The Climate Change Thread

[Inside Shoulder]

If we agree that it needs to be done and done without delay (which is what the science tells us), then those are the issues which should determine the starting point not whether anyone else is doing it.

The target is hardly ambitious and certainly not as ambitious as required. This may, however, give us the moral highground to ask why others aren't acting.

What's "it"?
Reducing emissions?
How will this tax achieve that on any global scale?
Are we setting an example?

 

[Scotty]

Scotty, I'm trying to take out the politics and look at the issue in isolation. Ultimately, how our government deals with the issues of importance to us is what will effect me and you long term, not anything else.

Next, I'm looking for some leadership on coal seam gas mining.

Good luck with the first bit. Politics is in everything, not least of all the scientist work.

On the bolded bit - you are right, it is what matters the most in the long term, but excuse me if the past performance of this government leads me to believe they won't be able to set good policies that will improve our futures.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Can you give me some links on both sides
That was only an example.
In a sense all I am interested in is understanding whether it's anthropogenic or not

If you are interested in whether or not humans can/or are causing a rise in temperature, there are a few points to start.

(for side)
Real climate - http://www.realclimate.org/
Skeptical science - http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Potholer's youtube series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo - Not a scientist, but reviews the science well IMO.

(against)
You are probably right about that WUWT blog. It seems to be a good starting point for anti-AGW views. I can't find any blogs (of that sort) that are run by (what i'd consider) good scientists.
Anyway, if you scroll down the side of his blog, there is a whole list of other climate skeptic blogs. One not mentioned though is: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
CERN Cloud experiments (present an interesting view): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. I searched for a couple of people I'd recommend but none of them had blogs. Anyway, what you are looking for are blogs run by scientists, preferably ones with qualifications in climate research/atmospheric research. And ones that aren't totally obsessed with temperature recordings, because that horse has been beat to death.

If you have any questions or want better (or simpler) resources just ask in the thread. I might come across as bias, but I genuinely wish there were better proponents of anti-AGW campaigns. Unfortunately they appear to be a very scarce resource.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Exactly the kind of reason the debate needs to move onto what is causing the warming...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be.

As many as 757 stations in the United States recorded net surface-temperature cooling over the past century. Many are concentrated in the southeast, where some people attribute tornadoes and hurricanes to warming.

The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy's Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.
......
Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.

Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has looked deeply at all the issues raised above. I chaired our group, which just submitted four detailed papers on our results to peer-reviewed journals. We have now posted these papers online at www.BerkeleyEarth.org to solicit even more scrutiny.
......
We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.
......
What about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.
......
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

The whole article is wroth a read, but those are key points. He set out skeptical of temperature recordings, and a warming planet. He was even funded by anti-global warming groups. But the results he found confirmed that the work scientists have done on temperature to date has been accurate.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If you are interested in whether or not humans can/or are causing a rise in temperature, there are a few points to start.

(for side)
Real climate - http://www.realclimate.org/
Skeptical science - http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Potholer's youtube series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo - Not a scientist, but reviews the science well IMO.

(against)
You are probably right about that WUWT blog. It seems to be a good starting point for anti-AGW views. I can't find any blogs (of that sort) that are run by (what i'd consider) good scientists.
Anyway, if you scroll down the side of his blog, there is a whole list of other climate skeptic blogs. One not mentioned though is: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
CERN Cloud experiments (present an interesting view): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. I searched for a couple of people I'd recommend but none of them had blogs. Anyway, what you are looking for are blogs run by scientists, preferably ones with qualifications in climate research/atmospheric research. And ones that aren't totally obsessed with temperature recordings, because that horse has been beat to death.

If you have any questions or want better (or simpler) resources just ask in the thread. I might come across as bias, but I genuinely wish there were better proponents of anti-AGW campaigns. Unfortunately they appear to be a very scarce resource.

I've looked at those in the past but thanks for going to the trouble of posting them.
What I (we all?) need is a benevolent scientist refereeing the barrackers so the unscientific among us can at least have some hope of following the thread of the respective of arguments.
In a sense, its now academic as we have a carbon tax.
Time will tell whether we were luddites or visionaries.....

 

[Jnor]

Following on from Bru's article and containing some pretty similar data is this arrticle from the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360

 

[Scotty]

Bru,

It reads as if the 4 papers have not yet come out of the pier review process that we seem to pin everything to. Do you know otherwise? (edit: ignore that, it is clear this is a draft paper).

Our work covers only land temperature—not the oceans—but that's where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.

It is obviously more difficult to measure, but wouldn't the ocean give more accurate results on overall global warming? (I'm not sure if he is saying that the ocean or land is where warming appears greatest?)

We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

I'm trying to look for the temperature changes at the locations that showed cooling. It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Yes Scotty, I'm aware it is still being reviewed. If it fails and they find multiple errors in the paper I'll gladly take it back.

If you want to see which parts are cooling/warming. There is a good video here that displays the maps:

[video=youtube;Z0nKdo4b1os]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0nKdo4b1os[/video]

And yes, I've seen the objection that this didn't measure the ocean temperatures. But it doesn't make much sense because this study was conducted with the goal of checking whether land temperature recordings are accurate.

 

[Karl]

The problem here is that climate "skeptics" want to see:

- A full 15 year squeaky clean email history.

ie: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468345a.html


And people who are skeptical of conspiracy theories want to see:

- A clear timeline of events. Proof of any wrong-doings. Clear evidence that a conspiracy is going on. If these guys have been fooling the world for 15 years, we need a lot more than what has been presented:

ie: My post on page 14:



I'm sure if we hacked the emails of anyone, from either side of the debate (from the last 20 years) we would be able to make a conspiracy out of it. When the climategate saga started, I thought "If these guys have been lying to us for 20 years and climate change is a complete hoax, there must be some pretty destructive stuff." Unfortunately all that followed was a few suggestions of deceit here and there, followed by arguments suggesting that those emails don't suggest a conspiracy themselves.

It is all just so underwhelming and when I tried researching more on this, all I found was the same articles from that same 1 guy who keeps pushing this conspiracy.

There is no squeaky clean email record. There is no clear evidence of any conspiracy or wrongdoing. Futhermore, I doubt there is any scientist, journalist or politician on the planet that has the former. While if there is a hoax going on the latter should be easy to prove with 15 years worth of emails.

Quite simply I'm not impressed and can't see why anyone would be. And it quite frankly gets boring every time this thread comes back to this topic. I thought we were making progress a few pages back when we finally got onto discussing the details of the science.

Its not a "hoax" - what these emails show is 1) collusion to interpret data in a way specifically designed to give weight to one position over another (or to not being able to support either position); 2) a willingness to use language etc in a way that is designed to give a particular and less than accurate impression in relation to the nature of the findings supported by the data; 3) a lack of objectivity and professionalism. The emails are a very clear record of that and while they can be explained away 6 days from Sunday I think the credibility of the people and the process, the "findings" and their motovations are irepairably harmed.

You quote the view of Nature on this issue, but I prefer the views of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal journalists over a publication aimed at research scientists, like the ones being criticised for the conduct revealed in the emails. The NYT and the WSJ were a lot less forgiving than Nature.

 

[Karl]

Exactly the kind of reason the debate needs to move onto what is causing the warming...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html



The whole article is wroth a read, but those are key points. He set out skeptical of temperature recordings, and a warming planet. He was even funded by anti-global warming groups. But the results he found confirmed that the work scientists have done on temperature to date has been accurate.

I'm glad you posted a link to this. I'm actually happy to see some evidence of what at least appears to be research and analysis that didn't start out with the intention of being used to prop up someones position. This statement is where I would like to start:

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Back to an earlier comment I made about how the discussion should be about Anthropogenic Climate Change, not IF there's Climate Change - this sums up my position precisiely and is partly what I meant when I said The Science Isn't Settled and we should stop pretending it is. The Science of WHY is as much at the nub of this issue as the science of IF.

So lets all proceed on the basis that global warming is real. I'd like to learn more about how serious it is, what effects it will have (real effects as opposed to doomsday predicitions and idiots blaming every storm on climate change) and how we know Human Activity is to blame, or the extent it is to blame.

 

[Scotty]

Back to an earlier comment I made about how the discussion should be about Anthropogenic Climate Change, not IF there's Climate Change - this sums up my position precisiely and is partly what I meant when I said The Science Isn't Settled and we should stop pretending it is. The Science of WHY is as much at the nub of this issue as the science of IF.

The paper that Bru posted is about further evidence of global warming. Is there anything of the such on 'climate change'.

 

[Karl]

The paper that Bru posted is about further evidence of global warming. Is there anything of the such on 'climate change'.

Climate Change and Global Warming - same thing.

Its like saying "foreplay" instead of "fingering".

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I'm glad you posted a link to this. I'm actually happy to see some evidence of what at least appears to be research and analysis that didn't start out with the intention of being used to prop up someones position. This statement is where I would like to start:

Yet he replicated the results of people supposedly trying to "prop up someone else's position". Do you not see the problem with this statement? How are they selectively choosing information that represents the truth...

Back to an earlier comment I made about how the discussion should be about Anthropogenic Climate Change, not IF there's Climate Change - this sums up my position precisiely and is partly what I meant when I said The Science Isn't Settled and we should stop pretending it is. The Science of WHY is as much at the nub of this issue as the science of IF.

The central question is what is causing this rise in temperature. And the leading theory is a build up of greenhouse gasses - it has been for decades, even before the warming was significant. The other theories such as; Cloud cover/Sunsports/natural causes ect... are fringe theories at this point in time.

The earth is getting warmer.
There must be a cause (and perfectly natural causes don't appear to be the answer)
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) buildup in the atmosphere can cause a rise in global temperature.
Almost all the experts agree this build-up is extremely likely to be a major contributor to the current temperature rise. Many think it is settled.

There is not much room for debate. People have been trying to find evidence for all the other theories (ie: sunspots) for decades now and failed. Are we going to wait another 3 or 4 decades before we draw any conclusions, just to make sure we are right?

So lets all proceed on the basis that global warming is real. I'd like to learn more about how serious it is, what effects it will have (real effects as opposed to doomsday predicitions and idiots blaming every storm on climate change) and how we know Human Activity is to blame, or the extent it is to blame.

This is still a problem. Because there are still loads of people out there denying global warming when the facts are staring at them in the face.

Anyway... Yes there are some people that blame natural disasters and co on global warming. That is silly (there are some cases to be made for warming increasing the power of storms ect... but that is another topic).

The real danger is not us slowly frying to death on planet earth (obviously). The real dangers are small changes building up in the ecosystem resulting in major changes to the ecosystem. Two big ones would be melting ice-sheets and ocean acidification. Animals that live in the arctic regions will be put under huge pressure just to survive. And problems might arise for our coral reefs. Both of these could have big impacts on the food chain. - This is just one of many possible "effects".

If... We are heavily involved in global warming because we are pushing co2 levels in the atmosphere up by the decade (which we are). And... Due to our actions the arctic ice-sheets start melting significantly... Maybe... just maybe... We should possibly, even remotely put in some effort to at least stop the levels of co2 in the atmosphere reaching over 400-500 parts per million (currently about 385ppm).

I think wanting doing nothing and letting the rise continue is an indefensible position. Whereas others reckon anyone who wants to try and curb the rise of GHG's in the atmosphere are some form of corrupt socialist greeny communists who want world governments ect...

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Its not a "hoax" - what these emails show is 1) collusion to interpret data in a way specifically designed to give weight to one position over another (or to not being able to support either position); 2) a willingness to use language etc in a way that is designed to give a particular and less than accurate impression in relation to the nature of the findings supported by the data; 3) a lack of objectivity and professionalism. The emails are a very clear record of that and while they can be explained away 6 days from Sunday I think the credibility of the people and the process, the "findings" and their motovations are irepairably harmed.

You quote the view of Nature on this issue, but I prefer the views of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal journalists over a publication aimed at research scientists, like the ones being criticised for the conduct revealed in the emails. The NYT and the WSJ were a lot less forgiving than Nature.

The nature article points out how irrationally high the standards people have for the private email conversations of scientists. If you'd rather read the New York Times than Nature, that is your own issue. One minute you are looking for objective scientific reviews, the next you are suggesting we read mainstream media over credible science publications. The climate-gate claims are simply baseless. The emails don't draw those conclusions. It is an indefensible position and one I couldn't imagine trying to hold.

If you hacked the emails of physicists, biologists or chemists you would get similar stuff that you could turn into a conspiracy. This whole topic of email hacking is pretty much a witch hunt, and basically a joke.

 

[Karl]

The nature article points out how irrationally high the standards people have for the private email conversations of scientists. If you'd rather read the New York Times than Nature, that is your own issue. One minute you are looking for objective scientific reviews, the next you are suggesting we read mainstream media over credible science publications. The climate-gate claims are simply baseless. The emails don't draw those conclusions. It is an indefensible position and one I couldn't imagine trying to hold.

If you hacked the emails of physicists, biologists or chemists you would get similar stuff that you could turn into a conspiracy. This whole topic of email hacking is pretty much a witch hunt, and basically a joke.

I don't read the WSJ or the NYT for Science, and I don't read Nature for an analysis of the probity and ethics of the behaviour of scientists as demonstrated in their email communications. Don't be argumentative for the sake of it BWMC. And I'm sick of people downplaying those emails and the grubby, unethical, deceitful crap they portray. Its no witch hunt and no joke and just because you say it's widespread (an assertion for which there is no evidence and which I hope to hell is wrong), doesn't make it right and doesn't excuse the clear intent expressed in those emails.

 

[Karl]

And before we totally put the Science to bed, lets have a look at this comment on the Nature article published here - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/478428a.html

See Below-


2011-10-26 04:03 AM

Report this comment #28687
Fred Singer said:
Dear Editors of Nature:

What a curious editorial [p.428, Oct.26} ? and how revealing of yr bias!
?Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review.?
(emphasis added)
You imply that contrary results are not welcomed by Nature. But this has been obvious for many years.

Why are you so jubilant about the findings of the Berkeley Climate Project that you can hardly contain yourself? What do you think they proved? They certainly added little to the ongoing debate on human causes of climate change.

They included data from the same weather stations as the Climategate people, but reported that one-third showed cooling — not warming. They covered the same land area ? less than 30% of the Earth?s surface ? housing recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in the US and Western Europe. They state that 70% of US stations are badly sited and don?t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.

But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory.

And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called ?proxies?: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don?t show any global warming since 1940!

The BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) results in no way confirm the scientifically discredited Hockeystick graph, which had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the Hockeystick authors never published their post-1978 temperatures in their 1998 paper in Nature ? or since. The reason for hiding them? It?s likely that those proxy data show no warming either. Why don?t you ask them?

One last word: You evidently haven?t read the four scientific BEST papers, submitted for peer review. There, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. They conclude, however: ?The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.? I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.
********************************************************************
About the guy who wrote this - S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered [2009 and 2011] and of Unstoppable Global Warming 2007.


So, what do we say about these issues?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I don't read the WSJ or the NYT for Science, and I don't read Nature for an analysis of the probity and ethics of the behaviour of scientists as demonstrated in their email communications. Don't be argumentative for the sake of it BWMC. And I'm sick of people downplaying those emails and the grubby, unethical, deceitful crap they portray. Its no witch hunt and no joke and just because you say it's widespread (an assertion for which there is no evidence and which I hope to hell is wrong), doesn't make it right and doesn't excuse the clear intent expressed in those emails.

But they are. And thats why only a few people still take them seriously. It is getting old as well. Who doesn't send stupid crap in their emails about others they work with?

Anyway... Every single inquiry into the climate-gate saga didn't find any wrong-doing. And I'll trust them over a few nutjobs posting pdf documents on conspiracy websites. It sends my bullshit-radar off the scale.

Let me put it this way. If I am going to claim those scientists are getting rid of lots of unfavorable data and systematically misinforming people I need better evidence to back up my stance than is found in those emails. Furthermore, if the only evidence is emails that isn't very good either. How about real-world examples of their deceit in their publications FOR A START.

People will brush it off as a non-scandal simply because it is. You could hack any top scientists email's over the last 15 years and make a conspiracy out of it. It is that simple.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

So, what do we say about these issues?

What has he proven? That the BEST results can't be trusted? I don't understand why his rant is relevant.

If he has any issue's with the temperature recordings maybe he can publish them himself.

 

[Karl]

What has he proven? That the BEST results can't be trusted? I don't understand why his rant is relevant.

If he has any issue's with the temperature recordings maybe he can publish them himself.

It demonstrates that a bloke who is qualified to comment doesn't think much of their findings. Are you as qualified as him? Dismissing his informed opinion as a "rant" is arrogant, disrespectful and typical of the play the man not the ball approach that your side of the fence takes to anyone with the temerity to question anything. Your approach makes me want to argue about the science just to get up your nose and because frankly I suspect that all the adjusting and computer fine-tuning (fudging?) in the world can't compensate for inherently bad raw data and that having such inherently bad/incomplete raw data makes every prediction inherently suspect, no matter how many scientists think they've done a bang-up job making it all make some sort of sense by allowing for this and applying an algorithm for that.

And you're so bloody selective in what you highlight and what you respond to. What about the BEST reports basically saying that they believe the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated? What about the anomalous atmospheric warming data he mentions? What about the other "proxie" data showing no warming?

 

[Karl]

But they are. And thats why only a few people still take them seriously. It is getting old as well. Who doesn't send stupid crap in their emails about others they work with?

Anyway... Every single inquiry into the climate-gate saga didn't find any wrong-doing. And I'll trust them over a few nutjobs posting pdf documents on conspiracy websites. It sends my bullshit-radar off the scale.

Let me put it this way. If I am going to claim those scientists are getting rid of lots of unfavorable data and systematically misinforming people I need better evidence to back up my stance than is found in those emails. Furthermore, if the only evidence is emails that isn't very good either. How about real-world examples of their deceit in their publications FOR A START.

People will brush it off as a non-scandal simply because it is. You could hack any top scientists email's over the last 15 years and make a conspiracy out of it. It is that simple.

I'll tell you who doesn't - I don't. My colleagues don't. The few in my profession who DO are generally very young or very foolish or both and are uniformly acting unprofessionally when they do. When I am discussing serious issues on a professional level with professional colleagues I communicate professionally. Period.

A finding of wrongdoing at an inquiry requires a very high burden of proof. I can know something is a certain way but not have the technical ability to satisfy a legal burden of proof, and wrong doing on that stage is not the same as being an unethical grub with plausible deniability.