claim they have the climate models worked out, can deal with water vapor (97% of GHG) which no model in the world even comes close to dealing with, and conveniently glosses over most of the natural forcings.

    In the recent NSA hearings in the USA Mann was questioned on his hockey stick, which formed the back bone of the IPCC rapid climate change statement. What was acknowledged was that no scientist can gauge temperature from ice cores, or tree rings to within 0.5c.

    Yet we are shown a dramatic change in temperatures after a thousand years of nothing. Sorry i dont accept it in any way. The climate is dynamic, it has always been and always will be.

    If CO2 is such a forcing issue, it would have been shown in the three signifcant changes in temperature this century. It seems far too convenient that we just happen to reach that threshold in the last 20 years.

    I mean thousands of year of natural CO2 variations and just when we have the technology available to actually read the information on a consistent and regular basis we hit Daj's natural threshold where temperature accelerates.

    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%.)

    He also suggests that many of the recent papers that we have posted have now been overturned by other climate scientists.

    I spent over an hour trying to find any evidence of his comments. It was like trying to find a needle in a hay stack.

    Obviously he knows exactly where the needle is. Thats good because it isnt readily available.

    Its interesting. 30 years ago, the greens used similar tactics to gain prominance in climatology. Now scientists are forced to use similar tactics just to be heard.

    Really a case of .. we know what we are doing.. dont you worry about that... just do as we tell you.

    Well many scientists are saying they are wrong, and the message is not being well received.