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 > Community resilience and the hazards of climate > Comments

Community resilience and the hazards of climate : Comments

By William Kininmonth, published 5/5/2011

The failure of global climate models means we should design our societies to be prepared for anything.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All
It seems that Aitkin is stuck on the view that a scientific consensus based on the preponderance of evidence can be simply dismissed because it doen't suit his unsubstantiated opinion; that Aitkin is stuck on the view that the virtually unanimous and stated view of the world's scientific institutions can be dismissed for the same rerason; that a "natural cycle" happens without any causative agent; that the holocene era has not been an era of relative equilibrium; that the basic physics of atmospheric carbon dioxide has not been demonstrated; that there is no association between the tobacco denialists and the climate denialists ... you have to wonder. And why, if everything is for the best in Aitkin's world, does he even bother to enter the argument? He certainly isn't attempting to refute the science.
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 1:16:52 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
Nicco:

In order,

(i) I have looked into the 'consensus' and it is wanting; in any case, one is entitled to ask questions and consider the answers, whatever experts say.
(ii) How many times does one have to point out that the 'view' of the Royal Society is that of its executive, and that the RS has already had to climb down from its former extraordinary position because of the objections of Fellows not on the executive.
(iii) You seem to assume that we know everything that is to be known about natural variability, and that is both wrong and arrogant on the part of anyone who asserts it.
(iv) The apparent increase in warming in the last century is well within the variation that has already occurred with the Holocene.
(v) I have already said that I can accept the black body argument for radiative transfer through which a doubling of carbon dioxide will lead to a one degree increase in temperature, all things being equal. The rest is conjectural.
(vi) As a former smoker who is opposed to smoking I do not deny the probability that a smoker decreases both his/her life expectancy and quality of life. The rest of your point is an empty smear.
(vi) Why do I enter the argument? In the hope, pretty well exhausted on this thread, that I could persuade someone to go and do some reading and thinking, ask a few questions, and come to his/her own view about AGW, rather than parroting what others say and think.

You never know. There may be someone out there who is reading but not commenting...
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 2:43:57 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
Don Atkins:"(iii) You seem to assume that we know everything that is to be known about natural variability, and that is both wrong and arrogant on the part of anyone who asserts it.
(iv) The apparent increase in warming in the last century is well within the variation that has already occurred with the Holocene."

Well, yes to both of these points, but you left out some crucial detail.
You, and many others, appear to pinning their hopes of explanation of what is causing the warming on something that has hitherto been unmeasured or is currently 'unknown', when a quite plausible explanation has been tested through multiple lines of evidence and the signals from known natural variability have been controlled for in the analyses.

As to the natural variability of the Holocene, there are many sources of variability, that have occurred in the past. But where are they now? Why do they not show up as being causative of warming?

Where is the 'natural' explanation for the current warming? I haven't been able to find one, have you? Why reject the plausible (and testable) explanation in favour of a big 'unknown'.

What I have found is that there does appear to be an anthropogenic signal in the data:

Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth
Dickey, JO Marcus, SL, de Viron, O
JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 24 Issue: 2 Pages: 569-574 Published: JAN 15 2011

Statistical assessments of anthropogenic and natural global climate forcing. An update
Schonwiese, CD, Walter, A , Brinckmann, S
METEOROLOGISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT Volume: 19 Issue: 1 Pages: 3-10 Published: FEB 2010
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 4:45:54 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
Bugsy:

I said that AGW was plausible! But it's not compelling, at least for me. And you use the phrase 'multiple lines of evidence', as do so many, without ever mentioning any of of them. And again, 'climate science' as we know it today is based on large computer models and is only twenty years old. We'll know a great deal more about all of this, I should think, in another twenty years. Models are not evidence of anything — they offer possibilities, clues perhaps, that have to be tested against observations.

Real observations have shown that the proposed hot spot in the troposphere cannot be found, and at least to that extent, the AGW signature does not yet exist.

Now I've done as much work on your two articles as I can. The second is in German, and mine is too rusty to help. But both abstracts show that these are model exercises. The one in German seems to start with the assumption that AGW exists, so that's not a great help, and moves quickly into how to mitigate its effects.

The Dickey article is simply a piece of modelling that produces three variables that seem to correlate, but even the authors don't know why. And the assumption, at the end, that all this bodes woe for the 21st century suggests to me, again, that the authors start with the assumption that AGW exists.

Do you see the problem? If you put AGW into your model you will show that it exists! What I need is a proposition that can be tested in the real world, like the tropospheric hot-spot. If that can be found, we can then at least distinguish AGW from natural variability, and see how big it is, and then assess its likely effects.

The natural explanation (null hypothesis) for current warming is a rebound after the Little Ice Age. We don't really know why the LIA occurred, any more than we know why the Mediaeval Warm Period occurred, or the Roman one. There are conjectures, but that is all.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 12 May 2011 7:50:23 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
Scientific 'models' are built upon real observations, Mr Atkins.

But I do see a problem, you are an abstract extractor, not a paper reader. Otherwise you would know that the second reference is in English, not German.

Again, we don't know but we have some ideas about the Medieval 'warm period' (there conflicting data about this one) and the LIA, including solar activity. Solar activity strongly correlates with climate and temperature observations, well up to about the mid to late of the 20th century anyway. However, when we look at all these possible influences we don't see any change in their effects, i.e. they cannot explain the current trends.

I will repeat, scientific models are built on data and validated with observation. That you keep repeating that this approach is worthless leads me to suspect that you are probably more familiar with the 'economic' approach to modelling. In that I would agree.

You agree that the AGW approach is plausible, well I would certainly contend that after looking for alternative 'natural' explanations and not finding them, it is the MOST plausible. It is the crowd that say that there are 'natural' explanations without identifying them are in the faith-based camp.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 12 May 2011 8:19:34 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
How often will Aitkin go on repeating the furphy that the Royal Society retracted its considered views on climate change? Its most recent statement (September 2010) was prepared by a highly qualified working group and is extensivley referenced, (perhaps stimulated by a small rump of RS members, led by denialist Nigel Lawson) and it concludes (par.57): "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems."

This statement is in general agreement with statements made by many of the world's leading scientific institutions. These statements are well-referenced and are based on scientific measurement and observation. (This is easily checked.)

Aitkin's complacent view that only he is capable of reading and thinking about the issue, rather than "parroting" the opinions of others, is arrogantly wrong. A number of contributors to this forum have shown that they have read widely and given serious thought to what is a real problem. It suggests, rather, that Aitkin is so certain of his ground that he needs neither evidence nor expertise. This in turn suggests that his motivation has little to do with scientific investigation, but much to do with preserving the status quo.
Posted by nicco, Thursday, 12 May 2011 10:02:05 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All

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