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 > Marketing global warming > Comments

Marketing global warming : Comments

By David Holland, published 10/12/2007

Is 20th century warming so exceptional? How the IPCC has dealt with this issue exposes poor process, bias and concealment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Another article from a global warming skeptic. He's an IT engineer quibbling over scientific methodology and the cause of the warming.

Surely it's more important to ask - "Is global warming going to effect me?" The answer is "Yes".

The next question should be "Is global warming going to harm me?"
The answer is "Yes - unless you live in South East Queensland or Gascoine region of WA"

My next question is - "What can we do to prepare for global warming?"
Posted by billie, Monday, 10 December 2007 9:08:48 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
A very interesting article but too technical for me.

But then again one wonders about someone who can write this:

"the fundamental duty of scientists....is that they do not deliberately conceal matters".

Most scientists either work for powerful corporations of Governments, and as such are obliged to conform to the interests of their employer,
and are therefore not likely to bring to the notice of the general public any "inconvenient truths" which may contradict the interests of their employer.

There is an interesting film on at the moment titled Michael Clayton. It is perhaps a bit overstated but it provides an interesting story as to how far powerful corporate interests will/may go to DELIBERATELY CONCEAL MATTERS.
I am sure the scenario depicted has happened countless times all over the world.

Plus the book Global Spin by Sharon Beder tells us how both mega-corporations and governments re--lie on spin to convince/DECEIVE the public.

The moral of the story is to always follow the money trail to see who pays the piper.

In my opinion most of the scientists involved in the IPPC were/are genuinely motivated by a very real concern for the future of life on this planet.
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 10 December 2007 9:39:50 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
Discussing climate change is a waste of time.

The most vociferous and loudest 'experts' have won the day. We can all look forward to paying out huge swags of money for the totally useless theories of the big mouths to no good effect.

No matter what we are charged for energy and handouts, the climate will change when it, not humans, decides to.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 10 December 2007 10:09:09 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
I note of the IPCC - "the monopoly authority on the science."

The problem with all monopolies is the serve their own self interest.

Regardless of the willingness of the individual who are associated with them, as soon as a monopoly exists it ceases to serve the consumer (the electorate), it works to feed itself.

The over pricing and overmanning at Telstra was one simple examples of a tied consumer (us) being raped by a state monopoly.

The problem with a UN operated "monopoly" is the electorate are a more steps removed from and thus more vulnerbale to the oppressive power of the monopoly.

Ho Hum "the fundamental duty of scientists....is that they do not deliberately conceal matters".

It is a similar primary responsibility and ethos which is standard to my profession. We express it as an overriding responsibility to reflect a "true and fair view".

Global weather and temperature science lacks the historic analysis and experience to be able to provide a "true and fair view".

The best it can do is provide "a speculative assumption of a range of possible causes and effects".

That we have politicians who wish to hog-tie our national economy to "a speculative assumption with unknown causes and unknown outcomes" is an act of political lunacy.

My understanding of politics was "the art fo the possible", not "the blind application of high end speculation".

Get rid of the monopoly and get real objective debate going.

It will be the only thing which will save us from an agenda of "Socialism by Stealth" and enforced levelling of the "able and willing" to an involuntarily subsidy of the less-able and (more often) simply, less-willing.

For myself, I think, if I follow this IPCC thinking, there will be a great opportunity in Carbon Future Licence Derivatives, even though I am not sure how it actually adds anything to anyones quality of life.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 10 December 2007 11:51:31 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
Well said, Dave and Col. The IPCC has three elements, only one of which is dedicated to ascertaining the scientific facts about global warming. Around 1990, I was briefed by, and spoke to, the head of the scientific area, which at that time was regarded as the most important, the basis of the IPCC's work. (Sorry, I can't recall his name, Sir Frederick something.) He was a true scientist, seeking to ascertain the truth of the matter, and at that time he was quite clear that no convincing evidence for anthropogenic warming had emerged. Unfortunately, the IPCC has become a pseudo-scientific, highly political, self-serving bandwagon rather than a body of "seekers after truth" in the public interest. It's difficult at this stage to see how we will avoid heavy costs for actions which do not have a sound basis
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 10 December 2007 12:08:55 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
David Holland, congratulations and thank you for your beautiful article. I finally know all about Global Warming. To think that for years and years I lived with the tale of a planet formed by the explosion of a big mass and the resulting earth was hot and magma-like and in cooling the various elements in it separated, and rocks and liquid and gases came to be. And probably from that chemical soups one combination came to reproduce itself and it was life. And in the millions and millions of years forests and animals grew and grew and were buried by the vicissitudes of the cooling rock formations and trapped in the rocks, were made into coal and petrol. And there stood locked for millions and millions of years again. And then we, Sapient came to stand up on two legs and learn how to grow crops and make tools and how try to enslave each other and how to survive longer and longer. And how, within 100 years, resurface and burn all that coal and all that petrol which had been in those rocks. No, it wasn't us upsetting the equilibrium that the planet had slowly acquired in the intervening millions of years. No, it surely was something or someone else.
Posted by Alcap, Monday, 10 December 2007 12:14:41 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
“Speculative assumption”?

“Global weather and temperature science lacks the historic analysis and experience to be able to provide a "true and fair view"?

Col, what is your profession – it certainly is not science or engineering. Col, you are being too verbose.

So you want 100% certainty before you would act? What about 90 – 95%, is that speculative enough? Ever heard of risk assessment?

There is an abundance of evidence now from the historical record, couple that with the latest in science, engineering, satellite and computer modelling … well, you get the drift.

Oh yeah, all scientists and most plebs now understand there is a difference between weather and climate.

Signatories to the UNFCCC and IPCC realise there is a big job ahead. Politicians recognise there is a problem, so do business and religious groups and a lot of people that rely on the preceding to lead them.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 10 December 2007 12:22:53 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
I can't help wondering if skeptics aren't missing the point. look at all recent photographs of all large cities and note the heavy clouds of poison gas emitted by fossil fuels. Look at the defoliated forests of Europe caused by acid rain. Look at the destructive floods caused by deforestation. Take note of huge species extinctions. Remember that every day more humans are born than the total of every other primate remaining on the planet... Is this what humans should be doing to life on earth? Will we all be happy and stop fighting when there is no where on earth where the air is fit to breathe, when no water is drinkable, when no soil is free from poison?
At least by cutting back on fossil-fuels we are beginning to turn away from the notion of endless growth and pollution, and are beginning to realise that humanity is like a plague - a cancer destroying almost all life.
Nit-picking is stupid. Use what influence you have to draw attention to the stupidity of endless expansion, rather than trying to score points.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 10 December 2007 12:25:55 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
And Col,

You state:

"That we have politicians who wish to hog-tie our national economy to "a speculative assumption with unknown causes and unknown outcomes" is an act of political lunacy."

Isn't this speculation what most of the worlds financial markets are based on? Not wanting to be provocative, I really don't know the percentages, but I know a stack of money is "bet" by speculative traders whose knowledge of their system would be similar to that of these scientists, without much opposition from anyone.

If we act to reduce omissions it's a win/win. I'm not that concerned with semantics in this case.
Posted by Hotrod, Monday, 10 December 2007 1:02:29 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
Its all about ENTROPY and PLUMES

Firstly, I will point out that “entropy and plumes” (entropy differentials and Ricci flows) is how Grigori Perelman proved the poincare conjecture. He was awarded the millennium prize for this. The ramifications of Perelman’s work for studying DYNAMICS of COMPLEX systems are well documented:

“Indeed a triumph of nineteenth century mathematics was the proof of the uniformisation theorem, the analogous topological classification of smooth 2-manifolds, where Hamilton showed that the Ricci flow does evolve a negative curved 2-manifold into a 2D multi holed torus which is locally isometric to the hyperbolic plane. This topic is closely related to important topics in analysis, number theory, DYNAMIC systems, mathematical physics, climate science, economic theory and cosmology.”

I have APPLIED Perelman’s work (Ricci flows with surgeries) to global climate and global economic situations.

Human CO2 emissions are but a small part of the ENTROPY vector in either homologous manifold. $Currency$ movements and popu;lation increases on the 3-S global economic manifold more clearly represent the Entropy vector in both. There are other indicator parameters, none of which relate to CO2 levels by itself.

Hamilton showed how the dynamic solutions and thus the predictiveness of this Entropy/Plumes modelling evolve. A good, & recent sample solution set is hurricanes on the Sea Surface manifold. The problem will arise not so much in cliamte but in human lemming-like conflict. Essentially predictions of future human conflicts over climate and PEAKOIL will mirror that chaotic hurricane type of solution as the underlying forces are homologous to the sea surface and very likey, isomorphic to it.

All the predictiveness from Global warming studies are subsequently null and void.

Over time I will describe the relevant entropy reflective parameters & their dynamics in more detail
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 10 December 2007 1:07:03 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
So, Leigh, you think "discussing climate change is a waste of time" I wonder on what you base this conviction. Is it some kind of religious faith, because there is no logical argument for your statement? No one ever said the science was complete and 100% accurate, but the consensus is that if we do nothing there will be a point of no-return and the problem will be too difficult to correct. I am certainly on the side of caution and my own observation tells me that we are getting a loss of biodiversity which is surely anthroprogenic coupled with climate change which I see almost on a daily basis from global news. Even here in Australia our rice crop is virtually non existent this year and our wheat crop has been cut in half not to mention the loss of agriculture in the M/D basin When the disasters become more pronounced Leigh, and food becomes even shorter from the land and the sea, I hope you will be suitably contrite.

I think the remarks made by Ybgirp are a much fairer assessment and represent a much more balanced view. Good on you mate.
Posted by snake, Monday, 10 December 2007 1:15:57 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
How to win friends and influence people, by KAEP.

No wonder people get turned off.

OTOH, what is your valued thoughts about:

The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer (MODIS) global monthly data from the Terra satellite (MOD08_M3, Collection 4, from March 2000 to May 2006) indicated, with the exception of the tropics, declining trends in aerosol optical thickness (AOD) over much of the globe, in contrast to slightly increasing trends in cloud optical thickness (COT) at many latitudes. In the tropics, increasing AOD trends coincide with increasing COT trends. In the latitudinal distribution of COT, in the Northern Hemisphere, a transition from increasing to declining tendencies was observed between 40°N and 60°N. There is a pronounced hemispheric asymmetry in latitudinal variations of the averaged total AOD, in contrast to those of the averaged total COT?"

KAEP - KISS (keep it simple stupid) and herein lies the dilemma.

ditto for snake
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 10 December 2007 1:27:55 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
It should be really worrying that the findings of a 'totally respected' UN committee are supported by politicians: recognising a problem, business: behaving out of public interest, and religious groups: involving themselves in science. All, mind you trying to lead a lot of utterly sensible people: who are relying on and putting great faith the opinions of the UN, politicians, businessmen, and priests.

When does Santa and the tooth fairy join these highly credible groups.
Posted by keith, Monday, 10 December 2007 2:51:48 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
Q&A,

There is NOTHING simple about the Earth's biospere or its DYNAMICS.
You are an extremely naive dilettante.

As for winning friends? The truth ALWAYS wins friends ... & offends. Sometimes it takes time. Application of state of the art mathematics is bound to take time to be accepted. But unless Perelman's proof (2006) of the Poincare conjecture is disallowed anytime soon, the way we look at the Earth's surface DYNAMICS (and the consequent human economic dynamics on that surface) is set to change.

Note, mathematics is one of the slowest disciplines to become enshrined in the everyday psyche due to the arcane nature of its proofs. But NOT this time. There is just too much of our near term future riding on this.

As for the IPCC. They haven't been dealing with a full deck (ENTROPY and PLUMES(Ricci Flows onto 3-S manifolds)).

DH is just exposing the tip of the iceberg of IPCC failure as it were.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 10 December 2007 3:08:03 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
A good article. Worthy of consideration, preferably after reading it. The infamous 'hockey stick' did great damage to any chance of balanced discussion. Certain things are undeniable. There most certainly was a Medieval Warming. Equally there certainly was a Little Ice Age. Because those two recent events happened when excellent information was collected about them and that is available to us we have very sound information as to the effects of them. To take the more recent, the Little Ice age, we KNOW that it had catastrophic effects on agriculture, on food prices etc. The numbers of people who died of starvation has been estimated to be in the millions. Now it is obvious that those recent events cannot possibly be ascribed to human use of carbon, it must be assumed that there have been other influences from within the Earth or from without. In view of the highly variable climatic history of our planet it is a certainty that there will be warmer and colder periods in the future, and there is nothing that any of us can do to prevent changes caused by such influences.
To what extent, if any, human carbon use will be a factor in such changes is not known. My guess is that it is only a small part of it. Yes, I said 'guess', so what, when I see estimates of the effects of climate change on agricuture here being between 15% and 79% then I reckon I'm entitled to make a stab in the dark as well!
Posted by eyejaw, Monday, 10 December 2007 3:15:50 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
This article homes in on important examples of the manner in which the IPCC has misled the public.

The method of the IPCC, is to produce a summary prepared by bureaucrats, before releasing the report by scientists upon which the summary purports to be based. This perverse process alone shows why the IPCC is not to be taken seriously.

David Holland clearly sets out how the process misleads, and shows the facility with which the errors are sustained by the culture of the IPCC. It is protective of those who have been exposed in flawed assertions.

The smoke screen which the Hockey stick supporters, even now, attempt to sustain in support of Mann’s position, is clarified.

Details of the obstructive methods used to impede investigation clear the mind as to how this organization operates.

Its ignoring of the lack of any basis for the assertion of the greenhouse theory, and the groundless stigmatising of human emissions, demonstrate the duplicity of this organisation.

This is the body which espouses the scurrilous Kyoto protocol. We should have nothing to do with it, but because of the undeserved reputation of the IPCC as an authority, we are committing ourselves to be bound to a program which has no authenticity in science, and is economically disastrous.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Monday, 10 December 2007 4:33:18 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
Climate change has existed from before the Ice Ages. There is a lot of money to be made by the present (man made) Climate Change industry. Are we being hoodwinked, and if so at what cost?
Posted by baldpaul, Monday, 10 December 2007 5:16:47 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
Maybe it isn't fashionable anymore, but don't Khun's notions of scientific paradigm's and revolutionary paradigm shifts capture some of what is being talked about? For their part scientists need the security of working within a paradigm to allow them to carry out detailed research within a model that is good enough (until it isn't).

Another thing to bear in mind, people who elect politicians and politicians mostly don't have the time to fully understand the scientific debate, politicians do not come across well if they are equivocal. They need a firm position. The confidence with which they conduct themselves is what gives the public faith in them, and hence the ability to lead.

The uncertainty that surrounds climate change is the nub of the issue, a paternalistic certainty of something bad needs to be feigned in order to make people contemplate the outside chance of something really catastrophic, and act to minimize this risk. Real politic not science.
Posted by Buon Ma Thuot, Monday, 10 December 2007 7:35:22 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
Hotrod “Isn't this speculation what most of the worlds financial markets are based on?”

Speculators “speculate” on many things. Whenever an elected government tries, it ends in disaster for the tax payers ( example the Kirner government and the “Tricontinental” banking disaster of the 1990s). History is littered with the wrecks of politically motivated government forays into business processes which they do not understand and every time, the tax payer gets stiffed with picking up the tab). Governments are created to act as regulators, not speculators.

Q&A I am accredited to two separate accounting bodies (among other credentials). The profession of accountancy has been around for several hundred years and provides in depth commercial analysis and probabilities which, if compared to “climate science” is analogous to a seasoned professional footballer, at the peak of his game, versus some kindergarten infants trying to kick a ball around the playground.

As for my “verbosity”, too hard for you to read?
It says more about the limits of your comprehension than my “wordliness”.

Re “There is an abundance of evidence now from the historical record, couple that with the latest in science, engineering, satellite and computer modelling”

The history of satellite photography and the “science” and computer modelling are a few decades old. Most say metrological agencies were still squeezing sea weed to guess 3 day weather forecasts until few years ago.

To risk the economic wealth of the nation on an infant science, lacking the veracity or real trials of history, is to basically ignore the legal maxim, of “reasonable doubt”.

Finding the western economies “guilty of climate change”, based on a trial where the “evidence” fails to meet any evidentary standard is a miscarriage of justice.

The IPCC and its snivelling acolytes are behaving as a lynch mob in a kangaroo court.

A limerick by Col Rouge

One Failed Wannabe President named Gore,

Loved to grace the stage more and more,

Having wasted his youth,

He invented “An Inconvenient Truth”

Then spread his legs as a "climate change whore"
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 9:16:56 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 are you all saying? That we should go on as we have been since the industrial revolution, consuming more and more while pumping millions of tons of noxious gasses into the atmosphere, vast amounts of toxic effluent into the sea and spraying megatons of poisons onto the land?
Forget CO2 emmissions for the moment. They are only a small part of humanity's waste products. By reducing them and looking for cleaner alternatives, we will simulataneously be cutting nitrous oxide, CO, methane, lead, and hundreds of other lethal mixtures from being dumped in the atmosphere, in the seas, rivers and land. Toxic smogs are enveloping the planet, food chains on land and sea are disrupted causing daily extinctions of thousands of species. Surely it is better to use renewable, non toxic energy sources than polluting, finite reserves? Saving energy also saves money -- it doesn't cost money. So energy efficiency, which is a huge plank in the CO2 reduction plan, can only be for the good of the planet, all life and humanity. Dont you realise that by pouring scorn on the reason given for cleaning up our act, you risk scuttling the program, and thus jeopardising the future of life on earth? Because the warming planet is only a small part of our problem. Acidification of the oceans is more serious! Lung cancers and hundreds of other diseases directly caused by human toxic effluent are rising dramatically. Who cares what reason governments use to improve things? Use your common sense and embrace the move for change; get behind this last desperate effort to rectify human caused problems before it is too late.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 10:12:52 AM
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
Snake

Sorry mate, when I re-read my post to KAEP that “ditto” could have been taken the wrong way. I meant it in terms of “I agree with your sentiments above”, you know, “ditto”.

KAEP

You don’t know me or anything about my background – just get off your *friggin* dilettante naivety assertion. Of course the science is complex – but what makes you think - in a forum such as this - you can explain the mathematic or scientific complexities of the oceans, atmosphere or terrestrial biospere (with an ‘h’)?

Why do you think experts in their respective fields stay away from blog-spots like this? If we dabble, we do it with anonymity, simplicity and as an aside.

Read my lips – HEREIN LIES THE DILEMMA.

This thread is alive with ‘wanabes’ who don’t understand the science, they misrepresent it or they intentionally distort it with their own blinkered ‘head-in-the-sand’ interpretation of the science of climate change – and they have the temerity to attack the IPCC? They wouldn’t have a clue about the great advances in science/technology since the IPCC’s inception or how the IPCC has evolved over the 4 reporting periods since.

If you have made some miraculous mathematical discovery, coupled to global warming, publish it in a peer reviewed journal – you may even get a Nobel, but not here you twerp.

BTW Prof. KAEP, you would know some of the recognised mathematicians working on climate change – you have corresponded with them of course. And?

Faustino

What irks most about your post is not your own failure to understand or comprehend the processes and procedures of the IPCC, but your usual reluctance to link to the source of your chagrin. People can judge for themselves.

Let me help, have a good, hard, objective look at the site (it will take some time).

http://www.ipcc.ch/

So, “around 1990 you were briefed by, and spoke to, the head of the IPCC’s scientific area (a true scientist that was knighted but you can’t remember his name … methinks it’s called Alzheimer’s – early on set).

Cont.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:51:46 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
Cont.

Buon Ma Thuot,

Some people (as we see here and precipitated by the article) want to kill the messenger – the IPCC. These people don’t really understand how or why it functions. These same people would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to argue the science in the appropriate forums so therefore attack the bearer of ominous tidings here on OLO for Pete’s sake.

Yes, political dogma is the culprit – and environmental and sustainable development issues facing the world now are difficult, but they are multi-lateral. This is going to play out more in the next few years with the UNFCCC trying to steer our way past ‘Kyoto’ to post 2012. Many people/countries, businesses and organisations will be pushing their own agenda – we can see it now in Bali.

Col,

So you’re a ‘bean counter’? Great, would like to read your comments after the Garnaut report comes out (Rudd really should wait till then). You wouldn’t be an economist as well would you? Me (semi-retired and struggling), I have a double degree in science and engineering, a masters and a doctorate – but I would defer to you when it comes to accountancy, I know nuthin. Don’t worry about the verbosity dig, we all get frustrated sometimes and I am not immune.

Have you heard of the GRACE satellite, check it out either from the European Space Agency or NASA. Most of its data could not be included in the AR4, but its panning out that we’re in more deep s@!t than originally thought.

Point is Col, we scientists et al can say there is a problem, we can say what needs to be done, we can even say when it should be done – but it is up to the bean-counters and policy makers to decide how and when they must do it.

The limerick, LOL.

My ‘take’, Gore a politician turned actor, Arnold the actor turned politician – one a Democrat, the other a Republican, the environment doesn’t care.

Ybgirp – you’re on the money honey!
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:55:13 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
Q&A

Not only are you a naive amateur but you are a bully who is desperately trying to prove to people that you have a personality.

What we want to know is where's your science? You can't just tailgate IPCC findings when they are now under so much tight scrutiny.

For example if you can't debate the concept of entropy differentials and Ricci flows as applied to climate science, people on this thread are entitled to ask whether you have any degrees in science or engineering at all. Its not good enough to just say you don't understand Perelman and Hamilton's work as applied to climate science and therefore don't like it.

You don't add up!

BTW a general note: these fora are excellent grounds for testing & expressing new ideas and concepts from an Australian point of view. Similar fora on the New York Times get excellent US coverage as well.

When my research into US Atlantic hurricanes is complete, in I estimate between 2-5 years, and published, peer review will be so much simpler for it.

This is the way modern science is tending. In effect every bright person on the internet is now a potential scientist. Degrees without new ideas are just pieces of paper.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 11:58:39 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
The marketing has of course been done by the energy companies who never bothered to involve themselves in the global warming debate until it looked like they might have to do something about it, at which point they started to dredge up corrupt "experts" to slow the process down.

The global warming argument has for me been very simple ever since I fist heard it in 1989. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled since 1800 or so. OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL this will cause the planet to warm.

Since 1989 I have seen the five hottest years on record, I have watched all the tropical glaciers melt, I have watched the Greenland ice sheet erode, I have seen hurricanes where they have not been before, I have watched WA's water supply drop by two thirds and dams empty everywhere else. The only thing that has surprised and rather scared me is how fast all the predictions have come true - I thought we would have more time to prepare.

How much do the climate change sceptics need before they will see the obvious? Standing up to their twats in water?
Posted by redabyss, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 12:34:15 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
Imagine a greenhouse: It has glass panels, green plants, a CO2 machine &two air conditioning systems:

1 A pond with water creatures that absorb heat: E(excess heat)=M(increase in mass of creatures)*C^2.

2. Two circular Quantum-Mechanical-macromolecular-ice-fields. Ice performs a Van-Der-Waal's sidestep around the second-law-of-thermodynamics and absorbs heat.Heat that is stored in low-temperature &low-entropy macro-crystalline structures. Excess heat is released as sound-fields(cracking) and magneto-quantum-energy-fields.

Now the smoke machine becomes faulty and the extra CO2 causes the greenhouse to heat up 10degreesC. The air conditioners absorb all the extra heat and the greenhouse stays 27C.

Then the owner's pleasure-seeking grandchildren took over. They pumped sewer into the pond. . They dumped agri-waste and industrial chemicals too. They Saved lots of money!

Anyway the pond creatures died and the Number #1 air conditioner failed as not enough biomass was being produced to absorb heat.

One year it was hotter, then cooler. Then the owner had a war & weapons-manufacture poisoned more pond. Mini heat swirls became hurricanes. These shot across the dead pond & melted the ice-edges but NOT the deep-embedded macro-crystal ice. Everyone knows you need much greater temperature increase than dying hurricane embers to do THAT.

Now this made the greenhouse owner's family SCARED. Then one day the oil company rang and said there would be no more deliveries.Oil had PEAKED.

It was a surprise to the greenhouse owner when all his enlarged family started fighting over the plants and the oil. Before he knew they planned a holocaust and killed 70% of his family while he slept. The next day he went to the greenhouse and to his astonishment the smoke machine was still pumping CO2 but the sewers had ceased. The pond creatures came back. His greenhouse, his pride and joy was back to normal.

As he walked back to his house a smile crossed his face .. "I didn't really want all those grandchildren. I'm so glad my greenhouse is back to its good old self"

From that day forth his children promised NEVER to have more than one-child-per-woman ever again.

Moral:The Earth spins at 1000miles/hour &isn't a greenhouse.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 10:56:37 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 Earth spins at 1000 miles hour & isn't a greenhouse.” KAEP, umm – some points aren’t bad – but.
And in your summing up, aren’t there a few other details for consideration?
Such as, If the earth is spinning, and we (non-troglodyte) surface dwellers are being whizzed around at that speed, why aren’t we flung into space?
And then there is thermodynamics, which you seem to have missed – at that speed, wouldn’t there be heat generated by friction between atmospheric layers? If so, what would be the energy-flow characteristics for that?
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 1:37:14 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
In the course of a conversation I had today, James Hansen came up – a NASA scientist. My colleague emailed me a link to an article concerning Hansen.

Well … guess what?

Before OLO’s esteemed resident “Professor Twerp” takes up more bandwidth, you may want to peruse the following links – make up your own mind about KAEP and to determine the veracity of his musings.

If the rant sounds familiar, you will understand why. Indeed, if the posts read like KAEP and are written like KAEP, well in all probability they are KAEP, aka Fred Moore.

If Fred just pointed to this site in the first place, we wouldn’t have to go through all this twaddle with a 350 word limit.

You could of course read the whole article (which is very interesting in itself) but it blew me away when I kept seeing our KAEP turn up.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/#comment-2278

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/#comment-2424

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/#comment-2689

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/#comment-2805

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/#comment-2876

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/#comment-2886

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/#comment-3290

This last one tells me more about the misogynistic porker than anything else.

Oh, BTW Twerp, I did not say “I didn’t understand Perelman and Hamilton's work as applied to climate science and therefore don't like it.” This is your assertion – please don’t put words in my mouth.

I said,

“The science is complex … what makes you think in a forum such as this you can explain the mathematic or scientific complexities of the oceans, atmosphere or terrestrial biosphere?”

People,

Grigori Perelman was awarded the Fields Medal (equivalent to a Nobel for maths – and what a story!). BUT, Perelman would not bore us with the complexities of his maths on opinion forums such as this – unlike our very own “Professor Twerp”, aka Mr Fred Moore.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 7:02:42 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
Q&A I had a quick look at GRACE. What was I supposed to be scared of?
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 10:06:37 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
Colinset,

I think we both know that gravity and the atmospheric boundary layer prevents things flying off into space.

The thing is that the 1000mph spin of the Earth's surface is not benign as you subtley suggest. It is strongly coupled to both atmospheric and oceanic currents by the Coriolis force.

The Earth's spin is like a motor in an air conditioner. It drives air and water 'fluids' between heat exchangers at the tropics(picks-up-heat) and at the poles(drops-off-heat).

The intriguing thing is how can the IPCC can in any way compare the Earth to a standard greenhouse when the Earth spins at 1000mph and has an air conditioner built in?

Now for some more on Ricci flows:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2007345atsha.png

This Sea Height Anomaly map of the US Atlantic shows a pattern of flow of red and blue self contained patches from the US east coast centred on Cape Hatteras. That pattern or plume approximates the multi-holed-torus mentioned in articles on Ricci flow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_flow. If I am correct it will indicate that wastewater pollution from the greater-US-east-coast does not simply diffuse into the ocean. Due to a variety of forces and guided by the second law of thermodynamics, pollution forms a Ricci flow of distinct, preserved high and low entropy areas. Chains of high entropy areas guide LOW entropy formations like hurricanes, storms and lower order heat waves from the tropics to the poles along with the Coriolos force.

The conjecture is that if you reduce the blue areas around coastal areas by holding back wastewaters as storms approach then those storms will not have a high entropy pathway into sensitive coastal areas. Then those storms will stay harmlesly out to sea on ther way to the poles avoiding costly metropolitan damage.



My research involves making suggestions on which ports should hold wastewaters, watching their plumes to confirm this and observing how this affects incoming storms. To date 2005-2007 correlations have been overwhelming &US hurricane damage has become minimal. Further research will determine if US authorities are in fact doing what I suggest and creating what I am observing in the maps.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 13 December 2007 2:55:48 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
continued ,...

Notes:

*US authorities have saved >$100billion in both 2006 and 2007 compared to the 2005 hurricane season. This is an incredible incentive to be following my suggestions(through widely accessed NYTimes science forums) in coming years. Based on observations to date, I am extremely confident & fully expect they will.

*Greenhouse warming scientists and the IPCC rightly frown on this work. If I am proved correct then the GRAVITAS of climate change is in wastewater pollution on the sea surface and NOT in polluting gases in the atmosphere. What that means is that CO2 emission cuts proposed by Stern and the IPCC will exacerbate climate change because reductions in smokestack emissions will almost certainly, one way or another transfer atmospheric human waste streams into the oceans where they will exponentially increase climate change in very short order. Put another way, if I am correct, the IPCC is about to orchestrate & oversee the greatest calamity mankind has ever witnessed. Not in 50-100 years but by about 2015 when IPCC global CO2 emissions targets start to kick in.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 13 December 2007 11:03:34 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
Q&A, I recalled it was Sir Frederick Houghton, didn't think it was worth a post. Alzheimers? Who knows, I was seriously ill for seven years, and my memory is not quite what it was.

While I'm not a climate scientist, I have expertise in the statistical and modelling techniques which underpin scientific work; and all of the IPCC's 2100 scenario modelling relies on economic modelling. This modelling has been discredited by eminent statisticians, economists and economic modellers; while some IPCC researchers welcomed the initial Castles-Henderson critique as helping them to get to the truth (as Houghton would have done), the IPCC as a whole refused to engage; I've seen correspondence with the heads of the IPCC in which they flatly refuse to revisit the modelling in spite of it being discredited.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 13 December 2007 11:29:30 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
Faustino, now I'm actually interested - because there's no question that the "economic modelling" part of the IPCC process is the least scientific and the least certain. Indeed, it's virtually impossible to predict with any real confidence just how much CO2 emissions would go up in the next 100 years even if no efforts were ever made to contain them. A complete collapse of the global economy is entirely possible, as are breakthrough technologies that make fossil fuels largely obsolete. Further, it's obviously nonsense to suggest that we would keep pumping out more and more CO2 even as the evidence continued to grow that the consequences of doing so were slowly making the planet uninhabitable.
However, I'm less than convinced that you could make a reasonable case that it would most likely cost less to continue business as usual and adapt only as needed than it would be to start making changes now, especially as many of the changes really aren't all that expensive when it comes down to it, and carry plenty of other benefits.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 13 December 2007 11:50:15 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
Graham, there are some GW alarmists out there, as too there are GW ‘deniers’ … as you are well aware of.

It is not all ‘doom and gloom’ as many alarmists would suggest. Equally, there is no point in putting one’s head in the sand and pretending there is no problem.

GRACE provides data sets to various scientific disciplines that are involved with the study of climate science e.g. those who study; glaciers, permafrost, oceans, atmosphere, ice-sheets, water resources, etc.

GRACE is showing us that the rate of change in our climate may indeed be larger than originally thought.

We can’t put numbers on it (it’s a futile exercise) but if we were to have *catastrophic climate change*, the impacts would take thousands of years, rather than tens-of-thousands of years.

Most of the studies and research papers that went into compiling the AR4 had to be submitted up to no later than 12 months before it was presented to the public.

While GRACE has been orbiting since 2002, much of the work resulting from it had to be validated, calibrated, correlated, analysed, etc. It would not do to submit “faulty” work before it was quality assured.

Based on some work from GRACE, it now appears some of the IPCC’s AR4 findings, in some cases, are too conservative.

For example:

Ocean temperatures are warming faster and deeper than reported;
The Greenland, Himalayan and Antarctic ice-sheets are melting faster than originally expected;
Water loss in the Murray/Darling system is more likely to be associated with climate change than drought;
Siberian tundra collapsing over a wider area;
Arctic sea-ice diminishing at a faster rate than thought, etc.

There is nothing to be scared of; we just need to be more aware.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 13 December 2007 1:38:50 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
Wizofaus, you seem to be one of the more sensible posters here, (not that it says much for you), so I wondered about your statement “Further, it's obviously nonsense to suggest that we would keep pumping out more and more CO2 even as the evidence continued to grow that the consequences of doing so were slowly making the planet uninhabitable”.

What evidence do you mean? There is no evidence that CO2 is harmful. There are plenty of baseless statements, like “It must be” or “thousands of scientists say so”.

But I know of no scientific basis for saying that CO2 is harmful, much less the small proportion of it that comprises human emissions. So how would emissions make the planet uninhabitable?

There has been a comparatively larger output of human emissions over the last 9 years during which warming is static, or there has been slight cooling. Just that fact alone, indicates that the alarmist alleged role of CO2, in warming, and “polluting” cannot be sustained.

No detrimental effect from CO2 has been shown. There are some benefits in crop increase, and the greening of the Sahara, but no harmful effect at all. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Q&A
“Ocean temperatures are warming faster and deeper than reported;
The Greenland, Himalayan and Antarctic ice-sheets are melting faster than originally expected;
Water loss in the Murray/Darling system is more likely to be associated with climate change than drought;
Siberian tundra collapsing over a wider area;
Arctic sea-ice diminishing at a faster rate than thought, etc.

Where do you come by this baseless nonsense? You cannot show any sensible reason to believe any of those statements. Are you reading spurious rubbish like RealClimate, or IPCC Summary?
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Thursday, 13 December 2007 2:34:22 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
Nobody is claiming that CO2 itself is "harmful", merely it happens to be a greenhouse gas that humans are emitting at a rate faster than the atmosphere can absorb. It could just as well be methane or water vapour. As the greenhouse effect becomes more and more pronounced, less and less of the energy entering the atmosphere by means of solar irradiation can escape, hence the atmosphere necessarily warms up. If it warms up too fast or too much, life will eventually fail to adapt quickly enough and die out. Not exactly rocket science.
The only real point of contention is exactly how pronounced the temperature rise is going to be - if Lindzen is right and it only ends up being a fraction of a degree by the end of the ct
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 13 December 2007 3:08:19 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
Q&A, I'd like to see citations for what you claim for the GRACE project. It measures gravitational fields and makes inferences about some things from that. That doesn't make them correct inferences. And one that says the water shortages in the Murray basin are due to climate change rather than drought is not likely to be a partcularly secure inference.

For those wondering what gravitational fields have to do with water, it appears that water has such greater mass than other things in the earth's crust that it's presence or absence affects the gravitational field. So, if the mass changes, and all other things are equal, it could be a change in the amount of water lying on that part of the earth that has caused it.

However, this is a 5 year project, and as James Famigletti, a hydrologist at UC Irvine says in this article, linked to from the GRACE site http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20070524-9999-lz1c24grace.html "With only a few years of data...there's no reason to get alarmed about the trends, because everyone knows that climates run in cycles. But the results could reveal much about the workings of region-wide climate."

I think you're cherry-picking and getting well ahead of yourself.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 13 December 2007 4:09:56 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
Q&A “I have a double degree in science and engineering, a masters and a doctorate”

You asked me what credentials I held, I replied out of courtesy, I do not recall asking you the same.

KAEP got it right “Not only are you a naive amateur but you are a bully who is desperately trying to prove to people that you have a personality.”

To further comment on KAEP’s observation, You have succeeded in the former to the extent you failed in the latter.

A lot of the “scientific data” is based on extrapolated trends derived from computer models. As a “specialist bean counter”, I have spent a considerable amount of time earning a good living from developing diverse commercial predictive models and systems. I am probably more aware than you of the fickle temperament and capacity for error of all such models and the effort required to get them even half right.

If you think it is worth punting your future on the likes of a recycled snake oil salesman like Al Gore, with his slideshow of misrepresentations, half truths and innuendo, then you are free to do so but do not presume we are all that naïve and don’t try to drag me with you to the next economic recession.

I am not into conspiracy theories much but the whole thing smells like “socialism by stealth” and a rear-guard attempt by “political entryists” to impose their misguided socialist dogma over the indomitable spirit of libertarianism.

btw if you really want to fix the problem, deal with the real issue, human population growth, that is the real issue, global warming and carbon emmissions are consequences of the populatrion explosion.
Problem is, it is the underdeveloped and "developing" nations who have the burgeoning population growth.

The "contribution" which the developed nations made to that problem was to research, develop, invest in and export the medicines and procedures which reduced mortality rates in the less developed world.

But, God forbid, we ask the underdeveloped nations to pick up the tab for their "excesses".
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 13 December 2007 4:37:29 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
Oh give it break Col - there really still are reds under the beds in every for you aren't there? And no quoting of Maggie Thatcher this time?

"To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress. The International Panel's work should be taken as our sign post: and the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation as the principal vehicles for reaching our destination."

...

"Just as philosophies, religions and ideals know no boundaries, so the protection of our planet itself involves rich and poor, North and South, East and West. All of us have to play our part if we are to succeed. And succeed we must for the sake of this and future generations."

Margaret Thatcher, 1990.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237

(BTW, my post as wizofaus got accidentally submitted before, but the point I was making was simply that either Lindzen is right and the temperature change this century will be rather small, and hence any efforts we make now to reduce our fossil fuel dependency will only be of significant benefit in so far as reducing the pollution and habitat destruction that is the inevitable outcome of mining and drilling for coal, gas and oil, or it will be in the order or 3 or 4 deg, more than enough to cause drastic change to which most life on earth, including many of our own species, would have extreme difficulty adapting. So far the evidence is heavily pointing in the latter direction.)
Posted by dnicholson, Thursday, 13 December 2007 5:42:13 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
Graham, this is your site - if you want to run it as a clearing-house for scientific papers with 350-word, time and post limits… well, you are da boss and people like KAEP will relish in it as a sounding board.

The point I have been trying to make that has not been understood, is that the science can be quite complex for those not trained in the nuances. It really is quite nauseating to see these people misrepresent, or intentionally distort, the science for their own agenda or beliefs.

I will link these sites; they will be more easily understood than the journal papers themselves.

Dr. Isabella Velicogna and Dr. John Wahr from the University of Colorado used GRACE data to detect a significant loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet between 2002 and 2005. http://www.engr.utexas.edu/news/articles/200603031012/index.cfm

Dr. Jay Famiglietti at the University of California and colleagues used GRACE for a first-ever look at seasonal changes in water storage tied to the more than 50 river basins that cover most of Earth's land area. They can distinguish long-term trends from natural seasonal variations (ring a bell Graham?) and can track how water availability responds to natural climate variations and climate change. The results were presented at an American Geophysical Union meeting.
http://www.engr.utexas.edu/news/articles/200612131144/index.cfm

Dr. Jianli Chen from the Centre for Space Research at The University of Texas and her colleagues demonstrated in the journal Science that GRACE data revealed the dramatic increase in ice melt from Greenland.
http://www.engr.utexas.edu/news/articles/200608101082/index.cfm

Dr. Byron Tapley,
http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/research/users/features/grace.php

Tell you what Graham, or anyone else out there that doubts the science – why don’t you contact these scientists yourselves? You can “cherry-pick” with them and you don’t have to attack me or the IPCC through me.

The sun 'came up' this morning; can I infer it will do so tomorrow? Yes, but there is no guarantee.

Boys… believe want you want to believe, see what you want to see, I obviously can’t help you, the deniers, delayers and naysayers.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 13 December 2007 8:12:50 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
Q&A, there is nothing in any of those links that says the GRACE project can presently detect the difference between long-term trends and natural seasonal variations, which stands to reason. With 5 years worth of data they're not in a position to plot any sort of long-term trend.

Famigletti does say they'll be able to do it with "longer time series". How long he doesn't say.

One of your other references says that there has been ice loss from Antarctica, but this in itself doesn't prove anything. Neither does the ice loss from Greenland. There was an increase in ice loss in Greenland the last 2 years versus the previous year and a half, mostly from the south-east coastline.

As there has been basicaly no change in global temperature over the last 10 years I'd suggest that loss of ice is just as likely to be linked to lack of precipitation as to increased temperature. These ice masses have been melting for quite some time, and an increase in decrease over a couple of years without an accurate time series going back quite some time doesn't support your claims.

This is just what I suggested - cherry-picking.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 14 December 2007 6:23:55 AM
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
Graham, you can spin and twist how ever you like.

You are the picker here; I am only a cherry – in fact.

Tell me O-Enlightened One, now that OLO appears to be the *clearing-house* of science journals, books and papers and you are the ‘editor-in-chief’, what is your take on the article in Science, “Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification”?

You can see the review here,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737

Don’t rest on your laurels, read the full paper (55 references) if you really want to engage or make a rational response.

I would be particularly interested in your spin about the conclusion, the one in the full citation.

Wow – we can even discuss the rates of change in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 420,000 years using the Vostok Ice Core data-set and compare these rates to changes over the last century and those projected for low-emission (B1) and high-emission (A2) SRES scenarios.

But wait; that would involve > 350 words, and be full of mathematical equations, and chemistry, and physics, and etc, and even reference the dreaded IPCC scenarios. Hey! even KAEP can join in … aaagghhhh!

I don’t think so.

You (and the rest of OLO’s ‘deny, delay and nay-say brigade’) can cherry-pick all you like with any of those referenced in any of the papers or journals I cite.

None of you will because it is “outside” the OLO security blanket.

By The Way GraY, one has to question your distortion of trend analysis. Could it be that you really don’t understand it or elementary linear regression? Methinks you want to mislead people for your own agenda.

By the way, again … GraY, you “suggest that loss of ice (Antarctic) is just as likely to be linked to lack of precipitation as to increased temperature.”

Oh really? This is your *opinion*, right?

Now your ‘slip’ is really showing – I would like to suggest you do some homework before you get yourself in too deep, you are way off the mark.

Better still, “I'd like to see citations for what YOU claim.”
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 14 December 2007 2:52:34 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
Q&A, this is exactly what I mean. We were talking about GRACE being able to detect climate change versus climate variability, and you try to swap it into an argument about coral reefs. That's what's called "switch and bait". I've no interest in playing that game.

You haven't shown that even one of your citations from the literature about GRACE supports your claim. Ergo, your claim fails. No need to argue about unrelated topics.

On Line Opinion carries argument from both sides of this debate, but I acknowledge that there are two sides. Some, like you, don't want to. I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 14 December 2007 11:01:49 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
Dnicholson, Dearest Margaret,

“we must not waste time and energy DISPUTING the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress”
Recognises a UN IPCC report is the starting point, not the conclusion to debate.

UN does not represent any individual, it has no human constituents. It is merely a far from perfect talkfest with bureaucrats who submit papers to a general Assembly for debate, ratification or veto.

In civilised society the administration of government is by the bureaucrats.

But policy is decided by the elected representatives of the people (politicians).

The IPCC are mere bureaucrats, empowered to advise but not to decide policy.

“North and South, East and West. All of us have to play…”

She would contest under “Kyoto” for the obvious reason, the developed “West” is seen to subsidise the undeveloped “East”,
Question, why is the east undeveloped? – maybe all those years of “socialist” nirvana held them in a moribund state.

So “Oh give it break Col”

The type of government which Margaret Thatcher ran and which I support, is the type where debate is empowering.

It is only those with the weak arguments who seek “a break”, for they know they lack the ability to argue their point rationally.

So, NO, I will not acquiesce to your bully tactics, which attempt to shout down dissent and seek to impose conformity to your personally chosen view.

This latest “Socialism by Stealth” is merely a more acceptable face than that of Lenin, Stalin and Brezhnev, however, it is just as corrosive and oppressive as old communism.

More Margaret quotes, since you seem so keen on her:

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

Today it is “climate change”

Want to get serious?

Remember Kyoto / Bali seek to impose a restriction on nations

"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."

Gore is decidedly “Suspect”
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 15 December 2007 8:22:23 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
As I have pointed out on other threads, the global warming issue is a scam. It is created most probably by U.S intelligence in order to:

1. Distract the world's people's focus in order to maintain global stability.

2. Slow down competing economies in order to allow the U.S to make up relative ground which it lost financing the IRAQ war. (Although the scam started late 80s, it has intensified just recently to ridiculous proportions, coincidentally just when attention to IRAQ and terrorism significantly decreased.)

Americans like words like "Protocol" and "validate", and sound bites like "IPCC" (Americans are acronym fanatics). (The "CC" at the end of "IPCC" is particularly effective: something like the famous "555" phone numbers we all remember from U.S. sitcoms). So you can bet your bottom dollar that all the sound bites have emanated from a U.S source. The Americans are marketing experts: no-one else comes within a bull's roar of them in this area.

In line with this, it is hillarious to see that:

1. Japan (effectively a U.S-Asia satellite, and where KYOTO is!!) has not come on board.
2. Although a U.S former vice president is the main voice for the current scam, the U.S has not come on board.
3. The U.S has huge investment and interest in China, and China have not come on board.

Honestly you people are naive. There were films in the 1950s about the world frying. Nothing has changed. Same ol' story.

The so-called 'scientists' contributing to the issue, are making use of the fact that no one scientist's contribution can provide a definitive picture. That is, they are effectively using the age-old "argument from silence", by revelling in the plethora of contributions which cannot possibly be correlated into any definitive picture. They know this, but are so self-centred they just don't care: as long as they can jump on the band wagon and make a buck.
Scientists, like any other profession, are not exempt from Sturgeon's law, which states: "95% of anything is crap".
Posted by Liberty, Saturday, 15 December 2007 2:05:40 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
"Remember Kyoto / Bali seek to impose a restriction on nations"

Col, yes, because if we don't place modest restrictions on the amount of CO2 emissions we emit now, then we place enormous restrictions on future generations who will not have the freedom to enjoy the advantages of the temperate climate and manageable sea-levels that we have now.

Thatcher was at least quite sensible enough to recognise that for the sake for the environment and human health, some restrictions have to be put on what businesses were allowed to do, otherwise we'd still be dying from lead poisoning, putting up with constant sooty buildings and smoggy skies, restricted from being able to spent time outdoors due to a severely depleted ozone layer etc. etc. This has zero to do with socialism and everything to do with ensuring that future generations have the freedom and liberty to enjoy a safe, clean and habitable planet. It's a fact of life that small sacrifices now are often necessary to avoid drastic consequences later on - surely as an accountant you would have no trouble recognising that truism.

And, er, Liberty, nice theory, but the IPCC has been around since 1988. Indeed the models from that period have generally done a good job of predicting the temperature rises right up to this year. That's some impressive conspiracy - prepared 15 years in advance of the Iraq invasion.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 15 December 2007 4:51:04 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
Wizofaus/dnicholson (so much “opinion” that you need two logons, seems to me you are less than “democratically” motivated)

Would you accept two votes in an election to everyone elses one?

“because if we don't place modest restrictions on the amount of CO2 emissions we emit now …blah,”

Accept the Thames waterway was so polluted in 16th century that parliament vacated the building in UK summer (hence the recess) because of the stink and since then, in more modern times, the Thames has recovered to a point it now supports fish populations.

I accept burning UK sulphurous coal produced Norwegian acid rain. German factories of the Ruhr did similar to Czechoslovakia’s forests and something needed to be done about it.

However, solutions were achieved by governments acting on fact and applying rules universally across their populations.

Solutions were not achieved by a non-democratic UN seeking to impose disproportional measures on different peoples based on some spurious notion of the level of development. Such inequitable burdens are socialist in nature, akin to taxing the able to subsidise the less able.

We repeatedly see how socialist notions fail.

Making the rich poorer has never made the poor richer.

Solutions are based on known science. They were not based on speculation promoted by the egoism of bureaucrats hell bent on imposing their individual demands on the world.

Projects undertaken by the UN reflect legendary corruption. I would have no greater faith in the administration of a carbon credit scheme than Iraq’s oil for food program. I see more corruption in carbon trading than was experienced in the EEC olive oil management, which was hijacked by the Italian Mafia or the perversion of commerce by EEC selling butter mountains to Russia at less than production cost, whilst shoppers in UK in 1970’s were forced to pay exorbitant prices, double what they were before joining the EU

To “ensuring that future generations have the freedom and liberty to enjoy a safe, clean and habitable planet.”,

Leave that to capitalism market forces to invent the solutions (they will anyway), forget this pseudo-scientific socialist inspired fear campaign.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 16 December 2007 3:09:15 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
GrahamY,

Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet.

J. L. Chen, Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
C. R. Wilson, Jackson School of Geosciences, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712, USA.
B. D. Tapley, Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

The actual paper is here,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5795/1958?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=grace+satellite&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

The conclusion states unequivocally that;

“ice loss has accelerated in recent years and is independent of uncertainty in PGR (post glacial rebound) effects, because, regardless of magnitude, PGR should contribute a constant rate to time series of any length. (REPEAT please)

GRACE clearly detects a rate change in the most recent period, suggesting a contribution of about 0.54 mm/year to global sea level rise, well above earlier assessments.” (REPEAT please)

If you really want to debate the science, you will have to read the full subscription paper – with one caveat; please don’t distort the science by taking it out of context.

My argument – OLO is not the place to do it, due to word, post and time limits.

I said, based on some work from GRACE, it now appears some of the IPCC’s AR4 findings, in some cases, are too conservative. My reason for commenting was initially based on David Holland’s assertions in his article.

I also said;

Ocean temperatures are warming faster and deeper than reported;
The Greenland, Himalayan and Antarctic ice-sheets are melting faster than originally expected;
Water loss in the Murray/Darling system is more likely to be associated with climate change than drought;
Siberian tundra collapsing over a wider area;
Arctic sea-ice diminishing at a faster rate than thought, etc.

You asked for citations and I finally come back with a flippant remark about a *clearing house* for scientific papers/journals and a coral reef citation. I am sorry this was construed the wrong way – surely you see my point?

Thing is … there are more and more studies confirming the effects and impacts of global warming, and GRACE is only part of this process.

cont
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 16 December 2007 4:52:13 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
cont

No more games Graham.

I would agree *On Line Opinion* is a great site for discussing things. However, given there is a difference between opinion and debate, I don’t think OLO is a great site for scientific debate, because of the aforementioned constraints (OLO for me is an ad hoc release valve).

On OLO, I particularly get frustrated by ‘wanabes’ who haven’t got a clue or by people who inadvertently (not so bad) or worse, deliberately distort the science.

Those involved in any of the sciences related to, or impacted by, global warming or climate change I would suggest, have other things to do and proper forums to do it in.

Now Graham, as far as “switching and baiting” …

You want me, to expose myself, to all and sundry out there!?
Graham, it reminds me of a school boy saying behind the toilet – “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine.”

Besides, even if I had a Nobel in physics or was part of the IPCC assessment team (which I don’t and which I am not) – nothing I say on OLO or in private is going to change your mind. So please, let’s keep our pants on.

By the way, again … you suggested “that loss of ice (Antarctic) is just as likely to be linked to lack of precipitation as to increased temperature.”

“I'd like to see citations for what YOU claim.”

Using your words, you switch/baited me; I’m switch/baiting you – what is the difference (apart from the fact that this is your site, and I am only a participant)?

PS. I assume/hope there will be some articles on the Bali climate change conference.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 16 December 2007 4:55:32 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
Q&A - all that for nothing. GRACE does not prove a global warming connection. They've just discovered that ice in Greenland melted faster in two years than the previous 1.5. Unless it's not obvious on their site they are measuring changes, not providing explanatory mechanisms.

It's typical of science deniers to deny a citation for everything in an argument as though facts don't exist independently of academic publication. I put the suggestion of precipitation forward as a hypothesis. Might be that I'm the first to have suggested it. That's no big deal. It's based on the fact that Mt Kilmanjaro's glacier is shrinking because of decreased precipitation. Seems like a reasonable possibility that this might also apply to Greenland.

Another would be that there's been a change of ocean currents or wind circulation making that part of Greenland locally warmer. As there has been no global warming for a decade it would appear logical that it must be something local.

Or it could be just because of more precise measurement.

It's possible that earlier measurements of ice loss were wrong. There is a problem splicing different series together in that they are not directly comparable. So it is possible that the change between series can make it appear that something has changed when in fact it hasn't.

And we've already had articles on Bali, and undoubtedly there will be more, although Bali was about politics, not science.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 16 December 2007 9:32:01 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
This site is getting to be a bit like a re-run of John Laws/Alan Jones radio shows.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 17 December 2007 9:40:14 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 a great one-liner! Thanks Colinsett, I needed a laugh.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 17 December 2007 8:08:06 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
The first rule of the marketing-Global-warming Club is "You don't talk about wastewater Emissions".

The REALITY is: "The biggest cause of climate change .IS. coastal Wastewater emissions."

Wastewaters do not diffuse into the oceans as people expect. Because we continually emit solid/liquid wastes, wastewater PLUMES(Ricci flows) are continuous and because outflow rates exceed diffusion rates, there is a pemanent presence of wastewater pollutants off ALL populated coastal areas. These permanent flows show up as high/low entropy areas (high low gravipotential) as depicted by high and low sea height anomalies(red/blue splotches) on SHA maps.
When intense anomalies are very close to coastal areas it probably means the NSW government is saving money by turning off deep ocean outfalls. Inland summer heat evaporates water and it is attracted to coastal high entropy zones where it creates rainfall uselessly out at sea, thus sustaining drought. Turn on the outfalls and hey presto the inland moisture still gets dragged to the coast but does not have the momentum to reach the highest entropy part of the plume now further out at sea. Rains then fall over mountain ranges and put an end to drought. Note, this analysis is a relatively simple application of the 2LT (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Let's look at current NSW and Sydney SHA maps:

Ricci flow of wastewaters from the Australian east coast for this year and last year:

17-Dec-2007: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1197910946.gif

17-Dec-2006: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1197910980.gif

Notice how this December has been rainy AND there is no intense Sea Height anomaly (pollution plume) proximal to the NSW coast.

Last year we were heavily in drought with ramped up water restrictions. There is clearly a huge Sea Height anomaly directly off Sydney.

I conjecture(subject to further experiments) that the difference, this year to last was the fact that authorities(at least Sydney water) have become aware of RECCE theory (Regional Ectopic Climate Catastrophe theory), tested it, found it works and kept mum to go along with a politically advantageous Global warming theory.

Cont..
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 12:43:33 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
Cont..

Why have authorities kept silent and why is GW(global warming) politically advantageous? Because GW keeps populations helplessly WORRIED and willing to pay more taxes and privatise more hard-won public assets in the HOPE that problems will go away. They won't go away until wastewater pollution is dealt with.

The beauty of RECCE theory is that controlling wastewaters and thus climate change can be done over a periond of 2-7 days at minimal cost. Compare that to GW solutions that will cost us our prosperity and take 50-100 years to implement (if we survive PEAKOIL).

How do I know this? I have observed that the US is already using RECCE theory (since 2006) to control wastewaters in hurricane season. If I am correct, over the next 2-5 years we will see a steady decline in storm damage along all US coastal areas. Already 2006/2007 have been extremely successful hurricane seasons in terms of low $damages.

Let's look at current US Ricci Flow of wastewaters on the US SHA map:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod/work/trinanes/INTERFACE/index.html

Note the large area of blue/red SHA plumes(multi-holed topological torus) centered on Cape Hatteras and extending well into the Nth Atlantic. This is the most impressive real life example of a multi-holed torus Ricci Flow topology on a 3-manifold any mathematician could desire.

Also note the discrete Gulf of Mexico (blue)plumes that next hurricane season will turn off within a few days of INCOMING hurricanes in order to divert those hurricanes AWAY from populated areas.

Additionally, as the 2008 Tornado season begins in February, a little experiment will unfold to see if tornado-forming squall-lines can be minimised by the same process of switching off Gulf of Mexico wastewater plumes at appropriate times. I will report back on this experiment after the US tornado season ends in May 2008.

ITS ALL THERMODYNAMICS.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 12:52:06 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
"As there has been no global warming for a decade,..."

Graham, from any other poster I would just sigh and ignore such a comment, but given your role here as moderator I expect a bit more responsibility. This claim is simply untrue - the global temperature has been on consistently upward trend since the end of 1998. 1998 itself was an unusually warm year, so it's true that temperatures have yet to exceed that particular maximum, but to claim there has been no warming for a decade on this basis is as sensible as claiming that there has been extreme and dramatic warming over the last 9 years.

Furthermore, given the context of Greenland, the mean temperature around Greenland has most definitely risen considerably since 1998 itself. Here's just one station in Greenland:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043900003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
You're free to plot charts for stations all over the Arctic, and virtually all show the same very strong upward trend since 1998 (indeed, since about 1980).

Lastly, even if it were true that the temperature had held more or less steady for the last 10 years, those temperatures have still been well above the long term average seen over the last 100 or so years. 10 years of steady but well above-average temperatures would be more than enough to induce increased glacial retreat. I don't believe any scientist worth his salt is questioning whether it is high temperatures causing the glacial retreats in Greenland, despite what may be happening on Mt Kilimanjaro, which is near the equator - the area least affected by global warming. What is under serious dispute is the speed and degree to which glacial retreats and ice-sheet melts are likely to contribute towards sea-level rise. At this point it's looking increasingly like the IPCC reports have significantly underestimated this.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 1:43:31 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
WOA, what you are saying tends to support what I said, not contradict it. Trends are virtually meaningless over the short-term. The GRACE project hasn't been going long enough to establish any trends. But there is more than that.

The highest temperature for the last 10 was 1998. That is the peak so far, and peaks are by definition "abnormally hot". I can't see how you can say it has got hotter since then, particularly as last year was only the sixth hottest of the last decade.

So the GRACE project has been going for half the last decade during which period there has been no increase in global temperature. The question I was posing was why would there be an increase in melting in only the last year and a half due to global warming when there has been no global warming?

You provide a hypothesis that it is due to Greenland being hotter. Well, that was one of my hypotheses - regional climate variation. The temperature graph you refer to shows it actually hotter on average in the first three years of the GRACE project, when melt was slower, than the last two years, when it was faster. So, I'm not sure that this is a satisfactory hypothesis.

Which means either that the hypothesis needs some more elaboration, or something else is at work. I chose the example of Mt Killimanjaro because it's one that Al Gore got wrong according to a court of law. It's immaterial where it is situated, what is material is that it's not high temperature that is causing it to disappear, but the fact that ice is being lost faster than it is being replenished. Seems reasonable that a similar mechanism could apply in the case of Greenland.

I don't know what the answer is, I am critically examining the argument that it has been caused by global warming. I am more than prepared to accept an explanation which shows it is caused by global warming, if the explanation stands-up. But I'm not prepared to go along with every beat-up.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 4:21:08 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
I do not understand the basis for your post, Wizofaus.

There has been no warming in the southern hemisphere since 1979.

The recent correction by Hansen, to the NASA figures, show 1934 as the hottest year in the US.

We do not know what the Chinese figures are, because Dr Wang who supplied them, admitted to fraud, and no authentic replacement figures have been put forward.

If there has been warming, it is on less than half of the globe, so it should not be described as global warming.

Claiming an upward trend is meaningless. There has been no hotter year since 1998. If anything the years have been cooler since then.

On what basis do you say it is untrue that there has been no global warming since 1998 at the latest, apart from your so called “trend”, which is highly debatable?
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 5:11:00 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
Graham, I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect that there would be something of a delay between the actual measured hottest years and the rate of glacial retreat and ice sheet melt. If it were true that 2002- 03 were the hottest years on record for the region around Greenland, then it wouldn't particularly surprise me that the melt rate reacted to it a year or so later. At any rate, most climate science works entirely on the decadal level - while it would be a little unusual to see cooling over the period of a decade, it's not enough on its own to change the decadal trend.

Nick, it's definitely the case that the temperature trend has not shown a particular trend in the Southern Hemisphere over the last ~10 years (though where you get 1979 from I've no idea - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif quite clearly shows SH warming from about 1950 to 2000), but this only barely damps the very pronounced trend in the northern hemisphere. Nobody is claiming global warming means that every part of the globe is warming simultaneously. There are well-understand reasons why the northern hemisphere is warming faster (primarily the land:sea ratio), and the trend in the southern hemisphere since 1998 is well within the expected range of temperatures as predicted by models.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 6:07:57 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
WoA, I don't understand why you would expect a delay in the receipt of heat and its effect in the case of ice. There's no convection to take energy deep down below the surface, and energy transfer between the surface and below is limited until ice turns into water.

But if there is some residual heat in the ice which jackpots, that wouldn't suggest an unanticipated acceleration, it would suggest that melt has been held back and only looks like it is accelerating. The issue isn't whether ice is melting, but whether somehow things have accelerated beyond what we thought. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 9:36:02 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
Now I'm really laughing.

Wizofaus,

Graham states he "doesn't know what the answer is", he claims to critically examine the arguments then hypothesises nonsense that he can't test ... then asserts at every corner the "explanations" by the scientists themselves are a "beat-up".

Well, it sounds as if he doesn't want the science to get in the way of his nonsense.

Wiz, why do you really think we are "debating" the complexities of the science ... on OLO for God's sake? (Hint: it's not all about GY's altruism).

Our moderator now appears no different to KAEP (who is going to report back no less!) ... and you expect some kind of responsibility from the moderator in techno-babble?

With the utmost respect, let Graham and all the other wanabes hypothesise all they want ... if you fall for the bait, you are as much a fool as they.

Nick, you haven't got a clue ... go back to elementary and learn something amount trend analysis *before* you make such stupid remarks. Seriously, talk to your local high school maths teacher.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 10:58:46 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
GrahamY and the denier or “I don’t know” brigade has difficulty communicating with real scientists.

May I suggest the recalcitrant fire-off their concerns, fears and hypotheses (go GraY, go KAEP) to Andrew Dessler, he is a professor in the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. His research focuses on the physics of climate change, in particular, climate feedbacks.

Andrew has also spent some time as a Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Some of you may find the dialogue particularly rewarding (but maybe not) as the Professor has written a book;

The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the debate.

In this respect, GrahamY is half right, about the politics bit anyway.

Andrew’s email: adessler@tamu.edu

Or his Website:

http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler.php

Anyway, back to OLO.
Andrew was supposed to debate climate change a few days ago with Tim Ball, a very well known global warming sceptic as I am sure all in the denier camp knows. Well, the Ball didn’t turn up to play.

Below is a link to the game. It kind of reminds me about this OLO thread – there really is no point in wasting time and effort in discussion with the hard-line deniers or feeble of mind, as I have said here before.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/17/231612/94

I’m off for a while, doing the Chrissy thing. Regardless of our differences, I wish you all a happy one.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 5:31:16 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
Q&A, you're right, I do have an ideological reason for publishing this site. I believe that not only has everyone the right to an opinion, but the responsibility to engage with others of different opinions. Out of the exchange I believe that even if the truth doesn't arise, at least there will be a better understanding of other people's positions.

You obviously don't accept that position, as your two flaming posts above show. Instead of engaging with the issue of, say, ice melt in Greenland, you sledge anyone who questions you as a "denier". If the facts don't support your argument, then that is a tactic open to you if you're interested in argument rather than discussion. It might divert others from the fact that you don't know, and won't admit that you don't.

So might the two links to Dessler.

They have absolutely nothing to do with anything you and I are discussing which are specific claims that you made. I certainly don't deny that CO2 has a role in climate change. The issue is what to do about it. For that you need to accurately assess the risks and the benefits. That is hard to do when people make claims for measurements that can't be substantiated to support a predetermined position leading to absurd campaigns in, and by, the press.

People like you who claim to be scientists, but who fail to abide by scientific methods, are doing a lot of damage to the discipline, and ultimately to our faith in science.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 9:55:29 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
Just listen to the radio debate Graham, the one in the Dessler link.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sciguy

He talks of the issues you want to engage with (precipitation, satellites, ice melt, etc.). What he has to say might help you, I have no will to argue or debate with you, I am sorry.

As I’ve said before – if you are so entrenched in sceptic land, nothing, absolutely nothing I say will sway you, particularly with the constraints this site imposes.

Therefore, you would be better off talking to someone like Andy Dessler – my guess is you won’t because it will be out of your comfort zone of OLO.

Go on, email him, he really is a nice guy (unlike me) – I am sure he would listen to your hypotheses and concerns.

Two bits of advice though

• Listen to what he had to say in the radio talkback (no debate, Ball was a no-show).
• Email him after the Xmas season.

Best wishes
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 20 December 2007 8:48:16 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
Wizofaus, I am surprised that it is news to you that there has been no warming in the southern hemisphere since the satellite measurements began in 1979. I have seen numerous references. One is Bob Carter, Sunday Telegraph 11/04/2007:

“Our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly.”

You are on shaky ground talking about predictions by models. I thought you would know very well, that models are of no use for predictions

Q&A thanks for your advice, but it is not my aim to gain any proficiency in statistics. I simply wished to convey that taken over a reasonable time frame the temperature trend is down, but if a recent short period is taken for the basis, then the trend is up, which gives the appearance that misleading remarks about the existence of global warming, by the likes of Gore and the IPCC, have some validity.

If you were not so busy laughing, and absorbed with how cluey you are, you might have followed what I meant. If, as you appear to believe, you are not stupid, then you are able to understand English, with very little effort. I have no intention of expressing myself in scientific terms, to accommodate you.

What I have put is clear enough. You have put up no proposition to the contrary.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Thursday, 20 December 2007 3:13:48 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
So you concede that you can't explain why you are right Q&A? Well you must be, or you'd paraphrase what you're reading elsewhere.

I'm certainly not going to spend my time listening to Dresslers' radio program, not because he might not have something valuable to say, but because everytime I follow one of your links they don't actually lead to what you say they do.

If you want more than 350 words, write an essay for OLO. I'd be happy to respond, or find someone else to, as long as Susan deems your article worth publishing. But don't hide behind the word limit. It's there to stop people monopolising debate and boring others.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 20 December 2007 5:44:14 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
Sigh …

Nick: “Claiming an upward trend is meaningless. There has been no hotter year since 1998. If anything the years have been cooler since then.”

This is wrong.

If you look at NASA’s GISSTEMP and HadCRU data for average global temperature and do linear regression over say the last 40 years, the trend is most definitely up.

Nick, if we analyse the data just since 1998: it turns out that the trend is still warming. This is true for both GISTEMP and HadCRU data, and both results are statistically significant.

If we look at a very short time span, say from 2000 – there is still a statistically significant warming trend in both the GISTEMP AND HadCRU data sets.

So, what time span do you want?

• Last 30 yrs? When both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately 0.2 C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the warming ended in 1998 (or 2005).

• Since 1880 in the NASA record or 1855 in the CRU record? Both show 0.8 C warming.

• How about the last 500 years (from bore-hole records)? Where today is about 1 C above the first three centuries of that record. In that linear regression, today's record will be hidden from view for decades.

• Last 1,000 years? 10,000 years?

Although each of the temperature reconstructions is slightly different, they all show similar trends of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most evident … each record shows that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming is most dramatic since 1920.

Go back millions of years when there were no polar ice caps and sea levels were 70m higher than today.

Global average temperatures were much higher than today and Nick would be right; the trend line would show cooling – but you have to extrapolate 1000’s of years ahead – we don’t have the time Nick and besides, it would be pointless.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 20 December 2007 5:51:12 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
Bob Carter is a known contrarian, a geologist, and his writings to that world-renowned peer-reviewed scientific journal "The Sunday Telegraph" have about as much relevance to modern climatological understanding as do a Papua New Guinean tribeman's opinion on poly-dimensional string theory. Which is more than can be said for your personal thoughts on GCMs, which have anticipated the observed temperature rise of the last 20 years with striking accuracy.

If that's the best you can do, you're not just on shaky ground - your just about to swallowed up by a freak seismic rift.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 20 December 2007 6:38:20 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
Well there's plenty to be made by marketing "not-global warming" especially by those with a vested interest in oil.

But its obvious people don't care about their children's future - most people don't seem to care much about their children's present. People have become much more fixated on 'fulfilling' their OWN dreams - irrespective of the impact on others.
Posted by K£vin, Friday, 21 December 2007 2:11:17 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
Kevin “But its obvious people don't care about their children's future”

Please substantiate that gross generalisation with some facts / stats and meaningful examples (ie not individual instances).

For myself, I do consider my children and my grandchildrens’ future. That is a big part of the reason I uprooted myself to come to Australia, because I believed it was in long term their interests. The feedback from my daughters and their mother is, it was the right decision.

Not all of us act in accordance with your expectations.

Sometimes some folk lack your insight and perception

Other times it is because, compared to you, some folk have greater insight and perception.

I always support the right of individuals to act for themselves in response to their own insight and perceptions. Sometimes I am bewildered at the dumb-assed choices they make but it is their lives and their choice.

I don’t know what you think about global warming and the plethora of likely horrors being talked up by those with a vested interest in creating an atmosphere of fear.

I do know the “science” is new and untested against actual observation.

I do know that aeronautical science has calculated that by weight to wing area and beat rate, a bumble bee cannot fly.

So, for the benefit not simply of myself but for my children and unborn grand-children and recognising that whilst comparatively new, aeronautical science has been around longer than climate science,

I believe the correct action is to be sceptical about the introduction of what will become the biggest tax change in the history of the world (carbon tax).

That tax change being based on the extremist speculation of potential climate change, supported by the hand-cranked pseudo science of global warm, the predictions of which are uncertain and untested to their reliability.

I believe my opinion is not only right and prudent but in the best interests my children and my unborn grand children.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 21 December 2007 10:59:58 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
“Bob Carter is a known contrarian”. Thanks for that information, Wiz. Known to whom, and how?

Does your lack of any basis to smear him make him, by default, a contrarian?

He is the author of more than 100 papers in refereed scientific journals. He
contributes regular letters, opinion pieces and interviews to newspapers, national
magazines and other media, and regularly engages in public speaking on matters
related to his research knowledge.

He has 35 years training and experience as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher,marine geologist and environmental scientist, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand; BSc Hons) and the University of Cambridge (England; PhD). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

He gave evidence before a US Senate committee on global warming, this time last year.

His current research is, amongst other things, on climate change, and sea-level change.

His research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). No research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.

This is the reason that the only smear the left is able to muster is ”contrarian”. If only he had done a job for an oil company or a tobacco company, they could spit their usual pitiful bile. They will never address his work, to which they have no answer.

Wiz, if you know nothing about it, just say so. It is obvious anyway. You are not on shaky ground, you just have no ground at all.

Q&A We agree. Over a reasonable period, like 1000 years the trend is down. That is all. No one wants you to extrapolate years ahead. As you say, that would be pointless.

We have agreement on a downward trend for global temperature.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Friday, 21 December 2007 12:37:02 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
Nick, I've been arguing with global warming deniers for over a year, and learned long ago not to waste my time on them (mind you, it took me 3 years of arguing with Creationists to determine the same thing).

All you ever need to know about Bob Carter and global warming:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

(FWIW Bob Carter may not have worked for a fossil fuel company, but his links with the IPA are on the public record, as are the IPA's links to big industrial players with the most to lose from a move away from fossil fuel dependence. A shame really, because if the IPA really believed in the power of market economies, it could truly get behind an effort to show just how dynamic and inventive they are capable of being, with the right incentives).

If you have something new to contribute to the debate, by all means do so.

Graham, unfortunately I haven't managed to get a truly satisfactory answer regarding the poor correlation between Greenland's annual mean temperature and the rate of ice melt over the last 4 years, however it seems most likely that the reason is due to the fact that while the annual mean temperature has declined slightly, the summers have been getting hotter, especially in the areas where the icesheets are located.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 21 December 2007 1:26:20 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 see wizofaus is bringing statistical analysis into the debate.

That is a good move, something which at least sounds "objective".

First some definitions of “correlation”

“The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables:”

put another way

“A correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables.”

So how should we interpret statements like

“I haven't managed to get a truly satisfactory answer regarding the POOR CORRELATION between Greenland's annual mean temperature and the rate of ice melt over the last 4 years”

to mean?

Well, in statistics and measurement of “correlation” terms like “poor” does not exist, just as a null hypothesis does not prove or disprove anything.

I figure it simply means that NO CORRELATION exists between the sets of data analysed.

Therefore no conclusion can be drawn.

So if wizofaus suggest

“however it seems most likely that the reason is due to the fact that while the annual mean temperature has declined slightly, the summers have been getting hotter, especially in the areas where the icesheets are located.”

I would say his statements represent mere fanciful speculation and subjective personal opinion, unsupported by any evidence, statistics or reason.

I would, however, observe the Greenland icesheets have been around for more than 4 years.

Before I placed any reliability in any analysis of the causes and rate of melt, I would expect a measurement period to have a duration which exceeded the age of a someone not yet at primary school and I would certainly expect to see some significant degree of “correlation” between the differing sets of data.

I would suggest, reasonably, a correlation of +/- 0.7 (but, of course, not exceeding +/- 1).

(Gosh, I did not even have to go into the common and frequent incidences of “spurious correlation”, which I am absolutely sure are more than adequately represented in the mysticism of "climate Science").
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 21 December 2007 2:52:54 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
Thanks Wiz, nice to see you found a way to smear Carter.

Tim Lambert never gives up.

He says that Carter is wrong about the temperature falling for the last several years, and produces a graph to back up his statement, which shows clearly that temperatures have fallen for the past several years.

He has a good precedent for that in the IPCC 4th Summary. The bureaucrats who prepared that, attached a graph to prove that the global temperature had risen, and despite a swathe of colour added to mislead, the graph was quite readable, to show the opposite of their assertions. The mendacity of the IPCC was made public, in the Xstrata case judgement.

Tim is a good trendie, so has followed the IPCC lead . They cannot work out a way to mislead sensible people, but it is fine for Tim’s following. They are dunces like him.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Friday, 21 December 2007 4:00:17 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
Col, I fully admit it's speculation - I'm still hoping to get an answer from an expert in the field.

The only data I have to back up my speculation is this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=2004&year2=2007&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

Which shows two areas of Greenland where the summers have warmed over last 4 years, but one area where it hasn't, so it's not terribly conclusive.

Nick, whatever. All I ask is for you to tell me exactly how much evidence would you consider good enough to make it worth making what is, in the scheme of things, a fairly inexpensive change away from heavy fossil fuel dependence, which would have multiple benefits even aside from reducing CO2 emissions? Personally, even if the scientists themselves were only 50% sure that allowing emissions to go on unrestrained was likely to lead to serious consequences, I would think that quite good enough rationale. You appear to want 100% certainty.
Posted by wizofaus , Friday, 21 December 2007 6:00:49 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 a response from glaciologist Elisabeth Isaksson:

"Very good that you are interested in what is happening with our polar areas. I think you have lined out many of the possible answers in your message! The Greenland ice sheet is large and indeed the dynamics very complex. Therefore it is difficult to single out one reason for the melting but it is little doubt that the meterological conditions during summer are playing a major role here. It is not only temperatures that are important but also wind, clouds, radiation, albedo..... Albedo is extremely important. Once the surface conidtions have changed from a white highly refelctive surface to a darker melting one it will warm up even faster because a dark surface attracts more solar radiation (heat) that a white one. This is a the most important feedback mechansim for polar areas.
I hope this is helpful information for you."

In other words I think it's fair to conclude that it's too soon to conclude that any acceleration in the speed of ice melt in Greenland in the last 4 years is indicative of any acceleration in the rate of global warming.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 22 December 2007 7:04:02 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
Catching up/stepping back.

Graham – I appreciate your suggestion to write an essay for OLO (I may even take that up, we’ll see) and I fully understand and accept your reasons for word/post/time limits.

Given your expertise in on-line publishing, I defer to you when it comes to open forums such as this.

I also think you and the OLO team do a fantastic job in providing a forum such as this – thanks, and all success to you.

I would also defer to Col Rouge (if I needed an opinion about accountancy) as I would defer to my oncologist about my prostate … as much as I defer to my mechanic about the ‘health’ of my car.

There are similarities, there are differences.

I have extensive experience and qualified expertise in a specialised field of water resources, and am but one of the myriad of scientists that make up the knowledge base we have in science today. But I am not an atmospheric physicist, glaciologist, paleoclimatologist, geochemist, oceanographer or climate scientist.

I can, because of my background involvement and training, have an informed opinion about climate science.

Others, because of their deep desire to understand (like Wizofaus in contacting a glaciologist) can also have an informed opinion about climate change in Greenland.

Others choose not to enquire of sources that may pose a threat to their beliefs. Some ask, why not?

However, it never ceases to amaze me why so many people presume to know more about the intracies and technicalities of a specific science than the people who have specialist knowledge that has been gained over years of dedicated pursuit.

I am sure you realise this as I am just as sure you have rolled your eyes at some comments you see on OLO.

You have asked specific questions of some things that I thought were better addressed in the scientific journals. You did not like my citations so I pointed to specific papers (which you did not, or could not, read). Everybody was challenged to contact the experts themselves.

Wizofaus did, the rest chose not to.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:13:36 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
Wizofaus,

The mendacity of Nick Lanelaw/Leo Lane has been made public, in his own spin about the Xstrata case.

He continually distorts the facts about the Xtrata saga. Nick/Leo also thinks Carter, the IPA and the Lavoisier Group are the ‘ant’s pants’ in understanding climate change.

The LG are a conservative ‘right-wing think-tank’ that has been linked to policy formulation of the Howard government and actions of the “Greenhouse Mafia”.

Nick/Leo failed to mention that the QCC successfully appealed the Xtrata decision and the Queensland Court of Appeal ordered a re-trial.

However, the government indicated on the day of the judgment it would amend the law to prevent any delay to the mine. The government passed the amendments four days later, effectively over-riding the decision of the Court of Appeal and preventing a re-hearing.

The Decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal:

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QCA07-338.pdf

It’s not about the science Wiz, it’s about power and control of politicians and the masses by a few self-interest groups, including the fossil fuel lobby and the likes of the IPA, Tech Central Station, Competitive Enterprise and Cato Institutes, and Nick/Leo’s favourite, the Lavoisier Group … to name but a few.

Nick (Leo) – I agree … in millions of years we will have another ice age. Unfortunately, you seem incapable of understanding that we are currently in a warming period the rate of which, in your “reasonable” time frame, has not been experienced before.

You also seem incapable of understanding that if you take out anthropogenic CO2 over the last 200 yrs as a driver of this current warming period, nothing else can explain it – not Solar, not cosmic rays, not Milankovich cycles, not even your farts … not nuthin.

I hope you understand (I have me-doubts) that there are very many different sciences – geology is but one. If I want to find out about rock layering, I will call Bob Carter who has indeed published in peer review journals on stratigraphy. He is has no kudos in climate science journals, he attracts kudos in daily newspapers – not the same league.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:16:19 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
An investor, a politician and an IPCC scientist were on a ship.. It began to sink. The three found themselves in a 2 man lifeboat, so they knew one had to go.

Without fuss the IPCC bloke went over the side and swam for a tiny smudge on the horizon.

Suddenly several menacing fins broke the surface and the other two thought the IPCC scientist was about to pay the ultimate price. But to their amazement two sharks started leading the way and the others formed a protective circle as whales and dolphins tried to attack the scientist.

Watching gobsmacked from the lifeboat, the politician stammered, “That’s the weirdest thing I ever saw!”

“Not so weird,” replied the investor, “the Dolphins & whales KNOW Global Warming theory is an eco-terrorist coverup for heinous wastewater pollution that is destroying their species. And the sharks protective behaviour? Well that’s simply a matter of professional courtesy.”

*-*-*-*-*

Have a good one people
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 23 December 2007 3:03:08 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
You too KAEP, have a very Ricci Christmas and a Dynamic New Year.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 23 December 2007 6:45:28 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
Wizofaus “This a response from glaciologist Elisabeth Isaksson:. . . .

“it's too soon to conclude”

Is Ms Isaksson’s description of a “null-hypothesis” if ever I saw one, (in part due to insufficient data collection)

Or as I said

“Well, in statistics and measurement of “correlation” terms like “poor” does not exist, just as a null hypothesis does not prove or disprove anything.

I figure it simply means that NO CORRELATION exists between the sets of data analysed.

Therefore no conclusion can be drawn.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 24 December 2007 9:07:34 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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