|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 9, 2010 15:04:22 GMT
I've been watching this debate with some interest, because I can see others coming round to my way of thinking on two scores. The first is that climate change is such a complicated study, affected by so many variables, that to try and pin it all in an increase in CO2 levels alone; and THEN to blame mankind, is criminally simplistic.
The second is that one cannot debate with Random Voice. He maintains a stubborn belief that only HE has been shown the light, and that any view contrary to the one he espouses must be wrong. And when one starts throwing personal insults ; one has really lost the plot.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 9, 2010 15:22:44 GMT
its AGW that I question BECAUSE it has not been proven, its only an hypothesis based on assumptions, hamstrung models and its gripped by religious zeal. Ripped to pieces? I don't think so, but then you do have a very vivid imagination. Can you explain why almost every climate scientist is convinced about AGW? What is they are missing but people with no basic understanding of the issues have spotted? Can you further explain why these people's straw men arguments cannot be verified and have been soundly beaten? Go back and read - I've laid it all down once already; here and in that Euro thread. Again, go back and read - we're back on very old terra firma with this. No theory, least of all AGW, can be verified with current knowledge. But then, as a self-proclaimed champion of 'pure science', you knew that.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 15:24:09 GMT
The first is that climate change is such a complicated study, affected by so many variables, that to try and pin it all in an increase in CO2 levels alone; and THEN to blame mankind, is criminally simplistic. I agree that it is a hugely complex issue with any number of variables, but how do you come to the conclusion that we cannot isolate the contribution made by mankind’s CO2 output. What is that you can genuinely spot that the entire body of climate scientist have missed? Why is it that you, fret, mouse and Das are able to detect in the atmosphere, which the entire scientific community are ignoring? What instruments are you using that every scientist in the Western World are failing to use correctly? The second is that one cannot debate with Random Voice. No, Ned, YOU cannot debate with random Voice because you don’t understand the issues involved. It isn’t actually about me in any case, you are attempting to argue with the entire body of climate scientists and believe me, Ned. You lack the knowledge to do that!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 9, 2010 15:29:27 GMT
I've been watching this debate with some interest, because I can see others coming round to my way of thinking on two scores. The first is that climate change is such a complicated study, affected by so many variables, that to try and pin it all in an increase in CO2 levels alone; and THEN to blame mankind, is criminally simplistic. The second is that one cannot debate with Random Voice. He maintains a stubborn belief that only HE has been shown the light, and that any view contrary to the one he espouses must be wrong. And when one starts throwing personal insults ; one has really lost the plot. Simplistic it is, especially when it based on 'best-guesses' and partial models. When I mentioned Kirby's CLOUD experiment, Random Voice kindly provided me with a link to a realclimate half model. Now that speaks volumes.... YOU cannot debate with Random Voice because he doesn’t understand the the hypothetico-deductive method.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 9, 2010 19:23:24 GMT
One cannot debate with Random Voice. He maintains a stubborn belief that only HE has been shown the light, and that any view contrary to the one he espouses must be wrong. Yes very similar to some deeply religious sect members. Also reminds me of my son Scott who seemed to know everything when he was just sixteen years old.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 14, 2010 10:09:40 GMT
wwell well well Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 By Jonathan Petre Last updated at 2:39 AM on 14th February 2010 Comments (27) Add to My Stories Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing There has been no global warming since 1995 Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be' The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fVWaOfuZ
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 14:02:57 GMT
mouse, this deserves a whole new thread.... allow me...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 14, 2010 14:19:56 GMT
mouse, this deserves a whole new thread.... allow me... the pleasure to allow is all mine...proceed at will
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 15, 2010 22:16:32 GMT
Scandinavian temperatures, IPCC´s "Scandinavia-gate" Scandinavian Temperatures 1900 - 2000, IPCC´s Scandinavia-gate In recent years the Swedish scientist from Stockholm University, Karlén, has tried to create attention to the fact the Scandinavian temperatures when represented by IPCC cannot be recognized in the real data from the Scandinavian temperature stations: Left: Karlen made a plot of 25 data series from the NordKlim database. Right: IPCC´s temperature graph for the area does not reflect the actual Scandinavnian temperature graphs. IPCC shows temperatures around year 2000 should be approximately 0,7 K higher than the peak around 1930-50, whereas the actual data collected by Karlen shows that year 2000 temperatures equals the 1930-50 peak, perhaps even lower.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 15, 2010 22:30:53 GMT
Professor em Wibjorn Karlen
[Karlen] In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the early 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another increase to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s.
A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s.
[Trenberth] This region, as I am sure you know, suffers from missing data and large gaps spatially. How one covered both can greatly influence the outcome.
In IPCC we produce an Arctic curve and describe its problems and
character. In IPCC the result is very conservative owing to lack of
inclusion of the Arctic where dramatic decreases in sea ice in recent
years have taken place: 2005 was lowest at the time we did our assessment but 2007 is now the record closely followed by 2008.
Anomalies of over 5C are evident in some areas in SSTs but the SSTs are not established if there was ice there previously. These and other indicators show that there is no doubt about recent warming; see also chapter 4 of IPCC.
[My comment] As I will show below, everything he says about the ocean and the sea ice and the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is meaningless. The IPCC figure is solely for the land.
[Karlen] In my letter to Klass V I included diagram showing the mean annual temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net by the database NORDKLIM, a joint project between the meteorological institutes in the Nordic countries. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an increase after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower. None demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates. The trends of these 6 areas are very similar except for a few interesting details.
[Trenberth] Results will also depend on the exact region.
[Karlen] I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas using data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13 stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.
The pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojans and Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5 deg C above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the
temperature has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.
In preparation of some talks I have been invited to give, I have expanded the Nordic area both west and east. The area of similar change in climate is vast. Only a few stations near Bering Strait deviates (e.g. St Paul, Kodiak, Nome, located south of 65 deg. N).
My studies include Africa, a study which took me most of a summer because there are a large number of stations in the NASA records. I found 11 stations including data from 1898-1975 and 16 stations including 1950-2003.
The data sets could in a convincing way be spliced. However, I noticed that some persons were not familiar with ’splicing’ technique so I have accepted to reduce the study to the 7 stations including data from the whole period between 1898-2003. The results are similar as to the spliced data set and
also, surprisingly similar to the variability of the Nordic data.
Regression indicates a minor (if any) decrease in temperature (I have used all stations independent of location, city location or not).
[Trenberth] Africa is notorious for missing and inaccurate data and needs careful assessment.
[Karlen] Another example is Australia. NASA only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?
If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period
(1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially.
The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps
of changes and trends.
There are more examples, but I think this is much enough for my present
point:
How has the laboratories feeding IPCC with temperature records selected stations?
[Trenberth] See our chapter and the appendices.
[Karlen] I have noticed that major cities often demonstrate a major urban effect (Buenos Aires, Osaka, New York Central Park, etc). Have data from major cities been used by the laboratories sending data to IPCC? Lennart Bengtsson and other claims that the urban effect is accounted for but from what I read, it seems like the technique used has been a simplistic
[Trenberth] Major inner cities are excluded: their climate change is real but very local.
[Karlen] Next step has been to compare my results with temperature records in the literature. One interesting figures is published by you in:
Trenberth, K., 2005: Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming. Science 308: 1753-1754.
As you obviously know, the recent increase in temperature above the 1940s is minor between 10 deg N and 20 deg N and only slightly larger above the temperature maximum in the early 1950s. Both the increases in temperature in the 1930s and in the 1980s to 1990s is of similar amplitude and similar steepness, if any difference possibly slightly less steep in the northern area than in the southern (the eddies slow down the warm water
|transport?).
Your diagram describes a limited area of the North Atlantic because you are primarily interested in hurricanes. The complexity of sea surface temperature increases and decreases is seen in e.g. Cabanes, C, et al 2001 (Science 294: 840-842).
[Trenberth] As we discuss, there is a lot of natural variability in the North Atlantic but there is also a common component that relates to global changes. See my GRL article with Shea for more details. Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2006: Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894.
[Karlen] One example of sea surface temperature is published by:
Goldenberg, S.B., Landsea, C.W., Mestas-Nuoez, A.M. and Gray, W.M., 2001: The recent increases in Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and implications. Science 293: 474-479.
Again, there is a marked increase in temperature in the 1930s and 1950s (about 1 deg C), a decrease to approximately the level in the 1910s and thereafter a new increase to a temperature slightly below the level in the1940s.
One example of published data not supporting a major temperature
increase during recent time is:
Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alekseev, G.H., Bhatt,U.S., Colony,
R.L., Johnson, M.A., Maskshtas, A.P. and Walsh, D., 2003: Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000. Journal of Climate: Vol. 16 (12): 2067ñ2077.
He included many more stations than I did in my calculation of
temperatures N 65 N, but the result is similar. It is hard to find evidence of a drastic warming of the Arctic.
It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole area is urbanized (see e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology – the biology of darkness. Global change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004).
So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how
expensive).
[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and
you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to
doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are
very wrong. But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at
one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture.
[My comment] Professor Karlen was quite correct. The claims made by the CRU, and repeated in the IPCC document, were false. Karlen was looking at the evidence.
[Karlen] In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.
[Trenberth] I disagree.
[Karlen] I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100 years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C. The 5.5 deg C figure has been repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is not supporting attempts to save fossil fuel.
I have numerous diagrams illustrating the discussion above. I don’t include these in an e-mail because my computer can only handle a few at a time. If you would like to see some, I can send them by air mail.
I am often asked about why I don’t publish about my views. I have. Just one example of among 100 other I could select is: Karlen, W., 2001: Global temperature forces by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases? Ambio 30(6): 349-350.
Yours sincerely
Wibjorn
Geografiska Annaler
Professor em Wibjorn Karlen
Department of Social and Economic Geography
Geografiska Annaler Ser. A
Box 513
SE-751 20 Uppsala
SWEDEN
Not all scientists are implicated in the scam, thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 16, 2010 12:47:56 GMT
Science blogger finds errors in Met Office climate change records
A science blogger has uncovered a catalogue of errors in Met Office records that form a central part of the scientific evidence for global warming.
The mistakes, which led to the data from a large number of weather stations being discarded or misused, had been overlooked by professional scientists and were only discovered when the Met Office’s Hadley Centre made data publicly available in December after climategate.
John Graham-Cumming, the programmer who spotted the mistakes, said “The whole idea of doing science without releasing your data is quite worrying.”
After trying to reproduce figures shown in scientific publications and on the Met Office website, Dr Graham-Cumming identified a number of problems with the way measurements from Australian weather stations were being averaged. He found that data from seven stations were being accidentally discarded. Data from a further 112 Australian stations, 28 per cent of the total, were not being fully included in calculations of year-on-year temperature differences.
Another case of (secretive and) very sloppy science.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 16, 2010 15:00:56 GMT
Here is the BBC's interview with Professor Phil Jones news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stmAl Gore was correct when he said that there is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH in all of this Global Warming. However, the joke's on him. The inconvenient truth is that his movie is bullocks.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 22, 2010 22:37:54 GMT
A study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century. Now that sounds pretty confident, does it not. The study, published in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But hang on, the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown. Hmmm.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many believers criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.
They seem to happen far more to the IPCC than anyone else
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 2, 2010 18:43:18 GMT
AR4 warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. “The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic. His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.
Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.
In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings. Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 14, 2010 13:03:59 GMT
Great video on climate change. Too bad Al Gore didn't see this.
|
|