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".

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.)

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.

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.

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.”

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.