Global Warming

[Freezer]

There are no discrepancies. The data that Bob Carter presents about a hot 1998 are accurate. However, he chooses to ignore the known reasons for the temperature spike. He also chooses to ignore the overall heating trend that has occured (when you yourself point out the science that suggests that we should be going into a cooling period!).

I see anomolies right through the graph, so to assume the first few years are indicative of the whole period is a bit of a leap.

Check out this link for information on the Bob Carter 'error'.

The discussions below the article raise some interesting points (obviously I have no idea who these people are, but still makes interesting reading):

Max at 10:42 AM on 27 January, 2008

Plotting the two temperature records for the last 10 years shows that:
· The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.062 degrees C per decade
· The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.059 degrees C per decade

The two warmest years during this period were 1998 (a strong ENSO year) and 2005 (a somewhat weaker ENSO year).

Both of these rates of increase are considerably lower than the average rate of increase over the past 28 years, when satellite readings first became available:
· The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.171 degrees C per decade
· The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.142 degrees C per decade

Max at 10:41 AM on 28 January, 2008

The question that this site raised should not have been whether or not it has warmed since 1998 but rather whether or not the rate of warming has decreased since 1998 as compared to earlier decades, and if so, whether or not this indicates a trend of slowdown in temperature increase or just an anomaly caused by individual ENSO years.

And then the graph in the first link in this post:

saluki at 15:34 PM on 8 November, 2008

This one certainly is true now. There has been no warming for the past 11 years. Here is the chart for RSS, UAH, HadCrut3 and GISS.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.htm

Double click the chart to enlarge it.

Also, when we correct for ENSO, the temperature trend remains virtually flat. Here is a chart comparing raw HadCrut3 with ENSO corrected HadCrut3.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html

As you can see, there is virtually no difference. The period in question had 7 ENSO event. 4 were El Ninos and 3 were La Ninas. Taken together they had almost no effect on the trend line.

 

[Rosy]

Freezer I can't get the first link to open. I can't find any info on the second one in regard to what the graph is showing. Is comparing it Australian figures, specific state figures, world-wide figures?

 

[Freezer]

Freezer I can't get the first link to open. I can't find any info on the second one in regard to what the graph is showing. Is comparing it Australian figures, specific state figures, world-wide figures?

Does this work? The page is certainly there, as I have it open.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html

 

[Rosy]

Yeah that one works ok for me Freezer.

 

[Disco08]

I don't think we should be taking anything Bob Carter has to say too seriously.

Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

I'm no expert, but a statement like that gives a pretty clear indication that Carter's work is both funded by those with vested interests and has no chance of surviving the peer-review process.

Merv and Freezer - what do you guys make of the fact that 97%+ of scientists with relevant knowledge concur that global warming is happening and is at least influenced my mankind's activities?

 

[Freezer]

Merv and Freezer - what do you guys make of the fact that 97%+ of scientists with relevant knowledge concur that global warming is happening and is at least influenced my mankind's activities?

I'd say that doesn't necessarily mean the 3% are wrong. Where does the "97%" come from? Has this been validated by a survey of all the scientists?

Is there actually direct evidence the mankind is indeed the cause of the temperature changes? Or is it assumptions and speculation based on modelling and hypotheses?

 

[Disco08]

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Is there actually direct evidence the mankind is indeed the cause of the temperature changes? Or is it assumptions and speculation based on modelling and hypotheses?

I don't know. Like I just said, I'm more inclined to believe those with the relevant knowledge when it comes to something as complicated as this.

I'd say that doesn't necessarily mean the 3% are wrong.

Fair enough. Sounds like Intelligent Design all over again to me.

 

[tigersnake]

Jesus people keep dredging up Bob Carter. He's a hack. You'll always get dissenting scientists in any debate, somewhere. Its about the overall direction of where the data is pointing

The conservatives are relying on Bob Carter because he's saying what they want to hear. Its a case of a second rate kook against a sea of first-rate scientists. Thats the reality. Yes the kook might be correct, but the chances of him being correct are extremely remote.

Its like relying on Warrick Capper to coach us because he says we will definately win a flag next year, rather than go with the view of DH JL and Co that we are in for more pain. Key point with regards to footy is that most of us know enough about footy to know that Warrick would be deluded.

How much do we know about hard core climate science? Not much. I'm a scientist, not in this area but I know the nature of science, how the research process and trends emerge and work. Would you listen to Mark Jackson for advice on footy over a collective of Voss, matthews, McKenna, Hird and Worsfold? Thats what we're talkin about here.

As for going on with this pointless debate freezer, i'm home for Christmas and bored.

 

[ssstone]

Jesus people keep dredging up Bob Carter. He's a hack. You'll always get dissenting scientists in any debate, somewhere. Its about the overall direction of where the data is pointing

The conservatives are relying on Bob Carter because he's saying what they want to hear. Its a case of a second rate kook against a sea of first-rate scientists. Thats the reality. Yes the kook might be correct, but the chances of him being correct are extremely remote.

Its like relying on Warrick Capper to coach us because he says we will definately win a flag next year, rather than go with the view of DH JL and Co that we are in for more pain. Key point with regards to footy is that most of us know enough about footy to know that Warrick would be deluded.

How much do we know about hard core climate science? Not much. I'm a scientist, not in this area but I know the nature of science, how the research process and trends emerge and work. Would you listen to Mark Jackson for advice on footy over a collective of Voss, matthews, McKenna, Hird and Worsfold? Thats what we're talkin about here.

As for going on with this pointless debate freezer, i'm home for Christmas and bored.

why is bob carter a hack?

 

[Freezer]

why is bob carter a hack?

Because he doesn't tow the party line?

Lots of interesting stuff here also, but no doubt the authors are hacks as well.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Because he doesn't tow the party line?

Lots of interesting stuff here also, but no doubt the authors are hacks as well.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

The worst sort.

It isn't hard to check the veracity of your sources. Check out this Wikipedia link for information on the 'paper' that you link to.

 

[Freezer]

The worst sort.

It isn't hard to check the veracity of your sources. Check out this Wikipedia link for information on the 'paper' that you link to.

Ok, so maybe it's a bit dubious (not that providing wiki as a rebuttal fills me with confidence either).

The stuff mentioned in the paper about solar activity is interesting though. Is there merit in it?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Ok, so maybe it's a bit dubious (not that providing wiki as a rebuttal fills me with confidence either).

The stuff mentioned in the paper about solar activity is interesting though. Is there merit in it?

Wiki provides a convenient one-stop site for information - that particular section that I linked to is referenced, so you don't have to take Wiki's word for it . Do you dispute any of the information in that entry?

I am not qualified to judge the strength of the arguments in that 'paper', but it is clear that none of the authors are experts in the area and that the actual experts have found issues with it (hence it not appearing in a relevant peer-reviewed journal).

 

[Merveille]

Wiki provides a convenient one-stop site for information - that particular section that I linked to is referenced, so you don't have to take Wiki's word for it . Do you dispute any of the information in that entry?

I am not qualified to judge the strength of the arguments in that 'paper', but it is clear that none of the authors are experts in the area and that the actual experts have found issues with it (hence it not appearing in a relevant peer-reviewed journal).

A quote from Wikipedia - 'Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles.'

The page you link has no Wiki reference, but is a 'Sourcewatch' page?, on which i see several ads for solar power companies.
It says 'This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy' ...
Wiki is not what I thought it was, there is obviously an explanation.

Below is a portion of the article, in which I see a definite argument and opinion, with very little reference.. This does not appear to be an independent evaluation of the Freezer linked article, but a rather biased one. eg - 'The greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now..' - sounds like their minds are made up.

Is there a scientific basis for Robinson's claim that increased carbon dioxide levels will contribute to increased growth of some plants? Some research has gone into investigating this possibility, but the evidence does not point to the type of reassurance that the OISM is peddling. Fakhri Bazzaz, a plant physiologist at Harvard, has found that carbon dioxide-enriched air accelerates short-term plant growth, but his studies were carried out under controlled greenhouse conditions and are difficult to translate to a larger scale. Plant growth in natural systems may be constrained by a shortage of soil nutrients despite the greater availability of carbon dioxide. Moreover, Bazzaz's experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict "benefits" from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such "benefits" may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.

 

[Merveille]

And this is a quote from the Sourcewatch 'Coalswarm' link describing what Coalswarm is all about.

'For the more academic activist, look to CoalSwarm, the one-stop-shop wiki for all the dirt you need on coal. Coal Swarm is an effort to create transparent, group-source information about the coal industry: tracking plant announcements, political maneuvers, lawsuits and more. As one supporter explained: “It’s putting information once the province of lobbyists into local activist’s hands.”[2] --SolveClimate

"What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations and a fast-growing number of state governments. The public at large is turning against coal."[3] --Lester Brown, President, Earth Policy Institute
coalswarm.'


In fact the article you linked, is referenced as 'a project of Coalswarm.' all the dirt you need on coal!

 

[ssstone]

Jesus people keep dredging up Bob Carter. He's a hack. You'll always get dissenting scientists in any debate, somewhere. Its about the overall direction of where the data is pointing

The conservatives are relying on Bob Carter because he's saying what they want to hear. Its a case of a second rate kook against a sea of first-rate scientists. Thats the reality. Yes the kook might be correct, but the chances of him being correct are extremely remote.

Its like relying on Warrick Capper to coach us because he says we will definately win a flag next year, rather than go with the view of DH JL and Co that we are in for more pain. Key point with regards to footy is that most of us know enough about footy to know that Warrick would be deluded.

How much do we know about hard core climate science? Not much. I'm a scientist, not in this area but I know the nature of science, how the research process and trends emerge and work. Would you listen to Mark Jackson for advice on footy over a collective of Voss, matthews, McKenna, Hird and Worsfold? Thats what we're talkin about here.

As for going on with this pointless debate freezer, i'm home for Christmas and bored.

still waiting tiggy..... PLEASE EXPLAIN?why is cater a HACK? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[IanG]

still waiting tiggy..... PLEASE EXPLAIN?why is cater a HACK? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Thats a bit rich coming from you. Every attempt to get you to back up one of your assertions has been met with silence.

 

[tigersnake]

still waiting tiggy..... PLEASE EXPLAIN?why is cater a HACK? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

p!ssant scientist in a p!ssant uni who has never been published in a decent journal. Science is all about peer reviewed studies that are published in scientific journals. The better the Uni, the better and longer the study, the more credibility the science. Science is a lot like footy, there is the big league (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc), The VFL, WAFL etc, then the various country leagues. On the Uni ladder working at James Cook would be like playing for say, Redan, at best.

Like I said, none of know much about climate science. You can't just pick the one that is saying what you want to hear and say 'see, its all bunkum'. Imagine if we ran the world like that? When the link between lung cancer and smoking began to emerge I'm sure a lot of smokers said 'I heard there's a scientist in Geelong who says Viscounts are good for you', even though the MAJORITY of scientists said the opposite. People don't say that anymore.

To continue my Warrick Capper analogy, if Warrick said, 'the Tiges can definately win a flag in 2010' but the vast majority of former AFL players said 'no way', we know Wokka is talking crap because we all know a bit about footy.

We don't know much about climate science, so when we say 'that Bob Carter may be on to something' we have no idea what we are talking about, we are saying that because, and only because, he's saying what we want to hear.

Imagine if some Martians, or people from Greenland or something, purchased the RFC, knowing little or nothing about footy. They might say. 'That Warrick capper may be on to something saying the Tiges could take it next year', because he's saying what they want to hear.

 

[Freezer]

p!ssant scientist in a p!ssant uni who has never been published in a decent journal. Science is all about peer reviewed studies that are published in scientific journals. The better the Uni, the better and longer the study, the more credibility the science. Science is a lot like footy, there is the big league (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc), The VFL, WAFL etc, then the various country leagues. On the Uni ladder working at James Cook would be like playing for say, Redan, at best.

You reckon that would wash with the alumnii of JCU? I highly doubt it.

Like I said, none of know much about climate science. You can't just pick the one that is saying what you want to hear and say 'see, its all bunkum'. Imagine if we ran the world like that? When the link between lung cancer and smoking began to emerge I'm sure a lot of smokers said 'I heard there's a scientist in Geelong who says Viscounts are good for you', even though the MAJORITY of scientists said the opposite. People don't say that anymore.

You think it's wrong to question science?

Do you think the medical fraternity who supported the thalidomide treatments between '57 and '61 were correct - just because they were scientists? Clearly they weren't. To suggest that because the majority of scientists agree with something makes it Gospel is a dangerous practice.

To continue my Warrick Capper analogy, if Warrick said, 'the Tiges can definately win a flag in 2010' but the vast majority of former AFL players said 'no way', we know Wokka is talking crap because we all know a bit about footy.

We don't know much about climate science, so when we say 'that Bob Carter may be on to something' we have no idea what we are talking about, we are saying that because, and only because, he's saying what we want to hear.

Imagine if some Martians, or people from Greenland or something, purchased the RFC, knowing little or nothing about footy. They might say. 'That Warrick capper may be on to something saying the Tiges could take it next year', because he's saying what they want to hear.

Is there a chance that Warwick might be right? Clearly there is. If the planets aligned and all things went well, it's not impossible that we could win the flag.

I'm not sure your analogy is great and is one that continues the theme of thinking that "if the majority are saying it, it must be true".

 

[tigersnake]

First point, most of the alumni of JCU would agree. Remember I'm talking worldwide, not just Aus. Most would either be striving to move up the ladder, Melb or Syd, then Oxford or Harvard, any that weren't would be cruising and mediocre (I was once a cruising and mediocre academic), or ex big-leagers approaching retirement. Don't get me wrong, JCU is OK and serves a purpose, they can't all be Oxford, just like some good footy players play for Redan and Redan fans like to follow 'em. But my point stands.

Second point. Well, its not wrong to question science, of course not. But in order to actually influence the debate its a matter of who and how you question science, Freezer or Stoney saying on the net footy site 'we reject the knowledge, experience and work of the best experts', thankfully, matters little. If people however, usually other scientists going through the same peer review process, are able to not just QUESTION science but provide some EVIDENCE, well and good, then you can talk to me. Hasn't happened Freeze, Wiki all you want. The Thalidomide comparison is only partly valid. Yeah science gets it wrong, but we are talking a single drug that was rushed onto the market by a huge corp. It was by no means a majority of science researchers, and not even a majority in that specialised field. As the Wiki ref says, it changed the whole nature of medical research.

Third, as I've said all along, yeah Carter may be right, as Wokka may be in my analogy, the odds of them being right are extremely remote. And therein is the nub of how I live life, and how I'd hope politicians would base major decisions, playing the odds.

Finally, it has nothing to do with 'the majority are saying it it must be true'. The majority of people think crime is on the way up, its not. Generally speaking though, when the vast majority of SCIENTISTS say something is true, it is. Its based on EVIDENCE freezer baby, EVIDENCE, longitudinal studies done by the best scientist in the best unis in the world, published in the best journals in the world. Let me explain what peer review involves, you write up the results of your research and send it off to a journal. The journal then sends it to anonymous gun scientists in the field, usually 3, with your name removed. They go over the paper with a fine toothed comb, without fear or favour Usually they reject it and say why. You then spend another couple of years doing more research and improving the study design. Then you send it off again, high chance of it being rejected again. Its published only when its bulletproof for the point its trying to make and the evidence its trying to present. Of course it may, and often is criticised by scientists using different data or angles, overall science moves forward toward shared conclusions. Ask yourself Freezer, why are there no articles in mid-or-top tier journals, (if there are any at all even in micky mouse journals) saying climate change is not happening?

sorry about long post I got on a roll.

Again, one side, best scientists, best unis, peer reviewed research, Vs a bunch of internet bloggers and newspaper columnists and the odd Bob Carter. Who would you entrust the diagnosis of your sick kid?