[Archived] Climate Change

[dave birch]

dave, you've just described a need for data over thousands of years to show a definite trend and then suggested that 50 years have made a significant impact.

The fact is we have no idea of the trends over the millions of years that we have been orbiting the sun to say for definite either way.

Be careful, the "God of Science" is a fickle being.

50 years? I didn't realize the industrial revolution started in the 1960's. Plus, I didn't say it had had a "significant impact", I said, that the rate of increase had accelerated. I didn't say by how much, just that it had increased at a rate faster than before.

The fact is, we do know what happened in our weather thousands of years ago, it's locked up in the icecaps. In fact there was an article on the Beeb website about the "scientists" locating a volcano erupting in the 13 century, in Indonesia, responsible for a .7c reduction in the temp which resulted in many deaths because of a change in rainfall patterns etc.

Be careful of not listening to what scientists are telling you. There's probably a good reason that they are mentioning it, they have, after all, been responsible for many of the innovations that have affected your life. Think about it....

[jim mk2]

[Audax]

Just picked up this, neutral website, supposedly the artic ice is coming back strongly.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

[Stuart]

Be careful of not listening to what scientists are telling you. There's probably a good reason that they are mentioning it, they have, after all, been responsible for many of the innovations that have affected your life. Think about it....

Well of course they have a good reason. It's their job.

They will give you their most expert opinion of the information at their disposal, for a sample size within their practicalities and resources, and based on some first principles which require at their fundamentals an act of faith, using the best tools the have been invented at that time.

Then they add in a few assumptions around the inputs and a bunch of caveats around the outputs.

This stands as "proof" for as long as it takes for someone else to come along and refute it with more of the same.

It comes down to whose guess you like the best. But we are merely listening to the latest Isaac Newton until the next Albert Einstein comes along. Generally speaking.

[Amo]

The science debate is over. They lost.
Decades ago they proposed a theory that Earth's temperature is controlled by the 0.004% trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This theory was used to make predictions by at least 73 computer models.
Thirty years of observations has proven every prediction wrong.
Therefore their theory is wrong. That is how science works.
Now, faced with collapse of their theory and de-funding of their activities, the alarmist crew have switched to politics.
The IPCC Summary document released last week with all the hoopla of a political convention is a political document produced by consensus. It was negotiated by a faceless committee of international bureaucrats for their government masters, most of whom have a vested interest in proving there is a continuing problem needing international taxes and controls.
Consensus is the tool of politics. Public opinion is where the next climate battle will be fought.
They will lose again.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/10/ipcc_is_more_about_politics_than_science.html#ixzz2gUaWjv1C
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[T.J.Newton]

Hmm, sorry but from a US perspective I prefer to listen to and believe Al Gore's stance on climate change. But then he's one of the good guys, a Democrat.

that guys actually just another greasy p####k by all accounts.

[T4E]

Wow, an interesting thread on BRFCS. Quick, someone mention Muslims and get it back on track

[Steve Moss]

Wow, an interesting thread on BRFCS. Quick, someone mention Muslims and get it back on track

Please don't.

I'm not a scientist. But I am a lawyer and a politician. And it occurs to me that the UN wants to be a force in the world. Climate change theories gives it a vehicle to amass power and control as it is allegedly a global problem requiring a global solution. The IPCC is established by the UN.

I'm not saying that the IPCC is biased. But it has a motive to be biased, so we need to look carefully at the organization and scrutinize the reports.

And I'm not saying climate change isn't happening. It very clearly is. But the climate is always changing, so what's the problem?

One potential problem is if the climate change is artificially produced by man. Is it or is it not? Nothing from the IPCC fills me with confidence as to man-made climate change being the cause of the current climate change. For example, here in Arizona we had an indigenous people (the Anasazi or Ancient Pueblos, depending) who lived and farmed in what is now desert. The climate changed and they moved around 1300 AD. Climate change has always happened and has always affected mankind. But I don't think that anyone would argue that Stone Age man (which the Indians were, at the time) had any influence on the climate.

The second issue is whether current climate change is beneficial or not? I've seen some articles that global warming has some benefits, such as agriculture. And there are benefits of global cooling, also. Whether the pros outweigh the cons of either scenario should be examined.

The third issue is whether we should be tampering with the environment at all. If man made climate change is ongoing, what is the correct "balance"? Is there a danger we over compensate either way, to the detriment of the world? Trying to maintain status quo is a lousy solution as the world's climate is in constant flux. I think the physician mantra of "first do no harm" is something we should give serious consideration to, before we consider trying to treat the alleged "disease".

My personal opinion (non-scientific) is that climate change is happening (as always), man is not the cause of climate change (i don't think we're important as we think we are), but whatever the climate change (cooling or warming or status quo), we'll adapt just fine.

[Baz]

A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed around 12,000 papers published in the peer-reviewed scientic literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings global climate change or global warming. About ⅓ of these papers expressed an opinion about global warming in their abstract, and of these, 97% endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming.

So 97% of published science is in agreement that humans are CAUSING global warming, and that despite massive lobbying campaigns and suppression of information being published in the USA.

Interestingly there have been 2 large scale polls in the US, both showing only 49% of the population believing humans to be the major cause of global warming vs 79% internationally.

[Steve Moss]

Baz- Are these the same scientists who were predicting the Arctic would be free of sea ice this year?

Whenever I hear someone declaring the debate settled on a mere theory based on historically flawed models, the more I think they're trying to avoid a debate so they can ram through a political, as opposed to a true scientific, agenda.

For example, I think the theory that sun spot activity and the cycle of ocean water (where the deep ocean water comes to the top every few decades) is a much better explanation as to our cooling and warming cycles as opposed to our comparatively minuscule C02 output. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

In my opinion, the IPCC should clearly state its assumptions and be prepared to debate those assumptions in an honest and forthright way. The reporting agencies should share all the data. For example, this article may be of interest- http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/01/alarmists-change-the-data-to-support-global-warming-claims.php

Each side should debate the issues, as opposed to taking the position that they are Plato's philosopher-kings (a role I'm sure the bureaucrats at the UN and Brussels would love to adopt) speaking down to mere peasants.

I think Judith Curry has the right approach- http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

And here is her piece on the group think of the "scientific" community- http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/

And Judith Curry's blog has great pieces on the politicization of the IPCC. http://judithcurry.com/

Here's her wiki bio- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

I'm not an expert, but I prefer a scientist who is willing to gather data and debate the issue, as opposed to scientists at the beck and call of bureaucrats.

[Guest Norbert]

I am a sort of inbetween person about this. Climate change doesgo in cycles, as the various Ice ages show. However, all the pollution is affecting this natural pattern and might basically cause the same problems the Deccan flats did 65 million years ago. But quicker.

[Baz]

Steve, in answer, no this is not the IPCC scientists, these are published papers based on science not on political opinion.

I know nothing of Judith Curry, but a quick google shows she has a controversial opinion within the climate change community.

But even she is saying that if only 1 or 10 % of what those denying is correct, then that needs exploring. Which to me shows she is heavily leaning towards CC. I get the impression shes trying to take a neutral stance in the midst of the argument, when the balance in heavily towards CC.

In the UK if you publish a paper in a scientific journal, then your funding, sources, methodology, findings and interpretation is open for questioning by your peers (other scientists in your specialism). In the US Im told, but have no personal knowledge, that your funding isnt revealed.

Without a time machine no-one can say for certain that the current modelling forecasts are correct, but the vast majority show the same trends.

I understand people being scepticle, but when it comes to science the best people to critique the work, is other scientists, and not people whos opinion is based on an odd controversial comment piece in a newspaper designed to both sell newspapers (who's correspondants are not likely to understand what is being put to them), and stir controversy / politicking. The vast majority of scientists are saying the same thing, climate change caused by humans is happening.

Yes people are correct that our climate is ever changing over the course of history, however it is changing at a much higher rate than experienced before (apart from points where there has been known interference events i.e. Volcanic eruptions).

[Audax]

Hardly any hurricane activity this year.

What happened to hurricane season? And why we should keep forecasting it…

[Steve Moss]

Baz- If I understand matters, Judith Curry leans toward man-made climate change. She's also of the opinion that the IPCC has politicized the process, has failed to produce the data and clearly state the assumptions which would allow it's conclusions to be rigorously tested, believes it has under-mined the peer review process by creating group-think (via political pressure, peer pressure and funding benefits), and has critiqued the IPCC's "models".

In other words, Judith Curry appears to be acting the part of a qualified, independent scientist who questions and tests everything, including her own beliefs, unlike the IPCC.

Here are her words on the IPCC's models:

"The following are the take-home statements about climate model-observations comparisons:

-many climate models do not reproduce the Earth’s observed average climate, with differences up to 1-2C.

-climate models do not simulate the timing of modes of natural internal variability such as ENSO, AMO

-climate models do not reproduce the trend in global surface temperature anomalies since 1998.

-climate models do a reasonable job of reproducing the century long trend, which depends largely on the selection of external forcing data sets in the pre-satellite era

Some skeptical sites are trumpeting the new figure 1.4 as a ‘hide the decline’, a new Climategate, etc. There may be nothing technically wrong with Figure 1.4, although it will mislead the public (and Dana Nuccitelli) to infer that climate models are better than we thought, especially with misleading accompanying text in the Report.

Of the diagrams, I like Ed Hawkins diagram the best: it does a good job of lining up the climate models and observations in a sensible way from 1960-1990, so as to show the growing discrepancy between models and observations over the last decade.

What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years.

Yes, Dana Nuccitelli, climate models are just as bad as we thought – and even worse than most people think, since the inability of most models to reproduce the Earth’s average temperature is not well known."

And as to the consensus, she makes this observation:

"NRC Report

There is a recent report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” available from the National Academies Press. A NASA press release entitled Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate provides a good overview. The punchline is:

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Note, this report was published early Jan 2013. Something else the IPCC ignored.

JC conclusion: What a relief that the IPCC consensus has decreed with high confidence that solar variations won’t influence the 21st century climate. For a minute there, after reading the NRC Report, Svensmark and Vahrenholt, I thought us scientists might have more work to do to figure out how the Earth’s climate system works."

[Baz]

Im against the politicising of science, biased science, or badly / mis reported science, in any form.

If that includes the IPCC so be it, however I believe that if 97% of specialist scientists are publishing their work in peer reviewed journals, and their conclusion is similar Id be more willing to accept that as the most likely scenario than the 3% who don't.

I dont think that anyone who has posted on this thread can legitimately challenge the climate scientists on the actual science itself. Sure there are issues, but the pro-camp seem more eager to solve these IMO, than the anti-camp seem to be to prove or produce a legitimate model of their own. Take the politicking and extremes of the science opinion (on both sides) away, the consensus is the pro-human causation of climate change.

[Steve Moss]

Im against the politicising of science, biased science, or badly / mis reported science, in any form.

If that includes the IPCC so be it, however I believe that if 97% of specialist scientists are publishing their work in peer reviewed journals, and their conclusion is similar Id be more willing to accept that as the most likely scenario than the 3% who don't.

I dont think that anyone who has posted on this thread can legitimately challenge the climate scientists on the actual science itself. Sure there are issues, but the pro-camp seem more eager to solve these IMO, than the anti-camp seem to be to prove or produce a legitimate model of their own. Take the politicking and extremes of the science opinion (on both sides) away, the consensus is the pro-human causation of climate change.

Here's a response to the above which says it better than I can: http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/

IPCC has been the biggest detriment to consensus building. Consensus building requires data sharing and real peer review (not peer review which takes data on faith- faith is not science). Its hard to convince skeptics when the data is either secret or missing and the response is to personally attack the credibility of the skeptics (you haven't done that Baz but some of the IPCC scientists have).

It also requires an open mind and a willingness to admit they might be wrong. For example, the IPCC ignored all reports, including recent publications, about the impact of the sun on climate. Indeed, it went the other direction which is astounding and flies in the face of recent evidence.

[Guest Norbert]

Scientists, like politicians don't like to admit they're wrong or completely messed up.

[Mike E]

Scientists, like politicians don't like to admit they're wrong or completely messed up.

So why do they? All the time.

I think it was Dara O'briain who remarked that science knows that it doesn't know everything or else it'd stop.

[Baz]

Here's a response to the above which says it better than I can: http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/IPCC has been the biggest detriment to consensus building. Consensus building requires data sharing and real peer review (not peer review which takes data on faith- faith is not science). Its hard to convince skeptics when the data is either secret or missing and the response is to personally attack the credibility of the skeptics (you haven't done that Baz but some of the IPCC scientists have).It also requires an open mind and a willingness to admit they might be wrong. For example, the IPCC ignored all reports, including recent publications, about the impact of the sun on climate. Indeed, it went the other direction which is astounding and flies in the face of recent evidence.

As I said previously, Im against bad science, whichever way it is done, if that includes people not fully disclosing their methodology, that I would class as bad science and something I dont beleive a proper British peer review journal would allow (im not being anti USA here, Im just not as aware about their journals, although I have seen reference to publishing research in small not widely circulated journals in the US, as a way of avoiding discussion).

Im interested to know your opinion on how much this topic is being influenced by external influences (on either side) in the US. I say that as a point I made earlier is the massive difference in popular opinion in the US vs the rest of the world. I've also read that in the US there is a marked difference in opinion, almost following party lines, Democrats being proCC and Republican being antiCC, do you beleive that also to be generally true, and if so why (the obvious being Bush's oil tycoon friends & backers)?

[Guest Norbert]

So why do they? All the time.

I think it was Dara O'briain who remarked that science knows that it doesn't know everything or else it'd stop.

There are many cases where the science establishment gang up on someone who later turns out to be right. Politics, religion and of course money can influence such matters (the latter being shown by Thomas Midgley and the use of lead in petrol amongst other things). Another case is probably that of plate tectonics. The theory was suggested in something like the 1930's but was laughed out of town, and was not really accepted until the 1960's. One of Einstein's last acts sin science was to write the foreword for a book by Charles Hapgood.

Science is a progressive and open force, but sometimes established theories such as the Standard Model in physics are fought for almost as zealously as any religious dogma.

[Mike E]

There are many cases where the science establishment gang up on someone who later turns out to be right. Politics, religion and of course money can influence such matters (the latter being shown by Thomas Midgley and the use of lead in petrol amongst other things). Another case is probably that of plate tectonics. The theory was suggested in something like the 1930's but was laughed out of town, and was not really accepted until the 1960's. One of Einstein's last acts sin science was to write the foreword for a book by Charles Hapgood.

Science is a progressive and open force, but sometimes established theories such as the Standard Model in physics are fought for almost as zealously as any religious dogma.

Ahhh I see what you mean.

Apparently Thomas Midgeley is the man responsible for the most human deaths. Some figure in the tens of millions due to the effect of leaded petrol etc. Though he kind of made up for it with helium in fridges BUT IF climate change is human-caused then he will be responsible for much of that too.

Can't do right for doing wrong, poor bloke!

[Steve Moss]

Im interested to know your opinion on how much this topic is being influenced by external influences (on either side) in the US. I say that as a point I made earlier is the massive difference in popular opinion in the US vs the rest of the world. I've also read that in the US there is a marked difference in opinion, almost following party lines, Democrats being proCC and Republican being antiCC, do you beleive that also to be generally true, and if so why (the obvious being Bush's oil tycoon friends & backers)?

I think the Democrats tend to be more trusting of institutions. So when the UN or IPCC issue a report, they tend not to dismiss it out of hand.

I think Republicans tend to be more skeptical of institutions. So when the UN or IPCC issue a report, they tend to dismiss it as being motivated by some hidden agenda.

On that point the natural consequence of the report's conclusion, if true, is more acceptable to Democrats then Republicans. More power in international institutions is a positive so far as Democrats are generally concerned. Not so Republicans.

As to the overall U.S. opinion, I think one of the many advantages of the USA is that everything can be debated, nothing is accepted at face value. In many portions of the world that is not the case. Even the UK has a problem with libel laws which stifles public debate.

As to external influences, I believe they are at work on both sides. Obviously industry does not like the natural consequence of the report and will attempt to drum up resistance. Conversely, the greens like it very much (and there is some indication that the IPCC is packed with greens, which raises the specter of bias).

I don't know whether CO2 causes climate change or not. I'm willing to be open minded on the subject but my default position is not to change a single behavior, enact a single law, impose a single regulation, until the issue is conclusively settled. I don't think talk of a "consensus" does anything for the IPCC's credibility until the data is all released, everything is tested by multiple groups, and all voices are heard in an honest and forthright manner. I'm not certain of what journal reviews you are referring to which are superior in the UK as compared to the USA, but unless they and all others were allowed access to the raw data they're opinion is not worth much. Since this hasn't occurred, I really don't care how many words are printed on paper.

Frankly, I don't trust the UN or the IPCC. If they want me to lend it credence, it had best establish some credibility. A start would actually be to implement the IAC's recommendations for reform, as opposed to say they're going to, followed by much foot-dragging.

[den]

Just watched science britannica on TV, where Dr Brian Cox discussed the system of Peer review with Dr Philip Campbell, the Editor in Chief of the journal "nature" - one of the greatest science journals in the world. They also discussed climate change.

The bottom line really is that no science paper is the final paper. Science works by scientists publishing papers which are then interrogated by the rest of the science community. The peers will try to "rip a paper to shreds". They will then say whether the paper or data really stands up to the test. The best people to interrogate a science paper, are other scientists. Scientists are the most critical of people. Science is a building of evidence and is a snapshot of where scientists believe we are at the moment. The overwhelming scientific data now shows that climate change is happening. Now Dr Campbell, in reference to climate change says that as much as he would like to see papers published that show climate change caused by human causes is real, "we don't seem to get papers that show it's wrong".

So basically there's overwhelming scientific data showing climate change, caused by human activity, but there are no papers coming through proving that data wrong. That's where we are. I guess that if other scientist don't accept the current state of affairs, they could publish papers showing data that proves climate change isn't down to human activity - and crucially - have it stand up to their own peers' reviewing that data, but they currently can't do that.

[Steve Moss]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/ipcc-calls-off-planetary-emergency/#more-95158

". . . IPCC now believes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.” You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report."

[Paul]

If I visit a group of doctors and 95% suggest a lifestyle change will help improve or perhaps save my life and 5% say it's OK to carry on as normal. Which would be the sensible path to follow? Ignoring early health warnings kills a lot of people.

Perhaps Climate Change is not man made, probably it is. I'm no scientist but I can see the logic that man is the cause. We are not talking about interfering with nature to solve the issue but less interference or lower impact than our current activity has.

There's been several assertions the IPCC is politicised and possibly acting from self-interest. To counter that I would say every argument against Climate Change also comes from areas of self-interest which seems opposed to change on this and other topics.

I have no knowledge of Climate Change but have 40 years in horticulture. My working life is heavily influenced by weather. The consensus amongst my peer group is we are seeing change, albeit in weather not climate, which we have not seen previously in our working lives. Whether or not this results from Climate Change I can't say but I think it does. We are looking to react to these changes for purely commercial reasons. Do so or go bust. Just like ignoring health warnings.

We can ignore our probable impact on the climate and leave our children with the mess (we seem as a Western society rather good at that) or we can look to the future and take sensible non-selfish views. The oil will run out regardless so why not look for replacement now while there is the opportunity to solve that issue AND the climate issue?