Global Warming

[Merveille]

Your link in no way addresses the issues outlined above. The above information acknowledges that CSIRO has measured methane up to last year, but why the initial omission in their graph?

How is that link an explanation or rebuttal for what has been explained above? What, because the methane plataeu is acknowledged elsewhere, the mis-leading information as outlined above is all ok?

p.s - I'll read more alarmist carp if you read more sceptic material.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yet here is the CSIRO, the organisation dedicated to scientific truth, pretending—even stating—that they’re still going up, Climategate style.

Nothing to do with it? :

Have a look at the methane graph, with the plateau. You can't see an increase in the last century? Try looking at the sum of the data, instead of nitpicking.

Trust me, I read plenty of denialist literature. Same tactics as denialists of all fields. Point out an error or omission, ignore the body of the data even in light of corrections, claim a conspiracy, claim to be a healthy skeptic, declare victory.

 

[Merveille]

Nothing to do with it? :

Have a look at the methane graph, with the plateau. You can't see an increase in the last century? Try looking at the sum of the data, instead of nitpicking.

Trust me, I read plenty of denialist literature. Same tactics as denialists of all fields. Point out an error or omission, ignore the body of the data even in light of corrections, claim a conspiracy, claim to be a healthy skeptic, declare victory.

Panthera I am fighting out of my weight division against you on this subject matter I concede that. And, but, although a sceptic, I don't declare victory - never have. It is not about win or lose for me, there are far bigger issues I deal with every day.

Why the need for the corrections though? This seems to happen far too often, considering the expertise of these people and the 'peer review' process.
Also, why do you persist in trying to 'prick' me and others by labelling us as 'deniers', when you know it does not serve your argument at all and is not appreciated? I guess you do it for that very reason - it is not appreciated and you know that.
You, therefore, show no respect for any one who is sceptical and are really not serious about trying to convince or influence anyone about the science that you so believe in.

 

[Merveille]

As i was saying,

In Britain:

The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public…

Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, admitted that the case for man-made global warming has been exaggerated in the past.

He emphasised that the basic science remains sound but agreed to issue guidance so that it better reflects the uncertainties.

“Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information,” he said…

The Royal Society will look again at the public communications on climate change after 43 fellows complained that so far the message has not reflected the uncertainty in the debate.

In Australia:

Australia’s former chief scientist, Professor Robin Batterham, is embroiled in a bitter dispute over climate change within one of the nation’s elite science academies.

As president of the peer-elected Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Professor Batterham faces demands by members to drop plans for the academy to issue a policy statement supporting climate sceptics… A two-page draft, posted on a password-protected section of the academy’s website, said the academy ‘’does not believe the science is settled’’ regarding climate change.


links here -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7778917/Royal-Society-to-publish-guide-on-climate-change-to-counter-claims-of-exaggeration.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/scientists-at-academy-row-over-climate-sceptic-policy/1843775.aspx

 

[AngryAnt]

In fact if you read both those articles, it's clear that the scientific organisations are keen to clarify uncertainties and confusions both pro- and anti- AGM - to explain the science better, to explain inherent uncertainties in methodology and why the field is confusing and complex.

In the Canberra Times article, it states that Batterham wants to release a paper giving support to climate change skeptics and it's this that is causing general consternation in the fellows. In other words, the administration of the Academy have weakened under political pressure and are contemplating releasing a two page media release and the body of scientists disagree vehemently. Kind of ironic when the denialists claim the pro-AGW science is "political".

Neither of those articles speak to the "red herring" of the "omitted" methane data by the way. As Panthera says, it's an easy tactic for skeptics - this data was omitted - conspiracy!!! conspiracy!!! Because of the way science works - organised skepticism as one of the articles says - there will always be debate, errors and argument around the edges. It's just this type of complexity and ambiguity that skeptics base their whole philosophy on. "The IPCC report says the glaciers are melting at this rate but other science found they were melting at a lower rate, therefore the whole AGW body of science is invalid".

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Panthera I am fighting out of my weight division against you on this subject matter I concede that. And, but, although a sceptic, I don't declare victory - never have. It is not about win or lose for me, there are far bigger issues I deal with every day.

Why the need for the corrections though? This seems to happen far too often, considering the expertise of these people and the 'peer review' process.
Also, why do you persist in trying to 'prick' me and others by labelling us as 'deniers', when you know it does not serve your argument at all and is not appreciated? I guess you do it for that very reason - it is not appreciated and you know that.
You, therefore, show no respect for any one who is sceptical and are really not serious about trying to convince or influence anyone about the science that you so believe in.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a difference between skepticism (incredulity about the conclusions drawn by someone, based on the data) and denial (incredulity about a conclusion, despite the body of data). I am just calling a spade a spade. It is not about 'pricking' you and I am open to see where your incredulity is based on an analysis of the sum of the data and not on specific cloudy issues that in no way affect the major conclusions. So despite you protests I actually have a lot of respect for skeptics, it is a cornerstone of the scientific process. On the other hand I don't have time for people who deny the sum of the data, pick up on areas of scientific uncertaintly and claim that this invalidates the conclusions!

If you understand science, you will understand corrections. Another cornerstone of the process is its self-correcting nature. Where details don't fit the data, they are refined (or corrected) to provide the conclusions that best fit the data. As new data is generated these conclusions are refined. We expect corrections in science...it is a sign of good science. If you don't think the current conclusions are the best approximate based on the available data, you or any other skeptic can point out why, provide a better model and subject it to peer review. That is what scientists do.

 

[Bill James]

Out of interest Pantheris, you surely don't accept on face value of the tripe coming out of the extreme views of this debate do you?

The IPCC was established in 1989 and from the outset the words "Climate Change" were encapsulated in its name. What the hell do you think they were going to find?

Similarly the major guys on the other side are fossil fuel producers, now I ask you what the hell do you think their research is going to conclude.


So when something like the Mann et al Hockey Stick chart comes along the IPCC jump on the wagon make it front page news. McIntyre et al with an oil industry background wage a campaign discrediting it because of lack of data, white noise and a whole bunch of other stuff and in the process mess up their own numbers.

Move on a couple of years and the Hockey Stick no longer features in the IPCC publications. Why? I'll give you a hint not because of McIntyre

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Out of interest Pantheris, you surely don't accept on face value of the tripe coming out of the extreme views of this debate do you?

The IPCC was established in 1989 and from the outset the words "Climate Change" were encapsulated in its name. What the hell do you think they were going to find?

Similarly the major guys on the other side are fossil fuel producers, now I ask you what the hell do you think their research is going to conclude.


So when something like the Mann et al Hockey Stick chart comes along the IPCC jump on the wagon make it front page news. McIntyre et al with an oil industry background wage a campaign discrediting it because of lack of data, white noise and a whole bunch of other stuff and in the process mess up their own numbers.

Move on a couple of years and the Hockey Stick no longer features in the IPCC publications. Why? I'll give you a hint not because of McIntyre

Ah, the middle ground, where 'both sides' are given equal credibility. So because the IPCC (which doesn't do research, it just summarises the current state of the science) has the term climate change in its title, it is biased? The climate IS changing, there is little debate over that fact. The science that the IPCC has summarised shows that the most likely cause of this is human activity. This is not good for fossil fuel producers, so of course they will spread misinformation to that effect.

As for the Mann Hockey Stick red herring, read up on that controversy. Mann's chart might not appear but over a dozen subsequent scientific investigations have supported the general trend and conclusions found in that original paper. The reason that the Mann chart no longer appears is that there are better reconstructions now available, which agree with the general conclusions of Mann. The scientific conclusions have been refined and therefore it would not be appropriate to have out of date data in the reports.

 

[jb03]

Ah, the middle ground, where 'both sides' are given equal credibility. So because the IPCC (which doesn't do research, it just summarises the current state of the science) has the term climate change in its title, it is biased? The climate IS changing, there is little debate over that fact. The science that the IPCC has summarised shows that the most likely cause of this is human activity. This is not good for fossil fuel producers, so of course they will spread misinformation to that effect.

The IPCC having 'climate change' in its title is akin to Caro being a Richmond member. ;D

 

[AngryAnt]

Ah, the middle ground, where 'both sides' are given equal credibility.

Absolutely. The climate doesn't care if we humans choose to "split the difference" in a debate around climate change. It will just keep changing in accordance with the various push and pull factors that science tries to measure. The whole equal time for Lord Monckton is ludicrous.

 

[Bill James]

Ah, the middle ground, where 'both sides' are given equal credibility. So because the IPCC (which doesn't do research, it just summarises the current state of the science) has the term climate change in its title, it is biased? The climate IS changing, there is little debate over that fact. The science that the IPCC has summarised shows that the most likely cause of this is human activity. This is not good for fossil fuel producers, so of course they will spread misinformation to that effect.

As for the Mann Hockey Stick red herring, read up on that controversy. Mann's chart might not appear but over a dozen subsequent scientific investigations have supported the general trend and conclusions found in that original paper. The reason that the Mann chart no longer appears is that there are better reconstructions now available, which agree with the general conclusions of Mann. The scientific conclusions have been refined and therefore it would not be appropriate to have out of date data in the reports.

Of course I think the IPCC is inherently compromised. It wasn't set up to present a case that climate was flat lining and it isn't. I also think that scientists like Mann and McIntyre have massive ego investments in there respective positions and one can't see the wood for the trees and the other for teh coal. You misrepresent me gravely with your opening line of "giving both sides equal credibiliy". I am reluctant to ascribe credibilty to either extreme position.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I am confused. What are the "extreme" positions?

 

[Merveille]

I am confused. What are the "extreme" positions?

Where do I start? How about some Flannery quotes...

"Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof."
(Fact check: Actual rise over the next century predicted by most climate scientists? Just 43cm at worst.)

"Hurricanes are becoming more frequent in North America."
(Fact check: There's actually no clear trend in the world's hurricanes, and last year's North American season was one of the quietest.)

"For the past 10,000 years, Earth's thermostat has been set to an average surface temperature of about 14 degrees Celsius."
(Fact check: Only if you ignore evidence the world was probably warmer than now 1000 years ago, before slipping into a mini ice age.)

"Polar bears are . . . not going to actually last that long."
(Fact check: All but two of the world's 20 known colonies of polar bear are stable or increasing.)

 

[Merveille]

or,

OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRST
TIM Flannery, an expert in bones, has made a fortune from books and lectures warning that we face global warming doom. He scared us so well that we last year made him Australian of the Year.
In March, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”

OUR REEF WILL DIE
In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he’d seen none at all.

NO MORE SKIING
A BAD ski season three years ago - right after a great one - had The Age and other alarmists blaming global warming. The CSIRO, once our top science body, fanned the fear by claiming resorts such as Mt Hotham and Mt Buller could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020.

PERTH WILL BAKE DRY
THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was “particularly vulnerable” and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.
“There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely,” it said. Perth’s dams now?

ISLANDS WILL DROWN
THE seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, claims ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams. Six metres, suggests Al Gore. So let’s take in “climate refugees” from low-lying Tuvalu, says federal Labor. And ban coastal development, says the Brumby Government.

BRITAIN WILL SWELTER
The British Met Office is home to the Hadley Centre, one of the top centres of the man-made global warming faith.
In April it predicted: “The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’. . .”
In fact, in August it admitted: “(This) summer . . . has been one of the wettest on record across the UK.”
In September it predicted: “The coming winter (is) likely to be milder than average.”
In fact, winter has been so cold that London had its first October snow in 74 years—and on the very day Parliament voted to fight “global warming”.

 

[Merveille]

And some memorable quotes (links available upon request);

More than 75 million people living on Pacific islands will have to relocate by 2050 because of the effects of climate change, Oxfam has warned

That’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand Gore

The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us. Tuvalu President

At an exhibition launched at Melbourne’s Immigration Museum this week, an environment expert, Rob Gell, says it is virtually a foregone conclusion that Tuvalu will be uninhabitable within the next 50 years.

Australia must prepare to take in a new class of environmental refugees from the Pacific if the worst fears of climate change are realised, federal Labor says…

BUT actually,

Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.

Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment.
The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.
Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.

“Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said.

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70056/IDO70056SLI.png

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Typical Merveille post. Goal posts shifting all over the place.

So what IS your position? Is the planet warming or not? Why or why not?

 

[Bill James]

I am confused. What are the "extreme" positions?

Mann is extreme, his consistent mishandling of data always resulting in the same conclusion suggests the conclusion comes before the analysis. His publications do an extreme disservice to the other proxy sicentists who are more rigourous but lower profile.

McIntyre is obviously extreme, but I doubt I need to persaude you of that. He also has used data manipulation of convenience and in error to counter proxy reconstructions.

Another example of extreme is quoted below. Perth dams account for only a third of the water supply. The Water Corporation just added a desal plant that accounts for 15-20% of supply which is much more than annual supply so of course Perth dams will be higher than pre the de-sal plant. Most of what I read on climate change is opinion of data grabs used to support opinion. Or in the "extreme" scientific papers with careless data handling from authors such as Mann and McIntyre that are used to support a position.

PERTH WILL BAKE DRY
THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was “particularly vulnerable” and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.
“There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely,” it said. Perth’s dams now?


[/quote]

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Mann is extreme, his consistent mishandling of data always resulting in the same conclusion suggests the conclusion comes before the analysis. His publications do an extreme disservice to the other proxy sicentists who are more rigourous but lower profile.

McIntyre is obviously extreme, but I doubt I need to persaude you of that. He also has used data manipulation of convenience and in error to counter proxy reconstructions.

Another example of extreme is quoted below. Perth dams account for only a third of the water supply. The Water Corporation just added a desal plant that accounts for 15-20% of supply which is much more than annual supply so of course Perth dams will be higher than pre the de-sal plant. Most of what I read on climate change is opinion of data grabs used to support opinion. Or in the "extreme" scientific papers with careless data handling from authors such as Mann and McIntyre that are used to support a position.

PERTH WILL BAKE DRY
THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was “particularly vulnerable” and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.
“There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely,” it said. Perth’s dams now?

Can you point me to the scientific papers wherein Mann has "consistently mishandled the data"? I know there were criticisms of some of the Hockey graph reconstruction (which on the whole has been confirmed by subsequent papers), but I wasn't aware of a consistent problem, something that I think would be an accomplishment considering the attention on Mann and the peer review process.

As I have said earlier in this thread, my own take as a layman in this field is that I will accept the scientific consensus (ie what is the best picture of the situation and predictions as to the course it will most likely take). Recent reports on Tuvalu are an example of the refinement of the impact of climate change and don't detract from the body of evidence that supports the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is occuring. It has been a recurring theme on this thread (ie point out where new data has required revision of a prediction and claim that the science as a whole is suspect). As I have said, if anyone has a better theory, I would love to hear it. If it is actually plausible and consistent with what we know about the climate then publish it and place it under the scrutiny of the scientific community.

 

[evo]

I am confused. What are the "extreme" positions?

Robyn Willams openly speculated that a 100 metre sea level rise was possible by 2100.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm#transcript
Some of these fellas can be their causes own worst enemy at times.

Granted he isn't a climate scientist but he is President of the Australian & New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science so is an important spokes person in Oz.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Robyn Willams openly speculated that a 100 metre sea level rise was possible by 2100.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm#transcript
Some of these fellas can be their causes own worst enemy at times.

Granted he isn't a climate scientist but he is President of the Australian & New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science so is an important spokes person in Oz.

It would be interesting to see the basis for that 100m claim. It is next to impossible to judge the plausibility of an assertion without the justification and data to support it. That is why I place more weight on the scientific literature then an interview or documentary.

If you get a chance, check out this response to Christopher Monckton. It highlights some of the tactics used by the 'skeptics' and a science-based response. I know Monckton is a soft target, but some of his claims have appeared (recently) on this thread.