Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Welcome back good people.
We're going to try this again.
This time there are a few other people involved who have the tools to try and ensure we all keep the debate on topic.
As has been said on the previous threads we'd like posters to keep to the topic and not descend into the often witnessed adhom or insult approach.
Comments or criticism of the thread belong here
Off topic or inflmatory posts will hopefully disappear before you even get chance to read them.
Let's see how we get on this time around.
We're going to try this again.
This time there are a few other people involved who have the tools to try and ensure we all keep the debate on topic.
As has been said on the previous threads we'd like posters to keep to the topic and not descend into the often witnessed adhom or insult approach.
Comments or criticism of the thread belong here
Off topic or inflmatory posts will hopefully disappear before you even get chance to read them.
Let's see how we get on this time around.
Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 26th April 15:28
Hello everyone ( Hi Mam 
)
Can I start with some non-controversial facts?
Current CO2 levels (can also be called Plant Food Gas/ Tax Gas / or occasionally, Fizzy Pop Gas) in atmosphere are 390ppm or 0.039%
Of this 0.039%, mankind is responsible for about 4% of that.
This has increased from about 250ppm or 0.025% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. A gain of about 140ppm or 0.014% of atmosphere.
CO2 follows or lags temperature by around 600 years, therefore cannot be a driver of climatic temperatures.
Cheers
)Can I start with some non-controversial facts?
Current CO2 levels (can also be called Plant Food Gas/ Tax Gas / or occasionally, Fizzy Pop Gas) in atmosphere are 390ppm or 0.039%
Of this 0.039%, mankind is responsible for about 4% of that.
This has increased from about 250ppm or 0.025% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. A gain of about 140ppm or 0.014% of atmosphere.
CO2 follows or lags temperature by around 600 years, therefore cannot be a driver of climatic temperatures.
Cheers
V88Dicky said:
Hello everyone ( Hi Mam )
Can I start with some non-controversial facts?
Would that they were indeed facts. )Can I start with some non-controversial facts?
V88Dicky said:
Current CO2 levels (can also be called Plant Food Gas/ Tax Gas / or occasionally, Fizzy Pop Gas) in atmosphere are 390ppm or 0.039%
Of this 0.039%, mankind is responsible for about 4% of that.
This has increased from about 250ppm or 0.025% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. A gain of about 140ppm or 0.014% of atmosphere.
Not entirely sure of your point here. It doesn't take a genius to realise that sometimes a small input can have a large effect. However, assuming the most intelligent line of argument, I.e. that the change is insignificant:Of this 0.039%, mankind is responsible for about 4% of that.
This has increased from about 250ppm or 0.025% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. A gain of about 140ppm or 0.014% of atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-...
(referenced by scientists)
V88Dicky said:
CO2 follows or lags temperature by around 600 years, therefore cannot be a driver of climatic temperatures.
Also not true. References provided (by actual scientists!).http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperatu...
V88Dicky said:
Cheers
You're very welcome.Prof Prolapse said:
(referenced by scientists)
Prof Prolapse said:
References provided (by actual scientists!)
Problem is, we've seen so much corruption and incompetence among climate scientists, so how can we believe anything they produce..?PS...Ex, old boy, the formatting appears to be cocked up.
Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 26th April 19:55
mybrainhurts said:
Problem is, we've seen so much corruption and incompetence among climate scientists, so how can we believe anything they produce..?
PS...Ex, old boy, the formatting appears to be cocked up.
By definition this is an Ad-hominem argument. You are making a claim against the source rather than it's content. PS...Ex, old boy, the formatting appears to be cocked up.
I assume this will now be deleted in the purposes of keeping the thread focused?
Prof Prolapse said:
mybrainhurts said:
Problem is, we've seen so much corruption and incompetence among climate scientists, so how can we believe anything they produce..?
PS...Ex, old boy, the formatting appears to be cocked up.
By definition this is an Ad-hominem argument. You are making a claim against the source rather than it's content. PS...Ex, old boy, the formatting appears to be cocked up.
I assume this will now be deleted in the purposes of keeping the thread focused?
No, it is relevant. You cannot sweep under the carpet what has been revealed and is in the public domain.
Even if I had been a lifelong believer in the officially accepted science, I would be unable to trust any of it now.
Edit...I thought the objection to ad hom attacks was between contributors here, not the whole world. Am I mistaken?
Edited by mybrainhurts on Tuesday 26th April 17:55
Prof Prolapse said:
You're very welcome.
Even Roger Harrabin reported that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record. Al Gore agreed, but still shouted at Roger Harrabin, and made him think he was some sort of' climate sceptic traitor' for daring to ask..BBC: The Heat and Light in Global Warming - Roger Harrabin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
"On the remaining point - Mr Gore's implication that ice core records prove that CO2 rises drove shifts in Ice Ages - the judge is spot on.
The vice-president cleverly lures the viewer into making the calculation that CO2 drove historical climate change by presenting graphs and asking the audience if they fit.
The movie is product of a political debate - as is the court case
Well, the graphs do fit - but what Mr Gore fails to mention in the film is that mainstream scientistsbelieve that historically the temperature shifted due to our changing relationship with the Sun, with warmer climes unlocking CO2 from the oceans, which amplified global temperature rise. I challenged Mr Gore about this in an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme in March.
He responded, accurately, that scientists believe that CO2 is now driving climate change - but that was not what his misleading historical graph showed.
And after the interview he and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.
You asked for evidence, I give you the 'Goricle' and the BBC
Shall we move on
Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 26th April 18:16
Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 26th April 18:19
mybrainhurts said:
Problem is, we've seen so much corruption and incompetence among climate scientists, so how can we believe anything they produce..?
scientists don't automatically believe other scientists. They look at the data presented, consider the arguments presented, and make up their own mind if they agree with what the other scientists are saying. THis is how you judge the merit of some work. It's also the only way to do it!Prof Prolapse commenting on CO2-follows-warming said:
Also not true. References provided (by actual scientists!).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperatu...
The published, peer reviewed science has a lagtime from CO2 to temperature as 800 +/- 600 years, putting the nature of the result (direction of lag) beyond experimental error and uncertainty, unless the methodology of e.g. Monnin at al has been shown to be flawed, which to date it has not.http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperatu...
Why link to a global warming advocacy blog as opposed to a research journal with a counter result? Could it be that there is no such counter-result? Anybody can always demonstrate that such a counter result exists by posting a link to it. The blog link offered on its own as something meaningful has no such result anywhere to be seen, but it manages to claim a CO2 enhanced tail wagging the natural warming dog but again this is conjecture as the time resolution and methodology outside of papers such as Monnin et al, Petit et al, and so on require speculation as to any role of carbon dioxide. As discussed n times before.
Perhaps some newish, actual science will be of interest. IIRC it was in 2010 when a global 50% drop in phytoplankton was claimed by Boyce et al, a result which was couched in definitive terms and seemed secure...no doubt to lay readers it meant that humans were and are evil and that the oceans would soon die or worse either from (natural) de-alkalination or (natural) warming, while signalling wider thermageddon. But it attracted the attention of sound science and Nature has recently published some of this.
Brief Communication Arising (April, 2011) Arising from D. G. Boyce, M. R. Lewis & B. Worm Nature 466, 591-596
Phytoplankton account for approximately 50% of global primary production, form the trophic base of nearly all marine ecosystems, are fundamental in trophic energy transfer and have key roles in climate regulation, carbon sequestration and oxygen production. Boyce et al compiled a chlorophyll index by combining in situ chlorophyll and Secchi disk depth measurements that spanned a more than 100-year time period and showed a decrease in marine phytoplankton biomass of approximately 1% of the global median per year over the past century. Eight decades of data on phytoplankton biomass collected in the North Atlantic by the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey, however, show an increase in an index of chlorophyll (Phytoplankton Colour Index) in both the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic basins and other long-term time series, including the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT), the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series (BATS) and the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) also indicate increased phytoplankton biomass over the last 20-50 years. These findings, which were not discussed by Boyce et al.1, are not in accordance with their conclusions and illustrate the importance of using consistent observations when estimating long-term trends.
Nature 472, E5-E6 (14 April 2011)
Brief Communication Arising (April, 2011) Arising from D. G. Boyce, M. R. Lewis & B. Worm Nature 466, 591-596
Closer examination reveals that time-dependent changes in sampling methodology combined with a consistent bias in the relationship between in situ and transparency-derived chlorophyll (Chl) measurements generate a spurious trend in the synthesis of phytoplankton estimates used by Boyce et al. Our results indicate that much, if not all, of the century-long decline reported by Boyce et al. is attributable to this temporal sampling bias and not to a global decrease in phytoplankton biomass.
Fortunately, in general terms, there are scientists around with the patience to check up on junkscience and expose it. On PH, longer term and taking a wider view, it looks, sadly, as though the same old attrition loop tactics based on the weakest of evidence are already on display and participation is going to be as wearisome as before, requiring the patience of a saint.
However if anybody has a research based view on the Nature notes revealing the phytoplankton scare as just more weak science feeding the myth, it would be welcome & helpful to see it
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 26th April 18:55
Guam said:
For Reference Skeptical Science is A PRO AGW site (dont be mislead by the name), whilst not as far out there as realclimate, it is NOT a Skeptical Site nor even remotely what would be considered a "Lukewarm site" Useful to review if one keeps the "Position" in mind.
Cheers
Indeed.Cheers
You will doutbless recall the examination of over 100 of its key claims in a previous thread. The results spoke for themselves.
The manner in which it deals with agw 'science' may cause consternation if any well informed and independent minded scientists take a peek.
Dangerous2 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Problem is, we've seen so much corruption and incompetence among climate scientists, so how can we believe anything they produce..?
scientists don't automatically believe other scientists. They look at the data presented, consider the arguments presented, and make up their own mind if they agree with what the other scientists are saying. THis is how you judge the merit of some work. It's also the only way to do it!mybrainhurts said:
Dangerous2 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Problem is, we've seen so much corruption and incompetence among climate scientists, so how can we believe anything they produce..?
scientists don't automatically believe other scientists. They look at the data presented, consider the arguments presented, and make up their own mind if they agree with what the other scientists are saying. THis is how you judge the merit of some work. It's also the only way to do it!
AFAIAC - ALL of this is tainted too much with state funded grantsThis will have to be the last for a while. There was no acceptable means of passing this on when it arrived at TB Towers, if published on here already please accept my apologies in advance.
NOAA ENSO Advisory of early April said:
A transition to ENSO-neutral conditions is expected by June 2011.
La Niña weakened for the third consecutive month, as reflected by increasing surface and subsurface ocean temperatures across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. All four Niño indices ranged between –0.3°C and –0.8°C at the end of March 2011. Subsurface oceanic heat content anomalies (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean) became weakly positive in response to the continued eastward progression of a strong oceanic Kelvin wave, which has begun to shoal in the eastern Pacific. However, the basin wide extent of negative SST anomalies remained considerable throughout the month. Also, La Niña impacts on the atmospheric circulation remained strong over the tropical and subtropical Pacific. Convection remained enhanced over much of Indonesia and suppressed over the western and central equatorial Pacific. Also, anomalous low-level easterly and upper-level westerly winds have persisted in this region. Collectively, these oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect a weakening La Niña, but with ongoing global impacts.
No doubt the hottest / second hottest / fairly hot (etc) April (since the previously hotter April but shhhh) in the brief temperature record oft referred to will be touted by the usual suspects. Hopefully I'll be too busy to note such pointless propaganda when it arrives.La Niña weakened for the third consecutive month, as reflected by increasing surface and subsurface ocean temperatures across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. All four Niño indices ranged between –0.3°C and –0.8°C at the end of March 2011. Subsurface oceanic heat content anomalies (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean) became weakly positive in response to the continued eastward progression of a strong oceanic Kelvin wave, which has begun to shoal in the eastern Pacific. However, the basin wide extent of negative SST anomalies remained considerable throughout the month. Also, La Niña impacts on the atmospheric circulation remained strong over the tropical and subtropical Pacific. Convection remained enhanced over much of Indonesia and suppressed over the western and central equatorial Pacific. Also, anomalous low-level easterly and upper-level westerly winds have persisted in this region. Collectively, these oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect a weakening La Niña, but with ongoing global impacts.
Guam said:
Dangerous2 said:
the process i described happens after peer review. You read the published paper and decide if it is sensible or not.
We fully understand the Peer Review process, in Climate Science however it has become so discredited as to have no credibility remaining.Cheers
I am saying that you judge the merit of a paper or its findings but reading it, considering the data, considering the arguments, deciding if you agree with the authors or not. This is totally independent of the formal peer review process.
mybrainhurts raised the question of how could he believe anything a climate scientist says.
The answer is the same answer as for any piece of scientific work. read the paper. consider the arguments. make your own judgement.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff