IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Topic Summary: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Created On: 21 November 2012 10:41 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 04 January 2013 06:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: richwin

@geoffbenn

Several posts ago you said that, originally, you saw the fact that the CO2 change followed the temperature change as a problem to believing the basis for anthropogenic global warming.

Can you describe, please, in your own words, what convinced you otherwise?
You twisted my words, hence no other response forthcoming!

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 06:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: westonpa

The climate scientists mislead people, with regards to key parts of their data, and were found out.


I believe you are very much mistaken. What you're doing is putting out mis-information and creating doubt, is that what you're trying to do? Are you hung up on the following myth which already appears several pages back?: What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
and the Advanced option
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.


I have no plans to explain climate science "in my own words". I'm not a climate scientist as I've made clear, and there is plenty for genuine climate skeptics to read. That people don't like quotes from main-stream peer-reviewed science is very understandable if they don't have an answer.

It's great to have a few more positive people on here :-)

The big question concerns how conclusive the evidence is. I've seen nothing of significance on here to suggest that we shouldn't simply be getting on with addressing the problem as quickly as possible.

There are various people asking what I would consider to be leading questions, without citing any sources. If you have a point to make then please make it, and cite a serious source if you intend to be taken seriously. The truth is probably that you dare not reveal your sources for fear of a response based on main-stream peer-reviewed science.

In fact surely if there was a significant issue there would be sensible papers out there which wouldn't go anywhere near such obviously silly arguments like "it hasn't warmed since 1998".

Feel free to express your opinions, but expect to be putting your reputation on the line...

With 174 myths on SkepticalScience.com there isn't much wriggle room left for denying what science is telling us. I keep toying with checking how many of the 174 we've covered...

skepticalscience.com/
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?


Got to go, rather busy time,

Regards


Geoff,

I've repeatedly asked you to not constantly treat Skeptical Science as gospel. I could reciprocate with a multitude of sceptical views. Why is your favoured website anymore accurate than some of those I have linked to? You have yet to express your view in your own words unlike Prof. Sean.

Regards

Dave
SkepticalScience.com is merely a portal to a load of main-stream peer-reviewed science, focused particularly on 174 myths that climate change deniers continually try to push, and as such I can fully appreciate why climate change deniers don't like it.

Your preferred blog is WattsUpWithThat, and we've seen the basis for that, nuf said .

Unfortunately I'm not a Professor :-(

Regard,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 07:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: richwin

@geoffbenn

Can you not see the problem with pasting quotes from SKS?

Not at all, as I've said above. In fact it's educating the majority who read but do not post
Originally posted by: richwin

It is a blog run by a cartoonist. How would your react to that kind of response?
Would you like to justify that allegation? If you can't, then we would have reason to suspect everything else that you post as suspicious if we didn't already.
Originally posted by: richwin
The blog responses are censored to make it look as if they are all thinking the same way. They have even changd the original article after posting has been underway on occasion to make some replies look ridiculous.
"Censored" is a spin on "reviewed". There is no reason why presentations should not be edited if they can be improved. Perhaps there should be more of that.
Originally posted by: richwin
We could go there and read them ourselves. I, for one, have and have come away unconvinced.
That's up to you, no problem.
Originally posted by: richwin
==============================================================

"Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW. "

- and of course the site goes on to link to loads of stuff...
Originally posted by: richwin
Have you read any of these emails yourself? I have and found some quite damning - the context is clear in many cases despite the standard protest. The main characters in the mails call themselves "The Team". Amongst other things they try to manipulate the peer review process. That is why they are so insistent on papers being peer reviewed. They managed to delay one paper long enough to put together a rebuttal that was published in the following edition of the journal in a way that could not be responded to. Why do they need to be so devious if they have all the facts on their side?
Deniers normally refer the "the trick". I've read enough on that to be confident that there is no problem, it's just jargon, and needs to be taken in context which is clear. I'd imagine that deniers would focus on the most convincing example...?

Regarding manipulating the peer review process - I've already posted enough about discredited 'scientists', sacked editors, non-peer-reviewed denier 'journals'...

What's the problem with delaying a paper which seems problematical? Seems like a very sensible idea to publish a rebuttal ASAP. And if the rebuttal is effective then perhaps the original paper should not have been published at all? I'm sure science involves alot of discussion from all sides. However the main conclusion that I can see is that it's happening, we can take effective action if we are quick enough, and we should get on with it. Don't know what planet westonpa is on...
Originally posted by: richwin
The enquiries: Some members of The Team were investigated. However, there was not one enquiry but three. The cynic in me suggests that there were three so that bits could fall down the cracks. The bit no-one investigated was the science. One of the panel chairman admitted as much. A quote at the time was: "A blinder well played!"
I understand that there were 8 inquiries. The focus was not to check the science but to check for inappropriate behaviour, they were cleared by all 8 inquiries. Quotes caan always be taken out of context.
Originally posted by: richwin
Some of the investigative panel chairmen/members had links to the University of East Anglia where the relevant Team members were employed at the Climatic Research Unit. So they could not be described as completely independent. The papers they looked at were suggested by the Royal Society. That would have been impartial except that the RS got the list from the UEA.
As I said, there were 8 inquiries, so I doubt all 8 could have been compromised as once in exactly the same way, if at all. So which papers should they have looked at?

Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 07:22 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: rossall

May I invite all participants to review the conditions of use, and the IET rules of conduct on which they are based? In particular, there are requirements regarding objectiveness and about professional conduct towards others. Derogatory comments about fellow participants in a debate fall below these standards.

This is an area in which strong views are held, and, in a large and varied Institution, differences are inevitable. However, please conduct the debate in the light of the above guidelines.

A couple of salient points:
Conditions of forum use
Messages, whether posted by IET members or others, should comply with the relevant sections of the Institution's rules of conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, those rules that concern objectiveness, concern for the reputation of others, declaration of interest, and the making of statements outside one's area of professional expertise. In the context of a discussion forum, this stipulation is not intended to prevent the offering of informal suggestions, provided that it is clear on what basis these are made. Under no circumstances may defamatory statements be made in these forums. The use of swearing, or of offensive language or links, is not in the spirit of the rules and will not be permitted.

n this spirit, and since usernames can be obscure, contributors are encouraged to use the signature system to identify themselves to other users. Signatures are subject to the same rules as are postings themselves, and in particular should not contain promotional or advertising messages.

So at the very least, there are a few people who need to watch their language, and a few who need to tell us who they are rather than hiding behind anonymous user names (perhaps via the signature facility).

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 11:37 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



seandanaher

Posts: 4
Joined: 10 June 2009

OK
Lets try to ground this a bit in electrical engineering. Will try to put up a very simple model. This is very much a "straw man" - I am aware it is vastly oversimplified. I am not interested in debating, but this IET forum might do something useful if it could develop a very simplified model accessible to electrical engineers. This is done from memory so may have some errors.


Fortunately it is possible and indeed standard practice to model thermal systems as passive electrical circuits. Heat sources (W) can be considered equivalent to current sources (A) and thermal resistance equivalent to electrical resistance. Thermal storage can be modeled as a capacitor and inductor equivalents can often be ignored.

The main heat input to the earth is from the sun and stands at about 1365 W/m^2. This can be modeled as a current source. This of course varies in a number of different ways
1) The sun is a main sequence star and will get gradually hotter as it evolves. This happen over millions of years and is only relevant over geological timescales.
2) The sun has an 11 year (22 year) sunspot cycle and is hotter when there are lots of sunspots.
3) The sun has a semi-random variation in output at a fairly low level (0.1%?). It seems that the sun has been cooling slightly since about 1970.
4) There are long term variations to the earth's orbital parameters caused by the moon Jupiter and Saturn. These seem to initiate ice ages and bring them to an end.
I think it is not unreasonable therefor to have two current sources, one a fixed dc source equivalent to around 1365W/m^2 and a variable source of a much lower value say 20 W/m^2. (someone might come up with a better figure here)

It appears that most of the heat from the sun (90%?) ends up in the ocean. So the earth could be modeled by a giant capacitor.
The earth loses heat by radiating into space. This is a radiative process and hence goes as T^4, however looking at the earth as a whole the temperature is around 273+14=287K and will only vary by a few degrees (hopefully!) so the model can be linearised (standard textbook control theory) and we could represent this by a resistor. This resistance can be varied by many parameters, however classic greenhouse CO_2 increase will cause a consequent temperature increase (the physics of this has been known since c 1860 and I believe is not in dispute). CO_2 can be increased directly by injecting CO_2 directly into the atmosphere. The other obvious mechanism is that solubility of gas in water decreases with temperature.

Now to our incredibly simplified model. Two current sources one dc the other variable (both positive and negative) charging a capacitor and discharging through a variable resistor to ground. The voltage on the capacitor represents temperature. This temperature can obviously vary with both the variable current source and variable resistance (either by directly or indirectly varying CO_2). At various times in the past such as when the earth is pulling out of an ice age then the current source is dominant. It would appear at present direct injection of CO_2 is dominant as the CO_2 concentration in the oceans is increasing causing the pH to decrease (become less alkaline).
 04 January 2013 12:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Met Office 2012 UK's 2nd wettest year on record, expect more freq #extremeWeather & worse. 4 of top 5 in last 10! BBC1! http://ow.ly/1QO5po

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 12:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

http://t.co/Lcf2Dt8v
Scientists have become more outspoken about the urgency of the problem in recent years, industry-funded climate denial groups and nonsensical cable news pundits have stepped up their personal attacks.


-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 05:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

@seandanaher,

A similar model to the one you describe is used to estimate the temperature of the Earth without the 'greenhouse' effect and hence estimate the magnitude of that effect. It also implicitly assumes that Earth is thermally super-conductive.

I am not convinced that the T4 relationship can be ignored. Even though the average temperature variation is small the diurnal, seasonal and geographical variations are much larger and all conspire to reduce the average temperature for a given radiative output.

Perhaps a better starting point would be a half-wave rectified sine-wave to represent the daily cycle with the RC value 'rigged' to give an approximation of known diurnal variation.

Although such a simple model can show that Earth's surface must be warmed by the atmosphere it can't answer the big question; how sensitive temperatures are to a doubling of CO2.

There now appears to be a split between modelled and empirical sensitivities with recent studies placing the IPCC's central estimate of 3C as an upper bound. Personally I am not happy with the idea of a 'model ensemble'. If two models are in significant disagreement then at least one of them is wrong. Taking the average doesn't fix that.
 04 January 2013 07:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

All of this about climate sensitivity and models is no doubt leaving some way behind. No problem, the following might help to put all into context fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind...

Beware, I've included The skeptic argument...

How sensitive is our climate?

The skeptic argument...
Climate sensitivity is low
"His [Dr Spencer's] latest research demonstrates that - in the short term, at any rate - the temperature feedbacks that the IPCC imagines will greatly amplify any initial warming caused by CO2 are net-negative, attenuating the warming they are supposed to enhance. His best estimate is that the warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration, which may happen this century unless the usual suspects get away with shutting down the economies of the West, will be a harmless 1 Fahrenheit degree, not the 6 F predicted by the IPCC." (Christopher Monckton)

Sure I've posted on the backgrounds of both Spencer and Monkton!
Basic:
Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.

The lowest estimate of [empirically derived] warming is close to the models - 1.8°C (3.24°F ) on average - but the upper estimate is a little more consistent, at an average of around 3.5°C (6.3°F).
1.8 to 3.5?

Intermediate
Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.

Note that there are lots of sensitivities being quoted as determined over many years, both derived from models and via empirical methods.

A bit of detail on the latest work:
Nevertheless, Schwartz filters out long term changes by detrending the time series data which has the effect of biasing the result towards a shorter time constant. The time constant for non-detrended data yields a time constant of 15 to 17 years. Consequently, the estimated time constant of 5 years is questionable - a value the final result hinges on.

UPDATE 11 Feb 2010: Schwartz subsequently updated his climate sensitivity estimate in response to comments on his paper (Schwartz 2008). He now uses a time constant of 8.5 years leading to a climate sensitivity of 1.9 ± 1.0°C.
- and other estimates are higher.

Advanced
Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

Some detail:
the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases. Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes.

A most interesting 22 year comparison of models and reality:
Examining Past Temperature Projections
In 1988, NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen produced a groundbreaking study in which he produced a global climate model that calculated future warming based on three different CO2 emissions scenarios labeled A, B, and C (Hansen 1988). Now, after more than 20 years, we are able to review Hansen's projections.

Hansen's model assumed a rather high climate sensitivity of 4.2°C for a doubling of CO2. His Scenario B has been the closest to reality, with the actual total radiative forcing being about 10% higher than in this emissions scenario. The warming trend predicted in this scenario from 1988 to 2010 was about 0.26°C per decade whereas the measured temperature increase over that period was approximately 0.18°C per decade, or about 40% lower than Scenario B.

Therefore, what Hansen's models and the real-world observations tell us is that climate sensitivity is about 40% below 4.2°C, or once again, right around 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. For further details, see the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong."

Must see figure:
Figure 6: Relation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and key impacts associated with equilibrium global temperature increase. The most likely warming is indicated for climate sensitivity 3°C (black solid). The likely range (dark grey) is for the climate sensitivity range 2 to 4.5°C. Selected key impacts (some delayed) for several sectors and different temperatures are indicated in the top part of the figure (Knutti and Hegerl 2008)

As the scientists at RealClimate put it,

"Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, calling 2°C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier."

Basic conclusion:
Current estimates of sea level rise alone, as a result of a two degree rise in temperature, are very worrying. More worrying is that the current projections do not account for recently accelerated melting of polar regions. There are also many other possible effects of a 2°C rise (3.6°F) that would be very disruptive.

All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more. Even such a small rise would signal many damaging and highly disruptive changes to the environment. In this light, the arguments against mitigation because of climate sensitivity are a form of gambling. A minority claim the climate is less sensitive than we think, the implication being we don't need to do anything much about it. Others suggest that because we can't tell for sure, we should wait and see.

In truth, nobody knows for sure quite how much the temperature will rise, but rise it will. Inaction or complacency heightens risk, gambling with the entire ecology of the planet, and the welfare of everyone on it.


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 09:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cookers

Posts: 205
Joined: 10 February 2012

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Met Office 2012 UK's 2nd wettest year on record, expect more freq #extremeWeather & worse. 4 of top 5 in last 10! BBC1! http://ow.ly/1QO5po


Geoff,

The following is taken from the latest revision of the UKCIP 2010


http://ukclimateprojections.de...id=87893&filetype=pdf

. Central estimates of annual precipitation amounts show very little
change everywhere at the 50% probability level. Changes range from
- 16% in some places at the 10% probability level, to +14% in some
places at the 90% probability level, with no simple pattern.
. The biggest changes in precipitation in winter, increases up to +33%
(+9 to +70%), are seen along the western side of the UK. Decreases
of a few percent ( - 11 to +7%) are seen over parts of the Scottish
highlands.
. The biggest changes in precipitation in summer, down to about - 40%
( - 65 to - 6%), are seen in parts of the far south of England. Changes
close to zero ( - 8 to +10%) are seen over parts of northern Scotland.
. Changes in the wettest day of the winter range from zero ( - 12 to
+13%) in parts of Scotland to +25% (+7 to +56%) in parts of England.
. Changes in the wettest day of the summer range from - 12% ( - 38 to
+9%) in parts of southern England to +12% ( - 1 to +51%) in parts of
Scotland.

This was the view in 2010, I have some difficulty reconciling this projection with the latest missives from the Met office, I can only conclude that one of them is wrong.

The UKCIP 2010 projections are clearly that summer rainfall will decline sharply that is what the climate models project , and looking out of my window the last few years confirms this to be inaccurate.

At the moment their climate model projections show no skill, you could do better having a guess!
 04 January 2013 10:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Hi Cookers,

The multitude of climate models show tremendous skill in trying to capture a very complex system.

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
A most interesting 22 year comparison of models and reality:

Examining Past Temperature Projections

In 1988, NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen produced a groundbreaking study in which he produced a global climate model that calculated future warming based on three different CO2 emissions scenarios labeled A, B, and C (Hansen 1988). Now, after more than 20 years, we are able to review Hansen's projections.

Hansen's model assumed a rather high climate sensitivity of 4.2°C for a doubling of CO2. His Scenario B has been the closest to reality, with the actual total radiative forcing being about 10% higher than in this emissions scenario. The warming trend predicted in this scenario from 1988 to 2010 was about 0.26°C per decade whereas the measured temperature increase over that period was approximately 0.18°C per decade, or about 40% lower than Scenario B.

Therefore, what Hansen's models and the real-world observations tell us is that climate sensitivity is about 40% below 4.2°C, or once again, right around 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. For further details, see the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong."



The climate is complex and getting more chaotic and the science is evolving in an attempt to keep up. In particular the science is addressing more regional aspects, the global situation being very clear. Specifically the recent changes to the UK and northern Europe appear to be due to the movement of the jet stream probably due to the Arctic melt and Atlantic warming. A relatively small change in the position of the jet stream has very dramatic effect on our weather. This is very detailed and new science which the evolving models will not yet include since they are very complex, and certainly couldn't in 2010 before scientists started talking seriously about the jet stream movement. No point in holding onto old projections as better ones are developed. Updates

It is becoming increasingly clear that something is very wrong... This stuff is now finally hitting the main terrestrial TV channels, educating they nation

Regards,

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 04 January 2013 at 10:34 PM by geoffbenn
 04 January 2013 10:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Hi Cookers (plus westonpa, RichWin, ipayyoursalary, et al),

How about revealing your true identity in line with the conditions of use? ie. Edit your profile via this link

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
Originally posted by: rossall
May I invite all participants to review the conditions of use, and the IET rules of conduct on which they are based? In particular, there are requirements regarding objectiveness and about professional conduct towards others. Derogatory comments about fellow participants in a debate fall below these standards.

This is an area in which strong views are held, and, in a large and varied Institution, differences are inevitable. However, please conduct the debate in the light of the above guidelines.


A couple of salient points:

Conditions of forum use
Messages, whether posted by IET members or others, should comply with the relevant sections of the Institution's rules of conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, those rules that concern objectiveness, concern for the reputation of others, declaration of interest, and the making of statements outside one's area of professional expertise. In the context of a discussion forum, this stipulation is not intended to prevent the offering of informal suggestions, provided that it is clear on what basis these are made. Under no circumstances may defamatory statements be made in these forums. The use of swearing, or of offensive language or links, is not in the spirit of the rules and will not be permitted.

In this spirit, and since usernames can be obscure, contributors are encouraged to use the signature system to identify themselves to other users. Signatures are subject to the same rules as are postings themselves, and in particular should not contain promotional or advertising messages.

So at the very least, there are a few people who need to watch their language, and a few who need to tell us who they are rather than hiding behind anonymous user names (perhaps via the signature facility).

Regards


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 04 January 2013 at 10:44 PM by geoffbenn
 04 January 2013 10:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: richwin



@geoffbenn



Several posts ago you said that, originally, you saw the fact that the CO2 change followed the temperature change as a problem to believing the basis for anthropogenic global warming.



Can you describe, please, in your own words, what convinced you otherwise?
You twisted my words, hence no other response forthcoming!


==================================================

I apologise for mangling your words. It was not intentional. What you actually said was:

A while ago the lag issue really bothered me too. Yes, CO2 follows, but that's not the whole story...


So could I ask again, please, does it still bother you and if not, why not?

[Perhaps I should explain my motives here. I do not see myself as an evangelist for the sceptical (or denier) cause but I need to have a logical explanation for things. That is what attracted me to enginerering and more recently IT. However, at every turn in the Global Warming saga I just end up with prevarication, obfuscation, illogic, spin, politics etc etc. All I want is a clear story with no glaring holes.]

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 04 January 2013 10:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

[
Originally posted by: richwin



It is a blog run by a cartoonist. How would your react to that kind of response?

Would you like to justify that allegation? If you can't, then we would have reason to suspect everything else that you post as suspicious if we didn't already.

====================================================

Do you think my posts are suspicious?
If so, why?

As to John Cook of Skeptical Science:

This from Wikipedia

and this from his own lips in an interview:

John Cook: Who are you? Sounds very Babylon 5. I'm a 28 year old Australian cartoonist.

So I think I have justified my position now. I hope you might view my posts with less suspicion in the future.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 04 January 2013 11:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf



Maths, physics and empirical evidence please. I'm likely to be more interested if you can explain in your own words rather than run off to some canned website, I'm resisting that temptation myself for now.



Best Regards



Dave Nunn
Unfortunate that you haven't cited a source for your 'science', since I believe that since we are not climate scientists we should be careful to ground what we are saying by citing sources. Of course, even the best scientists will cite sources...


Thanks Geoff,

I think you missed my point that you do not seem to be able to explain the science in your own words. So rather than me posting links, I resisted the temptation myself for a resonable period, I challenged you on more than one occasion to explain your position in your own words. I therefore waited before posting additional links. A contensious debate will result in direct substantive challenges in a forum like this, get used to it.

Regards

Dave Nunn MIET
 04 January 2013 11:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Deniers normally refer the "the trick". I've read enough on that to be confident that there is no problem, it's just jargon, and needs to be taken in context which is clear. I'd imagine that deniers would focus on the most convincing example...?

====================================================

I think that is what is called a strawman argument. I did not mention "the trick". However, following your line but adding some context, the expression was: ... Mike's Nature trick ..... to hide the decline" if memory serves.

I have no issue with either "trick" or "decline". The "hide" worries me, though. People trying to make that part of that email sound innocuous concentrate on trick and decline and point out that it is not a problem - which we already knew. This is then picked up by people who have not read the emails and they conclude that there is no problem and the sceptics are being silly.

Coming back to "hide":
Why would the scientists be hiding something?
Could it be the fact that when there was thermometer data to compare to the tree ring data we could see that the numbers diverged. So they hid that bit of tree ring data to make it less noticeable?

As to "I'd imagine that deniers would focus on the most convincing example...?" They did but the spinners and obfuscators did not.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 04 January 2013 11:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf



Originally posted by: geoffbenn



Originally posted by: westonpa



The climate scientists mislead people, with regards to key parts of their data, and were found out.




I believe you are very much mistaken. What you're doing is putting out mis-information and creating doubt, is that what you're trying to do? Are you hung up on the following myth which already appears several pages back?: What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
and the Advanced option
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.




I have no plans to explain climate science "in my own words". I'm not a climate scientist as I've made clear, and there is plenty for genuine climate skeptics to read. That people don't like quotes from main-stream peer-reviewed science is very understandable if they don't have an answer.



It's great to have a few more positive people on here :-)



The big question concerns how conclusive the evidence is. I've seen nothing of significance on here to suggest that we shouldn't simply be getting on with addressing the problem as quickly as possible.



There are various people asking what I would consider to be leading questions, without citing any sources. If you have a point to make then please make it, and cite a serious source if you intend to be taken seriously. The truth is probably that you dare not reveal your sources for fear of a response based on main-stream peer-reviewed science.



In fact surely if there was a significant issue there would be sensible papers out there which wouldn't go anywhere near such obviously silly arguments like "it hasn't warmed since 1998".



Feel free to express your opinions, but expect to be putting your reputation on the line...



With 174 myths on SkepticalScience.com there isn't much wriggle room left for denying what science is telling us. I keep toying with checking how many of the 174 we've covered...



skepticalscience.com/
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation



Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?




Got to go, rather busy time,



Regards




Geoff,



I've repeatedly asked you to not constantly treat Skeptical Science as gospel. I could reciprocate with a multitude of sceptical views. Why is your favoured website anymore accurate than some of those I have linked to? You have yet to express your view in your own words unlike Prof. Sean.



Regards



Dave
SkepticalScience.com is merely a portal to a load of main-stream peer-reviewed science, focused particularly on 174 myths that climate change deniers continually try to push, and as such I can fully appreciate why climate change deniers don't like it.



Your preferred blog is WattsUpWithThat, and we've seen the basis for that, nuf said .



Unfortunately I'm not a Professor :-(



Regard,

Geoff


It remains opinion and as an engineer you should be testing, identifiying problems and looking for the solutions not open loop belief in a theory or is it theology.
I wish you no ill but I think it reasonable to test your conclusions.

Regards

Dave
 04 January 2013 11:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cookers

Posts: 205
Joined: 10 February 2012

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Hi Cookers,



The multitude of climate models show tremendous skill in trying to capture a very complex system.



Originally posted by: geoffbenn

A most interesting 22 year comparison of models and reality:



Examining Past Temperature Projections



In 1988, NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen produced a groundbreaking study in which he produced a global climate model that calculated future warming based on three different CO2 emissions scenarios labeled A, B, and C (Hansen 1988). Now, after more than 20 years, we are able to review Hansen's projections.



Hansen's model assumed a rather high climate sensitivity of 4.2°C for a doubling of CO2. His Scenario B has been the closest to reality, with the actual total radiative forcing being about 10% higher than in this emissions scenario. The warming trend predicted in this scenario from 1988 to 2010 was about 0.26°C per decade whereas the measured temperature increase over that period was approximately 0.18°C per decade, or about 40% lower than Scenario B.



Therefore, what Hansen's models and the real-world observations tell us is that climate sensitivity is about 40% below 4.2°C, or once again, right around 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. For further details, see the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong."






The climate is complex and getting more chaotic and the science is evolving in an attempt to keep up. In particular the science is addressing more regional aspects, the global situation being very clear. Specifically the recent changes to the UK and northern Europe appear to be due to the movement of the jet stream probably due to the Arctic melt and Atlantic warming. A relatively small change in the position of the jet stream has very dramatic effect on our weather. This is very detailed and new science which the evolving models will not yet include since they are very complex, and certainly couldn't in 2010 before scientists started talking seriously about the jet stream movement. No point in holding onto old projections as better ones are developed. Updates



It is becoming increasingly clear that something is very wrong... This stuff is now finally hitting the main terrestrial TV channels, educating they nation



Regards,


Geoff,

I always thought the scientific method was to propose an Hypothesis, then make a prediction based on that Hypothesis, if the prediction is inaccurate then the Hypothesis is inaccrate.

Climate Science proposes hypothesis for what has happened but appears to be unable to predict the future, so why should I believe anything they predict?
 05 January 2013 12:09 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

The enquiries. I was concerning myself with the enquiries run by the House of Commons, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Muir. The Oxburgh enquiry was supposed to examine the science but did not.

====================================================
An email exchange concerning the choice of papers follows:

WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY LORD OXBURGH (UEA REVIEWS 04)

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee to Lord Oxburgh, 21 September 2010


The Committee has asked me to thank you for giving oral evidence on 8 September, which it found very useful.


Members have two follow-up questions and I should be grateful if you could let me have written replies. Your responses may be published by the Committee. The questions follow from the questions and answers at Qq 32 and 33 in the transcript and are as follows.



- Can you explain where the list of eleven papers came from?

- Did the list arrive with the panel before the Royal Society had been consulted?
Thank you for your assistance.


Email from Lord Oxburgh to the Clerk of the Committee, 30 September 2010


Thank you for your message. The two questions:



1. The list of papers came to us from the University as a representative sample of the work of CRU that would offer us a way into the subject. We had no direct or detailed knowledge of the origin of the list but understood that the RS was involved in its production. We made no special inquiries on this matter and attached no particular significance to the origin of the list at the time, nor did we later. It in no way restricted our examination of other publications or material.

2. I think that this is very unlikely but we have no way of telling.
September 2010

====================================================

Assign marks out of ten for impartiality.

A better paper to examine would have been the one about Chinese Urban Heat islands by Phil Jones.

Questions to ask would include: 'As you are one of the world's main sources of global temperature data, how did you come to "lose" the raw data while retaining only the "corrected" data?'

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 05 January 2013 12:22 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: seandanaher

OK

Lets try to ground this a bit in electrical engineering. Will try to put up a very simple model. This is very much a "straw man" - I am aware it is vastly oversimplified. I am not interested in debating, but this IET forum might do something useful if it could develop a very simplified model accessible to electrical engineers. This is done from memory so may have some errors.





Fortunately it is possible and indeed standard practice to model thermal systems as passive electrical circuits. Heat sources (W) can be considered equivalent to current sources (A) and thermal resistance equivalent to electrical resistance. Thermal storage can be modeled as a capacitor and inductor equivalents can often be ignored.



The main heat input to the earth is from the sun and stands at about 1365 W/m^2. This can be modeled as a current source. This of course varies in a number of different ways

1) The sun is a main sequence star and will get gradually hotter as it evolves. This happen over millions of years and is only relevant over geological timescales.

2) The sun has an 11 year (22 year) sunspot cycle and is hotter when there are lots of sunspots.

3) The sun has a semi-random variation in output at a fairly low level (0.1%?). It seems that the sun has been cooling slightly since about 1970.

4) There are long term variations to the earth's orbital parameters caused by the moon Jupiter and Saturn. These seem to initiate ice ages and bring them to an end.

I think it is not unreasonable therefor to have two current sources, one a fixed dc source equivalent to around 1365W/m^2 and a variable source of a much lower value say 20 W/m^2. (someone might come up with a better figure here)



It appears that most of the heat from the sun (90%?) ends up in the ocean. So the earth could be modeled by a giant capacitor.

The earth loses heat by radiating into space. This is a radiative process and hence goes as T^4, however looking at the earth as a whole the temperature is around 273+14=287K and will only vary by a few degrees (hopefully!) so the model can be linearised (standard textbook control theory) and we could represent this by a resistor. This resistance can be varied by many parameters, however classic greenhouse CO_2 increase will cause a consequent temperature increase (the physics of this has been known since c 1860 and I believe is not in dispute). CO_2 can be increased directly by injecting CO_2 directly into the atmosphere. The other obvious mechanism is that solubility of gas in water decreases with temperature.



Now to our incredibly simplified model. Two current sources one dc the other variable (both positive and negative) charging a capacitor and discharging through a variable resistor to ground. The voltage on the capacitor represents temperature. This temperature can obviously vary with both the variable current source and variable resistance (either by directly or indirectly varying CO_2). At various times in the past such as when the earth is pulling out of an ice age then the current source is dominant. It would appear at present direct injection of CO_2 is dominant as the CO_2 concentration in the oceans is increasing causing the pH to decrease (become less alkaline).


I replied to your condescending previous post, it involved a real physical capacitor that is well modelled.
Academia need to sharpen their pencil, instead of chasing dead end research grants and ever increasing undergraduate course fees. How much academic research pops up something useful? I'm sure some does. Industry is a different ball game, research is part of it but real world class product delivery is essential in the UK.
I appreciate that it is hotting up in this kitchen but no personal offence is intended.
Simplified models do not work, ever. I cannot think of a better way to self defeat. Model sufficiency can work in some circumstances where the real world system is simple and relatively deterministic. The real world might be different. For example a VHDL testbench might chuck in a LFSR process to model some wait state mechanism on a bus. It will likely sniff out a real world problem.
How do you guys reconcile modeling of a poorly understood system with poor real world correlation? The empirical evidence for the carbon dioxide hypothesis is contentious but easy to sell to career politicians with an arts degree, the mainstream media or the already brainwashed GCSE generation. Are all the variables and mechanisms within the earth system so well understood that we wreck civilisation for the sake of an hypothesis? There are plenty of examples of belief systems that form the basis of political oppression. I doubt we are immune to this in the so called developed part of the world of the 21st century.

Regards

Dave

Edited: 05 January 2013 at 01:14 AM by HazelGroveWolf
IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

<< 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.