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
<< 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.
 21 January 2013 11:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Rich, an excellent explanation of the issues.
I would just like to add that good engineering should be driven by efficiency for many reasons for example thermal management. The efficiency of direct combustion versus lossy electricity networks need to be discussed.

Regards

Dave
 22 January 2013 12:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: richwin

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Only problem is that we're discussing "There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change".



I thought we had agreed that these were both true?

"There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change"

"There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of natural climate change"


They are both true. Is that a problem? Your post seems a bit pointless. Except that it's good to know that you agree with both


The alarmists always present just one side of any argument. It is as if man-made CO2 is on trial but there is only a prosecution barrister. (For instance, did you know that the IPCC charter specifies "human-induced climate change" and not all climate change?)

You are trying to perpetuate that stance by always showing man`made CO2 in a bad light but in this case it is clearly all CO2 that has the warming effect. So I am arguing that the man-made sort should not be unreasonably demonised - particularly as there is so much more of it.

-------------------------
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)
 22 January 2013 12:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: richwin

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Obviously there is no point referring to other denier sites because they will just refer to the dodgy analysis above!

Well, more time wasted on rubbish allegations when what we really wanted to do was look at the maths...


Have some maths: 2 + 2 = 4

Now understand that I am funded by Big Oil.

When your head has stopped spinning, try this:

Scientific American claims that:

"On February 20, Peter Gleick, a nationally known expert on water resources, admitted that he had obtained the documents by posing as a Heartland board member."

That is "wire fraud" and is a federal crime in the USA.


And in the UK...?

Another pointless post.


Why do you want to know about the UK? Not another pointless question, I hope?

The man has admitted comitting a crime in his own country. You seem to be supporting someone who thinks himself a criminal and has admitted as much.

The forgery is a separate issue but given his criminal tendencies (and the similarity of writing styles, and the fact that the allegedly forged document had a different provenance to the rest and that Heartland denied it was one of theirs) I would not be surprised if he had forged it.

Supporting such a person in an open forum does not show you in a good light whether he was the forger or 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)
 22 January 2013 12:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
Scientists will be doing what they consider to be scientifically correct. Because you've decided not to trust scientists then you have a real problem on your hands.

There is dishonesty in all walks of life. If you do not know that then you are the one with the problem.

I am sure that many thousands of climate scientists are honest and doing a good job but, people being people, I would be surprised if all of them are all of the time. Have you seen tthe amount of fiddled resuls in the pharmaceutial papers?

Can you think of a reason for changing raw data recorded in the 1930's? Again, isn't it strange that the old temperatures are lowered and the later ones raised? It is as if they want to make the temperature look as if it is increasing for some reason.

Look what New Zealand did to their temperatures. NZ never denied what they did but they got off on a technicality. The sceptics did not have the authority to ask the question.

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
More WUWT, sorry SkS might not be perfect, but WUWT just presents far too much rubbish to be worthy of consideration.


You don't have to read it all. I don't.

At least I say what I think and try to find reputable sources. You just reply with sourcewatch and SkS and do not seem to apply any reasoning or add any thoughts of your own - apart from the snide comments, of course.

In days gone by the media would be investigating. Now they just seem to be another arm of the propaganda effort.

-------------------------
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)
 22 January 2013 12:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

Geoff Benn,

Regarding Peter Gleick you still seem confused between the issues taken into consideration and the conclusions reached after considering those issues. Not to worry, at the end of the day the argument is only about how dishonest he was and not the fact that he was dishonest. A bit like CO2 really.

I have to sympathize with Gleick. Should he admit to have been foolish enough to forge the document or should he have been foolish enough to believe it was genuine? Tough choice.
 22 January 2013 01:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

Yet again Geoff,

Regarding the Hockey-stick, your 'own words' began with 'THEY concluded' followed by a rant about 'sites which present mis-information and dodgy busted myths'.

I didn't refer to any sites. I presented a table of verification statistics from a peer-reviewed paper and asked for your opinion. You have failed to give one.

My own understanding is that an average R2 value of less than 0.01 for the period prior to 1750 indicates that the model output ( i.e. the hockey-stick shaft) is not explained by the input data.

To me this strongly suggests that the 'shaft' is an artefact of the method.

Does this make me an anti-science denier?

Perhaps you could explain, preferably in your own words, where I have gone wrong?
 22 January 2013 01:09 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

richwin,

I have to agree with your sentiments regarding support for Peter Gleick.

I thought it was absolutely disgraceful that this self-confessed fraudster was invited to speak at the recent AGU conference.
 22 January 2013 08:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

Hi Richard,
Originally posted by: RichWin
I would like to point out on the passion front that I do all this off the top of my head. I do not need a large resource of pastable quotes to provide the answers.

So that explains it. You've made you mind up and now just work from what you remember. When you do cite a source it is very often WUWT which I wouldn't touch except to show how poor it is. So we can guess where you're coming from.

You've just made a whole load of points based on your memory. Some may be true but miss the point of this debate. Some merely serve to sow seeds of doubt, for the unwary? Some focus on relatively insignificant side issues, making them out to be show stoppers. Some are simply ridiculous as you try to twist what I'm saying.

I cite a variety of sources. I always like to make sure I understand correctly, and like to help others to see how I came to my conclusions. SkeptialScience.com is one of those sources which happens to be very appropriate in this context, it links to lots of main-stream peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Rather than focusing on relatively insignificant side issues, I prefer the big picture when deciding on whether the evidence is conclusive.

Remember that the IPCC has to go with the most conservative view, which just happens to come from fossil fuel producing countries...

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
 22 January 2013 07:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Hi Richard,

Originally posted by: RichWin

I would like to point out on the passion front that I do all this off the top of my head. I do not need a large resource of pastable quotes to provide the answers.


So that explains it. You've made you mind up and now just work from what you remember. When you do cite a source it is very often WUWT which I wouldn't touch except to show how poor it is. So we can guess where you're coming from.

You've just made a whole load of points based on your memory. Some may be true but miss the point of this debate. Some merely serve to sow seeds of doubt, for the unwary? Some focus on relatively insignificant side issues, making them out to be show stoppers. Some are simply ridiculous as you try to twist what I'm saying.

I cite a variety of sources. I always like to make sure I understand correctly, and like to help others to see how I came to my conclusions. SkeptialScience.com is one of those sources which happens to be very appropriate in this context, it links to lots of main-stream peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Rather than focusing on relatively insignificant side issues, I prefer the big picture when deciding on whether the evidence is conclusive.

Remember that the IPCC has to go with the most conservative view, which just happens to come from fossil fuel producing countries...

Regards


So, it is my memory against the world is it? It should be easy to prove every point wrong then shouldn't it? We are on page 24 and you and SkS seem to be lagging behind a bit! Show me a good argument and I will change my mind.

Interestingly, it does show that I have internalised the arguments and have made some sort of sense of them. I have even added my name to the posts at your request. So it really is my reputation on the line.

You, on the other hand, just match some words in the post with ones at SkS and paste them here. It is not at all clear if you have put any thought into the subect at all and the only reputation at risk is that of SkS. This is why you get requests to reply "in your own words".

-------------------------
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)
 22 January 2013 09:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.

In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

This is a non sequitur. We were discussing how SkS claims that 75 people is 97.4% of climate scientists.

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Regarding the 97% would you like to suggest who was excluded when they chose the 75 carefully selected scientists? Ideally someone who actually has main-stream peer-reviewed published climate science?

If you can provide me with the names of the 75 people I will certainly find some for you who are missing.

Why do you ask? Are you one of those people who think that sceptics have not published any peer reviewed papers? I am reminded of the following story about Professor Nils-Axel Mörner. It ocurred during a climate-related debate at the St. Andrews University Union:

When a true-believer in the New Religion of "global warming" got up and sneeringly advised the Professor to see if he could get his ideas about sea level published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, his answer won us the debate:

"Madame President, I do apologize that in a 40-year career I have only published 530 papers [now 547] in the peer-reviewed literature, most of them about sea level, but in the light of the Hon. Gentleman's strictures I will undertake to try harder in future." The House collapsed in helpless laughter...


-------------------------
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)
 22 January 2013 09:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf

Rich, an excellent explanation of the issues.


Thanks, I do try

-------------------------
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)
 23 January 2013 08:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: richwin

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Only problem is that we're discussing "There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change". /Q]

I thought we had agreed that these were both true?

"There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change"

"There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of natural climate change"


They are both true. Is that a problem? Your post seems a bit pointless. Except that it's good to know that you agree with both

Regards

Why do you need me to make an argument since you've already agreed 'for'?

BTW, I don't believe I've ever suggested it's just man made... And I don't believe main-stream peer-reviewed science has either.

Perhaps we could move on to the $64,000 question, as you called it, without getting bogged down in myths and mis-information?

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
 23 January 2013 11:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



clivebrown

Posts: 21
Joined: 28 October 2001

Thanks for your comments Richard - I'll just come back on 2 or 3 of them.

Originally posted by: richwin

Should we really be looking to spend trillions on a speculative climate problem when we have so many real ones? Many people in the world have a short and brutal life and they die of preventable causes e.g. diahorrea, malaria, smoke inhalation etc. A few billion correctly focussed would make a massive difference.


Climate Change is recognized as a real global problem by many development NGO's eg Oxfam, Christian Aid etc Many such NGO's have come together in http://www.stopclimatechaos.org

Originally posted by: richwin

First, is this the only problem we should be concerned about? What about the possibility of a meteor strike, for instance? You might ask how likely that is but I would say that meteor strikes have happened many times in the past so shouldn't that be higher priority?


Some disastrous problems are 'natural' (eg volcanic eruptions, lightening strikes and meteors) which are beyond our control; others are created by mankind (eg climate change, nuclear war, or indeed all wars) and, if we could get our act together, they could be removed from the threat list.


http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

Sorry, only got to page three of that. It just reinforced how little we actually know about the climate.


Skip to pages 14-16 for consequencies and uncertainty.

Originally posted by: richwin

.....I would like to see electrical engineers being honest about the number of wind turbines or solar panels we would need to power the UK and also, what would we do when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining (e.g. dark, cold winter evenings.)

I would like them to point out that using low energy light bulbs that contain mercury is not an ideal solution, that neodymium magnets in wind turbines cause devastation to the area from which the ore is extracted, that pump storage will not solve all our energy storage problems.


Agree with that! But given climate change, wind and solar are two of the best energy sources; plus great scope for energy efficiency. Compact, portable and cheap storage is the holy grail of the energy business!

Regards......Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown
 23 January 2013 10:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: clivebrown

Thanks for your comments Richard - I'll just come back on 2 or 3 of them.

Thank you for reading them.

Originally posted by: clivebrown

Originally posted by: richwin

Should we really be looking to spend trillions on a speculative climate problem when we have so many real ones? Many people in the world have a short and brutal life and they die of preventable causes e.g. diahorrea, malaria, smoke inhalation etc. A few billion correctly focussed would make a massive difference.

Climate Change is recognized as a real global problem by many development NGO's eg Oxfam, Christian Aid etc Many such NGO's have come together in http://www.stopclimatechaos.org

I know nothing about Christian Aid so I cannot comment. Oxfam, on the other hand I have heard stories about. For instance, a local charity shop worker won a prize for her Oxfam work. The prize was to visit the new Oxfam headquarters. She duly arrived and was taken on a tour. Unfortunately, the prize did not have the desired effect. She was amazed and appauled by the amout of money they had spent on themselves. Shortly afterwards she gave up her part time voluntary job in the local Oxfam shop.

Agencies like Oxfam have many genuinely caring people in them who want to make a difference. These people tend to be near the bottom of the organisation. Nearer the top, it is more about funding, pay rises, networking, etc.

A case in point is Greenpeace. One of the founder members, Patrick Moore, left when he discovered that his colleagues became more political and less scientific in their endeavours. Here is a link. I did not post a link directly to the Wall Street Journal site because most of the article is paywalled.

Moore and Greenpeace now seem to be having an open war of words. (Needless to say, SkS - Skeptical Science i.e. often neither - have joined on the side of Greenpeace. SkS claim that Moore says that the causes of global warming are not exactly known. SkS rebut that by providing a list. Unfortunately, it does not seem to include black carbon which is now thought to be the second biggest problem behind CO2. So maybe SkS are not as bright as they like to think.)

Originally posted by: clivebrown

Originally posted by: richwin

First, is this the only problem we should be concerned about? What about the possibility of a meteor strike, for instance? You might ask how likely that is but I would say that meteor strikes have happened many times in the past so shouldn't that be higher priority?

Some disastrous problems are 'natural' (eg volcanic eruptions, lightening strikes and meteors) which are beyond our control; others are created by mankind (eg climate change, nuclear war, or indeed all wars) and, if we could get our act together, they could be removed from the threat list.

Patrick Moore was against war and particularly nuclear war, too. It is hard not to agree with that sentiment.

About climate change being man-made - I would beg to differ. It must be partially man-made, I agree, but we must remember that climate change has always happened. So it has not just started happening now. Weather has been much worse than now in the past. Any media article about the weather that claims "unprecedented" is almost invariably exaggerating.

In fact, "unprecedented" means that something has not happened before. So, thinking about it, it is not just exaggerating but telling porkies.

Originally posted by: clivebrown

http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

Originally posted by: richwin

Sorry, only got to page three of that. It just reinforced how little we actually know about the climate.

Skip to pages 14-16 for consequencies and uncertainty.


Thanks - have done.

As somebody famous once said: Predictions are always difficult - particularly about the future.

The predicted consequences are based on what the climate models will say is going to happen. So we need to have some confidence that the models are correct or at least accurate enough for predictive purposes.

Maybe I am too old, but the first climate model predictions I saw on the television many years ago showed Europe as a desert. So far so good. The interviewer asked an interesting question, though. He asked: "What does your model say the UK is like now?" The scientist admitted that the UK was currently a desert, too, in his model.

Many models have difficulty hindcasting, i.e. saying what the climate was like. We know it is wrong because we know what the past was like. That still does not dent their confidence in the future predictions, though.

It would be a surprise if they were accurate because they treat the world as a flat plane with constant sunlight. Elements crucial to their explanation of the warming process are not modelled - clouds and cloud feedback. All the models produce too much heat so they all compensate by adding different levels of aerosols. Combine that with the fact that they also need to have accurate small scale 3-D information for the whole of the atmosphere - they do not even have that for the surface of the US - and we can see that they have an impossible task.

From a different point of view, let's look at one specific point raised in the article: Coral Bleaching.

It does happen but you need to ask, though, has it always happened. Also, you need to get some scientific input. The warmists can easily say that here is a problem, it will be a disaster and man-made climate change is the cause. However, if you look at a paper on the subject. Abstract only but full details provided you can see that although the Great Barrier Reef has been declining for 27 years, only 10% of that is suspected to be human-caused. The other 90% is natural.

Talking of preditions, I always like Paul Ehrlich's. SourceWatch seem to think he is OK but here are his predictions.. In climate science that qualifies you to be a professor.

Some of the IPCC's predictions are interesting, too. Here is a graph from a leaked version of their AR5 report. If you do not like the idea of a leaked draft then you can find similar graphs in their AR4 report but, obviously, it is not so up-to-date.

Note how they always predict a temperature increase. Then, for the next report, when it remains the same, they change the graph by saying that the predicted warming will actually start now - and they keep doing it.

Originally posted by: clivebrown

Originally posted by: richwin

.....I would like to see electrical engineers being honest about the number of wind turbines or solar panels we would need to power the UK and also, what would we do when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining (e.g. dark, cold winter evenings.)

I would like them to point out that using low energy light bulbs that contain mercury is not an ideal solution, that neodymium magnets in wind turbines cause devastation to the area from which the ore is extracted, that pump storage will not solve all our energy storage problems.

Agree with that! But given climate change, wind and solar are two of the best energy sources; plus great scope for energy efficiency. Compact, portable and cheap storage is the holy grail of the energy business!

While wind and solar may be two of the best I would also like to convince myself whether the best is, in this case, good enough.

-------------------------
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)

Edited: 24 January 2013 at 03:14 AM by richwin
 24 January 2013 02:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Here is a thought-provoking article from Der Spiegel in German. An Englist translation can be found here.

It is about the current hiatus in warming for 15 years that the models did not predict. Interestingly, there seem to be many theories about how this could have happened. The number of theories would seem to support the view that the science is still young and the answers are not known.

-------------------------
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)
 24 January 2013 12:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: richwin
Agencies like Oxfam have many genuinely caring people in them who want to make a difference. These people tend to be near the bottom of the organisation. Nearer the top, it is more about funding, pay rises, networking, etc.

I'm only going to comment briefly on this, because it is off topic. Basically if you don't run a charity as a professional business it will fail. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. If you provide a poor work environment good people will leave. And if as a charity you don't concentrate on fundraising and networking you don't have any income and you can't help anyone anyway. Sorry for rant, but I have nothing but admiration for those who've taken the tough decision to cut their pay and work longer hours to work in charities; why should those of us earning more money for doing less useful jobs feel superior?

A case in point is Greenpeace. One of the founder members, Patrick Moore, left when he discovered that his colleagues became more political and less scientific in their endeavours.

However Greenpeace's Chief Scientist and Policy Director http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/a...g-parr-chief-scientist quite probably knows considerably more about the science of climate change than anyone posting here. I knew Doug well when he was studying for his D.Phil in Atmospheric Chemistry at Oxford - a very nice and scarily bright guy (I'm also slightly to blame for him getting involved in environmental campaigning in the first place).

Anyway, I don't see that any of this has anything to do with the science.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 24 January 2013 02:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: richwin

Here is a thought-provoking article from Der Spiegel in German. An Englist translation can be found here.

It is about the current hiatus in warming for 15 years that the models did not predict. Interestingly, there seem to be many theories about how this could have happened. The number of theories would seem to support the view that the science is still young and the answers are not known.

I suggest that people read the above very carefully.

In the section "Possible causes of the stagnation temperature" I note that there is no mention of the effect of the solar cycles.
People might also want to read the following:
Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming


The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual

- "unusual", not impossible.

It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely

- "unlikely", not impossible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...-warming-stopped-wrong
The Met Office also explained that Rose is essentially trying to go down the up escalator(Figure 1) by focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term trend.


Rose quotes Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry (whose claims we have previously examined here and here) as asserting,

"The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming"

However, this claim is simply incorrect. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) considered the warming of the oceans (both shallow and deep), land, atmosphere, and ice, and showed that global warming has not slowed in recent years (Figure 3).


Summary
To sum up, Rose and Curry were simply incorrect in virtually every assertion made in this Mail article.

Global surface temperatures have most likely increased since 1997.

Focusing on short-term temperature changes confuses short-term noise and long-term signal.

Most global warming goes into heating the oceans, and as Nuccitelli et al. (2012) showed, global warming has not slowed.

Natural variability is much smaller than the long-term global warming signal, and smaller even than the global warming signal over the past two decades.

The slowed rate of global surface warming over the past decade is consistent with individual model runs, which show that these 'hiatus decades' are entirely expected.

Over the long-term, the Earth has warmed as much as expected.

Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences.


This is fun: The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

I appreciate that the original is in Der Spiegel, but the English is on a very 'interesting' site... Always important to know the sources, especially when it shows what kind of people we are dealing with:
WikiPedia: Global Warming Policy Foundation
Temperature graphWhen the GWPF's website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of '21st Century global mean temperatures' showed a slow decline over the selected period from 2001 - 2008. Hannah Devlin of The Times found an error for 2003 and noted that if the period from 2000 - 2009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall.[16] Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The GWPF blamed a "small error by our graphic designer" for the mistake which would now be changed, but said that starting the graph earlier would be equally arbitrary.[17]

"We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[11]



SourceWatch: Global Warming Policy Foundation
The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that."

The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

After 3 govt enquiries cleared climate scientists, a denialist "enquiry" by skeptic MontfordWhen the three British Government enquiries into the CRU email saga were completed Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation immediately announced it would to stir the issue up once more.[12] Andrew Montford was commissioned to write an "enquiry" into the climategate emails claims and was paid £3000 for his efforts. The results were released in September 2010.

The choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book, The Hockey Stick Illusion.[13] Furthermore the Global Warming Policy Foundation's own funding is mired in controversy whilst it enjoys charitable status, yet Montford himself is critical of what he calls 'fake charities'.[14] In his "enquiry" Montford criticized the official enquiries for not including known skeptics on their panels. This is a distortion of the truth however, since the Parliamentary Enquiry at the least included Graham Stringer Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, a man who has consistently voted very strongly against laws to stop climate change.[15] [16] Montford knows this and records a cosy chat with Stringer on his blog.[17]

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papersIn mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[18] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -

9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[19]


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
 24 January 2013 03:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

Geoff,

I see that once more you resort to cut & paste and rants about deniers and fossil-fuel funding.

You quote from SourceWatch, 'The choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book, The Hockey Stick Illusion' and even take the time to bold 'serious inaccuracies' yet fail to give a single example.

Had you read their reference you would have seen the editors comment:

" This article was amended on 20 August 2010 following a complaint from Andrew Montford to make it clear that we did not mean to imply that Andrew Montford deliberately published false information in order to support the arguments made in his book. We apologise if such a false impression was given. "

August 2010, you really are well behind the times.

Perhaps you can now list these 'serious inaccuracies' in your own words so that we don't get the impression that you are hiding behind other people's opinions?
 24 January 2013 11:35 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

Here is a thought-provoking article from Der Spiegel in German. An English translation can be found here.

It is about the current hiatus in warming for 15 years that the models did not predict. Interestingly, there seem to be many theories about how this could have happened. The number of theories would seem to support the view that the science is still young and the answers are not known.

I suggest that people read the above very carefully.

In the section "Possible causes of the stagnation temperature" I note that there is no mention of the effect of the solar cycles.

Geoff, are you suggesting that solar cycles might be causing the standstill? It is a critical question because if solar cycles are now causing a standstill they might have also caused the warming. To spell it out: sun becomes more active - temperature increases; sun gets less active - temperature rise stops. That would suggest that CO2 is not the big driver we thought it was.

As I pointed out previously, the remit of the IPCC is not to review all climate change but only human-induced climate change. Consequently, they have not concentrated on research into the sun's activities. However, their views, expressed here, in their AR4 report say that the sun's variation (para 2) is only 0.1% and in the final paragraph, referring to their previous report: "... changes in solar irradiance are not the major cause of the temperature changes in the second half of the 20th century unless those changes can induce unknown large feedbacks in the climate system."

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

- "unusual", not impossible.
- "unlikely", not impossible.

These weasel words will not surprise any one who has looked at an IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) because it is full of: coulds, mights, maybes etc. Being cynical, that is how they will try to avoid blame should their alarm not be well-founded. The SPMs always sound alarming and urgent but if you read them in detail you will see that they do not always back up their alarmism with the detail. They will be able to claim, with justification, that they did not say everything that is credited to them.

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual

It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely


This seems to be at odds with what the scientists were saying before we had a 15+ year hiatus.

NOAA said:
"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

In other words, they are saying that the models are not working if a gap of this size occurs.

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

I appreciate that the original is in Der Spiegel, but the English is on a very 'interesting' site... Always important to know the sources, especially when it shows what kind of people we are dealing with:

You claim the source is important. The source is Der Spiegel. You can translate it yourself if you want to check.

You then launch into a discussion about the alleged merits of the GWPF site, Lord Lawson, Andrew Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion and so on which is not relevant to the point being made.

-------------------------
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)

Edited: 30 January 2013 at 10:05 PM by richwin
 25 January 2013 07:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: robmercel

Geoff,

I see that once more you resort to cut & paste and rants about deniers and fossil-fuel funding.
I can appreciate that you don't like to see these things publicised, just putting the truth out there
Originally posted by: robmercel
You quote from SourceWatch, 'The choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book, The Hockey Stick Illusion' and even take the time to bold 'serious inaccuracies' yet fail to give a single example.
The post was already long enough. Suffice to say that anyone considering reading any of Montford's work should be aware... [Edit: Monkton, rather than Montford, disgraced himself of course at the lastest climate conference in Doha, and is now permanently excluded ]
Originally posted by: robmercel
Had you read their reference you would have seen the editors comment:

" This article was amended on 20 August 2010 following a complaint from Andrew Montford to make it clear that we did not mean to imply that Andrew Montford deliberately published false information in order to support the arguments made in his book. We apologise if such a false impression was given. "

August 2010, you really are well behind the times.
You seem to mis-understand. The article has been in it's current form for over 2 years, in a form sufficiently acceptable to both parties, ie. 'serious inaccuracies' .
Originally posted by: robmercel
Perhaps you can now list these 'serious inaccuracies' in your own words so that we don't get the impression that you are hiding behind other people's opinions?
I've not hidden my opinions. I'm not going to waste everyone's time, including mine, on Montford's 'serious inaccuracies' .

Moving on,
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: 25 January 2013 at 08:50 PM by geoffbenn
IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

<< 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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