As the subject climate change sneaks into various discussions, this thread should provide a location to discuss issues about climate change in a fair way using respectful language as opposed to the heated, people bashing 'discussion' in some other forums.
Climate Change - scientific discussion
(440 posts) (24 voices)-
Andy Chee
MemberMan-made or natural?
I'd like to hear both sides, but proponents of natural climate change typically cite evidence not fitting the man-made model, as proof of the natural model.
Unfortunately proponents of natural climate change don't seem to understand the concept of the null hypothesis (and the scientific method in general it seems)
Posted Monday 6 Jun 2011 @ 3:20:58 am from IP # -
IAEA
Memberhttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/
This is worth a read.
He did this using his brain and not using "computer models"!!!
IAEA
Posted: Monday 6 June, 2011 2:36PM
Posted Monday 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:36:39 am from IP # -
SteveJ
MemberAndy, I don't think it is an Either/Or probelm, I think it is both man made and natural, both contribute but we have some control over the man made component. I think the big question is what impact has man had on the rate and degree of CC?
Steve
Posted Monday 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:55:37 am from IP # -
Catopsilia
MemberA good idea, sun2steam. (I wonder if the spelling in the title can be fixed?)
I have taken the initiative to examine my own observations of weather, begun 13 years ago, to look for climate variations and trends.
During the last four years, I have put quite a lot of analysis here:
http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/3744/Observations_of_climate_variat#Post3744
While some aspects of climate change science are murky (e.g. What could have caused cooling from 1940 to 1970?) others are in plain view but not well known.
1. Nights are warming much faster than days.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmin&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=T
The climate is moving from continental towards maritime. (Linear extrapolation of the trend, as some are wont to do, would result eventually in nights becoming warmer than days.)
2. Large parts of Australia are subject to a "Quasi-Biennial Oscillation" (QBO) in climate. The extreme points of this cycle are Dorothea Mackellar's "droughts and flooding rains". These peaks and troughs are so large as to dominate Australians' perception of climate change. Every year or so, the temperature is up to two degrees warmer or cooler that that of a year earlier, and the monthly rainfall is up to 40 mm different.
My data shows that the "droughts" in the cycle have low rainfall, low dew point, little cloud, high daily maximum temperature, and wide daily temperature range. The "flooding rains" in the cycle have high rainfall, high dew point, much cloud, low daily maximum temperature, and narrow daily temperature range.
At my site, November 2009 was a "droughts" peak. October 2010 was a "flooding rains" peak, from which the climate here has now returned to near normal.
Australia's quasi-biennial oscillation of hot dry "droughts" and cold wet "flooding rains" is quite unlike the ice age cycles of glacials that come every 100,000 years, separated by interglacials that are about nine degrees warmer. Glacials are cold dry times and interglacials are hot wet times.Posted Monday 6 Jun 2011 @ 6:58:32 am from IP # -
TonyT wrote in another thread:
"Greetings s2s
In our posts on pages 8 and 9 we discussed the Akasofu chart that displays world temperature since 1850.
At
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208
the measured temperature from 1990 to May 2011 is compared with what was predicted from computer models.
The red dot on the Akasofu chart is the 2008 data.
At
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/alarmist-climate-science-and-the-principle-of-exclusion/
Paul Macrae argues why a link between human CO2 emissions and global warming has not been established. "
Posted Thursday 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:02:10 pm from IP # -
The above temperature discussion has been made in similar ways before.
Here is where they got it wrong.
(For JB: the word 'wrong' here does not prove that science is about truth. It is about mathematics being wrong by making false assumptions)
http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/09/temperatures-are-below-projections.htmlHere is a discussion about cherry picking and and 10 Human fingerprints on climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdfIt shows that the evidence for human caused global warming is not just based on theory or computer models but on many independent, direct observations made in the real world:
Less heat escaping to space
Cooling upper atmosphere
More heat returning to Earth
Shrinking upper atmosphere
Rising tropopause
More fossil fuel carbon in coral
More fossil fuel carbon in the air
Less oxygen in the air
Pattern of ocean warming
Nights warming faster than days
Winter warming faster than summerPosted Thursday 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:14:50 pm from IP # -
TonyT
Members2s
Thanks for this new thread.For the record, our previous posts were in the "Carbon Price" thread at
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/1672/page/11The Akasofu chart for the years 1800 to 2100 is easily seen at
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=330Thanks for the link to the video refuting "temperatures-are-below-projections."
That video argues that Monkton has incorrectly and misleadingly displayed the IPCC projections.
Have Akasofu and/or Watts accurately displayed the IPCC projections ?I have read the document that argues "10 Human fingerprints".
My observation is that both sides of the discussion use "cherry picking" !Have you found papers that display and discuss satellite measurements of the amount of energy within each band of wavelengths ?
Posted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:00:47 am from IP # -
"... Have Akasofu and/or Watts accurately displayed the IPCC projections ? ..."
I have not checked. But the real temperature data of the 'red dot' fall into Akasofu's interpretation of the IPCC data."... Have you found papers that display and discuss satellite measurements of the amount of energy within each band of wavelengths ? ..."
Sorry, TT, Even if I had these data, I would not be able to give an interpretation. Beyound some point I have to leave it with the experts.
Posted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:14:05 am from IP # -
"My observation is that both sides of the discussion use "cherry picking" !"
TT, Could you please show a reference where the proponents of human induced climate change are cherry picking in the texts linked above?"... Have Akasofu and/or Watts accurately displayed the IPCC projections ? ..."
At a second look can confirm that Akasofu made the same misinterpretation of the IPCC data.Posted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:30:01 am from IP # -
TonyT
MemberThis 4-part video records a powerful presentation by Australian Geologist, Professor Bob Carter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=channelPosted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:35:00 am from IP # -
TonyT
Members2s
Discussion about the hockey stick chart is an example of cherry picking.
The discussion in 10 Human fingerprints on climate change at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf
avoids mentioning that the hockey stick chart has been soundly discredited as a non-scientific fabrication.An early IPCC Report and Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" prominently used the now-discredited hockey stick chart to alarm and mislead.
Posted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:52:27 am from IP # -
Well the hockey stick is a good point. I cannot see that it has been discredited.
Do you mean this?
"Hockey stick is broken"
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. "Posted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:56:56 am from IP # -
TonyT
MemberMore about Mann's discredited hockey stick chart is at
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm and at
http://drtimball.com/2011/only-in-climate-science-can-you-play-with-a-broken-hockey-stick/Posted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:19:51 pm from IP # -
Interesting TonyT.
This discreditation of the hockey stick is more about conspiracy theory than about facts.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball :
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]
And there is also this:
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-diePosted Friday 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:59:10 pm from IP # -
The hockey stick has been proven over and over again. Here are the latest examples.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/09/21/206729/hockey-stick-global-warming/Posted Saturday 11 Jun 2011 @ 1:49:56 am from IP # -
Here is the most comprehensive compilation of the global temperature of the last 2000 years.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
A summarizing chart can be found on page 2 of the document.Posted Saturday 11 Jun 2011 @ 2:15:30 am from IP # -
TonyT
MemberThe hockey stick graph has been soundly discredited as a non-scientific fabrication because Mann et al "cherry picked" the data in order to remove both the medieval warming and the little ice age.
In the film "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore walked many steps across the stage pointing at the fabricated long straight handle and then rode up in a cherry picker to emphasise the blade of the fabricated chart. I am angry at having been one of the millions who were deliberately deceived.
Now my understanding of the temperature data is that earth has experienced temperatures that were similar to now and it has experienced rates of temperature increase that were similar to now. This is shown by Carter in the 4-part videos that I linked to above.
The fabrication is shown by comparing the Hockey stick chart (Figure 4) with Figure 1 at
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htmThat this fabrication is ignored is an example of how "cherry picking" is continuing.
Ad hominem attacks on Ball do not detract from what he says.
Doubtless the web will yield a similar attack on Carter.The video that refutes Monkton is a very polished production.
My shit antennae are reacting to it as they now do to Gore's film and to the Skeptical Science website
Posted Saturday 11 Jun 2011 @ 2:48:11 am from IP # -
Hi TT,
Please see below. The hockey stick may not be that straight in the shaft, but it still has the blade."... The hockey stick, a pioneering piece of work in progress, became victim of the notoriety it gained from being included in the IPCC summary. And of course its catchy title.
"The label was always a caricature and it became a stick to beat us with," Mann said later. Was it flawed research? Yes. Was it hyped by the IPCC? Yes. Has it been disproved? Despite all the efforts, no.
So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication. ..."
===============================================================
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyrePosted Monday 13 Jun 2011 @ 8:12:13 am from IP # -
Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Posted Tuesday 14 Jun 2011 @ 1:57:46 pm from IP # -
You can now get all data directly from CSIRO:
Posted Monday 20 Jun 2011 @ 12:24:34 pm from IP # -
Good article on climate science debate.
Australia's place in the global web of climate denial.
Posted Wednesday 29 Jun 2011 @ 2:57:50 am from IP # -
Catopsilia
MemberRockabye's link to an ABC forum includes discussion from many points of view.
A thing that has always bothered me is the near unanimous support of national and international scientific societies for the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming. These bodies have democratic structures and the members are (in principle) free to express opinions without penalty. I find it odd that there should be unanimity in speaking for a hypothesis that is not terribly well supported in the scientific sense: various phenomena are occurring together, but it does not necessarily follow that one caused another. To say that it does is one of the classical fallacies.
In discussion on the linked site, there are references to two significant scientists who have carried dissent with their society's official support of AGW to the point of resigning from them:Hal Lewis (2010) American Physical Society
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
Bill Gray (2011) American Mereorological Society
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/Posted Wednesday 29 Jun 2011 @ 11:53:30 am from IP # -
Here is an easy to understand compilation of a large number of points about anthropogenic climate change. http://austcom.org.au/1395.html
Posted Thursday 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:33:35 am from IP # -
The latest report about the 'State of the Climate in 2010' is available here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2010.phpSummary:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2010/bams-sotc-2010-brochure-hi-rez.pdfHIGHLIGHTS: The State of the Climate in 2010
Dozens of climate indicators, measured by tens of thousands of
instruments around the world, track the major components of Earth’s
climate system, including the atmosphere, land, ice, and oceans. Climate
indicators from the upper atmosphere to the ocean floor are monitored
around the world for the purpose of better understanding the global
climate, from year to year and over longer time periods. These data inform
the State of the Climate in 2010 report.
SNOW COVER during February was high over
the Northern Hemisphere, but by May warm surface
temperatures reduced it to the lowest area ever
recorded by satellites. The decrease in snow cover
from December to May was the largest in more than
40 years. The amount of snow and timing of melt
affects the water cycle and water supply.AIR TEMPERATURE above land was
the second warmest on record. The Arctic
continued to warm at about twice the rate
of lower latitudes. Locally and regionally,
changes in temperature can influence the
distribution of expected weather, alter
precipitation patterns, and affect trends in
many other climate indicators.STRATOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE,
air in the upper layers of the atmosphere,
continued to be colder than average. This is
expected, given increased greenhouse gases
and decreased ozone levels.
ANTARCTIC SEA ICE grew to record levels
during the South Pole’s winter, affected by an air
circulation pattern that locked in the cold. Sea
ice responds to colder temperatures by growing
more. In turn, more sea ice leads to less
sunlight absorption in the water and
thus less warming.The world’s mountain GLACIERS lost mass for the
20th consecutive year. Greenland glaciers lost more
mass in 2010 than any other year on record. Water
from melting glaciers and ice sheets around the
world contributes to acceleration of the water cycle
and sea-level rise.Levels of GREENHOUSE GASES in the
atmosphere continued to rise. Carbon dioxide
levels increased at a faster rate in 2010 than in
2009 and also faster than the average rate over
the past 30 years. Greenhouse gases trap heat in
Earth’s lower atmosphere.ARCTIC SEA ICE shrank to its third smallest
area on record. The area was so small in September
that for the first time in modern history, both the
Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route
were open for navigation. Sea ice responds to
warmer temperatures by shrinking more. In turn,
less sea ice leads to more sunlight absorption in the
water and thus more warming.SEA LEVEL continued to rise across the world’s
oceans on average. Water expands as it warms and
thus ocean heating is responsible for much of the
sea-level rise; melting glaciers and ice sheets are
responsible for the rest.SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean cooled
almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit from 2009 to 2010, reflecting the transition from an
El Niño to La Niña climate pattern. Even so, the average sea surface temperature
for 2010 of all the oceans around the world was the third warmest on record. These
warmer temperatures contribute to more evaporation from the ocean into the
atmosphere and to changes in sea level.OCEAN HEAT CONTENT in 2010 was similar to
2009 and was among the highest values in the record.
Oceans store a large portion of the heat that is trapped
by increasing greenhouse gases. Changes in heat content
contribute to changes in sea level.OCEAN SALINITY - The world's oceans were saltier
than average in areas where evaporation is high and fresher
than average where precipitation is high, suggesting that the
water cycle is intensifying. Heavier downpours and snows
can be expected with a faster water cycle.Posted Thursday 30 Jun 2011 @ 4:59:07 am from IP # -
Australia's Chief scientist says climate change is beyond reasonable doubt.
Professor Ian Chubb AC is Australia's Chief Scientist.
Posted Thursday 30 Jun 2011 @ 6:20:45 am from IP # -
Catopsilia
MemberRockabye, I am sure you can see the problem with statements by a Chief Scientist.
To be appointed to the job, a person must have considerable scientific standing. However, his public statements as Chief Scientist express his political role, not his role as a scientific researcher. He is a civil servant, charged with advising the government. While in theory civil servants advise the government impartially, I think it has been a long time since that was generally true, if it ever was.
Think of Sir Humphrey Appleby, saying "Yes, Minister".Posted Thursday 30 Jun 2011 @ 8:05:56 am from IP # -
I'm sorry but that is rubbish. Many public servants serve political masters of different persuasions very effectively providing unbiased and professional advice. Many incur the wrath of the govt of the day but stick to their position based on evidence. Judges are a good example. Appointed by government but independent of government. Our chief scientist has been chosen because of his ability and his integrity is not in question as far as both sides of politics are concerned.
"These scientists do not write policies, that is the role of the Government. I do believe though that it is important for their research to be heard and understood in order for the policy writers to make the most informed choices possible.
That said we need to be aware that communicating scientific findings is not the same thing as the political response to those results. In essence, the mainstream political debate in Australia is about which party has the better response - not so much whether the science is right."
Posted Thursday 30 Jun 2011 @ 8:22:14 am from IP #
Reply »
You must log in to post.