IET Forums - E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

My IET

The IET for you
- The IET for you
- Academics
- Apprentices
- Armed Forces
- Business
- Engineers
- Electricians
- IT Professionals
- Students
- Technicians

IET

search : help : home

Latest News: Private messages, your photo, profiles, email notifications

Categories:

latest topics : statistics

IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

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

Last unread

Search Topic

Topic Tools

	View similar topics
	Print this topic.

24 January 2013 11:35 PM
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
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 07:14 AM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 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, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" Edited: 25 January 2013 at 08:50 PM by geoffbenn
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 08:11 AM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Originally posted by: richwin Originally posted by: geoffbenn 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. 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." The IPCC are looking at all of the science. The latest: Global Temperature Update Through 2012 (Hansen, Sato, Ruedy, 15 January 2013) Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped". Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability. The climate forcing most often cited as a likely natural cause of global temperature change is solar variability. The sun's irradiance began to be measured precisely from satellites in the late 1970s, thus quantifying well the variation of solar energy reaching Earth (Fig. 4). See figure 4 The largest climate forcing is caused by increasing greenhouse gases Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature. So the sun is a factor, but CO2 is more significant in the longer term. We shouldn't get mis-lead by short term thinging... Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 08:18 AM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Originally posted by: richwin 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 The IPCC includes countries with a vested interest in playing down climate change, and hence restrictions on the burning of fossil fuels. BTW: as originally posted: Originally posted by: geoffbenn 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. Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 01:56 PM
robmercel Posts: 30 Joined: 13 October 2007	Geoff, Thank you for your reply, it was absolutely hilarious. I guess you are right to stick to cut & paste. That way people merely assume you have little knowledge of the issues. When you put things in your own words you actually prove your lack of knowledge. The only 'serious inaccuracies' are in your writings and the items you quote. Montford 'disgraced himself of course at the latest climate conference in Doha'? I presume you will apologize for that demonstration of ignorance. There are no 'serious inaccuracies' in The Hockey Stick Illusion. You are wrong to suggest otherwise. SourceWatch is wrong. Bob Ward is wrong. For example, Bob Ward writes: " Yet, nowhere does Montford find space for von Storch's own explanation, published on the web, that he had resigned "to make public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error" because it suffered from "severe methodological flaws". " Yet from the The Hockey Stick Illusion: " Von Storch is one of the big names in climatology and had been one of the editors who had resigned from the board of Climate Research over its publication of the Soon and Baliunas paper, but he was not a member of the Hockey Team either. " The Hockey Stick Illusion is a well written book that presents the mathematical issues surrounding Hockey-Stick construction in a manner that can be understood by any numerate person. That is why it is so disliked by people who would rather hide these issues. They have tried and tried to find errors but have failed. So, Geoff, what are these 'serious inaccuracies'? Either put up or apologize.
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 05:21 PM
richwin Posts: 96 Joined: 25 July 2008	Originally posted by: geoffbenn The post was already long enough. Suffice to say that anyone considering reading any of Montford's work should be aware... He disgraced himself of course at the lastest climate conference in Doha, and is now permanently excluded I think you are confusing Montford with Monckton so I don't know who the comments are supposed to apply to now. ------------------------- 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)
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 08:58 PM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Oops! Well I'm glad to have made someone laugh! I'd rather readers of this forum did their own research Hopefully they'll work out what's to be trusted... For anyone with time to kill: Review of the Hockey Stick Illusion - Part 1 Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 10:49 PM
richwin Posts: 96 Joined: 25 July 2008	Originally posted by: geoffbenn Oops! Well I'm glad to have made someone laugh! I'd rather readers of this forum did their own research Hopefully they'll work out what's to be trusted... For anyone with time to kill: Review of the Hockey Stick Illusion - Part 1 Strangely, I had already read that. I have never seen any subsquent parts, though. Were there any? ------------------------- 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)
Top : Bottom

25 January 2013 11:54 PM
richwin Posts: 96 Joined: 25 July 2008	Originally posted by: geoffbenn Originally posted by: richwin Originally posted by: geoffbenn 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. I see that, today, you have now read the above carefully and have come out in favour of the ENSO (La Nina/El Nino) proposal from the article having toyed with and subsequently dropped the "it's the sun" idea? Originally posted by: geoffbenn The IPCC are looking at all of the science. The latest: Global Temperature Update Through 2012 (Hansen, Sato, Ruedy, 15 January 2013) Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped". Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability. The largest climate forcing is caused by increasing greenhouse gases ... but this time the largest climate forcing has been overwhelmed by something else and, even worse, it was not forecast and we do not know what it is! How could that happen? We are told that the science is settled. Well, you could have fooled me. Originally posted by: geoffbenn Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature. So the sun is a factor, but CO2 is more significant in the longer term. We shouldn't get mis-lead by short term thinging... So "We conclude that background global warming is continuing"? How does that work then? Is it warming without a temperature increase? What is happening to the energy? Is it still arriving and then hiding somewhere without causing a temperature change? Has the CO2 effect stopped or does ENSO somehow use the energy to lower temperatures? The point is that you only get these questions if you keep trying to make the "CO2 driving warming thing" work. CO2 is now at its highest level since the Industrial Revolution. If the AGW CO2 theory is correct it should be producing the biggest temperature increases now - but it isn't. Occam's Razor suggests that we should believe the ice cores and so believe that temperature drives CO2. When the oceans warm they will give off some of their stored CO2. Simples. It seems to me like the planetary "epicycles" problem of old. When they changed their ideas and put the sun, not the earth, at the centre the numbers and patterns became much simpler. ------------------------- 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)
Top : Bottom

26 January 2013 01:30 AM
robmercel Posts: 30 Joined: 13 October 2007	Geoff, I apologize. I'm sorry but your mixing up your Montfords and your Moncktons was simply irresistible although it did indicate that you have little knowledge of the characters involved and hence their arguments. That's the problem with getting all your information second-hand from advocacy sites. You talk about doing your own research although you have shown no evidence of having done any. Your link to a straw-clutching exercise by Frank O'Dwyer is a perfect example. (I was really tempted to say "Frank 'Short Skirt' O'Dwyer" but I'll leave the ad hominems to you) Genuine research would involve reading the book and coming to your own conclusions although I realize that is not going to happen. You could at least look at the cover photo to get some idea of the book's subject before you take Frank O'Dwyer seriously. Your idea of research appears to be finding articles that support your beliefs without any personal attempt to determine their veracity. I see that you still haven't given your personal opinion on negligible R2 values and I haven't even yet asked you for your understanding of negative CE values although I would look forward to hearing it. I hope to be away for the weekend if I'm not snowed in and I hope you take your own advice and do your own research. I guess the guys at RC and SkS will be spending quite a bit of their weekend trying to defend the use of uniform priors in climate sensitivity estimates but that's another story. Enjoy your weekend, Rob
Top : Bottom

27 January 2013 02:28 PM
westonpa Posts: 1469 Joined: 10 October 2007	'The IPCC are looking at all of the science.' Looking does not equal understanding. They are looking at the little bit they think they understand and which seems to support their 'global warming' doom and gloom theories which they overplayed. Someone once said that when it comes to admitting we are wrong or else trying to find the evidence to prove we are correct then people generally get busy on trying to find the evidence. The fact is, and we know it because we are alive today and can witness it for ourselves, the world is on the whole doing ok. Yes there are some fires, droughts, storms, etc., here and there and a few people get killed here and there because of them, but that is life and if we do not want to take that risk then better not to bring yet more people into the world. The real issue is that someone 6000 miles away gets killed by a storm and the 24/7 news media channels sensationalise it such that the worrier who actually has near zero chance of suffering the same fate thinks it is happening down the road and starts to worry. Bad news sells! We humans seem to be reasonably good at inventing new technologies at just about the correct time in order to solve the 'real' problems and I conlude that someone alive in 100 years time will be looking at inventions which have taken place which today we could not neccessarily have foreseen. Climate change is not a man-made phenomenon but the hype surrounding it is. Regards.
Top : Bottom

27 January 2013 03:46 PM
HazelGroveWolf Posts: 71 Joined: 25 July 2008	Originally posted by: westonpa 'The IPCC are looking at all of the science.' Looking does not equal understanding. They are looking at the little bit they think they understand and which seems to support their 'global warming' doom and gloom theories which they overplayed. Someone once said that when it comes to admitting we are wrong or else trying to find the evidence to prove we are correct then people generally get busy on trying to find the evidence. The fact is, and we know it because we are alive today and can witness it for ourselves, the world is on the whole doing ok. Yes there are some fires, droughts, storms, etc., here and there and a few people get killed here and there because of them, but that is life and if we do not want to take that risk then better not to bring yet more people into the world. The real issue is that someone 6000 miles away gets killed by a storm and the 24/7 news media channels sensationalise it such that the worrier who actually has near zero chance of suffering the same fate thinks it is happening down the road and starts to worry. Bad news sells! We humans seem to be reasonably good at inventing new technologies at just about the correct time in order to solve the 'real' problems and I conlude that someone alive in 100 years time will be looking at inventions which have taken place which today we could not neccessarily have foreseen. Climate change is not a man-made phenomenon but the hype surrounding it is. Regards. Neat summary. Regards Dave
Top : Bottom

28 January 2013 12:23 AM
HazelGroveWolf Posts: 71 Joined: 25 July 2008	Interesting stats versus SkS: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...re-traffic/#more-78265
Top : Bottom

28 January 2013 01:11 PM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Originally posted by: richwin Originally posted by: geoffbenn Oops! Well I'm glad to have made someone laugh! I'd rather readers of this forum did their own research Hopefully they'll work out what's to be trusted... For anyone with time to kill: Review of the Hockey Stick Illusion - Part 1 Strangely, I had already read that. I have never seen any subsquent parts, though. Were there any? If you check the link above: Anyway, so far I have only read Chapter 1, and it would be fair to say I am so far unimpressed and disappointed. Those of a 'sceptic' disposition will have to take my word for it that I am doing my best to give it a fair reading, and in its favour I will say that the quality of the writing is good, and the book serves as a useful summary of the 'sceptic' side of the 'controversy'. However aside from outrageous appeals to mind reading, baseless innuendo, and the motivational fallacy, already at least 3 outright errors and/or misrepresentations are apparent. I will write these up here and hopefully post more thoughts from time to time as I read further. However progress is likely to be slow I doubt he'll waste any more of his time... Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

28 January 2013 01:21 PM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Originally posted by: richwin Originally posted by: geoffbenn So the sun is a factor, but CO2 is more significant in the longer term. We shouldn't get mis-lead by short term thinking... So "We conclude that background global warming is continuing"? I can't be bothered with trying to untwist your word twisting. My underlining. Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

28 January 2013 01:30 PM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Originally posted by: robmercel Geoff, I apologize. I'm sorry but your mixing up your Montfords and your Moncktons was simply irresistible although it did indicate that you have little knowledge of the characters involved and hence their arguments. That's the problem with getting all your information second-hand from advocacy sites. You talk about doing your own research although you have shown no evidence of having done any. Your link to a straw-clutching exercise by Frank O'Dwyer is a perfect example. (I was really tempted to say "Frank 'Short Skirt' O'Dwyer" but I'll leave the ad hominems to you) Genuine research would involve reading the book and coming to your own conclusions although I realize that is not going to happen. You could at least look at the cover photo to get some idea of the book's subject before you take Frank O'Dwyer seriously. Your idea of research appears to be finding articles that support your beliefs without any personal attempt to determine their veracity. We all have to choose where to spend our time, personally I'll rely on others more experienced in the field to help me to avoid wasting my time. Andrew_Montford RealClimate described it as as "Montford's typical sloppy research" in an article entitled The Montford Delusion. [10]. Elsewhere it was described as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn" [11] Another review entitled Mean-spirited scepticism by Richard Joyner Emeritus Professor at Nottingham Trent University says "Montford's book is not an honest contribution"[12] In 'Chemistry World' Professor Nick Hewitt writes "Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail... but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better. Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book."[13] Alastair McIntosh writing for the Scottish Review of Books sums up :"Montford's analysis might cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists. The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can't face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it's exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog." [14] Originally posted by: robmercel I see that you still haven't given your personal opinion on negligible R2 values and I haven't even yet asked you for your understanding of negative CE values although I would look forward to hearing it. I hope to be away for the weekend if I'm not snowed in and I hope you take your own advice and do your own research. I guess the guys at RC and SkS will be spending quite a bit of their weekend trying to defend the use of uniform priors in climate sensitivity estimates but that's another story. Enjoy your weekend, Rob I'd expect real show stoppers to be Top Of The Pops with Climate Change Deniers... already widely discussed... Based on what I've already read (including from you) then I expect these 'points' to turn out to be red-herrings, probably because they are relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things. So again, I'll decline to spend my time. Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

28 January 2013 01:36 PM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf Interesting stats versus SkS: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...re-traffic/#more-78265 Our web monitoring software gave a part of that page "Bad Reputation" ... If skeptic blogs get more traffic it's probably because the people that read them don't look at real main-stream peer-reviewed science. And before anyone comments, skepticalscience.com is just part of my reading, and the part that most suits this 'debate' How's your research on 'CO2 is merely plant food' going? Not forgetting that you brought that up after I challenged your to put up your best argument...? Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

28 January 2013 01:43 PM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	Some recent analysis and food for thought: Was 2012 the Hottest La Niña Year on Record? La Niñas Have Dampened Recent Surface Warming In short, global surface temperatures in the 1990s were mostly amplified by El Niños, while those in the 2000s and 2010s thus far have mostly been dampened by La Niñas - a recipe for a temporary surface warming 'pause'. But when we break the data into La Niña/El Niño/Neutral categories, or when we filter out their effects as Kevin C did, we see that the underlying global surface warming trend of approximately 0.16°C per decade remains beneath the short-term noise. Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

28 January 2013 01:47 PM
geoffbenn Posts: 198 Joined: 08 July 2004	If you like books: New textbook on climate science and climate denial put climate change denial in perspective ... detailed analysis of the phenomenon of climate change denial ... Students learning climate science will need to put into proper context the myths and attacks on science conducted by those who deny the scientific consensus. One chapter is "Understanding Climate Change Denial", examining the social, psychological and rhetorical aspects of climate change denial. Another is "Rebuttals to Climate Myths" that debunks many of the most common climate myths (and yes, I made sure we adhered to the principles of the Debunking Handbook). Now that's one I might just read... I'm actually most interested in the psychological aspects as people desperately deny that their way of life might have to change, voluntarily or involuntarily... Regards ------------------------- Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington. skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"
Top : Bottom

29 January 2013 01:24 AM
robmercel Posts: 30 Joined: 13 October 2007	At a time when it is certain that the 'scientific consensus' underestimated natural variability and have almost certainly overestimated climate sensitivity we find Geoff Benn suggesting that the people who have been saying this for years have some form of mental disorder. I guess that sums up climate 'science'. The politically correct result is far more desirable than the mathematically correct result. A really useful study would be to determine why 'scientists' would accept politically correct results even though it was determined that the maths was wrong.
Top : Bottom

IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

Last unread

Topic Tools

Statistics

	Technical discussion forums
·	Wiring and the regulations
·	Built environment
·	Design and production engineering
·	Control and automation
·	Communications engineering
·	Information technology
·	Energy
·	Transport engineering
·	Airfield engineering
·	Electronic engineering
·	Management in engineering
·	Consumer technology
·	Other and general engineering discussions
	Professional and career discussion forums
·	Feedback and questions
·	CEng, IEng, EngTech and other professional registration matters
·	Savoy Place Virtual Club
·	Student and apprentice discussion forum
·	Young Professionals Community
	Archived categories

Username

Password

Enhance your career

E&T Jobs

Engineering & Technology Jobs

Standards

Code of Practice for Electrical Safety Management

Publications

Open access

E&T webinars

MyCommunity

Volunteering

Latest event videos

Media centre

Policy

See Also:

About the IET

Sectors we focus on

Useful links

Other IET Websites