The Climate Change Thread

[Karl]

I think the "we never said there was a lot of cooling in the 70's" schtick is a lot of revisionist gump. It was certainly perceived by the public as a consensus. The Newsweek article below is only one example

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Or maybe it was just the journo's running off on a tangent. Familiar theme really.

And Matty_k - I think you missed my point a bit but thats OK, probably my fault. I understand the peer review process, I also understand how it gets manipulated in a field like climate science.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I think the "we never said there was a lot of cooling in the 70's" schtick is a lot of revisionist gump.

They said "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age." If you think it's incorrect, then provide evidence to the contrary. (Of which there is none, just media/news articles)

It was certainly perceived by the public as a consensus. The Newsweek article below is only one example

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

If it was perceived as the public consensus, that is the media's fault for not publishing what the scientific literature was actually saying. Of course there are plenty of articles like that one from the 70's, usually people cite the 1974 TIME magazine article. Funnily enough even the news articles themselves don't exactly predict an ice-age. All they do is cherry pick information that suits the conclusion of their story, which doesn't remotely come close to that of the scientific literature at the time.

It's easy to do. As I said, the media are still doing it today. This one did the rounds in June:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...Ice-Age-years-rare-drop-sunspot-activity.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-to-be-cheerful-about-the-coming-new-ice-age/
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news...aded-into-a-mini-ice-age-within-a-decade.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/163...-cycle-24-cycle-23-cycle-25-global-warmin.htm

Maybe people in 20 years time will be quoting this BS to prove that scientists were predicting an ice age? This is exactly why we can't trust the media. They say the stupidest crap to get attention even if it means lying to their readers.

Or maybe it was just the journo's running off on a tangent. Familiar theme really.

Most likely.

 

[Schadenfreude]

 

[Cutter]

Karl let me try to understand your position:

1. Peer reviewed papers cannot be relied upon as a legitimate source;
2. The publications of an oil industry backed website which published a list of scientists most of whom didn't publish in the field and some of whom had not consented to the use of their names is a reliable source.

I've said it before, it is impossible to argue with someone who contradicts themselves and who follows no logic.

Is your input on this thread a massive trolling exercise? It is starting to appear more and more as though it is.

 

[Karl]

Cutter, I would have thought its obvious I am not trolling and I am getting really, REALLY, sick of your condescension, deliberate misinterpretation of what I am saying, disingenuous and snide approach and personal attacks. Reign it in big fella, we're just discussing two different sides to a complex issue here and you're acting like we're arm wrestling in the UN over the future of the planet. And thanks Schadenfreude for your usual quality contribution to this thread.

I have put my position clearly in response to your request. I am a Sceptic. That doesn't mean I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. I know there are those kicking around, the same as you have your Alarmist nutjobs as well. I think if you're not a sceptic, within reason, you're a gullible fool frankly. Aside from the issue of whether there is a significant contribution to global warming from anthropogenic causes, I also have issues with the predictions of how much warming we will see (based on the data I have put forward) and then further issues on the doom and gloom end of the world extrapoloations on what impact some warming will have (information about which I have also put forward). So that's 3 separate things I have questions about, and my doubts are deeper in some areas than others. For example, I agree co2 has a forcing effect on temperature and I do think that human activities are adding co2 to the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to have some influence. I also think that natural forcing, natural variability etc has not been properly dealt with in all of the models the IPCC puts so much stock in. I don't think we should continue to pump co2 into the atmosphere in an utterly unrestrained way and otherwise run around trashing the global environment because it would be rather cavalier to do so given the fact that there are quite a few pretty smart people who are telling us it's causing problems but I don't think we know enough yet about how it all works and I think the disastrous impacts and the urgency are being hugely exaggerated. I would advocate a globally executed and measured response, a big investment in alternative energy (including nuclear) and environmental remediation technology, and climate research (properly applied, not just to acolytes of the Cause). And lastly I am DEEPLY sceptical about the current Government's response to the perceived situation in the form of the legislation they have been blackmailed into implementing in yet another climate related political compromise/maneuver.

With respect, you'd be far better served treating this debate and thread as an opportunity to calmly advance everyone's understanding of your side of the issue rather than further alienating people like me with an unnecessarly aggressive attitude and dismissive approach. Even when you take a deep breath and try to play the ball I can practically hear your teeth grinding in frustration at my obvious stupidity.

In response to your numbered paragraphs -

1. I never said peer reviewed papers could not be relied upon as a legitimate source - well not exactly. I don't think a paper being peer reviewed means it is unassailable and forever to be treated as indisputeable evidence of whatever it purports to establish. There is by necessity so much fudging (adjustment) of the raw data in this area, so many interpretations of proxy data, so many gaps and issues with data quality and reliability (which is dealt with via more adjustments) that to say that there is no longer any room for legitimate debate is oppressive and ridiculous. Science is littered with peer reviewed papers that contradict each other, sometimes subtely, sometimes directly. I think the weight of research funding tends to detirmine where the papers get written and that there are influences that only a fool would ignore. I also think it's MORE dangerous in this Climate Science area because it has become so massively politicised and monetised and if you don't think that corrupts the process, you're kidding yourself - and there is ample evidence (no matter how much you want to dismiss it's significance) of exactly how that happens with two separate "climategate" issues now that I believe utterly trash the ethics and reputations of key people on the IPCC payroll. I also said that in Climate Science that it's possible for these papers to be critiqued by appropriately qualified people and if there are sufficient numbers of these people it would seem foolish to ignore it because some technical convention wasn't followed, particularly where the current climate applies significant pressure to conform. Consensus only has meaning if there is no pressure to conform in either direction. In summary - Peer reviewed papers are to be treated as rebuttable evidence to be applied narrowly and carefully to the usually very limited nature of their findings and viewed in context with all other known issues and considerations.
2. I already dealt with this issue and asked a question to you which you have ignored in favour of restating your objection in slightly different form. And from what I can see, it's published on a website for the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works. I'm not sure how that is an Oil Industry backed website, but I am also saying that even if it is, unless you are saying that the scientists themselves are corrupt and committing fraud and that the US Senate is complicit in that by their publication of the article, there's still 700 scientists who in my assessment are qualified to comment who are expressing well reasoned and legitimately held doubts on your "consensus" position. Doesn't sound like the science is settled or the debate over to me. If you impeach the source in that manner, you impeach your whole side of the debate as well, but to a far greater degree. Whats your point? Show me why these 700 scientists are all kooks or corrupt and we can advance this aspect of our disagreement. Otherwise it's at a dead end as between us.

 

[Karl]

It appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed at CERN. Those guys are pretty credible aren't they? Not paid by Big Oil? The way it is posited to work is that the effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface. At last a controlled physics experiment which should take us away from model-dominated explanations of climate.

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. "Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality," says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.
Others disagree. The CLOUD experiment is "not firming up the connection", counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.
"I think it's an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment," says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment "probably raises more questions than it answers".

But the debate is over. The Science is settled.

Even the IPCC has admitted this in their latest (2007) report:

“Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor”.​

​

​

​

​

 

[Karl]

Cutter - one of the things you have asked me before was to put up evidence of Peer Reviewed Papers that contradict the ACC/AGW position.

I found a website that looks legit to me that has as it's purpose :

"Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs."

This comment below is one I could agree with:

"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."
- John H., Comment at RealClimate.org

Have a look at: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Curious to know your thoughts on this as well as the data in posts 441 and 443.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Karl - ill be honest - I think you're trolling.

 

[Karl]

Schadenfreude - you're wrong.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

A troll just provokes people with deliberately inflamatory statements. I clearly spend a lot of time trying to find third party material which supports my views and I respond reasonably to all of your challenges. Everything I post is on-topic in a thread specifically put here for discussion.

I'll be honest with you though - I think you and Cutter just object to anyone holding an opinion that differs from yours.

I really enjoy the AGW debate. I find it educational on a few fronts and always stimulating. I was firmly on your side of the fence, then I started having doubts but still felt that regardless of those doubts we should act with urgency because of the huge potential risks of NOT acting, and my position has evolved from there to where it is now.

None of this makes me a Troll. My conduct is completely un-Troll-like. I just seem to be the only one who can be bothered arguing with you and Cutter and Bru on this particular issue.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

It appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed at CERN. Those guys are pretty credible aren't they? Not paid by Big Oil? The way it is posited to work is that the effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface. At last a controlled physics experiment which should take us away from model-dominated explanations of climate.

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

But the debate is over. The Science is settled.

Even the IPCC has admitted this in their latest (2007) report:

“Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor”.​

​

​

​

​

The quote you posted, and the paper you cite don't at all support the conclusion you just reached. And I can't even see that quote on the website you linked.

The Anti-AGW crew love playing the CERN card, unfortunately they always seem to jump to wild conclusions that CERN don't even remotely agree with.

I don't have time to reply in full (and do all the research for everyone again), but here is someone who did the research...

 

[Karl]

"The Anti AGW crew love playing the CERN card"? Really. The quote was from a different website that I linked to in a previous post. It was the actual article in Nature (a publication from your side of the fence) http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html It opens with "It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that." Oops.

In terms of what the study supports, it's pretty early days really, but I think my comments are entirely reasonable.

In this article, http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news...rms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change.html the author (who I admit is a bit of a rabid sceptic and certainly not a peer reviewed publisher of climate science), in reviewing the CERN results says:

"...the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this:
“Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”
It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph.

A graph they'd prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011

"

Now I'm not saying we should all listen to Nigel Calder, but I DO think that I was reasonable in my comments on what the CERN CLOUD experiments mean.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

"The Anti AGW crew love playing the CERN card"? Really.

Yes, they always prop up this story as some sort of silver bullet in global warming (I realize you weren't doing this, sorry if I got carried away). But solar irradiance being the main cause of recent warming is just another unproven theory right now.

It opens with "It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that." Oops.

Yes. A CERN experiment demonstrated that cosmic rays can create clouds. They didn't disprove anything, and they didn't prove this is causing a rise in the Earth's temperature. They just did what they do best, provide breakthroughs in the field of physics. That may or may not have implications on the current climate.

In terms of what the study supports, it's pretty early days really, but I think my comments are entirely reasonable.

Yea, most were. I originally (wrongly) thought your comment about "the science being settled" was claiming CERN debunked AGW. But anyway, most of the comments about the experiments were obvious facts. It's just you implying that it's going to significantly change climate models and such that didn't make much sense to me. But that is a pretty small point I guess.

 

[Karl]

I know some AGW extremists do like to beat up anything into a silver bullet sort of argument, but in this case there was actually grudging aknowledgement from Nature that there was something to it, albeit baby steps and early days. My point on all of this is that there are a few very important factors that IPCC models just don't deal with or that we don't understand properly in terms of forcing and feedback and clouds and total solar irradiation (all forms) are two of them.

 

[Karl]

I just read some things about the Graphic Schadenfruede posted re 97% of Scientists, yada yada.

It seems that in August 2010, the HockeySchtick site http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html pointed out the 97% figure was just 75 self selected scientists. The author, “MS” linked to the unSkepticalScience http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=296 site and the screen image that John Cook posted in an article titled: “Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public”.

Lawrence Solomon from the National Post cliams (and I say claims because I don't know if this is accurate) that:


The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
See
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...s-contribute-to-global-warming/#ixzz19g02SUhj


Another article I found commenting on it said - "The survey was a 2 minute online survey. The second and key question was “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

About 1 in 3 of the 10,000 odd Earth Scientists bothered to do the survey. Of them 82% answered yes to question 2. By dropping out anyone who published more than half their papers in any other field than strict “climate science” the 3000 odd replies was whittled down to just 77. Only 2 of those didn’t say “yes”, so the 97% figure was born: 75 out of 77.

How many of those 75 depend on government grants that would be smaller or non-existent if there was no big fear of CO2 emissions? Who knows? And before anyone yells “ad hominem” at me for even asking, figure that we’re discussing a fallacy in the first place. Their opinions are just opinions, not evidence, and whether or not those opinions are influenced by money and fame is just another reason why we ought not hold opinions higher than empirical evidence."

If it's accurate that the 97% figure was arrived at in this way I think it's out and out dishonesty to use it to imply that thousands of experts are included in that statistic. As I said earlier on this topic - there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I deeply mistrust them all, and for good reason.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Fuck it. I give up.

Karl you certainly have more bullshit energy than I could possibly generate. There's no point continuing this discussion.

 

[Karl]

You've contributed nothing worthwhile to the discussion anyway Schadenfreude.

 

[Cutter]

I just read some things about the Graphic Schadenfruede posted re 97% of Scientists, yada yada.

Karl you really are trolling. I posted a link to that very study. If you were actually interested in the debate, you'd have read my response and understood it rather than having to rely on the views of journalists reporting on it (whatever their bias).

I'd been curious that you were failing to understand even simple counter arguments given that I've read the odd post in other threads where you have demonstrated a modicum of intelligence. However, it is clear from your posts that you're not trying to understand. You don't care for the counter arguments. You're posts are inconsistent, deliberately misinterpret the studies on which they're purportedly based and rubbish peer reviewed science.

 

[Karl]

I am NOT TROLLING. Jesus. Let it go. I saw this information, it differed to what you posted (or analysed it from a different angle) and I disclaimed it by saying I had doubts about it's veracity. If you can knock it over the fence as conspiracy theory nutjob ramble, do it and I will be much relieved. I read the study and I actually thought they would have been better off doing a "blended" rate that was more inclusive and would still have been around 90% probably AND would have been based on more than just 77 responses when over 10,000 were approached and about 3,000 responded. The problem with the way they got their 97% figure was how fine they had to slice it. And regardless - it's just a web survey of opinion, the way the questions were framed is pretty contoversial and it was roundly de-bunked at the time it was released in what? 2009? by several commentators - who admittedly had axes of their own to grind perhaps, but still - it was wide open for that type of criticism. I really object to the way the figure has been latched onto as well and thrown around by the media, politicians and other "alarmists" - like it's "97% of all climate science experts agree". It's just unhelpful.

I disagree with your last sentence too. Some of the information may be less than perfectly consistent - but that is true on both sides of the argument when you really dig into it and I don't produce the data and reports and papers and articles I link to.

I'd like to know what you think of the Peer Reviewed Papers in the link in post 467 and the data set out in posts 441 and 443.

 

[Scotty]

Statistic:

66% of AGW climate change believers on this thread use insulting and personal remarks to try and establish their points.

Bru,

I thank you for being the exception.

 

[Karl]

By the way Cutter, when I said I'd be interested in seeing your opinion on posts 467, 441 and 443 I was being genuine.