G'day all,
I've realised by reading these posts that they are becoming more and more an excersise in futility.
Science is rarely discussed. A great deal of news articles are used and even with the science, there tends to be a counter for pretty much any argument you wish to put. Polar bear population increasing? No, not according to this study. Ice sheets getting thicker? Antarctica is a bit difficult to argue because most studies show that it is but the Arctic? Pick any position and there will be a study to back it up.
I went to the trouble of reading Dr Hansen et al's "Dangerous" paper, as dense and pretty much unreadable as it is. It normally would not interest me because it is all about models. That is, guesses as to what might happen if this happens or that factor turns out to do this. The model mainly used isn't even a particularly good one. It is very course and has been constantly adjusted because as it stood to start with it did not match the real world even remotely. Tweak any model enough and you can eventually make it match known data, and that is where I actually found the whole thing interesting.
The tweaks in this case have resulted in the model sort of matching the weather station data. It would seem that the satellite data is used when it comes to ice sheets because that is all there is but with respect to world average temperatures and the figures relied upon are the weather station data. But from 1979 there has been much better data. It is ignored.
Surely even those that think that global warming is a looming disaster can realise there is something wrong with a prediction that relies on data that is not as accurate as alternatives.
Is this really good science? Does it conform to appropriate scientific methodology?
If I get a response that says "Show me a peer reviewed research paper that refutes this" I'm really going to ignore the comment with the contempt it deserves. This is a study not even published. It is a study of prediction, not of what has been happening. There really should be no research that counters it because what research can you do in this case? A different model?
But any reasonable scientist should be able to look at any research and, if there are glaring flaws, recognise them. If the data used is known not to accord with more accurate data, I would assume most people would view the results with some skepticism. Either that or they are incapable of thinking for themselves.
As to the Vostok ice cores, recent re-examination has shown that these cores show that the increase in CO2 follows warming periods by an average of 600 years. The more detailed the examination, the worst the position becomes for those that relate CO2 to a climate forcing. Seems to becoming clearer that it is the other way around. And as to feedback mechanism, the CO2 seems to continue to rise for a time even when the temperatures decline again. That does not suggest a feedback mechanism but rather a simply cause and effect. Warmer temperatures increase CO2 with a significant lag. I would even have assumed that increasing CO2 would have had some effect on retaining the warmer period by the latest research on the Vostok cores does not suggest that at all.
But it is easy to twist this around and argue something else. This is climate. It is complex. Complex also means contradictory evidence is the norm, not the exception.
My last word for a while, until something interesting crops up that is worth responding to, or I come across some research that I believe will be of interest to those that may be interested, is that THIS period of time is only considered to be warming because of one thing, weather station data. Without that, the Time magazine of 1974 would be the prevailing view or perhaps there would be no prevailing view at all and Climate Science would have almost no funding at all, perhaps a good thing overall. Then maybe that could directly tackle the spread of infectious diseases, build better levees for cities and better warning systems for hurricanes, tornadoes and things that humans can do something about. And perhaps attack polution problems simply because car exhausts and burning coal do have environmental hazards.
The whole thing could be settled with research that would cost of not that many millions. Get all known weather station data. Work out a consistent approach that no one can condemn as biased. Remove urban effect data. Check every single station that is going to be used for local issues and then create a data set that is comparable over time and covers the major regions of the earth.
It's interesting that Mr Morgan is willing to argue the issues so veheremently on this site but not once has addressed the issues of weather station data, has not indicated that he has even looked at the data, let alone done any experimentation. For that matter, no one else has indicated they have looked at it either. If your position is so secure then looking at the data should quickly show up my logic error and you can be satisfied that I'm just a crank who knows nothing about climate change.
Regards
Richard
