The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Opening closed minds > Comments

Opening closed minds : Comments

By Des Moore, published 12/10/2010

The Royal Society, Britain’s top dog in science, has just published a report signalling the end of claims of a consensus by some climate scientists.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
“It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future”

This is not a "devastating" admission, it is the common opinion of responsible scientists. The issue has been one of risk and risk management.

You have set up a straw man Des, and revealed your own lack of objectivity.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 8:47:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
geoff davies .. what on earth are scientists doing getting involved in risk and risk management?

Ah .. what big egos you guys have.

Time to shoot the messenger eh geoff? How novel.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 8:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What rubbish!
A report that basically says "the science is sound, but not perfect" and according to this wally it means "uncertainties mean all bets are off!".
Uncertainty is part of almost all real world science, especially ones that attempt to understand complex chaotic systems.
Exactly the same criticisms can be made for daily and weekly weather forecasts: uncertainties, imperfections and less than perfect models...yet our forecasts are valuable to the tune of $Billions a year. I have yet to see the alternative to doing science rationally: religion certainly provides *nothing* when it comes to real-world data!
Can these instant-experts please apply this level of sceptism to our economic leaders? Here we are allowing massive profiteering, rent-seeking and blatant profiteering, yet the energies of these twits is being spent on deriding something they barely understand.
The answer to limited good science is more good science, *not* political anti-science dirt digging.
Please read the actual report to get the balance right.
This author is only interested in the Murdoch style "angle".
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 8:55:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW. this guy works for an institute that has as a main goal to "argue for a reduction in the role of government."
Can you see his political angle?
Sadly, as much as I agree in "minimal" government, it is clear that open slather "law of the jungle" does *not* equate to maximum good for the community, the nation or the environment.
These guys just don't want any community restrictions on their profit activities. This is where the majority of the anti-GW nonsense is coming from.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 8:59:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy, one could fire the same tu quoque argument back at you:

'The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identifies and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us…Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs' - Mike Hulme.
Posted by Clownfish, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 9:07:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate is a chaotic non-linear system and thus any predictions of its exact behavior have to allow for this non linear reality.
Yes the more extreme predictions are extreme and many of the greens are unreformed, bossy, command economy lefties, BUT- if the worlds climate was to simply become less favorable for food production; if major crop failures in the Russian steppes or in chinas rice bowl were to become %10 percent more common, we would have a big problem.
Posted by pedestrian, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 9:35:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The British Royal Society’s claims regarding scientific uncertainty are incorrect. Since satellite data became available in the late seventies it has consistently shown us (Wentz et al. 2007) with scientific certainty that changes in evaporation are around four times as much as the IPCC assumes. Evaporation is three times as powerful as net greenhouse gas affected long wave radiation at cooling the earth. Evaporation cools the earth’s surface by around three times as much (78 Watts per square metre) as net outgoing greenhouse gas absorbable long wave radiation (26 W/sqm). Evaporation cools not just the surface, but also planet earth because the latent heat transferred from the surface, mainly the oceans (86%), to the atmosphere is released above most of the greenhouse gases, where it can easily radiate into space, but only a small percentage can penetrate the lower greenhouse gases and re-warm the earth’s surface. Wentz’s discovery alone gives us scientific certainty that a mooted doubling of CO2 could cause at most a moderate temperature increase of under 1°C, spread over a century. Even a 1°C rise in temperature is impossible because the evaporative cooling effect (5 W/sqm) of a 1°C rise would exceed the net warming effect of the increase in CO2, indirect effects and the increase in outgoing long wave radiation due to the temperature increase.
Posted by LaurieC, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 10:13:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so ozandy "this guy works for an institute that has as a main goal to "argue for a reduction in the role of government."
Can you see his political angle?"

No ozandy .. what is it?

Is it different to your political goal of ensuring continued funds from taxpayers and government to people like yourself?

Self interested exaggerators involved in climate astrology? So everything that happens seems to fit the predictions of the climate scientists who are obviously so far up the vested interest creek that they have lost sight of skepticism as a scientific minimum? Hot or cold weather, extreme or benign weather, now everything is a "sign" of dangerous climate disruption .. what rubbish, anyone can see that and that's probably what disturbs you all. Those uneducated voters didn't vote in the Greens in a landslide .. wonder why not?

If we knew who you were and where you worked, I'm sure it would be obvious you were looking after yourself and your self interested mates. Don't make out that it is only other people who are political, why you'd have us think only climate scientists who Believe (!) are honest and upstanding folk, and everyone else probably blows up children .. oh wait.

it's easy to cast aspersions the way you do .. all it shows is the usual exaggerated state of your hysteria at the thought of all that money NOT coming the way of climate science .. let's not stop the vested interests or the gravy train eh.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 10:36:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Clownfish: " tu quoque"?
I guess your quote proves there is a lot of complete tosh written about climate change.
I cannot comment on the "psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs" that GW provides...I can only suggest that there is real science, it is complex, and that much of the "doubt" is based from profit motives using a political style, *not* genuine scientific analysis.
I encourage scepticism, but keep it sensible. When complex topics are given the Fox News treatment then everyone loses. We cannot do an Iraq war here and say "Oh well, no WMD's after all. Looks like we were lied to". Destroying a country is one thing. Destroying the economy (a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment) for the sake of a few rampant capitalists is not a good option.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 10:41:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again, with another fruitless-if not intellectually corrosive- debate on climate change provoked by a non-expert with a pre-conceived mission.

Moore's first error is that he seems to have got his title the wrong way around- the article looks like another attempt to close open minds. The fervour of his advocacy and his glee at thinking that the Royal Society's paper is a big mea culpa portrays a prejudiced mind, let alone one that in not qualified to comment on the subject.

To my limited understanding, a lot of the non-warming in the 20th century can be attributed to global dimming caused by industrial aerosols, which have decreased, at least proportionally, in recent decades.

But the main point, relevant to OLO, is that this is not a viable forum for amateurs or inexpert scientists to squabble about scientific details. It would be more fruitful if we discussed the broader implications of the many issues with high scientific certainty (we never claim the absolute certainty of believers in faiths)
Posted by Jedimaster, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 10:49:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope they update the textbooks quicker than they have done with the evolution myth which 'scienctist' keep insisting that the ever changing 'theory' is settled.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 10:50:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL! Thanks runner. I really do appreciate your input here, inadvertent or not. (I still harbour a suspicion that you are a witty troll!)

Amicus. Yes, I currently accept a public service wage.
My AusAid funding is not about Climate Change per-se, it is more about understanding the Climate so that Pacific island residents can plan agriculture, health investment and manage fisheries. Frankly we *don't care* if CO2 GW is happening or not, we still need to do the climate research.
There could be *no* funds for "climate change" research yet research on "Climate" is still vital for subsistence farming countries. The work I'm doing is around climate data rescue, which is digitising old paper records to ensure that historical data is not lost and can be used to understand cyclical patterns, climate drivers and yes, whether CO2 induced climate change is the "culprit" in the massive changes the region is experiencing. (Try telling islanders there are not massive changes happening. They will show you otherwise!)
Even if there was no CO2 issue at all we still need to do the science properly. Too many lives depend on Climate to ignore it. The "natural cycles" theory is a good one: we need to know how much variation is "natural" such as El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This is one of the more well known cycles but there are many others and they interact in complex ways.
I guess the take-home message is that we are doing climate science for very human reasons...maximising funding by hyping CO2 Global Warming is *not* our focus, nor would it be tactically clever to go down this road as we would *definitely* get caught! Peer review and transparency is not perfect but it is much harder to cheat in science than in business or politics!
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 12:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the head of the Royal Society was interviewed originally, a Dr Rees, an astronomer, my impression was that he knew nothing about the debate. He seemed to think that there were no scientists at all opposed to the sceince, and there really was a consensus. Its nice to see someone has told him something about the debate, but basically the Royal Society shouldn't be involved at all. Since when do scientific bodies take positions on such matters? Its as if the society had declared itself for out of africa as opposed to the mult-regional model in the recent human origins debate?
The society should not have made its original declarations and they should not have issued the recent positiuon paper or whatever it is.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 1:25:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy.. trot yourself back to the foot of the socialist/green/progressive throne where you worship the compiled (barren)works of socialism and just let the truth be told.

The only reason the voice of responsible scientists have not been heard so much till now is that they have been systematically excluded for POLITICAL reasons.

The Fabian strategy for world income redistrubution using the 'Green global warming crisis' as the catelyst is doomed.

The Wood cutter is coming quickly and will soon CHOP down that ugly wolf (lves) who is/are trying to enslave the free world.

Red riding hood voters might not have tweaked to the true nature of that wolf...but remember one thing..when she finally DID..and it all seemed too late......that's when the hero entered and saved her.

You might like to reflect on the fate of the wolf too.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 1:34:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a hoot. A propaganda hack writing for Quadrant magazine complaining or writing about "closed minds".
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 2:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark/Curmudgeon, you're joking, right?

'Sceptics' demanded the Royal Society investigate and clarify their position. Now they have, the 'sceptics' don't want to know about it, or they cry foul - this is just so typical of numerous investigations of late.

Now you're saying that scientific academies and institutions "should not take a position on such matters? Or that they should not have issued the recent position paper or whatever it is (sic)?"

Yeah, right - shut them up, censor them, shout down the science, dumb down the public - and you're some kind of scientific journo/writer/author?

In my opinion, it's media types with that same attitude that are deliberately damaging and misrepresenting the science, and are delaying much needed debate on what actions and policies need to be undertaken, or not.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 2:27:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot .."delaying much needed debate on what actions and policies need to be undertaken, or not."

So now you guys want a debate?

all we ever hear from the media, ABC Farfax is that the debate is over .. when we all know there never was a debate, just an eco led "consensus", now that it is swinging the other way .. you want a debate.

then there's the greenies type of debate, only believers can attend - or an ABC debate where everyone agrees with each other

make up your mind .. do you want an open debate, or just to shut up the disagreers?

I suspect you meant the debate is on what to tax, and how much, not whether we need to do anything at all ..myes?

I agree with the others, institutions shou.d not close their minds and "declare" a position .. though I suspect again it is all due to funding positions and reputations .. yes?
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 3:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes rpg, a debate - on a carbon price or an ETS, on land use management/practices, on catchment management/water resources, on local planning issues, on transportation and infrastructure needs, on energy efficiencies, on renewable energy alternatives/nuclear/geothermal/solarthermal/etc, on tariffs/subsidies, on government regulation/free market mechanisms, etc, etc (add to the list yourself).

Not a debate on the science rpg, the scientists can and do that well enough, through the scientific process and peer review - although I do find it amusing that everybody that is not a climate scientist (e.g. electricians, accountants, engineers, teachers, etc, etc) insist the experts have got it all wrong and the experts don't have a clue what they're talking about LOL.

Yes, a debate on how, when and what to do about global warming, rpg. That's what the UNFCCC have been doing, that's want industry leaders need, that's what progressive people want.

The others, well they appear to only want to debate or deny the science. It really is time to move on, that is my opinion anyway.

And please, don't take the statement "the science is settled" out of context - it is never settled, per se. That is why there is a process of "debating" the science - not by media columnists, shock-jocks or those pushing their own ideological agenda, as we've seen above.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 4:47:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot .. so who is debating the science?

Certainly none of the believer sites do, one of the ABC, ALPBC or Farfax sites are interested.

The science of AGW has never been debated ..

Why not a debate on the science, not all the scientists agree bonmot, so surely there is room for debate there, or do you want to shut that down with consensus thought? "Not a debate on the science rpg"

ah .. I get it, you only want to debate, what you want to debate, nothing that disagrees.

jeez, go back to the commune mate, we're sick of the group think.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 5:32:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scientists debate science rpg. Insofar as 'climate science' I suspect you don't know enough about the details and nuances that is debated in the respected journals, conferences, lectures and so forth, to have any qualified input. Sure, have an opinion, but that is all it is, an unqualified opinion.

I don't know what you mean by "believer sites". Do you really think any of the university or scientific institution promulgates anti-science? Or NASA, or NOAA, or our own BoM or CSIRO, for that matter?

AGW has, is, and always will be debated - much debate is now about climate sensitivity and attribution - are you really saying it is not? And if you are, how do you know it isn't?

Sure, not all scientists agree - some climate scientists don't think human induced climate change is significant, the vast majority do. All real scientists debate this through the scientific process, not on online opinion sites.

As to you suggesting I go back to a commune, that is not conducive to constructive or rational debate, about anything, mate.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 6:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course Des belongs to the same Quadrant sponsored school of open minds that includes David Flint and Bill Muehlenberg.

Notice too that the Quadrant webpage features an advertisement for a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute which specializes in promoting toxic spin, or more bluntly lies.

Its world-view can be summed up via the title of a book, namely: Toxic Sludge is Good for You.
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 6:34:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t know why all you people are arguing. I tried to get the message across in my earlier post. The big question in climate science has already been settled. Tested and accepted observations of the real world show that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cannot cause catastrophic global warming. This is why the alarmists have stopped repeating “the science is settled” and are now intent on convincing us that “the science is uncertain”. So, what has happened? Well since satellite data became available in the late seventies it has consistently shown us (Wentz et al. 2007) with scientific certainty that changes in evaporation in the real world are around four times as much as the IPCC has assumed. It has long been known that evaporation is three times as powerful as net greenhouse gas affected long wave radiation at cooling the earth. Evaporation cools the earth’s surface by around three times as much (78 Watts per square metre) as net outgoing greenhouse gas absorbable long wave radiation (26 W/sqm). Evaporation cools not just the surface, but also planet earth because the latent heat transferred from the surface, mainly the oceans (86%), to the atmosphere is released above most of the greenhouse gases, where it can easily radiate into space, but only a small percentage can penetrate the lower greenhouse gases and re-warm the earth’s surface. Wentz’s discovery alone gives us scientific certainty that a mooted doubling of CO2 could cause at most a moderate temperature increase of under 1°C, spread over a century. Even a 1°C rise in temperature is impossible because the evaporative cooling effect of a 1°C rise would exceed the net warming effect of the increase in CO2, indirect effects and the increase in outgoing long wave radiation due to the 1°C rise. The global circulation computer models that feed into the IPCC were able to predict scary temperatures because they are configured so that their virtual evaporative cooling of around 1 W/sqm is only quarter of the real world 5 W/sqm, for each 1°C rise in temperature.
Posted by LaurieC, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 7:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My reading of the Royal Society's summary leads me to believe Des Moore is either very selective in his understanding, or is deliberately misleading.
Moore writes:
"The contrast with the conclusions drawn from the 2007 report of the IPCC is marked."

Where?

Paragraph 3 states (in part):
"This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties."

LaurieC might be interested in paragraph 36, concerning water vapour:

"Climate models indicate that the overall climate sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2oC to 4.5oC;"

Incidentally, LaurieC, you might also be interested in a recent New Scientist article, concerning a recent drop in the rate of evapotranspiration:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19565-water-cycle-goes-bust-as-the-world-gets-warmer.html
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 7:12:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anybody interested in a simple, low tech, solution?

A reforestation project in central Australia.

We dig a canal from Spencers Gulf through Lake Torrens to Lake Eyre. The evaporation rate of such a large shallow sea would be enormous. The clouds produced would make rain falling on the western slopes of the Great Dividing range &/or the eastern side of the Kimberleys, again all flowing inland.

The natural rainfall across all of central Australia would increase.

The trees, you collect mangrove seeds from around all our coast and plant them along the edge of the canal & Lake Eyre.

Massive wetlands to create more evaporation & aquaculture.

Hears the best part. No need to burn fossil fuels.

You reopen "Baxter" not as a Hitler Labour Camp, Stalinist Gulag or Maoist Re-Education Centre. You call it a "Rehabilitation Resource". All Radical, Extreme, Loony, Left, members of the Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition, after being arrested by ASIO for "Cultural & Economic Treason" could "be the change they want to see" and do the work manually with picks, shovels, wheelbarrows, etc.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 7:15:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LaurieC, ok already, we get it - seen your comments, on numerous threads, repeating the same thing. Thing is, the weight of evidence against Wentz et al does not support the conclusions, just look at the refutations and rebuttals - look at the citations, for example. That is not to say their postulates are wrong, they just haven't been supported to the extent that you may wish, or want them to be. Who knows, they may get the Nobel one day for showing it is all bunkum (I doubt it), but they (and others) should go for it - that's what the scientific process and peer review is all about.

For what it's worth, the vast majority of scientists are not suggesting "catastrophic global warming" anytime soon, and it's misrepresentation or ignorance to suggest that they are - the sky is not falling and the world is not going to end in 2100. However, there are some serious things to do (it doesn't happen over night) that we could be doing to look at how we use (and abuse) our energy, figuratively and literally.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 7:24:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim, what is the relevance of the Fourth Assessment Report (FAS) to my posting? The FAS was published contemporaneously with Wentz et al. and would not have taken it into account.
Also, what is the relevance of your comment on evapotranspiration? Evaporation is quite responsive to temperature changes and goes up and down with temperature. Further, while evapotranspiration may be of some significance on land, it is irrelevant on the oceans which cover 71% of the earth’s surface and where 86% of evaporation takes place.

Bonmot, you say the “weight of evidence against Wentz et al does not support the conclusion”. The conclusion I have been referring to is as follows:- Since satellite data has been available it has consistently shown that as global temperature increases and decreases, evaporation, precipitation and atmospheric water vapour all increase and decrease by a very similar percentage. If you are aware of a peer reviewed paper that refutes or rebuts this conclusion I would appreciate your drawing it to my attention.
Posted by LaurieC, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 7:52:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article isn't about opening closed minds it's about closing open minds; right when satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica - faster than modelling had indicated - the author wants us to believe sea level rise will be less than modelling had indicated. Greater uncertaintly at the regional level was always freely admitted within climate science literature, yet modelling has been quite good at the continental level. Why fail to point that out except to mislead? The overall uncertainty of climate remaining unchanged is low, the uncertainty of the most extreme and dangerous changes remains higher. Why fail to note that? The Royal Society isn't saying it's likely there won't be serious climate change that will impose enormous consequences and costs, it's still saying most likely there will be. Betting the planet's - and our civilisation's - future on the most unlikely possibility that every institution that studies climate is wrong and carrying on with the very activities that will contribute to the problem unabated is dangerously irresponsible. The Author is just one more of far too many promoters of denialist drivel that are given a prominent voice here.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 8:07:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...right when satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica..."

Really, Ken? Have you looked at the ice coverage charts lately? Both Antarctica and the Arctic have recently risen sharply. Not so strange for the Arctic, which is approaching winter, but Antarctica...?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

It may just be that we're in for a long cold winter. Let's hope that's all it is. Funny that you don't see these charts on AGW alarmist articles any more, isn't it?
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 5:34:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JonJ, ice sheets and sea ice aren't the same. Is this an attempt to shift ground to where you feel you have stronger arguments (you don't) or just being weak on the facts about climate?

Sea ice comes and goes seasonally and barely affects sea levels - although multiyear sea ice in the Arctic continues to decline with less lasting a summer to make it to the next winter and ice extent through summer continues it's strong trend of decline. Antarctica's sea ice remains bufferred to a large extent by being circled by cold ocean and has shown a small trend of increase at winter maximum. You could try and find out why rather than jump to the (wrong) conclusion that it's because Antarctica isn't warming. There's strong, clear evidence that it is. I would note that ice shelves - something else again - continue to be lost around it's margins, not to return.

But I never actually mentioned sea ice, I mentioned ice sheets which are where most of the world's frozen water is and where most of the sea level rise will come from. Grace and IceSat satellite data both show acceleration of melting over the last decade and it's gaining momentum of it's own that won't be slowed or stopped without a strong reversal of the current warming trend and there's no sign of that.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 7:37:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ken, do you understand what freezing temperature means?

Do you know the average temperature on the Antarctic continent is -40 degrees?

Water does not "melt" in the Antarctic.

The ice sheets move, they break, but they DO NOT melt.

Take your silly climate fairy tales back to your climate believer sites, you appear not to understand fundamental science.

If satellite measurements, please reference these if you can, shows Antarctic ice thinning, then it is not melt.

Can you reference any site that says satellite data shows Antarctic ice melting? Not sea ice, you most emphatically state this is not sea ice, so leave that one out.

Your statement "satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica" is probably knowledge sourced from one of the AGW/Astrology" sites, not much bothered with science more with propaganda.

Can you understand why climate science has lost any reasonable reputation with the masses that it might have had?

Do please continue to post this sort of thing though, it just adds to the mix of misinformation from the climate scientology/astrology "science".
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 9:59:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julia Gillard wants to lie to us and tell us there will be no carbon tax if she is elected. Now she is going to do it just weeks after being elected.

On what flawed science is she going to make Australia go broke. Why will they not wait for America and China to draw out their carbon taxes.

Or how about the fact that the global warming argument is falling apart with this article of the now No concencus and this article where CO2 is not a major factor. http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/10/more-bad-news-for-ipcc-climate-models-peer-reviewed-study-indicates-only-35-of-warming-due-to-co2.html
Posted by SteveMac, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 1:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Amicus, but you are wrong, there has been signficant ice loss in the Antarctic, 57bn tonnes of ice a year from the Esst Antarctic into surrounding waters, according to a satellite survey of the region, and more from the West.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 5:19:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie, I was wrong - I assumed you were being accurate in interpreting the Wentz paper. You said " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11082#185867 ".

Now you are changing the goal posts by saying: "Since satellite data has been available it has consistently shown that as global temperature increases and decreases, evaporation, precipitation and atmospheric water vapour all increase and decrease by a very similar percentage." Not quite but widely accepted in the scientific community.

What you were originally saying is a concoction, a distortion, a misrepresentation and appears to be a fabrication by someone like Monkton from the SPPI. Seriously, that kind of fluff is usually found on blog-sites that try to discredit global warming. In fact, I get the impression that you haven't even read (let alone understood) the Wentz paper you yourself cited?

<http://tinyurl.com/Wentz-et-al>; http://tinyurl.com/Wentz-et-al

Anyway, Wentz co-authored with other supposed "alarmists"; Santer (that Santer), Solomon (that Solomon), Jones (that Jones), Schmidt (that Schmidt), Mears and other respected climate scientists, to refute some findings less than a year later in "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere" - International Journal of Climatology, 2008. They refute (and give reasons) the claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations.

Wentz also co-authored (with some of those same "alarmists") in "Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content" - PNAS, also in 2007. Wherein they conclude: "Detection and attribution studies have now moved beyond "temperature-only" analyses and show physical consistency between observed and simulated temperature, moisture, and circulation changes. This internal consistency underscores the reality of human effects on climate."

Another paper? Try "Precipitation extreme changes exceeding moisture content increases in MIROC and IPCC climate models" - Sugiyamaa et al, PNAS, 2010 vol 107 no. 2 571-575.

Dessler is another "alarmist" you may want to check out.

Amicus,
Antarctica is a big place. The NSIDC (amongst others) monitor melting ice in Antarctica, e.g. Melt water washes down a Moulin, creating a lubricating layer beneath the ice, leading to a more rapid slip, particularly of the glaciers.

http://nsidc.org/
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 8:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus - my mistake - ice loss isn't from direct overall warming - it's melting at it's margins, mostly from warming southern ocean water undermining ice shelves and glacier ends which hold back the flow of frozen ice. The end result is still increased melting - the ice ends up melted - of (mostly) the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is higher altitude has less loss at the margins and was previously believed to be growing but that's been revised downwards by more recent data showing acceleration of loss in coastal regions since 2006. In any case that growth is overshadowed by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has shown acceleration of ice loss. It remains vulnerable to rapid losses in the future.

Overall the average rate of loss from Antarctic ice is estimated - using Grace satellite data - at between 113 and 267 gigatonnes a year and which you and the author (with a closed mind) fail to acknowledge.

Try http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html - the abstract gives some numbers - or try http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
Posted by Ken Fabos, Thursday, 14 October 2010 6:46:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The focus on blogger vitriol could be seen as an "emergent property" of the chaos that characterises OLO discussion threads. The essays are rather like Rorschach tests or tea leaves, where the viewer reads into what is really on their mind. Graham's inkblot or tea leaves was "finance"- we read into it "blogger behaviour". I wonder why?

It's a simple connection- many people are aching for a site where a diversity of opinions can be expressed in a vaiety of ways- but within the ethos of democracy and the "Australian fair go". It is one of the paradoxes of democracy that we must allow a voice to those who advocate the overthrow of democracy. But this ethos, I think, was foundered on the assumption that the dissenters would play by the same basic rules as the democratic majority- ie speak for themselves in a civil voice that has its foundations in reason.

However, what we are seeing is a tacit banding together of mean-spirited rednecks who constantly abuse OLO's democratic principles. As I have said before in these columns, much of this behaviour reminds me of the "deep south" of my youth in the '50s- and for those who weren't there, have a look at the movie "Wake in Fright". Perhaps these people have- and think that it is a training video.

Who wants to hang around with people whose first reflex is to be abusive and have no respect for the principles of reason that underpin democracy? Only other abusers- the fair-minded majority figuratively poke their heads in on this front-bar brawl and head off for some quiet salon. They'd like a bit of bawdiness, but not a constant exulting of ignorance and adulation of tyrants.

Clean up OLO and you'll get masses of fair-minded Aussies paying whatever it takes to keep democracy alive.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:06:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The above post was supposed to go to Graham Y's essay on "OLO- the Next Iteration" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11090)

Nonetheless, it is just as appropriate here, as much of the above discourse is a prime example of what I'm on about.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:13:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot: Thank you for agreeing that evaporation (E), precipitation (P) and atmospheric water vapour (V) all increase and decrease by a very similar percentage. However, you are very, very wrong when you say this fact is “Not quite but widely accepted in the scientific community.” Not one of the over 20 teams of scientists running the global climate models (GCM) that feed into the IPCC accepts this finding.
The worst of the GCMs are configured so that changes in E & P are only one sixth of changes in V, for the best of the GCMs changes in E & P are only half of the changes in V and for the typical GCM changes in E & P are only a quarter of the changes in V.

This is not a trivial error or oversight. As I explained in my earlier posts evaporation has three times the cooling power of the net outgoing long wave radiation affected by greenhouse gases.

If the GCMs were configured so that E, P & V all increased and decreased by a very similar percentage, then for a mooted doubling of CO2 they would predict a rise in global temperature of under 1°C.

The remainder of your posting is an attempt to change the subject, which every global warming alarmist tries to do when confronted with the findings documented in Wentz et al. (2007).

Thank you also for providing documentary evidence that Frank Wentz is not a global warming sceptic, but an honest and capable scientist.
Posted by LaurieC, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:56:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phil .. No, you have misread my post, I have no problem with ice loss, I do with exaggerated statements that claim massive melting of ice sheets is occurring .. it is not, and how does satellite data show "melting", you have drawn that assumption wildly I assume.

ken, yep agreed, no problem with that .. I do feel I need to push back on obviously misunderstood or misstated science though.

bonmot .. what was the point of that link? Am I supposed to now search the site for evidence? I can't be bothered if you can't.

I'm often wrong, and have no problem admitting it, but the way this debate goes is that skeptics constantly question data while alarmists just spray around feral information, and then are all hurt and offended when it is questioned.

It's interesting that many of the AGW believers who claim to be scientists never bother to correct other misinformed AGW believers. They do them a great disservice by not helping educate them .. I assume you do not correct them because you are so reticent to give a skeptic any perceived leverage .. how weak is that eh? Are you biased, yes of course you are.

lauriec, hey nice backhand there "yada yada documentary evidence that Frank Wentz is not a global warming sceptic, but an honest and capable scientist."

The implication being that a skeptical scientist is not honest or capable?

Spoken like a true believer, thanks for confirming your mind is completely closed and any skepticism is well gone from your career. Are you a scientist receiving grants?

jediprincess, it appears that online commentary sites are somewhat more robust than your constitution allows for. Your insulting vitriol and sanctimonious sneering reflects what you accuse others of. I see you would prefer to only be involved in clubs of the nature that keep the riff raff (and rednecks) out, an elitist. What happened to the site you started? No business eh, wonder why? (that's rhetorical and thus requires no answer .. just helping)
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 14 October 2010 8:29:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus, word limit - not "feral information", your term. Just trying to point out that there are many research institutions that study Antarctic ice melt. You obviously took offence, a pity. As to the "alarmists" quip, have to disagree. All scientists are sceptics, they have to be. Just because the message is alarming doesn't make them alarmist. On the other hand, most "sceptics" aren't, they just don't know. You'll also find that most scientists just do to sites like this, even if it's just to "educate" (your words) both sides, the reason should be obvious. Besides, there are other ways and sites - unfortunately, most "sceptics", for example, just don't go there. LaurieC is no "scientist" at all, but I take you're point about grants. Gee, some people even think that scientists shouldn't do any research at all, let alone be paid for it.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 14 October 2010 9:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops, "You'll also find that most scientists just do to sites like this" should have read:
You'll also find that most scientists just don't go to sites like this ...

Have to run, bye.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 14 October 2010 9:20:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus - You condemn yourself with your own words.

If you are really interested in anything other than abusing others, you might care to look at RealClimate.org- here are a few of the many entries on melting ice. I await to see your equivalent contrary data.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/an-icy-retreat/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/glacier-mass-balance-equilibrium-or-disequilibrium-response/

And what is the innuendo behind your question:"Are you a scientist receiving grants?" I ran a scientific funding (I don't like the word "grants") program for ten years and never found a harder working, more poorly paid bunch. Just try being a scientist for a living.

..and I would like further explanation of: "What happened to the site you started? No business eh, wonder why? (that's rhetorical and thus requires no answer .. just helping". What is rhetorical about your question? What is helpful about it?

Elitism? If a rejection of intolerance, abuse, innuendo, derision and objectivity is elitist, then I am also condemned by my words. Galileo and Socrates are my heroes- not Alf Garnett and Les Patterson.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 14 October 2010 9:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus, I knes that satellite data shows increasing loss from ice-sheets and didn't follow up on what processes were involved and made an assumption that direct warming was the reason. But the data does show increasing ice loss - a lot more than what I'd recalled from previous reading. I think your assumptions about where I got that from that were not called for... "AGW/astrology sites" ?
This is just insulting.

What science understands about climate is alarming but I have no reason, especially not the insinuations and misrepresentation embodied in the "Opening Closed Minds" article, to believe the scientific community is engaged in alarmism. The rate of ice loss in Antarctica ought not be passed over as inconsequential in your rush to point out that I made an error.

You complain that those that accept the science from the institutions that study climate (but don't necessarily understand all the detail) - 'alarmists' - don't pull up those who exagerate or make mistakes, however I note that you didn't correct JonJ for example, for talking about sea ice - irrelevent WRT to sea levels rise - when the issue was ice-sheets. Or criticise the abundant misrepresentations of science inherent in the appallingly bad 'Opening Closed Minds' article itself.

I would also point out that you are capable of making sweeping statements that aren't true yourself such as "Water does not "melt" in the Antarctic." Sorry to inform you that every summer the coastal fringes are subject to melting including the glacial flows from ice-sheets reaching the coast.

Whilst I acknowledge that I should rely less on memory and could be more careful with fact checking I think you should refrain from accusing people of getting information from " climate scientology/astrology "science" " sites.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Thursday, 14 October 2010 2:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ken and jeddigirl .. so you feel insulted .. toughen up, you have no problem calling skeptics deniers, I find that insulting.

again ken, you need to look at what was said, first you said "satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica - faster than modelling had indicated", and now you say "Sorry to inform you that every summer the coastal fringes are subject to melting ..."

I consider my point justified, that I called you on exaggeration and now you have admitted it and modified your statement, thanks.

ken "I note that you didn't correct JonJ for example, for talking about sea ice", again I was referring to scientists, I'm not a scientist and have no place correcting someone. I'm the CEO of an international organization, with a side interest in truth and have this thing about alarmist prophesies, wannabe prophets and bullies.

I think "climate scientology/astrology" sites is quite accurate and attention grabbing, makes you think about what you are reading on these sites as it is groomed to be "messaging" on the particular information. The climate astrology point is that similar to personal astrology (which is not science of course) is that the predictions are so vague that most anything can be interpreted from them, which is pretty well the same as alarmist AGW believers messaging, isn't it.

Perhaps this might make you more aware of how such behavior and the insulting practice of calling skeptics "deniers", looks from the other side .. it was all fun and a giggle when you lot are insulting someone else isn't it?

jeddigirl .. being all bossy again, does it ever work? Do you find yourself in this position frequently? btw referring to the AGW believer site realclimate is expected from climate astrologers, I'm sure you find all your answers there - me I find it to be an extremely biased site which prepares information carefully for consumption by its followers, like yourself.
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 15 October 2010 7:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus

I assume that your reference to "jedigirl" is to me. I can only construe your attempt at wit as sexist. In this context, why use the suffix "-girl" if not to assume that it is denigrating? My nickname is intended to be a tongue-in-cheek play on my initials, perhaps with a nod to ideals, but recognising that there is a dark side as well. I note with interest that in Wiktionary, "amicus" can mean friendly.

Your admissions "I'm not a scientist" and "I'm the CEO of an international organization, with a side interest in truth" are most telling. In my case, I trained as a scientist, with a central interest in the truth. I wonder if you apply the same style of discourse to your international clients as you do to other OLO-ers with whom you disagree.

And with regard to RealClimate.org- so you think, as a non-scientist, that you could demonstrate where the it "prepares information carefully for consumption by its followers" and the average of several hundred international posts that it receives for each article. They have a guiding principle of strictly no abuse, but there is a wide range of views, generally trying to be helpful.

I understand that GrahamY is fairly relaxed about the word "denier". On reflection, I prefer to not use it now because, although it simply means someone who reflexively denies some particular thing, it still has connotations that go well beyond that definition. I prefer to preserve the word "sceptic" for its more technical definition of "someone undecided as to what is true and enquires after facts", and apply the word "cynic", where appropriate, as "a person whose outlook is scornfully negative." Its pejorative Athenian etymology derives from "dog", which is unfair, as most dogs that I know are very amicable.
Posted by Jedimaster, Friday, 15 October 2010 8:32:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most important point here is that ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland are accelerating. Those are where the greatest sea level rise will come from and the author of the 'closed minds' article wants us to believe uncertainties about sea level rise make it more likely the rise will be smaller and slower, not greater and faster. Recent satellite data gives good reason to be alarmed that it will be the latter. The rest of the article is no better; uncertainty does not make it more likely the impacts of climate change are reduced. He implies that CO2 sinks will absorb more than expected but there's no reason to believe that - they could end up absorbing less. And of course he fails to even mention ocean acidification in relation to ongoing absorbtion by the largest of all CO2 sinks.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Friday, 15 October 2010 3:53:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy